content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
In two-way networks, multiple pairs of possibly interfering users wish to exchange pairs of messages. While this is a natural form of communication in wireless networks, from an information theoretic perspective such two-way networks are challenging to deal with and as such, most two-way exchanges are treated as two one-way exchanges.
What makes such two-way communications challenging are the possibilities that stem from having nodes act as both sources and destinations of messages. This permits them to adapt their channel inputs to their past received signals. Such two-way adaptation or interaction was first considered in the point-to-point two-way channel by Shannon \cite{Shannon:1961}, but capacity remains unknown in general.
However, encouragingly, the capacity regions of several specific point-to-point two way channel models is known. What is common to these models is that the interaction between ones own signal and that of the other user may be resolved. For example, in the two-way modulo 2 binary adder channel where channel outputs $Y_1 = Y_2 = X_1 \oplus X_2$ for binary inputs $X_1,X_2$ and $\oplus$ modulo 2 addition, the capacity region is one bit per user per channel use, as each user is able to ``undo'' the effect of the other, something that is not possible (at least not in one channel use) for the elusive binary multiplier channel with $Y_1=Y_2 = X_1 X_2$. In the binary modulo 2 adder channel, information independently flows in the $\rightarrow$ and the $\leftarrow$ ``directions'' and nodes need not interact, or adapt their current inputs to past outputs, to achieve capacity. In a similar fashion, the capacity of a two-way Gaussian point-to-point channel is equal to two parallel Gaussian channels, which may be achieved without the use of adaptation at the nodes \cite{Han:1984}. In general then, one may ask whether there exist two-way {\it networks} rather than point-to-point channels where capacity may be obtained in a similar fashion, and where adaptation does not increase the capacity region.
\subsection{Previous work on two-way deterministic networks.} In our previous work, we have demonstrated several examples of multi-user two-way channels where, even though nodes may adapt current inputs to past outputs, this is {\it not} beneficial from a capacity region perspective.
In \cite{zcheng_allerton, zcheng_ISIT} we considered three multi-user two-way channel models:
\begin{itemize}
\item the {\bf two-way Multiple Access / Broadcast channel (MAC/BC)} in which there are 4 messages and 3 terminals forming a MAC channel in the $\rightarrow$ direction (2 messages) and a BC channel in the opposite $\leftarrow$ direction (2 messages);
\item the {\bf two-way Z channel} in which there are 6 messages and 4 terminals forming a Z channel in the $\rightarrow$ direction (3 messages) and another Z channel in the opposite $\leftarrow$ direction (3 messages);
\item the {\bf two-way interference channel (IC)} with 4 messages and 4 terminals forming an IC in the $\rightarrow$ direction (2 messages) and another IC in the $\leftarrow$ direction (2 messages).
\end{itemize}
In particular, in \cite{zcheng_allerton} we obtained the capacity regions of the deterministic, binary modulo 2 adder models for all three channels, where it was shown that adaptation at the nodes does not increase the capacity regions beyond non-adaptive schemes. In follow-up work in \cite{zcheng_ISIT} we considered a slightly more general class of deterministic channels: the linear deterministic channels in the spirit of \cite{Avestimehr:2007:ITW}. There, we showed that again, for the two-way MAC/BC and two-way Z channels that adaptation does not increase the capacity region and the capacity region is that of two one-way channel models operating in parallel. For the two-way linear deterministic interference channel, we showed that if we allow only 2 of the four nodes to adapt (which we termed ``partial adaptation''), then the capacity region is the same as if none of the 4 nodes were able to adapt, i.e. partial adaptation is useless from a capacity perspective.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=10cm]{channels-allerton}}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The two-way Gaussian interference channel under full and partial adaptation constraints.}
\label{fig:channel}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Contributions}
In all our previous work, we considered {\it deterministic} channel models. We now consider a new (not considered before) noisy channel model: the two-way Gaussian interference channel. As a first step, we consider
the {\bf symmetric two-way Gaussian IC} where all ``direct'' links are equal and all ``cross-over'' links are equal. We derive new, computable outer bounds for the symmetric sum-rates for this Gaussian channel model and show that: a) adaptation is useless in very strong interference for the partially adaptive model, b) in strong but not very strong interference, non-adaptive schemes perform to within 1 bit per user per direction of the fully adaptive capacity region, and c) the particular non-adaptive Han and Kobayashi scheme of \cite{etkin_tse_wang} employed in each direction, achieves to within a constant gap (2 bits per user per direction maximally) of fully or partially adaptive outer bounds in all other regimes. In general, when all nodes are permitted to adapt, we do not believe that a non-adaptive scheme will achieve to within a constant gap for all regimes but this is left open.
Our emphasis, as with our prior work \cite{zcheng_allerton, zcheng_ISIT} is on demonstrating when {\it adaptive} schemes do not increase capacity, and when, even if adaptation is permitted, it does not significantly increase the capacity region.
\subsection{Related Work}
We focus only on work related to the two-way interference channel rather than two-way channels in general; a more extensive list of references related to two-way networks may be found in \cite{zcheng_allerton, zcheng_ISIT, zcheng_arxiv}.
The two-way Gaussian interference channel is naturally related to one-way interference channels with/without feedback.
The capacity region of the one-way modulo 2 adder IC is known \cite{ElGamalKim:book} and is a special example of a more general class of deterministic IC for which capacity is known \cite{elgamal_det_IC}, including the one-way linear deterministic IC \cite{bresler_tse}.
The work here is also related to one-way ICs with perfect output feedback \cite{sahai2009channel, Changho2010}, with rate-limited feedback \cite{Vahid-IC-rate-FB}, and interfering feedback \cite{sahai2009channel, Suh2012}\footnote{We will refer to the 4 message two-way IC considered here as the ``two-way IC'' and the 2 message channel of \cite{Suh2012} -- considered in all sections but Section VI -- as the ``two-way interference channel with interfering feedback'' to emphasize that the rates are flowing in one direction.}. In all these channel models only two messages are present and the ``feedback'' links, whether perfect, noisy, or interfering still serve only to further rates in the forward direction. The tradeoff between sending new information versus feedback on each of the links is not addressed. The only other example of such a 4-message two-way interference channel besides our prior work \cite{zcheng_allerton, zcheng_CISS, zcheng_ISIT} is in Section VI of \cite{Suh2012}, where an example of a linear deterministic scheme in a specific regime is provided which shows that, at least for one particular asymmetric linear deterministic two-way IC with weak interference in the $\rightarrow$ and strong interference in the $\leftarrow$ direction, that adaptation can significantly improve the capacity region over non-interaction. The general capacity region of the linear deterministic two-way IC (with 4 messages) remains open in general despite the example in \cite{Suh2012} and the results in \cite{zcheng_ISIT}.
This is the first work to consider the two-way Gaussian interference channel.
\section{Channel Model}
\label{model}
A graphical depiction of the two-way Gaussian interference channel is provided in Fig. \ref{fig:channel}.
There are 4 nodes: transmitters 1 and 3 send messages $M_{12}$ and $M_{34}$ to receivers 2 and 4, respectively, forming an IC in the $\rightarrow$ direction. Similarly, transmitters 2 and 4 send messages $M_{21}$ and $M_{43}$ to receivers 1 and 3 respectively, forming another IC in the $\leftarrow$ direction. All messages $M_{jk}$ from node $j$ to node $k$ are independent and uniformly distributed over $\mathcal{M}_{jk} : =\{1,2,\cdots 2^{nR_{jk}}\}$ (for appropriate $j,k$) and $R_{jk}$ is the rate of transmission from node $j$ to node $k$.
All channels are assumed to be memoryless and at each channel use, are described by
\begin{align*}
&Y_1=g_{11}X_1+g_{21}X_2+g_{41}X_4+Z_1\\
&Y_2=g_{12}X_1+g_{22}X_2+g_{32}X_3+Z_2\\
&Y_3=g_{23}X_2+g_{33}X_3+g_{43}X_4+Z_3\\
&Y_4=g_{14}X_1+g_{34}X_3+g_{44}X_4+Z_4,
\end{align*}
where $g_{jk}$, for $j,k\in \{1,2,3,4\}$ are the complex channel gains.
Let $X_j$ and $Y_k$ denote the channel input of node $j$ and output at node $k$ used to describe the model (per channel use). Let $X_{j,i} \; (Y_{j,i})$ denote the channel input (output) at node $j$ at channel use $i$, and $X_j^n : = (X_{1,1}, X_{1,2}, \cdots X_{1,n})$.
We assume the power constraints $E[|X_j|^2]\leq P_j=1, j\in\{1,2,3,4\}$, and independent, identically distributed complex Gaussian noise $Z_j\sim \mathcal{CN}(0, 1)$ at all nodes $j\in (1,2,3,4)$, which may be done without loss of generality.
We say that the two-way Gaussian interference channel operates under ``full adaptation'' if we allow
\begin{align}
& X_{1,i}=f_{1,i}(M_{12},Y_1^{i-1}), \;\; X_{2,i}=f_{2,i}(M_{21},Y_2^{i-1})\\
& X_{3,i}=f_{3,i}(M_{34},Y_3^{i-1}), \;\; X_{4,i}=f_{4,i}(M_{43},Y_4^{i-1}),
\end{align}
for $f_{j,i}$ deterministic encoding functions for $1\leq i\leq n$ ($n$ is the blocklength).
Similarly, it operates under ``partial adaptation'' if we only allow the following:
\begin{align}
& X_{1,i}=f_{1,i}(M_{12})\label{eq:p1}, \;\; X_{2,i}=f_{2,i}(M_{21},Y_2^{i-1})\\
& X_{3,i}=f_{3,i}(M_{34}), \;\; X_{4,i}=f_{4,i}(M_{43},Y_4^{i-1}),\label{eq:p2}
\end{align}
i.e. nodes 1 and 3 are ``restricted'' \cite{Shannon:1961}. By symmetry, we may alternatively allow nodes $2$ and $4$ to be restricted and $1,3$ to be fully adaptive; whether allowing $1,2$ or $1,4$ to be restricted and the complement fully adaptive remains an open problem.
Receiver $k$ uses a decoding function $\mathcal{Y}_k^n \times \mathcal{M}_{ki} \rightarrow\mathcal{\widehat{M}}_{jk}$ to obtain an estimate $\widehat{M}_{jk}$ of the transmitted message $M_{jk}$ given knowledge of its own message(s) $M_{ki}$ for suitable $i$ (based on Fig. \ref{fig:channel}). The capacity region is the supremum over all rate tuples for which there exist encoding and decoding functions (of the appropriate rates) which simultaneously drive the probability that any of the estimated messages is not equal to the true message, to zero as $n\rightarrow \infty$.
Furthermore, we define ${\tt SNR}_{12}=|g_{12}|^2, {\tt SNR}_{21}=|g_{21}|^2, {\tt SNR}_{34}=|g_{34}|^2, {\tt SNR}_{43}=|g_{43}|^2$, and ${\tt INR}_{14}=|g_{14}|^2, {\tt INR}_{41}=|g_{41}|^2, {\tt INR}_{23}=|g_{23}|^2, {\tt INR}_{32}=|g_{32}|^2$. Note that we have kept the ``self-interference'' terms such as $g_{11}X_1$ in the expression of $Y_1$ (for example). In this Gaussian model, it is clear that since node $1$ knows $X_1$ we may equivalently remove this self-interference term due to the additive nature of the channel and hence including it is unnecessary. However, we leave it in our expressions to emphasize the fact that we can cancel or subtract out a node's ``self-interference'' in all converses. We speculate that this is one of the reasons two-way channels of this form, as seen in the Gaussian two-way channel as well \cite{Han:1984}, are easier to deal with.
{\it Symmetric capacity.} We are interested in the symmetric capacity when all the SNRs equal a given ${\tt SNR}$, and all the INRs equal a given ${\tt INR}$. For full adaptation, due to the symmetry, we consider the per-user rates $R_{sym} = \frac{R_{12}+R_{34}}{2} = \frac{R_{21}+ R_{43}}{2}$. Under partial adaptation, there is only partial symmetry (nodes 1 and 3 are fixed, while 2 and 4 are not). Hence, we will consider the per user rates $R_{sym\rightarrow} = \frac{R_{12}+R_{34}}{2}$ and $R_{sym\leftarrow} = \frac{R_{21}+R_{43}}{2}$ for the $\rightarrow$ and $\leftarrow$ directions respectively.
\section{Outer bounds}
We now present two outer bounds for the two-way Gaussian IC under full and partial adaptation respectively. These bounds are either within a constant gap, or sufficient to show the capacity depending on different regimes. We will derive general outer bounds, imposing symmetry only in the final step.
We note that while the converses and the steps are new and exploit carefully chosen genies, when we evaluate these by further outer-bounding our outer-bounds, interestingly, we sometimes re-obtain some of the outer bounds of the interference channel \cite{etkin_tse_wang} {\it or} the interference channel with feedback \cite{Changho2010}. This in turn is sufficient to achieve capacity to within a constant gap (which we emphasize, sometimes is limited to {\it partial} adaptation for some of the weak interference regimes but this will be explicitly mentioned when it is the case).
We first prove a Lemma relevant in partial adaptation which is central to many of our converses.
\begin{lemma}
Under partial adaptation \eqref{eq:p1} -- \eqref{eq:p2}, for some deterministic functions $f_5$ and $f_6$,
\begin{align}
X_{2,i}& = f_5(M_{12}, M_{21}, M_{34}, Z_2^{i-1}) \perp M_{43}, \;\; \forall i \label{eq:X2}\\
X_{4,i}& = f_6(M_{43}, M_{34}, M_{12},Z_4^{i-1}) \perp M_{21}, \;\; \forall i \label{eq:X4}
\end{align}
where $\perp$ denotes independence.
\label{lemma:partialG}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $X_{2,i} = f_2(M_{21}, Y_2^{i-1})$ and $Y_2^{i-1} = g_{12}X_{1}^{i-1} + g_{22}X_2^{i-1}+g_{32}X_3^{i-1}+Z_2^{i-1}$. Since $X_1^{i-1}$ and $X_3^{i-1}$ are functions only of $M_{12}$ and $M_{34}$ respectively, we may conclude that there exists a function $f^*$ such that $X_{2,i} = f^*(M_{21}, M_{12}, M_{34}, X_2^{i-1},Z_2^{i-1})$. Iterating this argument, and noting that $X_{2,1}$ is only a function of $M_{21}$, we obtain the lemma. The result for $X_{4,i}$ follows similarly. That $X_{2,i}$ is independent of $M_{43}$ follows since $M_{43}$ is independent of all the arguments inside $f^*$.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\begin{theorem} {\it Outer bound: full adaptation.}
For the two-way Gaussian symmetric IC under full adaptation, any achievable symmetric rate $R_{sym} = \frac{R_{12}+R_{34}}{2} = \frac{R_{21}+R_{43}}{2}$, achievable by each user, satisfies,
\begin{align}
R_{sym
&\leq \frac{1}{2} \log \left(1+{\tt SNR}+{\tt INR}+2\sqrt{{\tt SNR}\times {\tt INR}}\right)\nonumber \\
& \;\;\;\;\; +\frac{1}{2}\log \left(1+\frac{{\tt SNR}}{1+{\tt INR}}\right) \label{R_strong_E}
\end{align}
\label{thm:outer-full}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It is sufficient to consider $R_{12}+R_{34}$ due to symmetry. This bound is inspired by the corresponding sum-rate bound in the linear deterministic model \cite{zcheng_ISIT}, i.e., we add asymmetric genie $Y_2^n$ at node 4. Notice the genie $Z_1^n$ in the conditioning of both terms as well.
{\small \begin{align}
&n(R_{12}+R_{34}-\epsilon) \leq I(M_{12};Y_2^n|M_{21},M_{43},Z_1^n)\notag \\
&+I(M_{34};Y_4^n,Y_2^n|M_{12},M_{21},M_{43},Z_1^n)\notag\\
&\overset{(a)}{=}I(M_{12};Y_2^n|M_{21},M_{43},Z_1^n)+I(M_{34};Y_2^n|M_{21},M_{12},M_{43},Z_1^n)\notag\\
&+\sum_{i=1}^n[H(g_{34}X_{3,i}+Z_{4,i}|M_{21},M_{12},M_{43},Y_4^{i-1},X_4^i,Y_2^n,X_2^n,\notag \\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; Z_1^n,X_1^i)]-H(Z_4^n)\notag\\
&\overset{(b)}{\leq} \sum_{i=1}^n [H(Y_{2,i}|Y_2^{i-1},M_{21},X_{2,i})-H(Y_{2,i}|Y_2^{i-1},M_{12},M_{21},\notag\\
& \ \ M_{43},Z_1^n)+H(Y_{2,i}|Y_2^{i-1},M_{12},M_{21},M_{43},Z_1^n)-H(Z_{2,i})\notag \\
& \;\;\; +H(g_{34}X_{3,i}+Z_{4,i}|X_{4,i}, g_{32}X_{3,i}+Z_{2,i},X_1^i,X_2^n)-H(Z_{4,i})]\notag\\
&\overset{(c)}{\leq} \sum_{i=1}^nH(g_{12}X_{1,i}+g_{32}X_{3,i}+Z_{2,i}|X_{2,i})-H(Z_{2,i})\notag \\
&+H(g_{34}X_{3,i}+Z_{4,i}|X_{4,i}, g_{32}X_{3,i}+Z_{2,i})-H(Z_{4,i}) \label{(c)}
\end{align}}
In step (a), $X_1^i$ in the conditioning of the third term is constructed from ($M_{12},X_2^n,X_4^i,Z_1^n$). In step (b), we used conditioning reduces entropy, the second and the third term cancelled each other and $g_{32}X_{3,i}+Z_{2,i}$ in the conditioning of the fifth term is decoded from $Y_2^n$. In step (c), we only keep the self-interference $X_{4,i}$ and drop the terms $X_1^i, X_2^n$ in the conditioning of the third term. We could leave these and express the outer bound in terms of correlation coefficients between the inputs (which in general may be correlated due to full adaptation). However, in subsequent steps we will seek to maximize, or outer bound this outer bound to obtain a simple analytical expression, which amounts to setting certain correlation coefficients to $0$, or equivalently, dropping the terms $X_1^i, X_2^n$ in the conditioning.
Further evaluation yields \eqref{R_strong_E}, for details please refer to \cite[pg.41]{zcheng_arxiv}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
{\it Sum-rate bound:} Note that the final, evaluated symmetric, normalized sum-rate bound in \eqref{R_strong_E} has the same form as the IC with perfect output feedback outer bound \cite[upper bound on (7)]{Changho2010}, though they are arrived at using slightly different genies.
\end{remark}
\bigskip
\begin{theorem} {\it Outer bound: partial adaptation.}
For the two-way Gaussian IC under partial adaptation \eqref{eq:p1} -- \eqref{eq:p2}, in addition to the bounds in Theorem \ref{thm:outer-full}, any achievable rates ($R_{12},R_{21},R_{34},R_{43}$), and $R_{sym\rightarrow} = \frac{R_{12}+R_{34}}{2}$ and $R_{sym\leftarrow} = \frac{R_{21}+R_{43}}{2}$ must also satisfy,
\begin{align}
&R_{12}\leq \log (1+{\tt SNR}_{12})\label{partial_single_rate1}\\
&R_{21}\leq \log (1+{\tt SNR}_{21})\\
&R_{34}\leq \log (1+{\tt SNR}_{34})\\
&R_{43}\leq \log (1+{\tt SNR}_{43})\label{partial_singe-rate4}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
R_{sym\rightarrow}
& \leq \log \left( 1+{\tt INR}+{\tt SNR}-\frac{{\tt INR}\times {\tt SNR}}{1+{\tt INR}}\right) \label{R_weak_E}
\end{align}
\begin{equation} R_{sym\leftarrow} \leq \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\log \left(1+{\tt INR}+\frac{{\tt SNR}}{{\tt INR}}\right), \ \ \mbox{if} \ {\tt SNR}\leq {\tt INR}^3\\
\log \left(1+\frac{(\sqrt{{\tt SNR}}+\sqrt{{\tt INR}})^2}{1+{\tt INR}}\right), \ \ \mbox{if} \ {\tt SNR}>{\tt INR}^3
\end{array}\right. \label{R_weak_BE}
\end{equation}
\label{thm:outer-partial}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For the single-rate bounds, it is sufficient to show the first two due to symmetry (notice that we must treat the $\rightarrow$ and $\leftarrow$ directions separately however due to the asymmetry of partial adaptation).
\begin{align*}
&n(R_{12}-\epsilon)\leq I(M_{12};Y_2^n|M_{21},M_{34})\\
&\leq H(Y_2^n|M_{21},M_{34})-H(Y_2^n|M_{21},M_{34},M_{12},X_1^n,X_2^n,X_3^n)\\
&\overset{(a)}{\leq} \sum_{i=1}^n [H(Y_{2,i}|Y_2^{i-1},M_{21},X_{2,i},M_{34},X_{3,i})-H(Z_{2,i})]\\
&\leq \sum_{i=1}^n [H(g_{12}X_{1,i}+Z_{2,i})-H(Z_{2,i})]\\
&\leq \sum_{i=1}^n [\log (1+{\tt SNR}_{12})]
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
&n(R_{21}-\epsilon)\leq I(M_{21};Y_1^n|M_{12},M_{43},M_{34},Z_4^{n-1})\\
& \leq H(Y_1^n|M_{12},M_{34},M_{43},Z_4^{n-1})\\
&\;\;\;\;- H(Y_1^n|M_{12},M_{34},M_{43},Z_4^{n-1},M_{21},X_1^n,X_2^n,X_4^n)\\
&\overset{(b)}{\leq} \sum_{i=1}^n [H(Y_{1,i}|M_{12},M_{34},M_{43},Z_4^{n-1},Y_1^{i-1},X_{1,i},X_{4,i})\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;-H(Z_{1,i})]\\
&\leq \sum_{i=1}^n [H(g_{21}X_{2,i}+Z_{1,i})-H(Z_{1,i})]\\
&\leq \sum_{i=1}^n [\log (1+{\tt SNR}_{21})]
\end{align*}
where (a) follows from the definition of partial adaptation and (b) follows similarly, and by Lemma \ref{lemma:partialG}.
For the $\rightarrow$ direction of the symmetric rate, due to space constraints, we refer the reader to the in-detail converse on pg. 28 of \cite{zcheng_arxiv}; the key starting and ending steps are as follows:
\begin{align}
&n(R_{12}+R_{34}-\epsilon)\leq I(M_{12};Y_2^n,g_{14}X_1^n+Z_4^n,M_{21},M_{43})\notag \\
& \;\;\;\; +I(M_{34};Y_4^n,g_{32}X_3^n+Z_2^n,M_{21},M_{43})\notag \\
& \leq \sum_{i=1}^n [H(g_{12}X_{1,i}+g_{32}X_{3,i}+Z_{2,i}|g_{14}X_{1,i}+Z_{4,i},X_{2,i})\notag \\
& \ \ +H(g_{34}X_{3,i}+g_{14}X_{1,i}+Z_{4,i}|g_{32}X_{3,i}+Z_{2,i},X_{4,i})\notag \\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;-H(Z_{2,i})-H(Z_{4,i})] \label{last}
\end{align}
In the first step, we have given $(g_{14}X_1^n+Z_4^n)$ and $(g_{32}X_3^n+Z_2^n)$ as side information; in the intermediate steps (\cite[pg. 28]{zcheng_allerton}), we have used the definition of partial adaptation and cancellation of certain negative entropy terms.
To obtain \eqref{R_weak_E} we continue to outer bound \eqref{last} in terms of ${\tt SNR}$ and ${\tt INR}$, using the fact that Gaussians maximize entropy subject to variance constraints. Specifically, one may intuitively see that, if one defines $\lambda_{jk} = E[X_j X_k^*]$, that one may express \eqref{last} in terms of $\lambda_{12}, \lambda_{13}, \lambda_{14}, \lambda_{34}, \lambda_{23}$. One also notices from the conditional entropy expression in \eqref{last} that taking $ \lambda_{14} = \lambda_{23} = \lambda_{12} = \lambda_{34} = 0$, and since $\lambda_{13} = 0$ (naturally, by partial adaptation) will maximize the outer bound. This may alternatively be worked out by calculating the conditional covariance matrices directly (as we will show for the next bound on $R_{\leftarrow}$). In this case then, for each $i$, we may bound
\begin{align*}
&H(g_{12}X_{1}+g_{32}X_{3}+Z_{2}|g_{14}X_{1}+Z_{4},X_{2}) - H(Z_2) \\
& \leq H(g_{12}X_{1}+g_{32}X_{3}+Z_{2}|g_{14}X_{1}+Z_{4}) - H(Z_2) \\
&\leq \log 2\pi e(\mbox{Var}(g_{12}X_{1}+g_{32}X_{3}+Z_{2}|g_{14}X_{1}+Z_{4}))\\
& \;\;\;\; -\log 2\pi e(\mbox{Var}(Z_2)) \\
& \leq \log\left(1+{\tt SNR}+{\tt INR} - \frac{{\tt SNR}\times {\tt INR}}{1+{\tt INR}}\right),
\end{align*}
which together with the symmetric expressions for the second and fourth terms in \eqref{last} yield \eqref{R_weak_E}.
\bigskip
For the $\leftarrow$ direction, we again defer the reader to \cite[pg.29]{zcheng_allerton} due to space constraints, but we are
similarly able to obtain:
\begin{align}
&n(R_{21}+R_{43}-\epsilon)\leq I(M_{21};Y_1^n,g_{23}X_2^n+Z_3^n,M_{12},M_{34})\notag \\
&+I(M_{43};Y_3^n,g_{41}X_4^n+Z_1^n,M_{12},M_{34})\notag \\
&\leq \sum_{i=1}^n [H(g_{21}X_{2,i}+g_{41}X_{4,i}+Z_{1,i}|g_{23}X_{2,i}+Z_{3,i},X_{1,i})\notag \\
& \ \ +H(g_{43}X_{4,i}+g_{23}X_{2,i}+Z_{3,i}|g_{41}X_{4,i}+Z_{1,i},X_{3,i})\notag \\
& \;\;\;\; -H(Z_{1,i})-H(Z_{3,i})]\label{last2}
\end{align}
There are some slight differences in the converse, compared to the previous outer bound due to the partial adaptation constraints (and hence more care must be taken when constructing $X_{2,i}, X_{4,i}$).
We again proceed to outer bound \eqref{last2} to obtain \eqref{R_weak_BE}.
It is sufficient to evaluate the first and third terms in \eqref{last2} due to symmetry. We could outer bound \eqref{last2} in terms of the conditional covariance matrices and then proceed to select values of the correlation coefficients (complex) $\lambda_{jk} : = E[X_j X_k^*]$ which maximize this outer bound. A more intuitive method is to note that again, the conditional entropies in \eqref{last2} will be maximized if $\lambda_{14} = \lambda_{32}=0$, and $\lambda_{12}=\lambda_{34}=0$, which may also be obtained by dropping $X_{1,i}, X_{3,i}$ in the conditioning terms. At that point, we are only left with the coefficient $\lambda_{24} = E[X_2X_4^*]$, (which in contrast to the $\rightarrow$ bound is not automatically $0$ due to the possible adaptation in the $\leftarrow$ direction. Furthermore, setting it to zero cannot be argued intuitively as we see a tradeoff.) yielding the following bound for $R_{sym \leftarrow} = \frac{R_{21}+R_{43}}{2}$ by symmetry:
\begin{align}
&R_{sym\leftarrow
\leq H(g_{21}X_{2}+g_{41}X_{4}+Z_{1}|g_{23}X_{2}+Z_{3})-H(Z_{1})\notag \\
&\leq \log 2\pi e\left(\mbox{Var}(g_{21}X_{2}+g_{41}X_{4}+Z_{1}|g_{23}X_{2}+Z_{3})\right)\notag \\
& \;\;\;\; -\log 2\pi e (\mbox{Var}(Z_1))\notag \\
&\leq \log \left( 1+{\tt INR}+{\tt SNR}+2|\lambda_{24}|\cos \theta\sqrt{{\tt SNR}\times {\tt INR}}\right. \notag\\
&\left. -\frac{{\tt SNR}\times {\tt INR} + {\tt INR}^2|\lambda_{24}|^2 + 2\sqrt{{\tt SNR}}{\tt INR}^{3/2}|\lambda_{24}|\cos\theta}{1+{\tt INR}}\right)\label{lambda}
\end{align}
where $\theta$ is the angle of $g_{21}g_{41}^*\lambda_{24}$. To maximize \eqref{lambda}, we take the partials of the expression with respect to $|\lambda_{24}|$ and $\theta$ and set these to 0. For these to equal 0 for all ${\tt SNR}$ and ${\tt INR}$ we must have $\theta = 0$ and $|\lambda_{24}|=\frac{\sqrt{{\tt SNR}\times {\tt INR}}}{{\tt INR}^2}$ (discussed next).
Note that we must constrain $|\lambda_{24}|\in [0,1]$. In the interval $|\lambda_{24}| \in \left[0, \frac{\sqrt{\tt SNR\times INR}}{{\tt INR}^2}\right]$ one may verify that the function is increasing in $|\lambda_{24}|$. Thus, if $ \frac{\sqrt{\tt SNR\times INR}}{{\tt INR}^2} \leq 1$, $(|\lambda_{24}| = \frac{\sqrt{\tt SNR\times INR}}{{\tt INR}^2}, \theta =0)$ maximizes \eqref{lambda}; this happens if ${\tt SNR}\leq {\tt INR}^3$, and yields the first bound in \eqref{R_weak_BE}. Otherwise, for ${\tt SNR}>{\tt INR}^3$, $(\lambda_{24} = 1, \theta=0)$ maximizes \eqref{lambda}, yielding the second equation in \eqref{R_weak_BE}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The sum-rate bound for $R_{sym\rightarrow}$ of \eqref{R_weak_E} has the same form as Etkin, Tse and Wang's outer bound for one-way Gaussian interference channel \cite[(12)]{etkin_tse_wang} which is useful in weak interference. The sum-rate bound for $R_{sym\leftarrow}$ is quite different, and we note that it may be verified that \eqref{R_weak_BE} is always at least as large as \eqref{R_weak_E}, as one might expect given the partial adaptation constraints on nodes in the $\rightarrow$ direction, but none on the nodes in the $\leftarrow$ direction.
\end{remark}
\section{Capacity to within a constant gap}
We now demonstrate that these outer bounds, derived for the fully adaptive or partially adaptive models, may be achieved to within a constant gap or capacity by {\it non-adaptive} schemes -- i.e. simultaneous decoding or the Han and Kobayashi scheme operating in the two directions independently. We break our analysis into three sub-sections: 1) very strong interference, 2) strong interference, and 3) weak interference. The overall finite gap results are summarized in Table \ref{table:gaps}.
\subsection{Very Strong Interference: ${\tt INR}\geq {\tt SNR}(1+{\tt SNR})$}
We first show that a non-adaptive scheme may achieve the capacity for the two-way Gaussian IC under a partially adaptive model in very strong interference. For the symmetric two-way Gaussian IC, define ``very strong interference'' as the class of channels for which ${\tt INR}\geq {\tt SNR}(1+{\tt SNR})$, as in \cite[below equation (21)]{etkin_tse_wang}.
It is well known that the capacity region of the one-way Gaussian IC in very strong interference is that of two parallel Gaussian point-to-point channels \cite{Carleial1975}, which may be achieved by having each receiver first decode the interfering signal, treating its own as noise, subtracting off the decoded interference, and decoding its own message. Given that the interference is so strong, this may be done without a rate penalty. We ask whether the same is true for the two-way Gaussian IC with partial adaptation. The answer is affirmative and the capacity region is given by the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}
\label{2wIC_very_strong}
The capacity region for the two-way Gaussian interference channel with partial adaptation in very strong interference is the set of rate pairs ($R_{12},R_{21},R_{34},R_{43}$), such that \eqref{partial_single_rate1}--\eqref{partial_singe-rate4} are satisfied.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Each node may ignore its ability to adapt, and rather transmit using a ${\cal CN}(0,1)$ Gaussian random code. Each receiver may cancel its own self-interference, and then proceed to decode first the single interfering term before decoding its own message. This standard non-adaptive scheme may achieve the outer bound in \eqref{partial_single_rate1}--\eqref{partial_singe-rate4} in Theorem \ref{thm:outer-partial}.
\end{proof}
Interestingly, the capacity region of the two-way Gaussian interference channel with partial adaptation in very strong interference, is equivalent to the capacity regions of two one-way Gaussian interference channels with very strong interference in parallel and is achieved using a non-adaptive scheme. This allows us to conclude that {\it partial} adaptation is useless in this symmetric and very strong interference regime.
\subsection{Strong Interference: ${\tt SNR}\leq {\tt INR}\leq {\tt SNR}(1+{\tt SNR})$}
In this regime, we are able to show that a non-adaptive scheme may achieve capacity to within a constant gap of any {\it fully} adaptive scheme (in contrast to any {\it partially} adaptive scheme in the last subsection). A symmetric two-way Gaussian IC, as in \cite{etkin_tse_wang}, is said to be in ``strong interference'' when ${\tt INR}\geq {\tt SNR}$.
The capacity region of one-way Gaussian interference channel in strong interference is given by \cite{sato_strong}, and for symmetric channels, the capacity region when the interference is strong but not very strong, i.e. ${\tt SNR}\leq {\tt INR}\leq {\tt SNR}(1+{\tt SNR})$, may be written as
\begin{align}
R_{sym} = \frac{R_{12}+R_{34}}{2} \leq \frac{1}{2}\log (1+{\tt SNR}+{\tt INR}).\label{R_sato}
\end{align}
We note that this rate is achievable for the two-way Gaussian IC by using the simultaneous non-unique decoding scheme for the interference channel in strong interference \cite{ElGamalKim:book, sato_strong, ahlswede1974}) in the $\rightarrow$ and $\leftarrow$ directions, and noting that any self-interference may be canceled. This is a non-adaptive scheme.
We will show that this non-adaptive scheme which achieves \eqref{R_sato} in each direction (i.e. $R_{sym} =$\eqref{R_sato}) also achieves to within 1 bit (per user, per direction) of our fully adaptive outer bound \eqref{R_strong_E} in strong but not very strong interference.
\begin{theorem}
The capacity region for two-way symmetric Gaussian interference channel with full adaptation in strong (but not very strong) interference is within 1 bit to \eqref{R_sato} (per user, per direction).
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{align*}
& \eqref{R_strong_E} - \eqref{R_sato}\\
&\overset{(a)}{\leq} \frac{1}{2} \log 2(1+{\tt SNR}+{\tt INR})+\frac{1}{2}\log \left(1+\frac{{\tt SNR}}{1+{\tt INR}}\right)\\
&-\frac{1}{2}\log (1+{\tt SNR}+{\tt INR})\\
&\overset{(b)}{\leq} \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\log \left(1+\frac{{\tt INR}}{{\tt INR}}\right)=1
\end{align*}
In step (a), we use the fact that $1+{\tt SNR}+{\tt INR}+2\sqrt{{\tt SNR}\times {\tt INR}}\leq 2(1+{\tt SNR}+{\tt INR})$. Step (b) follows from the condition of strong interference ${\tt INR}\geq {\tt SNR}$. Notice that the bound \eqref{R_strong_E} is valid for the symmetric assumptions of full adaptation; we thus conclude that the non-adaptive schemes' gap to the fully adaptive outer bound for each user, for each direction is at most 1 bit.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Weak Interfererence: ${\tt INR}\leq {\tt SNR}$}
In the following we demonstrate that the well known Han and Kobayashi scheme employed in parallel in the $\rightarrow$ and $\leftarrow$ directions may achieve to within a constant number of bits of the fully or partially adaptive (depends on the channel regimes, or relative ${\tt SNR}$ and ${\tt INR}$ values) capacity region for the two-way Gaussian IC.
\begin{theorem}
A non-adaptive scheme may achieve to within a $2$ bit per user per direction of partially adaptive capacity region for the two-way Gaussian IC in weak interference. In some channel regimes, this non-adaptive scheme also achieves to within a constant gap of any {\it fully} adaptive scheme.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As for the one-way IC \cite{etkin_tse_wang}, we break our proof into two regimes: ${\tt INR}\geq 1$ or ${\tt INR}<1$.
\subsubsection{${\tt INR}\geq 1$}
Outer bounds have already been derived. Consider now using the specific choice of the Han and Kobayashi (HK) strategy utilized for the symmetric one-way IC as in \cite[(4)]{etkin_tse_wang} in each direction. That is, view nodes 1,2 as transmitters and 3,4 as receivers in the $\rightarrow$ direction and employ the particular choice of the HK scheme where private messages are encoded at the level of the noise, and similarly for the $\leftarrow$ direction consider nodes 3,4 as transmitters and 1,2 as receivers. Due to the additive nature of the channel and each node's ability to first cancel out their self-interference, one may achieve the following rates per user, per node for each direction when ${\tt INR}\geq 1$ for the symmetric two-way Gaussian IC:
{\small \begin{align}
& R_{HK}=\min \left\{\frac{1}{2}\log (1+{\tt INR}+{\tt SNR})+\frac{1}{2}\log \left(2+\frac{{\tt SNR}}{{\tt INR}}\right)-1, \right.\notag \\
&\left. \log \left(1+{\tt INR}+\frac{{\tt SNR}}{{\tt INR}}\right)-1\right\} =: \min\{R_{HK1}, R_{HK2}\}. \label{HK}
\end{align}}
\smallskip
\noindent {\bf If the first term in \eqref{HK} is active} we show a constant gap to the outer bound \eqref{R_strong_E},
\begin{align*}
& \eqref{R_strong_E}-R_{HK1}\\
&\leq \frac{1}{2} \log 2(1+{\tt SNR}+{\tt INR})-\frac{1}{2}\log (1+{\tt INR}+{\tt SNR})\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\log \left(1+\frac{{\tt SNR}}{{\tt INR}}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\log \left(2+\frac{{\tt SNR}}{{\tt INR}}\right)+1\\
&\leq \frac{1}{2}\log (2)+\frac{1}{2}\log (1)+1=1.5
\end{align*}
Since our bound \eqref{R_strong_E} is derived assuming full adaptation, we may conclude that this gap holds for both $R_{sym\rightarrow}$ and $R_{sym\leftarrow}$ (i.e. holds for $R_{sym}$).
\smallskip
\noindent {\bf If the second term in \eqref{HK} is active,} {we use outer bound \eqref{R_weak_E} for the forward direction, to bound the gap for $R_{sym\rightarrow}$ as }
\begin{align*}
& \eqref{R_weak_E}-R_{HK2} \\%=\log \left(1+{\tt INR}+{\tt SNR}-\frac{{\tt INR}\times {\tt SNR}}{1+{\tt INR}}\right)-\log \left(1+{\tt INR}+\frac{{\tt SNR}}{{\tt INR}}\right)+1\\\
&= \log \left(\frac{{\tt INR}(1+{\tt INR})^2+{\tt SNR}\times {\tt INR}}{{\tt INR}(1+{\tt INR})^2+{\tt SNR}(1+{\tt INR})}\right)+1\\
&\leq \log (1)+1=1
\end{align*}
Since our bound \eqref{R_weak_E} has the same form as the ETW bound \cite{etkin_tse_wang}, the capacity of the two-way Gaussian interference channel with partial adaptation in the forward direction is also to within 1 bit of the specific HK rate \eqref{HK} when ${\tt INR}\geq 1$.
{We use outer bound \eqref{R_weak_BE} for the backward direction, to bound the gap for $R_{sym\leftarrow}$,} noting that we need to consider both cases separately.
{If the first term in \eqref{R_weak_BE} is relevant (${\tt SNR}\leq {\tt INR}^3$), one may easily conclude that $ \eqref{R_weak_BE} -R_{HK2} = 1$.}
{If the second term in \eqref{R_weak_BE} is relevant (${\tt SNR}\geq {\tt INR}^3$):}
\begin{align*}
& \eqref{R_weak_BE} -R_{HK2}\\
&\overset{(a)}{\leq} \log\left(\frac{2({\tt INR}+{\tt SNR}\times {\tt INR}+2{\tt INR}^2+{\tt SNR}+{\tt INR}^3)}{{\tt INR}+{\tt SNR}\times {\tt INR}+2{\tt INR}^2+{\tt SNR}+{\tt INR}^3}\right)+1\\
& = \log (2)+1=2
\end{align*}
where (a) follows the fact that $1+{\tt SNR}+{\tt INR}+2\sqrt{{\tt SNR}\times {\tt INR}}\leq 2(1+{\tt SNR}+{\tt INR})$, and additional details may be found in \cite[pg.34]{zcheng_arxiv}.
\subsubsection{${\tt INR}<1$} In this case, a symmetric version of the HK scheme may be obtained
from \cite[(69)]{etkin_tse_wang}, for which each of the four users may achieve the following rate:
\begin{align}
& R_{{\tt INR}<1}\leq \log \left(1+\frac{{\tt SNR}}{1+{\tt INR}}\right)\label{R_INR<1}
\end{align}
{This achieves to within 1 bit of the outer bound \eqref{R_strong_E}:}
\begin{align*}
&\eqref{R_strong_E}-R_{{\tt INR}<1}\\
& \leq \frac{1}{2}\log \left(\frac{2(1+{\tt SNR}+{\tt INR})(1+{\tt INR})}{1+{\tt SNR}+{\tt INR}}\right)\\
& \overset{(a)}{\leq} \frac{1}{2}\log (4)=1
\end{align*}
where (a) we use the condition of ${\tt INR}<1$. Since \eqref{R_strong_E} was obtained for full adaptation, we can conclude that the capacity of the two-way Gaussian IC is to within 1 bit to the HK region when ${\tt INR}<1$ for both directions.
\end{proof}
We summarize the constant gaps in Table \ref{table:gaps}.
\begin{table}
\resizebox{9cm}{!} {
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{\bf Interference} & \multicolumn{5}{r|}{{\bf Constant Gaps per user per direction (bits)}}\\ \hline
Very Strong & \multicolumn{5}{r|}{0 (partial)}\\ \hline
Strong & \multicolumn{5}{r|}{1 (full)}\\ \hline
& ${\tt INR}<1$ & \multicolumn{4}{r|}{1 (full)}\\ \cline{2-6}
& & HK1 active & \multicolumn{3}{r|}{1.5 (full)}\\ \cline{3-6}
Weak & ${\tt INR}\geq 1$ & & $\rightarrow$& \multicolumn{2}{r|}{1 (partial)}\\ \cline{4-6}
& & HK2 active & $\leftarrow$ & ${\tt SNR}\leq {\tt INR}^3$ & 1 (partial)\\ \cline{5-6}
& & & & ${\tt SNR}> {\tt INR}^3$ & 2 (partial)\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Constant gaps between non-adaptive symmetric Han and Kobayashi schemes in each direction and partially or fully adaptive outer bounds.}
\label{table:gaps}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusion}
We have introduced the two-way Gaussian interference channel; obtained outer bounds under full and partial adaptation constraints, and shown that simple non-adaptive schemes (including the Han and Kobayashi scheme) achieve to within a constant gap for the symmetric sum-rate of these fully or partially adaptive outer bounds. We do not believe that in general, non-adaptive schemes will achieve to within a constant gap of capacity for general non-symmetric and fully adaptive two-way Gaussian ICs, this is an interesting question which is the topic of ongoing work.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Background on Conditional Probabilities}
\label{appendix:background-on-conditional-probability}
In this appendix, we present some basic lemmas on conditional independence
and regular conditional probabilities that will be useful in
Appendix~\ref{appendix:saddle-point-proofs}.
We first recall the following classical data-processing inequality, which
holds for essentially arbitrary random variables~\cite[Chapter 5]{Gray90}:
\begin{lemma}[Data processing]
\label{lemma:data-processing}
Let $\statrv \rightarrow \channelrv \rightarrow Y$ be a Markov
chain. Then $\information(\statrv; Y) \le \information(\statrv;
\channelrv)$, with equality if and only if $\statrv$ is
conditionally independent of $Y$ given $\channelrv$.
\end{lemma}
This inequality, in conjunction with with Carath\'eodory and
Minkowski's finite-dimensional version of the Krein-Milman
theorem (e.g.~\cite{HiriartUrrutyLe96ab}), allows us to argue any
$\channelprob$ minimizing $\information(\statprob, \channelprob)$ must
be supported on the extreme points of $D$. To make this point precise,
however, we need to address certain measurability issues involved in
the choice of the extreme points.
We begin with a precise definition of a regular conditional probability.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:markov-kernel}
Let $(\Omega, \mc{F})$ and $(T, \sigma(T))$ be measurable spaces. A
\emph{regular conditional probability}, also known as a Markov
kernel or transition probability, is a function $\nu : T \times
\mc{F} \rightarrow [0, 1]$ such that
\begin{align*}
t \mapsto \nu(t, A) & ~~ {\rm is~measurable~for~all~} A \in
\mc{F} \\ \nu(t, \cdot) : \mc{F} \rightarrow [0, 1] & ~~ {\rm
is~a~probability~measure~for~all~} t \in T.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
\noindent Any Markov chain has a transition probability; conversely,
any set of consistent transition probabilities define a Markov chain
(see, e.g., Chapter 5 of~\citet{Kallenberg97}).
Some difficulties with measurability arise in constructing the
appropriate Markov chain for our setting. To deal with them, we use
results from Choquet theory, which extend Krein-Milman theorems to
integral representations~\cite{Phelps01}. We begin our proof by stating
a measurable selection theorem~\cite[Theorem 11.4]{Phelps01},
though we restrict the theorem's statement to subsets of finite
dimensional space.
\begin{proposition}
\label{proposition:choquet}
Let $D \subset \R^d$ be a compact convex set. For each
$x$, there exists a probability measure $\mu_x$ supported on $\extreme(D)$
such that $\int_D y d\mu_x(y) = x$. Moreover, the mapping
$x \mapsto \mu_x$ can be taken to be measurable.
\end{proposition}
\noindent In the statement of this result, measurability is taken with
respect to the $\sigma$-field generated by the topology of weak
convergence. As a consequence of the proposition, however, it is clear
that since for any continuous function $f$ the mapping $x \mapsto \int
f d\mu_x$ is measurable, we have that for relatively open sets $A
\subset C$ the mapping $x \mapsto \mu_x(A)$ is measurable, whence for
any measurable set $A \subset C$ the mapping $x \mapsto \mu_x(A)$ is
measurable. That is, we can define the Markov kernel $\nu : \R^d
\times \sigma(C) \rightarrow [0, 1]$ according to the mapping
specified by Proposition~\ref{proposition:choquet} (we take $\nu(x,
\cdot) = \mu_x$) with the additional properties that
\begin{equation*}
\int_D y \nu(x, dy) = x
~~~ {\rm and} ~~~
\nu(x, D \setminus \extreme(D)) = 0
~~ {\rm for~all~} x \in D.
\end{equation*}
In finite dimensions, a trivial extension of
Proposition~\ref{proposition:choquet} allows us to drop the assumption that
$D$ is convex. Indeed, we have that since $D$ is compact, then
$\extreme(D) = \extreme(\conv(D))$~\cite[Chapter III.2]{HiriartUrrutyLe96ab}.
Given this measure-theoretic background, we turn to a key lemma that
we will need in Appendix~\ref{appendix:saddle-point-proofs}.
In this lemma, we assume as usual that $C \subset D \subset \R^d$
are compact sets, and that $\channelprob \in \channeldistset(C, D)$ (recall the
definition~\eqref{eqn:channel-distribution-set}).
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:extreme-points}
Let $\statprob$ be a distribution supported on $C$. If there exists a set $A
\subset C$ with $\statprob(A) > 0$ and a set $B \subset D \setminus
\extreme(D)$ with $\channelprob(B \mid \statrv = x) > 0$ for $x \in A$,
there exists a regular conditional probability distribution $\channelprob'
\in \channeldistset(C, D)$ where $\channelprob'(\cdot \mid x)$ has support
contained in $\extreme(D)$ and
\begin{equation*}
\information(\statprob, \channelprob) > \information(\statprob,
\channelprob').
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\noindent
Paraphrasing the lemma slightly, we have that \emph{any} conditional
distribution $\channelprob$ minimizing $\information(\statprob, \channelprob)$
must (outside of a set of measure zero) be completely supported on the extreme
points $\extreme(D)$.
\begin{proof}
For any $y \in D$, Proposition~\ref{proposition:choquet} guarantees that
we can represent $y$ as the (regular conditional) measure $\nu(y, \cdot)$.
Thus we can define a random variable $Z_y$ distributed according to $\nu(y,
\cdot)$, whose existence we are guaranteed by standard
constructions~\cite{Billingsley86,Kallenberg97} with regular
conditional probability. Then $\E[Z_y] = \int_D z \nu(y, dz) = y$,
and moreover, we can define the measurable version of the conditional
expectation $\E[Z_Y \mid Y]$ via
\begin{equation*}
\E[Z_Y \mid Y] = \int_D z \nu(Y, dz) = Y
\end{equation*}
so we have the (almost sure) chain of equalities
\begin{align*}
\E[Z_Y \mid X = x] & = \E[\E[Z_Y \mid Y] \mid X = x]
= \int_D \E[Z_Y \mid Y = y] dQ(y \mid X = x) \\
& = \int_D \int_D z \nu(y, dz) dQ(y \mid X = x)
= \int_D y dQ(y \mid X = x) = x.
\end{align*}
By construction, $X \rightarrow Y \rightarrow Z$ is a valid Markov chain,
and since the sets $A$ and $B$ satisfy $P(A) > 0$ and $\int_A Q(B \mid X =
x) dP(x) > 0$, we see that $\information(X; Y) > \information(X; Z)$ by
Lemma~\ref{lemma:data-processing}.
\end{proof}
We turn to an analogue of Lemma~\ref{lemma:extreme-points} in the
differentially private setting.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:diffp-extreme-points}
Let the conditions of Lemma~\ref{lemma:extreme-points} hold,
and let $\statprob$ be a distribution
supported on $C$. If there exists a set $A \subset C$ with
$\statprob(A) > 0$ and a set $B \subset D \setminus \extreme(D)$ with
$\channelprob(B \mid \statrv = x) > 0$ for $x \in A$, there exists a
regular conditional probability distribution $\channelprob'
\in \channeldistset[C, D]$ where
$\channelprob'(\cdot \mid x)$ has support contained in $\extreme(D)$,
satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\information(\statprob, \channelprob) > \information(\statprob,
\channelprob'),
\end{equation*}
and has no worse differential privacy than $\channelprob$:
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{S \in \sigma(D)} \sup_{\statsample, \statsample' \in C}
\frac{\channelprob'(S \mid \statrv = \statsample)}{
\channelprob'(S \mid \statrv = \statsample')}
\le \sup_{S \in \sigma(D)} \sup_{\statsample, \statsample' \in C}
\frac{\channelprob(S \mid \statrv = \statsample)}{
\channelprob(S \mid \statrv = \statsample')}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\nu : \R^d \times \sigma(C)
\rightarrow [0, 1]$ be the Markov kernel defined in the proof of
Lemma~\ref{lemma:extreme-points}, and without loss of generality assume that
$\channelprob(\cdot \mid \statrv = \statsample)$ and $\channelprob(\cdot
\mid \statrv = \statsample')$ have density $\channeldensity$ with respect to
an underlying measure $\mu_{\statsample,\statsample'}$. Define the
distribution
\begin{equation*}
\channelprob'(S \mid \statrv = \statsample)
\defeq \int_D \int_D \nu(y, d\channelval) \channeldensity(y \mid
\statsample) d\mu_{\statsample,\statsample'}(y).
\end{equation*}
By assumption, if $\channelprob$ is $\diffp$-differentially private, then
for $\mu$-almost all $y \in D$, we have $\channeldensity(y \mid \statsample)
\le e^\diffp \channeldensity(y \mid \statsample')$. We find that
\begin{align*}
\channelprob'(S \mid \statrv = \statsample)
& = \int_D \int_D \nu(y, d\channelval) \channeldensity(y \mid
\statsample) d\mu_{\statsample,\statsample'}(y) \\
& \le
\int_D \int_D \nu(y, d\channelval) e^\diffp \channeldensity(y \mid
\statsample') d\mu_{\statsample,\statsample'}(y)
= e^\diffp \channelprob'(S \mid \statrv = \statsample'),
\end{align*}
so $\channelprob'$ is at least as differentially private as $\channelprob$.
\end{proof}
Finally, we will need the following standard maximum entropy result.
Let $\channelval$ denote a discrete random variable and let
$q(\channelval \mid x)$ denote the conditional probability mass
function of $\channelrv \mid \statrv = x$. Consider the finite
dimensional entropy maximization problem
\begin{align}
\minimize_q ~ & \sum_\channelval q(\channelval \mid x) \log
q(\channelval \mid x)
\label{eqn:entropy-maximization} \\
\subjectto ~ & \sum_\channelval \channelval q(\channelval \mid x)
= x, ~~ \sum_\channelval q(\channelval \mid x) = 1, ~~
q(\channelval \mid x) \ge 0 ~ {\rm for~all~} \channelval.
\nonumber
\end{align}
We have the following lemma, which establishes the form of the
solution to the problem~\eqref{eqn:entropy-maximization}. We
include a proof for completeness.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:max-ent-q}
The p.m.f.\ $q(\cdot \mid x)$ solving
problem~\eqref{eqn:entropy-maximization} is given by
\begin{equation}
q(\channelval \mid x) = \frac{\exp(-\mu^\top
\channelval)}{\sum_{\channelval'} \exp(-\mu^\top
\channelval')},
\label{eqn:max-ent-q}
\end{equation}
where $\mu \in \R^d$ is any vector chosen to satisfy the
constraint $\sum_\channelval \channelval q(\channelval \mid x) =
x$. Such
a $\mu \in \R^d$ exists.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We may write the Lagrangian with dual variables $\mu \in \R^d$,
$\lambda(\channelval) \ge 0$, and $\theta \in \R$,
\ifdefined\usejournalmargins
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{\mc{L}(q, \mu, \lambda, \theta)} \\
& = \sum_\channelval q(\channelval \mid x) \log q(\channelval \mid x)
+ \mu^\top \!\bigg(\sum_\channelval \channelval q(\channelval \mid x)
- x\bigg)
+ \theta \bigg(\sum_\channelval q(\channelval \mid x) - 1\bigg)
- \sum_\channelval \lambda(\channelval) q(\channelval \mid x).
\end{align*}
\else
\begin{equation*}
\mc{L}(q, \mu, \lambda, \theta)
= \sum_\channelval q(\channelval \mid x) \log q(\channelval \mid x)
+ \mu^\top \bigg(\sum_\channelval \channelval q(\channelval \mid x)
- x\bigg)
+ \theta \bigg(\sum_\channelval q(\channelval \mid x) - 1\bigg)
- \sum_\channelval \lambda(\channelval) q(\channelval \mid x).
\end{equation*}
\fi
Since the problem~\eqref{eqn:entropy-maximization} has convex cost, linear
constraints, and non-empty domain, strong duality obtains~\cite[Chapter
5]{BoydVa04}, and the KKT conditions hold for the problem. Thus,
minimizing $q$ out of $\mc{L}$ to find the dual, we take derivatives with
respect to the $m$ variables $q(\channelval \mid x)$ for $\channelval = (1 +
\alpha) u_i$ and find the optimal conditional p.m.f.\ $q$ must satisfy
\begin{equation*}
\log q(\channelval \mid x) + 1 + \mu^\top \channelval + \theta -
\lambda(\channelval) = 0,
~~~ \mbox{or} ~~~
q(\channelval \mid x)
= \exp(\lambda(\channelval) - 1 - \theta) \exp(-\mu^\top \channelval).
\end{equation*}
In particular, we see that since $q(\channelval \mid x) > 0$, we must have
$\lambda(\channelval) = 0$ by complementarity, and (satisfying the
summability constraint $\sum_\channelval q(\channelval \mid x) = 1$) we see
that
\begin{equation*}
q(\channelval \mid x)
= \frac{\exp(-\mu^\top \channelval)}{\sum_{\channelval'}
\exp(-\mu^\top \channelval')},
\end{equation*}
where $\mu \in \R^d$ is any vector chosen to satisfy the constraint
$\sum_\channelval \channelval q(\channelval \mid x) = x$. The existence of
such a $\mu$ is guaranteed by the attainment of the KKT conditions.
\end{proof}
\section{Introduction}
Natural tensions between learning and privacy arise whenever a learner
must aggregate data across multiple individuals. The learner wishes
to make optimal use of each data point, whereas the providers of the
data may wish to limit detailed exposure, either to the learner or to
other individuals. A characterization of such tensions in the form of
quantitative tradeoffs is of great utility: it can inform public
discourse surrounding the design of systems that learn from data, and
the tradeoffs can be exploited as controllable degrees of freedom
whenever such a system is deployed.
In this paper, we approach this problem from the point of view of
statistical decision theory. The decision-theoretic perspective
offers a number of advantages. First, the use of loss functions and
risk functions provides a compelling formal foundation for defining
``learning'', one that dates back to~\citet{Wald39}, and that has seen
continued development in the context of research on machine learning
over the past two decades. Second, by formulating the goals of a
learning system in terms of loss functions, we make it possible for
individuals to assess whether the goals of a learning system align
with their own personal utility, and thereby determine the extent to
which they are willing to sacrifice some privacy. Third, an appeal to
decision theory permits abstraction over the details of specific
learning procedures, allowing for the derivation of minimax lower
bounds that apply to any specific procedure. Fourth, the use of loss
functions---and more specifically, convex loss functions---in the
design of a learning system allows the powerful tools of optimization
theory to be brought to bear. Not only are optimization-based
learning systems often successful in practice, but they are also often
amenable to theoretical analysis. Finally, the decision-theoretic
framework is a probabilistic framework, with probabilistic models
definining the transformation from losses to risks. This connection
provides a natural mechanism for the use of randomization to provide
control over privacy.
In more formal detail, the analysis of this paper takes place within
the following framework. Given a compact convex set $\optdomain
\subset \R^d$, we wish to find a parameter value $\optvar \in
\optdomain$ achieving good average performance under a loss function
$\loss : \statdomain \times \R^d \rightarrow \R_+$. Here the value
$\loss(\statrv, \optvar)$ measures the performance of the parameter
vector $\optvar \in \optdomain$ on the sample $\statrv \in
\statdomain$, and $\loss(\statsample, \cdot) : \R^d \rightarrow \R_+$
is convex for $\statsample \in \statdomain$. We measure the expected
performance of $\optvar \in \optdomain$ via the risk function
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:objective}
\optvar \mapsto \risk(\optvar) \defeq \E_\statprob[\loss(\statrv, \optvar)],
\end{equation}
where the expectation is taken over some unknown distribution
$\statprob$ over the space $\statdomain$.
In the standard formulation of statistical risk minimization, a method
$\method$ is given $n$ samples $\statrv_1, \ldots, \statrv_n$, each
drawn independently from $\statprob$, and its goal to to output an
estimate $\what{\optvar}_n$ that approximately minimizes the risk
function $\risk$. In this paper, instead of providing the method
$\method$ with access to the samples $\statrv_1, \ldots, \statrv_n$,
however, we study the effect of giving only some disguised view
$\channelrv_i$ of each datum $\statrv_i$. With $\what{\optvar}_n$ now
denoting an estimator based on the perturbed samples $\channelrv_i$,
we explicitly quantify the rate of convergence of
$\risk(\what{\optvar}_n)$ to $\inf_{\optvar \in \optdomain}
\risk(\optvar)$ as a function of the number of samples $n$ and the
amount of privacy provided by $\channelrv_i$.
\subsection{Prior work}
There is a long history of research at the intersection of privacy and
statistics, going back at least to the 1960s, when~\citet{Warner65}
suggested privacy-preserving methods for survey sampling, and to later
work related to census taking and presentation of tabular data (e.g.,
\cite{Fellegi72}). More recently, there has been a large amount of
computationally-oriented work on
privacy~\cite{DworkMcNiSm06,Dwork08,ZhouLaWa09,WassermanZh10,HallRiWa11,DinurNi03,BlumLiRo08,ChaudhuriMoSa11,RubinsteinBaHuTa12}.
We overview some of the key ideas in this section, but cannot hope to
do justice to the large body of relevant work, referring the reader to
the comprehensive survey by~\citet{Dwork08} and the statistical
treatment by~\citet{WassermanZh10} for background and references.
Most work on privacy attempts to limit disclosure risk: the
probability that some adversary can link a released record to a
particular member of the population or identify that someone belongs
to a dataset that generates a
statistic~\cite{DuncanLa86,DuncanLa89,Reiter05,KarrKoOgReSa06}. In the
statistical literature, work on disclosure limitation and so-called
linkage risk, for example as in the framework of~\citet{DuncanLa86},
has yielded several techniques for maintaining privacy, such as
aggregation, swapping features or responses among different datums, or
perturbation of data. Other authors have proposed measures for
measuring utility of released data (e.g.,
\cite{KarrKoOgReSa06,CoxKaKi11}). The currently standard measure of
privacy is differential privacy, due to~\citet{DworkMcNiSm06}, which
roughly states that $\what{\optvar}_n$ must not depend too much on the
$n$ samples, and it should be difficult to ascertain whether a vector
$\statsample$ belongs to the set $\{\statrv_1, \ldots, \statrv_n\}$
given $\what{\optvar}_n$. Formally, paraphrasing the definition of
\citet{WassermanZh10}, the method $\method$ has $\diffp$-differential
privacy if
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:differential-privacy}
\sup_{S \in \sigma(\optdomain)}
\sup_{x_1, \ldots, x_n} \sup_{x_1', \ldots, x_n'}
\frac{\channelprob(S \mid \statrv_1 = x_1, \ldots, \statrv_n = x_n)}{
\channelprob(S \mid \statrv_1 = x_1', \ldots, \statrv_n = x_n')}
\le \exp(\diffp).
\end{equation}
where the sets $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ and $x_1', \ldots, x_n'$ differ in at most
one element, $\channelprob(\cdot \mid \statrv_1, \ldots, \statrv_n)$ is (a
version of) the conditional probability of the estimator $\what{\optvar}$
constructed by the method $\method$ using the $n$ samples, and
$\sigma(\optdomain)$ is a suitable $\sigma$-algebra on $\optdomain$.
Differentially private algorithms enjoy many desirable
properties~\cite{DworkMcNiSm06,Dwork08,GantaKaSm08} and essentially guarantee
that even if an adversary knows all the entries in a dataset but the $n$th, it
is difficult to discern whether a vector $x$ is equal to $\statrv_n$ given the
output of the method $\method$. Indeed, differential privacy protects against
side information and many adversarial attacks that break previous definitions
of privacy, such as $k$-anonymity~\cite{GantaKaSm08}. Several researchers
have studied differentially private algorithms for empirical risk
minimization, providing guarantees on the excess risk of differentially
private estimators $\what{\optvar}$. \citet{ChaudhuriMoSa11} use the stability
of the output of regularized empirical risk minimization algorithms to show
that by adding Laplace-distributed noise to an empirical estimator $\optvar$
or by adding an additional random term to the empirical risk
$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \loss(\statrv_i, \optvar)$, it is possible to obtain
differential privacy and consistency of $\what{\optvar}$. \citet{DworkLe09}
obtain similar results using robust statistical estimators, and
\citet{Smith11} shows that if one has suitably unbiased estimators, then
differential privacy is possible without compromising asymptotic rates of
convergence. \citet{RubinsteinBaHuTa12} use similar stability and perturbation
techniques to demonstrate that it is possible to obtain differential privacy
when solving support vector machine problems, and also show that if the
desired privacy level $\alpha$ in the
definition~\eqref{eqn:differential-privacy} is too small, it is actually
impossible to obtain a parameter $\what{\optvar}_n$ minimizing the risk
$\risk$.
Our goal is to understand the fundamental tradeoffs between maintaining
privacy while still providing a useful output from the statistical learning
procedure $\method$. Though intuitively there must be some tradeoff,
quantifying it precisely has been difficult. As alluded to above,
\citet{RubinsteinBaHuTa12} are able to show that it is impossible to obtain
what they call an $(\epsilon, \delta)$-useful parameter vector $\optvar$ that
enjoys any differential privacy guarantees; however, it is unknown whether or
not their guarantees might be improvable. \citet{HallRiWa11} show that if a
given histogram, based on a sample $\{\statsample_i\}_{i=1}^n$, has $d$ bins
and we must guarantee $\alpha$-differential
privacy~\eqref{eqn:differential-privacy}, then the (expected) $L^1$-distance
between the sample and released histograms must be at least $d / (n \alpha)$,
and \citet{HardtTa10} give similar lower bounds on the amount of noise
necessary to answer linear database queries. \citet{NikolovTaZh13} followed
this work with extensions to relaxed notions (so called
$(\diffp,\delta)$-approximate differential privacy) of privacy and providing
higher-dimensional settings, while \citet{KasiviswanathanRuSm13}
give bounds on amounts of additive noise to protect against blatant failures
of privacy in similar linear settings. \citet{BlumLiRo08} also give lower
bounds on the closeness of certain statistical quantities computed from the
dataset, though their upper and lower bounds do not
match. \citet{SankarRaPo10} provide rate-distortion theorems for utility
models involving information-theoretic quantities, which has some similarity
to our risk-based framework, but it appears somewhat challenging to explicitly
map their setting onto ours. With the goal of characterizing what it means to
be both useful and private, \citet{GhoshRoSu09} show that for a one-time
computation of counts on a dataset $\statrv_1, \ldots, \statrv_n$ (i.e., the
number of variables satisfying $\statrv_i \in C$ for some set $C$), perturbing
the output of a counting function using geometrically distributed noise is the
unique optimal way to guarantee differential privacy while maximizing a
natural notion of utility.
Much of the work providing sharp lower bounds, however, focuses on showing
that if one wishes to accurately report a statistic
$\what{\optvar}(\statsample_{1:n})$ computed on a sample
$\{\statsample_i\}_{i=1}^n$, then there must be some worst-case sample such
that the error is large (see, e.g.,~\cite{HardtTa10,HallRiWa11,NikolovTaZh13,GhoshRoSu09}). In contrast, we
focus on \emph{population} quantities---which are substantially different---in
that we wish to return a private estimator $\what{\optvar}_n$ approximately
minimizing the population risk $\risk(\optvar) = \E[\loss(\statrv, \optvar)]$
rather than the sample risk $\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \loss(\statrv_i,
\optvar)$. Providing guarantees on the population risk performance of
$\what{\optvar}_n$, rather than on the observed sample, has been a driving
force behind much of the theoretical work in statistics and machine learning,
and thus provides a natural focus for our work.
\subsection{Our setting}
In contrast to the above work, we study a more local notion of
privacy~\cite{EvfimievskiGeSr03,KasiviswanathanLeNiRaSm11}, in which each
datum $\statrv_i$ is kept private from the method $\method$. The goal of many
types of privacy is to guarantee that the output $\what{\optvar}_n$ of the
method $\method$ based on the data cannot be used to discover information
about the individual samples $\statrv_1, \ldots, \statrv_n$, but \emph{locally
private} algorithms only access disguised views of each datum $\statrv_i$.
Local algorithms are among the most classical approaches to privacy, tracing
back to work on randomized response in the statistical
literature~\cite{Warner65}, and rely on communication only of some disguised
view $\channelrv_i$ of each true sample $\statrv_i$. In this setting, for
example, the natural variant of $\diffp$-differential
privacy~\eqref{eqn:differential-privacy} is the non-interactive
(in the sense that $\channelrv_i$ depends only on $\statrv_i$ and
not on any other private variables $\channelrv_j$) local privacy guarantee
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:local-differential-privacy}
\sup_{S} \sup_{\statsample, \statsample'}
\frac{\channelprob(\channelrv_i \in S \mid \statrv_i = \statsample)}{
\channelprob(\channelrv_i \in S \mid \statrv_i = \statsample')}
\le \exp(\diffp).
\end{equation}
Locally private algorithms are natural when the providers of the
data---the population sampled to give $\statrv_1, \ldots,
\statrv_n$---do not even trust the statistician or statistical method
$\method$, but the providers are interested in the parameter vector
$\optvar^*$ that minimizes the risk function. For example, in medical
applications, a participant may be embarrassed about his use of drugs,
or perhaps about his marital status, but if the loss $\loss$ is able
to measure the likelihood of developing cancer, then the participant
has high utility for access to the optimal parameters $\optvar^*$.
Internet applications, where a user's activity is logged across
multiple websites or searches, provide another example: the user has a
utility for a search engine to have a ranking function $\optvar$ that
returns relevant results for web searches, yet may not wish to reveal
his or her search data. In essence, we would like the statistical
procedure $\method$ to learn \emph{from} the data $\statrv_1, \ldots,
\statrv_n$ but not \emph{about} it.
The work most related to ours seems to be that
of~\citet{KasiviswanathanLeNiRaSm11}, who show that that (in some
settings) locally private algorithms coincide with concepts that can
be learned with polynomial sample complexity in Kearns's statistical
query (SQ) model~\cite{Kearns98}. This result is powerful, but has
some limitations, as the statistical query model relies exclusively on
count queries, and we are interested in measures more precise than
polynomial sample complexity to quantity convergence rates. In
contrast, our analysis applies to estimators deriving from a broad
class of convex risks~\eqref{eqn:objective}, and it provides sharp
rates of convergence.
We develop our approach to local privacy in the setting of three
related privacy measures. The first is a worst-case measure of mutual
information, where we view privacy preservation as a game between the
providers of the data, who wish to preserve privacy, and nature. The
second is based on differential privacy, where the provider of each
datum communicates---subject to some constraints we make explicit
later---the \emph{most} differentially private view $\channelrv_i$ of
his or her datum $\statrv_i$. In this general setting we allow
interactivity (i.e., the mapping between $\channelrv_i$ and
$\statrv_i$ may depend on other $\channelrv_j$ for $j \neq i$). The
third setting is a non-interactive version of local differential
privacy.
Turning first to the information-theoretic formulation, and recalling
that the method $\method$ sees only the perturbed version
$\channelrv_i$ of $\statrv_i$, we use a uniform variant of mutual
information $\information(\channelrv_i; \statrv_i)$ between the random
variables $\statrv_i$ and $\channelrv_i$ as a measure for privacy.
Using mutual information and related information-theoretic ideas in
the privacy and security context is by no means original; see, for
example, the survey by~\citet{LiangPoSh08}. It is important to note,
however, that standard mutual information has deficiencies as a
measure of privacy (e.g.~\cite{EvfimievskiGeSr03}). Accordingly, our
uniform notion of mutual information is as follows: we say that the
distribution $\channelprob$ generating $\channelrv$ from $\statrv$ is
private only if $\information(\statrv; \channelrv)$ is small for all
possible distributions $\statprob$ on $\statrv$, possibly subject to
some constraints.
In this setting, we design procedures that allow consistent estimation
of the parameter $\optvar^*$ minimizing $\risk(\optvar) =
\E_\statprob[\loss(\statrv, \optvar)]$, for any convex loss $\loss$
and distribution $\statprob$ on the data $\statrv$. One central
consequence of our analysis is a sharp characterization of the
\emph{excess risk},
\begin{align}
\Excess_n(\what{\optvar}; \loss, \optdomain) & \defn \E
\left[\risk\left(\what{\optvar}(\channelrv_1, \ldots,
\channelrv_n)\right)\right] - \inf_{\optvar \in \optdomain}
\risk(\optvar),
\end{align}
associated with any estimator $\what{\optvar}$ that satisfies a pre-specified
privacy constraint. For particular collections $\lossset$ of loss functions
$\loss \in \lossset$, we bound the minimax convergence rate of all estimation
procedures. More precisely, let us focus on $d$-dimensional problems,
i.e., those for which the domain $\optdomain \subset \R^d$ and observations
$\statrv_i \in \R^d$. If one wishes to uniformly guarantee a level of privacy
$\information(\statrv_i; \channelrv_i) \le \information^*$, then we show that
there exists a constant $a(\lossset, \optdomain) \in \R_+$---dependent only on
the properties of the collection $\lossset$ and domain $\optdomain$---such
that \emph{for any} estimator $\what{\optvar}$ for the family $\lossset$, the
excess risk is lower bounded as
\begin{subequations}
\label{eqn:main-bounds}
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:main-lower-bound}
\sup_{\loss \in \lossset}
\Excess_n(\what{\optvar}; \loss, \optdomain) & \geq
\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{\information^*}} \, \frac{a(\lossset,
\optdomain)}{\sqrt{n}},
\end{align}
where $a(\lossset, \optdomain)$ is a constant characterizing the
non-private minimax rate of estimation (see,
e.g.,~\citet{AgarwalBaRaWa12} for such constants).
Moreover, we also prove that there exists another constant $b(\lossset,
\optdomain) \ge a(\lossset, \optdomain)$ and provide explicit estimators
$\what{\optvar}$ with privacy guarantee $\information^*$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:main-upper-bound}
\sup_{\loss \in \lossset}
\Excess_n(\what{\optvar}; \loss, \optdomain) & \leq
\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{\information^*}} \, \frac{b(\lossset,
\optdomain)}{\sqrt{n}}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Turning to the setting of differential privacy, we are able to show similar
results to the bounds~\eqref{eqn:main-lower-bound}
and~\eqref{eqn:main-upper-bound}. Namely, there exist constants $b'(\lossset,
\optdomain) \ge a'(\lossset, \optdomain)$ such that if we wish to guarantee
$\diffp$-differential privacy, then for any estimator $\what{\optvar}$, the
risk is lower bounded by
\begin{subequations}
\label{eqn:main-bounds-diffp}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:main-lower-bound-diffp}
\sup_{\loss \in \lossset} \Excess_n(\what{\optvar}; \loss, \optdomain)
\ge \frac{\sqrt{d}}{\diffp} \,
\frac{a'(\lossset, \optdomain)}{\sqrt{n}},
\end{equation}
while there exist estimators $\what{\optvar}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:main-upper-bound-diffp}
\sup_{\loss \in \lossset} \Excess_n(\what{\optvar}; \loss, \optdomain)
\le \frac{\sqrt{d}}{\diffp} \,
\frac{b'(\lossset, \optdomain)}{\sqrt{n}}.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Here again, the constant $a'(\lossset, \optdomain)$ controls the non-private
minimax rate of estimation.
Finally, we show that stochastic gradient descent is one procedure
that achieves the above upper bounds, and moreover, that the ratios
$b(\lossset, \optdomain) / a(\lossset, \optdomain)$ and $b'(\lossset,
\optdomain) / a'(\lossset, \optdomain)$ are bounded above by a
universal (numerical) constant. The bounds~\eqref{eqn:main-bounds}
and~\eqref{eqn:main-bounds-diffp} thus establish and quantify
explicitly the sharp tradeoff between learning and statistical
estimation and the amount of privacy provided to the population. More
concretely, we can evaluate the effective sample size of learning
procedures receiving private observations. In the case of
information-based privacy, the sample size of any learning procedure
receiving maximally privatized observations from the data providers is
decreased from $n$ to roughly $n \information^* / d$, while in
differentially private settings, we see that the effective sample size
decreases from $n$ to $n \diffp^2 / d$. The first of these is perhaps
intuitive: in rough terms, a $d$-dimensional observation $\statrv_i$
contains about $d$-bits of information, and so we expect a loss in
(statistical) efficiency by a factor $\information^* / d$. For the
second, recent results suggest scalings of $\information^* \approx
\diffp^2$ (e.g.~\cite[Lemma 3.2]{DworkRoVa10}), so the loss $n \mapsto
n \diffp^2 / d$ is also perhaps intuitive.
Our subsequent analysis will build on this favorable property of
gradient-based methods. Indeed, in the remainder of the paper, we
will assume that the communication protocol---except in the
non-interactive $\diffp$-differentially private case, which allows any
protocol---by which data is conveyed to the learner $\method$ is based
on (sub)gradients of the loss. As further motivation for this choice,
note that the subgradient (more generally, a score function) of the
loss $\loss$ is asymptotically sufficient in the sense
of~\citet{LeCam56}. A bit more precisely, gradients (in an asymptotic
sense) contain \emph{all} of the statistical information for risk
minimization problems. Secondly, estimation procedures based on
stochastic gradient information are asymptotically
efficient~\cite{PolyakJu92}, in the sense of both Bahadur and minimax
efficiency~\cite[Chapter 8]{VanDerVaart98}, and are thus essentially
sample optimal; they also have minimax-optimality guarantees in
finite-sample settings~\cite{AgarwalBaRaWa12}. Moreover, many
estimation procedures are
gradient-based~\cite{NemirovskiYu83,BoydVa04}, and distributed
optimization procedures that send subgradient information across a
network to a centralized procedure $\method$ are natural
(e.g.~\cite{BertsekasTs89}). Our arguments also show that in many
settings, disguising subgradients is equivalent to disguising the data
$\statrv$ itself. Thus, as an additional consequence of our
gradient-based focus, our algorithmic bounds also apply in streaming
and online settings, requiring only a fixed-size memory footprint.
\subsection{Outline and techniques}
We spend the remainder of the paper deriving the
bounds~\eqref{eqn:main-bounds} and \eqref{eqn:main-bounds-diffp}. Our
route to obtaining these bounds is based on a two-part analysis.
First, we consider saddle points of the mutual information
$\information(\statrv; \channelrv)$, when viewed as a function of the
distribution $\statprob$ of $\statrv$ and the conditional distribution
$\channelprob(\cdot \mid \statrv)$ of $\channelrv$, under natural
constraints that still allow estimation. We consider related saddle
points for differentially private conditional distributions. Having
computed these saddle points, we can apply information-theoretic
techniques for obtaining lower bounds on estimation and
optimization~\cite{YangBa99,AgarwalBaRaWa12} to prove the results of
the form~\eqref{eqn:main-lower-bound}
or~\eqref{eqn:main-lower-bound-diffp}. Our upper bounds then follow
by application of known convergence rates for computationally
efficient methods, such as the stochastic gradient and mirror descent
algorithms~\cite{NemirovskiYu83,NemirovskiJuLaSh09}. We provide full
proofs---except for technical results deferred to appendices---and a
more complete outline of our technique in
Section~\ref{sec:optimal-rate-proofs}.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. We give a precise
definition of our notions of local privacy in
Section~\ref{sec:optimal-local-privacy}. Section~\ref{sec:optimal-rates} is
devoted to information-theoretic lower bounds on the convergence rate of any
statistical method $\method$ in terms of the mutual information
$\information^*$ between what the method $\method$ observes and each sample
$\statrv_i$. We characterize the unique privacy guaranteeing distributions in
Section~\ref{sec:saddle-points}, which provides a constructive mechanism for
trading off privacy and learning. We present our conclusions in
Section~\ref{sec:discussion}.
\paragraph{Notation}
Before continuing, we give our notation and a few standard definitions. The
\emph{Kullback-Leibler (KL)} divergence between distributions $P$ and $Q$
defined on a set $S$, where $P$ and $Q$ are assumed to have densities $p$ and
$q$ with respect to a base measure $\nu$\footnote{This is no loss of
generality, as $P$ and $Q$ are absolutely continuous with respect to $\nu =
\half(P + Q)$.} is given by
\begin{equation*}
\dkl{P}{Q}
\defeq \int_S p(s) \log\frac{p(s)}{q(s)} d\nu(s).
\end{equation*}
Similarly, the \emph{total-variation distance} between the distributions
$P$ and $Q$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\tvnorm{P - Q}
\defeq \sup_{A \subset S}
\left|P(A) - Q(A)\right|
= \half \int_S |p(s) - q(s)| d\nu(s).
\end{equation*}
For a convex function $f : \R^d \rightarrow \R \cup \{+\infty\}$, the
subgradient set $\partial f(\optvar)$ of $f$ at the point $\optvar$ is
\begin{equation*}
\partial f(\optvar) \defeq \left\{ g \in \R^d : f(\optvar') \ge
f(\optvar) + g^\top(\optvar' - \optvar), ~ \mbox{for~all} ~ \optvar'
\in \R^d \right\}.
\end{equation*}
We use $\partial \loss(\statsample, \optvar)$ to denote the subgradient
set of the function $\optvar \mapsto \loss(\statsample, \optvar)$, and for a
convex function, $\nabla \loss(\statsample, \optvar)$ denotes an arbitrary
element of $\partial \loss(\statsample, \optvar)$. We say that a function $f$
is $\lipobj$-Lipschitz with respect to the norm $\norm{\cdot}$ over the set
$\optdomain$ if
\begin{equation*}
\left|f(\optvar) - f(\optvar')\right| \le
\lipobj \norm{\optvar - \optvar'}
~~~ \mbox{for~all}~ \optvar, \optvar' \in \optdomain.
\end{equation*}
The notation $\norm{\cdot}_p$ denotes a standard $\ell_p$-norm. We use the
abbreviation r.c.d.\ throughout for regular conditional
distribution~\cite{Billingsley86}. The extreme points of a set $C \subset
\R^d$ are denoted by $\extreme(C)$, the convex hull of $C$ is denoted by
$\conv(C)$, and the support of a distribution $\statprob$ is denoted $\supp
\statprob$. We say values $a_n \asymp b_n$ if $\lim_n (a_n / b_n) = 1$. The
symbol $e_i$ denotes the $i$th standard basis vector in $\R^d$. Lastly, the
symbol $\rightrightarrows$ denotes a set-valued
mapping~\cite{HiriartUrrutyLe96ab}.
\section{Problem Formulation}
\label{sec:optimal-local-privacy}
We begin with a formal description of the communication protocol by
which information about the random variables $\statrv$ is communicated
to the procedure $\method$. We then define the notion of
\emph{optimal local privacy} studied in this paper and the minimax
framework in which we state our main results.
\subsection{Communication protocol}
\label{sec:communication-protocol}
In this paper, we focus on statistical learning procedures that have
access to data through the subgradients $\partial \loss(\statrv,
\optvar)$ of the loss functions. More formally, at each round, the
method $\method$ is given access to a random vector $\channelrv_i$
such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:unbiased-subgradient}
\E[\channelrv_i \mid \statrv_i, \optvar] \in \partial
\loss(\statrv_i, \optvar),
\end{equation}
where $\optvar \in \optdomain$ is a parameter chosen by the method.
In Appendix~\ref{appendix:biased-subgradient} we present an argument
that shows that the unbiasedness of the subgradient
inclusion~\eqref{eqn:unbiased-subgradient} is not only intuitively
appealing but is, in a certain sense, necessary.
\noindent In detail, our communication protocol consists of the
following three steps:
\begin{itemize}
\item the method $\method$ sends the parameter vector $\optvar$ to the
owner of the $i$th sample $\statrv_i$;
\item owner $i$ computes a subgradient vector $g \in \partial
\loss(\statrv_i, \optvar)$ to be communicated privately;
\item the vector $\channelrv_i$ is communicated to $\method$ under the
constraint that
\begin{align*}
\E[\channelrv_i \mid \statrv_i, \optvar] = g \in \partial
\loss(\statrv_i, \optvar).
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
We assume throughout that there is a compact set $C \subset \R^d$ such
that $\partial \loss(x, \optvar) \subseteq C$ for all pairs
\mbox{$(\optvar, x) \in \optdomain \times \statdomain$.} Our goal is
``disguise'' the subgradient information with a random variable
$\channelrv$ satisfying $\channelrv \in D$, for some compact set $D$
such that $C \subset \interior D \subset \R^d$. For instance, a
common choice of these sets are norm balls, say of the form
\begin{equation*}
C = \{ g \in \R^d : \norm{g} \leq \lipobj \},
\quad \mbox{and} \quad D = \{ g \in \R^d :
\norm{g} \leq M \},
\end{equation*}
where $\norm{\cdot}$ is a given norm on $\R^d$, and the radius choice $M >
\lipobj$ ensures that $C \subset \interior D$. This choice covers a variety
of online optimization and stochastic approximation
algorithms~\cite{Zinkevich03,BeckTe03,NemirovskiJuLaSh09,AgarwalBaRaWa12},
for which it is assumed that for any $\statsample \in \statdomain$ and
$\optvar \in \optdomain$, if $g \in \partial \loss(x, \optvar)$ then $\norm{g}
\le \lipobj$ for some norm $\norm{\cdot}$. We may obtain privacy by allowing
perturbation of the subgradient $g$, which is then required to live in a
(larger) norm ball of radius $M > \lipobj$.
\subsection{Optimal local privacy}
Suppose that $\statrv$ has distribution $\statprob$, and for each
$\statsample \in \statdomain$, let $\channelprob(\cdot \mid
\statsample)$ denote the regular conditional probability measure of
$\channelrv$ given that $\statrv = x$. This pair defines the marginal
distribution $\channelprob(\cdot)$ via $\channelprob(A) =
\E[\channelprob(A \mid \statrv)]$, where the expectation taken with
respect to $\statrv \sim \statprob$. The mutual information between
$\statrv$ and $\channelrv$ is the expected Kullback-Leibler (KL)
divergence between $\channelprob(\cdot \mid \statrv)$ and
$\channelprob(\cdot)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:formal-information-def}
\information(\statprob, \channelprob) = \information(\statrv;
\channelrv) \defeq \E_\statprob \left [ \dkl{\channelprob(\cdot \mid
\statrv)}{\channelprob(\cdot)} \right].
%
%
\end{equation}
We view the problem of privacy as a game between the adversary
controlling $\statprob$ and the data owners, who use $\channelprob$ to
obscure the samples $\statrv$. In particular, we say a distribution
$\channelprob$ guarantees a level of privacy $\information^*$ if and
only if $\sup_\statprob \information(\statprob, \channelprob) \le
\information^*$. Note that this guarantee is worst-case, ensuring
that for any choice of distribution $\statprob$, the publicly
available random variable $\channelrv$ provides at most mutual
information $\information^*$ about the sample $\statrv$.
Our goal is to find a saddle point $\statprob^*, \channelprob^*$ such
that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:saddle-point}
\sup_\statprob \information(\statprob, \channelprob^*)
\le \information(\statprob^*, \channelprob^*)
\le \inf_\channelprob \information(\statprob^*, \channelprob),
\end{equation}
where the first supremum is taken over all distributions $\statprob$ on
$\statrv$ such that $\nabla\loss(\statrv, \optvar) \in C$ with
$\statprob$-probability 1, and the infimum is taken over all regular
conditional distributions $\channelprob$ such that if $\channelrv \sim
\channelprob(\cdot \mid \statrv)$ (meaning that $\channelrv$ is drawn from
$\channelprob$ conditional on $\statrv$), then $\channelrv \in D$ and
$\E_\channelprob[\channelrv \mid \statrv, \optvar] = \nabla\loss(\statrv,
\optvar)$. Indeed, if we can find $\statprob^*$ and $\channelprob^*$
satisfying the saddle point~\eqref{eqn:saddle-point}, then combination with
the trivial direction of the max-min inequality
yields
\begin{equation*}
\sup_\statprob \inf_\channelprob \information(\statprob, \channelprob)
= \information(\statprob^*, \channelprob^*)
= \inf_\channelprob \sup_\statprob \information(\statprob, \channelprob).
\end{equation*}
To fully formalize this idea and our notions of privacy, we define two
collections of probability measures and associated losses.
For sets $C \subset D \subset
\R^d$, we define the source set
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\sourcedistset[C]
\defeq \left\{\mbox{Distributions}~ \statprob
~\mbox{such~that}~ \supp \statprob \subset C \right\}
\label{eqn:source-distribution-set}
\end{equation}
and the set of communicating
distributions as the following regular conditional distributions (r.c.d.'s):
\begin{equation}
\channeldistset[C, D]
\defeq \left\{\mbox{r.c.d.'s~}
\channelprob ~ \mbox{s.t.} ~
\supp \channelprob(\cdot \mid c) \subset D
~ \mbox{and} ~
\int_D \channelval d\channelprob(\channelval \mid c) = c
~ \mbox{for~}c \in C
\right\}.
\label{eqn:channel-distribution-set}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
The definitions~\eqref{eqn:source-distribution-set}
and~\eqref{eqn:channel-distribution-set} formally define the sets over which
we may take infima and suprema in the saddle point calculations, and they
capture what may be communicated. The conditional distributions $\channelprob
\in \channeldistset[C, D]$ are defined so that for any loss $\loss$ with
$\nabla \loss(\statsample, \optvar) \in C$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\E_\channelprob[\channelrv \mid \statrv = \statsample, \optvar]
\defeq \int_D \channelval d\channelprob\left(\channelval
\mid \nabla \loss(\statsample, \optvar)\right)
= \nabla \loss(\statsample,
\optvar).
\end{equation*}
We now make the following key definition:
\begin{definition}
\label{def:optimal-local-privacy}
The conditional distribution $\channelprob^*$ satisfies \emph{\olp} for the
sets \mbox{$C \subset D \subset \R^d$} if
\begin{equation*}
\sup_\statprob
\information(\statprob, \channelprob^*)
=
\inf_\channelprob
\sup_\statprob
\information(\statprob, \channelprob)
\end{equation*}
where the supremum is taken over distributions $\statprob \in
\sourcedistset[C]$ and the infimum is taken over regular conditional
distributions $\channelprob \in \channeldistset[C, D]$. We say
$\channelprob^*$ satisfies \emph{\olp at level $\information^*$} if
in addition $\sup_{\statprob} \information(\statprob, \channelprob^*) =
\information^*$.
\end{definition}
We also formulate a corresponding notion of local optimality in the
differentially private setting. For given sets $C \subset D$, define
the differential privacy measure
\begin{equation}
\optdiffp(C, D) \defeq
\inf_\channelprob
\log\left[
\sup_{S \in \sigma(D)}
\sup_{\statsample, \statsample' \in C}
\frac{\channelprob(S \mid \statrv = \statsample)}{
\channelprob(S \mid \statrv = \statsample')}\right],
\label{eqn:optimal-diffp}
\end{equation}
where the infimum is taken over all regular conditional distributions
$\channelprob \in \channeldistset[C, D]$ such that $\E_\channelprob[\channelrv
\mid \statrv = \statsample] = \statsample$. We define \olpd as follows:
\begin{definition}
\label{def:local-diffp}
The conditional distribution $\channelprob^*$
satisfies \emph{\olpd} for the sets $C \subset D \subset \R^d$
if $\channelprob^* \in \channeldistset[C, D]$ and
\begin{enumerate}[1.]
\item The distribution $\channelprob^*$ is $\optdiffp(C, D)$-differentially
private.
\item We have
$\sup_\statprob \information(\statprob, \channelprob^*) \le \sup_\statprob
\information(\statprob, \channelprob)$, for all $\optdiffp(C,
D)$-differentially private $\channelprob \in \channeldistset[C, D]$, where
the supremum is taken over all distributions $\statprob \in
\sourcedistset[C]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
If a distribution $\channelprob^*$ satisfies \olp\ or \olpd, then it
guarantees that even for the worst possible distribution on $\statrv$,
the information communicated about $\statrv$ is limited. (Part of our
results consist in showing that for suitable sets $C \subset D$, it is
possible to attain $\optdiffp(C, D)$, so it is sensible to, in
addition, choose the distribution that minimizes mutual information.)
In a sense, Definitions~\ref{def:optimal-local-privacy}
and~\ref{def:local-diffp} capture the natural competition between
privacy and learnability. The method $\method$ specifies the set $D$
to which the data $\channelrv$ it receives must belong; the
``teachers,'' or owners of the data $\statrv$, choose the distribution
$\channelprob$ to guarantee as much privacy as possible subject to
this constraint. Using these mechanisms, if we can characterize a
unique distribution $\channelprob^*$ attaining the
infimum~\eqref{eqn:saddle-point} for $\statprob^*$ (and by extension,
for any $\statprob$), then we may study the effects of requiring a
bounded amount of information to be communicated to the method
$\method$ about $\statrv$, which we do in
Section~\ref{sec:optimal-rates}.
\subsection{Minimax error}
Given an estimate $\what{\optvar}$ based on $n$ samples $\statrv$ from a
distribution $\statprob$, we assess its quality in terms of the risk
function~\eqref{eqn:objective}, i.e.\ $\risk(\optvar) = \E[\loss(\statrv,
\optvar)]$. In this section, we describe the minimax framework for
obtaining bounds uniformly over all possible estimators.
Let $\method$ denote any statistical procedure or
method that operates on stochastic gradient samples, and let
$\what{\optvar}_n$ denote the output of $\method$ after receiving $n$
such samples. The excess risk of the method $\method$ on the risk
$\risk(\optvar)$ after receiving $n$ sample gradients is
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:error-metric}
\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)
\defeq \risk(\what{\optvar}_n) - \inf_{\optvar \in \optdomain}
\risk(\optvar)
= \E_\statprob[\loss(\statrv, \what{\optvar}_n)]
- \inf_{\optvar \in \optdomain}\E_\statprob[\loss(\statrv, \optvar)].
\end{equation}
The excess risk is a random variable, since the output
$\what{\optvar}_n$ of the method is random.
In our settings, in addition to the randomness in the sampling
distribution $\statprob$, there is additional randomness from the
perturbation applied to stochastic gradients of the objective
$\loss(\statrv, \cdot)$ to mask $\statrv$ from the statistitician or
method $\method$. Let $\channelprob$ denote the regular conditional
probability---the channel distribution---whose conditional part is
defined on the range of the (set-valued) subgradient mapping $\partial
\loss(\statrv, \cdot) : \optdomain \rightrightarrows \R^d$. Since the
output $\what{\optvar}_n$ of the statistical procedure $\method$ is a
random function of both $\statprob$ and $\channelprob$, we take the
expectation and measure the expected sub-optimality of the risk
according to $\statprob$ and $\channelprob$. We let $\lossset$ denote
a collection of loss functions, where for a distribution $\statprob$
on $\statdomain$, the set $\lossset(\statprob)$ denotes the losses
\mbox{$\loss : \supp \statprob \times \optdomain \rightarrow \R_+$}
belonging to $\lossset$. The \emph{minimax error} is then given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:minimax-error}
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain) \defeq
\inf_{\method} \sup_\statprob \sup_{\loss \in \lossset(\statprob)}
\E_{\statprob, \channelprob}[
\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)],
\end{equation}
where the expectation is taken over the random samples $\statrv \sim
\statprob$ and $\channelrv \sim \channelprob(\cdot \mid \statrv,
\optvar)$. In this paper, we provide characterizations of the minimax
error~\eqref{eqn:minimax-error} for several classes of loss functions
$\lossset(\statprob)$, giving sharp results when the privacy
distribution $\channelprob$ satisfies \olp\ for any loss function
$\loss \in \lossset(\statprob)$ and distribution $\statprob$.
\subsection{Proof of Corollary~\ref{corollary:lone-asymptotic-expansion}}
\label{appendix:lone-asymptotic-expansion}
By scaling, we may assume that $M \ge L = 1$ in the proof of the corollary.
First, we claim that as $\gamma \rightarrow 0$, the following
expansion holds:
\begin{equation}
\log(2d) - \log\left(e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma}
+ 2d - 2\right)
+ \gamma \frac{e^\gamma}{e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + 2d - 2}
- \gamma \frac{e^{-\gamma}}{e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + 2d - 2}
= \frac{\gamma^2}{2d} + \Theta\left(\frac{\gamma^4}{d}\right).
\label{eqn:lone-asymptotic-expansion}
\end{equation}
Before proving this, we use the
expansion~\eqref{eqn:lone-asymptotic-expansion} to prove
Corollary~\ref{corollary:lone-asymptotic-expansion}. Noting that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{2d - 2 + \sqrt{(2d - 2)^2 + 4(M^2 - 1)}}{2(M - 1)}
= \sqrt{\frac{M + 1}{M - 1}}
+ \frac{d - 1}{M - 1} + \Theta(d^2 / M^2),
\end{equation*}
we see that since $\log(1 + x) = x - x^2/2 + \Theta(x^3)$, we have
$\gamma = \frac{d}{M} + \Theta\left(\frac{d^2}{M^2}\right).$
Thus the mutual information in
Proposition~\ref{proposition:lone-saddle-point} is
\begin{align*}
\information(\statprob^*, \channelprob^*)
& = \frac{\log^2(\sqrt{(M + 1) / (M - 1)} + d / M + \Theta(d^2/M^2))}{2d}
+ \Theta\left(\frac{\log^4(1 + d / M)}{d}\right) \nonumber \\
& = \frac{d}{2M^2} + \Theta\left(\min\left\{\frac{d^3}{M^4},
\frac{\log^4(d)}{d}\right\}\right).
\end{align*}
Now we return to showing the
claim~\eqref{eqn:lone-asymptotic-expansion}. Indeed, define
$f(\gamma) = \log(e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + 2d - 2)$. Letting $f^{(i)}$
denote the $i$th derivative of $f$, we have
\begin{equation*}
f^{(1)}(\gamma) =
\frac{e^\gamma - e^{-\gamma}}{e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + 2d - 2},
~~~~
f^{(2)}(\gamma) =
\frac{(e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma})(2d - 2) + 4}{
(e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + 2d - 2)^2},
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
f^{(3)}(\gamma) =
\frac{-(e^{2\gamma} - e^{-2\gamma})(2d - 2)
- 8(e^\gamma - e^{-\gamma}) + (2d - 2)^2(e^\gamma - e^{-\gamma})}{
(e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + 2d - 2)^3}.
\end{equation*}
Via a Taylor expansion, we have
$f(0) = f(\gamma) - \gamma f^{(1)}(\gamma)
+ \frac{\gamma^2}{2} f^{(2)}(\gamma)
+ \order(f^{(3)}(\gamma) \gamma^3)$, and so
substituting values for $f(\gamma)$ and $f^{(1)}(\gamma)$, we have
\begin{align*}
& \log(2d) - \log\left(e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma}
+ 2d - 2\right)
+ \gamma \frac{e^\gamma}{e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + 2d - 2}
- \gamma \frac{e^{-\gamma}}{e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + 2d - 2} \\
& \qquad\qquad ~ = \frac{(e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma})(2d - 2) + 4}{
(e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + 2d - 2)^2} \cdot \frac{\gamma^2}{2}
+ \order\left(f^{(3)}(\gamma) \gamma^3\right).
\end{align*}
A few simpler Taylor expansions yield that $f^{(3)}(\gamma) = \order(\gamma
/ d)$, which means that all we have left to tackle is $f^{(2)}(\gamma)$.
But noting that
\begin{equation*}
2 \left(e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma}\right)
= 4 \left(1 + \frac{\gamma^2}{2!} + \frac{\gamma^4}{4!} + \cdots\right)
= 4 + \order(\gamma^2)
\end{equation*}
implies that $f^{(2)}(\gamma) = (4d + \order(d \gamma^2)) / 4d^2$, and hence
$(\gamma^2 / 2) f^{(2)}(\gamma) = \gamma^2 / 2d + \order(\gamma^4 / d)$, which
yields the result. \qed
\section{Calculation of the Mutual Information for Sampling Strategies}
\label{appendix:mutual-information-computation}
This appendix is devoted to the proofs of our bounds on mutual information:
Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-mutual-information},
Lemma~\ref{lemma:linf-mutual-information},
Lemma~\ref{lemma:lone-mutual-information},
and Lemma~\ref{lemma:diffp-linear-information}.
Before proving the lemmas, we make an observation that allows us to tensorize
the mutual information, making our arguments simpler (we need only compute the
single observation information $\information(\channelrv_1; \cuberv)$). For
each of Lemmas~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-mutual-information},
\ref{lemma:linf-mutual-information}, \ref{lemma:lone-mutual-information}, and
\ref{lemma:diffp-linear-information}, recall that $\channelrv_1, \ldots,
\channelrv_n$ are constructed based on an evaluation of the subgradient set
$\partial_\optvar \loss(\statrv_i, \optvar)$, where $\statrv_i$ are
independent samples according to a distribution $\statprob(\cdot \mid
\cuberv)$. Then the samples $\channelrv_i$ are conditionally independent of
$\cuberv$ given $\statrv_i$ and the parameters $\optvar$, since $\channelrv$
is a random function of $\partial \loss(\statrv_i, \optvar)$. Our goal is to
upper bound the mutual information between the sequence $\channelrv_1, \ldots,
\channelrv_n$ of observed (stochastic) gradients and the random element
$\cuberv \in \hypercubeset$.
By the general definition of mutual information~\cite[Chapter 5]{Gray90}, it
is no loss of generality to assume (temporarily) that the random variable
$\channelrv_i$ are supported on finite sets. Thus (using the chain rule for
mutual information~\cite[Chapter 5]{CoverTh06,Gray90}) we have the
decomposition
\begin{align*}
\information(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n; \cuberv)
& = \sum_{i=1}^n \left[
H(\channelrv_i \mid \channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_{i-1})
- H(\channelrv_i \mid \cuberv, \channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_{i-1})
\right].
\end{align*}
Let $\optvar_i$ denote the point at which the $i$th gradient is computed.
Then by inspection, we must have
$\optvar_i \in \sigma(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_{i-1})$. Since
$\channelrv_i$ is conditionally independent of $\channelrv_1, \ldots,
\channelrv_{i-1}$ given $\cuberv$ and $\optvar_i$ and conditioning
decreases entropy, we have
\begin{align*}
H(\channelrv_i \mid \channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_{i-1}) -
H(\channelrv_i \mid \cuberv, \channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_{i-1}) &
= H(\channelrv_i \mid \channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_{i-1}) -
H(\channelrv_i \mid \cuberv, \optvar_i) \\
%
& \leq H(\channelrv_i \mid \optvar_i) - H(\channelrv_i \mid \cuberv,
\optvar_i) \\
%
& = \information(\channelrv_i; \cuberv \mid \optvar_i).
\end{align*}
In particular, letting $F_i$ denote the distribution of $\optvar_i$, we have
\begin{align}
\information(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n; \cuberv) & \leq
\sum_{i=1}^n \int_{\optdomain} \information(\channelrv_i; \cuberv
\mid \optvar) dF_i(\optvar)
%
\label{eqn:observed-cube-information}
\leq \sum_{i=1}^n \sup_{\optvar \in \optdomain}
\information(\channelrv_i; \cuberv \mid \optvar).
\end{align}
The representation~\eqref{eqn:observed-cube-information} is the key
to our calculations in this appendix. \\
In addition, the proofs of Lemmas~\ref{lemma:linf-mutual-information}
and~\ref{lemma:lone-mutual-information} require a minor lemma, which we
present here before giving the proofs proper.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:entropy-minimization}
Let $1 > p > \delta > 0$ and $p + \delta \le 1$. Then
\begin{equation*}
(p + \delta) \log(p + \delta) + (p - \delta) \log (p - \delta)
> 2 p \log p.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since the function $p \mapsto f(p) = p \log p$ is strictly convex
over $\openright{0}{\infty}$, we may apply convexity. Indeed,
$p = \half(p + \delta) + \half (p - \delta)$, so
\begin{equation*}
p \log p = f\left(\half(p + \delta) + \half(p - \delta)\right)
< \half f(p + \delta) + \half f(p - \delta),
\end{equation*}
which is the desired result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-mutual-information}}
\label{appendix:mutual-information-computation-linear-linf}
The subgradient set $\partial \loss(X_i; \optvar)$ is
independent of $\optvar$, so we may use the
inequality~\eqref{eqn:observed-cube-information} to bound the mutual
information of $\cuberv$ and a single sample $\channelrv$ while ignoring
the dependence on $\optvar$. Define $M =
M_\infty / \lipobj$. Since the sampling
scheme~\eqref{eqn:lone-linear-samples} is independent per-coordinate, we see
immediately that if $\channelrv_j$ denotes the $j$th coordinate of
$\channelrv$ then
\begin{equation*}
\information(\channelrv; \cuberv)
= H(\channelrv) - H(\channelrv \mid \cuberv)
\le d \log(2) - \sum_{j = 1}^d H(\channelrv_j \mid \cuberv).
\end{equation*}
Since $\cuberv$ is uniformly chosen from one of $2d$ vectors, we
additionally find that
\begin{equation*}
\information(\channelrv; \cuberv)
\le d \left[\log 2 - \frac{1}{2d}\sum_{\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset}
H(\channelrv \mid \cuberv = \cubecorner)\right].
\end{equation*}
By the choice of our sampling scheme for $X$ and $\channelrv$, we see that $H(\channelrv \mid
\cuberv = \cubecorner)$ is identical for each $\cubecorner \in
\hypercubeset$, and we have
\begin{equation*}
\channelprob(\channelrv_j = M_\infty \mid \cuberv_j = \cubecorner_j = 0)
= \channelprob(\channelrv_j = -M_\infty \mid \cuberv_j = \cubecorner_j = 0)
= \half.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, by our choice of sampling scheme,
for the ``on'' index in $\cuberv$, we have
\begin{align*}
\channelprob(\channelrv_j = -M_\infty \mid \cuberv_j = \cubecorner_j = -1)
& = \channelprob(\channelrv_j = M_\infty
\mid \cuberv_j = \cubecorner_j = 1) \\
& = \channelprob(\channelrv_j = M_\infty \mid X_j = 1)
\statprob(X_j = 1 \mid \cuberv_j = \cubecorner_j = 1) \\
& \qquad ~ +
\channelprob(\channelrv_j = M_\infty \mid X_j = -1)
\statprob(X_j = -1 \mid \cuberv_j = \cubecorner_j = 1) \\
& = \left(\frac{M + 1}{2 M}\right) \left(\frac{1 + \delta}{2}\right)
+ \left(\frac{M - 1}{2 M}\right) \left(\frac{1 - \delta}{2} \right)
= \half + \frac{\delta}{2M}.
\end{align*}
Consequently, defining the Bernoulli entropy $h(p) = -p \log p - (1 - p)
\log(1 - p)$, then
\begin{align*}
\information(\channelrv; \cuberv)
& \le d \left[ \log 2 - \frac{1}{2d}
\left((2 d - 2) \log 2 + 2 h \left(\half + \frac{\delta}{2M}\right)
\right)\right] \\
& = \log 2 + \left(\half + \frac{\delta}{2M}\right)
\log\left(\half + \frac{\delta}{2M}\right)
+ \left(\half - \frac{\delta}{2M}\right)
\log\left(\half - \frac{\delta}{2M}\right).
\end{align*}
The concavity of the function $p \mapsto \log(p)$ yields that
$\log(1/2 + p) \le \log(1/2) + 2p$, so
\begin{align*}
\information(\channelrv; \cuberv)
& \le \log 2 + \left(\half + \frac{\delta}{2M}\right)
\left(-\log 2 + \frac{\delta}{M}\right)
+ \left(\half - \frac{\delta}{2M}\right)
\left(-\log 2 - \frac{\delta}{M}\right)
= \frac{\delta^2}{M^2}.
\end{align*}
Making the substitution $M = M_\infty / \lipobj$ completes the proof.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:linf-mutual-information}}
\label{appendix:mutual-information-computation-linf}
By using the inequality~\eqref{eqn:observed-cube-information}, a bound on the
mutual information $\information(\channelrv; \cuberv \mid \optvar)$ implies a
bound on the joint information in the statement of the lemma, so we focus on
bounding the mutual information of a single sample $\channelrv$. In addition,
it is no loss of generality to assume that $\radius = 1$.
Define $M = M_\infty / \lipobj$ to be the multiple of the $\ell_\infty$-norm
of the subgradients that we take, and let $\channelrv_j$ denote the $j$th
coordinate of $\channelrv$. Using the coordinate-wise independence of the
sampling, we have
\begin{equation*}
\information(\channelrv; \cuberv \mid \optvar)
= H(\channelrv \mid \optvar) - H(\channelrv \mid \cuberv, \optvar)
\le d \log(2)
- \sum_{j=1}^d H(\channelrv_j \mid \cuberv_j, \optvar_j).
\end{equation*}
Now consider the distribution of $\channelrv_j$ given $\cuberv_j$ and
$\optvar_j$. By symmetry, the distribution has identical entropy for
any value of $\cuberv_j$, so we may fix $\cuberv = \cubecorner$ and
assume $\cubecorner_j = $ without loss of generality. Then for
$\optvar_j \in (-1, 1)$, the $j$th component of the subgradient
$\partial \loss(X; \optvar)$ is $-X_j$, whence we see that
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{\channelprob(\channelrv_j = M_\infty \mid \cubecorner_j = 1, \optvar_j)} \\
& = \channelprob(\channelrv_j = M_\infty \mid X_j = 1, \optvar_j)
\statprob(X_j = 1 \mid \cubecorner_j = 1)
+ \channelprob(\channelrv_j = M_\infty \mid X_j = -1, \optvar_j)
\statprob(X_j = -1 \mid \cubecorner_j = 1) \\
& = \left(\frac{M - 1}{2M}\right)\left(
\frac{1 + \delta}{2}\right)
+ \left(\frac{M + 1}{2M}\right)\left(\frac{1 - \delta}{2}\right) \\
& = \frac{2M - 2 \delta}{4 M}
= \half - \frac{\delta}{2M}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, $\channelprob(\channelrv_j = -M_\infty \mid \cubecorner_j = 1,
\optvar_j) = \half + \frac{\delta}{2M}$. If $\optvar_j \ge 1$, then we have
that the subgradient $\partial |\optvar_j - \statrv_j| = 1$ with probability
1, and thus
\begin{equation*}
Q(\channelrv_j = M_\infty \mid \cubecorner_j = 1, \optvar_j)
= \left(\frac{M + 1}{2M}\right)\left(\frac{1 + \delta}{2}\right)
+ \left(\frac{M + 1}{2M}\right)\left(\frac{1 - \delta}{2}\right)
= \half,
\end{equation*}
which increases the entropy $H(\channelrv_j \mid \cuberv_j, \optvar_j)$ by
Lemma~\ref{lemma:entropy-minimization}. Thus we see that the value $\optvar_j$
minimizing the entropy $H(\channelrv_j \mid \cuberv_j, \optvar_j)$ is given by
any $\optvar_j \in (-1, 1)$, yielding Bernoulli marginal $(\half + \delta /
2M, \half - \delta / 2M)$ on $\channelrv_j \mid \cuberv_j$. Summarizing, we
have
\begin{equation*}
\information(\channelrv; \cuberv \mid \optvar)
\le d \log(2) + d\left[
\left(\half + \frac{\delta}{2M}\right)
\log\left(\half + \frac{\delta}{2M}\right)
+ \left(\half - \frac{\delta}{2M}\right)
\log\left(\half - \frac{\delta}{2M}\right)\right].
\end{equation*}
As in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-mutual-information},
we use the concavity of $\log$ to see that
\begin{align*}
\information(\channelrv; \cuberv \mid \optvar)
& \le
d \log(2) + d\left[
\left(\half + \frac{\delta}{2M}\right)
(-\log(2) + \delta / M)
+ \left(\half - \frac{\delta}{2M}\right)
(-\log(2) - \delta/ M)\right] \\
& = d \left(\half + \frac{\delta}{2M}\right) \left(\frac{\delta}{M}\right)
+ d \left(\half - \frac{\delta}{2M}\right)
\left(-\frac{\delta}{M}\right)
= \frac{d \delta^2}{M^2}.
\end{align*}
Applying the bound~\eqref{eqn:observed-cube-information} and replacing $M =
M_\infty / \lipobj$ completes the proof.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:lone-mutual-information}}
\label{appendix:mutual-information-computation-lone}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{D_\gamma}}{\ensuremath{D_\gamma}}
Letting $\channelrv$ denote a single subgradient sample using the
conditional distribution $\channelprob$ specified by
Proposition~\ref{proposition:lone-saddle-point},
we prove that
\begin{equation}
\information(\channelrv; \cuberv \mid \optvar) \le \delta^2
\channeldiff^2 \quad \mbox{for any $\optvar \in \R^d$},
\label{eqn:lone-mutual-info-claim}
\end{equation}
which implies the lemma by the
representation~\eqref{eqn:observed-cube-information}. Recall the SVM risk
defined using the individual hinge losses~\eqref{eqn:svm-loss}: by
construction, whenever $\statrv = e_i$, then the loss is equal to $\lipobj
\hinge{\radius - \optvar_i}$. We have
\begin{equation*}
\partial \loss(e_i, \optvar)
= \lipobj \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{if~} \optvar_i > \radius \\
-e_i & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array}\right.
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
\partial \loss(-e_i, \optvar)
= \lipobj \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{if~} \optvar_i < -\radius \\
e_i & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
For the remainder of this proof, we use the shorthand
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{D_\gamma} \defeq e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + 2(d - 2)
\end{equation*}
for the denominator in many of our expressions.
If $\statrv = e_i$, then $\partial \loss(e_i, \optvar) = \lipobj e_i$
or $0$ as $\optvar_i \le \radius$ or $\optvar_i > \radius$.
Therefore, as we wish to communicate $\lipobj e_i$ or $0$,
the construction in Proposition~\ref{proposition:lone-saddle-point} implies
\begin{equation}
\channelprob(\channelrv = M_1 e_i \mid \statrv = e_i, \optvar)
= \begin{cases}
\frac{e^{-\gamma}}{\ensuremath{D_\gamma}} & \mbox{if~} \optvar_i \le \radius \\
\frac{1}{2d} & \mbox{if~} \optvar_i > \radius,
\end{cases}
\label{eqn:l1-conditional-distribution}
\end{equation}
and similarly we have for $j \neq i$ that
\begin{equation}
\channelprob(\channelrv = M_1 e_j \mid \statrv = e_i, \optvar)
= \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{\ensuremath{D_\gamma}}
& \mbox{if~} \optvar_i \le \radius \\
\frac{1}{2d} & \mbox{if~} \optvar_i > \radius.
\end{cases}
\label{eqn:off-l1-conditional-distribution}
\end{equation}
For $\statrv = -e_i$, we have the conditional distribution
parallel to~\eqref{eqn:l1-conditional-distribution}:
\begin{equation*}
\channelprob(\channelrv = M_1 e_i \mid \statrv = -e_i, \optvar)
= \begin{cases}
\frac{e^{\gamma}}{\ensuremath{D_\gamma}} &
\mbox{if~} \optvar_i \ge -\radius \\
\frac{1}{\ensuremath{D_\gamma}} & \mbox{if~} \optvar_i < -\radius.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
For any given $\optvar$, we have that
\begin{equation}
\information(\channelrv; \cuberv \mid \optvar)
= H(\channelrv \mid \optvar) - H(\channelrv \mid \cuberv, \optvar)
\le \log(2d) - \frac{1}{|\hypercubeset|}
\sum_{\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset} H(\channelrv \mid \optvar,
\cuberv = \cubecorner)
\label{eqn:intermediate-lone-information-bound}
\end{equation}
since the choice of $\cuberv$ is uniform and $\channelrv$ takes on at most
$2d$ values. We thus use the conditional
distributions~\eqref{eqn:l1-conditional-distribution}
and~\eqref{eqn:off-l1-conditional-distribution} to compute the entropy
$H(\channelrv \mid \optvar, \cuberv)$ (specifically, the minimal such entropy
across all values of $\optvar$). To do this, we compute the marginal
distribution $\channelprob(\channelval \mid \cubecorner)$, arguing that
$H(\channelrv \mid \optvar, \cuberv)$ is minimal for $\optvar \in \interior
[-\radius, \radius]^d$. When $\optvar_j \in (-\radius, \radius)$ for all $j$,
we have
\begin{align*}
\channelprob(\channelrv = M_1 e_i \mid \cuberv = \cubecorner, \optvar)
& = \sum_{j = 1}^d \channelprob(\channelrv = M_1 e_i \mid
X = e_j, \optvar) \statprob(X = e_j \mid \cuberv = \cubecorner) \\
& \quad ~ + \sum_{j = 1}^d \channelprob(\channelrv = M_1 e_i \mid
X = -e_j, \optvar) \statprob(X = -e_j \mid \cuberv = \cubecorner).
\end{align*}
When $\cubecorner_i = 1$, we thus have that
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\channelprob(\channelrv = M_1 e_i \mid \cuberv = \cubecorner, \optvar)
& =
\frac{1 + \delta}{2d} \frac{e^{-\gamma}}{\ensuremath{D_\gamma}}
+ \frac{1 - \delta}{2d} \frac{e^\gamma}{\ensuremath{D_\gamma}}
+ \sum_{j \neq i}
\frac{1}{\ensuremath{D_\gamma}}
\left(\frac{1 + \delta \cubecorner_j}{2 d}
+ \frac{1 - \delta \cubecorner_j}{2 d}\right) \nonumber \\
& = \frac{e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + \delta (e^{-\gamma} - e^\gamma)}{
2d \ensuremath{D_\gamma}}
+ \frac{d - 1}{d \ensuremath{D_\gamma}}
= \frac{1}{2d} +
\frac{\delta (e^{-\gamma} - e^\gamma)}{2d \ensuremath{D_\gamma}}
\label{eqn:l1-marginal-conditional-a},
\end{align}
and under the same condition,
\begin{align}
Q(\channelrv = -M_1 e_i \mid A = \cubecorner, \optvar)
= \frac{e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} +
\delta(e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma})}{2d \ensuremath{D_\gamma}}
+ \frac{d - 1}{d \ensuremath{D_\gamma}}
= \frac{1}{2d}
+ \frac{\delta (e^\gamma - e^{-\gamma})}{2d \ensuremath{D_\gamma}}.
\label{eqn:l1-marginal-conditional-b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
If for any (possibly multiple) indices $j$ we have $\optvar_j \not \in
(-\radius, \radius)$, then via a bit of algebra and the conditional
distributions~\eqref{eqn:l1-conditional-distribution}
and~\eqref{eqn:off-l1-conditional-distribution}, we see that there exists an
$\epsilon \in (0, 1)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
Q(\channelrv = M_1 e_i \mid \cuberv = \cubecorner, \optvar)
= \epsilon \frac{1}{2 d} + (1 - \epsilon)
\left(\frac{1}{2d}
+ \frac{\delta (e^{-\gamma} - e^\gamma)}{2d \ensuremath{D_\gamma}} \right).
\end{equation*}
Lemma~\ref{lemma:entropy-minimization} then implies that if $\optvar \in
\interior[-\radius, \radius]^d$ while $\optvar' \not \in \interior[-\radius,
\radius]^d$, then
\begin{equation*}
H(\channelrv \mid \optvar, \cuberv = \cubecorner)
< H(\channelrv \mid \optvar', \cuberv = \cubecorner).
\end{equation*}
Since we seek an upper bound on the mutual information, we may thus assume
without loss of generality that $\optvar \in \interior[-\radius, \radius]^d$.
Now we compute the entropy $H(\channelrv \mid \optvar, \cubecorner)$ using the
marginal conditional distributions~\eqref{eqn:l1-marginal-conditional-a}
and~\eqref{eqn:l1-marginal-conditional-b}, which describe $\channelrv \mid
\cuberv$ when $\optvar \in \interior[-\radius, \radius]^d$. Indeed, recall the
definition in the statement of the lemma of the difference $\channeldiff$.
For $\channelval \in \{\pm M_1 e_j\}_{j=1}^d$, define the relation
$\channelval \sim \cubecorner$ to mean that if $\channelval = M_1 e_i$, then
$\cubecorner_i = 1$ and if $\channelval = -M_1 e_i$ then $\cubecorner_i = -1$.
We then see that the entropy is
\ifdefined\usejournalmargins
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{H(\channelrv \mid \optvar, \cuberv = \cubecorner)
= -\sum_{\channelval \sim \cubecorner}
\channelprob(\channelval \mid \cubecorner, \optvar)
\log \channelprob(\channelval \mid \cubecorner, \optvar)
- \sum_{\channelval \not\sim \cubecorner}
\channelprob(\channelval \mid \cubecorner, \optvar)
\log \channelprob(\channelval \mid \cubecorner, \optvar)} \\
& \qquad\quad ~
= -d\left(\frac{1}{2d} + \frac{\delta\channeldiff}{2d}\right)
\log\left(\frac{1}{2d} + \frac{\delta\channeldiff}{2d}\right)
- d \left(\frac{1}{2d} - \frac{\delta\channeldiff}{2d}\right)
\log\left(\frac{1}{2d} - \frac{\delta\channeldiff}{2d}\right).
\end{align*}
\else
\begin{align*}
H(\channelrv \mid \optvar, \cuberv = \cubecorner)
& = -\sum_{\channelval \sim \cubecorner}
\channelprob(\channelval \mid \cubecorner, \optvar)
\log \channelprob(\channelval \mid \cubecorner, \optvar)
- \sum_{\channelval \not\sim \cubecorner}
\channelprob(\channelval \mid \cubecorner, \optvar)
\log \channelprob(\channelval \mid \cubecorner, \optvar) \\
& = -d\left(\frac{1}{2d} + \frac{\delta\channeldiff}{2d}\right)
\log\left(\frac{1}{2d} + \frac{\delta\channeldiff}{2d}\right)
- d \left(\frac{1}{2d} - \frac{\delta\channeldiff}{2d}\right)
\log\left(\frac{1}{2d} - \frac{\delta\channeldiff}{2d}\right).
\end{align*}
\fi
As in the proofs of Lemmas~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-mutual-information}
and~\ref{lemma:linf-mutual-information}, we use the concavity
of $\log(\cdot)$ to see that
\begin{align*}
-H(\channelrv \mid \optvar, \cuberv = \cubecorner)
& = \left(\half + \frac{\delta \channeldiff}{2}\right)
\log\left(\frac{1}{2d} + \frac{\delta \channeldiff}{2d}\right)
+ \left(\half - \frac{\delta \channeldiff}{2}\right)
\log\left(\frac{1}{2d} - \frac{\delta \channeldiff}{2d}\right) \\
& \le \left(\half + \frac{\delta \channeldiff}{2}\right)
\left(-\log(2d) + \delta \channeldiff\right)
+ \left(\half - \frac{\delta \channeldiff}{2}\right)
\left(-\log(2d) - \delta \channeldiff\right) \\
& = -\log(2d) + \delta^2 \channeldiff^2.
\end{align*}
Invoking the earlier bound~\eqref{eqn:intermediate-lone-information-bound}
and adding $\log(2d)$ to the above expression completes the proof of
the claim~\eqref{eqn:lone-mutual-info-claim}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:diffp-linear-information}}
\label{appendix:mutual-information-computation-diffp}
Let $\channelrv_j$ denote the $j$th coordinate of $\channelrv$. We first
argue that conditional on $\cuberv$, the random variable $\channelrv$ has
independent coordinates. Indeed, let $\channeldensity^+ =
\channeldensity(\channelval \mid \statsample)$ for $\channelval$ such that
$\channelval^\top \statsample > k$ and $\channeldensity^- = e^{-\diffp}
\channeldensity^+$. Without loss of generality, we
may take $\cuberv = e_1$, the first basis vector, and hence
\begin{align}
\channelprob(\channelrv = \channelval
\mid \cuberv = e_1)
& = \sum_{\statsample \in \{-1, 1\}^d}
\channelprob(\channelrv = \channelval \mid \statrv = \statsample)
\statprob(\statrv = \statsample \mid \cuberv = e_1) \nonumber \\
& = \frac{1}{2^{d-1}} \sum_{\statsample \in \{-1, 1\}^d}
\channelprob(\channelrv = \channelval \mid \statrv = \statsample)
\cdot \frac{1 + \statsample_1 \delta}{2} \nonumber \\
& = \frac{1}{2^{d-1}} \bigg[
\sum_{\statsample : \<\channelval, \statsample\> > k} \channeldensity^+
\frac{1 + \statsample_1 \delta}{2}
+ \sum_{\statsample : \<\channelval, \statsample\> \le k}
\channeldensity^-
\frac{1 + \statsample_1 \delta}{2}
\bigg]. \label{eqn:prob-z}
\end{align}
Now, if $\channelval_1 = 1$, then
\ifdefined\usejournalmargins
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\statsample : \<\statsample, \channelval\> > k}
\frac{1 + \statsample_1 \delta}{2}
& = \sum_{\statsample : \<\statsample, \channelval\> > k,
\statsample_1 = 1} \frac{1 + \delta}{2}
+ \sum_{\statsample : \<\statsample, \channelval\> > k,
\statsample_1 = -1} \frac{1 - \delta}{2} \\
& = \frac{1 + \delta}{2} C_{d-1}(k - 1) + \frac{1 - \delta}{2} C_{d-1}(k + 1)
\end{align*}
\else
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{\statsample : \<\statsample, \channelval\> > k}
\frac{1 + \statsample_1 \delta}{2}
= \sum_{\statsample : \<\statsample, \channelval\> > k,
\statsample_1 = 1} \frac{1 + \delta}{2}
+ \sum_{\statsample : \<\statsample, \channelval\> > k,
\statsample_1 = -1} \frac{1 - \delta}{2}
= \frac{1 + \delta}{2} C_{d-1}(k - 1) + \frac{1 - \delta}{2} C_{d-1}(k + 1)
\end{equation*}
\fi
and similarly
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{\statsample : \<\statsample, \channelval\> \le k}
\frac{1 + \statsample_1 \delta}{2}
= \frac{1 + \delta}{2} \left(2^{d - 1} - C_{d-1}(k - 1)\right)
+ \frac{1 - \delta}{2} \left(2^{d - 1} - C_{d-1}(k + 1)\right).
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, we find that if $z_1 = -1$, then similar equalities hold,
but with the counters $C_{d-1}(k - 1)$ and $C_{d-1}(k + 1)$ flipped:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\statsample : \<\statsample, \channelval\> > k}
\frac{1 + \statsample_1 \delta}{2}
& = \frac{1 + \delta}{2} C_{d-1}(k + 1) + \frac{1 - \delta}{2} C_{d-1}(k - 1)
\\
\sum_{\statsample : \<\statsample, \channelval\> \le k}
\frac{1 + \statsample_1 \delta}{2}
& = \frac{1 + \delta}{2} \left(2^{d - 1} - C_{d-1}(k + 1)\right)
+ \frac{1 - \delta}{2} \left(2^{d - 1} - C_{d-1}(k - 1)\right).
\end{align*}
In particular, we find that so long as the first coordinate $\channelval_1 =
\channelval_1'$ of $\channelval$ remains constant, then
$\channelprob(\channelrv = \channelval \mid \cuberv = e_1) =
\channelprob(\channelrv = \channelval' \mid \cuberv = e_1)$, and that
we thus have $\channelrv_2, \ldots, \channelrv_d$ are distributed
uniformly at random in $\{-1, 1\}^d$.
We now determine $\channeldensity^+$ and compute the
marginal value $\channelprob(\channelrv_1 = 1 \mid \cuberv = e_1)$. For
the first, we note that
\begin{equation*}
C_d(k) \channeldensity^+ + (2^d - C_d(k)) \channeldensity^- = 1,
~~~ \mbox{or} ~~~
C_d(k) \channeldensity^+ + e^{-\diffp} (2^d - C_d(k)) \channeldensity^+
= 1,
\end{equation*}
which yields the expressions
\begin{equation*}
\channeldensity^+ = \frac{e^\diffp}{(e^\diffp - 1) C_d(k) + 2^d}
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
\channeldensity^- = \frac{1}{(e^\diffp - 1) C_d(k) + 2^d}.
\end{equation*}
By the expression~\eqref{eqn:prob-z} and calculations following, we thus
find that when $\channelval_1 = 1$, we have
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\channeldensity(\channelval \mid e_1)
& = \frac{1}{2^{d-1}} \cdot
\Big[\channeldensity^+
\Big(\frac{1 + \delta}{2} C_{d-1}(k - 1) + \frac{1 - \delta}{2}
C_{d - 1}(k + 1)\Big)
\nonumber \\
& \qquad\qquad\quad ~
+ \channeldensity^-\Big(
\frac{1 + \delta}{2}(2^{d-1} - C_{d-1}(k - 1))
+ \frac{1 - \delta}{2}(2^{d - 1} - C_{d-1}(k + 1))\Big)\Big]
\nonumber \\
& = \frac{1}{2^{d - 1}} \cdot
\Big[2^{d-1} \channeldensity^-
+ \half(\channeldensity^+ - \channeldensity^-)
(C_{d-1}(k - 1) + C_{d-1}(k + 1))
\nonumber \\
& \qquad\qquad\quad ~
+ \frac{\delta}{2}
(\channeldensity^+ - \channeldensity^-)
(C_{d-1}(k - 1) - C_{d-1}(k + 1))\Big],
\label{eqn:diffp-channel-pos}
\end{align}
and similarly when $\channelval_1 = -1$ we have
\begin{align}
\channeldensity(\channelval \mid e_1)
& = \frac{1}{2^{d - 1}} \cdot
\Big[2^{d-1} \channeldensity^-
+ \half(\channeldensity^+ - \channeldensity^-)
(C_{d-1}(k - 1) + C_{d-1}(k + 1)) \nonumber \\
& \qquad\qquad\quad ~
- \frac{\delta}{2}
(\channeldensity^+ - \channeldensity^-)
(C_{d-1}(k - 1) - C_{d-1}(k + 1))\Big].
\label{eqn:diffp-channel-neg}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Now note that
\begin{equation*}
C_{d-1}(k - 1) - C_{d-1}(k + 1)
= \sum_{i=0}^{\ceil{(d - k)/2} - 1} \binom{d - 1}{i}
- \sum_{i=0}^{\ceil{(d - k)/2} - 2} \binom{d - 1}{i}
= \binom{d - 1}{\ceil{(d - k)/2} - 1}
\end{equation*}
and that the difference
\begin{equation*}
\channeldensity^+ - \channeldensity^-
= \frac{e^\diffp - 1}{(e^\diffp - 1) C_d(k) + 2^d}.
\end{equation*}
Recalling the definition of the constant $\Delta$, we thus find from the
expansions~\eqref{eqn:diffp-channel-pos}
and~\eqref{eqn:diffp-channel-neg}---since they must sum to 1---that
\begin{equation}
\channelprob(\channelrv = \channelval \mid \cuberv = e_1)
= \frac{1}{2^{d - 1}} \cdot
\begin{cases}
\half + \frac{\Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)}{2} & \mbox{if~}
\channelval_1 = 1 \\
\half - \frac{\Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)}{2} & \mbox{if~}
\channelval_1 = -1.
\end{cases}
\label{eqn:final-diffp-channel-probability}
\end{equation}
It is clear that similar statements hold in the other symmetric cases
(i.e.\ if $\cuberv = -e_2$, then the probabilities depend on $\channelval_2
= -1$ or $1$).
It remains to use the marginalized
representation~\eqref{eqn:final-diffp-channel-probability} to compute the
bound on the mutual information in the statement of the lemma.
Given $\cuberv = \cubecorner$, $\channelrv \in \{-M, M\}^d$ is uniform
except on the coordinate $j$ for which $\cubecorner_j \neq 0$, by
symmetry. (Marginally, $\channelrv$ is uniform on $\{-M, M\}^d$.)
By a direct calculation, we have
$H(\channelrv) = d \log 2$ and
\begin{equation*}
H(\channelrv \mid \cuberv = e_1)
= \sum_{j = 1}^d H(\channelrv_j \mid \channelrv_{1:j-1}, \cuberv = e_1)
= H(\channelrv_1 \mid \cuberv = e_1)
+ (d - 1) \log 2,
\end{equation*}
and similarly for the other possible values of $\cuberv$. Therefore, using
the probabilities~\eqref{eqn:final-diffp-channel-probability}, we have the
mutual information bound
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{\information(\channelrv; \cuberv)
= H(\channelrv) - H(\channelrv \mid \cuberv)
\le d \log 2 - \frac{1}{2d} \sum_\cubecorner H(\channelrv \mid \cuberv
= \cubecorner)} \\
& = d \log 2
- (d - 1) \log 2 \\
& \quad ~ +
\left(\half + \frac{\Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)}{2}\right)
\log \left(\half + \frac{\Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)}{2}\right)
+ \left(\half - \frac{\Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)}{2}\right)
\log \left(\half - \frac{\Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)}{2}\right) \\
& \le \log 2 + \left(\half + \frac{\Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)}{2}\right)
\left[\log \half + \Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)\right]
+ \left(\half - \frac{\Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)}{2}\right)
\left[\log \half - \Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)\right] \\
& = \Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)^2,
\end{align*}
where the inequality follows from the concavity of $p \mapsto \log(p)$.
\subsection{Bounds on total variation norm}
\label{appendix:tv-norm-bounding}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:tv-norm-bound}
Let $\channelprob_1$ and $\channelprob_{-1}$ be distributions on $\{-1,
1\}$, where
\begin{equation*}
\channelprob_1(\channelrv = \channelval)
= \half + \half\cdot
\begin{cases}
~ \delta & \mbox{if~} \channelval = 1 \\
-\delta & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
\channelprob_{-1}(\channelrv = \channelval)
= \half + \half\cdot
\begin{cases}
-\delta & \mbox{if~} \channelval = 1 \\
~ \delta & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Let $\channelprob_i^n$ denote the $n$-fold product distribution
of $\channelprob_i$. Then for $\delta \in [0, 1/3]$,
\begin{equation*}
\tvnorm{\channelprob_1^n - \channelprob_{-1}^n}
\le \delta \sqrt{(3/2) n}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any two probability distributions $P, Q$, Pinsker's
inequality~\cite{CoverTh06} asserts that the total variation norm is
bounded as \mbox{$\tvnorm{P - Q} \le \sqrt{\dkl{P}{Q} / 2}$.}
Applying this inequality in our setting, we find that
\begin{align*}
\tvnorm{\channelprob_1^n - \channelprob_{-1}^n} & \le \sqrt{\half
\dkl{\channelprob_1^n}{\channelprob_{-1}^n}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\sqrt{n \dkl{\channelprob_1}{\channelprob_{-1}}},
\end{align*}
where we have exploited the product nature of $\channelprob_i^n$. Now
we note that by the concavity of the $\log$, we have (via the
first-order inequality) that $\log\frac{1 + \delta}{1 - \delta} \le 2
\delta / (1 - \delta)$, so
\begin{align*}
\frac{1 + \delta}{2}
\log \frac{\frac{1 + \delta}{2}}{\frac{1 - \delta}{2}}
+ \frac{1 - \delta}{2}
\log \frac{\frac{1 - \delta}{2}}{\frac{1 + \delta}{2}}
& = \frac{1 + \delta}{2}
\log \frac{1 + \delta}{1 - \delta}
+ \frac{1 - \delta}{2} \log \frac{1 - \delta}{1 + \delta}
= \delta \log \frac{1 + \delta}{1 - \delta}
\le \frac{2 \delta^2}{1 - \delta}.
\end{align*}
Assuming that $\delta \le 1/3$, the final term is upper bounded
by $3 \delta^2$.
But of course by definition of $\channelprob_1$ and $\channelprob_{-1}$,
we have
\begin{equation*}
\dkl{\channelprob_1}{\channelprob_{-1}}
= \frac{1 + \delta}{2}
\log \frac{\frac{1 + \delta}{2}}{\frac{1 - \delta}{2}}
+ \frac{1 - \delta}{2}
\log \frac{\frac{1 - \delta}{2}}{\frac{1 + \delta}{2}}
\le 3 \delta^2,
\end{equation*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
We have studied methods for protecting privacy in general statistical
risk minimization problems, and have described general techniques for
obtaining sharp tradeoffs between privacy protection and estimation
rates. The latter are a natural measure of utility for statistical
problems.
We believe that there are a number of interesting open issues and
areas for future work. First, we studied procedures that access each
datum only once, and through a perturbed view $\channelrv_i$ of the
subgradient $\partial \loss(\statrv_i, \optvar)$, which is natural in
the context of convex risk minimization. A natural question is
whether there are restrictions of the class of loss functions so that
a transformed version $(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n)$ of the
data are sufficient for inference. For instance, other
researchers~\cite{ZhouLaWa09,ZhouLiWa09} have studied applications in
which a data matrix $X = [\statrv_1 ~ \cdots ~ \statrv_n]^\top \in
\R^{n \times d}$ is pre-multiplied by a normal matrix $\Phi \in \R^{m
\times n}$, where $m \ll n$, and statistical inference is performed
using $\Phi X$. For problems such as linear regression and PCA, the
resulting estimators enjoy good statistical properties. This
transformation, however, cannot be computed without the entire dataset
at one's disposal. Nonparametric data releases, such as those studied
by~\citet{HallRiWa11}, could provide insights here, though again,
current approaches require the data to be aggregated by a trusted
curator before release.
Our constraints on the privacy-inducing channel distribution
$\channelprob$ require that its support lie in some compact set. We
find this restriction useful, but perhaps it possible to achieve
faster estimation rates if all we require are moment conditions, for
example, $\E_{\channelprob}[\norm{\channelrv - \statrv}_p^2 \mid
\statrv] \le M^2$. A better understanding of general
privacy-preserving channels $\channelprob$ for alternative constraints
to those we have proposed is also desirable. Moreover, one might
consider attempting only to guarantee that $\phi(\statrv)$ is private,
where $\phi$ is some (known) function. For example, members of a
dataset may not care if their genders are known, but more personal
features of $\statrv$ may be more sensitive.
These questions do not appear to have easy answers, especially when we wish to
allow each provider of a single datum to be able to guarantee his or her own
privacy. Nevertheless, we hope that our view of privacy and
the techniques we have developed herein prove fruitful,
and we hope to investigate some of the above issues in future work.
\section{Proofs of Minimax Mutual Information Characterizations}
\label{appendix:saddle-point-proofs}
In this section, we provide the proofs of the results stated in
Section~\ref{sec:saddle-points}, all of which follow a broadly similar
outline. We make use of Lemma~\ref{lemma:extreme-points}
to guarantee that any conditional distribution
$\channelprob$ minimizing the mutual information
$\information(\statprob, \channelprob)$ must be supported on the
extreme points of the set $D$. This allows us to reduce
computing maximal entropies and minimal mutual information values to
finite dimensional convex programs, whose optimality we
can check using results from convex analysis and optimization.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:finite-rotation-information}}
\label{appendix:finite-rotation-information-proof}
We begin by considering $\sup_\statprob$, where $\channelprob^*$ is
defined as in the statement of the theorem. Since the support of
$\channelprob^*$ is finite (there are $m$ extreme points of $D$), we
have
\begin{align*}
\information(\statprob, \channelprob^*)
= \information(\statrv; \channelrv)
= H(\channelrv) - H(\channelrv \mid \statrv)
& \le \log(m) - H(\channelrv \mid \statrv) \\
& = \log(m) - \int H(\channelrv \mid \statrv = x) d\statprob(x).
\end{align*}
Now, for any distribution $\statprob$ on the set $C$ and for any $x \in
\supp \statprob$, we can write $x$ as $x = \sum_i \beta_i(x) u_i$, where
$u_i$ are the extreme points of $C$, and where $\beta_i(x) \ge 0$ and
$\sum_i \beta_i(x) = 1$ (using the Krein-Milman theorem).
Define the individual probability mass functions $q^i$ to be the
maximum entropy p.m.f.~\eqref{eqn:max-ent-q} for each of the extreme points
$u_i$. Then we can define the conditional probability mass function by
\begin{equation*}
q(\cdot \mid x) = \sum_i \beta_i(x) q^i(\cdot).
\end{equation*}
(Without loss of generality, we may assume the $\beta_i$ are
continuous, since the set of extreme points is finite, and thus $q(\cdot
\mid x)$ can be viewed as a regular conditional probability. We can make
this formal using the techniques in the proof of
Lemma~\ref{lemma:extreme-points}.) Denoting $H(q(\cdot \mid x)) \defeq
H(\channelrv \mid \statrv = x)$, we can use the convexity of the negative
entropy to see that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:entropy-convexity}
\information(\statprob, \channelprob^*) \le
\log(m) - \int \sum_i \beta_i(x)
H(q^i(\cdot)) d\statprob(x).
\end{equation}
By symmetry, the entropy $H(q^i(\cdot)) = H(\channelprob^*(\cdot \mid
\statrv = u_i))$ is a constant determined by the maximum entropy
distribution~\eqref{eqn:max-ent-q}, and thus
\begin{equation}
\information(\statprob, \channelprob^*) \le \log(m)
- H(\channelprob^*(\cdot \mid \statrv = u_i)).
\label{eqn:general-finite-p-q-upper-bound}
\end{equation}
Equality in the upper bound~\eqref{eqn:general-finite-p-q-upper-bound} is
attained by taking $\statprob^*$ to be the uniform distribution on the
extreme points $\{u_i\}$ of $C$.
It remains to establish an identical lower bound for
$\information(\statprob^*, \channelprob)$ over all conditional distributions
$\channelprob$ satisfying the constraints of the theorem statement. We know
from Lemma~\ref{lemma:extreme-points} that $\channelprob$ must be supported
on $(1 + \kappa) u_i$ for $i = 1, \ldots, m$. Denoting by $q(\channelval
\mid x)$ the p.m.f.\ of $\channelprob$ conditional on $x$ (for $x$ in the
finite set of extreme points of $C$ that make up the support $\supp
\statprob^*$), we can write minimizing the mutual information as the
parametric convex optimization problem
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:information-minimization}
\minimize_q ~ & \sum_\channelval \left(\sum_x q(\channelval \mid x) p(x)
\right) \log \left(\sum_x q(\channelval \mid x) p(x) \right)
- \sum_x p(x) \sum_\channelval q(\channelval \mid x)
\log q(\channelval \mid x) \\
\subjectto ~ & \sum_\channelval q(\channelval \mid x)
= 1 ~ {\rm for~all~}x,
~~ \sum_\channelval \channelval q(\channelval \mid x)
= x ~ {\rm for~all~}x,
~~ q(\channelval \mid x) \ge 0 ~ {\rm for~all~} x, \channelval.
\nonumber
\end{align}
In the problem~\eqref{eqn:information-minimization}, the sums over
$x$ and $\channelval$ are over the extreme points of $C$ and $D$,
respectively and $p$ is the uniform distribution with $p(x) =
1/m$. Mutual information is convex in the conditional distribution
$q$; moreover,
it is strictly convex except when
$q(\channelval \mid x) = \sum_{x'} q(\channelval \mid x') p(x')$ for
all $x, \channelval$. (This can be seen by
an inspection of the proof of Theorem~2.7.4 by~\citet{CoverTh06}.)
In our case, since $\channelprob^*$ does not
satisfy this equality, the uniqueness of $\channelprob^*$ as the
minimizer of $\information(\statprob^*, \channelprob^*)$ will follow
if we show that $\channelprob^*$ is a minimizer at all.
We proceed to solve the
problem~\eqref{eqn:information-minimization}. Writing $\information(p, q)$
as a shorthand for the mutual information, we introduce Lagrange multiplers
$\theta(x) \in \R$ for the normalization constraints, $\mu(x) \in \R^d$ for
the conditional expectation constraints, and $\lambda(x, \channelval) \ge 0$
for the nonnegativity constraints. This yields the Lagrangian
\ifdefined\usejournalmargins
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{\mc{L}(q, \mu, \lambda, \theta)} \\
& = \information(p, q)
- \sum_{x, \channelval} \lambda(x, \channelval) q(\channelval \mid x)
+ \sum_x \mu(x)^\top \!
\bigg(\sum_\channelval \channelval q(\channelval \mid x) - x\bigg)
+ \sum_x \theta(x) \bigg(\sum_\channelval q(\channelval \mid x) - 1\bigg).
\end{align*}
\else
\begin{equation*}
\mc{L}(q, \mu, \lambda, \theta)
= \information(p, q)
- \sum_{x, \channelval} \lambda(x, \channelval) q(\channelval \mid x)
+ \sum_x \mu(x)^\top
\bigg(\sum_\channelval \channelval q(\channelval \mid x) - x\bigg)
+ \sum_x \theta(x) \bigg(\sum_\channelval q(\channelval \mid x) - 1\bigg).
\end{equation*}
\fi
If we can satisfy the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions (see,
e.g.,~\cite{BoydVa04}) for optimality of the
problem~\eqref{eqn:information-minimization}, we will be done. Taking
derivatives with respect to $q(\channelval \mid x)$, we see
\ifdefined\usejournalmargins
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{\frac{\partial}{\partial q(\channelval \mid x)}
\mc{L}(q, \mu, \lambda, \theta)
= p(x)\left[\log(q(\channelval \mid x)) + 1\right]
- p(x) \log\bigg(\sum_{x'} q(\channelval \mid x') p(x')\bigg)} \\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
~ - q(\channelval) \cdot \frac{1}{q(\channelval)} p(x)
- \lambda(\channelval, x) + \theta(x) +
\mu(x)^\top \channelval \\
& \qquad\quad = p(x) \log q(\channelval \mid x)
- p(x) \log\bigg(\sum_{x'} q(\channelval \mid x') p(x')\bigg)
- \lambda(\channelval, x) + \theta(x) + \mu(x)^\top \channelval,
\end{align*}
\else
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial q(\channelval \mid x)}
\mc{L}(q, \mu, \lambda, \theta)
& = p(x)\left[\log(q(\channelval \mid x)) + 1\right]
- p(x) \log\bigg(\sum_{x'} q(\channelval \mid x') p(x')\bigg) \\
& \quad ~ - q(\channelval) \cdot \frac{1}{q(\channelval)} p(x)
- \lambda(\channelval, x) + \theta(x) +
\mu(x)^\top \channelval \\
& = p(x) \log q(\channelval \mid x)
- p(x) \log\bigg(\sum_{x'} q(\channelval \mid x') p(x')\bigg)
- \lambda(\channelval, x) + \theta(x) + \mu(x)^\top \channelval,
\end{align*}
\fi
where we set $q(\channelval) = \sum_{x'} q(\channelval \mid x')
p(x')$ for shorthand. Now, we use symmetry to note that since we
have chosen $q$ to be the maximum entropy
distribution~\eqref{eqn:max-ent-q} for each $x$ in the extreme
points $\{u_i\}$ of $C$, the marginal $q(\channelval) = \sum_{x'}
q(\channelval \mid x') p(x') = 1/m$ is uniform by the symmetry of
the set $D$ and since $p$ is uniform. In addition, since
$q(\channelval \mid x) > 0$ strictly, we have $\lambda(\channelval,
x) = 0$ by complementarity. Thus, at $q$ chosen to be the maximum
entropy distribution, we can rewrite the derivative of the
Lagrangian
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial q(\channelval \mid x)}
\mc{L}(q, \mu, \lambda, \theta)
= \frac{1}{m} \log q(\channelval \mid x) - \frac{1}{m} \log \frac{1}{m}
+ \theta(x) + \mu(x)^\top \channelval.
\end{equation*}
Recalling the definition~\eqref{eqn:max-ent-q} of $q(\channelval \mid x)$,
and denoting the maximum entropy parameters $\mu$ there by $\mu^*(x)$, we
have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial q(\channelval \mid x)}
\mc{L}(q, \mu, \lambda, \theta)
= -\frac{1}{m} \mu^*(x)^\top \channelval + \frac{1}{m}
\log\left(\sum_{\channelval'} \exp(-\mu^*(x)^\top \channelval')\right)
- \frac{1}{m} \log \frac{1}{m} + \theta(x) + \mu(x)^\top \channelval.
\end{equation*}
Now, by inspection we may set
\begin{equation*}
\theta(x) = \frac{1}{m} \log \frac{1}{m}
- \frac{1}{m} \log\left(\sum_{\channelval'}
\exp(-\mu^*(x)^\top \channelval')\right)
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
\mu(x) = \frac{1}{m} \mu^*(x),
\end{equation*}
and we satisfy the KKT conditions for the mutual information minimization
problem~\eqref{eqn:information-minimization}.
Summarizing, the conditional distribution $\channelprob^*$ specified in the
statement of the theorem as the maximum entropy
distribution~\eqref{eqn:max-ent-q} satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\inf_\channelprob \information(\statprob^*, \channelprob)
\ge \information(\statprob^*, \channelprob^*),
\end{equation*}
which, when combined with the first part of the proof, gives the saddle
point inequality
\begin{equation*}
\sup_\statprob \information(\statprob, \channelprob^*)
\le \log(m) - H(q(\cdot \mid \statrv = u_i))
= \information(\statprob^*, \channelprob^*)
\le \inf_\channelprob \information(\statprob^*, \channelprob),
\end{equation*}
as claimed.
\paragraph{Remarks}
In the proof of the theorem, we have defined $\channelprob^*(\cdot
\mid x)$ as a conditional distribution only for $x \in \extreme(C)$,
the extreme points of $C$. This can easily be remedied: take
$\channelprob^*(\cdot \mid x)$ to be the distribution maximizing the
entropy $H(\channelrv \mid \statrv = x)$ for each $x \in C$ under the
constraint that the support of $\channelrv$ be contained in
$\extreme(D)$. This is equivalent to---for each $x \in C$---choosing
$\channelrv = z_i$ for $z_i \in \extreme(D)$, $i = 1, \ldots, m$, with
probability $q_i$, where $q \in \R^m$ solves the entropy maximization
problem
\begin{equation*}
\maximize_{q \in \R^m} ~ -\sum_i q_i \log q_i
~~ \subjectto \sum_i z_i q_i = x,
~ \sum_i q_i = 1, ~ q_i \ge 0.
\end{equation*}
Inspecting the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:finite-rotation-information} (see
the bound~\eqref{eqn:entropy-convexity}) shows that this choice can only
decrease the mutual information $\information(\statrv; \channelrv)$.
Additionally, the strong convexity of the entropy over the simplex guarantees
that the solutions to this optimization problem are continuous
in $x$ (see Chapter~X of~\citet{HiriartUrrutyLe96ab}) so this
distribution $q(\cdot \mid x)$ defines a measurable random variable as
desired.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-saddle-point}}
\label{appendix:linf-saddle-point-proof}
By scaling, we may assume w.l.o.g.\ that $L = 1$ and $M \ge 1$.
Using Theorem~\ref{theorem:finite-rotation-information} (and the
remarks immediately following its proof), we can focus on maximizing
the entropy of the random variable $\channelrv$ conditional on
$\statrv = x$ for each fixed $x \in [-1, 1]^d$. Let $\channelrv_i$
denote the $i$th coordinate of the random vector $\channelrv$; we take
the conditional distribution of $\channelrv_i$ to be independent of
$\channelrv_j$ and let $\channelrv$ be distributed as
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:z-given-x}
\channelrv_i \mid \statrv & =
\begin{cases}
M & \mbox{w.p.}~ \half + \frac{\statrv_i}{2M} \\
-M & \mbox{w.p.} ~
\half - \frac{\statrv_i}{2M}.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Let us now verify that the distribution~\eqref{eqn:z-given-x} maximizes the
entropy $H(\channelrv \mid \statrv = x)$. Indeed, we may fix $x$ (leaving it
implicit in the vector $[q(z)]_z \defeq [q(z \mid x)]_z$), and
we solve the entropy maximization problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:discrete-problem}
\minimize_q ~ - \! H(q) ~~~ \subjectto ~ \sum_\channelval
q(\channelval) = 1, ~ q(\channelval) \ge 0, ~ \sum_\channelval
\channelval q(\channelval) = x,
\end{equation}
where all sums are taken over $\channelval \in \extreme([-M, M]^d) =
\{-M, M\}^d$. Introducing the Lagrange multipliers $\mu
\in \R^d$, $\lambda(\channelval) \ge 0$, and $\theta \in \R$, we find
that problem~\eqref{eqn:discrete-problem} has the Lagrangian
\begin{equation*}
\mc{L}(q, \mu, \lambda, \theta)
= - H(q)
- \sum_\channelval \lambda(\channelval) q(\channelval)
+ \mu^\top \bigg(\sum_\channelval \channelval q(\channelval) - x\bigg)
+ \theta \bigg(\sum_\channelval q(\channelval) - 1\bigg).
\end{equation*}
To find the infimum of the Lagrangian with respect to $q$, we take
derivatives (since we make the identification $q \in \R^{2^d}$). We see that
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial q(\channelval)} \mc{L}(q, \mu, \lambda, \theta)
& = \log(q(\channelval)) + 1
- \lambda(\channelval) + \theta +
\mu^\top \channelval.
\end{align*}
With the definition~\eqref{eqn:z-given-x} of the probability mass function
$q$ (that $\channelval_i$ are independent Bernoulli random variables with parameters
$\half + x_i / 2M$), the coordinate conditional distributions are
\begin{equation*}
q(\channelval_i \mid x_i) = \left(\half + \frac{1}{2M}\right)^{\half
+ \frac{x_i \channelval_i}{2M}} \left(\half -
\frac{1}{2M}\right)^{\half - \frac{x_i \channelval_i}{2M}}.
\end{equation*}
Theorem~\ref{theorem:finite-rotation-information} says that without
loss of generality we may assume that $x \in \{-1, 1\}^d$, the full
probability mass function $q$ can be written
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:hypothesized-conditional}
q(\channelval) = \left(\half + \frac{1}{2M}\right)^{\frac{d}{2} +
\frac{x^\top \channelval}{2M}} \left(\half -
\frac{1}{2M}\right)^{\frac{d}{2} - \frac{x^\top \channelval}{2M}}.
\end{equation}
Plugging the conditional~\eqref{eqn:hypothesized-conditional} results
in
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{\frac{\partial}{\partial q(\channelval)} \mc{L} (q, \mu,
\lambda, \theta)} \\ & = \left(\frac{d}{2} + \frac{x^\top
\channelval}{2M}\right) \log\left(\half + \frac{1}{2M}\right) +
\left(\frac{d}{2} - \frac{x^\top \channelval}{2M}\right)
\log\left(\half - \frac{1}{2M}\right) + 1 - \lambda(\channelval) +
\theta + \mu^\top \channelval \\ & =
\frac{d}{2}\left[\log\left(\half + \frac{1}{2M}\right) +
\log\left(\half - \frac{1}{2M}\right)\right] + \frac{x^\top
\channelval}{2M}\left[\log\left(\half + \frac{1}{2M}\right) -
\log\left(\half - \frac{1}{2M}\right)\right] \\ & \qquad ~ + 1 -
\lambda(\channelval) + \theta + \mu^\top \channelval.
\end{align*}
Performing a few algebraic manipulations with the logarithmic terms,
the final equality becomes
\begin{equation*}
d \log\left(\frac{\sqrt{(M + 1)(M - 1)}}{M}\right)
+ \frac{x^\top \channelval}{M} \log\left(\sqrt{\frac{M + 1}{M - 1}}\right)
+ 1 - \lambda(\channelval) + \theta + \mu^\top \channelval.
\end{equation*}
The complementarity conditions for optimality~\cite{BoydVa04} imply
that $\lambda(\channelval) = 0$, and since the equality constraints in
the problem~\eqref{eqn:discrete-problem} are satisfied, we can choose
$\theta$ and $\mu$ arbitrarily. Taking
\begin{equation*}
\theta = -d \log\left(\frac{\sqrt{(M + 1)(M - 1)}}{M}\right) - 1
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
\mu = -x\frac{1}{M} \log\left(\sqrt{\frac{M + 1}{M - 1}}\right)
\end{equation*}
yields that the partial derivatives of $\mc{L}$ are 0, which shows that
indeed our choice of $\channelprob^*$ is optimal.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition~\ref{proposition:lone-saddle-point}}
\label{appendix:lone-saddle-point-proof}
The proof follows along lines similar to the $\ell_\infty$ case: we
compute the maximum entropy distribution subject to the constraint
that $\E[\channelrv] = x$ for some $x \in \R^d$ with $\lone{x} \le 1$,
and $\channelrv$ must be supported on the extreme points $\pm M e_i$
of the $\ell_1$-ball of radius $M$. (Recall that $e_i \in \R^d$ are
the standard basis vectors.) Based on
Theorem~\ref{theorem:finite-rotation-information}, in order to find
the minimax mutual information, we need only consider the cases where
$x = \pm e_i$ for some $i \in \{1, \ldots, d\}$.
Following this plan, we recall the entropy maximization
problem~\eqref{eqn:discrete-problem}, where now $x = \pm e_i$ and
the sums are over $\channelval \in M \{\pm e_i\}_{i=1}^d$. As in the proof
of Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-saddle-point}, we can write the
Lagrangian and take its derivatives, finding that for $\channelval = \pm M e_i$
we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial q(\channelval)} \mc{L}(q, \mu, \lambda,
\theta) = \log(q(\channelval)) + 1 - \lambda(\channelval) + \theta -
\mu^\top \channelval.
\end{equation*}
Solving for $q(\channelval)$, we find that
\begin{align*}
q(\channelval) & = \exp(\lambda(\channelval) - 1 - \theta)
\exp(\mu^\top \channelval),
\end{align*}
but complementarity~\cite{BoydVa04} guarantees
that $\lambda(\channelval) = 0$ since $q(\channelval) > 0$, and
normalizing we may write $q(\channelval) = \exp(-\mu^\top \channelval)
/ \exp(-\mu^\top \sum_{\channelval'} \channelval')$, where the sum is
over the extreme points of the $\ell_1$-ball of radius $M$. In
particular, $q(Me_i) \propto e^{-\mu_i}$ and $q(-Me_i) \propto
e^{\mu_i}$. Without loss of generality, let $x = e_i$. Symmetry
suggests we take (and we verify this to be true)
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:symmetric-l1-q}
q(\channelval) & = \exp(-1 - \theta) \begin{cases}
\exp(\mu_i) & {\rm if~} \channelval = M e_i \\ \exp(-\mu_i) & {\rm
if~} \channelval = -M e_i \\ \exp(0) & {\rm otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Indeed, with the choice~\eqref{eqn:symmetric-l1-q} of $q$, we have
$q(M e_j) - q(-M e_j) = 0$ for $j \neq i$, while (setting $\gamma =
\mu_i$ and normalizing appropriately)
\begin{equation*}
q(M e_i) - q(-M e_i) = \frac{e^{\gamma}}{e^{-\gamma} + e^\gamma + 2(d - 1)}
- \frac{e^{-\gamma}}{e^{-\gamma} + e^\gamma + 2(d - 1)}.
\end{equation*}
Thus, if we can solve the equation $Mq(Me_i) - Mq(-M e_i) = 1$, we will be
nearly done. To that end, we write
\begin{equation*}
\frac{e^\gamma - e^{-\gamma}}{e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + 2 (d - 1)}
= \frac{1}{M}
~~~ \mbox{or} ~~~
\beta - \beta^{-1}
= \frac{1}{M} \left(\beta + \beta^{-1} + 2(d - 1)\right),
\end{equation*}
where we identified $\beta = e^\gamma$. Multiplying both sides by $\beta$,
we have a quadratic equation in $\beta$:
\begin{equation*}
\beta^2 - 1 = \frac{1}{M} \left(\beta^2 + 2\beta(d - 1) + 1\right)
~~~ \mbox{or} ~~~
(M - 1)\beta^2 - 2 (d - 1) \beta - (M + 1) = 0,
\end{equation*}
whose solution is the positive root of
\begin{equation*}
\beta = \frac{2d - 2 \pm \sqrt{(2d - 2)^2 + 4(M^2 - 1)}}{2(M - 1)}
~~~ \mbox{or} ~~~
\gamma = \log\left(\frac{2d - 2 + \sqrt{(2d - 2)^2 + 4(M^2 - 1)}}{2(M - 1)}
\right).
\end{equation*}
By our construction, with $\gamma$ so defined, we satisfy the constraints
that $M\left[q(M e_i) - q(-M e_i)\right] = 1$ and $q(M e_j) - q(-M e_j) = 0$
for $j \neq i$. Since $q$ belongs to the exponential family and satisfies
the constraints, it maximizes the entropy $H(\channelrv)$ as
desired~\cite{CoverTh06}.
Algebraic manipulations and the computation of the conditional entropy
$H(\channelrv \mid \statrv = e_i)$ give the remainder of the statement of
the proposition.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-diffp-saddle-point}}
\label{appendix:proof-linf-diffp-saddle-point}
The outline of the proof of
Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-diffp-saddle-point} is as
follows. Lemma~\ref{lemma:diffp-extreme-points} implies that any distribution
satisfying \olpd\ must be supported on the extreme points of the outer set $D$
(as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:finite-rotation-information}). Given
this result, we reduce the problem of finding an optimally private
distribution to a linear program, using symmetry arguments to simplify the
LP. Finally, we show that the solution to the linear program is unique, which
means that we have found the unique distribution satisfying \olpd.
We begin by developing a reduction of the problem of finding a distribution
with \olpd\ to a linear program. Note that there is a non-increasing
mapping between $M$---the radius of the larger $\ell_\infty$
ball---and $\optdiffp$. Indeed, whenever $M$ increases, the set of
distributions $\channelprob$ from which to choose a privacy channel increases,
so $\optdiffp$ decreases. Put inversely,
for a given differential privacy level $\diffp$, we can find the smallest
$M$ such that it is possible to construct an $\diffp$-differentially private
channel $\channelprob$ mapping from $[-1, 1]^d$ to $[-M, M]^d$.
(Lemma~\ref{lemma:two-level-diffp-solution} shows that
the mapping from $M$ to $\optdiffp$ is implicitly invertible.)
Thus, rather than solving for $\diffp$ as a function of $M$, we take the
converse view of finding the largest $M$ such that an $\diffp$-differentially
private distribution exists. Fix $d \in \N$ and (with some abuse of notation)
let $Z \in \{-1, 1\}^{d \times 2^d}$ be the matrix whose columns are the edges
of the hypercube $\{-1, 1\}^d$. For each $z, x \in \{-1, 1\}^d$, define the
variables $q(z \mid x) \ge 0$ to represent the conditional probability of
observing $Mz$ given $x$. Let $q(\cdot \mid x) = [q(z \mid x)]_{z \in
\{-1,1\}^d}$ denote the vector version of $q(z \mid x)$. Then we have that
a $\diffp$-differentially private channel providing an unbiased perturbtation
of vectors in $[-1, 1]^d$ to $[-M, M]^d$, exists only if we can find settings
of $q(z \mid x)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
Z q(\cdot \mid x) - \frac{1}{M} x = 0
~ \mbox{for~all~}x \in \{-1, 1\}^d
\end{equation*}
while additionally $q(z \mid x) \le e^\diffp q(z \mid x')$
and $\sum_z q(z \mid x) = 1$, $q(z \mid x) \ge 0$ for all $z, x, x'$.
Thus, if we make the change of variables $t = 1/M$, we see that
finding the smallest possible $M$---which corresponds to the
least perturbation possible for a given privacy level $\diffp$---can
be cast as solving the linear program
\begin{align}
\minimize ~~ & -t \label{eqn:matrix-diffp-lp} \\
\subjectto ~~ & Z q(\cdot \mid x) - t x = 0
~ \mbox{for~all~} x \in \{-1, 1\}^d
\nonumber \\
& q(z \mid x) \le e^\diffp q(z \mid x') ~
\mbox{for~all~} x, x', z \in \{-1, 1\}^d \nonumber \\
& \sum_z q(z \mid x) = 1, ~ q(\cdot \mid x) \succeq 0
~ \mbox{for~all~} x \in \{-1, 1\}^d. \nonumber
\end{align}
The solution vectors $q(\cdot \mid x)$, $x \in \{-1, 1\}^d$, give the
probability mass function for an $\diffp$-differentially private channel
perturbing from $[-1, 1]^d$ to $[-M, M]^d$, where $M = 1 / t^*$ and $t^*$
denotes the solution to the LP. This p.m.f.\ is then optimally locally
differentially private with $\diffp = \optdiffp([-1, 1]^d, [-M, M]^d)$.
It is possible to calculate the solution of the LP~\eqref{eqn:matrix-diffp-lp}
by hand, but it is tedious. We thus use the structure of \olpd\ to reduce the
problem to a single minimization problem over a vector $q \in \R^{2^d}$
(rather than a matrix $[q(z \mid x)] \in \R^{2^d \times 2^d}$). We have
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:symmetry-lp-solutions}
A distribution satisfying \olpd\ must, for each $x \in \{-1, 1\}^d$, satisfy
$q(\cdot \mid x) = \Pi(x) q$, where $\Pi(x) \in \{0, 1\}^{2^d \times 2^d}$
is a permutation matrix and $q$ is a fixed vector.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for the sake of contradiction that this is not the case, but the
vectors $q(x)$ and $t$ solve the linear
program~\eqref{eqn:matrix-diffp-lp}. Let $Q_1$ denote the matrix of the
vectors $q(\cdot \mid x)$. Choose vectors $q(\cdot \mid x)$ and $q(\cdot
\mid x')$ such that $q(\cdot \mid x) \neq \Pi q(\cdot \mid x')$ for any
permutation matrix $\Pi$. Now construct vectors $q_2(\cdot \mid x)$ and
$q_2(\cdot \mid x')$ such that $q_2(z \mid x) = q(z' \mid x')$, where $z'$
is chosen so that $z_i' x_i' = z_i x_i$, and similarly choose $q_2$ so that
$q_2(z \mid x') = q(z' \mid x)$, where $z_i x_i' = z_i' x_i$. Let $Q_2$
denote the matrix of vectors $q$, but where $q_2(\cdot \mid x)$ and
$q_2(\cdot \mid x')$ replace $q(\cdot \mid x), q(\cdot \mid x')$. Then by
construction, all the constraints of the original linear
program~\eqref{eqn:matrix-diffp-lp} are satisfied. By symmetry and the
strict convexity of the mutual information in the channel distribution
$\channelprob$, however, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\information(\statprob, \channelprob_1)
= \information(\statprob, \channelprob_2)
= \half\left(\information(\statprob, \channelprob_1)
+ \information(\statprob, \channelprob_2)\right)
> \information\left(\statprob,
\half(\channelprob_1 + \channelprob_2)\right).
\end{equation*}
The decrease in mutual information gives the necessary contradiction.
\end{proof}
With Lemma~\ref{lemma:symmetry-lp-solutions} in hand, we can now turn to the
smaller linear program---in a single vector $q$ and for a single vector $x \in
\{-1, 1\}^d$---that will give us the locally optimal differentially private
channel. Indeed, we consider the linear program in the variables $t \in \R$
and $\channeldensity \in \R^{2^d}$, where
we let $\channeldensity(z)$ denote the
entry of $\channeldensity$ corresponding to column $\channelval$ of $Z$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:single-diffp-lp}
\begin{split}
\minimize ~~ & -t \\
\subjectto ~~ & Z \channeldensity - t \statsample = 0,
~~ \channeldensity(\channelval) \le e^\diffp
\channeldensity(\channelval') ~ \mbox{for~all~} \channelval, \channelval',
~~
\sum_{\channelval} \channeldensity(\channelval) = 1,
~ \channeldensity \ge 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Define the constants
\ifdefined\usejournalmargins
\begin{equation*}
K_d = \sum_{i = 0}^{\floor{d/2}} (d - 2 i) \binom{d}{i}
~~ \mbox{and} ~~
C_d = \card\left\{z \in \{-1, 1\}^d : z^\top x > 0\right\}
= \begin{cases}
2^{d - 1} & d ~\mbox{odd} \\
2^{d - 1} - \half \binom{d}{d/2} & d ~ \mbox{even}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\else
\begin{equation*}
K_d = \sum_{i = 0}^{\floor{d/2}} (d - 2 i) \binom{d}{i}
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
C_d = \card\left\{z \in \{-1, 1\}^d : z^\top x > 0\right\}
= \begin{cases}
2^{d - 1} & \mbox{if~} d ~\mbox{odd} \\
2^{d - 1} - \half \binom{d}{d/2} & \mbox{if~} d ~ \mbox{even}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\fi
We have the following lemma, which characterizes the structure of the
solution vector $q$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:two-level-diffp-solution}
Define $\diffp^* = \log\frac{K_d + 2^d - C_d}{K_d - C_d}$. For any
$\diffp < \diffp^*$, the unique solution to the linear
program~\eqref{eqn:single-diffp-lp} is given by
\begin{equation*}
q(z) = \begin{cases} \frac{e^\diffp}{e^\diffp C_d + 2^d - C_d}
& \mbox{if}~ \<z, x\> > 0 \\
\frac{1}{e^\diffp C_d + 2^d - C_d}
& \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, problem~\eqref{eqn:single-diffp-lp} is clearly equivalent to
the linear program
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:single-diffp-lp-max}
\begin{split}
\minimize ~~ & -t \\
\subjectto ~~ & Z \channeldensity - t \statsample = 0
, ~~ \max_{\channelval} \{ \channeldensity(\channelval) \}
+ e^\diffp \max_{\channelval} \{ -\channeldensity(\channelval) \} \le 0
, ~~ \sum_{\channelval} \channeldensity(\channelval) = 1,
~ \channeldensity \ge 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Our proof proceeds in two large steps: first, we argue that a $q$
of the form specified in the lemma is indeed the solution to the
problem~\eqref{eqn:single-diffp-lp-max}, then we use results on
uniqueness of solutions to linear programs due to~\citet{Mangasarian79}.
For the first step, we begin by writing the Lagrangian to the
problem~\eqref{eqn:single-diffp-lp-max}. We introduce dual variables $\theta
\in \R^{2^d}$ for the constraint $Zq - tx = 0$, $\lambda \ge 0$ for the
first inequality, $\tau \in \R$ for the sum constraint, and $\beta \in
\R_+^{2^d}$ for the non-negativity of $q$. With this, we have Lagrangian
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:lp-lagrangian}
\mc{L}(q, t, \theta, \lambda, \tau, \beta)
= -t + \theta^\top\left(\sum_z q(z) - tx \right)
+ \lambda \max_z\{q(z)\} + e^\diffp \max_z \{-q(z)\}
+ \tau(\onevec^\top q - 1) - \beta^\top q.
\end{equation}
Recall the generalized subgradient KKT conditions for optimality of the
solution to an optimization problem~\cite[Chapter
VII]{HiriartUrrutyLe96ab}. A vector $q > 0$ is optimal for the
problem~\eqref{eqn:single-diffp-lp-max} if the constraints $\max_i \{q_i\}
\le e^\diffp \min_i \{q_i\}$ and $\sum_i q_i = 1$ hold, there is a $t \ge 0$
such that $Zq - tx = 0$, and we can find $\theta$, $\lambda$, and $\tau$
such that
\begin{equation}
Z^\top \theta + \lambda\left[v_+
- e^\diffp v_-\right]
+ \tau \onevec = 0,
~~ \beta = 0, ~~
~~ \mbox{and} ~~
\theta^\top x = -1,
\label{eqn:kkt-diffp-lp}
\end{equation}
where $v_+$ and $v_-$ are vectors satisfying
\begin{equation*}
v_+ \in \conv\Big\{e_i : q_i = \max_j\{q_j\}\Big\}
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
v_- \in \conv\Big\{e_i : q_i = \min_j \{q_j\}\Big\}.
\end{equation*}
That $\beta = 0$ follows by complementarity (recall that $q > 0$ is assumed).
If we can find settings for the vectors $\theta, \lambda, \tau,$ and
$v_{\pm}$ satisfying the KKT conditions~\eqref{eqn:kkt-diffp-lp}, we are
done. To that end, set $\theta = -x / d$. Then by inspection $\theta^\top x
= -\ltwo{x}^2 / d = -1$, and we can rewrite the remaining KKT condition by
noting that we must find vectors $v_+$, $v_-$, and $\tau \in \R$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:kkt-vs}
\begin{split}
& -\frac{1}{d} Z^\top x + v_+ - e^\diffp v_-
+ \tau \onevec = 0,
~~~ v_+^\top \onevec = v_-^\top \onevec, ~~~
v_+ \ge 0, v_- \ge 0, \\
& v_+(z) = 0 ~ \mbox{if~} q(z) < \max_z\{q(z)\},
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
v_-(z) = 0 ~\mbox{if~} q(z) > \min_z \{q(z)\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that we have eliminated $\lambda$ as it is a non-negative homogeneous
scaling term on $v_+$ and $v_-$. We choose values
$q^+, q^-$ with $0 < q^- < q^+$ and set $q(z) = q^+$ when
$z^\top x > 0$ and $q(z) = q^-$ when $z^\top x \le 0$, where
$q^+, q^-$ are chosen so that
$\sum_z q(z) = 1$. We now choose the values
of $v_+$, $v_-$, and $\tau$ satisfying the KKT conditions in
expression~\eqref{eqn:kkt-vs} based on the values $q^+, q^-$. Indeed, set
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:convex-hull-vectors}
v_+(z) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{z^\top x}{d} - \tau & \mbox{if~} z^\top x > 0 \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise}\end{array}\right.
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
v_-(z) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-e^{-\diffp} \frac{z^\top x}{d}
+ e^{-\diffp} \tau & \mbox{if~} z^\top x \le 0 \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise}\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
By inspection, we see that $-Z^\top x / d + v_+ - e^\diffp v_- + \tau = 0$,
so the only question remaining is whether we can choose $\tau$ such that
$v_{\pm} \ge 0$ and $v_+^\top \onevec = v_-^\top \onevec$.
To that end, we recall the definition of the constant $K_d$, and we seek
$\tau$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_z v_+(z) = \frac{1}{d} K_d - \tau C_d
= e^{-\diffp} \frac{1}{d} K_d + e^{-\diffp} \tau (2^d - C_d)
= \sum_z v_-(z)
\end{equation*}
by the symmetry in the sums. Rewriting the equation, we find that for
equality we must have
\begin{equation*}
\tau\left(e^{-\diffp}(2^d - C_d)
+ C_d\right)
= \frac{1}{d} K_d (1 - e^{-\diffp})
~~~ \mbox{or} ~~~
\tau = \frac{K_d}{d} \cdot \frac{e^\diffp - 1}{
e^\diffp C_d + 2^d - C_d}
= \frac{K_d}{d C_d} \cdot \frac{e^\diffp - 1}{
e^\diffp + 2^d / C_d - 1}.
\end{equation*}
Thus we find that if $\diffp$ is such that
\begin{equation}
\frac{K_d}{d C_d} \frac{e^\diffp - 1}{e^\diffp + 2^d / C_d - 1}
< \frac{1}{d},
\label{eqn:alpha-inequality}
\end{equation}
then by our choice~\eqref{eqn:convex-hull-vectors} of the vectors
$v_+$ and $v_-$, we have $v_+(z) > 0$ whenever $z^\top x > 0$,
and $v_-(z) > 0$ whenever $z^\top x \le 0$. Noting that by our setting
of $q(z)$, we have by symmetry of $Z$ that
there exists a $t > 0$ such that $Zq = tx$, we find that our choice of $q$
is optimal (since the KKT conditions~\eqref{eqn:kkt-vs} hold).
We have two arguments remaining in the proof. The first is to show that for
$\diffp < \diffp^*$ defined in the statement of the lemma, the
inequality~\eqref{eqn:alpha-inequality} holds. Rewriting the inequality,
we solve
\begin{equation*}
e^\diffp - 1 =
\frac{C_d}{K_d} \left(e^\diffp + 2^d / C_d - 1\right)
~~ \mbox{or} ~~
e^\diffp\left(1 - \frac{C_d}{K_d}\right)
= \frac{2^d - C_d}{K_d} + 1,
~~ \mbox{i.e.} ~~
\diffp^* = \log\frac{K_d + 2^d - C_d}{K_d - C_d}.
\end{equation*}
For any $\diffp < \diffp^*$, the strict
inequality~\eqref{eqn:alpha-inequality} holds, so the
setting~\eqref{eqn:convex-hull-vectors} of $v_+$ and $v_-$ satisfy the KKT
conditions.
Our last argument regards the uniqueness of the two-valued solution vector
$q$. For that, we apply Mangasarian's result~\cite[Theorem 1]{Mangasarian79}
that if there exists an $\epsilon > 0$ such that for any vector $u \in
\R^{2^d}$ with $\ltwo{u} = 1$, $q$ is a solution of the linear
program~\eqref{eqn:single-diffp-lp} when the objective is $-t + \epsilon
u^\top q$, then $q$ is unique. Luckily, this is not difficult given our
previous work. The Lagrangian~\eqref{eqn:lp-lagrangian} for the modified
linear program becomes
\begin{equation*}
\epsilon u^\top q - t + \theta^\top\left(\sum_z q(z) - tx \right)
+ \lambda \max_z\{q(z)\} + e^\diffp \max_z \{-q(z)\}
+ \tau(\onevec^\top q - 1) - \beta^\top q.
\end{equation*}
The only modification in our KKT conditions~\eqref{eqn:kkt-diffp-lp}
is that the first equality becomes
\begin{equation*}
\epsilon u + Z^\top \theta + \lambda\left[v_+ - e^\diffp v_-\right]
+ \tau \onevec = 0.
\end{equation*}
By the strictness of the inequalities
$v_+(z) > 0$ for $z$ such that $z^\top x > 0$ (and similarly for $v_-$)
in the definitions~\eqref{eqn:convex-hull-vectors}
whenever $\diffp < \diffp^*$, we see that for suitably small $\epsilon > 0$,
the vectors $v_+$ and $v_-$ can be perturbed so that the KKT conditions
are still satisfied. This proves the uniqueness of the two-valued solution
vector $q$.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Remarks}
Following an argument with completely the same structure as the proof, we see
that for any $d \in \N$ (say $d \ge 3$), there are different ``regimes'' of
$\diffp$, that is, there exists a sequence $\diffp_0^*, \diffp_2^*, \ldots,
\diffp_{d-1}^*$ (or $\diffp_{d-2}^*$ if $d$ is even) such that for $\diffp \in
(\diffp_{2i}^*, \diffp_{2i + 2}^*)$, the unique optimal solution to the linear
program~\eqref{eqn:single-diffp-lp} is given by taking
\begin{equation*}
q(z) \propto \begin{cases}\exp(\diffp) & \mbox{for}~ z ~\mbox{s.t.}~
\<z, x\> > 2(i + 1) \\
1 & \mbox{for~} z ~\mbox{s.t.}~ \<z, x\> \le 2(i + 1)
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
(for $\diffp < \diffp_0^*$, we say $i = -1$ above).
For $\diffp = \diffp_{2i}^*$, the set of solutions is given by
the convex combinations of the solution vectors
\begin{equation*}
q_<(z) \propto \begin{cases}\exp(\diffp) & \mbox{for}~ z ~\mbox{s.t.}~
\<z, x\> > 2i \\
1 & \mbox{for~} z ~\mbox{s.t.}~ \<z, x\> \le 2i
\end{cases}
~~ \mbox{and} ~~
q_>(z) \propto \begin{cases}\exp(\diffp) & \mbox{for}~ z ~\mbox{s.t.}~
\<z, x\> > 2(i + 1) \\
1 & \mbox{for~} z ~\mbox{s.t.}~ \<z, x\> \le 2(i + 1),
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
which follows from arguments similar to our application of Mangasarian's
results~\cite{Mangasarian79}.
Now we may complete the proof of
Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-diffp-saddle-point}. Indeed, we see from
Lemma~\ref{lemma:two-level-diffp-solution} that the distribution satisfying
\olpd\ must assign probability masses at two levels---at least when the point
being perturbed comes from $\{-1, 1\}^d$. Now let $\channelprob$ be a
distribution specified in the lemma. An argument identical to that in our
proof of Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-saddle-point}---by symmetry---shows
that the distribution $\statprob$ maximizing the mutual information
$\information(\statprob, \channelprob)$ is uniform on $\{-1, 1\}^d$. The
uniqueness of $\channelprob$ then follows from
Lemmas~\ref{lemma:symmetry-lp-solutions}
and~\ref{lemma:two-level-diffp-solution}, which show that such $\channelprob$
is the only distribution that minimizes the radius $M$ of the ball
$[-M, M]^d$; inverting this bound gives the proposition.
\qed
\section{Optimal privacy-preserving distributions}
\label{sec:saddle-points}
In this section, we explore conditions for a distribution $\channelprob^*$ to
satisfy \olp as given by Definitions~\ref{def:optimal-local-privacy}
and~\ref{def:local-diffp}. We give
a few characterizations of necessary (and sometimes sufficient) conditions
based on the compact sets $C \subset D$ for distributions $\statprob^*$ and
$\channelprob^*$ to achieve the saddle point~\eqref{eqn:saddle-point}. Our
results can be viewed as rate distortion
theorems~\cite{Gray90,CoverTh06,CsiszarKo81} (with source $\statprob$ and
channel $\channelprob$) for certain compact alphabets, though as far as we
know, they are all new. Thus, we refer to the conditional distribution
$\channelprob$, which is designed to maintain the privacy of the data
$\statrv$ by communication of $\channelrv$, interchangeably as the
privacy-preserving distribution or the channel distribution.
Note that since we wish to bound $\information(\statrv; \channelrv)$ for
general losses $\loss$, as captured in the definitions of the source
$\sourcedistset[C]$ and communication set $\channeldistset[C, D]$ in
Eqs.~\eqref{eqn:source-distribution-set}
and~\eqref{eqn:channel-distribution-set}, we must address the case when
$\loss(\statrv, \optvar) = \<\optvar, \statrv\>$, in which case $\nabla
\loss(\statrv, \optvar) = \statrv$; this shows (by the data-processing
inequality~\cite[Chapter 5]{Gray90}) that it is no loss of generality to
assume that $\statrv \in C$ with probability 1 and that we must have
$\E[\channelrv \mid \statrv] = \statrv$. Thus we present each of our results
assuming that $\loss(\statrv, \optvar) = \<\optvar, \statrv\>$, since
a distribution $\channelprob^*$ is optimally locally private or optimally
differentially locally private if and only if it attains the saddle point
with \emph{this} choice of loss.
\subsection{General saddle point characterizations}
We begin with a general characterization, first defining the types of sets $C$
and $D$ that we use in our characterization of privacy. Such sets are
reasonable for many applications (recall Section~\ref{sec:loss-families}). We
focus on the case when the compact sets $C$ and $D$ are (suitably symmetric)
norm balls:
\begin{definition}
\label{def:rotational-invariance}
Let $C \subset \R^d$ be a compact convex set with extreme points $u_i \in
\R^d$, $i \in I$ for some index set $I$. Then $C$ is a \emph{rotationally
invariant through its extreme points} if $\ltwo{u_i} = \ltwo{u_j}$ for
each $i, j$, and for any unitary matrix $U$ such that $U u_i = u_j$ for some
$i \neq j$, then $UC = C$.
\end{definition}
\noindent
Some examples of convex sets rotationally invariant through their extreme
points include $\ell_p$-norm balls for $p = 1, 2, \infty$, though
$\ell_p$-balls for $p \not \in\{1, 2, \infty\}$ are not.
The following theorem gives a general characterization of the minimax mutual
information for such rotationally invariant sets
by providing saddle point distributions $\statprob^*$ and
$\channelprob^*$. We provide the proof of
Theorem~\ref{theorem:finite-rotation-information} in
Section~\ref{appendix:finite-rotation-information-proof}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:finite-rotation-information}
Let $C$ be a compact convex polytope rotationally invariant through its
$m < \infty$ extreme points $\{u_i\}_{i=1}^m$ and
$D = (1 + \kappa) C$ for some $\kappa > 0$. Let $\channelprob^*$ be the
conditional distribution of $\channelrv \mid \statrv$ that maximizes the
entropy $H(\channelrv \mid \statrv = x)$ subject to the constraints that
\begin{equation*}
\E_\channelprob[\channelrv \mid \statrv = \statsample] = \statsample
\end{equation*}
for $\statsample \in C$ and that $\channelrv$ is supported on $(1 + \kappa)
u_i$ for $i = 1, \ldots, m$. Then $\channelprob^*$ satisfies
Definition~\ref{def:optimal-local-privacy}, \olp, and $\channelprob^*$ is
(up to measure zero sets) unique. Moreover, the distribution $\statprob^*$
that is uniform on $\{u_i\}_{i=1}^m$ attains the saddle
point~\eqref{eqn:saddle-point}.
\end{theorem}
\paragraph{Remarks:}
We make a few brief remarks here, deferring a somewhat deeper discussion of
the implications of Theorem~\ref{theorem:finite-rotation-information} to
Appendix~\ref{appendix:finite-rotation-information-proof}, as an understanding
of the proof helps. The theorem requires that for $\channelprob^*$
to attain the saddle point guaranteeing \olp, $\channelprob^*(\cdot \mid
\statrv = \statsample)$ should maximize the entropy of $\channelrv$ for each
$\statsample \in C$, but this is not essential. If $\statsample \not \in
\{u_i\}_{i=1}^m$, a two-phase approach still obtains optimal local privacy. We
construct a Markov chain $\statrv \to \statrv' \to \channelrv$, where
$\statrv'$ is supported on the extreme points $\{u_i\}_{i=1}^m$ of $C$. The
distribution $\statrv \to \statrv'$ may then be \emph{any} distribution
satisfying $\E[\statrv' \mid \statrv] = \statrv$; we then take the conditional
distribution $\channelprob^*(\cdot \mid u_i)$ defined for $\statrv' \to
\channelrv$ to be the maximum entropy distribution $\channelprob^*(\cdot \mid
u_i)$ defined in the theorem. By the data processing
inequality~\cite[Chapter 5]{Gray90}, this Markov chain $\statrv \rightarrow
\statrv' \rightarrow \channelrv$ guarantees the minimax information bound
$\information(\statrv; \channelrv) \le \inf_\channelprob \sup_\statprob
\information(\statprob, \channelprob)$.
\subsection{Specific saddle point computations}
With Theorem~\ref{theorem:finite-rotation-information} in place, we can
explicitly characterize the minimax mutual information for $\ell_1$ and
$\ell_\infty$ balls by computing maximum entropy distributions. That is, we
compute the unique distributions that attain \olp---the distributions that
guarantee as much (of our definition of) privacy as possible subject to
certain constraints. We present two propositions in this regard, providing
some discussion and giving proofs in
Sections~\ref{appendix:linf-saddle-point-proof}
and~\ref{appendix:lone-saddle-point-proof}.
First, consider the case where $\statrv \in [-L, L]^d$ and $\channelrv \in
[-M, M]^d$, where $M \ge L$. For notational convenience, we define the binary entropy $h(p) =
-p\log p - (1 - p) \log(1 - p)$. We have
\begin{proposition}
\label{proposition:linf-saddle-point}
For constants $M \ge L > 0$,
let $\statrv \in [-L, L]^d$ and $\channelrv \in [-M, M]^d$ be random
variables such that $\E[\channelrv \mid \statrv] = \statrv$ almost
surely. Define $\channelprob^*$ to be the conditional distribution on
$\channelrv \mid \statrv$ such that the coordinates of $\channelrv$ are
independent, have range $\{-M, M\}$, and satisfy
\begin{equation*}
\channelprob^*(\channelrv_i = M \mid \statrv)
= \half + \frac{\statrv_i}{2M}
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
\channelprob^*(\channelrv_i = -M \mid \statrv) =
\half - \frac{\statrv_i}{2M}.
\end{equation*}
Then $\channelprob^*$ satisfies Definition~\ref{def:optimal-local-privacy},
\olp, and moreover,
\begin{equation*}
\sup_\statprob \information(\statprob, \channelprob^*)
= d - d \cdot h\left(\half + \frac{L}{2M}\right).
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
Before continuing, we give a slightly more intuitive understanding of
Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-saddle-point}. Let $L = 1$ for simplicity
(this is no loss of generality by scaling).
Concavity implies that for $a, b > 0$, $\log(a) \le \log b + b^{-1}(a - b)$,
or $-\log(a) \ge -\log(b) + b^{-1}(b - a)$, so
\begin{equation*}
-\log\left(\half - \frac{1}{2M}\right)
\ge -\log\half + 2\cdot\frac{1}{2M}
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
-\log\left(\half + \frac{1}{2M}\right)
\ge -\log\half - 2 \cdot \frac{1}{2M}.
\end{equation*}
In particular, we see that
\begin{equation*}
h\left(\half + \frac{1}{2M}\right)
\ge - \left(\half + \frac{1}{2M}\right)
\left(-\log 2 - \frac{1}{M}\right)
- \left(\half - \frac{1}{2M}\right)
\left(-\log 2 + \frac{1}{M}\right)
= \log 2 - \frac{1}{M^2}.
\end{equation*}
That is, we have for \emph{any} distribution $\statprob$ on $\statrv$,
where $\statrv \in [-L, L]^d$, that (in natural logarithms)
\begin{equation*}
\information(\statprob, \channelprob^*) \le \frac{dL^2}{M^2},
\end{equation*}
and this bound is tight to $\order((M/L)^{-3})$.
We now consider the case when $\statrv \in \left\{x \in \R^d : \lone{x} \le
1\right\}$ and $\channelrv \in \left\{z \in \R^d : \lone{z} \le
M\right\}$. Here the arguments are slightly more complicated, as the
coordinates of the random variables are no longer independent, but
Theorem~\ref{theorem:finite-rotation-information} still allows us to
explicitly characterize the saddle point of the mutual information. Before
stating the proposition, we recall that if $e_i \in \R^d$ are the standard
basis vectors, then the extreme points of the $\ell_1$-ball of radius 1 are
the $2d$ vectors $\{\pm e_i\}_{i=1}^d$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{proposition:lone-saddle-point}
For a constant $M > 1$,
let $\statrv \in \{x \in \R^d : \lone{x} \le 1\}$ and $\channelrv \in \{z
\in \R^d : \lone{z} \le M\}$ be random variables.
Define the parameter
\begin{equation}
\gamma \defeq
\log\left(\frac{2d - 2 + \sqrt{(2d - 2)^2 + 4(M^2 - 1)}}{2(M - 1)}\right),
\label{eqn:lone-exp-normalization}
\end{equation}
and let $\channelprob^*$ be the conditional distribution
on $\channelrv \mid \statrv$ such that $\channelrv$ is supported on
$\{\pm M e_i\}_{i=1}^d$, and
\begin{subequations}
\label{eqn:lone-conditional}
\begin{align}
\channelprob^*(\channelrv = M e_i \mid \statrv = e_i)
& = \frac{e^{\gamma}}{e^{\gamma} + e^{-\gamma} + (2 d - 2)},
\label{eqn:lone-conditional-plus} \\
\channelprob^*(\channelrv = -M e_i \mid \statrv = e_i)
& = \frac{e^{-\gamma}}{e^{\gamma} + e^{-\gamma} + (2 d - 2)},
\label{eqn:lone-conditional-minus} \\
\channelprob^*(\channelrv = \pm M e_j \mid \statrv = e_i, j \neq i)
& = \frac{1}{e^{\gamma} + e^{-\gamma} + (2 d - 2)}.
\label{eqn:lone-conditional-zero}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
(For $\statrv \not \in \{\pm e_i\}$, define $\statrv'$ to be randomly
selected in any way from among $\{\pm e_i\}$ such that $\E[\statrv' \mid
\statrv] = \statrv$, then sample $\channelrv$ from $\statrv'$ according
to~\eqref{eqn:lone-conditional-plus}--\eqref{eqn:lone-conditional-zero}.)
Then $\channelprob^*$ satisfies Definition~\ref{def:optimal-local-privacy},
\olp, and
\begin{equation*}
\sup_\statprob \information(\statprob, \channelprob^*)
= \log(2d) - \log\left(e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma}
+ 2d - 2\right)
+ \gamma \frac{e^\gamma}{e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + 2d - 2}
- \gamma \frac{e^{-\gamma}}{e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + 2d - 2}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\noindent
By scaling, if we have $\statrv \in \{\statsample \in \R^d :
\lone{\statsample} \le L\}$ and $\channelrv \in \{\channelval \in \R^d :
\lone{\channelrv} \le M_1\}$, then the theorem holds with $M = M_1 / L$ in
Eq.~\eqref{eqn:lone-exp-normalization} and with $\statrv = e_i$ replaced by
$\statrv = L e_i$ in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:lone-conditional}.
Proposition~\ref{proposition:lone-saddle-point} is somewhat more complex than
the $\ell_\infty$ case. We remark that the additional sampling to guarantee
that $\statrv' \in \{\pm e_i\}$ (where the conditional distribution
$\channelprob^*$ is defined) can be accomplished simply: define the random
variable $\statrv'$ so that $\statrv' = e_i \sign(x_i)$ with probability
$|x_i| / \lone{x}$. Evidently $\E[\statrv' \mid \statrv] = x$, and $\statrv
\rightarrow \statrv' \rightarrow \channelrv$ for $\channelrv$ distributed
according to $\channelprob^*$ defines a Markov chain as in our remarks
following Theorem~\ref{theorem:finite-rotation-information}. An
asymptotic expansion allows us to gain a somewhat clearer picture of the
values of the mutual information, though we do not derive upper bounds as we
did for Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-saddle-point}.
We have the following corollary, proved in
Appendix~\ref{appendix:lone-asymptotic-expansion}.
\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary:lone-asymptotic-expansion}
Let $\channelprob^*$ denote the conditional distribution in
Proposition~\ref{proposition:lone-saddle-point}, where
$\statrv$ and $\channelrv$ lie in $\ell_1$-balls of radii $L$ and $M$,
respectively. Then
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{\statprob} \information(\statprob, \channelprob^*)
= \frac{d L^2}{2 M^2} + \Theta\left(\min\left\{\frac{d^3L^4}{M^4},
\frac{\log^4(d)}{d}\right\}\right).
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Saddle points for differentially private communication}
Our final result in this section characterizes saddle points for
distributions satisfying Definition~\ref{def:local-diffp}. Such calculations
are, in general, non-trivial, so we restrict our attention to results
necessary for the setting of Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound-diffp}.
To that end, we focus on the case where $C$ and $D$ are $\ell_\infty$ balls,
which is relevant for high-dimensional statistical and optimization
settings. Without loss of generality (by scaling), we may take $C = [-1, 1]^d$
and $D = [-M, M]^d$. We have
\begin{proposition}
\label{proposition:linf-diffp-saddle-point}
For a constant $M \ge 1$, let $\statrv \in [-1, 1]^d$ and $\channelrv \in
[-M, M]^d$ be random variables such that $\E[\channelrv \mid
\statrv] = \statrv$ almost surely. Fix any $\statsample \in \{-1, 1\}^d$
and for $k = \{0, 2, 4, \ldots, 2\ceil{d/2} - 2\}$ define the constants
$\channeldensity_k^+ \ge 0$ and $\channeldensity_k^- \ge 0$ to satisfy the
linear equations
\begin{equation*}
M \channeldensity_k^+ \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\sum_{\channelval \in \{-1, 1\}^d
: \<\channelval, \statsample\> > k} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\channelval
+ M \channeldensity_k^- \!\!\!\!
\!\!\!\! \sum_{\channelval \in \{-1, 1\}^d :
\<\channelval, \statsample\> \le k} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \channelval
~ = x
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
\channeldensity_k^+ + \channeldensity_k^- = 1.
\end{equation*}
Set $k^* \in \argmin_k\{\channeldensity_k^+ / \channeldensity_k^-\}$.
The optimal differential privacy~\eqref{eqn:optimal-diffp}
for the sets $C = [-1, 1]^d$ and $D = [-M, M]^d$ is
\begin{equation*}
\optdiffp(C, D) = \log
\frac{\channeldensity_{k^*}^+}{\channeldensity_{k^*}^-}
= \min_{k \in \{0, 2, \ldots, 2 \ceil{d/2} - 2\}} \log
\frac{\channeldensity_{k}^+}{\channeldensity_{k}^-}.
\end{equation*}
The distributions attaining \olpd are characterized as follows.
Define $\channelprob_k^*$ to be the distribution supported on
$\{-M, M\}^d$ with probability mass function
defined by
\begin{equation}
\channelprob_k^*(\channelrv = M \channelval
\mid \statrv = \statsample)
= \begin{cases} \channeldensity_{k}^+ & \mbox{if} ~
\<\channelval, \statsample\> > k \\
\channeldensity_{k}^- & \mbox{if} ~
\<\channelval, \statsample\> \le k
\end{cases}
\label{eqn:k-based-diffp-linf}
\end{equation}
for $\channelval, \statsample \in \{-1, 1\}^d$. (For $\statrv \not\in \{-1,
1\}^d$, define $\statrv'$ to be randomly chosen from $\{-1, 1\}^d$ such that
$\E[\statrv' \mid \statrv] = \statrv$, then sample $\channelrv$ according to
the above p.m.f.) A distribution $\channelprob^*$ satisfies
Definition~\ref{def:local-diffp}, \olpd, if and only if it can be written as
a convex combination of those $\channelprob_k^*$ for which $k \in \argmin_k
\{\channeldensity_k^+, \channeldensity_k^-\}$, that is,
\begin{equation*}
\channelprob^*
= \!\!\! \sum_{k \in \argmin_k \{\channeldensity_k^+,
\channeldensity_k^-\}}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\beta_k \channelprob_k^*,
~~ \mbox{where} ~~
\beta_k \ge 0 ~~ \mbox{and}
\sum_{k \in \argmin_k \{\channeldensity_k^+, \channeldensity_k^-\}}
\!\!\!\!\!\! \beta_k = 1.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
The proof of Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-diffp-saddle-point} is
technical, and we defer it to
Section~\ref{appendix:proof-linf-diffp-saddle-point}.
We make a few remarks, however. First, we provide a simplified
explanation of the linear equations in the proposition. By
symmetry, no matter the value of $\statsample \in \{-1, 1\}^d$ chosen, the
same $\channeldensity_k^+$ and $\channeldensity_k^-$ solve the linear
equations.
Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-diffp-saddle-point} shows the
\emph{structure} of the distribution attaining \olpd. That is, the
proposition shows that the distribution $\channelprob^*(\cdot \mid
\statsample)$ assigns mass only on the points $\channelval \in \{-M, M\}^d$,
and moreover, it assigns one of two masses: either $\channeldensity^+$ or
$\channeldensity^-$. To sample from this distribution given an initial point
$\statsample$, one simply flips a coin with bias probabilities
$\{\channeldensity_k^+, \channeldensity_k^-\}$, and depending on the result of
the coint flip, samples $\channelrv \in \{-M, M\}^d$ uniformly from one of the
sets $\{\channelval : \<\channelval, \statsample\> > k/M\}$ or $\{\channelval
: \<\channelval, \statsample\> \le k/M\}$.
\section{Achievability by stochastic mirror descent}
\label{appendix:sgd-achievability}
In this appendix, we provide further details on the
algorithm used to achieve the upper bounds in
Theorems~\ref{theorem:first-class} and~\ref{theorem:second-class}. Both of
our achievability results rely on stochastic gradient mechanisms, and their
most important ingredient is a conditional distribution $\channelprob$ that
satisfies $\diffp$-local differential privacy. In particular, if $g \in \R^d$
is a (sub)gradient of the loss $\loss(\statsample, \optvar)$, we construct
$\channelrv \in \R^d$ by perturbing $g$ in such a way that $\E[\channelrv \mid
g] = g$. Thus, each of the achievability guarantees consists
of describing an $\diffp$-differentially private sampling distribution, then
bounding the expected norm of $\channelrv$ and applying
one of the convergence guarantees~\eqref{eqn:stochastic-bounds}.
\subsection{Achievability in Theorem~\ref{theorem:first-class}}
\label{appendix:sgd-linf-achievability}
\newcommand{B}{B}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm Bernoulli}}{\mathop{\rm Bernoulli}}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm Uniform}}{\mathop{\rm Uniform}}
The sampling strategy we use is essentially identical to that used in
Corollary~\ref{corollary:linf-privacy-diffp} (and the optimal $\diffp$-private
scheme of Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-diffp-saddle-point}; see
also Strategy B in our paper~\cite{DuchiJoWa13_parametric}). Let
$\pi_\diffp \defeq e^\diffp / (e^\diffp + 1)$ and $T$ be a
$\mathop{\rm Bernoulli}(\pi_\diffp)$-random variable, and let $B \ge
\lipobj$ be a fixed constant (to be specified). Then given a vector $g \in
\R^d$ with $\linf{g} \le \lipobj$, construct $\wt{g} \in \R^d$ with
coordinates $\wt{g}_j$ sampled independently from $\{-\lipobj, \lipobj\}$ with
probabilities $1/2 - g_j / (2\lipobj)$ and $1/2 + g_j / (2 \lipobj)$. Then
sample $T$ and set
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:linf-sampling}
\channelrv \sim \begin{cases}
\mathop{\rm Uniform}(\channelval \in \{-B, B\}^d :
\<\channelval, \wt{g}\> > 0)
& \mbox{if~} T = 1 \\
\mathop{\rm Uniform}(\channelval \in \{-B, B\}^d :
\<\channelval, \wt{g}\> \le 0)
& \mbox{if~} T = 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
By inspection, the scheme~\eqref{eqn:linf-sampling} is $\diffp$-differentially
private. Moreover, we have by the calculations in the proof of
Corollary~\ref{corollary:linf-privacy-diffp} (see
Section~\ref{sec:corollary-rate-linf-diffp}) that by the sampling
strategy~\eqref{eqn:linf-sampling}
\begin{equation*}
\E[\channelrv \mid g]
= \E[\E[\channelrv \mid \wt{g}] \mid g]
= g \frac{B}{2^{d-1} \lipobj} \frac{e^\diffp - 1}{e^\diffp + 1}
\cdot \begin{cases} \binom{d - 1}{\frac{d - 1}{2}}
& d ~ \mbox{odd} \\
\binom{d - 1}{d/2} & d ~ \mbox{even.} \end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Thus, w.l.o.g.\ assuming $d$ is odd, choosing
\begin{equation*}
B =
2^{d-1}
\lipobj\frac{e^\diffp + 1}{e^\diffp - 1} \binom{d - 1}{\frac{d - 1}{2}}^{-1}
~~~ \mbox{implies} ~~~
\E[\channelrv \mid g] = g
~~ \mbox{and} ~~
\linf{\channelrv} = B = \order(1) (\lipobj / \diffp)
\sqrt{d}.
\end{equation*}
Applying the mirror descent method to the gradients provided
from the sampling strategy~\eqref{eqn:linf-sampling},
we obtain the bound~\eqref{eqn:mirror-descent-bound}
with $M_\infty = B = \order(1) (\lipobj / \diffp) \sqrt{d}$,
which is our desired result.
\subsection{Achievability in Theorem~\ref{theorem:second-class}}
\label{appendix:sgd-ltwo-achievability}
The achievability result for Theorem~\ref{theorem:second-class} is similar to
that for Theorem~\ref{theorem:first-class}, but we use a modified sampling
distribution. Now, using the same notation as that for the
strategy~\eqref{eqn:linf-sampling}, we use the following. Given a vector $g$
with $\ltwo{g} \le \lipobj$, set $\wt{g} = \lipobj g / \ltwo{g}$ with
probability $\half + \ltwo{g} / 2\lipobj$ and $\wt{g} = - \lipobj g /
\ltwo{g}$ with probability $\half - \ltwo{g} / 2 \lipobj$. Then sample $T
\sim \mathop{\rm Bernoulli}(\pi_\diffp)$ and set
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:ltwo-sampling}
\channelrv \sim \begin{cases}
\mathop{\rm Uniform}(\channelval \in \R^d :
\<\channelval, \wt{g}\> > 0, \ltwo{\channelval} = B)
& \mbox{if~} T = 1 \\
\mathop{\rm Uniform}(\channelval \in \R^d :
\<\channelval, \wt{g}\> \le 0, \ltwo{\channelval} = B)
& \mbox{if~} T = 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
(This is Strategy A in our paper~\cite{DuchiJoWa13_parametric}.) Then we
have~\cite[Appendix D.1]{DuchiJoWa13_parametric} that
\begin{equation*}
\E[\channelrv \mid g]
= \frac{B}{\lipobj} \frac{e^\diffp - 1}{e^\diffp + 1}
\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2} + 1)}{\sqrt{\pi} d \Gamma(\frac{d - 1}{2} + 1)},
\end{equation*}
so choosing
\begin{equation*}
B = \lipobj \frac{e^\diffp + 1}{e^\diffp - 1}
\frac{\sqrt{\pi} d \Gamma(\frac{d - 1}{2} + 1)}{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2} + 1)}
\le \lipobj \frac{e^\diffp + 1}{e^\diffp - 1} \frac{3 \sqrt{\pi} \sqrt{d}}{2}
\end{equation*}
implies that $\E[\channelrv \mid g] = g$ and $\ltwo{\channelrv} \le B =
\order(1) (\lipobj / \diffp) \sqrt{d}$.
Applying the stochastic gradient descent method to the gradients
provided by the sampling scheme~\eqref{eqn:ltwo-sampling},
we obtain the bound~\eqref{eqn:sgd-bound} with $M_2 = B$,
which implies that if $\Theta \subset \Ball_2(\radius_2)$ then
\begin{equation*}
\E[\risk(\what{\optvar}_n)] - \risk(\optvar^*)
= \order\left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\diffp}
\frac{\lipobj \radius_2}{\sqrt{n}}\right).
\end{equation*}
Noting that $\Ball_q(\radius_q) \subset d^{\half - \frac{1}{q}}
\Ball_2(\radius_q)$ completes the proof of the achievability result.
\section{Proofs of Statistical Rates}
\label{sec:optimal-rate-proofs}
In this section, we prove
Theorems~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}--\ref{theorem:second-class} as well
as Corollaries~\ref{corollary:linf-privacy},
\ref{corollary:lone-privacy}, and~\ref{corollary:linf-privacy-diffp}.
Our proofs are based on classical information-theoretic techniques
from statistical minimax theory~\cite{YangBa99,Yu97}, and also exploit
some additional results due to~\citet{AgarwalBaRaWa12}. At a high
level, our approach consists of the following steps. Beginning with
an appropriately chosen finite set $\hypercubeset$, we assign a risk
function $\risk_\cubecorner$ to each member $\cubecorner \in
\hypercubeset$. The resulting collection
$\{\risk_\cubecorner\}_{\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset}$ of risk
functions is chosen so that they ``separate'' points in the set
$\hypercubeset$, meaning that if $\optvar \in \optdomain$ is a point
that approximately minimizes the function $\risk_\cubecorner$, then
for any $\altcubecorner \neq \cubecorner$, the point $\optvar$
\emph{cannot} also be an approximate minimizer of
$\risk_\altcubecorner$. This separation property allows us to deduce
that statistical estimation implies the existence of a testing
procedure that distinguishes $\cubecorner$ from $\altcubecorner$ for
$\altcubecorner \neq \cubecorner$. We then use lower bounds on the
error probability in tests, such asFano's and Le Cam's
inequalities~\cite{Yu97}, to obtain a lower bound on the testing
error. These inequalities depend on the mutual information between
the random variable $\statrv_i$ and the vector $\channelrv_i$
communicated, so the final step is to obtain good upper bounds on this
mutual information. In the next section, we describe in more detail
this reduction, finishing with an outline of the proofs to follow.
\subsection{Reduction to testing}
\label{sec:testing-reduction-outline}
We begin by describing the reduction that lower bounds the minimax error by
the error of a
testing problem. It assumes a given collection of risk functions
$\{\risk_\cubecorner \}_{\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset}$ indexed by a finite
set $\hypercubeset$; see the individual theorem proofs to follow for
constructions of the particular collections used in our analysis. For each
$\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset$, we choose some representative
$\optvar^*_\cubecorner \in \argmin_{\optvar \in \optdomain}
\risk_\cubecorner(\optvar)$ of the set of all minimizing vectors. Our
reduction is based on a discrepancy measure between pairs of risk functions,
first introduced by~\citet{AgarwalBaRaWa12}, defined as
\begin{equation*}
\discrepancy(\risk_\cubecorner, \risk_\altcubecorner) \defeq
\inf_{\optvar \in \optdomain} \left[ \risk_\cubecorner(\optvar) +
\risk_\altcubecorner(\optvar) - \risk_\cubecorner
(\optvar_\cubecorner^*) - \risk_\altcubecorner
(\optvar_\altcubecorner^*)\right].
\end{equation*}
The $\discrepancy$-separation of the set $\hypercubeset$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:min-discrepancy}
\risksep(\hypercubeset) \defeq \min \left \{\discrepancy
(\risk_\cubecorner, \risk_\altcubecorner) : \cubecorner,
\altcubecorner \in \hypercubeset, \cubecorner \neq \altcubecorner
\right \}.
\end{equation}
When the set $\hypercubeset$ is clear from context, we use $\risksep$ as
shorthand for this separation.
The key to the definition~\eqref{eqn:min-discrepancy} is that the separation
allows us to lower bound the expected optimality gap of a statistical method
$\method$ by the probability of error in a hypothesis test. That is, with the
family $\{\risk_\cubecorner\}_{\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset}$, we can define
the \emph{canonical hypothesis testing} problem: nature chooses a uniformly
random $\cuberv \in \hypercubeset$, and conditional on $\cuberv =
\cubecorner$, the $n$ observations $\statrv_i$, $i = 1, \ldots, n$, are drawn
independently from a distribution $\statprob_\cubecorner$ satisfying
$\risk_\cubecorner(\optvar) = \E_{\statprob_\cubecorner}[\loss(\statrv,
\optvar)]$. In the private setting, instead of observing $\statrv_i$, the
learner observes the privatized vector $\channelrv_i$, and given the set
$\{\channelrv_i\}_{i=1}^n$, the goal is to determine the underlying index
$\cubecorner$.
Recall the definition~\eqref{eqn:error-metric} of the excess risk
$\optgap_n$. The previously described hypothesis testing problem can
be used to establish lower bounds on the estimation error, as
demonstrated in the following:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:expectation-lower-bound}
Let $\statprob$ be a joint distribution over $\statrv \in \R^d$ and
$\cuberv \in \hypercubeset$ such that $\statrv$ are i.i.d.\ given
$\cuberv$ and
\begin{equation*}
\E_\statprob\left[\loss(\statrv, \optvar) \mid \cuberv =
\cubecorner\right] = \risk_\cubecorner(\optvar).
\end{equation*}
Let $\channelprob$ be the conditional distribution of $\channelrv$
given the observations $\statrv$. Then for any minimization
procedure $\method$, there exists a hypothesis test
$\what{\cubecorner}_\method : (\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n)
\rightarrow \hypercubeset$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\E_{\statprob, \channelprob} \left[\optgap_n(\method, \loss,
\optdomain, \statprob)\right] \ge
\frac{\risksep(\hypercubeset)}{2} \P_{\statprob,
\channelprob}\left[\what{\cubecorner}_\method(\channelrv_1,
\ldots, \channelrv_n) \neq \cuberv\right].
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\noindent
This result is a variant of Lemma 2 due to~\citet{AgarwalBaRaWa12}) It
shows that if we can bound the probability of error of any hypothesis
test for identifying $\cuberv$ based on the sample $\channelrv_1,
\ldots, \channelrv_n$, we have lower bounded the rate at which it is
possible to minimize the risk $\risk$.
The remaining challenge is to provide a lower bound on the error of
hypothesis testing problems. To do so, we apply one of two well-known
inequalities: Fano's inequality~\cite{CoverTh06}, which applies when
$|\hypercubeset| > 2$, or Le Cam's method~\cite{LeCam73,Yu97}, which
we apply when $|\hypercubeset| = 2$. Let $\cuberv \in \hypercubeset$
be chosen uniformly at random from $\hypercubeset$. If a procedure
observes random variables $\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n$, Fano's
inequality ensures that for any estimate $\what{\cubecorner}$ of
$\cuberv$---that is, any measurable function $\what{\cubecorner}$ of
$\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n$---the test error probability
satisfies the lower bound
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:fano}
\P(\what{\cubecorner}(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n) \neq
\cuberv) \ge 1 - \frac{\information(\channelrv_1, \ldots,
\channelrv_n; \cuberv) + \log 2}{\log |\hypercubeset|}.
\end{equation}
By contrast, Le Cam's method
provides lower bounds on the probability of error in binary hypothesis testing
problems. In this setting, assume that $\hypercubeset = \{-1, 1\}$ has two
elements, and let $\cuberv \in \hypercubeset$ be chosen uniformly at random
from $\hypercubeset$. If a procedure observes random variables $\channelrv_1,
\ldots, \channelrv_n$ distributed according to $\channelprob^n_1$ if $\cuberv
= 1$ and $\channelprob^n_{-1}$ if $\cuberv = -1$, then any estimate
$\what{\cubecorner}$ of $\cuberv$ satisfies the lower bound
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:le-cam}
\P\left(\what{\cubecorner}(\channelrv_1, \ldots,
\channelrv_n) \neq \cuberv\right)
\ge \half - \half \tvnorm{\channelprob^n_1 - \channelprob^n_{-1}}.
\end{equation}
See, for example, \citet[Section 2]{LeCam73} or \citet[Lemma 1]{Yu97}.
Using the lower bound provided by
Lemma~\ref{lemma:expectation-lower-bound} and Fano's
inequality~\eqref{eqn:fano} or Le Cam's inequality~\eqref{eqn:le-cam},
the structure of our remaining proofs becomes more apparent. Each
lower bound argument proceeds in three steps:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item \label{item:loss-def-step} We construct a collection of loss functions
satisfying Definition~\ref{def:lp-loss-class}, computing the minimal
separation~\eqref{eqn:min-discrepancy} so that we may apply
Lemma~\ref{lemma:expectation-lower-bound}.
\item \label{item:fano-bound-step} The second step is to provide an upper
bound on the appropriate information theoretic quantity in order to apply
Fano's inequality~\eqref{eqn:fano}, in which case we bound
$\information(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n; \cuberv)$, or Le Cam's
inequality~\eqref{eqn:le-cam}, where we bound $\tvnorm{\channelprob^n_1 -
\channelprob_{-1}^n}$. This step requires the most work and constitutes
the major arguments in this section. We provide these bounds using one of two
techniques:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item In the proofs of Theorems~\ref{theorem:linf-bound},
\ref{theorem:lone-bound}, and~\ref{theorem:linf-bound-diffp}, we use a
distribution $\channelprob$ that satisfies
Definition~\ref{def:optimal-local-privacy} of \olp
(Theorems~\ref{theorem:linf-bound} and~\ref{theorem:lone-bound}) or
Definition~\ref{def:local-diffp} of \olpd
(Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound-diffp}). We can then explicitly upper
bound the mutual information $\information(\channelrv_{1:n}; \cuberv)$
using the definition of $\channelprob$ and the losses $\loss$ from
step~\ref{item:loss-def-step}. (See
Lemmas~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-mutual-information},
\ref{lemma:linf-mutual-information}, \ref{lemma:lone-mutual-information},
and \ref{lemma:diffp-linear-information} in the subsequent sections.)
\item In the proofs of Theorems~\ref{theorem:first-class}
and~\ref{theorem:second-class}, we use a bound on mutual
information in non-interactive locally differentially private schemes,
which we recently presented~\cite{DuchiJoWa13_parametric}.
This requires a careful packing construction in conjunction with
the loss choice from step~\ref{item:loss-def-step}.
\end{enumerate}
\item The final step is to use the results of
Steps~\ref{item:loss-def-step} and~\ref{item:fano-bound-step} in the
application of Lemma~\ref{lemma:expectation-lower-bound} and Fano's
inequality~\eqref{eqn:fano} (when the dimension $d$ is low, we use
Le Cam's inequality~\eqref{eqn:le-cam}). This then yields the
theorems.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent
We now turn to the proofs of the theorems. We provide each proof in turn,
following the steps in the preceding outline.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}}
\label{sec:proof-theorem-linf-bound}
We provide the most detail in the proof of this theorem, as it
closely exhibits the blueprint by which we prove the other results.
\subsubsection{Constructing well-separated losses}
\label{sec:linear-losses}
The first step in proving our minimax lower bounds is to construct a family of
well-separated risks. For Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}, we use one of
two families of loss functions: linear losses and median-based losses. Each
of these gives a well-separated family with subgradients
bounded in $\ell_\infty$-norm.
\paragraph{Linear losses}
Our first collection of risk functionals is relatively simple, based on
families of linear loss functions; we describe the sampling scheme
for $\statrv$ to generate them. Let $\hypercubeset = \{\pm e_i\}_{i=1}^d$,
where the vectors $e_i$ are the standard basis vectors in $\R^d$, whence
$|\hypercubeset| = 2d$. Fix $\delta \in \openleft{0}{1}$,
which we specify later. We choose the distribution
$\statprob$ on $\statrv$ to be nearly uniform on $\statrv \in \{-1, 1\}^d$.
Conditional on the parameter $\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset$,
we use the following sampling distribution for $\statrv$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:lone-linear-samples}
\mbox{Choose~} \statrv \in \{-1, 1\}^d ~
\mbox{with~independent~coordinates,~where}~ \statrv_j =
\begin{cases}
1 & \mbox{w.p.}~ \frac{1 + \delta \cubecorner_j}{2} \\
-1 & \mbox{w.p.}~ \frac{1 - \delta \cubecorner_j}{2}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Now for $\lipobj \in \R_+$ we may define the linear loss functions
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:linear-loss}
\loss(\statrv, \optvar) \defeq \lipobj \<\statrv, \optvar\> \; = \;
\lipobj \sum_{j=1}^d \statrv_j \optvar_j.
\end{equation}
By inspection, the final risk is
$\risk_\cubecorner(\optvar) = \E_\statprob[\<\optvar, \statrv\>] =
\lipobj \delta \<\cubecorner, \optvar\>$.
We obtain the following result on the separation of the risks.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:linear-linf-risk-separation}
Given the sampling scheme~\eqref{eqn:lone-linear-samples},
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item The loss~\eqref{eqn:linear-loss} is $\lipobj$-Lipschitz with
respect to the $\ell_1$-norm.
\item For the optimization domain $\optdomain = \{\optvar \in \R^d :
\lone{\optvar} \le \radius\}$, the $\discrepancy$-separation of
the set $\hypercubeset = \{\pm e_i\}_{i=1}^d$ is
$\risksep(\hypercubeset) = \lipobj \radius \delta$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first statement of the lemma is immediate, since $\nabla \loss(\statrv,
\theta) = \lipobj \statrv$ and $\linf{\statrv} \le 1$
(cf.~\cite{HiriartUrrutyLe96ab}). For the second, we verify that
$\inf_{\optvar \in \optdomain} [\risk_\cubecorner(\optvar) +
\risk_\altcubecorner(\optvar)] - \risk_\cubecorner(\optvar_\cubecorner^*)
- \risk_\altcubecorner(\optvar_\altcubecorner^*) \ge \lipobj \radius
\delta$. To do so, we compute the minimizers of $\risk_\cubecorner$: since
$\ell_1$ and $\ell_\infty$ are dual norms, we see that for $\cubecorner \in
\hypercubeset$,
\begin{equation*}
\inf_{\lone{\optvar} \le \radius} \risk_\cubecorner(\optvar) =
\inf_{\lone{\optvar} \le \radius} \lipobj \delta
\<\cubecorner, \optvar\> = -\lipobj \delta \radius
\linf{\cubecorner} = -\lipobj \delta \radius,
\end{equation*}
and the minimizer is uniquely attained at $\optvar_\cubecorner^* =
-\radius \cubecorner$. Then we have for any $\altcubecorner \neq
\cubecorner$ that
\begin{equation*}
\inf_{\lone{\optvar} \le 1}\left[\<\cubecorner + \altcubecorner,
\optvar\> \right] + \linf{\cubecorner} + \linf{\altcubecorner} =
-\linf{\cubecorner + \altcubecorner} + \linf{\cubecorner} +
\linf{\altcubecorner} \ge -1 + 1 + 1 = 1,
\end{equation*}
since any non-zero coefficients of $\cubecorner$ and
$\altcubecorner$ have differing signs. Multiplying the result by $\lipobj
\radius \delta$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Median-type losses}
We now describe a class of median-type losses, one with more general
applicability than the linear losses of Section~\ref{sec:linear-losses}. Let
$\hypercubeset \subset \{-1, 1\}^d$ be a subset of the binary hypercube such
that for all distinct pairs $\cubecorner \neq \cubecorner'$, we have
$\lone{\cubecorner - \cubecorner'} \ge d / 2$, or equivalently
$\norm{\cubecorner - \cubecorner'}_0 \ge d/4$. From the Gilbert-Varshamov
bound~\cite[Lemma 4]{Yu97} there are sets of this form with cardinality
at least $\card(\hypercubeset) \ge \exp(d/8)$. We define the distribution on
$\statrv$, conditional on $\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset$, as
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:full-samples}
\mbox{Choose~} \statrv \in \{-1, 1\}^d
~\mbox{with~independent~coordinates,~where~} \statrv_j =
\begin{cases}
1 & \mbox{w.p.~} \frac{1 + \delta\cubecorner_j}{2} \\
-1 & \mbox{w.p.~} \frac{1 - \delta\cubecorner_j}{2}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
For $\lipobj > 0$, we then define the median-type loss function
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:lone-loss}
\loss(\statrv, \optvar) = \lipobj \lone{\radius \statrv - \optvar},
\end{equation}
which under the sampling scheme~\eqref{eqn:full-samples}
gives rise to the risk functional
\begin{equation*}
\risk_\cubecorner(\optvar)
= \lipobj \sum_{j=1}^d \frac{1 +
\delta \cubecorner_j}{2} \left|\optvar_j - \radius\right| + \frac{1
- \delta \cubecorner_j}{2} \left|\optvar_j + \radius\right| =
\lipobj \left(\frac{1 + \delta}{2} \lone{\optvar - \radius
\cubecorner} + \frac{1 - \delta}{2} \lone{\optvar + \radius
\cubecorner} \right).
\end{equation*}
By construction, whenever $\optdomain$ contains the $\ell_\infty$ ball
of radius $\radius$, this risk function has the unique minimizer
\begin{equation*}
\optvar^*_\cubecorner \defeq \argmin_{\optvar \in \optdomain}
\risk_\cubecorner(\optvar) = \radius \cubecorner \in r \{-1, 1\}^d
\subset \optdomain.
\end{equation*}
The following lemma, due to~\citet{AgarwalBaRaWa12}, captures the
separation properties of the collection
$\{\risk_\cubecorner\}_{\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset}$ of risk
functionals:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:median-risk-separation}
Assume that $\optdomain$ contains $[-\radius, \radius]^d$ and let
$\risk_\cubecorner$ be defined as in the preceding paragraph. If
$\cubecorner, \altcubecorner \in \hypercubeset$ with $\cubecorner \neq
\altcubecorner$, the discrepancy $\discrepancy(\risk_\cubecorner,
\risk_\altcubecorner) \ge \radius \lipobj d \delta / 2$.
\end{lemma}
As a final remark, for random variables $\statrv \in \R^d$, the loss
function~\eqref{eqn:lone-loss} is Lipschitz continuous (for appropriate choice
of $\lipobj$) for \emph{any} distribution $\statprob$ on $\statrv$.
Specifically, defining the $\sign(\cdot)$ function coordinate-wise, we have
the subgradient equality $\partial \loss(x, \optvar) = \lipobj \sign(\optvar -
\radius x)$. Thus, for any $p \in [1,\infty]$ and $\lipobj_p \ge
0$, setting $\lipobj = \lipobj_p d^{-1/p}$ yields a member of the collection
of $(\lipobj_p, p)$-loss functions.
\subsubsection{Bounding the mutual information}
As outlined in Section~\ref{sec:testing-reduction-outline}, the second step in
our lower bound proofs is to bound the mutual information
$\information(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n; \cuberv)$, where
$\channelrv_i$ are the private views available to the learning method. Here
we provide mutual information bounds for the family of linear losses
(Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-mutual-information}) and median-based losses
(Lemma~\ref{lemma:linf-mutual-information}). Each of these mutual information
bounds---and our subsequent bounds on mutual information---proceed by using
independence to reduce the problem to estimating the mutual information
$\information(\channelrv; \cuberv \mid \optvar)$ for a single randomized
gradient sample $\channelrv$. Then, careful calculation of the distribution of
$\channelrv \mid \cuberv$ yields the final inequalities. As the proofs are
somewhat long and technical, we defer them to
Appendix~\ref{appendix:mutual-information-computation}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:linear-linf-mutual-information}
Let $\cuberv$ be drawn uniformly at random from $\hypercubeset = \{\pm
e_i\}_{i=1}^d$. Let $\statrv$ have the
distribution~\eqref{eqn:lone-linear-samples} conditional on $\cuberv =
\cubecorner$ and assume $\loss(\statrv, \optvar) = \lipobj \<\statrv,
\optvar\>$. Let $\channelrv$ be constructed according to the conditional
distribution specified by Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-saddle-point}
given a subgradient $\partial \loss(\statrv_i; \optvar)$ with
$\channelrv \in [-M_\infty, M_\infty]^d$, where $M_\infty \ge \lipobj$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\information(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n; \cuberv)
\le n \frac{\delta^2 \lipobj^2}{M_\infty^2}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\noindent
See Appendix~\ref{appendix:mutual-information-computation-linear-linf}
for a proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-mutual-information}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:linf-mutual-information}
Let $\cuberv$ be drawn uniformly at random from a set $\hypercubeset \subset
\{-1, 1\}^d$. Let $\statrv$ have the distribution~\eqref{eqn:full-samples}
conditional on $\cuberv = \cubecorner$ and assume $\loss(\statrv, \optvar) =
\lipobj \lone{\radius \statrv - \optvar}$, where $\radius > 0$ is a
constant.
Let $\channelrv$ be constructed according to the distribution specified by
Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-saddle-point} conditional on a subgradient
$\partial \loss(\statrv_i; \optvar)$, where $\channelrv \in [-M_\infty,
M_\infty]^d$ and $M_\infty \ge \lipobj$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\information(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n; \cuberv)
\le n \frac{\delta^2 \lipobj^2 d}{M_\infty^2}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\noindent
See Appendix~\ref{appendix:mutual-information-computation-linf}
for a proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:linf-mutual-information}.
\subsubsection{Applying testing inequalities}
Having established the two families of loss functions we consider and
the resultant mutual information bounds, it remains to apply
Lemma~\ref{lemma:expectation-lower-bound} and a testing inequality.
We begin by proving part (a) of the theorem.
\paragraph{Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}(a)}
We divide the proof of part (a) of the theorem into two parts: one assuming
the dimension $d \ge 9$ and the other assuming $d < 9$. For the
first, we use Fano's inequality~\eqref{eqn:fano}, while for the second,
an application of Le Cam's method~\eqref{eqn:le-cam} completes the result.
For both results, we use the median-type loss $\loss(\statrv, \optvar)
= \lipobj \lone{\radius \statrv - \optvar}$.
We first recall the beginning of the previous section, stating the following
application of Lemma~\ref{lemma:expectation-lower-bound} and Fano's
inequality~\eqref{eqn:fano}:
\begin{align}
\frac{2}{\risksep(\hypercubeset)} \E_{\statprob, \channelprob}
\left[\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)\right] \ge
\P_{\statprob, \channelprob}\left(\what{\cubecorner}(\method) \neq
\cuberv\right) \ge 1 - \frac{\information(\channelrv_1, \ldots,
\channelrv_n; \cuberv) + \log 2}{ \log |\hypercubeset|}.
\label{eqn:risk-to-fano}
\end{align}
Now we give the proof of the first statement of the theorem
in the case that $d \ge 9$.
Applying Lemmas~\ref{lemma:median-risk-separation}
and~\ref{lemma:linf-mutual-information}, we immediately have the
following specialization of the inequality~\eqref{eqn:risk-to-fano}:
\begin{align*}
\frac{4}{\radius \lipobj d \delta} \E_{\statprob, \channelprob}\left[
\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)\right] & \ge 1 -
\frac{\log 2}{\log |\hypercubeset|} - n \frac{\delta^2
\lipobj^2 d}{M_\infty^2 \log |\hypercubeset|}.
\end{align*}
Taking the set $\hypercubeset \subset \{-1, 1\}^d$ to be a $d/4$
packing of the hypercube $\{-1, 1\}^d$ satisfying $|\hypercubeset| \ge
\exp(d/8)$, as in our construction of median-type losses
in Section~\ref{sec:linear-losses}, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{4}{\radius \lipobj d \delta} \E_{\statprob, \channelprob} \left[
\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)\right] \ge 1 -
\frac{8 \log 2}{d} - n\frac{8 \delta^2
\lipobj^2}{M_\infty^2}.
\end{equation*}
The numerical inequality $8 \log 2 < 6$
coupled with the preceding bound implies
\begin{equation*}
\frac{4}{\radius d \lipobj \delta} \E_{\statprob, \channelprob}\left[
\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)\right]
> 1 - \frac{6}{d}
- 8 n \frac{\delta^2 \lipobj^2}{M_\infty^2}.
\end{equation*}
By our assumption that $d \ge 9$, if we choose $\delta = \min\{M_\infty / 8
\lipobj \sqrt{n}, 1\}$, we are guaranteed the lower bound
$\frac{4}{\radius d \lipobj \delta} \E_{\statprob, \channelprob}
\left[\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)\right] >
\frac{1}{5}$, or equivalently
\begin{align*}
\E_{\statprob, \channelprob} \left[\optgap_n(\method, \loss,
\optdomain, \statprob) \right] & > \frac{\radius d \lipobj
\delta}{20} = \frac{1}{20} \cdot \min\left\{
\radius d \lipobj,
\frac{M_\infty \radius
d}{8\sqrt{n}}\right\}.
\end{align*}
When $d < 9$, we may reduce to the case that $d = 1$, since a lower
bound in this setting extends to higher dimensions (though
we may lose dimension dependence).
For this case, we use the packing set
$\hypercubeset = \{-1, 1\}$ with the linear loss function from
Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-risk-separation}, which has
$\risksep(\hypercubeset) = \lipobj \radius \delta$. In this case, the
marginal distribution $\channelprob(\cdot \mid \cuberv)$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\channelprob(\channelrv = \channelval \mid \cuberv = 1)
= \half + \begin{cases}
\frac{\delta \lipobj}{2 M} & \mbox{if~} \channelval = M \\
-\frac{\delta \lipobj}{2 M} & \mbox{otherwise, i.e.~if~}
\channelval = -M.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Now, let $\channelprob^n(\cdot \mid \cuberv)$ denote the distribution of
$\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n$ conditional on $\cuberv$. Then applying
Lemma~\ref{lemma:expectation-lower-bound} and Le Cam's lower
bound~\eqref{eqn:le-cam}, we obtain the inequality
\begin{equation*}
\frac{2}{\radius \lipobj \delta}
\E_{\statprob, \channelprob}[\optgap_n(\method, \loss,
\optdomain, \statprob)]
\ge \P_{\statprob, \channelprob}
\left(\what{\cubecorner}(\method) \neq \cuberv\right)
\ge \half - \half \norm{\channelprob^n(\cdot \mid \cuberv = 1)
- \channelprob^n(\cdot \mid \cuberv = -1)}_{\rm TV}.
\end{equation*}
A standard result on the total variation distance of Bernoulli distributions
(see Lemma~\ref{lemma:tv-norm-bound} in
Appendix~\ref{appendix:tv-norm-bounding}) implies that
\begin{equation*}
\tvnorm{\channelprob^n(\cdot \mid \cuberv = 1)
- \channelprob^n(\cdot \mid \cuberv = -1)}
\le \frac{\delta \lipobj}{M} \sqrt{(3/2) n}
\end{equation*}
if $\delta \le M / (3 \lipobj)$. Thus we have the bound
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:apply-le-cam}
\frac{2}{\radius \lipobj \delta}
\E_{\statprob, \channelprob}[\optgap_n(\method, \loss,
\optdomain, \statprob)]
\ge
\frac{1}{2} - \frac{\sqrt{3 n}}{2 \sqrt{2}}
\cdot \frac{\delta \lipobj}{M}.
\end{equation}
Multiplying both sides by $\radius \lipobj \delta$, then setting
$\delta = \min\{M / (3 \lipobj \sqrt{n}), 1\} \le M/(3\lipobj)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\E_{\statprob, \channelprob}[\optgap_n(\method, \loss,
\optdomain, \statprob)]
\ge
\left(\half - \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{6}}\right) \frac{\radius \lipobj \delta}{2}
\ge \frac{\sqrt{6} - 1}{4 \sqrt{6}} \radius \lipobj
\min\left\{\frac{M}{3 \lipobj \sqrt{n}}, 1\right\}.
\end{equation*}
In turn, for any $d \le 8$, we immediately find that
$(\sqrt{6} - 1) / 4 \sqrt{6} \ge d / (9 \cdot 20)$,
which completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}(a).
\paragraph{Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}(b)}
For the second statement of the theorem, we use the linear losses of
Section~\ref{sec:linear-losses} and apply
Lemmas~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-risk-separation}
and~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-mutual-information} with the choice $\hypercubeset
= \{\pm e_i\}_{i = 1}^d$. In this case, the lower
bound~\eqref{eqn:risk-to-fano} and
Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-risk-separation}'s
separation guarantee imply that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{2}{\lipobj \radius \delta} \E_{\statprob, \channelprob}
\left[\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)\right] \ge 1
- \frac{\log 2}{\log(2 d)} - \frac{\information(\channelrv_1,
\ldots, \channelrv_n; \cuberv)}{\log(2d)}.
\end{equation*}
We may assume that $d \ge 2$ (using the result of part (a) for $d = 1$), and
we have $\log 2 / \log(2d) \le 1/2$, which, after an application of
Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-mutual-information}, yields
\begin{equation*}
\frac{2}{\lipobj \radius \delta} \E_{\statprob, \channelprob}
\left[\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)\right]
\ge \half - n \frac{\delta^2 \lipobj^2}{M_\infty^2 \log (2d)}.
\end{equation*}
If we choose $\delta = \min\{M_\infty \sqrt{\log(2d)} / 2 \lipobj \sqrt{n},
1\}$, we see that we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{2}{\lipobj \radius \delta} \E_{\statprob, \channelprob}
\left[\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)\right]
\ge \frac{1}{4},
\end{equation*}
which is equivalent in this case to
\begin{equation*}
\E_{\statprob, \channelprob} \left[\optgap_n(\method, \loss,
\optdomain, \statprob)\right] \ge \frac{\radius \lipobj \delta}{8}
= \frac{1}{8}
\min\left\{ \lipobj \radius, \frac{M_\infty \radius \sqrt{\log
(2d)}}{2 \sqrt{n}}\right\}.
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:lone-bound}}
\label{sec:proof-theorem-lone-bound}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:lone-bound} is quite similar to that
of Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}, again following our outline
from Section~\ref{sec:testing-reduction-outline}. In this section, however,
we construct a different family of loss functions, necessitating
a new mutual information bound.
\subsubsection{Constructing well-separated losses}
\label{sec:hinge-losses}
We construct families of losses that are useful for analyzing the case of
stochastic subgradients bounded in $\ell_1$-norm. As was the case with median
losses (recall Section~\ref{sec:linear-losses}), let $\hypercubeset \subset
\{-1, 1\}^d$ be a $d/4$-packing of the hypercube in $\ell_0$-norm; we know
there is such a set with cardinality $|\hypercubeset| \ge \exp(d/8)$. As our
sampling process for the data, we choose $\statrv$ from among the $2d$
positive and negative standard basis vectors $\pm e_j$, namely
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:coord-samples}
\mbox{Choose~index~} j \in \{1, \ldots, d\} ~
\mbox{uniformly~at~random, and~set~} \statrv =
\begin{cases}
e_j & \mbox{w.p.}~ \frac{1 + \delta \cubecorner_j}{2} \\ -e_j &
\mbox{w.p.}~ \frac{1 - \delta \cubecorner_j}{2},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\delta \in \openleft{0}{1}$ is fixed. For a fixed $\lipobj > 0$, we
define the hinge loss, common in classification problems,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:svm-loss}
\loss(\statsample, \optvar) =
\lipobj \hinge{\radius - \<\statsample, \optvar\>}.
\end{equation}
The combination of
hinge loss~\eqref{eqn:svm-loss} and sampling
strategy~\eqref{eqn:coord-samples} yields the risk functional
\begin{equation*}
\risk_\cubecorner(\optvar) =
\frac{\lipobj}{d} \sum_{j=1}^d \frac{1 + \delta \cubecorner_j}{2}
\hinge{\radius - \<e_j, \optvar\>} +
\frac{\lipobj}{d} \sum_{j=1}^d \frac{1 - \delta \cubecorner_j}{2}
\hinge{\radius + \<e_j, \optvar\>}.
\end{equation*}
Assuming that $\optdomain$ contains the $\ell_\infty$ ball of radius
$\radius$, the (unique) minimizer of the risk over $\optdomain$ is
\begin{equation*}
\optvar^*_\cubecorner \defeq \argmin_{\optvar \in \optdomain}
\risk_\cubecorner(\optvar) = \radius \cubecorner \in \radius \{-1,
1\}^d \subset \optdomain.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, this risk has the following properties:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:hinge-loss-separation}
For any set $\optdomain \supseteq [-\radius, \radius]^d$, we have:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item For $\statprob$ with support $\supp \statprob \subseteq \{\statsample
\in \R^d : \lone{x} \le 1\}$, the loss function~\eqref{eqn:svm-loss} is
$\lipobj$-Lipschitz with respect to the $\ell_\infty$-norm.
\item If $\cubecorner, \altcubecorner \in \hypercubeset$ with
$\cubecorner \neq \altcubecorner$, the discrepancy
$\discrepancy(\risk_\cubecorner, \risk_\altcubecorner) \ge \radius
\lipobj \delta / 2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first claim is immediate (cf.~\cite{HiriartUrrutyLe96ab}), since
$\lone{\partial \loss(\statsample, \optvar)} \le \lipobj \lone{\statsample}
\le \lipobj$. For the second statement of the lemma, as in the proof of
Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-risk-separation}
we verify the separation condition directly by computing the
minimizers of $\risk_\cubecorner$.
The minimum of
\begin{equation*}
\risk_\cubecorner(\optvar) + \risk_\altcubecorner(\optvar) =
\frac{\lipobj}{d}\sum_{j=1}^d \left(\hinge{\radius - \<e_j, \optvar\>} +
\hinge{\radius + \<e_j, \optvar\>}\right)
+ \frac{\lipobj \delta}{d} \sum_{j
: \cubecorner_j = \altcubecorner_j} \!\! \cubecorner_j
\left(
\hinge{\radius - \<e_j, \optvar\>} - \hinge{\radius + \<e_j, \optvar\>}
\right)
\end{equation*}
is attained by any $\optvar \in \R^d$ with $\optvar_j \in [-\radius,
\radius]$ for $j$ such that $\cubecorner_j \neq \altcubecorner_j$ and
$\optvar_j = \radius \cubecorner_j$ for $j$ such that $\cubecorner_j =
\altcubecorner_j$; a minimizer of $\risk_\cubecorner$ is
$\optvar_\cubecorner^* = \radius \cubecorner$. Thus we have
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{\inf_{\optvar \in \optdomain}
\left\{\risk_\cubecorner(\optvar) +
\risk_\altcubecorner(\optvar)\right\} -
\risk_\cubecorner(\optvar_\cubecorner^*) -
\risk_\altcubecorner(\optvar_\altcubecorner^*) = \frac{\lipobj}{d}
\sum_{j = 1}^d 2 \radius - \frac{2\lipobj}{d} \sum_{j : \cubecorner_j
= \altcubecorner_j} \radius \delta - \lipobj \radius (1 - \delta) -
\lipobj \radius (1 - \delta)} \\ &
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad = 2\lipobj r - 2\lipobj r
+ 2\lipobj r \delta - \frac{2\lipobj r \delta}{d}
\left( d - \norm{\cubecorner - \altcubecorner}_0\right)
= \frac{2\lipobj \radius
\delta}{d}\norm{\cubecorner - \altcubecorner}_0.
\end{align*}
Since $\norm{\cubecorner - \altcubecorner}_0 \ge d/4$ by
construction, we have $\discrepancy(\risk_\cubecorner,
\risk_\altcubecorner) \ge \radius \lipobj \delta / 2$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Bounding the mutual information}
For Theorem~\ref{theorem:lone-bound}, we require a somewhat careful
bound on the mutual information between the subgradients and the
unknown index. We have the following lemma, whose proof we provide in
Appendix~\ref{appendix:mutual-information-computation-lone}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:lone-mutual-information}
Let $\cuberv$ be drawn uniformly at random from a set $\hypercubeset
\subset \{-1, 1\}^d$. Define the distribution $\statprob(\cdot \mid
A)$ on $\statrv$ as in the random sampling
scheme~\eqref{eqn:coord-samples} and use the
loss~\eqref{eqn:svm-loss}. Let $\channelrv$ be constructed according
to the conditional distribution specified by
Proposition~\ref{proposition:lone-saddle-point}, where $\channelrv
\in \{\channelval \in \R^d : \lone{\channelval} \le M_1\}$, and
define $M = M_1 / \lipobj$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\information(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n; \cuberv) \le n
\delta^2 \channeldiff^2,
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\gamma \defeq \log\left(\frac{2d - 2 + \sqrt{(2d - 2)^2
+ 4(M^2 - 1)}}{2(M - 1)}\right)
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
\channeldiff \defeq
\frac{e^\gamma - e^{-\gamma}}{e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma}
+ 2(d - 1)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\subsubsection{Applying testing inequalities}
The remainder of the proof is similar to that of
Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}, except that we apply
Lemma~\ref{lemma:lone-mutual-information} in place of
Lemmas~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-mutual-information}
or~\ref{lemma:linf-mutual-information}. Indeed, following identical steps to
those in the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}, we see that with the
specified packing $\hypercubeset \subset \{-1, 1\}^d$ of size $|\hypercubeset|
\ge \exp(d/8)$, we have (recall Eq.~\eqref{eqn:risk-to-fano})
\begin{align*}
\frac{4}{\radius \lipobj \delta}
\E_{\statprob, \channelprob}[
\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)]
& \ge 1 - \frac{\log 2}{\log |\hypercubeset|}
- n \frac{\delta^2 \channeldiff^2}{\log |\hypercubeset|}
\ge 1 - \frac{6}{d} - 8 n \frac{\delta^2 \channeldiff^2}{d}.
\end{align*}
Consequently, if we choose $\delta = \min\{\sqrt{d} / (8 \channeldiff
\sqrt{n}), 1\}$, then for all $d \ge 9$, we have the lower bound
$\frac{4}{\radius \lipobj \delta} \E_{\statprob, \channelprob}[
\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)] \ge \frac{1}{5}$,
or equivalently
\begin{equation*}
\E_{\statprob, \channelprob}[ \optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain,
\statprob)] \ge \frac{\radius \lipobj \delta}{20} = \frac{1}{20}
\min\left\{\radius \lipobj, \frac{\radius \lipobj \sqrt{d}}{
8 \sqrt{n} \channeldiff}\right\},
\end{equation*}
which completes the proof (the case $d \le 8$ is identical to that in
Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}).
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound-diffp}}
\label{sec:proof-theorem-linf-bound-diffp}
We are somewhat more terse in our proof of
Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound-diffp} than the previous two,
though we repeat the same steps to emphasize our technique.
\subsubsection{Constructing well-separated losses}
We begin by choosing the family of loss functions we require: since our
optimization domain $\optdomain = \{\optvar \in \R^d : \lone{\optvar} \le
\radius\}$, we use the linear losses of Section~\ref{sec:linear-losses} with
the sampling scheme~\eqref{eqn:lone-linear-samples} as in
Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}. Thus, using the packing set $\hypercubeset =
\{\pm e_i\}_{i=1}^d$, we find that
$\risksep(\hypercubeset) = \lipobj \radius \delta$, and consequently
\begin{equation*}
\frac{2}{\lipobj \radius \delta}
\E_{\statprob, \channelprob}\left[
\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)\right]
\ge 1 - \frac{\log 2}{\log(2d)}
-\frac{\information(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n; \cuberv)}{
\log(2d)}
\end{equation*}
as earlier.
\subsubsection{Bounding the mutual information}
The mutual information bound in this theorem
is somewhat more complicated than the previous bounds, as
the optimal privacy-preserving distribution (recall
Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-diffp-saddle-point}) is more complex.
We begin by stating a lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:diffp-linear-information}
Let $\cuberv$ be drawn uniformly at random from
$\hypercubeset = \{\pm e_i\}_{i=1}^d$.
Let $\statrv \mid \cuberv$ be sampled according to the
distribution~\eqref{eqn:lone-linear-samples}, and let
$\channelrv \mid \statrv = \statsample$ have support on
$\{-1, 1\}^d$ and have p.m.f.
\begin{equation*}
\channeldensity(\channelval \mid \statsample) \propto
\begin{cases}
\exp(\diffp) & \mbox{if~} \channelval^\top \statsample > k \\
1 & \mbox{if~} \channelval^\top \statsample \le k
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
for some $k \ge 0$. Define the constants $C_d(k)$ and $\Delta(\delta,
\diffp, d, k)$ by
\begin{equation*}
C_d(k) \defeq \card\left\{\channelval \in \{-1, 1\}^d
: \<\channelval, \statsample\> > k\right\}
= \sum_{i = 0}^{\ceil{(d - k)/2} - 1} \binom{d}{i}.
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)
\defeq \delta \cdot \frac{e^\diffp - 1}{(e^\diffp + 1)
C_d(k) + 2^d} \binom{d - 1}{\ceil{(d - k)/2} - 1}.
\end{equation*}
Then
\begin{equation*}
\information(\channelrv; \cuberv) \le
\Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)^2.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\noindent
We provide the proof of the lemma in
Appendix~\ref{appendix:mutual-information-computation-diffp}. \\
For any $\diffp \le 5/4$, we have $e^\diffp - 1 \le 2\diffp$, and by
properties of binomial coefficients and Stirling's approximation we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2^d} \binom{d - 1}{\ceil{(d - k)/2} - 1}
\le \frac{1}{2^d} \binom{d-1}{\ceil{d/2} - 1}
\le \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}
\end{equation*}
for any $k$. For any distribution $\channelprob$ satisfying \olpd\ at a
differential privacy level $\diffp$,
Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-diffp-saddle-point} implies $\channelprob$
is a convex combination of distributions with p.m.f.s of the form in
Lemma~\ref{lemma:diffp-linear-information}. That is,
we sample with a channel $\channelprob$ whose p.m.f.\ is a convex
combination of p.m.f.s of the form
\begin{equation*}
\channeldensity_k(\channelval \mid \statsample)
= \frac{1}{e^\diffp C_d(k) + (2^d - C_d(k))}
\cdot \begin{cases} \exp(\diffp) & \mbox{if}~ \channelval^\top \statsample
/ M
> k \\
1 & \mbox{if~} \channelval^\top \statsample / M \le k
\end{cases}
~~ \mbox{for~} \channelval \in \{-M, M\}^d,
\end{equation*}
so $\channelprob(\channelrv = \channelval \mid \statsample)
= \sum_k \beta_k \channeldensity_k(\channelval \mid \statsample)$
for some $\beta_k \ge 0$ with $\sum_k \beta_k = 1$.
Applying the convexity of mutual
information---taking a convex combination of channel distributions
$\channelprob$ can only reduce mutual information---and
Lemma~\ref{lemma:diffp-linear-information}, we thus obtain
\begin{align}
\lefteqn{\information(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n; \cuberv)
\le n \max_{k \ge 0} \Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)^2}
\label{eqn:opt-diffp-information} \\
& \qquad\qquad ~ \le n \delta^2 (e^\diffp - 1)^2 \max_k \left(
\frac{1}{(e^\diffp + 1) C_d(k) + 2^d} \binom{d - 1}{
\ceil{(d - k)/2} - 1}\right)^2
\le 4n \delta^2 \diffp^2 \cdot \frac{1}{d}.
\nonumber
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Applying testing inequalities}
As a consequence of the display~\eqref{eqn:opt-diffp-information}, we have the
lower bound
\begin{equation*}
\frac{2}{\lipobj \radius \delta}
\E_{\statprob, \channelprob}\left[
\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)\right]
\ge \half - \max_k \frac{n\Delta(\delta, \diffp, d, k)^2}{\log(2d)}
\ge \half - \frac{4 n \delta^2 \diffp^2}{d \log(2d)}.
\end{equation*}
By choosing $\delta = \min\{\sqrt{d \log(2d)}/ 4\diffp \sqrt{n}, 1\}$, we find
that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{2}{\lipobj \radius \delta}
\E_{\statprob, \channelprob}[\optgap_n(
\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)]
\ge \frac{1}{4},
\end{equation*}
which is equivalent to the bound given in the theorem.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:first-class}}
\label{sec:proof-first-class}
\newcommand{\channelprob}{\channelprob}
\newcommand{M}{M}
\newcommand{\hypercubeset}{\hypercubeset}
\newcommand{\cuberv}{\cuberv}
\newcommand{\cubecorner}{\cubecorner}
\newcommand{\altcubecorner}{\altcubecorner}
\newcommand{\optdens}{\gamma}
\newcommand{\linfset}{\mc{B}_1}
\newcommand{\mc{\channelrv}}{\mc{\channelrv}}
\newcommand{\overline{\statprob}}{\overline{\statprob}}
In our proofs of Theorems~\ref{theorem:first-class}
and~\ref{theorem:second-class}, we exploit some of our own recent
results~\cite{DuchiJoWa13_parametric} on the contractive properties of
mutual information and KL-divergence under local differential
privacy. A few definitions are required in order to state these
results. As usual, we have an indexed set of probability measures
$\{\statprob_\cubecorner\}_{\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset}$, and we let
$\channelprob^n(\cdot \mid \statsample_1, \ldots, \statsample_n)$
denote the joint probability of the $n$ released private random
variables $\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n$. For each $\cubecorner \in
\hypercubeset$, we then define the \emph{marginal} distribution
\begin{equation}
M_\cubecorner^n(A) \defeq
\int \channelprob^n(A \mid \statsample_1, \ldots, \statsample_n)
d \statprob^n_\cubecorner(\statsample_1, \ldots, \statsample_n)
~~~ \mbox{for}~ A \in \sigma(\mc{\channelrv}^n).
\label{eqn:marginal-channel}
\end{equation}
\citet{DuchiJoWa13_parametric} establish two results that provide
bounds on $\tvnorm{M_\cubecorner^n -
M_{\altcubecorner}^n}$ and $\information(\channelrv_1,
\ldots, \channelrv_n; \cuberv)$ as a function of the amount of privacy
provided and the distances between the underlying distributions
$\statprob_\cubecorner$.
The bounds apply to any channel distribution $\channelprob$ that is
$\diffp$-locally differentially private (for the first result) and to any
non-interactive $\diffp$-locally differentially private channel (for the
second result; recall the
definition~\eqref{eqn:local-differential-privacy}). Let $\statprob_\cubecorner$
be the distribution of $\statrv$ conditional on the random packing element
$\cuberv = \cubecorner$, and let $M_\cubecorner^n$ be the marginal
distribution~\eqref{eqn:marginal-channel} induced by passing $\statrv_i$
through $\channelprob$. Define the mixture distribution \mbox{$\overline{\statprob}
= \frac{1}{|\hypercubeset|} \sum_{\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset} \statprob_{\cubecorner}$,}
and let $\sigma(\statdomain)$ denote the $\sigma$-field on $\statdomain$ over
which $\statprob_\cubecorner$ are defined. With this notation we can state the
following proposition, which summarizes the results we need
from~\citet[Theorems 1--2, Corollaries 1--2]{DuchiJoWa13_parametric}:
\begin{proposition}[Information bounds]
\label{proposition:information-bounds}
Let the conditions of the previous paragraph hold and assume that
$\channelprob$ is $\diffp$-locally differentially private.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] For all $\diffp \ge 0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:one-d-kl}
\dkl{M_\cubecorner^n}{M_{\altcubecorner}^n}
\le 4 n
(e^\diffp - 1)^2 \tvnorm{\statprob_{\cubecorner} -
\statprob_{\altcubecorner}}^2.
\end{equation}
%
\item[(b)] If $\channelprob$ is non-interactive, then for all $\diffp \ge 0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:super-fano}
\information(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n; \cuberv)
\le e^\diffp n \left(e^\diffp - e^{-\diffp}\right)^2
\sup_{S \in \sigma(\statdomain)}\frac{1}{|\hypercubeset|}
\sum_{\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset}
\left(\statprob_\cubecorner(S) - \overline{\statprob}(S)\right)^2.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\noindent
With Proposition~\ref{proposition:information-bounds} in place, we
proceed with the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:first-class}. To
establish the lower bound, we follow the outline of
Section~\ref{sec:testing-reduction-outline}. Establishing the upper
bound requires a few additional steps. We defer the formal proofs of
achievability to Appendix~\ref{appendix:sgd-achievability} (see
\ref{appendix:sgd-linf-achievability}), as the proofs are similar to
Corollaries~\ref{corollary:linf-privacy}--\ref{corollary:linf-privacy-diffp}.
\subsubsection{Constructing well-separated losses}
Our lower bound uses an identical construction to that in
Section~\ref{sec:linear-losses}. We let the loss function $\loss(\statsample,
\optvar) = \lipobj \<\statsample, \optvar\>$, and we use the
distribution~\eqref{eqn:lone-linear-samples} on $\statsample$; that is, we
have $\hypercubeset = \{\pm e_j\}_{j=1}^d$ and for $\delta \in [0, 1/2]$, we sample
vectors from $\statdomain = \{-1, 1\}^d$ with probability
$\statprob_\cubecorner(\statrv = \statsample) = (1 + \delta \cubecorner^\top
\statsample) / 2^d$. We then have $\risksep(\hypercubeset) = \lipobj \radius
\delta$ and $|\hypercubeset| = 2d$ (recall
Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-risk-separation}).
\subsubsection{Bounding the mutual information}
With the construction of the (nearly) uniform sampling scheme, we have the
following lemma~\cite[Lemma 7]{DuchiJoWa13_parametric}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:l1-information-bound}
Under the conditions of the previous paragraph, let $\delta \le 1$ and
$\cuberv$ be sampled uniformly from $\{\pm e_j\}_{j=1}^d$. For any
non-interactive $\diffp$-differentially private channel $\channelprob$,
\begin{equation*}
\information(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n; \cuberv) \le
n \frac{e^\diffp}{4d} \left(e^{\diffp} - e^{-\diffp}\right)^2
\delta^2.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\subsubsection{Applying testing inequalities}
Using Lemma~\ref{lemma:l1-information-bound}, we can give an almost immediate
proof of the lower bound in Theorem~\ref{theorem:first-class}. Indeed,
using Fano's inequality~\eqref{eqn:fano},
Lemmas~\ref{lemma:expectation-lower-bound}
and~\ref{lemma:l1-information-bound}, and the separation $\risksep(\hypercubeset) =
\lipobj \radius \delta$ from Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-risk-separation}(b),
we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain, \diffp) \ge \frac{\lipobj \radius
\delta}{2} \left(1 - \frac{n e^\diffp (e^\diffp - e^{-\diffp})^2
\delta^2 / 4 d + \log 2}{\log(2d)}\right).
\end{equation*}
So long as $d \ge 2$, setting
\begin{equation*}
\delta = \min\left\{\frac{\sqrt{d \log(2d)}}{\sqrt{e^\diffp n} (e^\diffp -
e^{-\diffp})}, 1 \right\}
\end{equation*}
and noting that $e^\diffp = \order(1)$ and $e^\diffp - e^{-\diffp} \le c
\diffp$ for a universal constant $c$ if $\diffp = \order(1)$ completes the
proof.
When $d = 1$, an argument via Le Cam's method~\eqref{eqn:le-cam} yields an
identical result. Given Proposition~\ref{proposition:information-bounds}, the
argument is quite similar to that used in the proof of
Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}. We use the packing set $\hypercubeset = \{\pm
1\}$ and conditional on $\cuberv = \cubecorner$, set $\statrv = 1$ with
probability $(1 + \cubecorner \delta) / 2$ and $\statrv = -1$ with probability
$(1 - \cubecorner \delta) / 2$, which yields separation $\risksep(\hypercubeset) =
\lipobj \radius \delta$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-linf-risk-separation}. We
also have the marginal contraction
\begin{equation*}
\tvnorm{M_1^n - M_{-1}^n}^2 \le \half
\dkl{M_1^n}{M_{-1}^n} \le 2 (e^\diffp - 1)^2 n
\tvnorm{\statprob_1 - \statprob_{-1}}^2
\end{equation*}
by Pinsker's inequality and
Proposition~\ref{proposition:information-bounds}. By
construction, the total variation $\tvnorm{\statprob_1 -
\statprob_{-1}} = \delta$, whence we find that
$\tvnorm{M_1^n - M_{-1}^n}^2 \le 2(e^\diffp -
1)^2 n \delta^2$. Applying Le Cam's method~\eqref{eqn:le-cam} and
Lemma~\ref{lemma:expectation-lower-bound}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain, \diffp) \ge \frac{\lipobj \radius
\delta}{2} \left(\half - \frac{\sqrt{n} (e^\diffp - 1)
\delta}{\sqrt{2}}\right).
\end{equation*}
Take $\delta = \min\{\left(2 \sqrt{2} \sqrt{n} (e^\diffp - 1)\right)^{-1},
1\}$ to complete the proof in this case.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:second-class}}
\label{sec:proof-second-class}
The proof of this theorem follows the outline established in
Section~\ref{sec:testing-reduction-outline}, as did the previous results. We
defer the attainability results to
Appendix~\ref{appendix:sgd-ltwo-achievability}.
\subsubsection{Constructing well-separated losses}
Before constructing the well-separated loss functions, we
exhibit the set $\hypercubeset$ that underlies our sampling distributions.
The following lemma exhibits the existence of a special packing of
the Boolean hypercube~\cite[Lemma 5]{DuchiJoWa13_parametric}:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:hypercube-packing}
There exists a packing $\hypercubeset$ of the $d$-dimensional hypercube
$\{-1, 1\}^d$ with $\lone{\cubecorner - \altcubecorner} \ge d/2$ for each
$\cubecorner, \altcubecorner \in \hypercubeset$ with $\cubecorner \neq
\altcubecorner$ such that the cardinality of $\hypercubeset$ is at least
$\ceil{\exp(d/16)}$ and
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{|\hypercubeset|} \sum_{\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset} \cubecorner
\cubecorner^\top \preceq 25 I_{d \times d}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\noindent
With this packing $\hypercubeset$, we
as usual let $\cuberv \in \hypercubeset$, and conditional on
$\cuberv = \cubecorner$, we sample
$\statrv \in \{\pm e_j\}_{j=1}^d$ according the
sampling scheme~\eqref{eqn:coord-samples}.
\paragraph{Linear losses (for the bound~\eqref{eqn:second-linear-rate})}
We first consider the case that
the loss functions are linear functionals that are $\lipobj$-Lipschitz with
respect to the $\ell_{p'}$-norm for some $p' \ge 2$, and we optimize over
$\ell_q$ balls $\mathbb{B}_q(\radius_q)$. In this case, we define the loss
$\loss(\statsample, \optvar) = \lipobj \<\statsample, \optvar\>$, and we note
that since $\lone{\statsample} \le 1$ for $\statsample \in \statdomain$,
the function $\loss(\statsample, \cdot)$ is $\lipobj$-Lipschitz with
respect to the $\ell_\infty$-norm. With the sampling
scheme~\eqref{eqn:coord-samples}, $\risk_\cubecorner(\optvar) = \lipobj
\delta \<\cubecorner,\optvar\> / d$.
Since $\inf_{\optvar \in \Ball_q(\radius_q)}
\<\cubecorner, \optvar\> = -\norm{\cubecorner}_p$
when $p = (1 - 1/q)^{-1}$ is the conjugate of $q$, we have
the pairwise separation
\begin{equation*}
\discrepancy(\risk_\cubecorner, \risk_{\altcubecorner})
= -\frac{\radius_q \lipobj \delta}{d}
\left(\norms{\cubecorner + \altcubecorner}_p - \norm{\cubecorner}_p
- \norms{\altcubecorner}_p\right).
\end{equation*}
With the packing set $\hypercubeset$ exhibited by
Lemma~\ref{lemma:hypercube-packing}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\norms{\cubecorner + \altcubecorner}_p^p
= \sum_{j=1}^d (\cubecorner_j + \altcubecorner_j)^p
= \sum_{j : \cubecorner_j = \altcubecorner_j} 2^p
\le \frac{3d}{4} 2^p,
\end{equation*}
and $\norm{\cubecorner}_p = d^{1/p}$ for each $\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset$. This
implies the following lower bound on the discrepancy:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:lp-lq-separation}
\risksep(\hypercubeset) \ge
\max_{\cubecorner \neq \altcubecorner}
\discrepancy(\risk_\cubecorner, \risk_{\altcubecorner})
\ge \frac{\radius \lipobj \delta}{d}
\left(2 d^{1/p} (1 - (3/4)^{1/p})\right)
\ge \frac{3}{5} \radius \lipobj \delta d^{\frac{1}{p} - 1}.
\end{equation}
\paragraph{General loss functions
(for the bound~\eqref{eqn:second-class-lower})} For the general lower bound
of the theorem, we use the hinge loss $\loss(\statsample, \optvar) = \lipobj
\hinge{\radius - \<\statsample, \optvar\>}$ as our loss function. In this
case, as in Theorem~\ref{theorem:lone-bound} (recall
Lemma~\ref{lemma:hinge-loss-separation}), our sampling strategy yields that
the loss $\loss(\statsample, \optvar)$ is an $(\lipobj, 1)$ loss, since
$\lone{\statsample} \le 1$, and we have the discrepancy bound
$\risksep(\hypercubeset) \ge \frac{\radius \lipobj \delta}{2}$, since the
separation depends only on the distance $\lone{\cubecorner - \altcubecorner}$, which
Lemma~\ref{lemma:hypercube-packing} lower bounds.
\subsubsection{Bounding the mutual information}
Using Lemma~\ref{lemma:hypercube-packing}, we may bound the mutual
information between samples $\channelrv$ from a particular
distribution and a random sample $\cuberv$ from a set $\hypercubeset$ of
the form in the lemma. Indeed, let $\hypercubeset$ be a packing of the
$d$-dimensional hypercube specified in
Lemma~\ref{lemma:hypercube-packing}. Conditional on $\cuberv =
\cubecorner \in \{-1, 1\}^d$, we sample the random vector $\statrv \in
\{\pm e_j\}_{j=1}^d$ according to the sampling
scheme~\eqref{eqn:coord-samples}. Then we have the following
lemma~\cite[Lemma 6]{DuchiJoWa13_parametric}, which applies as long as
the channel $\channelprob$ is non-interactive and $\diffp$-locally
differentially private.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:linf-info-bound}
Let $\channelrv_i$ be $\diffp$-locally differentially
private for $\statrv_i$ and the conditions of the
previous paragraph hold. Then
\begin{equation*}
\information(\channelrv_1, \ldots, \channelrv_n; \cuberv) \le n
\frac{25 e^\diffp}{16} \frac{\delta^2}{d} (e^\diffp -
e^{-\diffp})^2.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\subsubsection{Applying testing inequalities}
Our last step is to apply the usual testing inequalities.
We first prove the lower bound in inequality~\eqref{eqn:second-linear-rate}.
Let $\lossset_{\rm lin} = \linearclasstwo[\mathbb{B}_q(\radius_q)]$.
Then by applying Lemma~\ref{lemma:linf-info-bound} and Fano's
inequality~\eqref{eqn:fano} to
Lemma~\ref{lemma:expectation-lower-bound}---using the
separation~\eqref{eqn:lp-lq-separation}---we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\optgap_n^*(\lossset_{\rm lin}, \optdomain, \diffp)
\ge \frac{3 \radius_q \lipobj \delta d^{\frac{1}{p} - 1}}{10}
\left(1 - \frac{25 n e^\diffp \delta^2 (e^\diffp - e^{-\diffp})^2 / 16d
+ \log 2}{d / 16}\right).
\end{equation*}
So long as $d \ge 16$, we have $16 \log 2 / d \le \log 2 < 7/10$. Thus
choosing
\begin{equation*}
\delta =
\min\left\{\frac{d}{10 \sqrt{n C_\diffp} (e^\diffp - e^{-\diffp})},
1 \right\}
\end{equation*}
and noting that $e^\diffp - e^{-\diffp} = \order(\diffp)$ and $e^\diffp
= \order(1)$ for $\diffp = \order(1)$ we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain, \diffp)
\ge \frac{3 \radius_q \lipobj \delta d^{\frac{1}{p} - 1}}{10}
\cdot \frac{1}{20}
\ge c
\min\left\{\frac{\radius_q \lipobj d^{\frac{1}{p}}}{\sqrt{n \diffp^2}},
\radius_q \lipobj d^{\frac{1}{p} - 1}\right\}
= c \radius_q \lipobj \min\left\{
\frac{d^{1 - \frac{1}{q}}}{\sqrt{n \diffp^2}},
d^{\frac{1}{p} - 1}\right\}.
\end{equation*}
for a universal constant $c$.
As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:first-class}, when $d < 16$, we apply
an essentially similar argument but with Le Cam's method~\eqref{eqn:le-cam},
which gives the desired result. (The proof of the case $d = 1$ from
Theorem~\ref{theorem:first-class} applies here as well.) Finally, we remark
that we may repeat a completely identical proof as that above replacing $d$
with any $k \le d$, which \emph{mutatis mutandis} implies the lower bound
\begin{equation*}
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain, \diffp)
\ge c \lipobj \radius_q \, \max_{k \in [d]}
\min\left\{\frac{k^{1 - \frac{1}{q}}}{\sqrt{n \diffp^2}},
k^{\frac{1}{p} - 1}\right\}
\ge c \lipobj \radius_q
\min\left\{\frac{d^{1 - \frac{1}{q}}}{\sqrt{n \diffp^2}},
\frac{(n \diffp^2)^{\frac{1}{2p}}}{\sqrt{n \diffp^2}},
1\right\},
\end{equation*}
where for the rightmost bound we have taken $k = \max\{1, \min\{\sqrt{n
\diffp^2}, d\}\}$. Noting that $1/p = 1 - 1/q$ completes the proof of the
lower bound~\eqref{eqn:second-linear-rate}.
To prove inequality~\eqref{eqn:second-class-lower},
we apply the same reasoning as in the proof of the
inequality~\eqref{eqn:second-linear-rate}. Use
Lemma~\ref{lemma:linf-info-bound} and Fano's inequality~\eqref{eqn:fano} (via
Lemma~\ref{lemma:expectation-lower-bound} and the separation from
Lemma~\ref{lemma:hinge-loss-separation}) to obtain
\begin{equation*}
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain, \diffp) \ge \frac{\radius \lipobj
\delta}{4} \left(1 - \frac{25 n e^\diffp (e^{\diffp} -
e^{-\diffp})^2 \delta^2 / 16d + \log 2}{d / 16}\right).
\end{equation*}
Then choosing $\delta \asymp d / (\sqrt{n}(e^\diffp - e^{-\diffp}))$ as in the
proof of inequality~\eqref{eqn:second-linear-rate} gives the desired result.
\subsection{Proof of Corollary~\ref{corollary:linf-privacy}}
\label{sec:corollary-rate-linf}
Since $\optdomain \subseteq \{\optvar \in \R^d : \lone{\optvar} \le
\radius\}$, the bound~\eqref{eqn:mirror-descent-bound}
guarantees that mirror descent obtains convergence rate
$\order(M_\infty \radius \sqrt{\log (2d)} / \sqrt{n})$. This matches the
second statement of Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}. Now fix our desired
amount of mutual information $\information^*$. From the remarks following
Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-saddle-point}, if we must guarantee that
$\information^* \ge \sup_\statprob \information(\statprob, \channelprob)$
for any distribution $\statprob$ and loss function $\loss$ whose gradients
are bounded in $\ell_\infty$-norm by $\lipobj$, we \emph{must} (because of
the uniqueness of the optimal privacy distribution $\channelprob$) have
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:information-bijection}
\information^* \asymp \frac{d \lipobj^2}{M_\infty^2}.
\end{equation}
Up to higher order terms, to guarantee a level of privacy with mutual
information $\information^*$, we must allow gradient noise up to a level
$M_\infty = \lipobj\sqrt{d / \information^*}$.
The equality~\eqref{eqn:information-bijection} establishes that for a
given level of allowed mutual information $\information^*$, if
\olp\ holds, then we must have $M_\infty \asymp \lipobj \sqrt{d} /
\sqrt{\information^*}$. That is, we have a bijection between
$\information^*$ and $M_\infty$ whenever \olp\ holds, so substituting
$M_\infty = \lipobj \sqrt{d} / \sqrt{\information^*}$ into our upper
and lower bounds yields the claim.
\subsection{Proof of Corollary~\ref{corollary:lone-privacy}}
\label{sec:corollary-rate-lone}
According to the conditions of \olp, if we must guarantee that
$\information^* \ge \sup_\statprob \information(\statprob,
\channelprob)$ for any loss function $\loss$ whose gradients are
bounded in $\ell_1$-norm by $\lipobj$, we must have
\begin{equation*}
\information^* \asymp \frac{d \lipobj^2}{2 M_1^2},
\end{equation*}
using Corollary~\ref{corollary:lone-asymptotic-expansion} after the statement of
Proposition~\ref{proposition:lone-saddle-point}. Rewriting this, we see that
we must have $M_1 = \lipobj \sqrt{d / 2\information^*}$ (to higher order
terms) to be able to guarantee an amount of privacy $\information^*$. As in
the $\ell_\infty$ case, we have a bijection between the multiplier $M_1$ and
the amount of information $\information^*$ and can apply similar techniques.
Now recall the convergence guarantee~\eqref{eqn:sgd-bound} provided by
stochastic gradient descent. Since the $\ell_\infty$-ball of
radius $\radius$ is contained in the $\ell_2$-ball of radius $\radius_2
= \radius \sqrt{d}$, and $\lone{g} \le \ltwo{g}$ for all $g \in \R^d$,
stochastic gradient descent guarantees that
$\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain) \le C M_1 \radius \sqrt{d} / \sqrt{n}$.
Applying the lower bound provided by Theorem~\ref{theorem:lone-bound}
and substituting for $M_1$ completes the proof.
\subsection{Proof of Corollary~\ref{corollary:linf-privacy-diffp}}
\label{sec:corollary-rate-linf-diffp}
Without loss of generality (by scaling), we assume that $\lipobj = 1$.
Now we consider Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-diffp-saddle-point},
which characterizes the distributions satisfying \olpd. We use the
proposition to find an upper bound on $M_\infty$ in terms of the
differential privacy level $\diffp$, which in turn allows us to apply
the bound from mirror descent~\eqref{eqn:mirror-descent-bound}.
Instead of directly using
Proposition~\ref{proposition:linf-diffp-saddle-point}, it is simpler
to use the linear program~\eqref{eqn:single-diffp-lp} in its proof,
and note that finding a lower bound on $t$ (in the LP) as a function
of $\diffp$ provides an upper bound on $M_\infty$ since $M_\infty =
1/t$. Now, in the linear program~\eqref{eqn:single-diffp-lp}, we
choose the values for $q(z)$ specified by
Lemma~\ref{lemma:two-level-diffp-solution}. Let $q_+$ and $q_-$
denote the larger and smaller probabilities, respectively. Fix an $x
\in \{-1, 1\}^d$, and let $z$ range over $\{-1, 1\}^d$. With those
choices, we note that for $d$ odd,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{z : \<z, x\> > 0} z
& = \sum_{z : \<z, x\> = 1} z
+ \sum_{z : \<z, x\> = 3} z
+ \ldots + \sum_{z : \<z, x\> = d} z \\
& = \left[\binom{d - 1}{\frac{d - 1}{2}}
- \binom{d - 1}{\frac{d + 1}{2}}\right] x
+ \left[\binom{d - 1}{\frac{d + 1}{2}}
- \binom{d - 1}{\frac{d + 3}{2}}\right] x
+ \ldots
= \binom{d - 1}{\frac{d - 1}{2}} x.
\end{align*}
For $d$ even, a similar calculation yields
$\sum_{z : \<z, x\> > 0} z = \binom{d-1}{d/2} x$.
As a consequence, we find that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_z z q(z \mid x)
= q_+ \!\!\!\! \sum_{z : \<z, x\> > 0} z
+ q_- \!\!\!\! \sum_{z : \<z, x\> \le 0} z
= x (q_+ - q_-) \cdot
\begin{cases} \binom{d - 1}{\frac{d - 1}{2}} & d~\mbox{odd} \\
\binom{d - 1}{d / 2} & d~\mbox{even}. \end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Focusing on the odd case for simplicity---identical bounds
hold in the even case---we have
for a universal constant $c > 0$ that
\begin{equation*}
(q_+ - q_-) \binom{d - 1}{\frac{d - 1}{2}} = \frac{e^\diffp -
1}{2^{d-1} (e^\diffp + 1)} \binom{d - 1}{\frac{d - 1}{2}} \ge c
\frac{e^\diffp - 1}{e^\diffp + 1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \ge c
\frac{\diffp}{\sqrt{d}},
\end{equation*}
the first inequality following from Stirling's approximation and the second
from convexity of the function $\diffp \mapsto e^\diffp$. In particular, we
see that the minimizing value $t$ in the linear
program~\eqref{eqn:single-diffp-lp} will satisfy $t \ge c \diffp / \sqrt{d}$,
which in turn yields $M_\infty = 1 / t \le \sqrt{d} / (c \diffp)$. Noting
that the lower bound in the corollary is given by
Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound-diffp},
applying the convergence guarantee~\eqref{eqn:mirror-descent-bound} of
mirror descent based
on $M_\infty$ completes the proof.
\section{Optimal Learning Rates and Tradeoffs}
\label{sec:optimal-rates}
\providecommand{\real}{\R}
With the basic framework in place, we now turn to statements of our
main results. We begin by imposing certain (weak) conditions on the
families of loss functions that we consider, and subsequently turn to
the main results of this section (Theorems~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}
and \ref{theorem:lone-bound}, which apply to information-based
privacy, and
Theorems~\ref{theorem:linf-bound-diffp}--\ref{theorem:second-class},
which apply to $\diffp$-differential privacy) as well as some of their
consequences (Corollaries~\ref{corollary:linf-privacy},
\ref{corollary:lone-privacy},
and~\ref{corollary:linf-privacy-diffp}). After describing the optimal
privacy-preserving distributions in Section~\ref{sec:saddle-points},
we provide proofs of the results in this section in
Section~\ref{sec:optimal-rate-proofs}.
\subsection{Families of loss functions and stochastic gradient methods}
\label{sec:loss-families}
We assume that our collection of loss functions obey certain natural
smoothness conditions. For each $\pval \in [1, \infty]$, we use
$\norm{\cdot}_\pval$ to denote the usual $\ell_\pval$-norm, and we use
$\qval = \frac{\pval}{\pval-1}$ to denote the conjugate exponent
satisfying the relation $1/\pval + 1/\qval = 1$.
With this notation, we have the following definition:
\begin{definition}
\label{def:lp-loss-class}
For parameters $\lipobj > 0$ and $p \ge 1$, an \emph{$(\lipobj, p)$-loss
function} is a measurable function $\loss : \statdomain \times \optdomain
\rightarrow \R$ such that for $x \in \statdomain$, the function $\optvar
\mapsto \loss(x, \optvar)$ is convex and $\lipobj$-Lipschitz continuous with
respect to the norm $\norm{\cdot}_q$.
\end{definition}
\noindent
A convex loss $\loss$ satisfies Definition~\ref{def:lp-loss-class} if
and only if for all $\optvar \in \optdomain$, we have the inequality
$\norm{g}_p \le \lipobj$ for any subgradient $g \in \partial \loss(x,
\optvar)$ (e.g.~\cite{HiriartUrrutyLe96ab}). \\
\noindent To illustrate this definition, let us consider a few
examples:
\begin{example}
\label{example:median}
Consider the problem of finding a multi-dimensional median, in which
case each sample \mbox{$\statsample \in \R^d$}, and the loss
function takes the form
\begin{equation*}
\loss(\statsample, \optvar) = \lipobj \lone{\optvar - \statsample}.
\end{equation*}
This loss is $\lipobj$-Lipschitz with respect to the $\ell_1$-norm,
subgradients belonging to $[-\lipobj, \lipobj]^d$, and hence it
belongs to the class of $(\lipobj, \infty)$-loss functions.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Classification]
We may also consider classification based on either
the hinge loss or logistic regression loss. In this setting, the
data comes in pairs $\statsample = (a, b)$, where $a \in \R^d$ is the
set of regressors or predictors and $b \in \{-1, 1\}$ is the label;
the losses are
\begin{equation*}
\loss(\statsample, \optvar)
= \hinge{1 - b \<a, \optvar\>}
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
\loss(\statsample, \optvar)
= \log\left(1 + \exp(-b \<a, \optvar\>)\right).
\end{equation*}
By computing (sub)gradients, we may verify that each of these is an
$(\lipobj, p)$-loss if and only if the covariate
vector $a \in \R^d$ satisfies $\norm{a}_p \le \lipobj$, which is
a common
assumption~\cite{ChaudhuriMoSa11,RubinsteinBaHuTa12}.
\end{example}
Definition~\ref{def:lp-loss-class} is natural given the communication strategy
we outline in Section~\ref{sec:communication-protocol}. Since our loss
functions satisfy $\norm{\partial \loss(\statrv, \optvar)} \le \lipobj$, the
channel distribution $\channelprob$ amounts to perturbing subgradients to
larger norm balls while maintaining the appropriate expectations. \\
Before proceeding, we briefly review standard algorithms for solving
problems of the forms outlined above, since they are essential to our
results: for each of our main results, the optimal convergence rate is
attained by (a variant of) mirror
descent~\cite{NemirovskiYu83,BeckTe03,NemirovskiJuLaSh09}, which is a
non-Euclidean generalization of the stochastic gradient
method~\cite{NemirovskiYu83,PolyakJu92,Zinkevich03}. Stochastic
gradient methods are iterative methods that update a parameter
$\optvar^t$ over iterations $t$ of an algorithm using stochastic
gradient information. At iteration $t$, the algorithm receives a
vector $g_t \in \R^d$ with conditional expectation $\E[g_t \mid
\optvar^t] \in \partial \risk(\optvar^t)$, then performs the update
\begin{equation*}
\optvar^{t + 1}
= \argmin_{\optvar \in \optdomain} \left\{
\eta \<g_t, \optvar\> + \Psi(\optvar, \optvar^t) \right\}.
\end{equation*}
Here $\eta$ is a step-size and $\Psi$ is a Bregman divergence, which
keeps $\optvar^{t + 1}$ relatively close to $\optvar^t$. (See the
papers~\cite{BeckTe03,NemirovskiJuLaSh09} for further details.) With
appropriate choice of $\Psi$, the mirror descent algorithm enjoys the
following convergence guarantees. Define $\what{\optvar}_n =
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{t=1}^n \optvar^t$. If $\E[\linf{g_t}^2 \mid
\optvar^t] \le M_\infty^2$ for all $t$ and $\optdomain$ is contained
in the $\ell_1$-ball of radius $\radius_1$, then with appropriate
choice of $\Psi$ and $\eta$
\begin{subequations}
\label{eqn:stochastic-bounds}
\begin{equation}
\E[\risk(\what{\optvar}_n)] - \risk(\optvar^*)
= \order\left(\frac{M_\infty \radius_1 \sqrt{\log d}}{\sqrt{n}}\right).
\label{eqn:mirror-descent-bound}
\end{equation}
See, for example, \citet[Section~5]{BeckTe03} or
\citet[Section~2.3]{NemirovskiJuLaSh09}. Similarly, with the choice
$\Psi(\optvar, \optvar') = \ltwo{\optvar - \optvar'}^2$, if
$\E[\ltwo{g_t}^2 \mid \optvar^t] \le M_2^2$ and $\optdomain$ is
contained in the $\ell_2$-ball of radius $\radius_2$, then
\begin{equation}
\E[\risk(\what{\optvar}_n)] - \risk(\optvar^*)
= \order\left(\frac{M_2 \radius_2}{\sqrt{n}}\right).
\label{eqn:sgd-bound}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
For instance, see the references~\cite{Zinkevich03,NemirovskiJuLaSh09}
for results of this type.
\subsection{Minimax error bounds under privacy}
We now state our main theorems, and discuss some of their
consequences. All proofs are deferred to
Section~\ref{sec:optimal-rate-proofs}.
\subsubsection{Minimax errors with mutual information-based privacy}
Our first two main results consider privacy mechanisms $\channelprob$
satisfying \olp, Definition~\ref{def:optimal-local-privacy}. We state
the theorems first focusing on their dependence on the geometry of the
subdifferential sets (in which the subgradients live); in the
corollaries to follow we show how these choices correspond to
particular mutual information guarantees on privacy.
Our first theorem applies to the class of $(\lipobj, \infty)$ loss
functions as given in Definition~\ref{def:lp-loss-class}. For this
theorem, we assume that the set to which the perturbed data
$\channelrv$ must belong is $[-M_\infty, M_\infty]^d$, where $M_\infty
\ge \lipobj$. In the notation of
Definition~\ref{def:optimal-local-privacy}, this corresponds to taking
$C = [-\lipobj, \lipobj]^d$ and $D = [-M_\infty, M_\infty]^d$. We
state two variants of the first theorem, as one version gives slightly
sharper results for an important special case.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:linf-bound}
Let $\lossset$ be the collection of $(\lipobj, \infty)$ loss
functions, assume the conditions of the preceding paragraph, and let
$\channelprob$ be optimally locally private
(Definition~\ref{def:optimal-local-privacy}) for $\lossset$. Then
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If $\optdomain$ contains the $\ell_\infty$ ball of radius
$\radius$, then
\begin{equation*}
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain) \ge
\frac{1}{20} \,
\min\left\{\radius \lipobj d,
\frac{M_\infty \radius d}{9 \sqrt{n}}\right\}.
\end{equation*}
\item If $\optdomain = \{\optvar \in \R^d : \lone{\optvar} \le
\radius\}$, then
\begin{equation*}
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain) \ge \frac{1}{8} \,
\min\left\{\radius \lipobj,
\frac{M_\infty \, \radius \,\sqrt{\log(2 d)}}{2 \sqrt{n}}\right\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Our second main theorem applies to loss functions and objectives with
a different geometry. Now we assume that the
loss functions $\lossset$ consist of $(\lipobj, 1)$ losses, and that
the perturbed data must belong to the $\ell_1$ ball of radius $M_1$,
i.e., $\channelrv \in \{\channelval \in \R^d : \lone{\channelval} \le
M_1\}$. Thus in the notation of
Definition~\ref{def:optimal-local-privacy}, we have $D = (M_1 /
\lipobj) C$, where $C = \{g \in \R^d : \lone{g} \le \lipobj\}$. If we
define $M = M_1 / \lipobj$, we may define the constants
\begin{equation}
\gamma \defeq \log\left(\frac{2d - 2 + \sqrt{(2d - 2)^2 + 4(M^2 - 1)}}{
2(M - 1)}\right)
~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~
\channeldiff \defeq \frac{e^\gamma - e^{-\gamma}}{
e^\gamma + e^{-\gamma} + 2(d - 1)},
\label{eqn:lone-normalization-ahead-of-time}
\end{equation}
which are related to the unique distribution achieving \olp\ for the
$(\lipobj, 1)$ losses and the larger $\ell_1$-ball above (see
equation~\eqref{eqn:lone-exp-normalization} and
Proposition~\ref{proposition:lone-saddle-point}). We have the
following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:lone-bound}
Let $\lossset$ be the collection of $(\lipobj, 1)$ loss functions,
assume the conditions of the preceding paragraph, and let
$\channelprob$ be optimally private for the collection
$\lossset$. If $\optdomain$ contains the $\ell_\infty$-ball of
\mbox{radius $\radius$,}
\begin{equation*}
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain) \ge \frac{1}{20} \,
\min\left\{\radius \lipobj,
\frac{\radius \lipobj \sqrt{d}}{9 \sqrt{n} \channeldiff}\right\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\paragraph{Remarks}
We make a few remarks on Theorems~\ref{theorem:linf-bound} and
\ref{theorem:lone-bound}. First, we note that, when reduced to the special
case of having no random distribution $\channelprob$,
Theorems~\ref{theorem:linf-bound} and~\ref{theorem:lone-bound} each yield a
minimax rate for stochastic optimization problems. Indeed, in
Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}, we may take $M_\infty = \lipobj$, in which
case (focusing on the second statement of the theorem) we obtain that for
$\optdomain = \{\optvar \in \R^d : \lone{\optvar} \le \radius\}$,
\begin{equation*}
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain) \ge \frac{\radius \lipobj}{16}
\sqrt{\frac{\log(2d)}{n}}.
\end{equation*}
Mirror descent algorithms~\cite{NemirovskiYu83,NemirovskiJuLaSh09} can be used
to minimize this class of loss functions, and their convergence rate matches
this lower bound up to constant factors (also see our results in the sequel,
as well as the explanation of~\citet{AgarwalBaRaWa12}). When specialized to
this setting our result is thus unimprovable. Moreover, our analysis is
sharper than previous analyses: none of the existing lower bounds recover
the logarithmic dependence on the dimension $d$, which is evidently necessary.
Our second remark is that while our results appear to require disguising
only gradient information, based on our communication formulation in
Section~\ref{sec:communication-protocol}, this restriction is not actually
substantial. Indeed, when the domain $\optdomain$ is a norm ball
we can establish each of our lower bounds using
the loss function $\loss(\statsample, \optvar) = \<\statsample, \optvar\>$.
In this case, $\nabla \loss(\statsample, \optvar) = \statsample$, so that
the communication scheme explicitly disguises \emph{exactly} the
individual data $\statrv_i$.
We now turn to some consequences of Theorems~\ref{theorem:linf-bound} and
\ref{theorem:lone-bound}, where we exhibit the tradeoffs between rates of
convergence for any statistical procedure and the desired privacy of a
user. We present two corollaries that characterize this tradeoff. Looking
ahead to Section~\ref{sec:saddle-points}, we may use
Propositions~\ref{proposition:linf-saddle-point}
and~\ref{proposition:lone-saddle-point} in that section
to derive a bijection between the sizes $M_\infty$ and $M_1$ of
the perturbation sets and the amount of privacy as measured by the worst case
mutual information $\information^*$. We can then combine the lower bounds of
Theorems~\ref{theorem:linf-bound} and~\ref{theorem:lone-bound} with
results on stochastic approximation (the mirror descent convergence
rates~\eqref{eqn:stochastic-bounds}) to obtain the following tradeoffs. We provide the
full proofs in Sections~\ref{sec:corollary-rate-linf} and
\ref{sec:corollary-rate-lone}, respectively.
\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary:linf-privacy}
Under the conditions of Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}(b), assume
moreover that \mbox{$M_\infty \ge 2 \lipobj$}, and that
$\channelprob^*$ satisfies \olp\ at information level
$\information^*$ in the sense of
Definition~\ref{def:optimal-local-privacy}. Then for universal
constants $0 < c_\ell \le c_u < \infty$, the minimax error is
sandwiched as
\begin{equation*}
c_\ell \frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{\information^*}}
\cdot \frac{\radius \lipobj \sqrt{\log (2d)}}{\sqrt{n}}
\le \optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain) \le c_u
\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{\information^*}} \cdot
\frac{\radius \lipobj \sqrt{\log (2d)}}{ \sqrt{n}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}
Similar upper and lower bounds can be obtained
under the conditions of part~(a) of Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound},
again by using mirror descent, but we lose a factor of $\sqrt{\log d}$
in the lower bound. (There is an additional factor of $d$ in the
statement~(a), and $\optdomain \supseteq \{\optvar \in \R^d :
\linf{\optvar} \le \radius / d\}$.) In this case we would not need
to assume that $\optdomain$ is an $\ell_1$-ball for the lower bound. \\
\noindent We now turn to an analogous result based on an
application of Theorem~\ref{theorem:lone-bound} and
Proposition~\ref{proposition:lone-saddle-point}.
\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary:lone-privacy}
Under the conditions of Theorem~\ref{theorem:lone-bound}, assume
that $M_1 \ge 2 \lipobj$ and $\channelprob^*$ satisfies
\olp\ at information level $\information^*$. Moreover, suppose that
$\optdomain$ contains an $\ell_\infty$-ball of radius $c_1 \radius$
and is contained in an $\ell_\infty$-ball of radius $c_2 \radius$, where
$0 < c_1 \le c_2$ are constants.
Then for universal
constants $0 < c_\ell \le c_u < \infty$, the minimax error is sandwiched as
\begin{equation*}
c_\ell \frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{\information^*}}
\cdot \frac{\radius \lipobj \sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{n}}
\le \optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain)
\le c_u \frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{\information^*}}
\cdot \frac{\radius \lipobj \sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{n}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}
As a final remark, we have stated results that depend on specific
geometric properties of the loss functions $\lossset$. While these
geometric properties are natural, as illustrated by the example
Section~\ref{sec:loss-families}, it is also possible to use our
techniques to derive alternative results. Such extensions require
computing the optimal distribution attaining local privacy according
to Definitions~\ref{def:optimal-local-privacy}
or~\ref{def:local-diffp}, then applying the lower-bounding techniques
to developed in Section~\ref{sec:optimal-rate-proofs}.
\subsubsection{Minimax errors under differential privacy}
\newcommand{\lossset_{\rm lin}(\lipobj, \infty)}{\lossset_{\rm lin}(\lipobj, \infty)}
\newcommand{\linearclasstwo}[1][]
\ifthenelse{\isempty{#1}}{%
\lossset_{\rm lin}(\optdomain; \lipobj, p)
}{%
\lossset_{\rm lin}({#1}; \lipobj, p)
}
}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\lossset(\mathbb{B}_1(\radius); \lipobj)}}{\ensuremath{\lossset(\mathbb{B}_1(\radius); \lipobj)}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\lossset(\optdomain; \lipobj, p)}}{\ensuremath{\lossset(\optdomain; \lipobj, p)}}
\newcommand{\THIRDCLASS}{\ensuremath{\lossset(\mathbb{B}_q(\radius_q); \lipobj,
p')}}
We now turn to the setting of differentially private algorithms. We
focus on two settings for differential privacy: in the first
(Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound-diffp}), we assume that
communication respects \olpd, as given by Definition~\ref{def:local-diffp}.
For the second two results, Theorems~\ref{theorem:first-class}
and~\ref{theorem:second-class}, we change the setting slightly, assuming only
that the mechanism by which the private quantity $\channelrv_i$ is
communicated to the method $\method$ is $\diffp$-differentially private and
non-interactive (recall Eq.~\eqref{eqn:local-differential-privacy}).
\paragraph{Optimal local differential privacy}
We begin with the result assuming \olpd. We use the same collection of loss
functions $\lossset$ as in Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}, that is,
$(\lipobj, \infty)$-loss functions. We also assume that the set to which the
perturbed data $\channelrv$ belong is $[-M_\infty, M_\infty]^d$, though the
specific value of $M_\infty$ is not important for the statement of
the theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:linf-bound-diffp}
Let $\lossset$ be the collection of $(\lipobj, \infty)$ loss functions, and
assume that $\channelrv$ is optimally locally differentially private
(Definition~\ref{def:local-diffp}), attaining $\diffp$-differential privacy
for the set $\lossset$. Let $d \ge 2$ and assume $\diffp \le 5/4$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain)
\ge \frac{1}{8} \, \min\left\{ \radius \lipobj,
\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\diffp} \,
\frac{\radius \lipobj \sqrt{\log(2d)}}{4 \sqrt{n}} \right\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
As a corollary to this result, we can show an upper bound on the necessary
magnitude of the gradient bound $M_\infty$ to allow $\diffp$-differential
privacy, again applying the mirror descent
result~\eqref{eqn:mirror-descent-bound}. See
Section~\ref{sec:corollary-rate-linf-diffp} for a proof.
\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary:linf-privacy-diffp}
Under the conditions of Theorem~\ref{theorem:linf-bound-diffp},
assume that $\channelprob^*$ satisfies Definition~\ref{def:local-diffp},
attaining $\diffp$-differential privacy. Then for universal
constants $0 < c_\ell \le c_u$, the minimax error is sandwiched as
\begin{equation*}
c_\ell \frac{\sqrt{d}}{\diffp} \cdot \frac{\radius
\lipobj \sqrt{\log (2d)}}{\sqrt{n}}
\le \optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain)
\le c_u \frac{\sqrt{d}}{\diffp} \cdot \frac{\radius
\lipobj \sqrt{\log (2d)}}{\sqrt{n}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}
\newcommand{\mathbb{B}}{\mathbb{B}}
\newcommand{\Ball}{\mathbb{B}}
\newcommand{\mc{\channelprob}_\diffp}{\mc{\channelprob}_\diffp}
\paragraph{Non-interactive local differential privacy}
We turn to our two results under non-interactive differential privacy, where
we no longer assume that the channel is optimally private (the data provider
simply guarantees $\diffp$-differential privacy). In this setting, we give a
minor refinement of the definition of minimax error~\eqref{eqn:minimax-error}.
We let $\mc{\channelprob}_\diffp$ denote the family of $\diffp$-differentially private
distributions where the channel $\channelprob$ is $\diffp$-differentially
private and non-interactive, meaning that the private
variable $\channelrv_i$ is conditionally independent of $\channelrv_j$ for $j
\neq i$ given $\statrv_i$; recall the definition~\eqref{eqn:local-differential-privacy}.
With this, the minimax error is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain, \diffp)
\defeq \inf_{\method, \channelprob \in \mc{\channelprob}_\diffp}
\sup_\statprob \sup_{\loss \in \lossset(\statprob)}
\E_{\statprob, \channelprob}[
\optgap_n(\method, \loss, \optdomain, \statprob)],
\end{equation*}
where now the infimum is taken over all $\diffp$-private, non-interactive
local mechanisms $\channelprob$, as well as all methods $\method$. Thus,
the channel $\channelprob$ and $\method$ work together to find the best
possible estimator, subject to the differential privacy constraint.
Our first lower bound applies to a class of functions that are Lipschitz with respect
to the $\ell_1$-norm, where the optimization takes place over the ball
$\mathbb{B}_1(\radius) \defeq \{ \optvar \in \R^d \, \mid \, \lone{\optvar} \leq
\radius \}$. We define the set $\ensuremath{\lossset(\mathbb{B}_1(\radius); \lipobj)}$ to be the collection of convex
$(\lipobj, \infty)$-loss functions defined on $\mathbb{B}_1(\radius)$. By
Example~\ref{example:median}, this loss class covers the problem of the
multi-dimensional median. In stating our minimax bounds, we use a more
restrictive (i.e., simpler to optimize) class, the collection of $(\lipobj,
\infty)$-\emph{linear} losses:
\begin{equation*}
\lossset_{\rm lin}(\lipobj, \infty) \defeq \left\{
\loss : \statdomain \times \R^d \to \R
\mid \exists ~ \phi : \statdomain \to \R^d
~\mbox{s.t.}~
\loss(\statsample, \optvar) = \<\phi(\statsample), \optvar\>,
\sup_\statsample \linf{\phi(\statsample)} \le \lipobj \right\}.
\end{equation*}
For this class, we have the following minimax rate (see
Section~\ref{sec:proof-first-class} for a proof):
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:first-class}
For the loss class $\lossset = \lossset_{\rm lin}(\lipobj, \infty)$ and privacy parameter
$\diffp = \order(1)$, assuming that the channel $\channelprob$ is
non-interactive and $\diffp$-differentially private, there are universal
constants $0 < c_\ell \le c_u < \infty$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{EqnFirstClassRate}
c_\ell \min \left\{\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\diffp} \, \frac{r L
\sqrt{\log(2d)}}{\sqrt{n}}, \radius \lipobj \right\} \; \leq \;
%
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \mathbb{B}_1(r), \diffp)
%
\; \le \; c_u \min\left\{\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\diffp} \, \frac{r L
\sqrt{\log(2d)}}{\sqrt{n}}, \radius \lipobj \right\}.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
We can also give a result for a larger class of domains and related
optimization functions. In particular, consider the loss class
\begin{align}
\label{EqnDefnSecondClass}
\ensuremath{\lossset(\optdomain; \lipobj, p)} & \defeq \{ \loss: \statdomain \times \optdomain
\rightarrow \real \, \mid \mbox{$\loss$ is a convex
$(\lipobj, p)$-loss function} \big \},
\end{align}
for some $p \in [1, 2]$. Restricting the set~\eqref{EqnDefnSecondClass}
to the smaller collection of linear functionals, we define
\begin{equation*}
\linearclasstwo \defeq
\big\{
\loss : \statdomain \times \optdomain \to \R
\mid \exists ~ \phi : \statdomain \to \R^d
~\mbox{s.t.}~
\loss(\statsample, \optvar) = \<\phi(\statsample), \optvar\>,
\sup_\statsample \norm{\phi(\statsample)}_{p} \le \lipobj \big\}.
\end{equation*}
We then have the following result, which captures
rates of convergence for optimization of linear functionals over
$\ell_q$-norm balls of the form
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{B}_q(\radius_q) \defeq \{\optvar \in \R^d : \norm{\optvar}_q \le \radius_q
\},
~~~
\mbox{where}~ q \in [2, \infty].
\end{equation*}
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:second-class}
For the loss class $\lossset = \linearclasstwo[\mathbb{B}_q(\radius_q)]$ with $q
\in [2, \infty]$ and non-interactive $\diffp$-differentially private channel
$\channelprob$ with $\diffp = \order(1)$, there exist universal constants $0
< c_\ell \le c_u < \infty$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:second-linear-rate}
c_\ell \, \radius_q \lipobj
\min\left\{\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\diffp} \frac{ d^{\half
- \frac{1}{q}}}{\sqrt{n}},
(\sqrt{n \diffp^2})^{-\frac{1}{q}},
1 \right\}
\; \le \;
%
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \mathbb{B}_q(\radius_q), \diffp)
%
\; \le \; c_u \, \radius_q \lipobj
\min \left\{\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\diffp} \,
\frac{d^{\half - \frac{1}{q}}}{\sqrt{n}}, 1 \right\}.
\end{align}
For the loss class $\lossset = \ensuremath{\lossset(\optdomain; \lipobj, p)}$ from
Eq.~\eqref{EqnDefnSecondClass}, if $\optdomain \supset
\mathbb{B}_q(\radius_q)$,
there exists a universal (numerical) constant $0 < c_\ell$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:second-class-lower}
c_\ell \min\left\{\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\diffp} \, \frac{\radius_q \lipobj
d^{\half - \frac{1}{q}}}{\sqrt{n}}, \radius_q \lipobj \right\} \; \le \;
%
\optgap_n^*(\lossset, \optdomain, \diffp).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\noindent
See Section~\ref{sec:proof-second-class} for a proof.
\paragraph{Remarks}
Each of our theorems and corollaries provide sharp characterizations of the
minimax rate of estimation up to the constant factors $(c_\ell, c_u)$. As
noted in the previous section, the non-private minimax rate for the class
$\ensuremath{\lossset(\mathbb{B}_1(\radius); \lipobj)}$ is $\radius \lipobj \sqrt{\log(2d)} / \sqrt{n}$. We may compare
this with the rate in Theorems~\ref{theorem:linf-bound-diffp}
and~\ref{theorem:first-class}, as well as
Corollary~\ref{corollary:linf-privacy-diffp}.
We see that $\diffp$-local
differential privacy has a dimension-dependent effect on the minimax rate: the
effective sample size is reduced from $n$ to $\diffp^2 n / d$. This
is a substantial reduction, as instead of a logarithmic dependence
on the dimension $d$---which one hopes for in high-dimensional settings
such as those specified by the theorem---we have a linear dependence, which
is unavoidable under the conditions of the theorems.
In Theorem~\ref{theorem:second-class} as well, the
inequalities~\eqref{eqn:second-linear-rate} provide a characterization
of the $\diffp$-private minimax rate that is tight up to constant factors.
Again, it is worthwhile to relate this minimax rate to the non-private
setting: from Theorem 1 and Eq.~(11) of \citet{AgarwalBaRaWa12}, the
non-private minimax rate for the function class $\linearclasstwo$ is lower
bounded by $\radius_q \lipobj d^{\half - \frac{1}{q}} / \sqrt{n}$.
Consequently, the price for $\diffp$-privacy is again a reduction in effective
sample size by the dimension-dependent factor $\diffp^2 / d$.
In general, stochastic gradient descent methods require interactivity---they
iteratively process the data and query for gradients at points $\optvar$
depending on the data observed---except in linear settings. We do, however,
obtain matching upper bounds for the general convex case in both
Theorems~\ref{theorem:first-class} and~\ref{theorem:second-class} using
stochastic gradient methods (which is unsurprising, as the linear setting is,
in a sense, the hardest~\cite{NemirovskiYu83,AgarwalBaRaWa12}). This leads to
the intriguing open question of whether interactivity can sharpen the results
of Theorems~\ref{theorem:first-class} and~\ref{theorem:second-class}. (For
Theorems~\ref{theorem:linf-bound}--\ref{theorem:linf-bound-diffp}, the optimal
privacy game played by the data providers allows interactivity, and hence the
results cannot be improved.) It is also interesting to note that in
Theorems~\ref{theorem:linf-bound-diffp}--\ref{theorem:second-class}, in the
$\diffp$-differentially private setting, adding Laplace noise---the most
common mechanism for achieving privacy~\cite{Dwork08}---appears to be
substantially sub-optimal: the magnitude of noise necessary to privatize the
user's data is $\Omega(d)$ larger than that provided by the optimal sampling
mechanisms we develop in the sequel.
Summarizing, each of the preceding results indicates that---no matter
the type of privacy---there is a dimension-dependent increase in sample
complexity. From
Corollaries~\ref{corollary:linf-privacy} and~\ref{corollary:lone-privacy}
we see that incorporating privacy induces a penalty of roughly $\sqrt{d} /
\sqrt{\information^*}$ in convergence rate, or an effective sample
size reduction from $n$ to $n \information^* / d$; in the differential
privacy case we have $n \mapsto n \diffp^2 / d$.
While we do not know of an explicit comparison between these two bounds, work
by \citet[Lemma 3.2]{DworkRoVa10} shows that KL divergence between
$\diffp$-differentially private distributions scales as $\diffp^2$, which
implies roughly that $\information^* \approx \diffp^2$ (though this is
informal). We see roughly similar results, though there does not appear
to be a simple mapping between information-theoretic notions of privacy
and differential privacy.
\section{Unbiasedness}
\label{appendix:biased-subgradient}
In this appendix, we show that if an optimization procedure receives
biased subgradients it is possible to be arbitrarily wrong. We do so
by constructing a simple problem instance. Fix a bias $b > 0$ and
consider the following one-dimensional problem:
\begin{equation*}
\minimize ~ f(\optvar) \defeq \frac{b\optvar}{2}
~~ \subjectto ~~ \optvar \in [-c, c].
\end{equation*}
If a gradient oracle returns biased gradients of the form $-b/2$ at
each point $\optvar \in [-c, c]$, it is impossible to distinguish the
objective from $-b \optvar/2$. The minimizer of this objective is
\mbox{$\optvar_{\rm bias} = \sign(b) c$.} The true optimal point is
$\optvar^* = -\sign(b) c$, yielding the worst possible error
\begin{equation*}
f(\optvar_{\rm bias}) - f(\optvar^*)
= \sup_{\optvar \in [-c, c]} f(\optvar)
- \inf_{\optvar \in [-c, c]} f(\optvar).
\end{equation*}
We can show this more formally using an information theoretic
derivation similar to that in
Section~\ref{sec:optimal-rate-proofs}. Omitting details, the argument
is as follows. In the notation of
Section~\ref{sec:optimal-rate-proofs}, if a bias is chosen
independently of the parameters $\cubecorner \in \hypercubeset$ of the
risk $\risk_\cubecorner$, then there is a \emph{bounded} amount of
mutual information that can be communicated to any optimization
procedure. Consequently, Fano's inequality~\eqref{eqn:fano}
guarantees that the estimation accuracy of any procedure must be
bounded away from zero.
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent
Primordial non-Gaussianity (NG) of the cosmological perturbations has become a crucial aspect of both observational predictions of inflationary early universe models and of
present and future observational probes of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies and of the Large Scale Structure (LSS) \cite{reviewNG}. The main motivation is that
detecting, or simply constraining, deviations from a Gaussian distribution of the primordial fluctuations generated during an inflationary epoch \cite{lrreview} allows to discriminate among different scenarios for the generation of the
primordial perturbations. Indeed, a non-vanishing primordial NG encodes a wealth of information allowing to break the degeneracy between models that, at the level of the power spectra,
might result to be indistinguishable.
The degeneracy stems from the fact that during a period of exponential acceleration with Hubble rate $H$
all scalar fields
with a mass smaller than $H$ are inevitably quantum-mechanically excited
with a final superhorizon flat spectrum. The comoving curvature perturbation, which provides the initial conditions
for the CMB anisotropies and for the LSS of the universe, may be
generated not only by the same scalar field driving inflation (the inflaton), but also when the isocurvature perturbation, which is associated to the fluctuations of these light scalar fields, is converted
into curvature perturbation after (or at the end) of inflation \cite{curvaton1,LW,curvaton3,rate,end,during}. One typical example is provided by the so-called inhomogeneous decay rate scenario \cite{rate} where the field driving inflation (the inflaton) decays perturbatively with a decay rate
$\Gamma$. The reheating temperature $T_r$ of the hot plasma produced by the inflaton decay products is of the order of $(M_{\rm Pl} \Gamma)^{1/2}$. If the decay rate depends on some light fields which are fluctuating during inflation, then the corresponding
large scale spatial variations of the decay rate
will induce a temperature anisotropy, $\delta T_r/T_r\sim \delta\Gamma/\Gamma$.
Distinguishing different shapes of the primordial three- (bispectrum) and four-point (trispectrum) correlators, {\it i.e.} their dependence of the momentum wave-vectors in Fourier space, is of crucial importance. Different mechanisms to generate the
inflationary perturbations give rise to unique
signals with specific shapes, which thus probe different aspects of the physics of the primordial universe. For example, models in
which the curvature perturbation is generated by an initial isocurvature perturbation
develop (some of the) non-linearities on superhorizon scales. The corresponding NG is of the local type, that is the NG part of the primordial curvature perturbation is a local function of the Gaussian part. In momentum space, the three-point function arising from such a local NG is dominated by the so-called �squeezed� configuration, where one of the momenta is
much smaller than the other two ($k_1 \ll k_2 \sim k_3$). The squeezed limit of NG is also particularly interesting from the
observationally point of view because it leads to pronounced effects on the clustering of dark matter halos and to strongly scale-dependent bias \cite{dalal}.
It is impressive that a future detection of a high level of primordial NG in the squeezed configuration will rule out all standard single-field models of
inflation, where the same field drives inflation and is responsible for the perturbations, since they all predict very tiny deviations from Gaussianity \cite{noi,Maldacena}.
In Ref. \cite{us} we have taken the first step in trying to characterize the three- and the four-point inflationary correlators
when the curvature perturbation is generated by scalar fields other than the inflaton, the so-called multifield inflation (for the case in which there is only one degree of freedom, see Refs. \cite{others}). In particular, we have studied the implications of the symmetries present during a de Sitter phase, that is scale invariance and special conformal symmetry. For instance, we have shown that, as a consequence of the conformal symmetries, the two-point cross-correlation of the light fields vanish if their conformal weights (essentially their masses in units of
the Hubble rate) are different. Furthermore,
we have pointed out that the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) technique is very suitable to analyze two
interesting limits: the squeezed limit of the three-point correlator and the collapsed limit of the four-point correlator. Despite the fact that the conformal symmetry does not fix the
shape of the four-point correlators of the light NG fields, we have been able to compute it
in the collapsed limit. As we mentioned, both the resulting shapes are relevant from the observational point of view.
In this paper we take a step further and study which informations we can get on the squeezed limit of the four-point correlator. This is an interesting question as the four-point function is not fixed by by conformal
invariance of the de Sitter stage. Once more, we will resort to the OPE technique in order to learn what we can say about such a configuration of the four-point correlator.
One of the goals of these paper is to stress that the contribution to the trispectrum in the squeezed limit
coming from the NG of the light fields at horizon crossing have a different shape and the amplitude can be larger than the trispectrum generated on superhorizon scales (which is there
even if the light fields are gaussian). This is somewhat contrary to the common belief spread in the literature whose large majority has focused
on the NG originated at superhorizon scales.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we will present a summary of what we know about the bispectrum
and trispectrum of the light fields during inflation thanks to the symmetry properties of de Sitter and the OPE technique. This section contains
known material and the expert reader can jump directly to sections 3 and 4 where we calculate the four-point correlator in the squeezed limit
using various arguments. Section 5 contains some quantitative estimates of the three- and four-point correlators from the light
NG fields; finally section 5 contains our conclusions.
\section{Some general considerations about non-Gaussianities}
We can characterize the cosmological perturbations through
the $\delta N$ formalism \cite{deltaN}, where the comoving curvature perturbation $\zeta$
on a uniform
energy density hypersurface at time $t_{\rm f}$ is, on sufficiently large scales, equal to the perturbation
in the time integral of the local expansion from an initial flat hypersurface ($t = t_{*}$)
to the final uniform energy density hypersurface. On sufficiently large scales, the local expansion
can be approximated quite well by the expansion of the unperturbed Friedmann
universe. Hence the curvature perturbation at time $t_{\rm f}$ can be expressed in terms of the values of the relevant scalar
fields $\sigma^I(t_{*},\vec{x})$ at $t_{*}$
\begin{eqnarray}
\zeta(t_{\rm f},\vec{x})=N_I\sigma^I+\frac{1}{2!}N_{IJ}\sigma^I\sigma^J+\frac{1}{3!}N_{IKJ}
\sigma^I\sigma^J\sigma^K+\cdots, \label{zeta}
\label{deltan}
\end{eqnarray}
where $N_I$, $N_{IJ}$ and $N_{IJK}$ are the first, second and third derivative, respectively, of the number of e-folds
\begin{eqnarray}
N(t_{\rm f},t_{*},\vec{x})=\int_{t_{*}}^{t_{\rm f}}\,{\rm d}t\, H(t,\vec{x})
\end{eqnarray}
with respect to the
field $\sigma^I$. From the expansion (\ref{deltan}) one can read off the $n$-point correlators.
For instance, the three- and four-point correlators of the comoving curvature perturbation are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \zeta_{\vec{k}_1}\zeta_{\vec{k}_2}
\zeta_{\vec{k}_3}\rangle&=&B^{\rm n-un}_\zeta(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3)+B^{\rm un}_\zeta(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3),\nonumber\\
B^{\rm n-un}_\zeta(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3)&=&N_I N_J N_K B^{IJK}_{\vec{k}_1\vec{k}_2\vec{k}_3},\nonumber\\
B^{\rm un}_\zeta(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3)&=& N_I N_{JK}N_{L}\left(P^{IK}_{\vec{k}_1}P^{JL}_{\vec{k}_2}+2\,\,{\rm permutations} \label{zeta3}
\right)
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \zeta_{\vec{k}_1}\zeta_{\vec{k}_2}
\zeta_{\vec{k}_3}\zeta_{\vec{k}_4}\rangle&=&T^{\rm n-un}_\zeta(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3,\vec{k}_4)+T^{\rm un}_\zeta(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3,\vec{k}_4),\nonumber\\
T^{\rm n-un}_\zeta(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3,\vec{k}_4)&=&N_I N_J N_K N_L T^{IJKL}_{\vec{k}_1\vec{k}_2\vec{k}_3\vec{k}_4}
+N_{IJ} N_{K}N_{L}N_M\left(P^{IK}_{\vec{k}_1}B^{JLM}_{\vec{k}_{12}\vec{k}_3\vec{k}_4}+11\,\,{\rm permutations}
\right),\nonumber\\
T^{\rm un}_\zeta(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3,\vec{k}_4)&=&N_{IJ} N_{KL}N_{M}N_N\left(P^{IL}_{\vec{k}_{12}}P^{JM}_{\vec{k}_{1}}P^{KN}_{\vec{k}_{3}}
+11\,\,{\rm permutations}
\right)
\nonumber\\
&+&N_{IJK} N_{L}N_{M}N_N\left(P^{IL}_{\vec{k}_{1}}P^{JM}_{\vec{k}_{2}}P^{KN}_{\vec{k}_{3}}
+3\,\,{\rm permutations}
\right).
\label{zeta4}
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have defined $\vec{k}_{ij}=(\vec{k}_{i}+\vec{k}_{j})$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_{1}}^I\sigma^J_{\vec{k}_{2}}\rangle&=&(2\pi)^3\delta({\vec{k}_{1}}+{\vec{k}_{2}})P^{IJ}_{\vec{k}_{1}}=
(2\pi)^3\delta({\vec{k}_{1}}+{\vec{k}_{2}})\delta^{IJ}\left(\frac{H^2}{2k_1^3}\right)_{k_1=aH},\nonumber\\
\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_{1}}^I\sigma^J_{\vec{k}_{2}}\sigma^K_{\vec{k}_{3}}\rangle&=&(2\pi)^3\delta({\vec{k}_{1}}+{\vec{k}_{2}}+{\vec{k}_{3}})B^{IJK}_{\vec{k}_{1}\vec{k}_{2}\vec{k}_{3}},\nonumber\\
\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_{1}}^I\sigma^J_{\vec{k}_{2}}\sigma^J_{\vec{k}_{3}}\sigma^L_{\vec{k}_{4}}\rangle&=&(2\pi)^3\delta({\vec{k}_{1}}+{\vec{k}_{2}}+{\vec{k}_{3}}+{\vec{k}_{4}})T^{IJKL}_{\vec{k}_{1}\vec{k}_{2}\vec{k}_{3}\vec{k}_{4}}.\label{kro}
\end{eqnarray}
The three-point correlator (and similarly the four-point one) of the comoving curvature perturbation is the sum of two pieces
\begin{itemize}
\item
One, proportional to the connected three-point correlator of the $\sigma^I$ fields, is present when the fields $\sigma^I$ are intrinsically NG at horizon crossing. We dub it (in a loose way) the non-universal contribution.
\item The second one, which we dub universal (some people come them gravitational), is generated when the modes of
the fluctuations are super-Hubble and is present even if the $\sigma^I$ fields are gaussian. Of course they depend on the mechanism
for the conversion of the isocurvature modes into the curvature modes.
\end{itemize}
It is fair to say that most of the attention in the literature has been devoted to the universal contributions. For instance, in the large majority of the literature on NG, the nonlinear parameters\footnote{The prime denotes correlators without the $(2\pi)^3\delta(\sum_i\vec{k}_i)$ factors.
}
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\rm NL}&=&\frac{5}{12}\frac{\langle \zeta_{\vec{k}_1}\zeta_{\vec{k}_2}
\zeta_{\vec{k}_3}\rangle^\prime}{P^\zeta_{\vec{k}_1}P^\zeta_{\vec{k}_2}},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,({\rm squeezed}:\,\,k_1\ll k_2\sim k_3),\nonumber\\
\tau_{\rm NL}&=&\frac{1}{4}\frac{\langle \zeta_{\vec{k}_1}\zeta_{\vec{k}_2}\zeta_{\vec{k}_3}\zeta_{\vec{k}_4}\rangle^\prime}{P^\zeta_{\vec{k}_1}
P^\zeta_{\vec{k}_3}P^\zeta_{\vec{k}_{12}}},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,({\rm collapsed}:\,\,\vec{k}_{12}\simeq 0), \label{tf2}\nonumber\\
2\tau_{\rm NL}+\frac{54}{25}g_{\rm NL}&=&\frac{\langle \zeta_{\vec{k}_1}\zeta_{\vec{k}_2}\zeta_{\vec{k}_3}\zeta_{\vec{k}_4}\rangle^\prime}{P^\zeta_{\vec{k}_4}
\left(P^\zeta_{\vec{k}_1}P^\zeta_{\vec{k}_{2}}+2\,\,{\rm permutations }\right)},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,({\rm squeezed}:\,\,k_4\ll k_1,k_2,k_3), \label{tf3}
\end{eqnarray}
are expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
f^{\rm un}_{\rm NL}&=&\frac{5}{6}\frac{N^IN_{IJ}N^J}{(N_IN^I)^2},\nonumber\\
\tau^{\rm un}_{\rm NL}&=&
\frac{N^IN_{JI}N^{JK}N_K}{(N_IN^I)^3},\nonumber\\
g^{\rm un}_{\rm NL}&=&\frac{25}{54}
\frac{N^IN^JN^K N_{IJK}}{(N_IN^I)^3},
\end{eqnarray}
with no reference to the contribution to the non-universal terms. This might be due to the fact that the non-universal contributions
to the connected correlators generated if the light fields are NG depend on the specific self-interactions of the light fields and in principle little was known about their
magnitude and shapes.
To show that neglecting the non-universal contributions might lead to non correct conclusions about NG, let us consider the following simple example where the primordial density perturbations is produced just
after the end of inflation through the modulated decay scenario when the decay rate of the inflaton is a function of some light field $\sigma$ \cite{rate}, that is $\Gamma=\Gamma(\sigma)$.
If we approximate the inflaton reheating by a sudden decay, we may find an analytic estimate of the density perturbation.
In the case of modulated reheating, the decay occurs on a spatial hypersurface with
variable local decay rate and hence local Hubble rate $H=\Gamma(\sigma)$. Before the
inflaton decay, the oscillating inflaton field has a pressureless equation of state and there is no density
perturbation. The perturbed expansion reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta N_{\rm d}=-\frac{1}{3}\ln\left(\frac{\rho_{\rm d}}{\overline{\rho}_{\rm d}}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Immediately after the decay we have radiation and hence the curvature perturbation reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\zeta=\delta N_{\rm d}+\frac{1}{4}\ln\left(\frac{\rho_{\rm d}}{\overline{\rho}_{\rm d}}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Eliminating $\delta N_{\rm d}$ and using the local Friedmann equation $\rho\sim H^2$,
to determine the local density in terms of the local decay rate $\Gamma=\Gamma(\sigma)$, we have at the linear order
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{rate1}
\zeta=-\frac{1}{6}\,\ln\left(\frac{\delta\Gamma}{\Gamma}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Taylor expanding this expression in powers of the fluctuation $\sigma$, one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
f^{\rm un}_{\rm NL}&=&5\left(1-\frac{\Gamma''\Gamma}{\Gamma'^{2}}\right),\nonumber\\
g^{\rm un}_{\rm NL}&=&\frac{25}{54}\frac{N'''}{N'^{3}}=
\frac{50}{3}\left(2-3\frac{\Gamma''\Gamma}{\Gamma'^{2}}+\frac{\Gamma'''}{\Gamma'^{3}}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Now, suppose that the function $\Gamma(\sigma)$ is of the exponential type, $\Gamma(\sigma(\vx,t))\sim e^{a \sigma(\vx,t)}$
with $a$ constant. This is a rather natural possibility if, for instance, the light field is a string modulus setting the amplitude of some coupling constant. If so, one immediately
concludes that all the universal contributions to the NG vanish, $f^{\rm un}_{\rm NL}=\tau^{\rm un}_{\rm NL}=g^{\rm un}_{\rm NL}=\cdots=0$.
This holds to any order in perturbation theory as the relation between the comoving curvature perturbation $\zeta$ and the light fluctuation $\sigma$ is linear: $\zeta\sim \ln\left(\delta\Gamma/\Gamma\right)\sim \sigma$ from Eq. (\ref{rate1}).
Alternatively, suppose that the function $\Gamma(\sigma)$ gets its dependence on the light field from some Yukawa-type interaction with Yukawa coupling $Y=Y_0(1+\sigma/2M)$, with $M$ some high mass scale.
If so, $\Gamma(h)\simeq \Gamma_0(1+\sigma/2M)^2$ and we obtain negligible NG, $f^{\rm un}_{\rm NL}= 5/2$ and
$g^{\rm un}_{\rm NL}= 25/3$, being the current bounds $f_{\rm NL}\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^2$ \cite{kom} and $g_{\rm NL}\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^6$ \cite{gnl}.
These simple examples indicate that, at least a priori, one may not disregard the non-universal contributions unless there is a convincing argument
that they are subleading. In fact, it was pointed out long ago that the non-universal contributions may be of the same order of magnitude as the universal ones \cite{bmr, zal,fr1,fr2}.
From now on we will therefore devote our attention to non-universal contributions to NG in order to characterize them. Let us therefore go back to such contributions
and briefly summarize what we know about them.
\subsection{Non-Gaussianities and the conformal symmetries of de Sitter}
Some progress has been made recently on the knowledge of the NG carried by the light fields during the de Sitter stage\cite{anto,Creminelli,us}.
Even though the intrinsically NG contributions to the $n$-point correlators of the light fields are model-dependent,
their forms in some specific configurations are dictated
by the conformal symmetry of the de Sitter stage.
Let us recall some of the properties of the conformal symmetry in de Sitter. For a more complete description the reader is referred to Ref. \cite{us}.
Conformal invariance
in three-dimensional space $\mathbb{R}^3$ is connected to the symmetry under the group $SO(1,4)$ in the same way
conformal invariance in a four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime is connected to the $SO(2,4)$ group. As $SO(1,4)$ is the
isometry group of de Sitter spacetime, a conformal phase during which fluctuations were generated could be
a de Sitter stage. In such a case, the kinematics is specified by the embedding
of $\mathbb{R}^3$ as flat sections in de Sitter spacetime. The de Sitter isometry group acts as conformal group
on $\mathbb{R}^3$ when the fluctuations are super-Hubble. It is in this regime that the $SO(1,4)$ isometry
of the de Sitter background is realized as conformal symmetry of the flat $\mathbb{R}^3$ sections. Correlators are expected to be constrained by conformal invariance. All these reasonings apply in the case in which the cosmological perturbations are generated
by light scalar fields other than the inflaton. Indeed, it is only in such a case that correlators
inherit all the isometries of de Sitter.
First, let us remind how the conformal group acts on super-Hubble scales. The set of transformations is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&& x_i'=a_i+M_i^{\,\,j}x_j, \\
&& x_i'=\lambda x_i, \\
&&x_i'=\frac{x_i+b_ix^2}{1+2b_ix_i+b^2x^2} \label{specconf}
\end{eqnarray}
on Euclidean $\mathbb{R}^3$ with coordinates $x^i$. These transformations correspond to translations and rotations (generated by $P_i,L_{ij}$), dilations
(generated by $D$) and special conformal transformations (generated by $K_i$), respectively, acting now on the constant time hypersurfaces
of de Sitter spacetime. It should be noted that special conformal transformations can be written in terms of inversion
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{inv}
x_i\to x_i'=\frac{x_i}{x^2} \label{inv}
\end{eqnarray}
as (inversion)$\times$(translation)$\times$(inversion).
Under conformal transformations, the two-point function of fields $\sigma^I$ and $\sigma^J$ of
conformal dimensions $\Delta_I$ and $\Delta_J$ respectively, transforms as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma^I(\vec{{x}}_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\rangle\to \Big{|}\frac{\partial x_i'}{\partial x_j}\Big{|}_{x=x_1}^{\Delta_I/3}
\Big{|}\frac{\partial x'_i}{\partial x_j}\Big{|}_{x=x_2}^{\Delta_J/3} \langle\sigma^I(\vec{{x}}'_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2')\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
where $|\partial x_i' /\partial x_j|$ is the Jacobian of the transformation. For the space inversion (\ref{inv}),
the two-point function, the form of which is forced by scale invariance, transforms
as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma^I(\vec{{x}}_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\rangle\to \frac{(x_1 x_2)^{\Delta_I+\Delta_J}}{x_1^{2\Delta_I}x_2^{2\Delta_J}}
\langle\sigma^I(\vec{{x}}_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
where for $\vx'=\vx/x^2$ we have used that
\begin{eqnarray}
\left|\frac{\partial x_i'}{\partial x_j}\right|=\frac{1}{x^6}\, , ~~~x_{ij}\to \frac{x_{ij}}{x_i^2 x_j^2},
\label{spinv}
\end{eqnarray}
and the notation $x_{ij}=\left|\vx_i-\vx_j\right|$. Thus, space inversion leaves the two point function invariant if
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_I=\Delta_J.
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, the three-point function transforms as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)\rangle\to
\left|\frac{\partial x_i'}{\partial x_j}\right|_{x=x_1}^{\Delta_I/3}
\left|\frac{\partial x_i'}{\partial x_j}\right|_{x=x_1}^{\Delta_J/3}
\left|\frac{\partial x_i'}{\partial x_j}\right|_{x=x_1}^{\Delta_K/3}
\langle\sigma^I(\vx_1')\sigma^J(\vx_2')\sigma^K(\vx_3')\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
and using (\ref{spinv}), we get that the three-point correlator is invariant if
\begin{eqnarray}
w_K=\Delta_I+\Delta_J-\Delta_K\, ,~~w_I=\Delta_J+\Delta_K-\Delta_I\, ,~~w_J=\Delta_I+\Delta_K-\Delta_J.
\end{eqnarray}
As a result, two- and three-point function are conformal invariant if they have the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace{-1cm}&&\langle\sigma^I(\vec{{x}}_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\rangle=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
\frac{c_{IJ}}{|\vx_1-\vx_2|^{2\Delta_I}}
&\Delta_I=\Delta_J,\label{2pc}\\
0 & \Delta_I\neq \Delta_J,
\end{array}
\right.
\\
\hspace{-1cm}&&\langle\sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)\rangle=
\frac{c_{IJK}}{|\vx_1-\vx_2|^{\Delta_I\!+\!\Delta_J\!-\!\Delta_K}|\vx_2-\vx_3|^{\Delta_J\!+\!\Delta_K\!-\!\Delta_I}
|\vx_3-\vx_1|^{\Delta_I\!+\!\Delta_K\!-\!\Delta_J}}, \label{3pc}
\end{eqnarray}
where again $\sigma^{I,J,K}$ are operators of dimensions $\Delta_{I,J,K}$.
In other words, enhancing the symmetry including the special conformal symmetry has two consequences. First, the two-point functions are zero for
operators with different dimensions and, second, the three-point functions are completely specified by special conformal
transformations, {\it i.e.} by the full conformal symmetry. The four-point function on the other hand is not fixed by by conformal
invariance. However, as under special conformal symmetry we have
\begin{eqnarray}
x_{12}^{'2}=\frac{x_{12}^{2}}{\left|\vec{b}+\vx_1\right|^2\left|\vec{b}+\vx_2\right|^2},
\end{eqnarray}
the four-point correlation can be only a function of the cross-ratios $(x_{ij}x_{km}/x_{ik}x_{jm})$. The four-point correlator is therefore of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx_4)\rangle=F^{IJKL}\left(\frac{x_{12}x_{34}}{x_{13} x_{24}},
\frac{x_{14}x_{23}}{x_{13} x_{24}} \right)\prod_{i<j} x_{ij}^{\Delta/3-\Delta_I-\Delta_J} \label{44pt}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\Delta=\sum_I\Delta_I$. The four-point function is restricted but not fully specified by
conformal invariance to be a function of the so-called anharmonic ratios.
Therefore, one can conclude that \cite{Creminelli,us}
\begin{itemize}
\item As a consequence of special
conformal symmetry
the scale invariance during the de Sitter stage, the two-point cross-correlation of the light fields vanish
if their conformal weights are different. Therefore, no assumption is needed on their cross-correlation,
it is simply dictated by the conformal symmetry \cite{us}. This is the reason why we inserted a Kronecker
delta function $\delta^{IJ}$ in the expression (\ref{kro}).
\item The form of the three-point correlator $\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_{1}}^I\sigma^J_{\vec{k}_{2}}\sigma^K_{\vec{k}_{3}}\rangle$
is fixed by conformal invariance of the de Sitter stage and in the squeezed limit it contributes to the total three-point correlator of the comoving curvature perturbation $\langle \zeta_{\vec{k}_1}\zeta_{\vec{k}_2}\zeta_{\vec{k}_3}\rangle$
with the same shape of the universal contributions \cite{Creminelli,us}.
\item While the form of the four-point correlator $\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_{1}}^I\sigma^J_{\vec{k}_{2}}\sigma^J_{\vec{k}_{3}}\sigma^L_{\vec{k}_{4}}\rangle$ is not fixed by the
conformal symmetries of the de Sitter stage, in the collapsed limit it contributes to the total four-point correlator $\langle \zeta_{\vec{k}_1}\zeta_{\vec{k}_2}\zeta_{\vec{k}_3}\zeta_{\vec{k}_4}\rangle$ with the same shape of the universal contributions \cite{us}: it can be expressed as a product of power spectra.
\end{itemize}
In the rest of the paper we will characterize the non-universal contributions to the three- and four-point correlators expanding the results of Ref. \cite{us} and using the OPE technique.
\subsection{Non-Gaussianities and the Operator product expansion}
\noindent
The OPE is a very powerful tool to analyze the squeezed limit of the three-point correlator and the collapsed and squeezed limit of the four-point correlator.
These limits
are particularly interesting from the
observational point of view because they are associated to the local model of NG
(for a review see \cite{reviewNG}) which leads to pronounced effects of NG on the clustering of dark matter halos and to strongly scale-dependent bias \cite{dalal}.
The OPE has been established in perturbative quantum field theories.
It is by now a standard tool in the analysis of
gauge theories such as QCD and Wilson's OPE \cite{Wilson} is the basis of virtually all calculations of nonperturbative effects in
analytical QCD.
It is believed that all quantum field theories with well-behaved ultraviolet behavior have
an OPE \cite{Wilson,wilson,zim}.
Let us consider two generic operators $\sigma^I(\vx)$ and $\sigma^J(\vec{y})$ at the points $\vx$ and $\vec{y}$ on a
$\tau={\rm constant}$ hypersurface of de Sitter spacetime.
Then, we expect that the product of local operators are distances small compared to the
characteristic length of the system should look like a local operator. As a result, we expect that
the product of $\sigma^I(\vx)\sigma^J(\vec{y})$ of the two operators $\sigma^I(\vx)$ and $\sigma^J(\vec{y})$, located at nearby points $\vx$ and $\vec{y}$, will have a
short-distance expansion of the form \cite{Wilson}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ab1}
\sigma^I(\vx) \sigma^J(\vec{y})\stackrel{\vx\to\vec{y}}{\sim}\sum_nC_{n}(\vx-\vec{y};g){\cal{O}}_n(\vec{y}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_n(\vx-\vec{y})$ are c-number functions (in fact distributions), ${\cal{O}}_n$ local operators and $g$ is the coupling.
Moreover, for $H\tau \ll 1$ we expect the OPE to respect the symmetries of the de Sitter
spacetime realized non-linearly on the $\tau={\rm constant}$ hypersurface. Let us briefly summarize the results obtained in Ref. \cite{us}.
Let us note immediately that $n$-point correlators are reduced to calculation of three-point functions by repeated
applications of (\ref{ab1}). Let us consider the case where ${\cal{O}}$ is the field itself, {\it i.e.}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma^I(\vx) \sigma^J(\vec{y})\stackrel{\vx\to\vec{y}}{\sim}\sum_K C^{IJ}_K(\vx-\vec{y};g)\sigma^K(\vec{y}). \label{ab2}
\end{eqnarray}
The $n$- and $(n+1)$-point functions are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&g_{n+1}^{I_1\cdots I_{n+1}}(x_1,\ldots,x_{n+1};\mu,g)=
\langle \sigma^{I_1}(x_1)\cdots\sigma^{I_{n+1}}(x_{n+1})\rangle',\\
&&g_{n}^{I_1\cdots I_{n}}(x_1,\ldots,x_{n};\mu,g)=
\langle \sigma^{I_1}(x_1)\cdots\sigma^{I_{n}}(x_{n})\rangle',
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu$ a mass scale.
These correlators satisfy the Callan-Symanzik equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}+\beta \frac{\partial}{\partial g}+\sum_I\gamma_I\right)g^{I}_i=0, ~~~~~~(i=n,n+1),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\beta$ is the usual $\beta$-function and $\gamma_I$ the anomalous dimension of $\sigma^I$. Using the OPE expansion (\ref{ab2})
one finds immediately that
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{n+1}^{I_1\ldots I_{n+1}}=\sum_K C^{I_nI_{n+1}}_{K}g_{n}^{I_1\ldots I_{n-1}K}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then, the coefficients of the OPE expansion are also satisfy the Callan-Symanzik equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}+\beta \frac{\partial}{\partial g}+\gamma_I+\gamma_J-\gamma_K\right)C^{IJ}_K(x,y;\mu,g)=0.
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, for a a conformal field theory for which $\beta=0$, dimensional arguments and the fact that renormalized operators
can be chosen such that they do not depend $\mu$ lead to
\begin{eqnarray}
C^{IJ}_K(x,y;g)=\frac{C^{IJ}(g)}{x^{2 w_I+2w_J-2w_K}}, \label{c12}
\end{eqnarray}
where $w_{I,J,K}$ are the dimensions of the fields $\sigma^I$, $\sigma^J$ and $\sigma^K$, respectively. Therefore (\ref{ab2}) can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma^I(\vx) \sigma^J(\vec{y})\stackrel{\vx\to\vec{y}}{\sim}\sum_K \frac{C^{IJ}(g)}{|\vx-\vec{y}|^{2 w_I+2w_J-2w_K}}\sigma^K(\vec{y}).
\end{eqnarray}
Here $C^{IJ}$ should be understood in a non-perturbative sense. In perturbation theory, it has an expansion
in terms of the coupling(s) $g$, {\it i.e.} for a single field $C(g)=c_0+c_1 g+c_2 g^2+\cdots$. Let us now analyze in detail the three- and the four-point correlator in various interesting configurations.
\subsection{The three-point correlator in the squeezed limit}
\noindent
If we wish to consider the three-point correlator in the squeezed limit, the configuration in real space is such that two points, say
$\vx_1$ and $\vx_2$ are very close and the third one very far.
Let us therefore consider the OPE expansion for the two fields $\sigma^I$
and $\sigma^J$ in the (12) channel at the coincident point
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\!=\!\left(\frac{C_0^{IJ}}{x_{12}^{2w}}+\frac{{C^{IJ}}_M}{x_{12}^w}\sigma^M(\vx_2)+\cdots\!\right).
\label{asd}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $w\simeq m^2/3 H^2\ll 1$, where $m$ is the mass of the fields, is the conformal weight of the fields involved (remember that
the weight of the fields $\sigma^I$ and $\sigma^I$ must be the same due to the special conformal symmetry).
The three-point correlator in the squeezed limit can be evaluated
by employing the OPE as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)\rangle=
\Big<\left(\frac{C^{IJ}_0}{x_{12}^{2w}}+\frac{C^{IJ}_A}{x_{12}^w}\sigma^A(\vx_2)+\cdots\right)
\sigma^K(\vx_3)\Big>.
\end{eqnarray}
Using again the orthogonality of the two-point functions, one finds \cite{us}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)\rangle=\frac{{C^{IJ}}_A}{x_{12}^w}\langle\sigma^A(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)\rangle
=\frac{C^{IJK}}{x_{12}^wx_{23}^{2w}} ~~~(x_{12}\simeq 0). \label{3xv}
\end{eqnarray}
Using the expression
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{|\vx|^{w}}=
\frac{\Gamma(\frac{3-w}{2})}{2^{w}\pi^{3/2}\Gamma(\frac{w}{2})}
\int {\rm d}^3 k\,|\vec{k}|^{w-3}e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot \vx},\label{xw}
\end{eqnarray}
we obtain for an almost scale invariant spectrum $w\approx 0$ the Fourier transform of Eq. (\ref{3xv})
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma^I_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma^J_{\vec{k}_2}\sigma^K_{\vec{k}_3}\rangle^\prime
\sim C^{IJK}
P_{\vec{k}_1}P_{\vec{k}_2}\left[1+{\cal O}\left(\frac{k_1^2}{k_2^2}\right)\right],\,\,\,\,\,\,(k_1\ll k_2\sim k_3).
\end{eqnarray}
The non-universal contribution to the three-point correlator in the squeezed limit has therefore the same shape of the universal contribution. Its amplitude
is model-dependent.
\subsection{The four-point correlator in the collapsed limit}
\noindent
If we wish to consider the four-point correlator in the collapsed limit, the configuration in real space is such that two pairs of points, say
$\vx_1$, $\vx_2$ and $\vx_3$, $\vx_4$ are very far from each other.
Let us therefore consider the OPE expansion (\ref{asd}) as well as the one for the other (34) channel at the coincident point
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx_4)\!=\!\left(\frac{C_0^{KL}(w)}{x_{34}^{2w}}+\frac{{C^{KL}}_M(w)}{x_{34}^w}\sigma^M(\vx_4)\!+\!\cdots\right).
\label{34}
\end{eqnarray}
The four-point function in the collapsed limit
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx_4)\rangle ~~~~~~~~~(x_{12}\simeq 0\,\,{\rm and \,\,} x_{34}\simeq 0)
\end{eqnarray}
can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx_4)\rangle=\frac{C_0^{IJ}{C_0^{KL}}}{x_{12}^{2w}x_{34}^{2w}}+
\frac{{C^{IJ}}_A{C^{KL}}_B}{x_{12}^wx_{34}^w}\langle\sigma^A(\vx_2)\sigma^B(\vx_4)\rangle+\cdots, \label{ab}
\end{eqnarray}
whose Fourier transforms keeping the connected contribution gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{asd}
\langle \sigma_{\vec{k}_1}^I\sigma_{\vec{k}_2}^J\sigma_{\vec{k}_3}^K\sigma_{\vec{k}_4}^L\rangle^\prime \sim {C^{IJ}}_A C^{KLA}
P_{\vec{k}_{12}}P_{\vec{k}_2}P_{\vec{k}_4}+\,\,{\rm permutations},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(\vec{k}_{12}\simeq \vec{0}).
\end{eqnarray}
The non-universal contribution to the four-point correlator in the collapsed limit has therefore the same shape of the universal contribution. Its amplitude
is model-dependent.
\section{The four-point correlator in the squeezed limit}
\noindent
Let us now consider the four-point correlator in the squeezed limit
which was not analyzed in Ref. \cite{us}. We
consider three points being close to each other and the fourth very far apart.
In other words we consider the configuration
\begin{eqnarray}
x_{14}\approx x_{24}\approx x_{34}\gg x_{ij}, ~~~~(i,j=1,2,3). \label{xxx}
\end{eqnarray}
The method to characterize the four-point correlation in the squeezed limit is based entirely on the OPE. As we said, we consider the generic four-point correlator in the squeezed limit in which one of the point is much
far from the remaining three, say $\ell = x_{12}\simeq x_{23} \simeq x_{13}\gg x_{14}$. We start by dividing space into volumes centered around the points $\vx_1,\vx_2$ and $\vx_3$. For simplicity we will take
all of these volumes to have the same shape and size $R\ll \ell $. We wish to compute the correlator for the
smoothed functions
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_R^I(\vx_i)=\int{\rm d}^3 x\, W_R(\vx-\vx_i)\, \sigma^I(\vx),\,\,\,\,\,\,(i=1,2,3),
\end{eqnarray}
where $W_R(\vx)$ is a window function selecting a volume of size $R$. The key point is that the leading term of the four-point correlator in the squeezed limit can be computed considering the modulation of the three-point
correlator inside large volume with size at least $\ell$ where
long wavelength fluctuation modes $\sigma^M_\ell(\vx)$ live (one can imagine to obtain them by smoothing with a
window function $(1-W_R(\vx))$.
The OPE for the two fields $\sigma_R^I$
and $\sigma_R^J$ in the (12) channel at the coincident point is
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sigma_R^I(\vx_1)\sigma_R^J(\vx_2)\!=\!\frac{C_0^{IJ}(w)}{x_{12}^{2w}}+
\frac{{C^{IJ}}_M(w,g,{\sigma}^N_\ell(\vx_2))}{x_{12}^w}\sigma_R^M(\vx_2)+\cdots,
\label{12}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have made explicit that
the coefficients of the expansion depend on coupling constants, denoted collectively by $g$ and on the long-wavelength mode
${\sigma}^N_\ell(\vx_2)$ of the field ${\sigma}^N(\vx_2)$. Indeed, this fluctuation is seen by the
remaining three short wavelength fluctuations as a vacuum expectation value and it should be added to the zero mode
$\overline{\sigma}^N$.
Multiplying both sides with $\sigma_R^K(\vx_3)$ and since $x_{13}\approx 0$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sigma_R^I(\vx_1)\sigma_R^J(\vx_2)\sigma_R^K(\vx_3)=\frac{C_0^{IJ}(w)}{x_{12}^{2w}}\sigma_R^K(\vx_3)+
\frac{{C^{IJ}}_M(w,g,{\sigma}^N_\ell(\vx_2))}{x_{12}^w}\sigma_R^M(\vx_2)\sigma_R^K(\vx_3)+\cdots. \label{123}
\end{eqnarray}
We now expand the three-point correlator ${C^{IJ}}_M(w,g,{\sigma}^N_\ell(\vx_2))$ around $\overline{\sigma}^N$ in powers
of ${\sigma}^N_\ell(\vx_2)$ to linear order
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_R^I(\vx_1)\sigma_R^J(\vx_2)\sigma_R^K(\vx_3)&=&\frac{C_0^{IJ}(w)}{x_{12}^{2w}}\sigma_R^K(\vx_3)+
\frac{{C^{IJ}}_M(w,g,\overline{\sigma}^N)}{x_{12}^w}\sigma_R^M(\vx_2)\sigma_R^K(\vx_3)\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{\partial{C^{IJ}}_M(w,g,\overline{\sigma}^N)}{\partial \overline{\sigma}^N}
\frac{\sigma_R^M(\vx_2)\sigma_R^K(\vx_3){\sigma}^N_\ell(\vx_2)}{x_{12}^w}
+\cdots \label{123expanded}
\end{eqnarray}
and by applying the OPE in the (23) channel, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_R^I(\vx_1)\sigma_R^J(\vx_2)\sigma_R^K(\vx_3)&=&\frac{C_0^{IJ}(w)}{x_{12}^{2w}}\sigma_R^K(\vx_3)+
\frac{{C^{IJ}}_M(w,g,\overline{\sigma}^N)}{x_{12}^w}\frac{C_0^{MK}(w)}{x_{23}^{2w}}\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{{C^{IJ}}_M(w,g,\overline{\sigma}^N)}{x_{12}^w}\frac{{C^{MK}}_P(w,g,\overline{\sigma}^N)}{x_{23}^w}\sigma_R^P(\vx_3)
\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{\partial{C^{IJ}}_M(w,g,\overline{\sigma}^N)}{\partial \overline{\sigma}^N}
\frac{\sigma_R^M(\vx_2)\sigma_R^K(\vx_3){\sigma}^N_\ell(\vx_2)}{x_{12}^w}
+\cdots. \label{123expanded}
\end{eqnarray}
If we now multiply the above expression by $\sigma^L(\vx_4)$ and take the expectation value and Fourier transform, we finally obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\fbox{$\displaystyle
\langle \sigma^{I}_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma^{J}_{\vec{k}_2}\sigma^K_{\vec{k}_{3}}\sigma^L_{\vec{k}_{4}}\rangle'\sim
\frac{\partial{C^{IJ}}_M}{\partial \overline{\sigma}^L}\,C^{-1}_{NPM}
\,P_{\vec{k}_4}\, \langle \sigma^{N}_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma^{P}_{\vec{k}_2}\sigma^K_{\vec{k}_{3}}\rangle'
+{C^{KL}}_M \,P_{\vec{k}_4}\, \langle \sigma^{I}_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma^{J}_{\vec{k}_2}\sigma^M_{\vec{k}_{3}}\rangle',\,\, (k_4\ll k_1,k_2,k_3)$}.
\label{4oplongt}
\end{eqnarray}
The non-universal four-point correlator (\ref{4oplongt}) can be therefore thought as the modulated three-point correlator in the presence of a long wavelength mode at the linear order and at the quadratic order in the coupling constants ${C^{IJ}}_M$
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \sigma^{I}_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma^{J}_{\vec{k}_2}\sigma^K_{\vec{k}_{3}}\sigma^L_{\vec{k}_{4}}\rangle'\simeq \Big<\sigma^L_{\vec{k}_4}
\langle \sigma^{I}_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma^{J}_{\vec{k}_2}\sigma^K_{\vec{k}_{3}}\rangle'_{{\sigma}_\ell^L}
\Big>.
\label{mod}
\end{eqnarray}
One can therefore construct first the bispectrum and then replace the (fictitious, if necessary) zero mode vacuum expectation value, if any, with a long wavelength mode to be contracted to build up the four-point correlator.
In particular, the piece linear in the coupling constant ${C^{IJ}}_M$ is similar to the $g^{\rm un}_{\rm NL}$ contribution, while the
quadratic piece in the coupling constant ${C^{IJ}}_M$ is similar to the $\tau^{\rm un}_{\rm NL}$ contribution. One should remember though that the ${C^{IJ}}_M$ is not only a tree-level quantity, but it is supposed to contain informations about all loops.
The modulation
effect in Eq. (\ref{4oplongt}) does not come as a surprise. Consider the contribution to the four-point correlator of the comoving curvature perturbation
coming from the universal terms in Eq. (\ref{zeta4}) in the squeezed limit $k_4\ll k_1,k_2,k_3$
\begin{eqnarray}
T^{\rm un}_\zeta(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3,\vec{k}_4)=\left(2N_{IJ} N_{KL}N_{M}N_N+N_{IJK} N_{L}N_{M}N_N\right)P^{IL}_{\vec{k}_{4}}\left(P^{JM}_{\vec{k}_{2}}P^{KN}_{\vec{k}_{3}}
+2 \,\,{\rm permutations}
\right)
\label{zeta44}
\end{eqnarray}
and the contribution to the three-point correlator of the comoving curvature perturbation
coming from the universal terms in Eq. (\ref{zeta3})
\begin{eqnarray}
B^{\rm un}_\zeta(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3)= N_I N_{JK}N_{L}\left(P^{IK}_{\vec{k}_1}P^{JL}_{\vec{k}_2}+2\,\,{\rm permutations} \label{zeta33}
\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Suppose now that there is long wavelength mode, associated to the fluctuation $\sigma^M_{\ell}$ and to the wavenumber $\vec{k}_4$, which modulates the bispectrum
(\ref{zeta33}). This long wavelength mode is added to the zero mode $\overline{\sigma}^M$ from the point of view
of the short wavelength modes. One can Taylor expand the derivatives of the number of e-folds
\begin{eqnarray}
N_I(\overline{\sigma}^M+\sigma^M_{\ell})&\simeq& N_I(\overline{\sigma}^M)+N_{IM}(\overline{\sigma}^M)\sigma^M_{\ell},\nonumber\\
N_{IJ}(\overline{\sigma}^M+\sigma^M_{\ell})&\simeq& N_{IJ}(\overline{\sigma}^M)+N_{IJM}(\overline{\sigma}^M)\sigma^M_{\ell}
\label{10}
\end{eqnarray}
and immediately see that the modulation of the three-point correlator in the background of the long wavelength mode gives
Eq. (\ref{zeta44}) in the squeezed limit
\begin{eqnarray}
T^{\rm un}_\zeta(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3,\vec{k}_4)\simeq \Big<\sigma^M_{\vec{k}_4}
B^{\rm un}_\zeta\left(\sigma^M_{\vec{k}_4};\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3\right)
\Big>.
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that by the same argument one can also reproduce the extra contribution to the non-universal trispectrum
in the squeezed limit
\begin{eqnarray}
T^{\rm n-un}_\zeta(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3,\vec{k}_4)\supset N_{IJ} N_{K}N_{L}N_M\left(P^{IK}_{\vec{k}_1}B^{JLM}_{\vec{k}_{12}\vec{k}_3\vec{k}_4}+2\,\,{\rm permutations}
\right)
\end{eqnarray}
which comes from the long wavelength expansion (\ref{10}) of the term $
B^{\rm n-un}_\zeta(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_3)=N_I N_J N_K B^{IJK}_{\vec{k}_1\vec{k}_2\vec{k}_3}$.
We would like to stress out at this point that the non-universal contribution to the four-point correlator (\ref{4oplongt}) is not of the same form of the universal one (\ref{zeta44}). Indeed, in the expression (\ref{4oplongt}) the bispectrum is not evaluated in the squeezed limit and therefore it is not generically written as the products of power spectra. In fact, this is also true for the four-point correlator in the collapsed limit: the expression (\ref{asd}) is value only in the limit $\vec{k}_{12}\simeq \vec{0}$, but is second order in the coupling constants. There might well be another piece which does not diverge when $\vec{k}_{12}\simeq \vec{0}$, but that is first order in the coupling constant. Which one dominates
clearly depends on the magnitude of such coupling. We will return to this point in the next subsection.
\subsection{A consistency check}
To check the validity of the expression (\ref{mod}), let us imagine to have only one test field $\sigma(\vx)$ with potential
$V(\sigma)=\lambda\sigma^p/p!$, with $p$ some positive integer larger than three. Let us also suppose that the
light field has a vacuum expectation value $\overline{\sigma}$ which induces an interaction of the form $\lambda\overline{\sigma}\sigma^{p-1}/(p-1)!$ (for $p=4$ there will be therefore both a trispectrum and a bispectrum).
The $n$-th correlator point
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_1}(\tau)\sigma_{\vec{k}_2}(\tau)\cdots \sigma_{\vec{k}_n}(\tau)\rangle
=-i\Big< 0\left|\int_{-\infty}^\tau\,{\rm d}\tau'\,\left[\sigma_{\vec{k}_1}(\tau)\sigma_{\vec{k}_2}(\tau)\cdots \sigma_{\vec{k}_n}(\tau),V(\tau')
\right] 0\right|\Big>.
\end{eqnarray}
Using the mode functions in de Sitter
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\vec{k}}(\tau)=\frac{H}{\sqrt{2k^3}}\left(1-ik\tau\right)e^{-ik\tau},
\end{eqnarray}
one obtains \cite{zal}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma_{\vec{k}_2}\cdots \sigma_{\vec{k}_n}\rangle'=V^{(n)}\frac{H^{2n-4}
\left(k^{(n)}_t\right)^3}{\Pi_i 2 k_i^3}\, I_n(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_n), \label{n-pt}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$k^{(n)}_t=k_1+k_2+\cdots k_n$, $V^{(n)}={\rm d}^n V(\overline{\sigma})/{\rm d}\overline{\sigma}^n$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
I_n(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_n)=2\int_{-\infty}^{\tau_{\rm end}} \frac{{\rm d}\tau}{k_t^3\tau^4}{\rm{Re}}\Big{[}-i(1-ik_1 \tau)
\cdots(1-ik_n\tau)e^{ik^{(n)}_t\tau}\Big{]}.
\end{eqnarray}
In the squeezed limit
$k_n\ll k_1,k_2,\cdots, k_{n-1}$ we have $k_n\tau\ll k_i\tau$ for $(i=1,\ldots,n-1)$. Hence, we find that
\begin{eqnarray}
I_n=I_{n-1} +{\cal{O}}\left(\frac{k_n}{k^{(n)}_t}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
and the expression (\ref{n-pt}) turns out to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma_{\vec{k}_2}\cdots \sigma_{\vec{k}_n}\rangle'&=&V^{(n)}\frac{H^{2n-4}
\left(k^{(n)}_t\right)^3}{\Pi_i 2 k_i^3}\, I_n(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_n)\nonumber \\
&\simeq& V^{(n)}\frac{H^{2n-4}
\left(k^{(n-1)}_t\right)^3}{2 k_n^3\Pi_{i}^{n-1} 2 k_i^3}\, I_{n-1}(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_{n-1})\nonumber \\
&=&\frac{V^{(n)}}{V^{(n-1)}}\frac{H^2}{2k_n^3}\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma_{\vec{k}_2}\cdots \sigma_{\vec{k}_{n-1}}\rangle'\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{V^{(n)}}{V^{(n-1)}}P_{\vec{k}_{n}}\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma_{\vec{k}_2}\cdots \sigma_{\vec{k}_{n-1}}\rangle'
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, for a potential $V(\sigma)=\lambda \sigma^4/4!$, we find that
\begin{eqnarray}
I_3(k_1,k_2,k_3)&=&\frac{8}{9}-\frac{\sum_{i<j} 2 k_i k_j}{\left(k^{(n)}_t\right)^2}-\frac{1}{3}
\left(\gamma_{\rm E}+N_{k_t}\right)\frac{\sum_{i} 2 k^3_i}{\left(k^{(3)}_t\right)^3},\,\nonumber\\
I_4(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)&=&\frac{8}{9}-\frac{\sum_{i<j} 2 k_i k_j}{\left(k^{(n)}_t\right)^2}+2\frac{\Pi_{i} k_i }{k_t^4}
-\frac{1}{3}\left(\gamma_{\rm E}+N_{k_t}\right)\frac{\sum_{i} 2 k^3_i}{\left(k^{(4)}_t\right)^3}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\gamma_{\rm E}$ is the Euler gamma and $N_{k_t}$ is the number of e-folds from the time the mode $k_t$ crosses the Hubble radius
to the time of end of inflation at $\tau_{\rm end}$. As a result, the four-point correlator is
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma_{\vec{k}_2}\sigma_{\vec{k}_3} \sigma_{\vec{k}_4}\rangle'&=&\lambda\, \frac{H^4 \left(k^{(4)}_t\right)^3}{16\,k_1^3\,k_2^3\,k_3^3\,k_4^3}I_4(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4),
\end{eqnarray}
which, in the squeezed limit $k_4\ll k_1,k_2,k_3$ reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma_{\vec{k}_2}\sigma_{\vec{k}_3} \sigma_{\vec{k}_4}\rangle'&=&\lambda\, \frac{H^4 \left(k^{(4)}_t\right)^3}{16\,k_1^3\,k_2^3\,k_3^3\,k_4^3}I_4(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)\nonumber\\
&\simeq &\lambda\, \frac{H^4 \left(k^{(3)}_t\right)^3}{16\,k_1^3\,k_2^3\,k_3^3\,k_4^3}I_3(k_1,k_2,k_3)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{{\overline{\sigma}}}\, \frac{H^2}{2\,k_4^3}\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma_{\vec{k}_2}\sigma_{\vec{k}_3}\rangle'\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{P_{\vec{k}_4}}{\overline{\sigma}}\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma_{\vec{k}_2}\sigma_{\vec{k}_3}\rangle', \label{zz}
\end{eqnarray}
and reproduces the expression the first piece of the expression (\ref{mod}) since in the example at hand we have $\ln\, {C^{IJ\cdots K}}=\ln \, \overline{\sigma}+$ constant.
It is not difficult to see that the same conclusion holds at second order in the coupling constant ${C^{IJ\cdots K}}$ (or $\lambda$) by constructing
the bispectrum at this order through the interaction $\lambda\overline{\sigma}\sigma^3$ and $\lambda\overline{\sigma}^2\sigma^2$, see Fig. 1.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{Tree diagrams contributing to the modulation of the three-point function of short wavelength modes (continues lines)
in the background of a long wavelength mode (dashed lines).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
From the example described above one can also read the information that the four-point correlator in the squeezed limit
is not generically written as the products of power spectra, as the universal contribution is. Furthermore, at the linear order
in the coupling constant $\lambda$ the four-point correlator in the collapsed limit does not have the form acquired
by the universal piece. This happens only at the order ${\cal O }(\lambda^2)$. Which form is the dominate one depends therefore on the
value of the coupling $\lambda$.
\section{The four-point correlator in the squeezed limit: alternative methods}
In this section we wish to offer two alternative methods to get the non-universal four-point correlator in the squeezed limit.
They are based both on the the symmetries of de Sitter and on the OPE technique.
\subsection{First method}
The fact that the four-point correlator in the squeezed limit may be obtained from the three-point correlator can be
also suggested by inspection of the general form (\ref{44pt}) dictated by the symmetries of de Sitter. Taking the limit
of
Eq. (\ref{xxx}), it is easy to see that Eq. (\ref{44pt}) takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx_4)\rangle=\frac{1}{x_{14}^{2w}}\frac{1}{(x_{12}x_{23}x_{13})^{2w/3}}
F^{IJKL}\left(\frac{x_{12}}{x_{13}},
\frac{x_{23}}{x_{13}} \right)
\end{eqnarray}
By Fourier transforming the above expression, we get the factorization
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \sigma^{I}_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma^{J}_{\vec{k}_2}\sigma^K_{\vec{k}_{3}}\sigma^L_{\vec{k}_{4}}\rangle' \sim
P_{\vec{k}_4}\widetilde{F}^{IJKL}(k_{14},k_2,k_3)=
P_{\vec{k}_4}\widetilde{F}^{IJKL}(k_{1},k_2,k_3), \label{sa}
\end{eqnarray}
where in the last equality we have used the fact that $k_4\ll k_1,k_2,k_3$. Then, the function $F^{IJKL}$ depends on just three momenta
and conformal invariance specifies this function to be necessarily proportional to the three point function.
In particular, in order to calculate the proportionality factor in (\ref{sa}) one can make use of the OPEs of the scalar fields. Let us see how this works in a particular model where the light fields mix through a quartic interaction of the type
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{\rm int}\sim \lambda_{IJKL} \sigma^I\sigma^J\sigma^K\sigma^L. \label{v4}
\end{eqnarray}
The OPE for the two fields $\sigma^I$
and $\sigma^J$ in the (12) channel at the coincident point is
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\!=\!\frac{C_0^{IJ}(w)}{x_{12}^{2w}}+
\frac{{C^{IJ}}_M(w)}{x_{12}^w}\sigma^M(\vx_2) +\sigma^I(\vx_2)\sigma^J(\vx_2)+\cdots.
\label{12}
\end{eqnarray}
Multiplying both sides with $\sigma^K(\vx_3)$ and since $x_{13}\approx 0$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)=\frac{C_0^{IJ}(w)}{x_{12}^{2w}}\sigma^K(\vx_3)+
\frac{{C^{IJ}}_M(w)}{x_{12}^w}\sigma^M(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{3.5cm}+\Big{(}\sigma^I(\vx_2)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\Big{)}\sigma^K(\vx_3)+\cdots. \label{123}
\end{eqnarray}
For the operator ${\cal{O}}^{IJ}(\vx_2)=\sigma^I(\vx_2)\sigma^J(\vx_2)$ we have the OPE
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal{O}}^{IJ}(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)=\frac{D^{IJK}}{x_{23}^{3w}}+\frac{\lambda^{IJKL}}{x_{23}^{2w}}\sigma^L(\vx_3)+\cdots
\label{os}
\end{eqnarray}
as we assume that the operator ${\cal{O}}^{IJ}\sigma^K$ mixes with $\sigma^L$ through the quartic interaction. This is due to in field
theory is called mixing of composite operators.
By using Eqs. (\ref{12}), (\ref{os}) in Eq. (\ref{123}) we then get
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3) =
\frac{{C^{IJ}}_M}{x_{12}^w}\frac{C_0^{MK}}{x_{12}^wx_{23}^{w}}+\frac{D^{IJK}}{x_{23}^{3w}}+\frac{C_0^{IJ}(w)}{x_{12}^{2w}}\sigma^K(\vx_3)\\
&&\hspace{3.5cm} +\frac{{C^{IJ}}_M}{x_{12}^w}
\frac{{C^{MK}}_N(w)}{x_{23}^w}\sigma^N(\vx_3)+\frac{{\lambda^{IJK}}_N}{x_{23}^{w}x_{13}^w}\sigma^N(\vx_3)\cdots,
\label{1233}
\end{eqnarray}
where for symmetry reasons we have replaced $x_{23}^{2w}$ with $x_{13}^w x_{23}^w$.
Then, it is easy to find that after multiplying the above OPE with $\sigma^L(\vx_4)$, the connected part of the four-point
correlator turns out to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx_4)\rangle=\frac{D^{IJKL}}{x_{12}^wx_{23}^wx_{34}^{2w}} +
\rm{permutations},
\label{4pt}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\fbox{$\displaystyle
D^{IJKL}=\lambda^{IJKL}+{C^{IJ}}_MC^{MKL}$}. \label{4ptd}
\end{eqnarray}
By Fourier transforming the expression (\ref{4ptd}) we may get the four-point function in momentum space
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle \sigma_{\vec{k}_1}^I\sigma_{\vec{k}_2}^J\sigma_{\vec{k}_3}^K\sigma_{\vec{k}_4}^L\rangle^\prime \sim D^{IJKL}C^{-1}_{NPM}
\,P_{\vec{k}_4}\,
\langle \sigma_{\vec{k}_1}^N\sigma_{\vec{k}_2}^P\sigma_{\vec{k}_{34}}^M\rangle^\prime\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{2.7cm}
\sim D^{IJKL}C^{-1}_{NPM}
\,P_{\vec{k}_4}\,
\langle \sigma_{\vec{k}_1}^N\sigma_{\vec{k}_2}^P\sigma_{\vec{k}_3}^M\rangle^\prime
,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
(k_4\ll k_1,k_2,k_3).
\label{4pc0}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, we confirm again that the non-universal contribution to the four-point correlator in the squeezed
limit does not have the shape of the universal contribution.
\subsection{Second method: Cardy's trick}
For completeness, let us reproduce
the expression (\ref{4oplongt})
by making use of the conformal
symmetries of de Sitter.
In order to apply the OPE expansion, we need the operators to be at almost coincident points. In our case,
three points are very close and one point is far form the others. So, to make use of the OPE's, we should bring the remote point $\vx_4$
very close to the points $\vx_1$,$\vx_2$ and $\vx_3$. To do this, we use the following trick due to Cardy \cite{cardy}. We use the fact that under the conformal inversion around an arbitrary point $\vx_0$, the conformal inversion (\ref{inv}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\vx'=\frac{\vx-\vx_0}{|\vx-\vx_0|^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
In other words, if the point $\vx_4$ is very far from the point $\vx_0$, then under conformal inversion it becomes very close to it.
Under the conformal inversion the four-point correlator transforms as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx_4)\rangle=
\frac{\langle \sigma^I(\vx_1')\sigma^J(\vx_2')\sigma^K(\vx_3')\sigma^L(\vx_4')\rangle}{ |\vx_1-\vx_0|^{2w}|\vx_2-\vx_0|^{2w}|\vx_3-\vx_0|^{2w}|\vx_4-\vx_0|^{2w}}. \label{prod}
\end{eqnarray}
In our case, we may do a conformal inversion about the point $\vx_0\equiv\vx_3$. Then, the point $\vx_3$ will remain invariant
$(\vx_3'=\vx_3)$ and the point $\vx_4$ will come close to $\vx_3$ as $
x'_{34}=1/x_{34}\rightarrow 0$. All other distances will be clearly larger that
$x'_{34}$. Thus, we may use the OPE
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx'_4)=
\frac{\delta^{KL}}{x_{34}^{'2w}}+
\frac{C^{KLM}(g)}{x_{34}^{'w}}\sigma^M(\vx_3)+\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx_3)\cdots, \label{3sa}
\end{eqnarray}
where by $g$ we again denote collectively the couplings. We get therefore from the linear term in the above OPE
the connected part
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \sigma^I(\vx_1')\sigma^J(\vx_2')\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx_4')\rangle=
\frac{C^{KLM}}{x_{34}^{'w}}\frac{\langle \sigma^I(\vx_1')\sigma^J(\vx_2')
\sigma^M(\vx_3)\rangle}{ |\vx_1-\vx_0|^{2w}|\vx_2-\vx_0|^{2w}|\vx_3-\vx_0|^{2w}|\vx_4-\vx_0|^{2w}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Now, we go back to the original configuration by doing again a second conformal inversion about the $\vx_3$ point.
Since the conformal inversion will cancel three terms of the product in Eq. (\ref{prod}), we
get
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx_4)\rangle
=\frac{C^{KLM}}{x_{34}^{w}} \langle \sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^M(\vx_3)\rangle.
\end{eqnarray}
By Fourier transforming the above expression we finally obtain the second piece of Eq. (\ref{4oplongt})
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \sigma^{I}_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma^{J}_{\vec{k}_2}\sigma^K_{\vec{k}_{3}}\sigma^L_{\vec{k}_{4}}\rangle'\supset {C^{KL}}_M P_{\vec{k}_4}
\langle\sigma^{I}_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma^{J}_{\vec{k}_2}\sigma^M_{\vec{k}_{4}}\rangle',\,\,\,\,\,\,(k_4\ll k_1,k_2,k_3).
\label{4opt}
\end{eqnarray}
We should stress again that $C^{KLM}$ should be understood in a non-perturbative sense and have a perturbative
expansion in the coupling constants $g$, of the form $C^{IJK}(g)=\sum_n c^{IJK}_n g^n$.
In fact, it is easy to generalize the above discussion to
the general $n$-point function in the squeezed limit. A simple induction of the above
leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \sigma^{I}_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma^{J}_{\vec{k}_2}\cdots\sigma^K_{\vec{k}_{n-1}} \sigma^L_{\vec{k}_{n}}\rangle' \supset C^{KLM} P_{\vec{k}_n}
\langle\sigma^{I}_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma^{J}_{\vec{k}_2}\cdots\sigma^M_{\vec{k}_{n-1}}\rangle' ,\,\,\,\,\,\,(k_n\ll k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_{n-1}).
\end{eqnarray}
The first piece of Eq. (\ref{4oplongt}) emerges from the quadratic term of the OPE in Eq. (\ref{3sa}).
Indeed,
this term gives a contribution of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \sigma^I(\vx_1')\sigma^J(\vx_2')\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx_4')\rangle\supset
\frac{\langle \sigma^I(\vx_1')\sigma^J(\vx_2')\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx_3)\rangle}{
|\vx_1-\vx_0|^{2w}|\vx_2-\vx_0|^{2w}|\vx_3-\vx_0|^{2w}|\vx_4-\vx_0|^{2w}}.
\end{eqnarray}
For the operator ${\cal{O}}^{KL}(\vx_3)=\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx_3)$ we have the OPE
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal{O}}^{KL}(\vx_3)\sigma^J(\vx_2')=\frac{D^{IJK}}{|\vx_2'-\vx_3|^{3w}}+
\frac{\lambda^{IJKL}}{|\vx_2'-\vx_3|^{2w}}\sigma^L(\vx_3)+\cdots
\label{os}
\end{eqnarray}
where we assume again that ${\cal{O}}^{KL}\sigma^J$ mixes with $\sigma^L$ through the quartic interaction (\ref{v4}).
Repeating the steps above and after an inverse conformal inversion we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \sigma^I(\vx_1)\sigma^J(\vx_2)\sigma^K(\vx_3)\sigma^L(\vx_4)\rangle\supset
\frac{\lambda^{IJKL}}{x_{12}^wx_{23}^wx_{34}^{2w}} +
\rm{permutations},
\label{4pt}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore the total four-point correlator (\ref{4oplongt}) may be written after Fourier transforming as in Eq. (\ref{4pc0})
where $D^{IJKL}$ is given by Eq. (\ref{4ptd}).
\section{On the non-universal contributions to NG}
Having established the form of the non-universal three- and four-point correlator in the squeezed limit, we now focus our attention on their magnitude. We already pointed out that the non-universal contributions can be the dominant ones. For practical purposes,
let us consider the squeezed limit of the three-point correlator in a $V(\sigma)=\lambda \sigma^4/4!$ model
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\sigma_{\vec{k}_1}\sigma_{\vec{k}_2} \sigma_{\vec{k}_3}\rangle'\simeq-\frac{2}{3} \frac{\lambda\overline{\sigma}}{H^{2}} \, N_{k_t}\, P_{\vec{k}_1}P_{\vec{k}_2},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(k_1\ll k_2\sim k_3).
\end{eqnarray}
The corresponding contribution to the three-point correlator of the comoving curvature perturbation is
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\zeta_{\vec{k}_1}\zeta_{\vec{k}_2} \zeta_{\vec{k}_3}\rangle'\simeq-\frac{ 2}{3N^{\prime }} \frac{\lambda\overline{\sigma}}{H^{2}} \, N_{k_t}\, P^\zeta_{\vec{k}_1}P^\zeta_{\vec{k}_2},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(k_1\ll k_2\sim k_3)
\end{eqnarray}
leading to a non-universal contribution to the nonlinear parameter $f_{\rm NL}$ given by
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\rm NL}^{\rm n-un}\simeq -\frac{5}{18 N^{\prime }} \frac{\lambda\overline{\sigma}}{H^{2}} N_{k_t}=-\frac{5}{36\pi} \frac{\lambda\overline{\sigma}}{H} \frac{N_{k_t}}{{\cal P}_\zeta^{1/2}}\simeq -\frac{5 \sqrt{2\lambda}}{36\pi} \frac{m(\overline{\sigma})}{H} \frac{N_{k_t}}{{\cal P}_\zeta^{1/2}}\simeq -65\left(\frac{\lambda}{10^{-2}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{m(\overline{\sigma})/H}{10^{-2}}\right) \left(\frac{N_{k_t}}{50}\right),\nonumber\\
&&
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined the quantity ${\cal P}_\zeta=(k^3/2 \pi^2)P^\zeta_{\vec{k}}=N^{\prime 2}(H/2\pi)^2\simeq 2.3\cdot 10^{-9}$ and the (field dependent) Higgs mass $m(\overline{\sigma})^2=\lambda\overline{\sigma}^2/2$. Analogously we find
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{\rm NL}^{\rm n-un}\simeq -\frac{25}{54\cdot 3 N^{\prime 2 }} \frac{\lambda}{H^{2}} N_{k_t}=-\frac{25\lambda}{54\cdot 3 (2\pi)^2} \frac{N_{k_t}}{{\cal P}_\zeta}\simeq - 10^6\left(\frac{\lambda}{10^{-2}}\right) \left(\frac{N_{k_t}}{50}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
We see that the nonlinearities generated by the non-universal pieces can be substantial, confirming previous findings \cite{zal,bmr,fr1,fr2}.
Furthermore, we also deduce that it is quite simple to have models in which $g_{\rm NL}\,\raisebox{-.3ex}{$_{\textstyle >}\atop^{\textstyle\sim}$}\, f_{\rm NL}^2$ (in absolute values), a simple $\lambda\sigma^4$ model will do it as long as $H/\overline{\sigma}\,\raisebox{-.3ex}{$_{\textstyle >}\atop^{\textstyle\sim}$}\, \sqrt{\lambda}$.
\section{Conclusions}
\noindent
In this paper we have made use of the OPE technique and, partly, of the symmetries of the de Sitter epoch, to characterize the NG four-point correlator of the curvature perturbation in multifield inflation. In particular we have pointed out that
\begin{itemize}
\item The contribution to the squeezed limit of the four-point correlator coming from the intrinsic NG of the light fields at horizon crossing (which we dubbed non-universal) can be larger
than the superhorizon contributions (we dubbed them universal) generated even if the light fields are gaussian.
\item The shape of the non-universal contribution to the squeezed limit of the four-point correlator can be expressed in terms of the three-point correlator. Nevertheless, in general the shapes of the universal and non-universal contributions
are different as the three-point correlator is note evaluated in the squeezed limit.
\end{itemize}
Therefore, particular care needs to be taken when studying the effects of the primordial NG on real observables, {\it e.g.} the scale dependence
of the local halo bias in the presence of NG, as the squeezed limit of the four-point correlator is not expressible in terms of products of power spectra. The consequences of our findings will be investigated elsewhere.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank C. Byrnes M. Sloth for interesting comments on the draft. A.R. is supported by the Swiss National
Science Foundation (SNSF), project `The non-Gaussian Universe" (project number: 200021140236).
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sect:intro}
One topic which has received much attention over the last few years within the context
of the gauge/string duality is the space--time distribution of the radiation in the strong
coupling limit of the ${\mathcal N}=4$ supersymmetric Yang--Mills (SYM) theory.
Originally motivated by studies of strongly coupled plasmas in relation with
the energy loss by an energetic parton \cite{Herzog:2006gh,
Gubser:2006bz,CasalderreySolana:2006rq,Liu:2006ug,CaronHuot:2006te,Chernicoff:2006yp,
HIM3,Gubser:2008as,Dominguez:2008vd,
Guijosa:2011hf,Fadafan:2012qu},
this problem turned out to be interesting and intriguing
for the {\em vacuum} case as well, because of a surprising result. AdS/CFT calculations
of the radiated energy density at {\em infinitely} strong coupling, using the method of the
backreaction within the supergravity approximation to the dual string theory, led to results which
exhibit the same space--time pattern as in the corresponding problems at {\em zero} coupling:
the radiation appears to propagate at the speed of light, without any trace of quantum
broadening. Originally identified for the case of the synchrotron radiation by a
heavy quark \cite{Athanasiou:2010pv},
this property has subsequently been shown to extend to
more general sources of radiation \cite{Hatta:2010dz,Hatta:2011gh,Baier:2011dh,Hubeny:2010bq,
Chernicoff:2011vn,Fiol:2011zg,Fiol:2012sg,Correa:2012at,Agon:2012rz},
like an accelerated heavy quark which follows an
arbitrary trajectory or the decay of a virtual photon.
The lack of broadening is surprising in that
it contradicts our general expectations for a quantum theory of interacting fields and,
in particular, the experience that we have with perturbative studies at weak, but non--zero,
coupling. Indeed, in a gauge field theory like ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM, one expects the
radiation to involve a superposition of quanta with various virtualities, including time--like
quanta which propagate at subluminal velocity. With increasing time, such quanta will
separate from each other and also dissociate into other quanta with lower virtualities,
leading to a spread in the energy distribution along the direction of motion which
increases with time. At weak coupling, this evolution is well known to lead to
parton cascades, in which the original virtuality gets evacuated via successive branchings.
The associated spreading of the parton distribution turns out to be quite slow,
because the rate for branching is proportional to the strength of the coupling
(say, the 't Hooft coupling $\lambda=g^2 N_c$ in the case of the ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM
theory at large $N_c$). With increasing coupling, the branching becomes more
and more effective, and the spreading goes faster and faster. In particular in
the strong coupling limit $\lambda\to\infty$ one expects this spreading to proceed
as fast as possible and to occupy the whole region in space and time which is allowed
by causality and special relativity.
The following example, to be discussed at length in this work,
should illustrate the situation. Consider the decay of a `heavy'
photon (an off--shell photon with time--like virtuality) in its rest frame.
More precisely, the photon is in a localized state represented
by a wave--packet centered at $t=0$ and $\bm{x}=0$
and which carries a typical 4--momentum $p^\mu=(Q,0,0,0)+\order{1/\sigma}$,
with $\sigma$ the width of the wave--packet, assumed to be large:
$\sigma Q \gg 1$ (see Sect.~\ref{sec:WP} for details). The photon
splits into a pair of electrically--charged, massless, partons (`quarks'), which can subsequently
evolve via `colour' interactions, that is, by emitting other `quarks' and `gluons'. We
shall follow this evolution to leading order in the electromagnetic coupling, but by letting
the strength $\lambda$ of the colour interactions to vary from weak to strong.
When
$\lambda\to 0$, there is no further evolution, so the final state consists in two on--shell
quarks propagating back--to--back (by momentum conservation) at the speed of light.
The direction of propagation of the two quarks is arbitrary, so if one averages over many
events one finds an energy distribution in the form of a thin spherical shell\footnote{In QCD,
the average distribution has no spherical symmetry because of the bias introduced
by the polarization vector of the virtual photon. But in ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM, the
anisotropy exactly cancels between the (adjoint) fermion and scalar contributions,
so the ensuing distribution is isotropic indeed.} of essentially
zero width which radially expands at the speed of light: $r=t$. More precisely,
this energy shell has a small width $t-r\sim \sigma$, which however
can be neglected at large times $t\gg \sigma$.
If the coupling is non--zero but weak
($\lambda\ll 1$), the original quarks will be generally off--shell, but their virtualities will
typically be much smaller than the respective energies. Hence, the quarks will
propagate with a large boost factor $\gamma\gg 1$
before eventually decaying into massless quanta.
Their radiation will be collimated within an angle
$\sim 1/\gamma$ around their direction of propagation, leading to
a pair of jets in the final state.
After averaging over many events, the energy distribution has spherical symmetry
and a radial spreading $t-r$ which increases with time, because of
the virtuality distribution of the quanta within the jets. By the uncertainty principle,
it takes a time $t\sim xQ/\mu^2$ to emit a quantum with energy fraction $x$ and
virtuality $\mu^2$. Then, to leading order in perturbation theory, the radial spreading can
be estimated as
\begin{equation}\label{spread0}
t-r\,\sim\,\frac{\lambda}{Q}\,\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\,
\,\sim\,\frac{\lambda}{Q}\,\ln(Q t)\,,\qquad\mbox{with}\qquad
\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\,=\int_{\mu^2}^{Q^2} \frac{{\rm d} k^2}{k^2}\,,
\end{equation}
where the logarithm has been generated by integrating over the phase--space for the
bremsstrahlung of a quantum with virtuality $k^2$ between $\mu^2$ and $Q^2$.
(For very large times such that ${\lambda}\ln(Q t) > 1$, the higher order
corrections become important and will be estimated in Sect.~\ref{sect:jet}.)
This argument also shows that the typical virtuality $\mu$ of the quanta composing the
jets is such that $\lambda\ln ({Q^2}/{\mu^2})\sim 1$, which at weak coupling
implies $\mu\ll Q$. This confirms that the typical quanta are nearly on--shell
and thus propagate quite fast: $\gamma=xQ/\mu\gg 1$.
Consider now the situation at relatively strong coupling, $\lambda > 1$. Then the
virtual photon splits into a pair of quarks whose virtualities are comparable to their
energies, $\mu\sim xQ$. These quarks are themselves highly virtual and hence
they are slowly moving: $\gamma\sim 1$. They will rapidly decay into
quanta with similar characteristics. We expect this pattern to repeat itself in the
subsequent steps of the evolution: at each branching, the energy and virtuality of the
parent parton are quasi--democratically divided among the offspring quanta, which
therefore emerge at large angles with respect to the direction of propagation
of their parent. For sufficiently large times $t\gg 1/Q$, this evolution leads to a
parton distribution characterized by a wide dispersion in velocities and angles. For
the conformal theory ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM, we expect this distribution to be isotropic
{\em event--by--event} and to show {\em maximal radial broadening}, that is, to uniformly
cover the whole volume at $r\le t$ which is allowed by causality.
Moving to extremely strong coupling $\lambda\gg 1$, the situation is {\em a priori}
more complicated, since the concept of {\em partons} (elementary quanta
representing excitations of the quantum fields in the Lagrangian which are point--like
and nearly on--shell) is probably not useful anymore: the matter distribution produced
by the decaying photon is made with collective excitations whose composition in terms
of elementary quanta can be arbitrarily complicated. Yet, since isotropy and maximal
broadening are already reached for moderate values of the coupling $\lambda\sim\order{1}$,
it is natural to expect these features to remain valid when $\lambda\to\infty$.
These expectations are indeed supported, at least indirectly, by a series of calculations
at infinitely strong coupling using AdS/CFT. These include studies of the decay of a
virtual photon using the ultraviolet/infrared (UV/IR) duality \cite{HIM3}, calculations
of the associated angular correlations which demonstrate isotropy \cite{Hofman:2008ar},
studies of the jet fragmentation showing the absence of point--like partons
\cite{Hatta:2008tn,Hatta:2008qx},
and also studies of deep inelastic scattering
\cite{Polchinski:2002jw,Brower:2006ea,BallonBayona:2007qr,HIM1,HIM2,Cornalba:2008sp,Avsar:2009xf} leading to a similar conclusion: the partons cannot
survive in the wavefunction of a hadron, or in a plasma, at strong coupling because
they efficiently decay towards smaller and smaller values of $x$.
Yet, such previous approaches had not address the issue of the radial, or longitudinal,
distribution of the radiation. For instance, in the study of angular correlations
performed in Ref.~\cite{Hofman:2008ar}, the radial distribution was explicitly integrated
over. Also, most of the other studies alluded to above
were performed in momentum space. The calculation of the backreaction for the
synchrotron radiation in Ref.~\cite{Athanasiou:2010pv} is the first attempt in that
sense and, as already mentioned, it led to the surprising conclusion about the lack of
radial broadening. As also mentioned, this conclusion applies to other forms of radiation,
including our prototype problem --- the energy produced by the decay of a virtual photon ---,
for which the backreaction predicts the same space--time distribution as at zero coupling:
a thin spherical shell expanding
at the speed of light with a constant width $t-r\sim \sigma$. This looks puzzling as
it suggests that the situation at (infinitely) strong coupling could be closer to that at zero
coupling, rather than to that at weak or intermediate values of the coupling.
However, this is not the case, as we now argue.
A first indication in that sense comes from the following argument, which refers
to the radiation produced by the decay of a virtual photon.
The SUGRA calculation of the backreaction amounts to computing a specific
three--point correlation function in the underlying field theory, which is protected by
symmetries and hence it is independent of the value of the coupling.
Specifically, this correlator reads $\langle {\hat J}_q^{\dagger}
\,{\hat T}_{00}(x) \,{\hat J}_q\rangle$, where ${\hat J}_q$ is the
operator which creates the virtual photon
(a time--like wave packet of the electromagnetic current operator;
see Sect.~\ref{sec:WP} for details),
while ${\hat T}_{00}(x)$ is the energy density operator at the `measurement' point
$x^\mu=(t,\bm{x})$. As well known, three--point functions in a
conformal field theory are fixed by conformal symmetry and the
(quantum) dimensions of the relevant operators, up to a constant
(function of the coupling). For the correlator at hand, the operators ${\hat J}_q$
and ${\hat T}_{00}(x)$ have no anomalous dimensions and the overall
normalization is fixed by the conservation of the energy. Accordingly,
this three--point function is independent of the coupling, as anticipated
\cite{Freedman:1998tz}. This property, that we shall explicitly check by comparing
the respective predictions of the zero--order perturbation theory and
of the backreaction, `explains' the lack of broadening shown by the latter, in the sense
of relating this result to the symmetries of the
underlying CFT. But this also demonstrates that the three--point function is
unable to capture the quantum evolution responsible for the radial broadening,
since it fails to do so already at weak coupling, where this evolution is well understood
in perturbation theory. This makes it clear that this three--point function is not a good
observable for characterizing the space--time distribution of the radiation.
To summarize,
the lack of broadening predicted by the backreaction is
not a true feature of the radiation at strong coupling, but merely an artifact of computing
an observable which is not appropriate for that purpose. This observation
rises several questions: \texttt{(i)} what are the reasons for this failure of the
three--point function, \texttt{(ii)} what is the actual physical content of a three--point function like
$\langle {\hat J}_q^{\dagger} \,{\hat T}_{00}(x) \,{\hat J}_q\rangle$, and \texttt{(iii)} what are the
observables that one should study in order to understand the space--time
distribution of the radiation. These are clearly very general questions
and the answers that we shall provide to them are not necessarily new.
(Some connections with similar problems in QCD will be later pointed out.)
But precisely because they are so general, these answers are independent
of the non--renormalization property of the three--point function alluded to above.
Most of them apply to any interacting field theory, conformal or not, at either weak or strong
coupling.
Specifically, we shall argue that a three--point function like
$\langle {\hat J}_q^{\dagger} \,{\hat T}_{00}(x) \,{\hat J}_q\rangle$ is truly a {\em forward
scattering amplitude}~: the amplitude that the `target' state created by ${\hat J}_q$
(i.e. the decaying system) survive intact after interacting with
the localized probe operator ${\hat T}_{00}(x)$. In an interacting field theory, this
amplitude cannot provide information about the internal structure of the target at very
large times\footnote{More precisely, we have in mind times which are sufficiently
large to allow for a well developed evolution; at strong coupling, the condition
$t\gg \sigma$ is enough in that sense, as we shall later check,
whereas at weak coupling we require ${\lambda}\ln(Q t)\gtrsim 1$.}
$t\gg \sigma$.
Indeed, the quanta composing the target at such late
times are very soft, as they are the products of many successive branchings,
so they cannot provide the high momentum transfer that would be
required by a local measurement.
(The typical momenta of the quanta in the decaying system keep decreasing with $t$,
as we shall see, so they can become arbitrarily small for sufficiently large times.
By contrast, the typical momenta $\Delta^\mu$ transferred by the target
to the probe are of order $1/\sigma$ --- the maximal value allowed by
energy--momentum conservation\footnote{Energy--momentum conservation
implies that a forward amplitude like
$\langle {\hat J}_q^{\dagger} \,{\hat T}_{00}(x) \,{\hat J}_q\rangle$ can
receive contributions only from the Fourier modes ${\hat T}_{00}(\Delta)$
whose momenta $\Delta^\mu$ are smaller than the uncertainty $\sim 1/\sigma$
in the total energy and momentum of the decaying system.}
--- as clear from the fact that the signal has a small width $t-r\sim\sigma$.)
This argument shows that the narrow signal given by the backreaction cannot be
a part of the radiation in the decaying system at the time $t$ of `measurement'
(the time argument of ${\hat T}_{00}(x)$).
Rather, this signal must have been generated at some early time $t_{\rm int}\ll t$,
before the target had a chance to significantly evolve; at that time, the target was
composed with only few and relatively hard quanta,
with momenta $k\sim Q\gg \Delta$. But, clearly, such an early emission gives
no information about the state of the target at the late time $t$
(except at zero coupling).
One expects the
disparity between $t_{\rm int}$ and $t$ to be maximal at strong coupling, since in that
case one needs a very small value for $t_{\rm int}$ in order
to minimize the effects of the evolution.
As we shall see in Sect.~\ref{sec:interp} below, this argument is indeed consistent
with the calculation of the backreaction in AdS/CFT,
provided one makes the natural identification between $t_{\rm int}$
and the time at which the gravitational wave in AdS$_5$ (the `backreaction') is emitted
by the bulk excitation representing the decaying system (a SUGRA vector field).
The above arguments, which explain the failure of the three--point function as a
local measurement, have some other interesting consequences.
First, they suggest what should be the simplest observable which allows one to
study the space--time distribution of the decay: this is a
{\em four--point function} like $\langle {\hat J}_q^{\dagger}
\,{\hat T}_{00}(x_1){\hat T}_{00}(x_2) \,{\hat J}_q\rangle$, in which the
momentum $\Delta$ transferred to the target by the first insertion ${\hat T}_{00}(x_2) $
of the probe operator is then taken away by the second insertion
${\hat T}_{00}(x_1)$. This makes it possible to probe the target with a good resolution
(i.e. a relatively large momentum transfer $\Delta$ ) without affecting its
properties\footnote{One should notice the difference between the four--point
function that we propose here and the $n$--point
functions with $n\ge 3$ used in Ref.~\cite{Hofman:2008ar}.
The probe operators in Ref.~\cite{Hofman:2008ar} are soft, non--local operators,
like the total energy radiated per unit solid angle along a given direction $\bm{n}$~:
$\hat{\mathcal{E}} (\bm{n})\equiv \lim_{r\to \infty} \,r^2\int^\infty_0 {\rm d} t\, n_i
{\hat T}^{0i}(t,r\bm{n})$.
Such operators do not probe the radial distribution of the radiation, but only its
angular correlations.}.
Such a measurement gives us informations about the state of the target around the
space--time point $x=(x_1+x_2)/2$, with a resolution fixed by the difference $x_1-x_2$.
The previous discussion also tells us under which circumstances a
three--point function can still act as a measurement: this is possible
provided one gives up any radial (or longitudinal)
resolution, that is, if one integrates over the radial profile of the distribution to get
the total energy (or, more generally, the energy radiated per unit solid angle), as done
e.g. in Ref.~\cite{Hofman:2008ar}. Indeed, an operator like the total energy
$\hat E\equiv \int {\rm d}^3 \bm{x} {\hat T}_{00}(t,\bm{x})$ involves arbitrarily soft
Fourier modes, hence it can measure the target without disturbing it.
The result of this particular measurement is, of course, {\em a priori} known:
by energy conservation, $\langle {\hat J}_q^{\dagger} \,{\hat E} \,{\hat J}_q\rangle
=Q$, with $Q$ the energy of the original photon. Less trivial situations
occur in the applications of the backreaction method to finite--temperature problems. In such
cases, one is typically interested in the energy deposition in the plasma by a
`hard probe' (a heavy quark, a gluon, or a virtual photon), as measured over relatively
large space--time scales $\Delta r,\,\Delta t\gtrsim 1/T$, with $T$ the temperature
\cite{Friess:2006fk,Gubser:2007xz,Chesler:2007an,Chesler:2007sv,Gubser:2008as,
HIM3,Chesler:2008wd,Arnold:2010ir,Arnold:2011hp,Chesler:2011nc}.
Then the method of the backreaction is again reliable, since $1/T$ is the largest scale
for quantum broadening in that case. (Indeed, this is the typical value of the broadening
by the time when the radiation gets thermalized in the plasma.)
As anticipated, the previous considerations are quite general and in particular
they are reminiscent of some of the strategies used to study the hadron structure and
interactions in QCD. Namely, the three--point function and the
four--point function above introduced are very similar to the {\em electromagnetic form
factors} and, respectively, the {\em structure functions} for deep inelastic scattering (DIS),
which can both be viewed as measures of the electric charge distribution in a nucleon,
but on very different resolution scales. A `form factor' is a matrix element like
$\langle P'| {\hat J}^\mu(x)| P\rangle$ where $| P\rangle$ denotes the proton
state with 4--momentum $P^\mu$ and ${\hat J}^\mu(x)$ is the electromagnetic current
operator. For relatively low momentum transfers $|\Delta|\lesssim 1/R$,
where $\Delta\equiv P'-P$ and $R$ is the proton (charge) radius,
this form factor, which can be studied via low--energy electron--proton scattering,
provides a good measurement of the proton radius $R$. But if one is interested
on the proton structure on much shorter scales $r\ll R$, as probed by a hard scattering
which typically breaks the proton, one should rather compute a matrix element like
$\Pi^{\mu\nu}(\Delta)\equiv \int {\rm d}^4 x\,{\rm e}^{-ix\cdot\Delta}
\langle P| {\hat J}^\mu(x){\hat J}^\nu(0)| P\rangle$, where
$\Delta^\mu$ can now be arbitrarily high.
This is a forward scattering amplitude which via the optical theorem
can be related to the total cross--section (or `structure function') for
DIS. The experimental measurement of the latter gives us the most direct access to
parton distributions on short distances.
Inspired by the above, we shall use here a similar strategy to investigate the space--time
distribution of the radiation produced by the decay of the virtual photon:
we shall compute the four--point function describing the DIS between the decaying
system and an electromagnetic current with space--like virtuality
in a boosted frame where the virtual photon propagates
at nearly the speed of light. (In the context of a decay,
this four--point function is also known as the `fragmentation function'.)
The boost is useful (at least, at weak coupling) to render
the parton picture of DIS manifest, but our final conclusions at strong coupling can be
easily translated to the photon rest frame. These results will confirm and substantiate
the picture of quantum broadening that we previously exposed.
In the boosted frame, the decaying system looks like a jet --- the matter
is concentrated within a small solid angle $\Delta\Omega\sim 1/\gamma^2$ around the
longitudinal axis ($x_3$) and within a comparatively small longitudinal interval
$\Delta x_3\ll t$ behind the light--cone ($x_3=t$) --- for any value of the coupling.
However, at strong coupling this `jetty' picture is merely the effect of the boost: the
respective `jet' is recognized as the boosted version of a distribution
which in the photon rest frame looks like a uniformly filled sphere with radius $r=t$.
In the boosted frame, this is visible in the fact that the longitudinal width $\Delta x_3$
of the distribution increases {\em linearly} with $t$~: $\Delta x_3\simeq t/2\gamma^2$
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:lorentz}). This should be compared to the situation at zero coupling,
where $\Delta x_3\simeq \sigma/\gamma$ (the Lorentz--contracted version of a radial
width $t-r\simeq\sigma$ in the rest frame), and also at weak coupling $\lambda \ll 1$,
where $\Delta x_3$ increases very slowly with $t$,
as shown in the second line of the equation below (the all--order generalization
of \eqn{spread0})
\begin{equation}\label{Deltax3}
\Delta x_3\,\equiv\,(t-x_3)_{\rm max}\,\simeq\,
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle{\sigma/\gamma} &
\text{ for\, $\lambda= 0$}
\\*[0.2cm]
\displaystyle{\frac{1}{\gamma Q}
\left(\frac{Q t}{\gamma}\right)^{\lambda/24}
} &
\text{ for\, $0 < \lambda \ll 1$}
\\*[0.4cm]
\displaystyle{
\frac{t}{2\gamma^2}} &
\text{ for\, $\lambda\to\infty$}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The above result at strong coupling (the third line in \eqn{Deltax3})
can be rephrased
in a boost--invariant way by referring to the typical virtuality $\mu$
of the modes in the decaying system: at large times, this decreases as
$\mu\simeq 1/t$ .
Moreover, our analysis of the four--point function will also show that, at strong coupling,
the matter is uniformly distributed {\em event--by--event} within the region of space occupied
by the jet, meaning that there are no localized substructures, like partons. Indeed, if one
tries to scrutinize this matter on longitudinal and transverse scales much smaller than
its overall respective sizes, $\Delta x_3\simeq t/2\gamma^2$ and
$\Delta x_\perp\simeq t/\gamma$, then one finds that the fragmentation function is
exponentially suppressed: it is proportional to $\exp\{-\Delta_\perp t/\gamma\}$, with
$\Delta_\perp$ the transverse momentum transferred by the probe current in DIS.
By contrast, at weak coupling the fragmentation function is essentially independent of
$\Delta_\perp$, meaning that partons exist and they are point--like.
So far, we have not been very explicit about the formalism that we shall use and
the specific calculations that we shall perform. This will be shortly mentioned below,
when presenting the structure of the paper, and then discussed in more detail in
the appropriate sections. As a general strategy, we shall perform all our calculations
in the framework of the ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM theory, either by using perturbation
theory at weak coupling, or the SUGRA approximation to the dual string theory at
infinitely strong coupling. In particular, we shall use the technique of Witten diagrams
to evaluate the four--point function describing the fragmentation of the time--like
photon at strong coupling. A similar calculation has been previously performed
in Ref.~\cite{Hatta:2010kt}, but only for light--like kinematics (for the `probe'
currents), corresponding to the production of on--shell photons.
Here, we shall rather focus on the space--like kinematics, which is better suited
to measure the internal space--time structure of the decaying system. In this paper,
we shall not address the issue of the stability of the SUGRA approximation against
(longitudinal) string fluctuations. It has been argued in Ref.~\cite{Hatta:2010dz} that
such fluctuations are potentially large and unsuppressed in the infinite
coupling limit. However, their effects cannot be properly computed by lack of a consistent
quantization scheme for the string fluctuations in a curved space--time.
(The heuristic estimates given in Ref.~\cite{Hatta:2010dz}
are plagued with severe ultraviolet divergences.)
Let us also make some comments on the related problem of the radiation by
an accelerated heavy quark in the fundamental representation of the colour group.
There are clearly some differences w.r.t. the problem of the decay
--- notably the fact that the dual object at strong coupling is a Nambu-Goto string,
instead of a SUGRA field ---
but we are confident that our main conclusions should apply to this problem as well.
Indeed, the conclusions concerning the quantum evolution at strong
coupling, like the maximal broadening, the absence of jets, and the absence of
partons or other substructures, are universal properties of the
radiation at strong coupling, which hold independently of the nature
of its source. The fact that the radial broadening is not visible in the results of the
backreaction is again to be attributed to the inability of this method
to faithfully capture the space--time distribution of the radiation. To shed more light
on this point, it is useful to exhibit the CFT correlator which is implicitly computed
(in the strong coupling limit) via the backreaction. The operator describing
the interactions between the massive quark and its comparatively soft radiation in the eikonal
approximation is the Wilson line ${\hat{\mathcal{U}}}(C)$, with $C$ the trajectory of the quark.
Hence, the result of the backreaction is proportional to the following correlator in CFT:
\begin{equation}\label{Wilson}
\frac{1}{N_c} \left\langle {\rm Tr} \big\{{\hat{\mathcal{U}}}^\dagger(C)\,{\hat T}_{00}(x)\,
{\hat{\mathcal{U}}}(C)\big\}\right\rangle\,,
\end{equation}
which is recognized as a generalization of the three--point function
$\langle {\hat J}_q^{\dagger} \,{\hat T}_{00}(x) \,{\hat J}_q\rangle$ in which the local
operator ${\hat J}_q$ is replaced by the non--local operator ${\hat{\mathcal{U}}}(C)$.
We implicitly assume
here a large spatial separation between the trajectory $C$ of the quark
and the position $\bm{x}$ of the probe operator. (If $C$ is restricted to some
bounded region in space with the largest size $R$,
then we assume $r\equiv|\bm{x}|\gg R$.)
Unlike for $\langle {\hat J}_q^{\dagger} \,{\hat T}_{00}(x) \,{\hat J}_q\rangle$, we are not
aware of general non--renormalization properties\footnote{This being said,
there is empirical evidence that such a property must hold: the results of the backreaction
in Refs.~\cite{Athanasiou:2010pv,Hatta:2011gh}, which include the case of an
arbitrary motion for the heavy quark, coincide with the respective results at
{\em zero} coupling up to the replacement $\lambda \to 4
\sqrt{\lambda}$ in the overall factor and up to an additional piece at (infinitely) strong coupling,
which is however a total time derivative and hence averages out for a periodic motion.
A similar property at the level of the radiated power has been previously observed in
Ref.~\cite{Mikhailov:2003er}. Such non--renormalization properties for the radiation in
${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM, whose precise origin remains to be understood, may be viewed
as generalizations of similar properties which are known to hold, by
conformal symmetry, in Euclidean space--time and for simple Wilson loops, like
the circular one (see e.g. \cite{Buchbinder:2012vr} and references therein).
}
for the correlator \eqref{Wilson},
but this is not essential for our purpose. All that matters is that \eqn{Wilson} describes
an elastic scattering process in which the radiation generated by the heavy quark
interacts with the probe operator ${\hat T}_{00}(x)$ without being
significantly disturbed. Then the arguments previously used for
$\langle {\hat J}_q^{\dagger} \,{\hat T}_{00}(x) \,{\hat J}_q\rangle$ can be taken over.
Namely, the interaction with a localized operator is a relatively hard process, which
requires a high momentum transfer from the target to the probe. The signal carrying
such a high momentum can only be emitted by quanta which are in the early stages
of their evolution, when they are still hard. Such quanta have been freshly
emitted by the heavy quark and hence they are located in the vicinity of
the quark trajectory $C$. Accordingly, the signal carries no information about
the structure of the radiation at the comparatively remote
`measurement' point $x^\mu$. This argument is corroborated by the backreaction calculation
\cite{Hatta:2011gh} which shows that the emission time $t_{\rm int}$ (identified, once again, as
the time at which the gravitational wave in AdS$_5$ is emitted by the string) coincides
with the retardation time $t_r\simeq t-r$ in the corresponding classical problem --- that is,
the time at which a signal propagating at the speed of light should be emitted by the source
in order to reach the measurement point $r$ at time $t$.
It is finally interesting to mention that correlation functions similar to \eqn{Wilson}
are commonly used in perturbative QCD to compute the soft radiation produced
by energetic partons (represented by the Wilson lines), notably in studies
of the shape of a jet (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{Belitsky:2001ij}). However, in such cases the
local operator ${\hat T}_{00}(x)$ is replaced with a non--local one, such as the total
energy radiated per unit solid angle, which is a soft, acceptable, probe.
The plan of the paper is as follows: In Sect.~\ref{sec:WP} we shall introduce some general
elements of the formalism, like the wave--packets describing the virtual photon and the
probe operator (in both the rest frame of the decay and in a highly boosted frame),
and the three--point and four--point functions that we shall later use
to study the decay. We shall explain in more detail why a three--point function is
not suitable for a local measurement. Also, we shall describe the causality constraints
on the space--time distribution of the matter produced by the decay. In Sect.~\ref{sect:3P}
we shall present the result of the backreaction for the three--point function at
infinitely strong coupling. With this occasion, we shall correct the original calculation in
Ref.~\cite{Hatta:2010dz} by adding one term that has been missed there. We shall emphasize
the lack of radial broadening of the final result and pinpoint the origin of
this property in the process of the calculation. We shall attempt a physical interpretation
for this result in CFT. We shall also perform the Fourier transform of the result to a mixed
Fourier representation, which is tantamount to using a wave--packet for the probe operator.
In Sect.~\ref{sec:zero} we shall present the calculation of the three--point function
in ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM at zero coupling (using the mixed Fourier representation, once again)
and thus obtain exactly the same result as that of the backreaction at
infinitely strong coupling. Starting with Sect.~\ref{sect:jet}, we shift our attention towards
the four--point function that describes the DIS of a virtual $\mathcal{R}$--current
off the decaying system. We first consider the situation at weak coupling but late times,
where we rely on a leading logarithmic approximation to resum perturbative corrections
to all orders in $\lambda\ln (Qt)$. This will allow us to derive the result for
longitudinal broadening shown in the second
line in \eqn{Deltax3} and to demonstrate that weakly--coupled partons are point--like.
Finally, Sect.~\ref{sec:Witten} contains our main new results in this paper, namely the
calculation of the four--point function at infinitely strong coupling from Witten diagrams.
For simplicity, that is, in order to avoid a proliferation of diagrams with complicated vertices,
we shall restrict ourselves to a toy--version of SUGRA --- a scalar field theory with trilinear
couplings. This reproduces the relevant topologies for the Witten diagrams and thus correctly
captures the physical information which is important for us here: the support of the
space--time distribution of the radiated matter. We thus find that this matter is uniformly
distributed over the whole region in space and time which is allowed by causality.
\section{Preliminaries: observables for decaying states}
\label{sec:WP}
As announced in the Introduction, our goal is to study the matter distribution created at
large times by the decay of an unstable excitation of the ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM theory.
For convenience, we choose this excitation to be a {\em time--like photon}.
We follow the standard strategy for introducing electromagnetism in ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM,
which consists in gauging one of the U$(1)$ subgroups of the global SU$(4)$
$\mathcal{R}$--symmetry.
Then, the electromagnetic vector potentials $A^\mu_{\rm em}(x)$ couple to the
conserved $\mathcal{R}$--current, $J_\mu(x)$, associated with the generator of that particular
U(1) subgroup, via the action $S_{\rm int}=\int{\rm d}^4 x\,A^\mu_{\rm em}(x) J_\mu(x)$.
A photon state with given 4--momentum $q^\mu$,
as represented by a plane--wave\footnote{We use a metric convention
with the minus sign for the temporal components; e.g. $q\cdot x\equiv -q^0 x^0+
{\bm q}\cdot{\bm x}$.} ${\rm e}^{iq\cdot x}$, will be on--shell and stable
if it has zero virtuality, $q^2=0$, but it will
be off--shell and unstable when its virtuality is {\em time--like}, $q^2<0$.
(The virtuality $q^2$ is defined as $q^2\equiv q^\mu q_\mu = -q_0^2 + {\bm q}^2$.)
The unstable photon will decay into the quanta of
${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM which enter the structure of the $\mathcal{R}$--current
(massless fermion and scalar fields in the adjoint representation of the colour group
SU$(N_c)$). These quanta will be time--like too, as they share the virtuality
of the original photon, so they will themselves decay into other quanta of
${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM (including gluons), which will then split again and again, thus
progressively evacuating the original virtuality via successive branchings.
In a conformal field theory like ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM this branching process
will in principle go on for ever. If the coupling is weak, the
probability for having many splittings is however small and the evolution is slow.
Then the evolution can be studied in perturbation theory, as we shall discuss in
Sects.~\ref{sec:zero} and \ref{sect:jet}.
But at strong coupling, we expect this evolution to proceed as fast as permitted by the
energy--momentum conservation together with the uncertainty principle.
Its study can then be addressed within the framework of the AdS/CFT
correspondence, and some results in that sense will
be presented below, in Sects.~\ref{sect:3P} and \ref{sec:Witten}.
To be able to follow the space--time evolution of the decaying system, we need to
start with a perturbation which is {\em localized} in space and time. This is conveniently
described by a {\em wave--packet} (WP). Namely, we shall assume that the time--like photon
is created by the following operator (for more clarity we shall use a hat to denote quantum
operators in the CFT)
\begin{equation} \label{Jqdef}
{\hat J}_q\,\equiv\,\int {\rm d}^4x\,A^\mu_{q}(x)\,{\hat J}_\mu(x)\,,\end{equation}
where the $\mathcal{R}$--current operator ${\hat J}_\mu(x)$ is convoluted with a
Gaussian WP $A^\mu_{q}(x)$ which encodes the information about the 4--momentum,
the polarization, and the space--time localization of the original perturbation.
It is instructive to construct this WP in the rest frame of the photon, but then study it
in a highly boosted frame.
This is useful since a boost with a large Lorentz factor $\gamma\gg 1$ renders the
physical interpretation of the quantum evolution more transparent by
enhancing the lifetime of the virtual excitations (by Lorentz time dilation).
In the photon rest frame, the WP is chosen as $A^\mu_Q(x)=\varepsilon^\mu_{(\lambda)}
\phi_Q(x)$ where $\varepsilon^\mu_{(\lambda)}$ with $\lambda= 0,\pm1$ are the
three polarization states allowed to a time--like photon (the polarization
index will be omitted in what follows) and
\begin{equation}\label{AWPRF}
\phi_Q(x)\,\equiv\,\mathcal{N}\,
{\rm e}^{-iQ t}\,\exp\left\{-\frac{t^2+r^2}
{2\sigma^2}\right\}\,,\qquad\int{\rm d}^4 x\,
|\phi_Q(x)|^2\,=\,1\,,
\end{equation}
is a normalized WP with central 4--momentum $q^\mu=(Q,0,0,0)$, which is
localized near the origin of space--time ($t=r=0$) with an uncertainty $\sigma$.
We assume $\sigma Q\gg 1$, in such a way that the Fourier modes
$k^\mu=(k^0,\bm{k})$ included in the WP have a typical energy
$k^0\simeq Q$ and a typical virtuality $k^2\simeq q^2 = -Q^2$.
One has indeed $k^0=Q+ \order{1/\sigma}$, $k^i=\order{1/\sigma}$, $i=1,2,3$.
Consider now the wave--packet in a boosted frame (the `laboratory' frame)
in which the photon propagates along the $x_3$ axis nearly at the speed of light.
In this frame, the WP has a central 4--momentum $q^\mu=(q^0,0,0,q^3)$ with
$v\equiv q^3/q^0\simeq 1$. It is then convenient to introduce light--cone components
$q_{\pm}\equiv (q^0\pm q^3)/{\sqrt{2}}$, in terms of which $q^\mu=(q_+,q_-,{\bm 0}_\perp)$
and the virtuality can be expressed as $Q^2=q_0^2-q_3^2 = 2q_+q_-$. We shall also
need the boost factor,
\begin{equation}
\gamma\,\equiv\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}\,=\,\frac{q^0}{Q}\,\equiv\,
\cosh \eta\quad \Longrightarrow\quad
q_+=\frac{Q}{\sqrt{2}}\,{\rm e}^\eta \,\simeq\,\sqrt{2}\gamma Q\,,
\end{equation}
which is very large: $\gamma\gg 1$. The boosted version of the WP
reads $A^\mu_q(x)=\varepsilon^\mu\,\phi_q(x)$
where\footnote{To simplify writing, we shall not distinguish between
lower and upper light--cone components; e.g. $A^+\equiv A_+ \equiv
(A^0+A^3){\sqrt{2}}$. Also, we use the same notations for the polarization
vectors in the rest frame and in the laboratory frame, although the longitudinal
polarization is of course affected by the boost.}
\begin{equation}\label{ATLWP}
\phi_q(x)\,=\,\mathcal{N}\,
{\rm e}^{-iq_+x_--iq_-x_+}\,\exp\left\{-\frac{x_+^2}{2\sigma_+^2}
-\frac{x_-^2}{2\sigma_-^2}-\frac{x_\perp^2}{2\sigma_\perp^2}\right\},
\end{equation}
with the various widths related to the width $\sigma$ in the rest
frame via the following relations,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_+\,\simeq\,2\gamma\,\sigma,\qquad
\sigma_-\,\simeq\,\frac{\sigma}{2\gamma}\,,
\qquad \sigma_\perp\,=\,\sigma\,,\end{equation}
which express the Lorentz dilation
(contraction) of the WP in the $x_+$ ($x_-$) direction.
These relations imply the inequalities
\begin{equation}\label{Asigma}
\sigma_+ q_-\,\gg\,1,\qquad \sigma_- q_+\,\gg\,1,\qquad
\sigma_\perp Q\,\gg\,1,\end{equation}
which in turn guarantee that $k^\mu\simeq q^\mu$ for the typical modes included in the WP.
The WP \eqref{ATLWP} is normalized to unity in the sense of \eqn{AWPRF} if we choose
$|\mathcal{N}|^2 = 1/(\pi^2 \sigma_+ \sigma_- \sigma_{\perp}^2)$.
In order to study the matter distribution produced by the decaying system at
late times, we shall compute one--point functions like\footnote{The `average
electric charge density' $\mathcal{J}_q$ is included here only for illustration: for the problem
at hand, where the decay is initiated by a electrically neutral photon, we have
$\mathcal{J}_q=0$ in the conformal ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM theory.}
\begin{equation} \label{Edensity}
\mathcal{E}_q(x)\,\equiv\,\langle {\hat J}_q^{\dagger}
\,{\hat T}_{00}(x)
\,{\hat J}_q\rangle\,,\qquad
\mathcal{P}_q(x)\,\equiv\,\langle {\hat J}_q^{\dagger}
\,{\hat T}_{++}(x)
\,{\hat J}_q\rangle\,,\qquad
\mathcal{J}_q(x)\,\equiv\,\langle {\hat J}_q^{\dagger}
\,{\hat J}_{+}(x)
\,{\hat J}_q\rangle\,,
\end{equation}
and two--point functions of the type
\begin{equation} \label{2point}
\mathcal{P}^{(2)}_q(x_1,x_2)\,\equiv\,\langle {\hat J}_q^{\dagger}
\,{\hat T}_{++}(x_1){\hat T}_{++}(x_2)
\,{\hat J}_q\rangle\,,\qquad
\Pi_q(x_1,x_2)\,\equiv\,\langle {\hat J}_q^{\dagger}
\,{\hat J}_{+}(x_1){\hat J}_{+}(x_2)
\,{\hat J}_q\rangle\,,
\end{equation}
where it is understood that all the time arguments $x_i^+$ are much larger than $\sigma_+$.
Recalling the definition \eqref{Jqdef} of the operator ${\hat J}_q$ which creates the state,
it should be clear that a `one--point function' like $\mathcal{E}_q(x)$ is truly a {\em three}--point
function in the CFT, and similarly $\mathcal{E}^{(2)}_q(x_1,x_2)$ and $\Pi_q(x_1,x_2)$
are truly {\em four}--point functions.
The integrated quantities
\begin{equation} \label{Etotal}
E_q\equiv \int {\rm d}^3 \bm{x} \,\mathcal{E}_q
(x_+,x_-,x_\perp)\,\qquad
P_q\equiv \int{\rm d} x_- {\rm d}^2 \bm{x}_\perp \,\mathcal{P}_q
(x_+,x_-,x_\perp)\,
\end{equation}
represent the total energy and the total (light--cone) longitudinal momentum
of the state created by the operator ${\hat J}_q$, and are {\em a priori} known:
by energy--momentum conservation, they are the same as the respective quantities, $q_0$
and $q_+$, of the original, time--like, photon. In view of this, it might be tempting to
interpret the integrands in \eqn{Etotal}, i.e. $\mathcal{E}_q(x)$ and $\mathcal{P}_q(x)$, as the
corresponding average {\em densities}.
But this interpretation would be generally incorrect, as we now explain.
The correlation functions introduced in Eqs.~\eqref{Edensity} and \eqref{2point}
are truly {\em (forward) scattering amplitudes}, which describe the interaction between
a `probe' (operator insertions like ${\hat T}_{++}(x)$ or ${\hat J}_{+}(x_1){\hat J}_{+}(x_2)$)
and a `target' (the decaying system created by ${\hat J}_q$). In the case of the
three--point functions, this interaction will generally modify the internal structure
of the target and thus it cannot represent a fine measurement of this structure
at the time of scattering. The four--point functions, on the other hand, {\em can}
be used to define a proper measurement, in the following sense: if the space--time
coordinates $x_1$ and $x_2$ of the two operator insertions are sufficiently close to
each other, then the quantity $\Pi_q(x_1,x_2)$ is a measure of the density of
$\mathcal{R}$--charge squared at the central point $(x_1+x_2)/2$ as probed with a
resolution scale fixed by the difference $x_1-x_2$ (and similarly for the other
four--point functions).
The above considerations, to be developed at length in what follows, show that the
notion of {\em resolution} is central to any quantum measurement. This is best appreciated
by working in momentum space. Then the resolution is controlled by the 4--momentum
$\Delta^\mu$ transferred by the probe to the target, i.e. the momentum carried by
the Fourier modes ${\hat T}_{++}(\Delta)$ of the probe operator ${\hat T}_{++}(x)$.
For a three--point function like $\mathcal{P}_q(x)$, energy--momentum conservation
requires this transferred momentum $\Delta$ to be smaller
than the uncertainty $\sim 1/\sigma$ in the target momentum. (For brevity, we use
$\sigma$ to collectively denote any of the widths of the target WP, \eqn{ATLWP}.
More precisely, the conditions on the 4--momentum $\Delta^\mu$ of the probe
should read as follows: $\Delta_+\lesssim 1/\sigma_-\ll q_+$,
$\Delta_-\lesssim 1/\sigma_+\ll q_-$, and $\Delta_\perp\lesssim 1/\sigma$.)
Yet, in general, it would be wrong to conclude that the quantity $\mathcal{P}_q(x)$ can be
interpreted as the average longitudinal--momentum density at $x$ coarse--grained
over a distance $\sigma$. Indeed, even a relatively soft momentum $\Delta\sim 1/\sigma$
is still too hard to be absorbed by the target at some large time $x_+\gg\sigma_+$
{\em and let the state
of the latter unchanged} (within the limits of the uncertainty principle). This is so because,
for sufficiently large times, the decaying system contains {\em arbitrarily soft quanta}.
This is most easily seen at weak coupling,
where one can explicitly follow the evolution of the system via successive branchings.
One thus finds that the typical longitudinal momenta, $k_+$, of the partons composing
the system keep decreasing with time, as expected for a branching picture
(see Sect. \ref{sect:jet} for details). In order to `see' such partons,
a probe should transfer to them a longitudinal momentum $\Delta_+$ of the
order of their own respective momentum $k_+$. (If $\Delta_+\gg k_+$,
there is not enough overlap between the probe and the partons to allow for significant
interactions. If, on the other hand, $\Delta_+\ll k_+$, the probe cannot discriminate
the individual partons, but only their collective properties averaged over a distance
$\delta x_-\sim 1/\Delta_+$.) Clearly, an interaction with $\Delta_+\sim k_+$ will
strongly affect the struck parton and hence it cannot contribute
to an {\em elastic} scattering {\em unless} the momentum transfer $\Delta_+$
is taken back away by a subsequent interaction. This can happen in a measurement represented
by a four--point function, like $\Pi_q(x_1,x_2)$, in which case the momentum $\Delta$
transferred to the target by the first insertion ${\hat J}_{+}(\Delta)$ of the probe operator
is then taken away by the second insertion\footnote{More generally, the 4--momenta
$\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$ introduced by the two successive insertions, ${\hat J}_{+}(\Delta_1)$
and ${\hat J}_{+}(\Delta_2)$, can be arbitrary but such that their sum $\Delta_1+\Delta_2$
is at most of order $1/\sigma$. Via Fourier transform, this sum $\Delta_1+\Delta_2$
is conjugated to the
central coordinate $(x_1+x_2)/2$ of the measurement process, whereas the difference
$(\Delta_1-\Delta_2)/2$ is conjugated to the coordinate separation $x_1-x_2$ and
fixes the resolution.} ${\hat J}_{+}(-\Delta)$.
But this cannot be the case for three--point functions like those shown in \eqn{Edensity}.
We thus conclude that, in order to measure a {\em local} quantity, like a density,
one can use four--point functions, but not also three--point functions.
Yet, the latter can be used to measure {\em global} properties, like the total energy
\eqref{Etotal}~: the respective measurement involves no momentum transfer, so it cannot
affect the decaying system. In general, such a global measurement contains no
information about the fine spatial distribution of the energy. In some cases, one can recover
part of this information by exploiting the symmetries of the problem. For instance, the average
matter distribution produced by the decaying photon has spherical symmetry in the photon
rest frame. Accordingly, the energy density per unit solid angle is simply obtained as
${{\rm d} E}/{{\rm d}\Omega}= E_q/4\pi$ with $E_q$ the total energy in \eqn{Etotal}. But
the {\em radial} distribution of the energy depends upon the detailed dynamics and cannot
be inferred in such a simple way. Similarly, the {\em longitudinal} distribution of the energy
in the laboratory frame, i.e. its dependence upon $x_-=(t-x_3)/\sqrt{2}$, cannot be deduced
without an explicit calculation. In what follows, we shall present such calculations for both
three--point and four--point functions, at both weak and strong coupling.
The above discussion shows the importance of simultaneously controlling the
{\em localization} of the probe and its {\em resolution}. This can be done by
introducing a corresponding wave--packet, i.e. by using smeared versions of
the probe operators, defined by analogy with \eqn{Jqdef}; e.g.,
\begin{equation} \label{TDelta}
\hat T_\Delta(\tau)\,=\,\int {\rm d}^4 y\, \psi_\Delta(y; \tau)\,
\hat T_{++}(y)\,.\end{equation}
The probe wave--packet $\psi_\Delta(y;\tau)$ must explore, with the desired resolution,
the whole region of space where the decaying system can be located at the time of measurement
$x^+\equiv \tau$, with $\tau\gg\sigma_+$. A convenient form for the WP is
the following Gaussian
\begin{equation}\label{PROBEWP}
\psi_\Delta(y;\tau)\,=\,\mathcal{C}\,
{\rm e}^{i\Delta\cdot y}\,\exp\left\{-\frac{(y_+-\tau)^2}{2\tilde\sigma_+^2}
-\frac{y_-^2}{2\tilde\sigma_-^2}
-\frac{y_\perp^2}{2\tilde\sigma_\perp^2}\right\}.
\end{equation}
As usual, the central four--momentum $\Delta^\mu=(\Delta_+, \Delta_-, \bm{\Delta}_\perp)$
specifies the space--time resolution of the probe, whereas the Gaussian controls its localization.
The latter is centered at $y_+=\tau$, with a temporal
width which obeys $\tilde\sigma_+\ll\tau$ (for the time of measurement to be well defined).
It is furthermore centered at $y_-=0$ and $y_\perp=0$, with spatial widths
$\tilde\sigma_-$ and $\tilde\sigma_\perp$ which are large enough for the
spatial momenta of the typical Fourier components to have only little spread
around the respective central values:
$\tilde\sigma_- \Delta_+\gg 1$ and $\tilde\sigma_\perp \Delta_\perp \gg 1$
(compare to \eqn{Asigma}). It might be tempting to try and enforce the similar condition
$\tilde\sigma_+ \Delta_-\gg 1$ on the minus component (the light--cone energy), but
it turns out that this is not always possible. Indeed, the time variable in \eqn{PROBEWP}
takes a typical value $y_+=\tau$, which is large. In order to avoid the rapid oscillations
of the complex exponential ${\rm e}^{-i\Delta_-y_+}$ we shall sometimes need to
require $\Delta_-$ to be small,
$\Delta_-\tau\lesssim 1$. Then the condition $\tilde\sigma_+ \Delta_-\gg 1$ cannot be satisfied
simultaneously with $\tilde\sigma_+\ll\tau$. But this is not
a serious limitation, since we do not need any other temporal resolution scale besides
the width $\tilde\sigma_+$. To summarize, the WP \eqref{PROBEWP}
with the constraints alluded to above provides a measurement at time $\tau$
with spatial resolutions $\delta x_\perp \sim 1/ \Delta_\perp$ and $\delta x_-\sim 1/ \Delta_ +$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Figures/signal_filled.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The region in space--time allowed by causality and special
relativity for the matter distribution produced by the decaying photon
in a highly boosted frame. More precisely, the gray band represents
the boosted version of the half sphere $\{r\le t; x_3>0\}$ (the region which,
in the rest frame, includes the quanta whose velocities have a
positive third component ($v_3>0$).}
\label{fig:lorentz}
\end{figure}
It is finally convenient, before concluding this section, to anticipate the typical resolution
scales that we shall need in order to probe the structure of the decaying system. This can
be fixed by comparison with the maximal (transverse and longitudinal) sizes occupied by the
system, that we shall now estimate. For simplicity, we start in the rest
frame of the time--like photon, where the matter produced by its decay is restricted to the
sphere $r\le t$, simply by causality. When boosting this spherical distribution with a large
$\gamma$ factor, its transverse size remains unchanged, that is, $\Delta x_\perp \sim t_{RF}
\sim t/\gamma$. (We used the fact that the time $t$ in the laboratory frame is larger by
a factor $\gamma$ than the time $t_{RF}$ in the rest frame.) As for the longitudinal extent
$\Delta x_3$, this is subjected to Lorentz contraction, yielding $\Delta x_3\sim t_{RF}/\gamma
\sim t/\gamma^2$. The fastest partons propagate at the speed of light, so they will be located
on the light--cone $x_3=t$ (or $x_-=0$). Most of the other partons, which are expected to be
time--like and thus have velocities smaller than one, will be distributed within a region
$\Delta x_3\sim t/\gamma^2$ behind the light--cone. Hence, the matter produced by the
decay at light--cone time $\tau$ will be located within a small solid angle $\Delta\Omega\sim
(\Delta x_\perp/\tau)^2 \sim 1/\gamma^2$ around the $x_3$ axis and within a (relatively)
thin longitudinal shell $\Delta x_-\sim \tau/\gamma^2$ around $x_-=0$. This region
is represented as a grey band in Fig.~\ref{fig:lorentz}.
To be able to explore its internal structure, we need a probe with sufficiently large spatial
momenta $\Delta_+\gtrsim \gamma^2/\tau$ and $\Delta_\perp \gtrsim \gamma/\tau$.
But the opposite case, with $\Delta_+\ll \gamma^2/\tau$, is also interesting, since then
the probe measures the matter distribution {\em integrated} over the longitudinal (or radial)
axis. From the previous discussion, we expect a three--point function to be a good measurement
(say, of the energy) when $\Delta_+\ll \gamma^2/\tau$ --- in which case it correctly provides
the energy density {\em per unit transverse area} (or per unit solid angle in the photon rest frame)
---, but not also in the opposite case ($\Delta_+\gtrsim \gamma^2/\tau$), where the longitudinal resolution is relatively high. These expectations will be confirmed by the subsequent
calculations, at both strong and weak coupling.
\section{The three--point function at infinitely strong coupling}
\label{sect:3P}
In this section we shall briefly review a recent calculation \cite{Hatta:2010dz}
of the three--point function introduced
in \eqn{Edensity} in the $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory at (infinitely) strong coupling,
which uses the method of the `backreaction' within the dual supergravity theory.
An alternative method, which relies on Witten diagrams for supergravity and is perhaps
more straightforward to use for the calculation of the four--point functions, will be presented
in Sect.~\ref{sec:Witten}.
\subsection{Backreaction in supergravity}
\label{sec:AdS}
Within the AdS/CFT correspondence, a time--like photon decaying in the
vacuum of the ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM theory with infinitely strong 't Hooft
coupling ($\lambda\equiv g^2 N_c\to\infty$) is dual to a supergravity
(SUGRA) vector field $A^\mu(x,z)$ which propagates into the bulk of
AdS$_5$ and whose boundary value $A^\mu(x,0)$ at the Minkowski boundary
($z=0$) is identified with the classical field $A^\mu_{q}(x)$
representing the perturbation on the gauge theory side:
$A^\mu_q(x)=\varepsilon^\mu\,\phi_q(x)$ with the wave--packet
$\phi_q(x)$ given in \eqn{ATLWP}.
Within this franework, the first three--point function in \eqref{Edensity}
(the `energy density' $\mathcal{E}_q(x)$) can be determined
via a {\em backreaction calculation}. This refers to the linear response
of the metric of AdS$_5$ to the small perturbation represented by the
bulk excitation induced by the boundary WP \eqref{ATLWP}. In turn, this
bulk excitation can be obtained by propagating the boundary field with
the help of the relevant bulk--to--boundary propagator (the Green's
function for the Maxwell equation in AdS$_5$)~:
\begin{equation}\label{Abulk}
A^\mu_q(x,z)\,=\,\int\,{\rm d}^4y\,D^{\mu\nu}(x-y,z)\,
\varepsilon_\nu\,\phi_q(y)\,=\,
\int\,\frac{{\rm d}^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\,{\rm e}^{ip\cdot x} \,\varepsilon_\nu\,
D^{\mu\nu}(p,z)\,\phi_q(p)\,,
\end{equation}
where $D^{\mu\nu}(x-y,z)$ is the Maxwell propagator in AdS$_5$
and in the `radial' gauge $A_z=0$. Here, $z$ denotes the radial (or `fifth') dimension
in AdS$_5$ and we are using the metric (with $L$ the curvature radius of
AdS$_5$)
\begin{equation}\label{metric}
{\rm d} s^2\,\equiv\,G_{MN}\,{\rm d} x^M {\rm d} x^N
\,= \,
\frac{L^2}{z^2} \,\big[ -{\rm d} t^2 + {\rm d} {\bm r}
^2 + {\rm d} z^2\big],
\end{equation}
(with $M=\mu$ or $z$) in terms of which the Minkowski boundary lies at $z=0$, as anticipated.
The SUGRA field \eqref{Abulk} will be explicitly constructed in
Sect.~\ref{sect:TL} below, from which we anticipate here the salient
features (see also Ref.~\cite{Hatta:2010dz}). Namely, the bulk excitation
is a Gaussian WP which propagates in AdS$_5$ at the 5--dimensional speed
of light, with longitudinal velocity equal to $v$ and radial velocity
$v_z=\sqrt{1-v^2}=1/\gamma$. More precisely, at time\footnote{Note that
$x_+\simeq \sqrt{2}t$ for space--time points located near the center of
the WP.} $t\gtrsim \sigma_+$, the center of the Gaussian is located at
\begin{equation}\label{centerBWP}
z=\,\frac{t}{\gamma}\,,\qquad
\bm{x}_\perp=0,\,\qquad x_3=vt\,,
\end{equation}
with (roughly) time--independent widths fixed by the original Gaussian
\eqref{ATLWP} (see Sect.~\ref{sect:TL} for details). The physical meaning
of the bulk trajectory \eqref{centerBWP} can be understood with the help
of the {\em UV/IR correspondence} \cite{Susskind:1998dq,Peet:1998wn}~:
the penetration $z$ of the WP in the
bulk is related to the virtuality $K=\sqrt{|k^2|}$ of the typical quanta composing the
decaying WP in the boundary gauge theory: $z\sim 1/K$. (For the situation at
hand, these quanta are typically time--like: $k^2 <0$.) Hence, the fact
that $z$ is localized near ${t}/{\gamma}$ means that the decaying system
at time $t\gg\sigma_+$ involves quanta with a typical virtuality
$K(t)\sim\gamma/t$ and hence a typical longitudinal momentum $k_+(t)
=\gamma K(t)\sim\gamma^2/t$. By the uncertainty principle, such quanta
occupy a region with transverse area
$(\Delta x_\perp)^2 \sim (t/\gamma)^2$ and longitudinal extent
$\Delta x_3\sim t/\gamma^2$ behind the light--cone ($x_3=t$).
Note that this is the maximal region allowed
by causality and special relativity (cf. the discussion towards the end
of Sect.~\ref{sec:WP}).
This qualitative picture for the decaying system at strong coupling will be later
substantiated, in Sect.~\ref{sec:Witten}, by a proper `measurement' which
involves the calculation of a four--point function.
On the other hand, this picture is not manifest at the level of the
three--point function $\mathcal{E}_q(x)$, to which we now turn.
The calculation of the backreaction amounts to solving
the linearized Einstein equations for the (small) change $\delta G_{MN}$
in the metric of AdS$_5$ which is generated by the energy--momentum
tensor $t^{MN}$ associated with the bulk excitation. Finally, the
three--point function \eqref{Edensity} is inferred from the near boundary
behaviour of $\delta G_{MN}$. Mathematically, this is obtained by
propagating the metric perturbation from the location $(\acute x^\mu, z)$
of its source in the bulk to the measurement point $x^\mu$ on the
boundary ($z=0$), with the help of the retarded bulk--to--boundary
propagator. Strictly speaking, this calculation will yield a {\em
retarded} three--point function --- the retarded version of the Wightman
function introduced in \eqn{Edensity}. But this retarded three--point
function is precisely the physical response function whose space--time
localization we would like to study.
For simplicity, we shall replace the bulk WP by a 4--dimensional
$\delta$--function with support at the central coordinates shown in
\eqn{centerBWP}~: $t^{MN}(\acute x, z)\propto\delta(\acute x_3-v
\acute{t})\delta^{(2)}(\acute{\bm{x}}_{\perp}) \delta(z-\acute{t}/\gamma)$. This
means that we probe physics on space--time resolution scales which are
soft compared to the respective widths of the Gaussian WP, which is
indeed sufficient for our purposes here. This
facilitates the calculation of the backreaction, which in general
involves an integral over the support of the bulk excitation. The result
of this calculation reads (see Ref.~\cite{Hatta:2010dz} and also the Appendix
\ref{sec:EB} to the present paper for details)
\begin{align}\label{EApart}
\mathcal{E}_q(t,\bm{x}) \,=\,
&\frac{2q_0}{\pi}\,\frac{t+vx_3}{\gamma^2}\
\partial^2_{r^2} \int_0^\infty {\rm d} \acute{t}\, \acute{t} \
\delta\big(t^2 -r^2 - 2(t-v x_3)\acute{t}\big)
\nonumber\\
& + \,\frac{2q_0}{\pi}\,\frac{v^2 {x}_{\perp}^2}{\gamma^2}\
\partial^3_{r^2} \int_0^\infty {\rm d} \acute{t}\, \acute{t}^{\,2} \
\delta\big(t^2 -r^2 - 2(t-v x_3)\acute{t}\big),
\end{align}
where $r=|\bm{x}|$ and $q_0$ is the total energy carried by the original
WP \eqref{ATLWP} (and therefore also the total energy of the evolving
partonic system produced by its decay). Below we shall denote
the two terms in \eqn{EApart} as $\mathcal{E}_A$ and $\mathcal{E}_B$,
respectively, with $\mathcal{E}_q=\mathcal{E}_A+\mathcal{E}_B$. In the original
calculation in Ref.~\cite{Hatta:2010dz}, the second term $\mathcal{E}_B$
has actually been missed, so for completeness we shall explicitly derive
this term in Appendix \ref{sec:EB}.
\eqn{EApart} can be
understood as follows: at time $\acute{t}$, the bulk excitation localized at
$z=\acute{t}/\gamma$, $\acute x_3=v\acute{t}$, and $\acute x_\perp=0$ emits a
gravitational wave $\delta G_{MN}$ which propagates through AdS$_5$ at
the respective speed of light up to the measurement point
$x^\mu=(t,\bm{x})$ on the boundary. The $\delta$--function in the
integrand represents the support of the retarded bulk--to--boundary
propagator for the Einstein equations in AdS$_5$. Its argument follows
from causality together with the condition of propagation at the 5D speed
of light, for both the bulk excitation and the gravitational wave:
\begin{equation}\label{tp}
(t-\acute{t}\,)^2={z}^{\,2}+(x_3-\acute x_3)^2+x_\perp^2=
{{\acute{t}}^{\,2}+ r^2 -2 x_3v\acute{t}}\ \Longrightarrow\
t^2 -r^2 = 2(t-v x_3)\acute{t}\,.
\end{equation}
A physical interpretation for this condition back in the original gauge theory
will be proposed in Sect.~\ref{sec:interp}.
A priori, \eqn{EApart} involves an integral over all the positive values
of $\acute{t}$, meaning over all the values $z=\acute{t}/\gamma$ of the radial
coordinate of the bulk excitation. However, the presence of the external
derivatives, $\partial^2_{r^2}$ in the first term and respectively $\partial^3_{r^2}$
in the second one, introduces an important simplification: it implies
that the net result for $\mathcal{E}_q$ comes exclusively from $\acute{t}=0$, that
is, from the early time when the bulk excitation had been just emitted
and was still localized near the boundary ($z\simeq 0$). Indeed, after
using the $\delta$--function to integrate over $\acute{t}$, one finds
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E}_q(x) \,=\, &\frac{q_0}{2 \pi\gamma^2}\,\frac{t+vx_3}{(t-v x_3)^2}\
\partial^2_{r^2} [(t^2 - r ^2) \Theta(t^2-r^2)]
\nonumber\\
& +\, \frac{q_0}{4 \pi\gamma^2}\,\frac{v^2 {x}_{\perp}^2}{(t-v x_3)^3}\
\partial^3_{r^2} [(t^2 - r ^2)^2 \Theta(t^2-r^2)],
\end{align}
where the $\Theta$--function enforcing $r\le t$ (generated via the
condition that $\acute{t}\ge 0$) is the expression of causality. In the first term,
this $\Theta$--function is multiplied by the factor $(t^2 - r ^2)$ which is
linear in $r^2$; so the only way to obtain a non--zero result after
acting with $\partial^2_{r^2}$ is that one of the two derivatives act on the
$\Theta$--function and thus generate a $\delta$--function at $t=r$.
A similar discussion applies to the second term, which involves an additional
factor of $(t^2 - r ^2)$ inside the square brackets and also an additional external
derivative. Combining the two terms, one finds
\begin{equation}\label{Eparticle}
\mathcal{E}_q(x) \,=\,
\frac{q_0}{2 \pi\gamma^4}\,\frac{t^2}{(t-v x_3)^3}\,\delta(t^2-r^2)\,.
\end{equation}
This describes a spherical shell of zero width which propagates at the
{\em 4--dimensional} speed of light. Returning to the constraint
\eqref{tp} on the emission time $\acute{t}$, one sees that a signal which at
time $t$ is located at $r=t$ has been necessarily generated at $\acute{t}=0$
and hence $z=0$, as anticipated.
Now, as it should be clear from the previous discussion, these extremely sharp
localization properties --- the fact that the signal is strictly light--like ($r=t$) and the
(related) fact that the whole contribution to the backreaction comes from $z=0$ ---
are to be understood up to a smearing on the scale set by the width
$\sigma$ of the original WP : in reality, the spherical shell has a non--zero
radial width $t-r\sim \sigma$ and the values of $z$ contributing to this
result are not exactly zero, but of order $\sigma$.
Yet, these results --- in particular, the fact that the signal appears to propagate
{\em without broadening} (i.e. by preserving a constant radial width up to
arbitrarily large times) --- would be extremely curious if they were to represent
the distribution of matter produced by a decaying system {\em at strong coupling},
as we now explain.
A thin shell of energy propagating at the speed of light is the result
that would be naturally expected in a {\em non--interacting} quantum field
theory, or, more generally, to {\em zeroth order} in perturbation theory for a
field theory at weak coupling. In that limit, the time--like photon would
decay into a pair of (massless) {\em on--shell} partons which would then
propagate at the speed of light. In a given event and in the rest frame
of the virtual photon, such a decay yields two particles propagating back
to back. After averaging over many events, the signal looks like a thin
spherical shell expanding at the speed of light. In fact, it is straightforward
to check (and we shall explicitly do that in the next sections)
that the result \eqref{Eparticle} of the AdS/CFT calculation at
{\em infinitely strong coupling} is exactly the same as the corresponding
prediction of the $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory at {\em zero coupling}.
By itself, this `coincidence' should not be a surprise: as explained in the
Introduction, the three--point function under consideration cannot
receive quantum corrections, as it is protected by conformal symmetry and
energy conservation. So, the corresponding result, as shown in \eqn{Eparticle},
is {\em a priori} known to be independent of the coupling.
But whereas this situation looks natural in view of the underlying conformal
symmetry, it might still look puzzling from a physical perspective: at non--zero
(gauge) coupling, the decay of the time--like photon should also involve
virtual quanta which propagate slower than light. Then,
the emerging matter distribution should also have support at points inside
the sphere $r\le t$, and not only on its (light--like) surface.
The solution to this puzzle is that, as already argued in Sect.~\ref{sec:WP} and
will be demonstrated via explicit calculations in what follows, this
three--point function is {\em not} a good measurement of the
energy density produced at late times by the decaying photon. It is clearly a good
measurement of its {\em total} energy, and also of its angular distribution in
the photon's rest frame ($v=0$), where \eqn{Eparticle} yields the expected result
for ${{\rm d} E}/{{\rm d}\Omega}$ (recall that $q_0\to Q$ in the rest frame)~:
\begin{equation}\label{shell} \mathcal{E}_q(t,r)\, = \,\frac{Q}{4 \pi r^2}\,
\delta(t-r)\qquad \Longrightarrow\qquad
\frac{{\rm d} E}{{\rm d}\Omega}\,\equiv\int {\rm d} r \,r^2
\mathcal{E}_q\,=\,\frac{Q}{4 \pi}\,.
\end{equation}
But the radial distribution of the energy density is {\em not} correctly represented by
\eqn{Eparticle}, in any frame. The correct respective distribution will be later computed,
at both weak and strong coupling,
from four--point functions like those introduced in \eqn{2point}.
The results to be thus obtained will be very different in the two cases and in particular
they will exhibit strong radial broadening at strong coupling,
in agreement with our general expectations.
This being said, it would be interesting to understand `how the conformal symmetry
works in practice', meaning how is that possible that such a sharply localized result,
\eqn{Eparticle}, can emerge from a calculation {\em at strong coupling}.
A possible interpretation for that will be provided in the next subsection.
For what follows, it will be useful to have a version of the three-point function \eqref{Eparticle} adapted
to a highly boosted frame ($\gamma\gg 1$). In that case, it is preferable to work with the probe
operator ${\hat T}_{++}(x)$ and the associated three--point function $\mathcal{P}_q(x)$, as introduced
in \eqn{Edensity}. At high energy, the latter can be estimated as
$\mathcal{P}_q(x)\simeq 2 \mathcal{E}_q(x)$
with $\mathcal{E}_q(x)$ conveniently rewritten in light--cone coordinates.
Using $1-v\simeq 1/2\gamma^2$, $1+v\simeq 2$, and hence
\begin{equation}\label{gammaL}
t-vx_3\,=\,\frac{x_+(1-v)+x_-(1+v)}{\sqrt{2}}\,\simeq\,
\frac{x_+}{2\sqrt{2}\gamma^2}\,+\sqrt{2}x_-\,,\end{equation}
one finds (with $q_+\simeq\sqrt{2}q_0$)
\begin{equation}\label{EIMF}
\mathcal{P}_q(x) \,\simeq\,
\frac{q_+}{8 \pi \gamma^4}\,
\frac{x_+^2}{\Big(x_- + \frac{x_+}{4 \gamma^2}\Big)^3}\,
\delta\left(2 x_+ x_- - {x}_{\perp}^2\right).
\end{equation}
The denominator in this equation is the reflection of Lorentz
contraction, as discussed at the end of Sect.~\ref{sec:WP}~: it
restricts the longitudinal coordinate $x^-$ to (positive)
values satisfying $x_- \lesssim {x_+}/4\gamma^2$.
But the presence of the $\delta$--function in \eqn{EIMF} entails a much
stronger constraint: it implies that the signal is localized within an arc of a
spherical shell of zero width, or more precisely of width $\sigma_-\sim\sigma/\gamma$
(the Lorentz--contracted version of the respective width in the rest frame).
This distribution is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:signal} which should be compared
with Fig.~\ref{fig:lorentz}. One sees that, in the boosted frame, the lack
of radial broadening mostly manifests itself as a {\em lack of longitudinal broadening}:
the signal \eqref{EIMF} deviates from the light--cone ($x_-=0$) by a
distance $x_-= x_\perp^2/2x_+ $ (modulo the width $\sigma_-$ of the shell)
which for sufficiently small $x_\perp\ll x_+/\gamma$ is much smaller than the maximal
value $\sim{x_+}/\gamma^2$ permitted by Lorentz contraction. Conversely, this
argument implies that $x_\perp$ is restricted to values $x_\perp\lesssim x_+/\gamma$,
which in turn implies that the solid angle subtended by the shell
is $\delta\Omega \sim 1/\gamma^2$.
Note finally that \eqn{EIMF} yields the correct result for the {\em total} longitudinal
momentum (cf. \eqn{Etotal}), as expected:
$ P_q\equiv \int{\rm d} x^- {\rm d}^2 x_\perp \,\mathcal{P}_q= q_+$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Figures/signal.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Signal generated from the decaying photon in a highly boosted frame. The width of the grey band is $\sigma_-\sim \sigma/\gamma$ (the Lorentz contracted version of the radial width
in the rest frame).}
\label{fig:signal}
\end{figure}
\subsection{A physical interpretation for the `backreaction'}
\label{sec:interp}
As already noticed, the SUGRA results for the three--point function, \eqref{Eparticle} or
\eqref{EIMF}, are characterized by two remarkable and perhaps surprising facts: \texttt{(i)}
the signal propagates at the speed of light without (radial or longitudinal) broadening, and
\texttt{(ii)} the whole contribution to the backreaction comes from small values of $z\lesssim
\sigma$. Within the AdS/CFT calculation, these two features are related to each other, as
we have seen. Namely, the `backreaction' has support only at points satisfying \eqn{tp},
which for small $z=\acute{t}/\gamma \lesssim\sigma$ implies that $t-r$ (or $t-x_3$ in a
boosted frame) is small as well: $t-r\lesssim\sigma$ in the
center--of--mass frame and respectively $x_-\lesssim \sigma/\gamma$ in the
frame where $\gamma\gg 1$. That is, the smallness of $z$ (or of $\acute{t}$)
implies the propagation of the signal at the speed of light. In what follows,
we would like to propose a physical interpretation for these facts in the CFT.
Namely, we shall argue that the interactions responsible for the three--point function are
{\em highly delocalized in time}. The high--momentum transfer between
the target and the probe is carried by a signal which is emitted by the decaying system
at an early time, well before the measurement time $t$ at which the signal is
absorbed by the probe. This physical emission time (denoted as $t_{\rm int}$
in the Introduction) can be identified with the time
$\acute{t}$ at which the gravitational wave is emitted by the bulk
excitation in the calculation of the backreaction.
With this interpretation, \eqn{tp} represents the matching
condition between the resolution of the probe and the kinematics
of the target `partons' which emit the signal.
Furthermore, the gravitational wave in the `backreaction' is the AdS dual of the
physical signal --- a nearly light--like mode with the quantum numbers of the probe
operator, which propagates at the speed of light from $\acute{t}$ up to $t$.
In order to establish this interpretation, we shall have a new look at \eqn{tp} which we recall
is the condition that the gravitational wave propagate at the speed of light in AdS$_5$.
For a given observation point $x^\mu$ on the boundary, this condition determines the time
$\acute{t}$ at which the gravitational wave is emitted, hence the radial penetration $z=\acute{t}/\gamma$
of the bulk excitation at that time and, ultimately, the virtuality $K=\sqrt{|k^2|}$ of the typical
quanta composing the decaying system at time $\acute{t}$\,: the UV/IR correspondence implies
$K\simeq 1/z=\gamma/\acute{t}$. For what
follows it is convenient to fix the transverse coordinate of the observation point --- namely,
we choose $x_\perp\simeq 0$ (with uncertainty $\sigma$) --- and explore the longitudinal
region behind the light--cone ($x_-=0$) on a resolution scale $\delta x_-$ which is allowed
to vary. As usual, this resolution is controlled by the longitudinal momentum of the probe,
$\delta x_-\simeq 1/\Delta_+$, and is limited by the longitudinal width
$\sigma_-\sim \sigma/\gamma$ of the original wave--packet. The best possible
resolution $\delta x_-\simeq \sigma_-$ (corresponding to a maximal momentum transfer
$\Delta_+\sim \gamma/\sigma$)
has been implicitly used in the calculation of the three--point function
`at a given space--time point', cf. \eqn{Eparticle} and \eqref{EIMF}.
But for the present purposes we shall also allow for less precise measurements,
with $\Delta_+\ll 1/\sigma_-$.
Starting with \eqn{tp}, inserting $x_\perp=0$ and $t- x_3=\sqrt{2}/\Delta_+$, and switching
to light--cone coordinates, one easily finds (we use the notation $\tau\simeq\sqrt{2}t$ for
the light--cone time of measurement and similarly
$\acute\tau\simeq\sqrt{2}\acute{t}$ for the emission time)
\begin{equation}\label{acutetau}
\acute\tau\,\simeq\,\frac{\tau}{1+\frac{\tau\Delta_+}{4\gamma^2}}\,.\end{equation}
There are two interesting limiting cases:
\texttt{(i)} {\em High longitudinal resolution:~} $\Delta_+\gg \gamma^2/\tau$. In this case,
the probe can discriminate longitudinal distances $\delta x_-\simeq 1/\Delta_+$
which are much smaller
than the upper limit $\Delta x_-\sim \tau/\gamma^2$ enforced by causality and Lorentz
contraction. Then \eqn{acutetau} implies
\begin{equation}\label{acute1}
\acute\tau\,\simeq\,\frac{4\gamma^2}{\Delta_+}\,\ll\,\tau.\end{equation}
It is also interesting to estimate (using the UV/IR correspondence)
the typical virtuality and longitudinal momentum of a
quantum from the target at time $\acute\tau$~:
\begin{equation}\label{K1}
K\,\simeq\,\frac{\sqrt{2}\gamma}{ \acute\tau}\,\simeq\,
\frac{\Delta_+}{2\sqrt{2}\gamma}\,,\qquad k_+\,\simeq\, \sqrt{2}\gamma\,K
\simeq\, \frac{\Delta_+}{2}\,.\end{equation}
The last condition ($k_+\sim \Delta_+$) is very interesting: this is the expected
matching condition between the quanta from the target which emit the
relatively hard signal and the resolution of the probe. Remarkably, this condition
holds here at the `emission time' $\acute\tau$ and not at the measurement time
$\tau$. This is in agreement with our expectation that such hard quanta can only
exist at very early times in the history of the decay. In fact, the above results can be
combined to yield $\acute\tau\simeq k_+/K^2$, which is the time interval required
via the uncertainty principle for the emission of a quantum with
longitudinal momentum $k_+$ and virtuality $K^2$.
The above discussion makes it natural to identify the `emission time' $\acute{t}$
(or $\acute\tau$) in the SUGRA calculation with the time at which the signal measured
by the probe operator at time $t$ (or $\tau$) has been {\em actually emitted} by
the decaying system in the underlying quantum field theory.
Returning to \eqn{acutetau}, let us also consider the other interesting limiting case, namely :
\texttt{(ii)} {\em Low longitudinal resolution:~} $\Delta_+\ll \gamma^2/\tau$. In this case,
the probe cannot discriminate any longitudinal substructure, but, interestingly,
it can explore the state of the system at relatively late times,
close to the time $\tau$ of measurement. Indeed,
\eqn{acutetau} implies
\begin{equation}\label{acute2}
\acute\tau\,\simeq\,\tau\,,\qquad K\,\sim\,\frac{\gamma}{\tau}\,,
\qquad k_+\,\sim\,\frac{\gamma^2}{\tau}\,.
\end{equation}
This can be understood as follows:
the probe is now much softer ($\Delta_+\ll k_+$) than the typical quanta in the
decaying system at time $\tau$, so it can interact with the latter without
significantly disturbing them.
\comment{
Note also that the longitudinal momentum $\Delta_+$ of the probe is not necessarily larger
than its virtuality $\Delta\sim K\sim {\gamma}/{\tau}$ (and in any case is much smaller
than $\gamma\Delta$), so the kinematics of the probe is typically space--like.
Note finally that by progressively decreasing $\Delta_+$ from the maximal value
$\gamma/\sigma$ towards $\gamma^2/\tau$, one can increase the value of the interaction
time \eqref{acutetau} and thus explore the state of the decaying system at different stages
of its evolution. For a fixed and relatively high resolution $\Delta_+\gg \gamma^2/\tau$,
the signal will look very much like in Fig.~\ref{fig:signal}, that is, an arc of a spherical
shell which propagates at the speed of light with constant width $\delta x_-\simeq 1/\Delta_+$.
Due to the conformal nature of the ${\mathcal N}=4$ SYM theory, the very same
result would be obtained for any value of the coupling, but the underlying physics
would be different at weak coupling. In particular, at zero coupling, there is
no quantum broadening; so, if the signal corresponding to $\Delta_+\ll \gamma/\sigma$ looks
quite wide ($\delta x_-\gg \sigma_-$), it is just because of the comparatively poor
resolution of the probe. At strong coupling, on the other hand, we expect strong broadening,
yet the signal keeps a constant width $\delta x_-\simeq 1/\Delta_+$ because
the probe `selects' partons with $k_+\simeq\Delta_+$ in the early history of the target.
}
So far, we have considered a probe with a fixed longitudinal resolution
$\delta x_-\simeq 1/\Delta_+$, that is, we have focused on a single Fourier mode,
with longitudinal momentum $\Delta_+$, of the probe operator. But a similar discussion
applies to a three--point function in coordinate space, like $\mathcal{E}_q(x)$.
The associated Fourier
decomposition involves an integral over all values of $\Delta_+$, but in practice this
integral is dominated by its upper limit $\Delta_+\sim \gamma/\sigma$, which is the maximal
value allowed by energy--momentum conservation. Then, \eqn{acute1} implies
$\acute\tau\sim\gamma\sigma$ and therefore $z\sim\sigma$. This explains
why the whole contribution to the backreaction `at a given space--time point' comes from
very small $z\lesssim\sigma$.
The fact that the signal propagates at the speed of light and without broadening
can be qualitatively understood as a consequence of kinematics. Given that this signal is
carried along by essentially a single mode of the probe --- the one with the maximal value of
$\Delta_+$ ---, it naturally preserves a constant width $\delta x_-\sim \sigma/\gamma$.
And a signal which propagates with $t-x_3=$~const. over a large period of time is
necessarily luminal.
\comment{A more formal argument can be constructed as follows: the relevant
Fourier mode of the signal involves the phase
\begin{equation}
{\rm e}^{i\Delta\cdot x}\,=\,{\rm e}^{-i\Delta_-x_+ -i\Delta_+x_- +i\bm{\Delta}_\perp
\cdot \bm{x}_\perp}\,\end{equation}
where $x_+\equiv\tau$ and $\Delta_+\sim \gamma/\sigma$ (since the integral over
$\Delta_+$ is dominated by its upper limit, as alluded to above). This immediately
implies that the longitudinal width remains constant: $x_-\sim 1/\Delta_+ \sim \sigma_-$.
(There is no broadening since larger values $x_-\gg \sigma_-$ are suppressed by
rapid oscillations.) Furthermore, for large times $\tau\gg\sigma_+\sim\gamma\sigma$,
the integrals over $\Delta_-$ and ${\Delta}_\perp$ are dominated by $\Delta_-\sim 1/\tau$
and ${\Delta}_\perp\sim \gamma/\tau$, respectively (recall that $x_\perp\lesssim \tau/\gamma$).
Accordingly, the virtuality of the propagating mode is $\Delta^2= -2\Delta_+\Delta_-
+{\Delta}_\perp^2\sim - \gamma/\sigma\tau$, which is negative (time--like), but small,
meaning that the mode is {\em nearly light--like}. Specifically, the ratio $|\Delta^2|/\Delta_+^2
\sim \sigma/\gamma\tau$ can be made arbitrarily small by increasing $\tau$, which shows
that the mode propagates indeed at the speed of light.
The lack of broadening in the three--point function at strong (more generally,
finite) coupling follows from the fact
the width of the signal is controlled by the resolution of the probe and not by the dynamics
of the target. }
To summarize, a three--point function with high longitudinal resolution explores the state
of the target at very early time, much smaller than the time of measurement $t$.
Conversely, the only way how a three--point function can measure the state of
the target at $t$ is by giving up any precision in the longitudinal (or radial) direction.
These conclusions will be corroborated by the Fourier decomposition of
the three--point function to be presented in the next subsection.
\subsection{Momentum--space analysis of the backreaction}
\label{sec:Delta}
In this subsection,
we shall compute the Fourier transform of the result in \eqn{EIMF} for the
three--point function in a highly boosted frame. We shall use a mixed Fourier representation
which involves the component ${\hat T}_{++}(\tau,\Delta_+,{\bm \Delta}_\perp)$ of the
probe operator. As explained towards the end of Sect.~\ref{sec:WP}, this mixed
representation contains the essential information that we need about the probe,
namely the time of measurement $\tau$, assumed to be large ($\tau\gg\sigma_+$),
and the associated, longitudinal and transverse, resolutions: $\delta x_-\sim 1/{\Delta_+}$
and $\delta x_\perp\sim {1}/{\Delta_\perp}$.
This change of representation is useful for several purposes.
First, it will facilitate the comparison
with the zeroth order calculation at weak coupling, to be presented in the
next section. Second, it will substantiate the argument developed
in the previous subsection, concerning the correlation between the resolution of the
probe and the time of interaction (cf. \eqn{acutetau}) . Third, it will allow us to
explicitly check that the narrow signal seen in coordinate space corresponds
to a light--like mode of the probe operator.
For the latter purposes, it is preferable to perform the Fourier
transform {\em before} computing the integral over $\acute{t}$ in \eqn{EApart}.
Consider for illustration the first term, ${\mathcal{E}}_{A}$, in \eqn{EApart}. By using simplifications
appropriate at high energy, cf. \eqn{gammaL}, and changing the integration variable
from $\acute{t}$ to $z=\acute{t}/\gamma$, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{tildeEdef}
\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{A}(\tau,\Delta_+,{\bm \Delta}_\perp)
&\,\equiv\,\int {\rm d} x_-{\rm d}^2 \bm{x}_\perp
{\rm e}^{i\Delta_+ x_--i {\bm \Delta}_\perp\cdot\bm{x}_\perp}\,
\mathcal{P}_A(\tau,x_-,\bm{x}_\perp)\\
\,=\,\frac{2q_+ \tau}{\pi}&
\int{\rm d} x_-{\rm d}^2 \bm{x}_\perp
{\rm d} z\,z\,
\delta''\bigg(2x_-\big(\tau-\sqrt{2}\gamma z\big)-x_\perp^2 -
\frac{z\tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}\bigg)\,
{\rm e}^{i\Delta_+ x_--i {\bm \Delta}_\perp\cdot\bm{x}_\perp}\,
\,.\nonumber
\end{align}
The double prime on the $\delta$--function within the integrand denotes
two derivatives w.r.t. its argument. It is convenient to rewrite one of
them as a derivative w.r.t. $z$ and perform an integration by parts to
deduce
\begin{equation}\label{tildeE0}
\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_A
\,=\,{4q_+ \tau}
\int \frac{{\rm d} x_-{\rm d} x_\perp
{\rm d} z}{2\sqrt{2}\gamma x_- + \frac{\tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}}
\,
\delta'\bigg(2x_-\big(\tau-\sqrt{2}\gamma z\big)-x_\perp^2 -
\frac{z\tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}\bigg)x_\perp
{\rm J}_0(\Delta_\perp x_\perp)\,
{\rm e}^{i\Delta_+ x_-}\,
\,.
\end{equation}
The Bessel function ${\rm J}_0(\Delta_\perp x_\perp)$ has been generated by
the angular integration over the azimuthal angle of $\bm{x}_\perp$. We
shall now express the remaining derivative of the $\delta$--function as a
derivative w.r.t. $x_\perp$ and again perform an integration by parts, to
obtain (recall that ${\rm J}_1(x) =- {\rm d}{\rm J}_0/{\rm d} x$)
\begin{equation}\label{tildeE1}
\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_A
\,=\,{2q_+ \tau}
\int \frac{{\rm d} x_- {\rm e}^{i\Delta_+ x_-}}
{2\sqrt{2}\gamma x_- + \frac{\tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}}
\left\{\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}\gamma x_- + \frac{\tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}}
-\,\frac{\Delta_\perp}{2}\int_0^{z_{\rm max}}{\rm d} z\,
\frac{{\rm J}_1\big(\Delta_\perp X_\perp(z)\big)}{X_\perp(z)}
\right\}
\,.\end{equation}
In writing the above, we have also used the $\delta$--function to perform
the integral over $z$ in the first term within the accolades (the
boundary term) and respectively the integral over $x_\perp$ in the second
term, and we have denoted
\begin{equation}\label{Xz} X_\perp(z)\,\equiv\,\sqrt{2x_-\tau- z\Big(
2\sqrt{2}\gamma x_- + \frac{\tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}\Big)}\,.\end{equation}
The upper limit $z_{\rm max}$ in the integral over $z$ is determined by
the condition $X_\perp(z_{\rm max})=0$, which yields
\begin{equation}\label{zmax}
z_{\rm max}\,=\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}\,
\frac{\tau}{1+\frac{\tau}{4\gamma^2x_-}}\,.\end{equation}
Recalling that $z=\acute{t}/\gamma\simeq\acute\tau/\sqrt{2}\gamma$ and
using $x_-\lesssim 1/\Delta_+$, this upper limit is clearly consistent with our previous
estimate for the (maximal) emission time $\acute\tau$ in \eqn{acutetau}.
We now change variables in
the integral over $z$ according to $z\to \xi\equiv \Delta_\perp
X_\perp(z)$, which gives
\begin{align}\label{tildeE2}
\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_A
\,=\,&{2q_+ \tau}
\int \frac{{\rm d} x_- {\rm e}^{i\Delta_+ x_-}}
{\Big[2\sqrt{2}\gamma x_- + \frac{\tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}\Big]^2}
\left\{1-\int_0^{\Delta_\perp\sqrt{2x_-\tau}}{\rm d} \xi\,
{\rm J}_1(\xi)\right\}\nonumber\\
\,=\,&{4q_+ } \,\frac{\gamma^2}{\tau}\,
\int \frac{{\rm d} x_- {\rm e}^{i\Delta_+ x_-}}
{\Big[1 + \frac{4\gamma^2 x_-}{\tau}\Big]^2}
\,{\rm J}_0\big(\Delta_\perp\sqrt{2x_-\tau}\,\big)\,.
\end{align}
The Fourier transform of the second term ${\mathcal{E}}_{B}$ in \eqn{EApart}
can be similarly computed (in particular, this introduces the same upper limit
$z_{\rm max}$ on $z$ as shown in \eqn{zmax})
and the final result reads
\begin{align}\label{tildeP}
\tilde{\mathcal{P}}_q\,\simeq\, 2 \big(\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_A+\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_B\big)
\,=\,{8q_+ } \,\frac{\gamma^2}{\tau}\,
\int \frac{{\rm d} x_- {\rm e}^{i\Delta_+ x_-}}
{\Big[1 + \frac{4\gamma^2 x_-}{\tau}\Big]^3}
\,{\rm J}_0\big(\Delta_\perp\sqrt{2x_-\tau}\,\big)\,,
\end{align}
where we have used the relation ${\mathcal{P}}_q\simeq\ 2 {\mathcal{E}}_q$ valid
at high energy.
In order to evaluate the remaining integral over $x_-$, we shall
perform approximations appropriate to the two interesting limiting regimes:
$\Delta_+\gg \gamma^2/\tau$ and respectively $\Delta_+\ll \gamma^2/\tau$.
\texttt{(i)} {\em High longitudinal resolution:~} $\Delta_+\gg \gamma^2/\tau$.
In this case, the typical values of $x_-$ contributing to the integral in
\eqn{tildeP} obey $x_-\lesssim 1/{\Delta_+}\ll \tau/\gamma^2$, so one can
neglect the second term in the denominator of the integrand. This
yields
\begin{align}\label{tildeELL}
\tilde{\mathcal{P}}_q
\,\simeq\ &{8q_+ } \,\frac{\gamma^2}{\tau}\,
\int_0^\infty {{\rm d} x_- {\rm e}^{i\Delta_+ x_-}}
\ {\rm J}_0\big(\Delta_\perp\sqrt{2x_-\tau}\,\big)\,=\,
i \,{8q_+ } \,\frac{\gamma^2}{\tau \Delta_+}\,
{\rm e}^{-i\frac{\Delta_\perp^2}{2\Delta_+}\tau}\,.
\end{align}
The complex exponential can be rewritten as ${\rm e}^{-i\Delta_-\tau}$ with
$\Delta_-={\Delta_\perp^2}/{2\Delta_+}$. This relation
${2\Delta_+\Delta_-}={\Delta_\perp^2}$ is recognized as
the mass--shell condition for a light--like
mode. (In fact, if one performs the remaining Fourier transform $\tau\to\Delta_-$
in \eqn{tildeELL}, one finds a result proportional to $\delta(2\Delta_+\Delta_--
\Delta_\perp^2)$.) This light--like mode with high longitudinal resolution is emitted at
the early time $\acute\tau\sim \gamma^2/\Delta_+\ll \tau$ and then propagates
at the speed of light up to the measurement time $\tau$. The Fourier transform
of \eqn{tildeELL} back to coordinate space is dominated by the highest possible
values for $\Delta_+$, namely $\Delta_+^{\rm max}\simeq \gamma/\sigma$, which
explains why the support of the signal in coordinate space lies on the
light--cone\footnote{For a generic upper limit $\Delta_+^{\rm max}$, the signal,
while propagating
at the speed of light, would be shifted from the light--cone by a distance $\delta x_-\sim
1/\Delta_+^{\rm max}$.}
($x_-\simeq x_\perp^2/2x_+$), with an uncertainty $\delta x_-\sim\sigma_-$
introduced by the width of the original wave--packet.
\texttt{(ii)} {\em Low longitudinal resolution:~} $\Delta_+\ll \gamma^2/\tau$. In
this case, the typical values of $x_-$ contributing to the integral in \eqn{tildeP}
are determined either by the Bessel function, which implies
$x_-\lesssim 1/(\tau\Delta_\perp^2)$, or by the denominator of the
integrand, which requires $x_-\lesssim \tau/\gamma^2$. The last constraint
implies that $\Delta_+ x_-\ll 1$ irrespective of the value of
$\Delta_\perp$, so we can replace ${\rm e}^{i\Delta_+ x_-}\simeq 1$. The
ensuing integral over $x_-$ can be exactly computed by changing
variables according to $x_-\equiv (\tau/4\gamma^2) u^2$~:
\begin{align}\label{tildeESL}
\tilde{\mathcal{P}}_q
\,\simeq\,& 4q_+
\int_0^\infty \frac{{\rm d} u \,u}{(1+u^2)^3}
\,{\rm J}_0\bigg(\frac{\Delta_\perp \tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}\,u\bigg)
\,=\,\frac{q_+}{2}\bigg(\frac{\Delta_\perp \tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}\bigg)^2
{\rm K}_2\bigg(\frac{\Delta_\perp \tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}\bigg)
\,\,,
\end{align}
with ${\rm K}_2$ the modified Bessel function of rank 2. Using $(x^2/2)\mathrm{K}_2(x)
\simeq 1$ for $x\ll 1$, we deduce that $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}_q\simeq q_+$ when
$\Delta_\perp \ll \gamma/\tau$. This is as expected: by causality, the decaying sytem
has a transverse size $\Delta x_\perp\sim\tau/\gamma$ and a longitudinal
size $\Delta x_-\lesssim\tau/\gamma^2$ , so when this is probed with much poorer,
transverse and longitudinal, resolutions, one sees the total energy $q_+$. In the opposite
limit $\Delta_\perp \gg \gamma/\tau$, the signal is exponentially suppressed (we recall
that $\mathrm{K}_2(x)\simeq\sqrt{{\pi}/{2x}}\,{\rm e}^{-x}$ for $x\gg 1$), meaning that the
three--point function does not exhibit any substructure with transverse size much
smaller than the overall size $\Delta x_\perp\sim\tau/\gamma$. This is again
as expected: when integrated over $x_-$, the three--point function looks
uniform in the transverse plane (at least, at points $x_\perp\ll\tau/\gamma$) simply
by symmetry, that is, as a consequence of the spherical symmetry of the signal
in the target rest frame. This can be also verified directly in coordinate space: by
integrating \eqn{EIMF} over $x_-$ or, equivalently, by performing the transverse
Fourier transform in \eqn{tildeESL}, one finds
\begin{equation}\label{EPERP}
\mathcal{P}_q(\tau,x_\perp)\,\equiv \int {\rm d} x_-\,
\mathcal{P}_q(x) \,\simeq\,
\frac{q_+}{2\pi \gamma^4}\,\frac{\tau^4}{
\Big(x_\perp^2 +\frac{\tau^2}{2\gamma^2}\Big)^3}
\,.
\end{equation}
Notice that the low resolution modes are typically {\em space--like}~: one has indeed
$\Delta_\perp \sim \gamma/\tau$ and $\Delta_-\sim 1/\tau$, hence $\Delta_\perp^2
\gg 2\Delta_+\Delta_-$.
Consider also the typical values of $z$ and $\acute{t}$ contributing to the
signal in \eqn{tildeESL}. By using \eqn{zmax} together with $x_-\sim
\tau/\gamma^2$, one finds $z_{\rm max}\sim \tau/\gamma$, which implies that
$\acute{t}=\gamma z$ is commensurable with $\tau$. Thus, as already argued
in the previous subsection, a three--point function with small $\Delta_+$
interacts with the target at times which are close to the time of measurement.
Yet, because of the low longitudinal resolution, this does not bring us any additional
information about the state of the system at $t$. The only physically relevant
information that we can extract from the three--point function is the energy density
per unit transverse area, \eqn{EPERP}, and this is independent of the actual
interaction time (as it involves an integration over all longitudinal coordinates).
\section{The three--point function at zero coupling}
\label{sec:zero}
In this section, we shall calculate the three--point function
\eqref{Edensity} in $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM in the other extreme limit: that of
a zero coupling. Our main purpose is to verify that the final result is
exactly the same as at infinitely strong coupling, as expected from the
following facts: \texttt{(i)} in a conformal theory like $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM
the general structure of a three--point function is fixed by conformal
symmetry together with the (quantum) dimensions of the involved
operators, and \texttt{(ii)} the ${\mathcal R}$--current and the
energy--momentum tensor are conserved quantities which are not
renormalized, that is, they have no anomalous dimensions. Accordingly,
the matrix element given in \eqn{Edensity} must be independent of the
coupling, and this is what shall explicitly check in what follows.
The result of the zeroth order calculation can be easily anticipated. In
this limit the time--like ${\mathcal R}$--current decays into a
fermion--antifermion (or scalar--antiscalar) pair, which then propagates
without further evolution. In the center of mass frame of the decay, two
back--to--back particles moving at the speed of light emerge. The
three--point function is not sensitive to correlations between the directions
of the two decay products, so the answer, in coordinate space, should
look the same as that of a thin spherical shell of energy whose radius
increases with the velocity of light. In the boosted frame in which we
shall actually do the calculation, the energy distribution should be
contracted to the part of the spherical shell having solid angle of size
$1/\gamma^2$ around the longitudinal axis (the $x_3$ axis along which the
decaying current is moving). As we shall see, this simple picture is
indeed faithfully reflected by the zeroth order result for the three--point
function. But as we shall later argue, this ability of the three--point
function to properly reflect the partonic structure of the decaying
system is in fact limited to zeroth order: it does not hold anymore after
including perturbative corrections at weak but non--zero coupling.
As before, we shall assume that the momentum components, $\Delta^\mu$, of
the energy--momentum tensor ${\hat T}_{++}$, are much less than the
momentum of the ${\mathcal R}$--current initiating the decay. Thus,
although we are evaluating a transition matrix element, the insertion of
${\hat T}_{++}$ affects the decay products in such a tiny way that the
matrix element corresponds to a faithful determination of the average
energy flow in the decay. This is of course limited to the present,
zeroth order, calculation, in which the two partons produced by the
original decay do not have the possibility to evolve anymore.
The fact that the three--point function in a conformal field theory is
independent of the coupling means that, in perturbation theory at least,
this quantity cannot correctly describe the flow of energy at non--zero
coupling, where branchings of the decay products occur. The quantum
evolution of the partons is on the other hand manifest in the
perturbative evaluation of the four--point function, to be presented in the
next two sections. As we shall see there, this evolution leads, at both weak
and strong coupling, to the longitudinal broadening of the energy flow in
the decay.
\subsection{The decay rate}
\label{sec:decay}
Our focus in the subsequent calculations at weak coupling will be on the
description of the average properties of the matter distribution produced
by the decay of a time--like ${\mathcal R}$--current in the $\mathcal{N}=4$
SYM theory. To that end it will be useful to have an evaluation of the
decay rate $\Gamma$ of the ${\mathcal R}$--current, an operation which
will also allow to introduce our notations. Indeed, in this perturbative
context, the three--point and four--point functions to be later computed need to
be divided by $\Gamma$ to ensure that they describe properties of a {\em
single} decay.
To lowest in perturbation theory, meaning to zeroth order in the gauge
coupling $g$ of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM and to order $e^2$ in the
`electromagnetic coupling' associated with the ${\mathcal R}$--charge,
the ${\mathcal R}$--current can decay into either a fermion--antifermion
pair, or into a pair of scalars. To keep the presentation as simple as
possible, we shall only explicitly evaluate the decay into fermions and
then simply indicate the changes which occur when adding the scalars. As
before, we shall work with an ${\mathcal R}$--current boosted along the
positive $x_3$ axis, with $q_+={Q^2}/{2q_-}\simeq \sqrt{2}\gamma Q$
and we shall evaluate the rate of decay $\Gamma_+$ per unit of
light--cone time $x_+$. To the order of interest and for the decay into a
pair of fermions, this reads
\begin{equation}\label{Gamma0}
\Gamma_+\,=\int\frac{{\rm d}^3 p}{(2\pi)^32p_+}\,\frac{{\rm d}^3 p'}
{(2\pi)^32p_+^\prime}\,\frac{1}{2q_+}\,\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{\lambda,\sigma,\sigma'}\Big|e\bar u_\sigma(p)\,
\gamma\cdot\varepsilon^{(\lambda)}\,v_{\sigma'}(p')\Big|^2
(2\pi)^4\delta^{(4)}(q-p-p')\,,\end{equation}
as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:decay}. The indices
$\lambda,\,\sigma,\,\sigma'$ refer to the helicities of the decaying
${\mathcal R}$--current, the fermion, and the antifermion, respectively.
\eqn{Gamma0} includes a sum over final helicities of the fermions and an
average (the factor $1/2$ in front of the sum symbol) over the initial
helicities of the current. (The decay rate being the same for any
helicity state, we consider here only the two transverse helicities:
$\lambda=\pm 1$.) The phase--space reads ${\rm d}^3 p={\rm d}^2\bm{p}_\perp {\rm d}
p_+$. To evaluate \eqn{Gamma0} it is convenient to use
\begin{equation}\label{ident}
{\rm d}^3 p \,{\rm d}^3 p'\,\delta^{(4)}(q-p-p')\,=\,q_+^2\,z(1-z){\rm d}
z{\rm d} \phi\,,\end{equation}
where $p_+=zq_+$, $p'_+=(1-z)q_+$, $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle of the
fermion, $\bm{p}_\perp = -\bm{p}^\prime_\perp$, and
\begin{equation}\label{perp}
p_\perp^2\,=\,z(1-z)Q^2\,.\end{equation}
One furthermore has
\begin{equation}\label{helicit}
e\bar u_\sigma(p)\,
\gamma\cdot\varepsilon^{(\lambda)}\,v_{\sigma'}(p')\,=\,
e\frac{\bm{\varepsilon}_\perp\cdot\bm{p}_\perp}{\sqrt{z(1-z)}}\,
\delta_{\sigma\sigma'}\big[\sigma(1-2z)-\lambda\big]\,.\end{equation}
Using the equations above, one finds
\begin{equation}\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{\lambda,\sigma,\sigma'}\Big|e\bar u_\sigma(p)\,
\gamma\cdot\varepsilon^{(\lambda)}\,v_{\sigma'}(p')\Big|^2\,=\,
2Q^2\big[z^2+(1-z)^2\big]\,,\end{equation}
and therefore
\begin{equation}\label{Gamma}
\Gamma_+\,=\,\frac{e^2}{8\pi^2}\frac{Q^2}{2q_+}\int{\rm d}\phi\int_0^1{\rm d}
z \big[z^2+(1-z)^2\big]\,=\,\frac{e^2}{6\pi}\,q_-\,.\end{equation}
The decay rate is usually written with respect to the ordinary time
variable $t$ in the {\em rest frame} of the decaying system. Using
$\Gamma_+ x_+ = \Gamma t$ and $q_- x_+ \simeq Qt/2$, one finally obtains
\begin{equation}\label{GammaRF}
\Gamma\,=\,\frac{e^2}{12\pi}\,Q\,,
\end{equation}
which is indeed the expected result for the decay of a vector meson with
mass $Q$ and purely vector coupling of strength $e$ into a pair of
massless fermions.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Figures/decay.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Decay of the ${\mathcal R}$--current into a
fermion--antifermion pair.}
\label{fig:decay}
\end{figure}
In $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM, we also need to include the respective scalar
contribution. This is done by replacing $z^2+(1-z)^2\to 1$ in the
integrand of \eqn{Gamma}, so we are finally led to
\begin{equation}\label{GammaSUSY}
\Gamma_+^{\rm SUSY}\,=\,\frac{e^2}{4\pi}\,q_-
\,=\,\frac{e^2 Q^2}{8\pi q_+}\,.\end{equation}
This is the factor which will be used to divide the 3 and four--point
functions to get properties of the final state normalized to a single
decay.
\subsection{The three--point function}
\label{sec:3pzero}
We now turn to evaluating the expectation value for the large component
of the energy--momentum tensor, $\hat T_{++}$, at late times in the decay
of the time--like ${\mathcal R}$--current, to zeroth order in the
coupling. As in the corresponding calculation at strong coupling, in
Sect.~\ref{sec:AdS}, we shall assume that the decay is initiated around
the space--time point $x^\mu=0$. In Sect.~\ref{sec:AdS}, this has been
enforced by using the wave--packet \eqref{ATLWP}. However, as we have
seen there, the widths of the WP did not play any role in the
calculations and in particular they dropped out from the final results,
like \eqref{Eparticle},
because the resolution of the probe was comparatively low
($\Delta_+\lesssim 1/\sigma_-\ll q_+$, etc). In that
respect, the situation will be the same at weak coupling. So, to simplify
the discussion, we shall omit the explicit use of a wave--packet for the
incoming ${\mathcal R}$--current, but rather use its (would--be central)
4--momentum $q^\mu=(q^0,0,0,q^3)$ in order to characterize its
localization in space and time.
A similar discussion applies to the probe: strictly speaking, one should use
the probe wave--packet introduced in \eqn{PROBEWP}. But as explained
there, the relevant information about the resolution
and the localization of the probe can be economically taken into account
by working in the mixed Fourier representation
$\hat T_{++}(\tau, \Delta_+, \bm{\Delta}_\perp)$.
This is precisely the Fourier component of the `backreaction'
at strong coupling that we have computed in Sect.~\ref{sec:Delta},
which will facilitate the comparison between the respective results.
To summarize, in this section we shall compute
(with ${\bm \Delta}=(\Delta_+,{\bm \Delta}_\perp)$) \begin{equation}\label{Tq3p}
T_q(\tau, {\bm \Delta})\,\equiv\,
\frac{e^2}{2q_+}\,\frac{1}{2}\sum_\lambda\int {\rm d}^4x
\,{\rm e}^{-iq\cdot x}\,\left\langle \hat J_\mu(x)\,
\hat T_{++}(\tau, {\bm \Delta})\,\hat J_\nu(0)\right
\rangle \,\varepsilon_\mu^{(\lambda)\,*}\,
\varepsilon_\nu^{(\lambda)}\,,
\end{equation}
in $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM at zeroth order in the gauge coupling. The final result of this
calculation, after being divided by the decay rate $\Gamma_+^{\rm SUSY}$,
\eqn{GammaSUSY}, will be shown to be identical with the results
previously obtained at infinitely strong coupling for the quantity
$\tilde{\mathcal{P}}_q(\tau, {\bm \Delta})$.
The evaluation of \eqn{Tq3p} proceeds much as for the decay rate
discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:decay}. The graph in Fig.~\ref{fig:3p0} shows
the energy--momentum tensor interacting with the fermion line, and there
is a corresponding graph where the momentum $\Delta$ comes off the
antifermion line. And there are of course also one--loop graphs involving
scalar fields to be added at the very end. The lines $p$, $p'$ and $\bar
p$ are on--shell, as required by the operator product in \eqn{Tq3p}; this
means e.g. $p_-=p_\perp^2/2p_+$. This also implies that the 4--momentum
$\Delta^\mu$ exchanged with the probe is space--like ($\Delta^2>0$), hence
the sense of the arrow of time on the corresponding leg is purely conventional.
(For definiteness, in Fig.~\ref{fig:3p0} we have chosen this line to be outgoing.)
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Figures/3p0.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The energy--momentum tensor interacting with the fermion line.}
\label{fig:3p0}
\end{figure}
For the diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:3p0} (emission from the fermion line),
the only differences with respect to the
calculation given in Sect.~\ref{sec:decay} are a factor of $p_+=zq_+$
(the coupling between the fermion and the operator $\hat T_{++}$ is proportional
to the longitudinal momentum $p_+$ of the former)
and the replacement of the phase space according to
\begin{equation}\label{phase}
{\rm d}^3 p \,{\rm d}^3 p'\,(2\pi)^4\delta^{(4)}(q-p-p')\,\longrightarrow\,
{\rm d}^3 p \,{\rm d}^3 p'\,{\rm d}^3\bar p\,(2\pi)^4\delta^{(4)}(q-p-p')
\,\delta^{(3)}(\bm{p}-\bar\bm{p}-\bm{\Delta})\,{\rm e}^{-i(p_--\bar p_-)
\tau}\,,\end{equation}
where within the 3--dimensional $\delta$--function, we have denoted
$\bm{p}=(p_+,\bm{p}_\perp)$ and similarly for $\bar\bm{p}$ and $\bm{\Delta}$.
After performing the trivial phase--space integrations using the
$\delta$--functions in \eqn{phase}, adding the $\Delta$--emission from the
anti--fermion line (this introduces an overall factor of 2)
and including the corresponding scalar
contributions (as before, this amounts to replacing $z^2+(1-z)^2\to 1$
within the integrand), we are left with
\begin{equation}\label{Tqzphi}
T_q(\tau,{\bm \Delta})\,=\,\frac{e^2Q^2}{8\pi^2} \int {\rm d} z {\rm d}\phi\,z
\,{\rm e}^{-i(p_--\bar p_-)
\tau}\,,\end{equation}
where $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle between the transverse vectors
$\bm{\Delta}_\perp$ and $\bm{p}_\perp$, and
\begin{equation}\label{pminus}
p_--\bar p_-\,=\,\frac{\bm{p}_\perp^2}{2p_+}\,-\,
\frac{(\bm{p}_\perp-\bm{\Delta}_\perp)^2}{2(p_+-\Delta_+)}\,,\end{equation}
with $p_+=zq_+$ and $p_\perp$ as given in \eqref{perp}.
Note that $\Delta_-\equiv p_--\bar p_-$
is the transfer of light--cone energy from the target to the probe.
So far, we have performed no
approximations. At this point we recall that $\Delta_+\ll q_+$, so unless
$z$ is extremely small (which, as we shall see, is generally not the case) we also
have $\Delta_+\ll p_+$. Then we can simplify \eqn{pminus} as
\begin{equation}\label{pminus1}
p_--\bar p_-\,\simeq\,\frac{\bm{p}_\perp\cdot\bm{\Delta}_\perp}{p_+}
\,-\,\frac{\Delta_\perp^2}{2p_+}\,-\,
\frac{p_\perp^2}{2p_+^2}\Delta_+\,,\end{equation}
or, after using $\bm{p}_\perp\cdot\bm{\Delta}_\perp=p_\perp
{\Delta}_\perp\cos\phi$, $q_+\simeq\sqrt{2} \gamma Q$, and the expression
\eqref{perp} for $p_\perp$,
\begin{equation}\label{pminus2}
p_--\bar
p_-\,\simeq\,\sqrt{\frac{1-z}{2z}}\,\frac{\Delta_\perp\cos\phi}{\gamma}
\,-\,\frac{\Delta_\perp^2}{2zq_+}\,-\,\frac{1-z}{4z}\,
\frac{\Delta_+}{\gamma^2}\,.
\end{equation}
Inserting this into \eqn{Tqzphi}, one can perform the integral over $\phi$
and thus find
\begin{equation}\label{Tq3p1}
T_q(\tau,{\bm \Delta})\,\simeq\,\frac{e^2Q^2}{4\pi} \int_0^1{\rm d} z\,z
\,{\rm J}_0\bigg(\sqrt{\frac{1-z}{2z}}\,\frac{\Delta_\perp\tau}{\gamma}
\bigg)\,\exp\bigg\{i\frac{\Delta_\perp^2}{2zq_+}\tau +i
\frac{1-z}{4z}\,
\frac{\Delta_+}{\gamma^2}\tau\bigg\}\,.\end{equation}
From now on, we shall distinguish, for convenience, between the two
kinematical regimes already introduced in the discussion of the backreaction:
$\Delta_+\ll \gamma^2/\tau$ (low longitudinal resolution) and respectively $\Delta_+\gg
\gamma^2/\tau$ (high longitudinal resolution).
\subsubsection{Low longitudinal resolution: $\Delta_+\ll \gamma^2/\tau$}
\label{sec:spacelike}
When $\Delta_+\ll \gamma^2/\tau$ and $z$ is not extremely small, both
terms in the exponential are much smaller than one and hence can be
neglected. This is true by assumption for the second term, and it is also
true for the first term since, as we shall shortly see, at large times
one has $\Delta_\perp\lesssim\gamma/\tau$. (Recall that we consider large
times $\tau\gg\gamma\sigma\gtrsim\gamma/Q$.) Then
\begin{equation}\label{Tq3p2}
T_q(\tau,{\bm \Delta})\,\simeq\,\frac{e^2Q^2}{4\pi} \int{\rm d} z\,z
\,{\rm J}_0\bigg(\sqrt{\frac{1-z}{2z}}\,\frac{\Delta_\perp\tau}{\gamma}
\bigg)\,,\end{equation}
which can be exactly integrated (the change of variables $z=1/(1+u^2)$ is
useful in that respect), to finally yield
\begin{equation}\label{Tq3pA}
T_q(\tau,{\bm \Delta})\,\simeq\,\frac{e^2Q^2}
{16\pi}\,\left(\frac{\Delta_\perp\tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}\right)^2\,
{\rm K}_2\bigg(\frac{\Delta_\perp \tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}\bigg)\,.\end{equation}
As anticipated, the integral over $z$ in \eqn{Tq3p2} is not particularly
sensitive to very small values $z\to 0$ and the final result in
\eqn{Tq3pA} has support at $\Delta_\perp\lesssim\gamma/\tau$. Also, one
can check that the typical probe kinematics is {\em deeply space--like}~:
the light--cone energy of the probe $\Delta_-\equiv p_--\bar p_-$ is dominated
by the first term in the r.h.s. of \eqn{pminus2}, which yields $\Delta_-\sim
\Delta_\perp/\gamma$~; hence, for $\Delta_\perp\lesssim\gamma/\tau$ and
$\Delta_+\ll \gamma^2/\tau$, one has indeed $\Delta_\perp^2\gg
2\Delta_+\Delta_-$.
After normalizing by the decay rate \eqref{GammaSUSY}, we obtain the
respective quantity for a single decay:
\begin{equation}\label{Tq3pGamma}
\frac{T_q(\tau,{\bm \Delta})}{\Gamma_+^{\rm SUSY}}\,\simeq\,
\frac{q_+}{2}\bigg(\frac{\Delta_\perp \tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}\bigg)^2
{\rm K}_2\bigg(\frac{\Delta_\perp \tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}\bigg)
\,.\end{equation}
\eqn{Tq3pGamma} coincides, as expected, with the respective result of the
backreaction at infinitely strong coupling, presented in \eqn{tildeESL}.
As already discussed in that strong--coupling context, there is no
difficulty in interpreting this result as the average energy measured by
a probe with strongly space--like kinematics: such a probe has a poor
longitudinal resolution, hence it measures the energy integrated over the
radial profile of the decaying system, within a transverse region with
radius $\delta x_\perp\sim 1/\Delta_\perp$. This energy is correctly
given by \eqn{Tq3pGamma} or \eqref{tildeESL} for any value of the
coupling. What changes from weak to strong coupling is the radial
distribution of the energy. In particular, it is only in the zero
coupling limit that this radial distribution is correctly measured by the
three--point function \eqref{Tq3p}, as we shall explain in the next
subsection.
\subsubsection{High longitudinal resolution: $\Delta_+\gg \gamma^2/\tau$}
By choosing $\Delta_+\gg \gamma^2/\tau$, one ensures a fine longitudinal
resolution in the $x_-$ region populated by the decay. To analyze this
case, one can again rely on \eqn{Tq3p1}, which remains valid so long as
$\Delta_+\ll q_+$. Now, however, we cannot neglect the exponential
factors in \eqn{Tq3p1} anymore. Also, there is no way how the two
potentially large phases could compensate with each other, as they are
both positive definite. So, the only way to avoid strong oscillations is
that both phases separately remain of order one, or smaller. When applied to the
second phase, this condition implies that $1-z$ must be small. By using
$z\simeq 1$ together with the change of variables $u=1-z$, one can write
\begin{align}\label{Tq3p3}
T_q(\tau,{\bm \Delta}) &\,\simeq\,\frac{e^2Q^2}{4\pi} \int_0^\infty{\rm d} u
\,{\rm J}_0\bigg(\sqrt{u}\,\frac{\Delta_\perp\tau}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}
\bigg)\,\exp\bigg\{i\frac{\Delta_\perp^2 \tau}{2q_+} +i {u}\,
\frac{\Delta_+ \tau}{4\gamma^2}\bigg\}\nonumber\\
&\,\simeq\,\frac{ie^2Q^2\gamma^2}{\pi\Delta_+\tau}
\,\exp\bigg\{i\frac{\Delta_\perp^2 \tau}{2q_+} -i\frac{\Delta_\perp^2\tau}{2\Delta_+}
\bigg\}
\,,\end{align}
where the $u$ integration has been extended to $u\to\infty$ because only
the small $u$ region is important for the integral and we have
used the formula
\begin{equation}
\int_0^\infty{\rm d} u\,{\rm J}_0 (a\sqrt{u})\,{\rm e}^{iub}\,=\,\frac{i}{b}\,
{\rm e}^{-i\frac{a^2}{4b}}\,.\end{equation}
Using $\Delta_+\ll q_+$, it is clear that the dominant phase in the final
result in \eqn{Tq3p3} is the {\em second} phase there. This phase
constraints the values of the probe momenta such that
$({\Delta_\perp^2}/{2\Delta_+})\tau\sim 1$ and when this happens the first phase
$i({\Delta_\perp^2\tau}/{2q_+})$ is much smaller than one and can be ignored.
For consistency with the previous manipulations, let us notice that the integral in
\eqn{Tq3p3} is controlled by values of $u$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{u}
u\, \sim\, \frac{\gamma^2\Delta_\perp^2}{\Delta_+^2}\,\sim\,
\frac{\gamma^2}{\tau \Delta_+}\,\ll\,1,\end{equation}
where the second estimate holds when $\Delta_+ /\tau\sim \Delta_\perp^2$.
After neglecting the small phase in the second line of \eqn{Tq3p3} and
dividing the result by the decay rate
\eqref{GammaSUSY}, we finally obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Tq3pGammaB}
\frac{T_q(\tau,{\bm \Delta})}{\Gamma_+^{\rm SUSY}}\,\simeq\,
\frac{8i\gamma^2 q_+}{\Delta_+\tau}\,
\,{\rm e}^{-i\frac{\Delta_\perp^2}{2\Delta_+}\,\tau}\,.\end{equation}
Once again, this coincides with the respective result at strong coupling,
\eqn{tildeELL}. As explained there, the typical value of the light--cone
energy (the quantity conjugate to the time of measurement $\tau$) is
$\Delta_-={\Delta_\perp^2}/{2\Delta_+}$, as expected for light--like kinematics.
This is indeed consistent with our previous estimate
$\Delta_-= p_--\bar p_-$ for this quantity, as it can be checked by
using \eqn{pminus2} for $p_--\bar p_-$ together with $u=1-z$ from \eqn{u}.
\comment{To establish this interpretation, we return to \eqn{Tq3p}. The
phases inside the integrand there show that the light--cone energies,
$p_-$ and $\bar p_-$, of the parton prior and respectively after its
interaction with the energy--momentum tensor must obey $p_-\,,\bar
p_-\lesssim 1/\tau$. These conditions can be rewritten as (cf.
\eqn{pminus1})
\begin{equation}
\frac{\bm{p}_\perp^2}{2p_+}\,,\quad
\frac{\bm{p}_\perp\cdot\bm{\Delta}_\perp}{p_+}\,,\quad
\frac{\Delta_\perp^2}{2p_+}
\,\lesssim\,\frac{1}{\tau}\,.\end{equation}
Since $\gamma^2/\tau < \Delta_+ < p_+$, the first condition above
requires the polar angle $\theta\sim p_\perp/p_+$ made by the vector
$\bm{p}$ with respect to the $x_3$ axis obey $\tau\theta^2\lesssim
1/\Delta_+$, or
\begin{equation}
\theta\,\lesssim\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau\Delta_+}}
\,\lesssim\,\frac{1}{\gamma}\,.\end{equation}
Similarly, the condition
${\bm{p}_\perp\cdot\bm{\Delta}_\perp}/{p_+}\lesssim 1/\tau$ requires the
angle $\theta_{p\Delta}$ between the vectors $\bm{p}$ and $\bm{\Delta}$
obey $\Delta_+ \theta_{p\Delta}^2\lesssim 1/\tau$, so that
$\theta_{p\Delta}\lesssim\theta$ and the angle that $\bm{\Delta}$ makes
with the $x_3$ axis cannot be larger than $\theta$. This in turn implies
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta_\perp}{\Delta_+}\,\lesssim\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau\Delta_+}}
\quad \Longrightarrow\quad
\frac{\Delta_\perp^2}{2\Delta_+}\,\tau\,\lesssim\,1\,,\end{equation}}
What is however specific to the zero--coupling limit at hand
is the fact that, in this limit, \eqn{Tq3pGammaB} is the Fourier
transform of a real measurement. This is possible since the probe
is now soft as compared to the parton (fermion or scalar)
that it interacts with: $\Delta_+\ll p_+=zq_+$ and $\Delta_\perp
\ll p_\perp$. (The second condition follows by using \eqn{perp} and \eqn{u}
to successively write $p_\perp\simeq\sqrt{u} Q \sim (q_+/\Delta_+)\Delta_\perp\gg \Delta_\perp$.)
So, for this particular problem, even a probe with relatively
`high resolution' (which can discriminate
longitudinal and transverse structures much smaller than the maximal respective
sizes, $\Delta x_-\sim \tau/\gamma^2$ and $\Delta x_\perp\sim \tau/\gamma$, permitted
by causality) is still
soft enough to provide a coarse--grained measurement over a volume much larger than
the volume occupied by the struck parton. Since $z\simeq 1$, the struck parton
carries most of the original photon energy: $p_+=zq_+\simeq q_+$. Accordingly, we expect the result
\eqref{Tq3pGammaB} to equal this energy $q_+$ times the probability for the trajectory of
the (small) parton to intersect the (comparatively) large area of the `detector'. And indeed,
the prefactor in \eqref{Tq3pGammaB} can be given such
a simple geometric interpretation, as we now argue.
Namely, the decay occurs over a solid angle
$1/\gamma^2$. The measurement covers a region with
transverse area $1/{\Delta}_\perp^2$ and hence a solid angle $\sim
1/({\Delta}_\perp\tau)^2$. Thus the measurement covers a fraction
$(\gamma/\Delta_\perp\tau)^2$ of the solid angle of the decay. When
$\Delta_\perp^2\sim \Delta_+/\tau$, this is the same as the prefactor in
\eqref{Tq3pGammaB} except for the factor $q_+$. Hence, \eqn{Tq3pGammaB}
is the fraction of the energy of the decaying system which
propagates within the solid angle covered by the `detector'.
\section{Jet evolution at weak coupling but late time}
\label{sect:jet}
With this section we begin the study of the four--point functions
introduced in \eqn{2point}, first in the context of perturbation theory at weak coupling.
As anticipated in Sect.~\ref{sec:WP}, these correlations correspond
to measurements which can actually probe the space--time distribution of matter
produced by the decaying system. This will be manifest in the subsequent discussion
of the situation at weak coupling, where we shall see that the four--point functions reveal
the partons and their evolution. First, in Sect.~\ref{sec:DGLAP} we shall introduce
the partonic fragmentation function of a jet and discuss its evolution at weak coupling
but late times. Then in Sect.~\ref{sec:4P} we shall relate this fragmentation
function to a specific four--point function (essentially, the function $\Pi_q$ in \eqn{2point})
that can be measured (at least in principle) via deep inelastic scattering.
\subsection{The general picture}
\label{sec:DGLAP}
We now turn to the case where the coupling constant of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM
is small, but non--zero. As before, we are interested in the matter
distribution produced by the decay of a time--like $\mathcal{R}$--current at
sufficiently large times --- much larger than the characteristic time
scale $\tau_0=2q_+/Q^2$ for the occurrence of the first decay. If one
waits for such long time, the two high--momentum partons produced by the
original decay must have evolved into a large number of softer partons.
In general if one wishes to keep track of the {\em number} of partons in
the evolution, both their small--$x$ and their DGLAP evolution are
important. However, if one only wishes to follow the time--dependence of
the {\em energy} distribution, the DGLAP evolution is sufficient. Indeed,
at weak coupling at least, the small--$x$ partons, although more
numerous, carry only a negligible fraction of the totale energy.
The DGLAP evolution characterizes the change in the parton distributions
(also known as `fragmentation functions' in the context of a time--like
evolution) with decreasing virtuality, from the original virtuality
$Q^2$ of the $\mathcal{R}$--current down to the virtuality scale of interest
$\mu^2$. This can be also viewed as an evolution in
time, by using the relation between the lifetime of a parton generation
and their virtuality given by the uncertainty principle (see \eqn{tform}
below). The fragmentation function $D(x, Q^2/\mu^2)$ represents
the number of partons of a given species (which for our present purposes can be
left unspecified) per unit $x$ and with virtuality comprised between
$Q^2$ and $\mu^2$. As we shall explain in the next subsection, this quantity
truly corresponds to a four--point function which can be measured via deep inelastic scattering.
In what follows, we shall assume that $\mu^2\ll Q^2$ and we
shall limit ourselves to the `leading--logarithmic
accuracy' (LLA), in which the DGLAP equation resums
powers of $\lambda\ln(Q^2/\mu^2)$ to all orders. This equation
is most conveniently solved via a Mellin transform $x\to j$. This introduces the
`anomalous dimension' $\gamma(j)$ (the Mellin transform of the DGLAP splitting
kernel), which to the accuracy of interest reads \cite{Kotikov:2002ab}
\begin{equation}\label{gamma}
\gamma(j)\,=\,\frac{\lambda}{4\pi^2}\Big(\psi(1)-\psi(j-1)\Big)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\psi(\gamma)\equiv {\rm d} \ln \Gamma(\gamma)/{\rm d}\gamma$ is the
di--gamma function. Then the fragmentation function $D(x, Q^2/\mu^2)$
is expressed as the inverse Mellin transform
\begin{equation}\label{DGLAP}
x^2 D(x, Q^2/\mu^2)\,=\int\frac{{\rm d} j}{2\pi i}\,{\rm e}^{(j-2)\ln(1/x)
+\gamma(j)\ln(Q^2/\mu^2)}\,,\end{equation}
where the $j$--integration goes parallel to the imaginary axis and to the
right of $j=1$. We used the initial condition
$D=\delta(x-1)$ when $Q^2=\mu^2$.
The factor $x^2$ has been introduced for convenience.
Indeed, we are mainly interested in finding what are the $x$--values of
the partons which carry most of the energy of the decay. To that aim, it
is useful to multiply $D(x, Q^2/\mu^2)$ by $x^2$, one factor of $x$ to
get an energy weighting and another one to count the number of partons.
(With the present conventions, the number of partons in an interval ${\rm d} x$ is ${\rm d}
N=D{\rm d} x$.)
We assume that $Q^2/\mu^2$ is very large, such that
$\lambda\ln(Q^2/\mu^2)\gg 1$, and then the integral over $j$ can be
evaluated in the saddle point approximation. The saddle point $j_s$ obeys
\begin{equation}\label{spjs}
\ln\frac{1}{x} + \gamma'(j_s)\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\,=\,0,\end{equation}
and leads to
\begin{equation}\label{DSP}
x^2 D(x, Q^2/\mu^2)\,\sim\,\left(\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right)^{
\gamma(j_s)-(j_s-2)\gamma'(j_s)}\,.\end{equation}
As already mentioned, we are interested in the values of $x$ which
maximize \eqref{DSP}. The maximum value of the function
$f(j)=\gamma(j)-(j-2)\gamma'(j)$ is $f(2)=0$, so the values of $x$ which
dominate the energy--momentum sum rule is given by \eqn{spjs} with
$j_s=2$, namely
\begin{equation}\label{spxc}
\ln\frac{1}{x_c} \,=\,- \gamma'(2)\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\,=\,
\frac{\lambda}{24}\,\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\,
.\end{equation}
We see that $x_c$ gets smaller as $\mu^2$ gets smaller, as expected in
view of our physical picture of parton branching. Now, since the
virtuality decreases along the branching process, it is convenient to
express $\mu^2$ in terms of the duration $\tau$ of the decay. To that
aim, we shall observe that, by the uncertainty principle, the partons with
longitudinal momentum fraction $x$ and virtuality $\mu^2$ have a formation time
\begin{equation}\label{tform}
\tau_{\rm form}\,\simeq\,\frac{2xq_+}{\mu^2}\,.\end{equation}
To be able to produce the partons with a given $x$ and $\mu^2$, the evolution must
occur over a time $\tau=\tau_{\rm form}(x, \mu^2)$. (If $\tau\ll\tau_{\rm form}$, such partons
have no time to be formed, whereas if $\tau\gg\tau_{\rm form}$, then they have already
decayed by the time of measurement into partons with smaller values for $x$ and $\mu^2$.)
These considerations show that, for a given $x$, one can express the lower end $\mu^2$
of the virtuality evolution in terms of the evolution time $\tau$, by equating
$\tau_{\rm form}(x, \mu^2)$ with $\tau$. This yields the following relation
\begin{equation}\label{tauxmu}
\frac{\tau}{\tau_0}\,=\,x\,\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\,\end{equation}
between $\tau$, $x$ and $\mu^2$. (We recall that $\tau_0=2q_+/Q^2$ is the formation time
for the first decay of the $\mathcal{R}$--current into a pair of partons.)
Using this relation for $x=x_c$, one can finally rewrite \eqn{spxc}
as an equation for the evolution of $x_c$ with $\tau$~:
\begin{equation}\label{xc}
\frac{1}{x_c}
\,\simeq\,\left(\frac{\tau}{\tau_0}\right)^{\lambda/24}\,.\end{equation}
This result explicitly shows which are the partons which carry most the energy of the
decaying system at a time $\tau$ after the decay has begun.
As expected, $x_c$ decreases with time, albeit only slowly (as a small inverse power of $\tau$),
because the evolution is slow when the coupling is weak.
\comment{
\subsection{The three--point function}
As mentioned earlier, the three--point function, as defined for example in
\eqn{Tq3p}, is not renormalized by radiative corrections. Thus the
evolution that we have just described in Sect.~\ref{sec:DGLAP} is not
visible to this three--point function, meaning that the latter cannot be a
good analyzer of the energy distribution and its evolution during the
decay. Suppose for instance we allow the decay to proceed over a long
time $\tau$ so that $x_c$, given by \eqn{xc}, is very small: $x_c\ll 1$.
If one tries to evaluate the three--point function in terms of quanta present
at $\tau$ (which is also the time of the $\hat T_{++}$ insertion in
\eqn{Tq3p}), we reach an apparent contradiction. If $\Delta_+\gg x_cq_+$,
the operator $\hat T_{++}(\tau, {\bm \Delta})$ has no elementary matrix
elements in terms of the quanta dominating the energy of the decay at
$\tau$. Yet, the result for the three--point function is non--vanishing (and
independent of the strength of the coupling), as we have seen. Hence,
there must be some high momentum parton states either in the amplitude,
or in the complex conjugate amplitude, of the decay --- but not in both
--- which allow the operator $\hat T_{++}(\tau, {\bm \Delta})$ to be
emitted or absorbed at $\tau$. These high--momentum parton modes are too
rare to show up in the analysis of Sect.~\ref{sec:DGLAP}, where it is the
{\em square} of the decay amplitude which is evaluated. But such modes
are apparently important for the transition matrix elements corresponding
to the three--point function. We have been unable to construct these modes
explicitly and hence to understand more completely this curious
phenomenon.
}
\subsection{The four--point function and deep inelastic scattering}
\label{sec:4P}
We now turn to an analysis of the decaying state by performing a deeply
inelastic scattering, at time $\tau$, on that state. We shall use an
$\mathcal{R}$--current not only to create the decaying system but also as
a probe to measure this decay via DIS. To better control the
space--time resolution and localization of the probe, we shall associate
a wave--packet to the respective $\mathcal{R}$--current,
\begin{equation} \label{jDelta}
\hat{J}_\mu(\tau,\Delta)\,\equiv\,\int {\rm d}^4y\,\psi_\Delta(y;\tau)
\,\hat{J}_\mu(x)\,,\end{equation}
with the probe wave--packet $\psi_\Delta(y;\tau)$ as introduced in
\eqn{PROBEWP}. To ensure a good resolution, this wave--packet needs
to be strongly space--like (see below for the precise conditions).
The `deep inelastic scattering' is the process where the decaying
time--like system absorbs the space--like probe current and thus evolves
into some arbitrary final state. The inclusive cross--section, also known as the
{\em DIS structure function}, is obtained by summing over all the possible final
states. Via the optical theorem, it can be related to the following
forward scattering amplitude, which is a Wightman function
\begin{equation}\label{Pidef}
\Pi_q(\tau, \Delta)\,\equiv\,
\frac{e^2}{2q_+}\,\frac{1}{2}\sum_\lambda\int {\rm d}^4x
\,{\rm e}^{-iq\cdot x}\,\left\langle \hat J_\mu(x)\,
\hat{J}_+(\tau,\Delta)\,\hat J_+(\tau,-\Delta)\,
\hat J_\nu(0)\right
\rangle \,\varepsilon_\mu^{(\lambda)\,*}\,
\varepsilon_\nu^{(\lambda)}\,.
\end{equation}
As manifest from the above writing, the 4--momentum $\Delta^\mu$ transferred to the target
by the first insertion of the probe current is then taken away by the second insertion, so
the target can be measured with high resolution without being perturbed, as anticipated
in Sect.~\ref{sec:WP}. Strictly speaking, the above statement refers only to the {\em central}
value $\Delta^\mu$ of the probe WP 4--momentum, but in this case one can chose the WP
to be strongly peaked in momentum at this central value, with negligible spread.
For reasons to later become clear, it is now preferable to choose $\Delta_+=0$ and use
the other components of the probe momentum, $\Delta_\perp$ and $\Delta_-$, to control
the transverse, longitudinal and temporal resolutions of the experiment.
These non--zero components can
be arbitrarily large and they have negligible spread, meaning that the corresponding
widths are relatively large: $\tilde\sigma_\perp\Delta_\perp\gg 1$ and
$\tilde\sigma_+\Delta_-\gg 1$. More precisely, we shall chose these widths
large enough for the detector to cover the whole spatial region where the
decaying system can be localized at time $\tau$, in order not to miss any
parton; this requires $\tilde\sigma_\perp\gtrsim \tau/\gamma$ and $\tilde\sigma_+
\gtrsim \tau/\gamma^2$. Also, as before, we require $\tilde\sigma_+\ll \tau$
in order for the time of measurement to be well defined. As we shall see, there is indeed
no difficulty to satisfy all these conditions for the problem at hand. In particular, the probe
is (strongly) space--like, $\Delta^2= \Delta_\perp^2 > 0$, as anticipated.
The perturbative analysis of deep inelastic scattering at weak coupling is well developed
in the literature and will be not repeated here, especially since the corresponding result
is already known to the accuracy of interest: the structure function \eqref{Pidef}
is proportional to the partonic fragmentation function introduced in Sect.~\ref{sec:DGLAP}.
In what follows, we shall simply explain the relation between the kinematics of DIS and the
variables $x$ and $Q^2/\mu^2$ of the fragmentation function. To that aim, we consider
the absorption of the current with momentum $\Delta$ by a parton with momentum $k$,
as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:dis}. The parton can be assumed to be on--shell both before
and after this interaction. This is implicit in our (Wightman) prescription for ordering the
operators in the four--point function. It is also physically reasonable, since the virtuality
$k^2\simeq\mu^2$ of the parton is much smaller than its longitudinal momentum squared
$k_+^2$ with $k_+=xq_+$. Hence, we can write $k^\mu\simeq(xq_+, 0, \bm{0}_\perp)$.
The on--shellness conditions $k^2=0$ and $(k+\Delta)^2=0$ then imply $\Delta^2_\perp=
2xq_+\Delta_-$, thus fixing the longitudinal momentum fraction $x$ of the struck parton.
The corresponding virtuality $\mu^2$ can be estimated as
in Sect.~\ref{sec:DGLAP}, by equating the time of measurement $\tau$ with the
formation time \eqref{tform}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Figures/dis.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The scattering of the current on a parton with momentum $k$.}
\label{fig:dis}
\end{figure}
The above considerations
motivate the following expression for the four--point function at hand:
\begin{align}\label{PiGamma}
\frac{4\pi^2\Delta_-}{\Gamma_+^{\rm SUSY}}\,\Pi_q(\tau,{\Delta})\,=\,x
D\big(x, {Q^2}/{\mu^2}, {\Delta_\perp^2}/{\mu^2}\big)\,,\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
x=\frac{{\Delta}_\perp^2}{2q_+\Delta_-}
\quad\mbox{and}\quad \mu^2=\frac{2x q_+}{\tau}
\,.\end{equation}
The fragmentation function in the r.h.s. of \eqn{PiGamma}
refers to partons with longitudinal fraction $x$, virtuality $\mu^2$ and
transverse area $1/{\Delta}_\perp^2$. The normalization factor in the l.h.s.
can be understood as follows: the fragmentation function counts the number
of partons in one decay, whereas the four--point function \eqref{Pidef} provides
an integrated version of this quantity over the typical duration $\delta x_+ \sim 1/\Delta_-$
of a collision between the probe and the target. Hence, to obtain the
number of partons per decay, one needs to divide $\Pi_q(\tau,{\Delta})$ by the
typical number of decays occurring during an interval $\delta x_+$, namely $\delta x_+
\Gamma_+^{\rm SUSY}$.
By the uncertainty principle, a parton with longitudinal momentum $k_+=xq_+$ is delocalized
over a distance $\Delta x_-\sim 1/xq_+$. Since our probe can actually `see' such partons,
we deduce that it has a longitudinal resolution $\delta x_-\sim 2\Delta_-/{\Delta}_\perp^2$.
This can be made arbitrarily small
by taking ${\Delta}_\perp$ to be sufficiently large.
In particular, for the typical partons that carry most of the total energy
at time $\tau$, \eqn{xc} implies
\begin{equation}
\delta x_-\,\gtrsim\,\frac{1}{x_c q_+}\,\simeq\,\frac{1}{q_+}
\left(\frac{\tau}{\tau_0}\right)^{\lambda/24}\,.\end{equation}
This grows with $\tau$, albeit only slowly: as intuitive from the picture of parton branching,
there is a spreading of the radiation in the longitudinal direction with increasing time, but
this spreading is slow, since so is the evolution.
In order for the scattering to give a well defined value for
$x$ as indicated above, it is important that the temporal uncertainty in
the wave--packet, $\tilde\sigma_+$, obey
\begin{equation}\label{longit}
\tau\,\gg\,\tilde\sigma_+\,\gg\,\frac{1}{\Delta_-}\,\simeq\,\frac{2xq_+}
{\Delta_\perp^2}\,.\end{equation}
Once again, this is easy to achieve so long as $\Delta_\perp$ is not too small. (In particular,
one needs $\Delta_\perp\gg \mu$, as clear by comparing
Eqs.~\eqref{longit} and \eqref{PiGamma}.) By the same
token, the temporal resolution $\delta x_+ \sim {1}/{\Delta_-}$ of the scattering
is extremely good: the space--like current
is absorbed over a very short time $\delta x_+ \ll \tilde\sigma_+$, hence it probes the state
of the decaying system at $\tau$.
Consider finally the dependence of the fragmentation function upon the parton
transverse size $\delta x_\perp \sim 1/\Delta_\perp$. This has not been mentioned in
Sect~\ref{sec:DGLAP}, since it is almost trivial in the present context:
the weakly--coupled partons are {\em point--like} (they occupy a negligible area in
the transverse space), hence the structure function is independent of the probe
transverse resolution $\Delta_\perp$ (for a
given value of the longitudinal momentum fraction $x$).
More precisely, there is a weak dependence, via powers of
$\lambda\ln({\Delta_\perp^2}/{\mu^2})$, which has been neglected in the discussion in
Sect~\ref{sec:DGLAP} and which is generated by the quantum evolution between
the virtuality scales $\mu^2$ and ${\Delta_\perp^2}$ of the struck parton and
of the probe, respectively. (This corresponds to radiative corrections to the interaction
vertex in Fig.~\ref{fig:dis} and is controlled by the space--like anomalous dimension
of the probe.) But such a weak dependence, which reflects the perturbative evolution
of the partons,
does not alter the basic fact that partons are essentially point--like\footnote{If the
situation was different, that is, if the partons had some intrinsic, time--dependent,
transverse size $r(\tau)$, then the fragmentation function would exhibit a strong,
geometric, dependence upon the variable $\Delta_\perp r(\tau)$ and in particular it
would rapidly die away when $\Delta_\perp r(\tau)\to\infty$ (since in that limit,
the probe would be unable to see the partons anymore).}.
To summarize, perturbation theory at weak coupling but large time predicts that the
decaying system evolves via successive parton branchings into partons which are
point--like in the transverse plane and whose longitudinal spreading (in the sense of their
deviation $\delta x_-$ from the light--cone $x_3=t$, where all the particles would be
located in the limit of a zero coupling) is slowly increasing with time.
\section{Witten diagrams at strong coupling}
\label{sec:Witten}
In the previous section we have seen that, at weak coupling, the four--point
function \eqref{Pidef} describes the quantum evolution of the decaying
system via parton branching, whereas the three--point function \eqref{Tq3p}
cannot do so. In what follows we would like to extend these findings to
strong coupling, by showing that the four--point function computed within
AdS/CFT from Witten diagrams shows indeed quantum broadening and no trace
of point--like substructures (`partons'). To that aim, we shall focus
directly on the space--like kinematics for the probe, since this is the
kinematics which has revealed partons at weak coupling.
Besides, we know by now that it is only with this kinematics that we can
access the state of the system at a time close to the measurement time.
The Witten diagrams involve interactions occurring inside
AdS$_5$ between the bulk excitations induced by the `target' and `probe' operators
from the boundary gauge theory. The interaction vertices are local in AdS$_5$ and
they can be connected via bulk--to--bulk propagators.
For simplicity, we shall perform our calculations in a scalar model for SUGRA
which is a scalar theory for a massless field in AdS$_5$ with trilinear interactions.
That is, the $\mathcal{R}$--currents from
the previous discussion will be replaced (for both the decaying system
and the probe) by scalar, `dilaton', operators, denoted as $\hat{\mathcal{O}}$.
This model generates Witten diagrams with the same topology as
the relevant SUGRA diagrams \cite{Hatta:2010kt},
but of course there are fewer such diagrams and with simpler vertices.
Although strictly speaking we modify the theory by doing that, we do not believe
that this could alter our conclusions. Indeed, here we are only interested
in very robust, qualitative, properties like the support of the four--point function
as a function of the probe kinematics. For a space--like probe at least,
such properties are captured (in the economy of the SUGRA calculation)
by the various bulk--to--boundary and bulk--to--bulk propagators,
but they are not sensitive to the detailed structure of the vertices.
To start with, in Sect.~\ref{sect:TL}
we shall present a careful construction, using wave packets,
of the bulk excitations corresponding to the target and the probe.
This will allow us to check some approximations used in the previous manipulations,
in particular the fact that one can treat the bulk excitation associated with the decaying
system as a `particle falling in AdS$_5$'. Then, in Sect.~\ref{sect:34pW}, we shall compute the three-- and four--point functions in the scalar model. The calculation of the three--point function is shown only for completeness, namely
to demonstrate that, even for such a scalar toy model, the Witten diagram provides a
result which is qualitatively consistent with the Fourier transform
of the backreaction computed in Sect.~\ref{sec:Delta}. The calculation of the four--point function confirms what we have been so far advocating, that jet evolution at strong coupling leads to total,
radial and transverse, broadening, with no trace of substructures.
This will be emphasized in the physical discussion of the results,
in Sect.~\ref{sec:phys}.
\subsection{Preliminaries: bulk excitations} \label{sect:TL}
As already explained in Sect.~\ref{sec:AdS}, the bulk excitations representing
the decaying system and the probe are obtained by propagating the respective
boundary fields towards the interior of AdS$_5$ with the help of
boundary--to--bulk propagators. From now on we shall restrict ourselves to
scalar perturbations, corresponding
to `dilaton' operators in the boundary field theory.
Consider first the decaying, time--like, system. The corresponding
boundary wave--packet will be taken as in \eqn{ATLWP} . The associated
bulk excitation reads
\begin{equation}\label{bulk}
\Phi_q(x,z)\,=\,\int\,{\rm d}^4y\,D(x-y,z)\,\phi(y)\,=\,
\int\,\frac{{\rm d}^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\,{\rm e}^{ip\cdot x} D(p,z)\,\phi_q(p)\,,
\end{equation}
where (with $\mathcal{N}'=\mathcal{N}\,(2\pi)^2 \sigma_+ \sigma_-
\sigma_\perp^2$)
\begin{equation}\label{phimom}
\phi_q(p)\,=\,\mathcal{N}'\,\exp\left\{-\frac{\sigma_-^2(p_+-q_+)^2}{2}
-\frac{\sigma_+^2(p_--q_-)^2}{2}-\frac{\sigma_\perp^2
p_\perp^2}{2}\right\}\,,\end{equation}
is the momentum--space version of \eqn{ATLWP} and (with $P^2\equiv p_\mu
p^\mu=-2p_+p_-+p_\perp^2$)
\begin{equation}\label{Dmom}
D(p,z) =
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle{\frac{z^2 P^2}{2}\,{\rm K}_2(P z)}
&\quad \text{if} \quad P^2>0,
\\*[0.25cm]
\displaystyle{\frac{i \pi z^2 |P|^2}{4}\,{\rm H}^{(1)}_2(|P| z)}
&\quad \text{if} \quad P^2<0,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
is the time--ordered (or Feynman) boundary--to--bulk propagator in momentum space.
(For the space--like modes and also for the time--like ones with positive energy,
this coincides with the respective retarded propagator.) Given the conditions \eqref{Asigma}
on the widths of the WP, it is clear that the typical momenta allowed in the
integral over $p^\mu$ in \eqn{bulk} are {\em time--like}, with
$-P^2\simeq Q^2$ and $p^0\simeq q^0 >0$.
As before, we are
interested in large times $x_+\gg \sigma_+\gg 1/q_-$. Then, as we shall
shortly see, the bulk excitation is localized at relatively large values
of $z$, such that $Qz\gg 1$. Accordingly, one can use the asymptotic
form, valid for $|P|z\gg 1$, for the Hankel function within the
propagator:
\begin{equation}\label{asymp}
{\rm H}^{(1)}_2(x)\,\simeq\,\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi
x}}\,{\rm e}^{ix-i({5\pi}/{4})}\qquad\mbox{when}\quad x\gg 1\,.\end{equation}
The momentum integral in \eqn{bulk} is then controlled by the condition
that several large and strongly oscillating phases compensate each other
within the integration domain allowed by the Gaussian WP \eqref{phimom}.
To clearly see these phases, it it convenient to change the integration
variable according to $p^\mu=q^\mu+k^\mu$ and then expand (with
$K^2\equiv -2k_+k_-+k_\perp^2$)
\begin{align}\label{exp}
|P| &=
\sqrt{-(q+k)^2}=\sqrt{Q^2 - 2q\cdot k -K^2}\nonumber\\
&\simeq Q\left(1+\frac{q_+k_-+q_-k_+}{Q^2} -\frac{K^2}{2Q^2}\right)\simeq
Q + \sqrt{2}\gamma k_- +\,\frac{k_+}{2\sqrt{2}\gamma}\,-\,
\frac{k_\perp^2}{2Q^2}\,.
\end{align}
This expansion requires a few words of explanation: among the subleading
terms under the square root, the first one is of relative order $(q\cdot
k)/Q^2 \sim 1/(Q\sigma)$ and hence it is much larger than the second one,
which scales like $K^2/Q^2\sim 1/(Q\sigma)^2$. So, to be fully
consistent, one should either push the expansion to the second order or
neglect the last term, $\propto K^2/Q^2$. However, our purpose here is
merely to determine the dominant dependencies of the bulk excitation upon
$z$, $x_-$ and $x_\perp$ at large $x_+$. These are correctly encoded in
the terms proportional to $k_-$, $k_+$ and respectively $k_\perp^2$, as
kept in the last approximate equality in \eqn{exp}.
Specifically, using this approximation \eqref{exp}, we shall now
successively perform the integrations over $k_-$, $k_+$ and $k_\perp$ in
\eqn{bulk} (recall that we set $p^\mu=q^\mu+k^\mu$). To that aim, we
shall keep only the dominant, exponential, dependence upon $k^\mu$ and
replace $k^\mu\to 0$ (i.e. $p^\mu\to q^\mu$) in the prefactors. The
relevant integrals are then Gaussian and can be easily performed:
\begin{equation}\label{kminus}
\int\,\frac{{\rm d} k_-}{2\pi}\,{\rm e}^{-ik_-(x_+- \sqrt{2}\gamma z)}\,
\exp\left\{-\frac{\sigma_+^2k_-^2}{2}\right\}\,=\,
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\,\sigma_+}\,
\exp\left\{-\frac{\big(x_+- \sqrt{2}\gamma z\big)^2}{2\sigma_+^2}\right\}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{kplus}
\int\,\frac{{\rm d} k_+}{2\pi}\,{\rm e}^{-ik_+\big(x_--
\frac{z}{2\sqrt{2}\gamma}\big)}\,
\exp\left\{-\frac{\sigma_-^2k_+^2}{2}\right\}\,=\,
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\,\sigma_-}\,
\exp\left\{-\frac{\big(x_-- z/(2\sqrt{2}\gamma)\big)^2}
{2\sigma_-^2}\right\}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{kperp}
\int\,\frac{{\rm d}^2k_\perp}{(2\pi)^2}\,{\rm e}^{ik_\perp\cdot x_\perp}
\exp\left\{-i\frac{k_\perp^2 z}{2Q}
-\frac{\sigma_\perp^2k_\perp^2}{2}\right\}\,=\,
\frac{1}{2\pi\,\big(\sigma_\perp^2 + iz/Q\big)}\,
\exp\left\{-\frac{x_\perp^2}{2\big(\sigma_\perp^2 + iz/Q\big)}\right\}.
\end{equation}
\eqn{kminus} shows that the bulk excitation is itself a wave--packet
which at time $x^+\simeq \sqrt{2}t$ is localized in the radial direction
near $z=z_*$ with (recall that $\sigma_+\sim\gamma\sigma$)
\begin{equation}\label{zstar}
z_*\,\equiv\,\frac{x^+}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}\,=\,\frac{t}{\gamma}\,,\qquad
|z-z_*|\,\lesssim\,\sigma\,.\end{equation}
\eqn{kplus} shows that for a given $z$, the bulk WP is localized near
$x^-=z/(2\sqrt{2}\gamma)$ with an uncertainty
$\sigma_-\sim\sigma/\gamma$. Since moreover $z\simeq z_*$, this implies
\begin{equation}\label{xminus}
x_-\,\simeq\,\frac{z_*}{2\sqrt{2}\gamma}\,=\,\frac{x_+}{4\gamma^2}
,\qquad\mbox{or}\qquad
t-x_3\,\simeq\,\frac{t}{2\gamma^2}\,.\end{equation}
This value of $x_-$ is of course the maximal longitudinal extent
consistent with Lorentz contraction.
Finally, \eqn{kperp} together with \eqn{zstar} imply the following
condition for the average position $\langle x_\perp^2\rangle$ of the bulk
WP in the transverse plane (note that $z_*/Q=t/q^0$):
\begin{equation}\label{xperp}
\langle x_\perp^2\rangle \,\simeq\,\sqrt{\sigma_\perp^4+(t/q^0)^2}
\,\simeq\,\begin{cases}
\displaystyle{\sigma_\perp^2+\frac{t^2}{2q_0^2\sigma^2_\perp}}
&\quad \text{if} \quad t/q^0\ll \sigma_{\perp}^2,
\\*[0.25cm]
\displaystyle{\frac{t}{q^0}}
&\quad \text{if} \quad t/q^0\gg \sigma_{\perp}^2.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The second line shows that, for very large times, the bulk excitation
expands in the transverse plane via diffusion.
To summarize, the bulk excitation produced by the decaying system at time
$x_+\gg \sigma_+$ reads
\begin{align}\label{bulkfin}
\hspace*{-0.3cm}
\Phi_q(x,z)\,=\,&\mathcal{N}\,
{\rm e}^{-iq_+x_--iq_-x_+}\,
\sqrt{\frac{\pi (Q z)^3}{8}}\,
\frac{\sigma_\perp^2}
{\sigma_\perp^2 + iz/Q}\, \nonumber\\
&\exp\left[-\frac{\big(x_+- \sqrt{2}\gamma
z\big)^2}{2\sigma_+^2}\right]
\exp\left[-\frac{\big(x_-- x_+/4\gamma^2\big)^2}
{2\sigma_-^2}\right]
\exp\left[-\frac{x_\perp^2}{2\big(\sigma_\perp^2 + iz/Q\big)}\right].
\end{align}
Consider now the corresponding excitation induced by the probe. The
respective boundary field is shown in \eqn{PROBEWP}, which immediately
implies
\begin{equation}\label{SLbulk}
\Psi_\Delta(x,z;\tau) =
\int\,\frac{{\rm d}^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,
{\rm e}^{ik\cdot x} \
D(k,z)\, \psi_\Delta(k;\tau)\,,
\end{equation}
where (with $\mathcal{C}'=\mathcal{C}(2\pi)^2 \tilde\sigma_+
\tilde\sigma_-\tilde\sigma_\perp^2$)
\begin{equation} \label{psimom}
\psi_\Delta(k;\tau) \equiv
\mathcal{C}'\,
\exp\left[i(k_--\Delta_-)\tau
-\frac{\tilde\sigma_-^2(k_+-\Delta_+)^2}{2}
-\frac{\tilde\sigma_+^2 (k_--\Delta_-)^2}{2}
-\frac{\tilde\sigma_\perp^2(\bm{k}_\perp-\bm{\Delta}_\perp)^2}
{2}\right].
\end{equation}
As already mentioned, the central 4--momentum $\Delta^\mu$ is taken to be
space--like, $\Delta^2 ={\Delta}_\perp^2-2\Delta_+\Delta_->0$, and the
widths of the WP are assumed to be large enough for the condition $k^2>0$
to be obeyed by the typical modes $k^\mu$ contributing to the integral in
\eqn{SLbulk}. Hence, the relevant expression for the bulk--to--boundary
propagator is that given in the first line of \eqn{Dmom}. In practice, we
shall take $\tilde\sigma_-$ and $\tilde\sigma_\perp$ to be so large that
the respective momenta have only negligible spread: $k_+\simeq\Delta_+$
and $k_\perp\simeq\Delta_\perp$. This fixes the longitudinal and transverse
resolution of the probe. As for the temporal resolution, this is controlled by
the Gaussian in $x_+$ in \eqn{PROBEWP}, which is centered at $\tau$ with
a width $\tilde\sigma_+\ll\tau$. Accordingly, the central value $\Delta_-$ of
$k_-$ is not really needed and one can choose $\Delta_-=0$
without loss of generality. Yet, the typical modes in the WP \eqref{psimom}
will have a non--zero light--cone energy $k_-\sim 1/\tilde\sigma_+$. So, a
typical probe mode will have a virtuality $K^2 = \Delta_{\perp}^2 - 2 \Delta_+ k_-$
with $k_-\sim 1/\tilde\sigma_+$. The condition that this virtuality $K^2$
remains positive (i.e. space--like) implies the constraint
\begin{equation}\label{deltaconstraint}
\Delta_{+} \lesssim\tilde\sigma_+ \Delta_{\perp}^2.
\end{equation}
\comment{Note that, as compared to the discussion of the four--point function at weak coupling in
Sect.~\ref{sec:4P}, where we have chosen $\Delta_+=0$ and relatively large $\Delta_-$
(and the longitudinal resolution was fixed by $xq_+ = \Delta_{\perp}^2/2\Delta_-$),
here we rather use $\Delta_+$ to control the longitudinal resolution
and take small $k_-\lesssim 1/\tilde\sigma_+$. This is because we intend
to discuss three-- and four--point functions on the same footing and for the three--point function
we would anyway need the strong constraint $\Delta_-\lesssim 1/\tau$, as we shall see.
With this in mind, it should be clear that}
\eqn{deltaconstraint} plays the same role in the present context
as \eqref{longit} in the context of Sect.~\ref{sec:4P}: it is an upper limit on the
longitudinal resolution of the space--like probe.
According to this equation, the best longitudinal resolution for a given
$\Delta_\perp$ is achieved by choosing the largest possible value for
$\tilde\sigma_+$. At large time, it is convenient to let
$\tilde\sigma_+$ increase with $\tau$, like $\tilde{\sigma}_+ =\epsilon \tau$, with $\epsilon \ll1$.
Then the constraint \eqref{deltaconstraint} becomes $\Delta_+ \ll \epsilon \tau \Delta_\perp^2$.
\subsection{The three-- and four--point functions}
\label{sect:34pW}
The scalar versions of the three--point and four--point functions of interest, cf. Eqs.~\eqref{Tq3p}
and \eqref{Pidef}, read
\begin{equation} \label{G3def}
G^{(3)}(q;\tau,\Delta)\,\equiv\,\langle
\hat{\mathcal{O}}_q^\dagger
\,\hat{\mathcal{O}}_\Delta(\tau)\,\hat{\mathcal{O}}_q\rangle\,,\qquad
G^{(4)}(q;\tau,\Delta)\,\equiv\,\langle
\hat{\mathcal{O}}_q^\dagger \,\hat{\mathcal{O}}_\Delta^\dagger(\tau)
\,\hat{\mathcal{O}}_\Delta(\tau)\,\hat{\mathcal{O}}_q\rangle\,,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\mathcal{O}}_q$ and $\hat{\mathcal{O}}_\Delta$ are smeared
versions of the `dilaton' operator, as obtained after averaging over the
respective (time--like or space--like) WP:
\begin{equation} \label{Odef}
\hat{\mathcal{O}}_q\,\equiv\,\int {\rm d}^4x\,\phi_q(x)\,\hat{\mathcal{O}}(x)\,
,\qquad\hat{\mathcal{O}}_\Delta(\tau)\,\equiv\,\int
{\rm d}^4x\,\psi_\Delta(x;\tau)
\,\hat{\mathcal{O}}(x)\,.\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{Figures/3point.eps}\\(a)
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\hspace*{0.0\textwidth}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{Figures/4point.eps}\\(b)
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The Witten diagrams for the (a) three--point and (b) four--point functions.}
\label{fig:34point}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As announced, the scalar toy model under consideration is characterized by
cubic self--interactions.
At tree--level, which is the relevant approximation in the context of SUGRA, this cubic interaction contributes to the three--point function in \eqref{G3def}
via the Witten diagram shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:34point}.a. We shall evaluate this diagram
using the SUGRA Feynman rules along the Schwinger--Keldysh contour in the complex time
plane (the `closed time path'), as appropriate for computing quantum correlations
in real time. Our use of the Schwinger--Keldysh
formalism will however be quite minimal, so we shall not describe it here in any detail.
(See e.g. \cite{Hatta:2010kt,Arnold:2010ir,Arnold:2011hp} for recent applications of this formalism
to Witten diagrams in SUGRA.) For the diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:34point}.a, one finds
\begin{align}\label{g3}
\hspace{-0.9cm}G^{(3)}&(q;\Delta,\tau)=
\frac{\lambda_3}{R^5}
\int {\rm d}^4 x\,{\rm d} z\, \sqrt{-g}\,
\Phi_q(x,z)\,
\Phi_q^*(x,z)\,
\Psi_\Delta(x,z;\tau)
\nonumber\\
&= \lambda_3
\int \frac{{\rm d} z}{z^5}\,
\frac{{\rm d}^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\,
\frac{{\rm d}^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\,
D_{\rm 11}(p,z)\,
D_{\rm 12}(p+k,z)\,
D_{\rm 11}(k,z)\,
\phi_q(p)\,
\phi_q^*(p+k)\,
\psi_\Delta(k;\tau),
\end{align}
with $\lambda_3$ denoting the strength of the cubic vertex and where we recall that $\sqrt{-g}=R^5/z^5$. Here the lower indices on the propagator refer to the branch (`1' or `2') of the
Schwinger--Keldysh contour that the corresponding scalar field has been placed on.
$D_{\rm 11}(p,z)$ is the time--ordered bulk--to--boundary propagator, as already shown
in \eqn{Dmom}. $D_{\rm 12}(p+k,z)$ is the Wightman (or `cut') bulk--to--boundary propagator,
which is non--zero only for TL momenta, in which case it can be obtained by
taking the $z'\to 0$ limit of the respective bulk--to--bulk propagator shown
in \eqn{Wightman} below. This yields an expression like the complex conjugate of the second line in \eqn{Dmom}, but with the replacement ${\rm H}^{(2)}_2\to -2i{\rm J}_2=
-i({\rm H}^{(1)}_2+ {\rm H}^{(2)}_2)$. For the present purposes, it is only ${\rm H}^{(2)}_2$
which needs to be retained. (Indeed, we are interested in the behaviour of the integrand for
relatively large values of $z$ and the other function ${\rm H}^{(1)}_2$ would lead to
strong oscillations in that regime; see below).
To summarize, within the integrand of \eqn{g3} we can replace
\begin{equation}
D_{\rm 11}(p,z)\,
D_{\rm 12}(p+k,z)\,
D_{\rm 11}(k,z)\,\ \longrightarrow \ \, -\,i\, D_{\rm TL}(p,z)\,
D_{\rm TL}^*(p+k,z)\,
D_{\rm SL}(k,z)\,,\end{equation}
with $D_{\rm SL}$ and $D_{\rm TL}$ denoting the SL and respectively TL components
of the Feynman propagator in \eqn{Dmom}. The boundary WPs are shown
in Eqs.~\eqref{phimom} and \eqref{psimom}. As discussed after \eqn{psimom}
the probe (SL) WP is taken to be sharply peaked
around $\Delta_+$ and $\bm{\Delta}_{\perp}$, so that the respective integrations over $k_+$ and $\bm{k}_{\perp}$ can be trivially performed. Regarding the TL propagators, expanding for large arguments and taking $k\ll p$ and $P^2 \simeq Q^2$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{DTLexp}
D_{\rm TL}(p,z)\,
D_{\rm TL}^*(p+k,z)
\simeq
\left(\frac{\pi z^2 Q^2}{4}\right)^2
\frac{2}{\pi Qz}\,
\exp\left[-i z\left(\sqrt{2}\gamma k_- +
\,\frac{k_+}{2\sqrt{2}\gamma}
\right)\right].
\end{equation}
Then the $p$--integration is simply related to the normalization of the TL WP since
\begin{equation}\label{phiqnorm}
\int \frac{{\rm d}^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\,
\phi_q(p)\,
\phi^*_q(p+k)\,
\simeq
\int \frac{{\rm d}^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\, |\phi_q(p)|^2
= \int {\rm d}^4 x \,
|\phi_q(x)|^2,
\end{equation}
which is taken to be equal to unity. Putting everything together and defining $\ell_-=k_--\Delta_-$
and $K^2=\Delta_\perp^2 - 2\Delta_+(\ell_-+\Delta_-)\simeq \Delta_\perp^2 $ (recall the
constraint \eqref{deltaconstraint} on $\Delta_+$)
, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{g3ell}
\hspace{-0.25cm}
G^{(3)}(q;\Delta,\tau) = -i
\lambda_3\,\mathcal{C}\,
\tilde\sigma_+
\int & \frac{{\rm d} z}{z^5}\,
\frac{{\rm d} \ell_-}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,
\frac{\pi (Qz)^3}{8}\,
\frac{(K z)^2}{2}\,{\rm K}_2(K z)
\nonumber\\
&\exp\left[i \ell_- (\tau - \sqrt{2}\gamma z)
-\frac{\tilde\sigma_+^2 \ell_-^2}{2}
-i z \left(\frac{\Delta_+}{2 \sqrt{2}\gamma} +
\sqrt{2} \gamma \Delta_- \right)\right].
\end{align}
Now the $\ell_-$--integration can be easily performed and we obtain
\begin{align}\label{g3coord2}
G^{(3)}(q;\Delta,\tau) = -i
\lambda_3\, \mathcal{C}
\int
\frac{{\rm d} z}{z^5}\,
\frac{\pi (Qz)^3}{8}\,
\frac{(\Delta_{\perp} z)^2}{2}\,{\rm K}_2(\Delta_{\perp} z)\,
{\rm e}^{-i
\Big({\textstyle\frac{\Delta_+}{4 \gamma^2}}\,
+\Delta_- \Big) x_+
-{\textstyle\frac{(x_+ - \tau)^2}{2\tilde\sigma_+^2}}},
\end{align}
where it should be clear in the above that $x_+$ is not an independent variable, but simply determined by $x_+=\sqrt{2} \gamma z$. Also, we temporarily keep a non--zero value for $\Delta_-$,
to explicitly show that this needs to be small, $\Delta_-\lesssim 1/\tau$.
Note that the Gaussian restricts $x_+$ (the interaction time in the bulk)
to values which are relatively close to $\tau$ (the measurement time on the boundary):
$|x_+ - \tau| \lesssim \tilde\sigma_+$. Recalling our interpretation of $x_+$
as the {\em physical} emission time (the time when the signal measured
by the three--point function is actually emitted by the target,
cf. Sect.~\ref{sec:interp}), this confirms the fact
that a space--like probe is a good measurement of the state of the system
at the time of measurement.
Before performing the final integration over $z$, let us open a small parenthesis and notice that \eqn{g3coord2} does not carry any information on the widths of the TL WP. This remark is most easily understood in a coordinate space calculation; since we are not interested in discriminating the internal structure of the TL WP, the probe resolutions have been assumed to be low on the scales set by the
various widths in \eqn{bulkfin}, that is, $\Delta_+\ll 1/\sigma_-$, $\Delta_\perp\ll 1/\sigma_\perp$, and
$\tilde\sigma_+\gg \sigma_+$. In view of this, we can replace (the modulus squared of) the bulk excitation \eqref{bulkfin}
by its formal limit as obtained when all the widths approach to zero. This is a 4--dimensional
$\delta$--function (recall that $|\mathcal{N}|^2 = 1/(\pi^2 \sigma_+ \sigma_- \sigma_{\perp}^2)$)\,:
\begin{equation}\label{phisquare}
|\Phi_q(x,z)|^2 =
\frac{\pi (Qz)^3}{8}\,
\delta\Big(x_- - \frac{x_+}{4 \gamma^2}\Big)\,
\delta^{(2)}(\bm{x}_\perp)\,
\delta\big(x_+ - \sqrt{2}\gamma z\big).
\end{equation}
As discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:AdS}, this simplification has already been used in
the calculation of the backreaction. \eqn{phisquare} represents a particle falling into AdS$_5$
in a highly boosted frame; indeed, the trajectory of such a particle is
\begin{equation}
x_-=\frac{1-\upsilon}{1+\upsilon}\,x_+ \simeq \frac{x_+}{4\gamma^2},
\qquad
z=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\gamma (1+\upsilon)}\,x_+ \simeq \frac{x_+}{\sqrt{2}\gamma}
\quad \text{and} \quad
\bm{x}_{\perp} = \bm{0}_{\perp},
\end{equation}
where the approximate equalities hold in the infinite momentum frame $\gamma \gg 1$.
The presence of the $\delta$--functions in \eqn{phisquare} greatly simplifies the
calculation of the three--point function when using the coordinate space expression of \eqref{g3}. The probe excitation appears in the form
$\Psi_{\Delta}(x_+,x_+/4\gamma^2,\bm{0}_{\perp},z;\tau)$
with $x_+=\sqrt{2} \gamma z$. Then by using the coordinate--space version of the probe WP,
\eqn{SLbulk}, one easily recovers \eqn{g3coord2}.
Let us now close our parenthesis and return to do the $z$-integration in \eqn{g3coord2}. We would like to argue that the prefactor in the integrand, to be succinctly denoted as $f$, is slowly varying within the range of the integration
over $z$, that is, when $x_+\equiv \sqrt{2} \gamma z$
is changing from $\tau$ to $\tau + \tilde{\sigma}_+$.
For definiteness, we shall do this in the two limiting cases, $\Delta_{\perp} z \gg 1$
and $\Delta_{\perp} z \ll 1$. Recalling that $z = x_+/\sqrt{2} \gamma$, we see that in
the first case, namely $\Delta_{\perp} z = \Delta_{\perp} x_+/\sqrt{2} \gamma \ll 1$, the prefactor behaves like $f \sim x_+^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha=-2$. (The actual value of $\alpha$
is not important for the argument, so long as this is not too large.) Then one has
\begin{equation}\label{dff1}
\frac{\delta f}{f}
\sim \frac{\tilde{\sigma}_+ f'}{f}
= \frac{\alpha \tilde{\sigma}_+}{x_+}
\sim \frac{\alpha \tilde{\sigma}_+}{\tau}
\ll 1,
\end{equation}
since we recall that $\tilde{\sigma}_+ \ll \tau$. In the other case $\Delta_{\perp} z \gg 1$,
the dominant dependence is coming from the exponential falloff
of the modified Bessel function and one has
\begin{equation}\label{dff2}
\frac{\delta f}{f}
\sim \frac{\tilde{\sigma}_+ \Delta_{\perp}}{\gamma} \ll 1,
\end{equation}
so long as $\Delta_{\perp}$ is not getting too large compared to $\gamma/\tau$.
From now on, we shall work under the assumption $\Delta_{\perp}\lesssim \order{\gamma/\tau}$,
that we shall {\em a posteriori} check to be satisfied for all the situations of interest.
Then the prefactor is slowly varying in the two limiting cases, as anticipated, and it
keeps this property at all intermediate values.
Hence, we can easily do the Gaussian integration to arrive at
\begin{equation}\label{g3coordfin}
G^{(3)}(q;\Delta,\tau) =
- i \lambda_3 \sqrt{\pi}\,
\frac{\mathcal{C}\,\tilde{\sigma}_+}{\gamma z_*^5}\,
\frac{\pi (Qz_*)^3}{8}\,
\frac{(\Delta_{\perp} z_*)^2}{2}\,{\rm K}_2(\Delta_{\perp} z_*),
\end{equation}
where we have defined $z_* = \tau/\sqrt{2}\gamma$. Notice that in order to reach the
above result we have neglected a factor originating from the phase of the space--like WP,
namely
\begin{equation}\label{smallfactor}
\exp\left[-
i \left(\frac{\Delta_+}{4 \gamma^2}
+ \Delta_- \right) \tau
-\frac{\tilde{\sigma}_+^2}{2}
\left(\frac{\Delta_+}{4 \gamma^2}
+ \Delta_- \right)^2
\right].
\end{equation}
This is correct so long as we impose that phase to be small, that is,
$\Delta_+ \ll \gamma^2/\tau$ and $\Delta_- \ll 1/\tau$.
The first condition is automatically satisfied, as it is weaker than the constraint
\eqref{deltaconstraint}.
Indeed, using $\tilde{\sigma}_+ =\epsilon \tau$ with $\epsilon\ll 1$
and $\Delta_{\perp}\lesssim {\gamma/\tau}$ within \eqn{deltaconstraint}, we deduce
\begin{equation}\label{dpc}
\Delta_+ \,\ll\, \epsilon\gamma^2/\tau.
\end{equation}
The second condition $\Delta_- \ll 1/\tau$ is necessary to avoid strong oscillations and
motivates us to choose $\Delta_- =0$.
The presence of the modified Bessel function ${\rm K}_2(\Delta_{\perp} z_*)$ in
\eqn{g3coordfin}, which originates from the boundary--to--bulk propagator
for the space--like probe, effectively restricts the transverse momenta to
$\Delta_{\perp} \lesssim \gamma/\tau$, as anticipated. The result
\eqref{g3coordfin} is formally independent of $\Delta_+$, but clearly this is valid
only for longitudinal momenta $\Delta_+$ obeying the constraint \eqref{dpc},
which is the condition that the probe be space--like.
The physical consequences of these constraints will be
discussed in the next section. Also, notice that, in so far as the dominant
behaviour upon $\Delta_{\perp} z_*$ is concerned, this result, \eqn{g3coordfin},
of the scalar toy theory is in fact consistent with the respective result of the backreaction,
for the same type of bulk excitation (a falling particle) and the same, space--like, kinematics
(compare to \eqn{tildeESL}).
The Witten diagram contributing to the four--point function in the toy--model, scalar
theory under consideration is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:34point}.b. In analogy to the three--point function, it can be estimated as
\begin{align}\label{g4}
\hspace{-0.9cm}
G^{(4)}(q;\Delta,\tau) =
\lambda_3^2
\int& {\rm d}^4 x\,\frac{{\rm d} z}{z^5}
\int {\rm d}^4 x'\,\frac{{\rm d} z'}{z'^5}\,
\Phi_q(x,z)\,
\Psi_\Delta(x,z;\tau)\,
G(x-x',z,z')\,
\Phi_q^*(x',z')\,
\Psi_\Delta^*(x',z';\tau)
\nonumber\\
= \lambda_3^2
\int& \frac{{\rm d} z}{z^5}\,
\frac{{\rm d} z'}{z'^5}\,
\frac{{\rm d}^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\,
\frac{{\rm d}^4 p'}{(2\pi)^4}\,
\frac{{\rm d}^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\,
\frac{{\rm d}^4 k'}{(2\pi)^4}\,
(2\pi)^4 \delta^{(4)}(p+k-p'-k')
\nonumber\\
&
G_{12}(p+k,z,z')\,
D_{\rm TL}(p,z)\,
D_{\rm TL}^*(p',z')\,
D_{\rm SL}(k,z)\,
D_{\rm SL}^*(k',z')\,
\nonumber\\
&
\phi_q(p)\,
\phi_q^*(p')\,
\psi_\Delta(k;\tau)\,
\psi_\Delta^*(k';\tau)
\end{align}
where the only new ingredient is the Wightman bulk--to--bulk propagator:
\begin{equation}\label{Wightman}
G_{12}(\ell,z,z') =
\pi \Theta(-\ell^2)\, z^2 z'^2
{\rm J}_2(|\ell| z)\,
{\rm J}_2(|\ell| z').
\end{equation}
The various bulk--to--boundary propagators visible in the integrand of \eqn{g4} have
entered the calculation as time--ordered ($D_{11}$) or anti--time--ordered ($D_{22}$)
propagators in real time.
Since $k,k'\ll p,p'$, we shall shortly see that the dominant exponential dependence on $p$ and $p'$ in the propagators product cancels. Regarding the remaining dependence upon $p$ and $p'$
in the prefactors (as arising from the large argument expansion of the propagators), these are weak and hence we can simply replace $p$ and $p'$ by their central value $q$.
Then one can integrate over $p$ and $p'$ to recover the
normalization conditions for the TL wave--packets:
\begin{equation}
\int\frac{{\rm d}^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\,
\frac{{\rm d}^4 p'}{(2\pi)^4}\,
(2\pi)^4 \delta^{(4)}(p+k-p'-k')\,
\phi_q(p)\,
\phi_q^*(p')
\simeq
\int\frac{{\rm d}^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\,
|\phi_q(p)|^2
=1\,.
\end{equation}
At this stage, we managed to bring \eqn{g4} into a {\em factorized} form:
\begin{equation}\label{fact}
G^{(4)}(q;\Delta,\tau) = G_{\rm L}(q;\Delta,\tau)\,G_{\rm R}(q;\Delta,\tau)
= |G_{\rm L}(q;\Delta,\tau)|^2,
\end{equation}
with the ``left'' part given by
\begin{equation}\label{gleft}
G_{\rm L}(q;\Delta,\tau) =
\lambda_3 \sqrt{\pi}
\int \frac{{\rm d} z}{z^3}\,
\frac{{\rm d}^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\,
{\rm J}_2(|q+k| z)\,
D_{\rm TL}(q,z)\,
D_{\rm SL}(k,z)\,
\psi_\Delta(k;\tau).
\end{equation}
From this point on, the calculation is very similar to the one of the three--point function. For large arguments we can approximate
\begin{equation}
{\rm J}_2(|q+k| z)\,{\rm H}_2^{(1)}(Q z) \simeq \frac{1}{2} \frac{2}{\pi Q z}\,
\exp\left[-i z\left(\sqrt{2}\gamma k_- +
\,\frac{k_+}{2\sqrt{2}\gamma}
\right)\right] + \dots,
\end{equation}
where we have used \eqn{exp} and with the dots standing for a term proportional to $\exp(2 i Q z)$ which is neglected since it is varying rapidly. Taking again the SL WP to be sharply peaked we find (cf.~the similarity with \eqn{g3ell})
\begin{align}\label{g3leftell}
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
G_{\rm L}(q;\Delta,\tau) =
i\,\sqrt{\pi}\,\lambda_3\,\mathcal{C}\,
\tilde\sigma_+
\int & \frac{{\rm d} z}{z^3}\,
\frac{{\rm d} \ell_-}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,
\frac{Qz}{4}\,
\frac{(K z)^2}{2}\,{\rm K}_2(K z)
\nonumber\\
&\exp\left[i \ell_- (\tau - \sqrt{2}\gamma z)
-\frac{\tilde\sigma_+^2 \ell_-^2}{2}
-i z \left(\frac{\Delta_+}{2 \sqrt{2}\gamma} +
\sqrt{2} \gamma \Delta_- \right)\right].
\end{align}
Performing the integrations over $\ell_-$ and $z$ as usual we get
\begin{equation}
G_{\rm L}(q;\Delta,\tau) = i \lambda_3 \pi\,
\frac{\mathcal{C} \tilde\sigma_+}{\gamma z_*^3}\,
\frac{Qz_*}{4}\,
\frac{(\Delta_{\perp} z_*)^2}{2}\,{\rm K}_2(\Delta_{\perp} z_*).
\end{equation}
One should also include in the above a factor equal to that in \eqn{smallfactor}, that is,
the product of a phase factor times a Gaussian. However, when we construct
the modulus squared according to \eqn{fact}, the respective phase factors mutually
compensate\footnote{At this level, there is a small difference compared
to the case of the three--point function: the two phases $ {\rm e}^{\pmi \Delta \cdot x}$
(recall \eqn{psimom}) automatically cancel out between the two insertions,
$\Psi_\Delta$ and $\Psi_\Delta^*$, of the space--like WP, so the condition
$\Delta_-\lesssim 1/\tau$ is not necessary anymore.},
while the Gaussian factors can be safely set to unity. We thus finally arrive at
\begin{equation}\label{g4fin}
G^{(4)}(q;\Delta,\tau) = \lambda_3^2\,\pi^2\,
\frac{\mathcal{C}^2 \tilde\sigma_+^2}{\gamma^2 z_*^6}\,
\frac{(Qz_*)^2}{16}\,
\frac{(\Delta_{\perp} z_*)^4}{4}\,[{\rm K}_2(\Delta_{\perp} z_*)]^2.
\end{equation}
There is some model--dependence inherent in this formula, but this is harmless for
our present purposes: the only information that we actually need is the
dependence of the four--point function upon the dimensionless variable $\Delta_{\perp} z_*
= \Delta_{\perp} \tau/\sqrt{2}\gamma$. This dependence is robustly predicted by
\eqn{g4fin} and could have been anticipated without explicitly performing the
calculation, as we explain now. The four--point function defined in \eqn{G3def}
represents the
imaginary part of a forward scattering amplitude, which at the level of the SUGRA
calculation is obtained by taking the `cut' of the 4--leg Witten diagram depicted in
Fig.~\ref{fig:34point}.b. (This cut is manifest in our use of the Wightman
prescription for the bulk--to--bulk propagator in \eqn{Wightman}.) In turn, this
cut diagram is proportional to the modulus squared of the 3--leg diagram
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:34point}.a and evaluated in \eqn{g3coordfin}.
(This is merely the optical theorem adapted to the SUGRA context at hand.)
We conclude that, at strong coupling, the four--point function $G^{(4)}(q;\Delta,\tau)$
must depend upon $\Delta_{\perp} z_*$ in the same way as the square
$|G^{(3)}(q;\Delta,\tau)|^2$ of the three--point function.
This conclusion is indeed consistent with our previous results for
$G^{(4)}(q;\Delta,\tau)$ (see \eqn{g4fin}) and, respectively, for
$G^{(3)}(q;\Delta,\tau)$ (cf. \eqn{tildeESL} or \eqref{g3coordfin}).
Yet, this formal similarity between the three--point and the
four--point functions should not be misleading: the physical content of these two
quantities is very different, as it will be further discussed in the next subsection.
\subsection{Physical discussion}
\label{sec:phys}
The physical discussion to follow will only exploit those aspects of our above
result, \eqn{g4fin}, for the four--point function at strong coupling which are firmly
under control: its dependence upon the transverse momentum of the probe,
which enters via the dimensionless variable
$\Delta_{\perp} z_*= \Delta_{\perp} \tau/\sqrt{2}\gamma$, and the
upper limit \eqref{dpc} on the longitudinal momentum $\Delta_+$ of the probe.
It is useful to recall that, in this boosted frame, the decaying system has an overall
transverse size $\Delta x_{\perp} \sim \tau/\gamma$ and that the maximal longitudinal
broadening permitted by causality and Lorentz contraction is
$\Delta x_- \sim \tau/\gamma^2$ (cf Fig.~\ref{fig:lorentz}). We would like to check
whether the system involves some substructures like partons with sizes much
smaller than this maximal sizes. To that aim, one needs to estimate the four--point
function for relatively high momenta $\Delta_{\perp} \gg \gamma/\tau$ and
$\Delta_- \gg \gamma^2/\tau$. (Such values are compatible with the space--likeness
condition \eqref{dpc} provided $\Delta_{\perp}$ is chosen to be high enough.)
But for such large values of the momenta, the four--point function \eqref{g4fin}
is exponentially suppressed, because ${\rm K}_2(\Delta_{\perp} z_*)\propto
\exp\{-\Delta_{\perp} z_*\}$ when $\Delta_{\perp} z_*\gg 1$. This simply means
that there are no substructures in the decaying system at large times
$\tau\gg\sigma_+$: the matter is
uniformly distributed within a region with transverse size $\Delta x_{\perp} \sim \tau/\gamma$
and longitudinal size $\Delta x_- \sim \tau/\gamma^2$. In particular, it exhibits
maximal longitudinal broadening.
It is amusing to notice that, at strong coupling, the four--point function
and the three--point function are formally similar to each other (compare
Eqs.~\eqref{g3coordfin} and \eqref{g4fin}) --- they both predict the
exponential suppression of the respective correlation for transverse momenta
$\Delta_{\perp} \gg \gamma/\tau$. However, as it should be clear from
our previous analysis, this similarity is deceiving. The three--point function is
independent of the coupling, so it looks quasi--homogeneous in the transverse
plane (when probed with a low longitudinal resolution) even at weak coupling,
where point--like partons are well known to exist. This is so since, by construction,
the three--point function integrated over $x_-$ represents the
average energy per unit transverse area, which in this problem is homogeneous
by symmetry.
On the other hand, the four--point function has the potential to reveal small fluctuations
in the transverse plane, as manifest from the corresponding discussion at weak coupling.
So the corresponding exponential suppression for transverse momenta
$\Delta_{\perp} \gg \gamma/\tau$ is a unambiguous proof of the absence of partons.
It is furthermore interesting to re-express our results in terms of the typical momenta
and virtualities of the quanta composing the decaying system at time $\tau$.
By the uncertainty principle, a quantum distribution of matter which looks homogeneous
(in a given event) over transverse distances $\delta x_{\perp} \lesssim \tau/\gamma$
involves Fourier modes with transverse momenta and virtualities
$k_\perp\sim\mu \sim \gamma/\tau$ and hence with longitudinal momenta $k_+\sim \gamma^2/\tau$.
For comparison with the weak coupling discussion in Sect.~\ref{sect:jet}, we note that
the longitudinal momentum fraction $x\equiv {k_+}/{q_+}$
carried by a typical mode at strong coupling is $x\simeq x_c(\tau) $ with
\begin{equation}\label{stc}
x_c(\tau) \,\simeq\,\frac{\gamma^2}{\tau q_+} \,\sim\,
\frac{q_+}{\tau Q^2}\,\sim\,\frac{\tau_0}{\tau}\,.
\end{equation}
This is independent of the coupling, unlike the corresponding weak--coupling result in
\eqn{xc}. In fact, \eqn{stc} looks more like the extrapolation of \eqn{xc}
to values of the coupling of order one, rather than to $\lambda\to\infty$.
This is consistent with the fact that the time dependence of $x$ shown in \eqn{stc}
is the fastest one to be allowed by causality.
Interestingly, the above estimate for $x_c$ can also be written as $x_c
\sim \mu/Q$, which shows that, at strong coupling\footnote{For comparison,
note that at weak coupling the virtuality $\mu$ is decreasing with time, via successive
branchings, much faster than the longitudinal momentum fraction $x_c$; this
can be checked using the general relation \eqn{tauxmu} together with \eqn{xc}
for $x_c$ at weak coupling.}, the fraction of longitudinal
momentum carried by the typical quanta in the decaying system is commensurable
with the respective fraction of {\em virtuality}. This is in agreement with the
picture of {\em democratic parton branching}, as put forward in Ref.~\cite{HIM3},
in which the energy and the virtuality are quasi--democratically split among
the daughter partons at any branching.
In Appendix \ref{sec:fragstrong}, we shall present an alternative derivation
of \eqn{stc}, which is in the spirit of the perturbative calculation for
the fragmentation function in Sect.~\ref{sec:DGLAP} --- that is,
it relies on the expression for the time--like anomalous
dimension at strong coupling, as obtained in Ref.~\cite{Hatta:2008tn}.
To summarize, at strong coupling and for sufficiently large times after the
decay has been initiated, the decaying system occupies
the maximal region in space and time which is allowed by causality and special relativity,
that is, $\Delta x_{\perp} \sim \tau/\gamma$ and $\Delta x_- \sim \tau/\gamma^2$.
In the center of mass frame of the virtual photon, the matter produced by its
decay at time $t\gg \sigma$ is spread over the
whole ball with radius $r\le t$ and its distribution within this ball is
(quasi)homogeneous.
The strongly coupled matter looks like a soft, smooth, jelly.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Simon Caron-Huot for an observation which triggered part of this work.
One of us (E.I.) would like to thank the Physics Department at the Universidad Federal de
Rio de Janeiro for hospitality and Prof. Nelson Braga for inciting discussions during the
completion of this work. The work of E.I. is supported in part by the European Research
Council under the Advanced Investigator Grant ERC-AD-267258. The work
of A.H.~M. is supported in part by the US Department of Energy.
All figures were created with Jaxodraw \cite{Binosi:2003yf}.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
The formation and evolution of the first generations of stars, once an
entirely theoretical enterprise, has in recent years begun to enter
the realm where observations are placing more and firmer constraints
on the subject. Pertinent observations range from cosmology to star
formation, stellar evolution, supernova explosions, and early galaxy
formation \citep[e.g., ][]{bromm04, ciardi05}. Surveys for very high
redshift galaxies, QSOs, and gamma-ray bursters have detected objects
at $z\gtrsim 6$, when the age of Universe was only several hundred
million years. The recently reported high redshift ($z = 2.3$),
extremely metal-poor Damped Lyman-$\alpha$ system by Cooke et
al. (2011; [Fe/H] $\sim -3$) exhibits enhanced carbon ([C/Fe] $=
+1.5$) and other elemental abundance signatures that
\citet{kobayashi11} associate with production by faint supernovae
in the early Universe.
Such studies are complemented by investigations of ancient (but still
shining) stars of the Milky Way and Local Group. The elemental
abundances of the chemically most primitive stars are believed to
record the nucleosynthesis yields of the first generations of objects,
thereby constraining their mass distribution, evolution, and nature of
their supernova explosions (Beers \& Christlieb 2005; Frebel \& Norris
2011). If low-mass ($< 0.8$ M$_{\odot}$) stars were able to form from
primordial, metal-free gas clouds, stars with zero metallicity are
expected to be found in the present Galaxy.
A number of extensive searches for very metal-poor (VMP; [Fe/H]$ <
-2$) and extremely metal-poor (EMP; [Fe/H]$ < -3$) stars in the Galaxy
have been undertaken in the past few decades. Since the discovery of
CD$-$38$^{\circ}$245 with [Fe/H]$\sim -4$ \citep{bessell84}, several
objects having similar metallicity have been found by the HK survey
\citep{beers85,beers92} and studied with follow-up high-resolution
spectroscopy. Stars with even lower metallicities have been found in
recent years, including the ultra metal-poor (UMP; [Fe/H] $< -4$) star
HE~0557-4840 \citep{norris07} and the hyper metal-poor (HMP; [Fe/H] $<
-5$) stars HE~0107-5240 \citep{christlieb02} and HE~1327-2326
\citep{frebel05, aoki06}, based on follow-up observations of
candidates from the Hamburg/ESO Survey \citep[HES; ][]{christlieb03,
christlieb08}, which has a fainter limiting magnitude and larger
survey volume than the HK survey. Quite recently, a new UMP star with
[Fe/H]$\sim -5$ was discovered by \citet{caffau11} among the candidate
metal-poor stars identified with medium-resolution spectroscopy from
the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS, see below).
The majority of VMP stars found by the HK survey and the HES,
including the two stars with [Fe/H] $ < -5$, are fainter than
$V\sim13$. Detailed abundance measurements, based on high-resolution
spectroscopy for such stars, has only become possible through the use
of 8-10m class telescopes such as Keck, VLT, and Subaru. Previous
studies of large samples of candidate metal-poor stars from these
surveys have revealed the chemical compositions of stars with
[Fe/H]$\sim -3$ \citep{cayrel04, cohen04, honda04, barklem05, aoki05,
lai08, bonifacio09}. However, the sample size of stars having even
lower metallicity, in particular for the intrinsically fainter
main-sequence turn-off stars, is still rather small, and the
relationship between the abundance patterns observed for the EMP, UMP,
and HMP stars remains unclear. A large sample of candidate
metal-poor stars have been provided by SDSS (see below), and
abundance studies for them based on high-resolution spectroscopy
have been rapidly growing \citep[e.g., ][]{aoki08, caffau11,
bonifacio12}. \footnote{After our work is completed, a series of
papers on a large sample of metal-poor stars by
\citet{norris12} and \citet{yong12} have appeared. Their sample
includes some EMP stars discovered by SDSS.}
In this paper, the first of a series, we report on follow-up high-resolution
``snapshot'' ($R \sim 36,000$, $30 \lesssim S/N \lesssim 60$) spectroscopic
observations of a large sample (137) of candidate EMP stars selected from the
SDSS \citep{york00}, and the Sloan Extension for
Galactic Understanding and Exploration (SEGUE) sub-survey of the SDSS
\citep{yanny09}. In this paper we describe the selection of our targets (Section 2),
the observational and reduction/analysis procedures used (Section 3),
and the determinations of stellar atmospheric parameters and estimates of a limited
number of important elements (C, Na, Mg, Ca, Ti, Cr, Sr, and Ba; Section
4). In Section 4, we also comment briefly on a number of the double-lined (and
one triple lined!) spectroscopic binaries discovered during the course of this
work. In Section 5, we discuss the nature of the carbon-enhanced metal-poor
(CEMP) stars found in our our sample, and the trends and outliers found among
the $\alpha$-elements and the neutron-capture elements for stars in our sample.
Papers to follow in this series will discuss constraints on the
low-metallicity tail of the halo-system metallicity distribution
function, the binarity properties of the sample, and correlations
between the chemical compositions and kinematics of VMP and EMP stars.
Results of higher-$S/N$, higher resolution spectroscopy of a number of
the most interesting stars found during this effort will also be
presented, including the Li abundances for main-sequence turn-off
stars.
\section{Sample Selection}\label{sec:sample}
\subsection{Selection of Candidate EMP Stars from SDSS/SEGUE} \label{sec:sample1}
SDSS-I was an imaging and spectroscopic survey that began routine operations in
April 2000, and continued through June 2005. The SDSS, and its extensions, use a
dedicated 2.5m telescope \citep{gunn06} located at the Apache Point Observatory
in New Mexico. The telescope is equipped with an imaging camera and a pair of
spectrographs, each of which are capable of simultaneously collecting 320
medium-resolution ($R \sim 1800$) spectra over its seven square degree field of
view, so that on the order of 600 individual target spectra and roughly 40
calibration-star and sky spectra are obtained on a given spectroscopic
``plug-plate''. It is important to recall that SDSS imaging
(done in drift-scan mode) has an effective bright limit corresponding to roughly
$g \sim 14.0 - 14.5$, which means that high-resolution spectroscopic follow-up
observations for large samples of these stars is challenging to obtain with
telescopes of 4m aperture and smaller.
The SEGUE sub-survey, carried out as part of SDSS-II, ran from July 2005 to June
2008. SEGUE obtained some 240,000 medium-resolution spectra of stars in the
Galaxy, selected to explore the nature of stellar populations from 0.5 kpc to
100 kpc \citep{yanny09}. These stars, as well as all previous SDSS stellar
observations, were released as part of DR7 \citep{abazajian09}.
The SEGUE Stellar Parameter Pipeline (SSPP) processes the wavelength- and
flux-calibrated spectra generated by the standard SDSS spectroscopic reduction
pipeline, obtains equivalent widths and/or line indices for about 80 atomic or
molecular absorption lines, and estimates the effective temperature, {$T_{\rm eff}$},
surface gravity, {$\log g$}, and metallicity, [Fe/H], for a given star through the
application of a number of approaches. A given method is usually optimal over
specific ranges of color and $S/N$ ratio. The SSPP employs 8 primary methods for
the estimation of {$T_{\rm eff}$}, 10 for the estimation of {$\log g$}, and 12 for the
estimation of [Fe/H]. The final estimates of the atmospheric parameters are
obtained by robust averages of the methods that are expected to perform well for
the color and $S/N$ obtained for each star. The use of multiple methods allows
for empirical determinations of the internal errors for each parameter, based on
the range of reported values from each method -- typical internal errors for
stars in the temperature range that applies to the calibration stars are
$\sigma$({$T_{\rm eff}$}) $\sim$ 100 K to $\sim$ 125 K, $\sigma$({$\log g$}) $\sim $ 0.25
dex, and $\sigma$([Fe/H]) $\sim$ 0.20 dex. The external errors in these
determinations are of a similar size. See \citet{lee08a, lee08b},
\citet{allendeprieto08}, \citet{smolinski11}, and \citet{lee11} for
additional discussion of the SSPP. The SSPP estimates of {$T_{\rm eff}$},
{$\log g$}, and {[Fe/H]} were also released as part of DR7.
\subsection{Sample Selection for High-Resolution Spectroscopy}\label{sec:sample2}
In order to assemble a set of likely EMP stars for high-resolution spectroscopy
with Subaru/HDS, we selected targets that have $V_{0} \lesssim 16.5$ ($g_0
\lesssim 16.7$) and [Fe/H]$\leq -2.7$, as provided by the SSPP, in the
temperature range 4500~K $<$ $T_{\rm eff}$\ $<$ 7000~K, over which the SSPP estimates
are best behaved. The choice of a conservative upper metallicity cut of
[Fe/H]\ $= -2.7$ was made because previous high-resolution follow-up
with Subaru and other telescopes had shown that the SSPP estimates of
metallicity, at the time of sample selection, were consistently 0.2-0.3
dex too high at the lowest metallicities. The upper panel of Figure
\ref{fig:compfe} shows the distribution of [Fe/H] estimated from SDSS
spectra (horizontal axis) using the version of the SSPP that was
available when the targets for Subaru/HDS observations were selected
in early 2008. Several stars having higher SSPP estimates of [Fe/H] or
$V_{0}>16.5$ were observed when appropriate targets did not exist in
the observing period with Subaru/HDS. The Subaru high-resolution
estimates of [Fe/H]\ for these same stars, shown on the vertical axis,
are described below.
It is clear from Figure \ref{fig:compfe} that the conservative choice
on metallicity cut was indeed appropriate, as a considerable fraction
(65\%) of the stars with high-resolution estimates of [Fe/H]\ $< -3.0$
would have been missed had we set the selection boundary at
[Fe/H]\ (SSPP) = $-3.0$. The lower panel of Figure \ref{fig:compfe}
shows the effect of recent improvements in the SSPP, as discussed
further below (\S~\ref{sec:gmv}).
The list of 137 stars for which acceptable high-resolution spectroscopy was
obtained with Subaru/HDS is given in Table~\ref{tab:objlist}, where the object
name, coordinates, photometry, and reddening data are provided, and discussed in
detail below. In the following analysis, the objects are separated into turn-off
stars, giants, and cool main-sequence stars, based on determinations of their
effective temperature and gravity. According to this taxonomy, about 80\% of the
objects in our sample are main-sequence turn-off stars. Note that although
some objects were identified as carbon-rich stars from the SDSS
medium-resolution spectra prior to our obtaining high-resolution follow-up
spectra, we gave no preference in their choice (for or against), so that our
estimates of the fractions of such stars at low metallicity remains meaningful
(see below).
\section{Observations and Data Reduction}\label{sec:obs}
Acceptable quality high-resolution snapshot spectra for 137 of the
original 143 target stars selected above were obtained with the Subaru
Telescope High Dispersion Spectrograph \citep[HDS: ][]{noguchi02} in
four observing runs in 2008 (March, May, July, and October). Several
stars among the remaining eight stars were excluded because their
$S/N$ ratios were insufficient for our purpose. The other stars
exhibit spectra that differ from ``normal'' metal-poor stars. The
objects which are excluded in the analyses are reported in Appendix.
The spectra cover 4000--6800~{\AA}, with a gap of 5330--5430~{\AA} due to the
separation of the two EEV-CCDs used in the spectrograph. The resolving power
$R=36,000$ is obtained with the slit of 1.0 arcsec width and $2\times 2$ CCD
on-chip binning. The observing log is listed in Table~\ref{tab:obslog}, where
the observing dates, exposure time, S/N ratios, and heliocentric radial velocity
are presented. The average S/N ratios at 4300 and 5000~{\AA} per
resolution element are 31 and 51, respectively.
Data reduction was carried out with standard procedures using the IRAF
echelle package\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy
Observatories, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research
in Astronomy, Inc. under cooperative agreement with the National Science
Foundation.}, including bias-level correction using the over-scan regions of the
CCD data, scattered light subtraction, flat-fielding, extraction of spectra, and
wavelength calibration using Th arc lines. Cosmic-ray hits were removed by the
method described in \citet{aoki05}. Sky background was not very significant
in our spectra, which were obtained during times of little contamination from
the moon. The multi-order echelle spectra were combined to a single spectrum by
adding photon counts for the overlapping wavelength regions, and the combined
spectrum was then normalized to the continuum level. Spectra obtained with more
than one exposure were combined by adding photon counts before continuum
normalization.
\subsection{Equivalent Width Measurements}\label{sec:ew}
Equivalent widths ($W$'s) were measured for isolated absorption lines
in our spectra by fitting Gaussian profiles, using the line list given
in Table~\ref{tab:lines}. The measurements were made with a fortran
program of Gaussian fitting based on \citet{press92}, including an
estimate of the continuum level around each absorption line.
The number of lines detected in the spectra depends on the
metallicity, the stellar luminosity classification, and the $S/N$
ratio. In the spectra of turn-off stars, typically 10-20 \ion{Fe}{1}
lines are measured. In some spectra with relatively lower $S/N$ ratios
and relatively high temperatures, the number of \ion{Fe}{1} lines
detected is less than 10. While a few \ion{Fe}{2} lines are measured
in most turn-off stars, no \ion{Fe}{2} line is detected for 24 of our
stars. A few lines of \ion{Na}{1}, \ion{Mg}{1}, and \ion{Ca}{1} are
measured for most turn-off stars, while other elements (e.g., Sc, Ti,
Sr, Ba) are detected only for a limited number of objects. In general,
the number of lines measured for giants is larger than that for
turn-off stars, due to their lower effective temperatures. At least a
few \ion{Fe}{2} lines are detected for all giants in our sample.
\subsection{Radial velocities}\label{sec:rv}
Radial velocities are measured using the \ion{Fe}{1} lines for which
equivalent widths are measured. The derived heliocentric radial
velocities are given in Table~\ref{tab:obslog}. The random error in
the measurement is estimated to be $\sigma_{v} N^{-1/2}$, where $\sigma_{v}$
is the standard deviation of the derived values from individual lines,
and $N$ is the number of lines used. The table also provides the
values obtained from the SDSS spectra used for sample
selection. Comparisons of heliocentric radial velocities measured from
the Subaru spectra with those from SDSS are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:rv}. In our sample, three double-lined spectroscopic
binaries are included, as reported below. The data points of these
stars are over-plotted by open circles in the figure. Excluding these
stars, the agreement between the two measurements is quite good, in almost all
cases well within the expected errors.
\section{Abundance Analysis}\label{sec:ana}
\subsection{Effective Temperature Estimates}\label{sec:param}
Chemical abundances are determined by a standard analysis for measured
equivalent widths using the ATLAS NEWODF grid of model atmospheres,
assuming no convective overshooting \citep{castelli03}. The
calculations of equivalent widths from models are made by the LTE
spectrum synthesis code based on the programs for the model atmospheres
developed by \citet{tsuji78}.
Owing to the lack of sufficient numbers of well-measured metallic
lines in our snapshot spectra, we are not in a position to determine
spectroscopic estimates of $T_{\rm eff}$\ by the usual practice of minimizing
the trend of the relationship between derived abundance and excitation
potentials of the lines from which it is derived. Balmer line
profiles are also not used to determine {$T_{\rm eff}$}, because the S/N
ratios of our data are too low for accurate estimation
of the continuum levels, although the Balmer lines were used in the
first inspection of stellar types (see also Appendix). Instead, we
have first estimated effective temperatures based on two sets of color
indicies, an approach that also has limitations. For example,
estimates of $T_{\rm eff}$\ derived for stars affected by large reddening are
more uncertain, due to errors in obtaining estimates of their
intrinsic colors.
Estimates of effective temperature based on $(V-K)_{0}$ colors are made
using the temperature scales of \citet{casagrande10} for turn-off stars
({$T_{\rm eff}$}$_{\rm SSPP}\geq 5500$~K), and \citet{alonso99} for giants ({$T_{\rm eff}$}$_{\rm
SSPP}<5500$~K). The metallicity is assumed to be [Fe/H]$=-3.0$ for all stars in
order to carry out this calculation. The $V_{0}$ magnitude is derived from the
SDSS $g_{0}$ and $(g-r)_{0}$, using the transformations of
\citet{zhao06}, which are suitable for low-metallicity stars.
The $K_{0}$ magnitude is adopted from the 2MASS catalogue \citep{skrutskie06}.
In all cases, the absorption and reddening corrections were carried out
based on the reddening estimates from \citet{schlegel98}.
The top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:compteff} shows a comparison of {$T_{\rm eff}$} between
the estimate from $(V-K)_{0}$ and that supplied by the SSPP. The SSPP actually
provides two sets of effective temperature estimates, one of which is based on
spectroscopy alone (essentially relying on the shape of the calibrated spectral energy
distribution, index measurements of temperature-sensitive lines, and spectral
fitting), while the other additionally includes photometric information in the
estimates. For the stars in our sample, we found essentially no zero-point
offsets between these approaches, with an rms variation of no more than 50~K.
Hence, we adopt the spectroscopy-only values determined by the SSPP for our
comparisons. Stars for which the {$T_{\rm eff}$} estimates from photometry are
potentially very uncertain, due to large reddening corrections, are excluded from
this comparison.
By inspection of the top panel from Figure~\ref{fig:compteff}, there is no significant offset between the two
estimates for turn-off stars ({$T_{\rm eff}$}$\gtrsim 5500$~K), although the scatter is
rather large. A likely cause of this scatter is the error in the $K$ apparent
magnitude measured by 2MASS, which can become large for stars as faint as some in
our sample. An error of 0.1~magnitude in $(V-K)_{0}$ results in a {$T_{\rm eff}$} error
of about 200~K. The 1$\sigma$ errors on the $K$ magnitude for some of our
fainter turn-off stars ($K>14.5$) are even larger than 0.1~magnitude. To draw
attention to these, they are shown as open circles in Figure~\ref{fig:compteff}.
The scatter in the {$T_{\rm eff}$} comparison for these stars is 395~K, much larger than
that for other stars of similar $T_{\rm eff}$\ having errors smaller than 0.1 in their
$K$ magnitudes ($\sigma=$241~K).
For the cooler stars ({$T_{\rm eff}$}$\lesssim 5500$~K), a clear offset (about 140~K) is
found between the {$T_{\rm eff}$} obtained from the $(V-K)_{0}$-based estimate and that
from the SSPP, although the rms scatter is small ($\sigma=$214~K). None of the
cooler stars have $K$ magnitude errors larger than 0.1 magnitude.
Estimates of {$T_{\rm eff}$} based on $(g-r)_{0}$ color are made using the
colors calculated based on ATLAS model atmosphere provided by Castelli
et
al.\footnote{http://wwwuser.oat.ts.astro.it/castelli/colors/sloan.html}. For
the purpose of this calculation, values of $\log g$ are assumed to be
4.0 and 2.0 for turn-off stars and giants, respectively, and the
metallicity is assumed to be [Fe/H]$=-3.0$. A comparison of these
{$T_{\rm eff}$} estimates with those supplied by the SSPP is shown in the
middle panel of Figure~\ref{fig:compteff}. There is no significant
offset between the two estimates for turn-off stars, and the scatter
is smaller (35~K) than that found for $(V-K)_{0}$ considered
above. Although a zero-point offset is found for the giants, it is
smaller (74~K) than that found for $(V-K)_{0}$. The reduced scatter
may be a result of smaller reddening effects on the $g-r$ color than
on $V-K$, or simply the better photometric precision of the measured
$g-r$ colors.
For completeness, the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:compteff} compares the
effective temperatures estimated based on the two color indicies.
In order to assess the dependence of our {$T_{\rm eff}$} estimates on metallicity,
Figure~\ref{fig:compteffvk} provides comparisons for three metallicity ranges.
Note that we have separated this sample using the [Fe/H] values derived from the
abundance analysis in the present work, as described below. No significant
dependence on metallicity is seen.
Given the uncertainties in the $(V-K)_{0}$ based estimates, and the similarity of
the $(g-r)_0$ based estimates with those from the SSPP, we simply
adopt the (spectroscopic) effective temperatures determined by the SSPP
for the remainder of our analysis.
\subsection{Gravity, metallicity, and micro-turbulence}\label{sec:gmv}
The $\log g$ values for turn-off stars are expected to cover the range
from 3.5 (subgiant stars) to 4.5 (main-sequence stars), according to various
isochrones for very metal-poor stars
\citep{kim02,demarque04}. Unfortunately, for these stars, our
measurements only yielded a single or a few \ion{Fe}{2} lines, which
provides little opportunity to determine $\log g$\ in the traditional
manner, by demanding that the same abundance be returned by analysis
of the two ionization stages. Hence, the surface gravity for turn-off
stars ({$T_{\rm eff}$}$>5500$~K) is simply set to $\log g=4.0$, and we accept
that errors in its determination can be as large as 0.5~dex. We
assess the impact of this assumption below.
Figure~\ref{fig:dfe12} shows the differences in [Fe/H] derived from \ion{Fe}{1}
and \ion{Fe}{2} for a sample of 88 turn-off stars for which at least one
\ion{Fe}{2} line is detected. The average and standard deviation for each
0.2~dex bin of [Fe/H] are represented by an open circle and bars,
respectively. No significant offset between the [Fe/H] abundances from the two
species appears for [Fe/H]$>-3.3$. The small offset found in the lower
metallicity range could be a result of a bias in the sample, arising from the
fact that no \ion{Fe}{2} line is detected for a larger fraction of these stars.
Indeed, \ion{Fe}{2} lines are detected for only 13 objects among the 24 turn-off
stars with [Fe/H]$<-3.3$. The \ion{Fe}{2} lines are weaker due to the generally
higher gravities in objects for which the \ion{Fe}{2} lines are
not detected. Excluding this bias, the gravity adopted in our analysis for
turn-off stars ($\log g =4.0$) is well justified, based on this comparison.
The uncertainty in our $\log g$ values is estimated to be 0.5~dex, based on the
standard deviation of about 0.2~dex found in $\Delta$[Fe/H] from \ion{Fe}{1} and
\ion{Fe}{2} (see \S~\ref{sec:abana} and Table~\ref{tab:error}). We note that the iron
abundance measured from \ion{Fe}{1}, which is the metallicity indicator used in
this paper, as well as the abundance ratios [Mg/Fe], [Ca/Fe] and [Ba/Fe], which
are important for the discussion to follow, are not very sensitive to the $\log
g$ values.
We note that the {$\log g$} values determined by SSPP for our
turn-off stars are lower than 4.0 on average, and those for 47 stars
are lower than 3.5. We suspect that the uncertainty in gravity
determination by the SSPP for EMP stars is still larger than the errors
estimated for the entire SSPP sample (see \S~\ref{sec:sample1}), and further
calibration for the lowest metallicity range is required.
For giants, where greater numbers of \ion{Fe}{2} lines are detectable, the $\log
g$ values are determined by seeking agreement between the iron abundances
derived from the \ion{Fe}{1} and \ion{Fe}{2} lines, within measurement errors.
Note that our sample includes four cool stars ({$T_{\rm eff}$}$\leq 5200$~K) that
exhibit very weak features of ionized species, including \ion{Fe}{2}, compared
to red giants of similar temperatures, indicating that they are on the
main sequence. Two of them (SDSS~1703+2836 and SDSS~2357--0052) have already
been studied by \citet{aoki10}. The surface gravities of these stars are
estimated by reading off the value from an isochrone appropriate for low-mass
metal-poor stars with ages of 12~Gyr \citep{kim02}, as was also done by
\citet{aoki10}. We adopt $\log g=4.8$ for the two stars studied by
\citet{aoki10}, and 5.0 for the other two cooler objects. The high surface
gravity for these stars explains the strong features of the \ion{Mg}{1} b lines,
due to the broader wings, as well as the detectable CH G-band, without assuming
exceptional over-abundances of C and Mg.
The micro-turbulent velocity, {$v_{\rm micro}$}, for turn-off stars is fixed to 1.5~{\kms},
which is a typical value found by previous studies \citep[e.g., ][]{cohen04}.
Since the abundance measurements for most elements in turn-off stars are based
on weak lines, the result is insensitive to the adopted micro-turbulent
velocity. The values for giants are determined from the analysis of \ion{Fe}{1}
lines, by forcing the iron abundances from individual lines to exhibit no
dependence on the measured equivalent widths. The {$v_{\rm micro}$} of cool main-sequence
stars is assumed to be zero, which best explains the relation between the
equivalent widths of \ion{Fe}{1} lines and the abundances from individual lines.
There remains a weak trend in the relation, which can be resolved by assuming
negative values for {$v_{\rm micro}$}. This suggests that the line broadening from the
Uns\"{o}ld approximation should not be enhanced, as discussed by \citet{aoki10}.
The metallicity of the model atmospheres ([M/H]=[Fe/H]) is fixed to $-3.0$. The
temperature/density structure of photospheres, and the chemical abundances
derived using model atmospheres, is not very sensitive to the assumed
metallicity in such very/extremely metal-poor stars. Exceptions are found for
the three stars for which [Fe/H]$>-2.5$ was derived; in such cases we
iterated the analysis to obtain consistent [Fe/H] values.
Figure~\ref{fig:compfe} shows the [Fe/H] abundances determined by the
analysis of high-resolution spectra compared with those supplied by
the SSPP for SDSS medium-resolution spectra. The upper panel shows the
comparison for the estimates from SDSS spectra which were available
when target selection for the Subaru observations was carried out in
2008. This comparison indicates that very/extremely metal-poor stars
are efficiently selected from the SDSS measurements. Among the targets
for which [Fe/H] is estimated to be lower than $-2.7$ from the SSPP
estimate (most of objects in our sample, with few exceptions), only 10
stars have high-resolution determinations [Fe/H]$>-2.7$. This
demonstrates a clear advantage of using the results of the SDSS survey
for picking EMP targets, relative to previous surveys based on
low-resolution objective-prism spectra.
On the other hand, the correlation between the two measurements of
[Fe/H] is weak, as seen in the upper panel of
Figure~\ref{fig:compfe}. In particular, stars for which the iron
abundance is estimated to be $-3.0<$[Fe/H]$<-2.7$ exhibit very large
scatter. Since the number of objects that have high [Fe/H] ([Fe/H]$>-2.5$;
measured from high-resolution spectra) is small, the large scatter is
due to the existence of many EMP ([Fe/H]$<-3.0$) stars among
them. Moreover, almost all stars for which [Fe/H]$<-3$ as derived from
the SDSS spectra exhibit lower [Fe/H] as obtained from the
high-resolution spectra. This comparison indicates that the criterion
in the sample selection for the [Fe/H] values from SDSS (based on an
earlier version of SSPP) provides a homogeneous sample for lower
metallicity ([Fe/H]$\lesssim -3$), while the selection could be
incomplete for stars of higher metallicity.
The lower panel of Figure~\ref{fig:compfe} shows a comparison of
[Fe/H] abundances derived by our analysis of high-resolution spectra
with the SDSS estimates supplied by the latest version of SSPP. In
contrast to the upper panel, there is no clear offset between the two
estimates. However, the scatter is still larger than preferred for
detailed inference of, e.g., the nature of the metallicity
distribution function (MDF) at very/extremely low metallicity. We also
note that, in particular for metallicities as low as those considered
in our present analysis, the effects of interstellar \ion{Ca}{2} on
metallicities calculated from medium-resolution spectra can be large,
in particular for warmer stars, which rely almost entirely on the
strength of the \ion{Ca}{2} K line for their metallicity
estimation. Thus, we are reminded once again that high-resolution
spectroscopy is required to obtain accurate metallicity estimates for
individual EMP stars.
The [Fe/H] values we estimate for the four cool main-sequence stars from our
high-resolution spectra are lower than those from the SSPP, by $\sim 0.3$~dex.
The gravity estimates for these stars are also significantly higher than
reported by the SSPP for the medium-resolution spectra, which may also
contribute some to the offset in [Fe/H]. It should be kept in mind that, due to
their low luminosities, cool dwarfs infrequently enter into samples of VMP/EMP
stars selected from magnitude limited samples. Nevertheless, future adjustments
to the SSPP may be able to better handle such stars.
\subsection{Abundance measurements}\label{sec:abana}
Standard LTE abundance analyses for measured equivalent widths have
been made for other elements. The derived abundances are presented in
Table~\ref{tab:abundance}. The errors given in the table include
random errors and those due to uncertainties of atmospheric
parameters. The random errors in the measurements are estimated to be
$\sigma N^{-1/2}$, where $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of derived
abundances from individual lines, and $N$ is the number of lines
used. Since the $N$ for most elements other than Fe is small,
the
$\sigma$ of \ion{Fe}{1} ($\sigma_{\rm Fe I}$) is adopted in the
estimates for them (i.e. error is $\sigma_{\rm Fe I} N^{-1/2}$). The
errors due to the uncertainty of the atmospheric parameters are
estimated for a turn-off star and a giant (Table~\ref{tab:error}), for
$\delta${$T_{\rm eff}$}$= 150$~K, $\delta${$\log g$}$=0.5$, and $\delta${$v_{\rm micro}$}$=
0.5$~{\kms}). These errors are added in quadrature to the random
errors to derive the total errors given in Table~\ref{tab:abundance}.
\subsection{Carbon abundances}\label{sec:ana_c}
Carbon abundances are determined for 28 stars in our sample, based on
the CH G-band (the Q branches of CH A--X system at $\sim 4320$~{\AA}), as
well as the C$_{2}$ Swan 0--0 band at 5165~{\AA}. Examples of the
spectra of the CH band are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:chc2}. The molecular
data are the same as those used in \citet{aoki07}.
The CH G-band is detected for 14 stars among the 25 giants, and for
all four of the cool main-sequence stars. Nine giants are
carbon enhanced ([C/Fe] $> +0.7$). The C$_{2}$ band is used to
determine the carbon abundances of four stars, because the CH G-band
in these objects is almost saturated. The detection limit of the CH
G-band in a red giant with {$T_{\rm eff}$} $ < 5500~$K is approximately
[C/H]$\sim -2.5$ for spectra of snapshot quality (S/N$\sim
30$). Hence, stars for which the CH G-band feature is not detected are
unlikely to be CEMP stars. The fraction of CEMP stars in our sample is
9/25$\sim$ 36\%, which is in agreement with the estimate by Carollo et
al. (2012) for [Fe/H]$\sim -3$, i.e., at the limit of their sample.
None of the four cool main-sequence stars in our sample are carbon enhanced. The
CH G-band is detected for such objects because of their low temperatures and the
high pressure of their atmospheres. Among the four stars, the lowest carbon
abundance ratio is found for SDSS J0018-0939 ([C/Fe]$=-0.7$). Although the CH
G-band of this star is weak and the measurement is uncertain, a conservative
upper limit is [C/Fe]$<-0.3$, which is already lower than the carbon abundances
found in other cool main-sequence stars. A weak CH G-band could alternatively be
explained by assuming a lower gravity. However, the weak features of ionized
species such as \ion{Fe}{2} cannot be accounted for if this object is assumed to
be a red giant ($\log g<3$). Thus, the under-abundance of carbon in this star is
a robust result, although a higher quality spectrum is required to derive an
accurate estimate of its abundance.
In contrast to the giants, the CH G-band is detected for only 10 stars
among the 108 turn-off stars. All of these objects are highly
carbon enhanced ([C/Fe] $\gtrsim +2$). The detection limit of the CH
G-band for a turn-off star with {$T_{\rm eff}$}$\sim 6000$~K is [C/H]$\sim
-1.5$ ([C/Fe]$\sim +1.5$ for [Fe/H]$\sim -3$), indicating that the CH
G-band is not measurable even for the mildly carbon-enhanced ($+0.7 <
$[C/Fe]$ < +1.5$) stars in our sample. Hence, the fraction of CEMP
objects for the turn-off stars (10/108$\sim$ 9\%) should be regarded
as a lower limit.
\subsection{Analysis of the comparison star G~64--12}\label{sec:comp}
In order to examine the reliability of the abundances determined from
our snapshot spectra, we obtained a spectrum of the well-studied EMP
turn-off star G~64--12, using the same instrumental setup and
integrating to a similar S/N ratio as for the bulk of our sample,
employing a short (five minute) exposure time. The chemical
composition of this object was reported on by \citet{aoki06}, using a
high-resolution, high S/N spectrum. The abundance analysis for this
object was conducted adopting the same model atmosphere used in
\citet{aoki06}, that is, the ATLAS model including convective
overshooting \citep{kurucz93} for {$T_{\rm eff}$} $=6380$~K, $\log g=4.4$ and
[Fe/H] $ = -3.2$. The results are compared in
Table~\ref{tab:comparisonstar}. The [Fe/H] and [X/Fe] values are
calculated adopting the solar abundances of \citet{asplund09} for both
cases. The agreement is fairly good for most species: the differences
of the two measurements ($\log \epsilon$ values) are within 0.12~dex,
which are as small as the random errors in the present analyses. An
exception is the Sr abundance, which is determined from the
\ion{Sr}{2} resonance lines in the blue range, where the data quality
is relatively low. Another exception is Na, for which only a
preliminary result was provided in \citet{aoki06}. The Na abundance
was determined from the same spectrum to be $\log \epsilon$(Na)
$=2.74$ by \citet{aoki09}, adopting slightly different atmospheric
parameters (Table~\ref{tab:comparisonstar}), which agrees well with
the Na abundance measured by the present work ($\log \epsilon$(Na)
$=2.82$).
\subsection{Double-lined spectroscopic binaries}\label{subsec:sb2}
Three stars in our sample clearly exhibit two (or three, in the case of one
star) sets of absorption features with distinct doppler shifts, suggesting these
objects to be double-lined spectroscopic binaries or multiple systems. The
region of the spectra around the Mg b lines of these objects is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:sb2}.
SDSS J0817+2641 was already studied by \citet{aoki08}. The spectrum
obtained in their study (on February 9, 2007) is shown in the second
panel of Figure~\ref{fig:sb2}. The second component of the absorption
features is not obvious in their spectrum, while it is clearly seen in
our new spectrum shown in the third panel. \citet{aoki08} reported a
discrepancy in the radial velocities measured from the SDSS
medium-resolution spectrum and their Subaru high-resolution data. The
discrepancy is most likely a result of the large doppler shifts of
both components, or possibly due to the uncertainty of the
measurements from the medium-resolution spectrum, which was incapable
of resolving the two components. This also suggests that, given the
overall excellent quality of the SDSS stellar velocity determinations
(especially for the brighter stars one naturally targets for
high-resolution spectroscopic follow-up), as described in
\S~\ref{sec:rv}, that obtaining even a single-epoch snapshot quality
high-resolution spectrum is an efficient way to identify at least
high-amplitude binary variations in a sample of stars.
The spectrum of SDSS J1108+1747, obtained on March 7, 2008 (fourth panel of Fig.
\ref{fig:sb2}) exhibits triple spectral features, indicating that this system
consists of at least three stars of similar luminosity. A significant change of
the spectral features is found in its March 9 spectrum (fifth panel), in which
only two components appear. The correspondence between the features of the two
spectra is still unclear because of the limited quality of our spectra. This is,
to our knowledge, the most metal-deficient multiple ($n \geq 3$) system yet
discovered ([Fe/H] $\sim -3$).
In order to accurately measure the chemical compositions of these
objects, we need to determine the contribution of each component to
the continuum light. This is only possible by determining the mass
ratios from long-term radial velocity monitoring. However, the ratios
of the apparent strengths of the Mg b lines (depths of the absorption
lines) are at most three or four, suggesting that the components have
comparable luminosities. The objects have {$T_{\rm eff}$} around
6000~K. Hence, the spectral features can be modeled by adding the
spectra of two or three main-sequence stars that have slightly
different mass (mass ratios of 1.2 or smaller; see Goldberg et
al. 2002), which have similar strengths of the (partially saturated)
Mg b lines. For a rough estimate of the contribution of each component
to the continuum light, we assume that the contribution is in
proportion to the depth of the Mg b absorption lines. The primary
components of the Mg b lines identified by the present work are
indicated by the filled triangles in Figure~\ref{fig:sb2}. The
contributions of the primary components estimated by this method are
75\%, 80\%, and 40\% in SDSS J1410+5350, SDSS J0817+2641, and SDSS
J1108+1747, respectively. The equivalent widths measured for the
primary components by Gaussian fitting are divided by these factors
for carrying out the abundance analyses.
The abundance analyses for the primary components of these objects are made as
for other single-lined stars. We adopt the {$T_{\rm eff}$} determined by SSPP with no
modification; the {$T_{\rm eff}$}'s estimated from colors agree with the SSPP results.
The colors of the (integrated) system should be similar to the colors of the
primary component -- if the primary is distinctively warmer than the other
components, it should dominate the system luminosity, while the primary should
have similar {$T_{\rm eff}$} to the other components if it does not dominate the
system luminosity.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:abratio}
\subsection{Carbon-Enhanced Metal-Poor (CEMP) Stars}\label{sec:cemp}
Previous studies of CEMP stars have clearly demonstrated that they are separable
into at least two primary classes: CEMP stars exhibiting large enhancements of
s-process elements (CEMP-s), and those with no excess of neutron-capture
elements (CEMP-no) \citep{beers05}. Note that recent studies of CEMP-s stars
split this class even more granularly (e.g., Bisterzo et al. 2011). The fraction
of CEMP-no stars among all CEMP stars is $\sim 20$\%, and increases with
decreasing stellar metallicity \citep{aoki07, hollek11}. The distribution of the
[C/H] ratios also appears to be different between the two classes -- most
of the CEMP-s stars exhibit quite high values ([C/H]$ > -1$), while the CEMP-no
class exhibits a wide distribution of values \citep{aoki07}.
Among the nine CEMP red giants in our sample, only two possess large excesses of
Ba ([Ba/Fe] $ > +1$: SDSS J1836+6317 and SDSS J1734+4316). One exhibits a
moderate excess of Ba ([Ba/Fe]$=+0.8$: SDSS J0711+6702). Four stars have solar
or lower Ba abundance ratios ([Ba/Fe]$\lesssim 0$), hence are classified as
CEMP-no stars. Although Ba is not measured for the other two CEMP red giants,
they could also be CEMP-no, given the detection limit of Ba in red giants
([Ba/Fe] $\sim -0.5$ at [Fe/H] $\sim -3$). Hence, six objects among the nine
CEMP giants in our sample are CEMP-no stars. This result suggests that a high
fraction of CEMP-no stars exists in this metallicity range ($-3.4 < $[Fe/H]$ <
-2.5$).
Possible progenitors for the CEMP-no class include massive, rapidly
rotating, mega metal-poor ([Fe/H] $< -6.0$) stars, which models
suggest have greatly enhanced abundances of CNO due to distinctive
internal burning and mixing episodes, followed by strong mass loss
(Hirschi et al. 2006; Meynet et al. 2006, 2010a,b). Another suggested
mechanism for the production of the material incorporated into CEMP-no
stars is pollution of the interstellar medium by so-called faint
supernovae associated with the first generations of stars, which
experience extensive mixing and fallback during their explosions
(Umeda \& Nomoto 2003, 2005; Tominaga et al. 2007). This model
well-reproduces the observed abundance pattern of the CEMP-no star
BD+44$^{\circ}$493, the ninth-magnitude [Fe/H] $= -3.7$ star (with
[C/Fe] = +1.3, [N/Fe] = +0.3, [O/Fe] = +1.6) discussed by Ito et
al. (2009). The recently reported high redshift ($z = 2.3$), extremely
metal-poor Damped Lyman-$\alpha$ (DLA) system by Cooke et al. (2011:
[Fe/H]$\sim -3.0$) exhibits enhanced carbonicity ([C/Fe] $= +1.5$) and
other elemental abundance signatures that \citet{kobayashi11} also
associate with production by faint supernovae. In addition, a fraction
of CEMP-no stars might belong to binary systems and have been formed by mass
transfer from AGB stars that yielded no s-process elements but enriched
carbon \citep[e.g., ][]{suda04}.
Eight of the 10 CEMP turn-off stars exhibit large enhancements of
Ba. Although the metallicities of these stars are similar to those of
the CEMP giants, the fraction of CEMP-s stars is apparently higher
among the turn-off stars than for the red giants. The carbon
over-abundances of all the CEMP turn-off stars are much larger than
the average over-abundances of the CEMP giants, presumably because the
detection limit of the CH G-band is higher for these warmer stars. As
shown by previous studies of CEMP stars \citep[e.g., ][]{aoki07}, the
[C/H] distributions are quite different between the two classes of
CEMP stars: a large fraction of CEMP-s stars have higher [C/H]
values. Hence, the high fraction of the CEMP-s stars among the CEMP
turn-off stars could be simply due to this bias in the sample. In
other words, one can assume that many additional CEMP-no stars could
be included among the turn-off stars of our sample, but they have not
yet been identified as CEMP stars.
We comment here on five CEMP stars that have remarkable features in their
chemical compositions or stellar parameters.
{\it SDSS J1036+1212 -- a CEMP-s star with [Fe/H]$=-3.5$ and a Spite
plateau Li abundance}: This extremely metal-poor turn-off star
({$T_{\rm eff}$}$=5850$~K) exhibits excesses of carbon ([C/Fe] $=+1.5$) and Ba
([Ba/Fe] $=+1.3$). The [Sr/Ba] ratio is very low ([Sr/Ba] $=-2.1$),
suggesting the contribution of the s-process even at extremely low
metallicity, which efficiently produces heavy elements due to the high
ratio of neutrons to seed nuclei \citep[e.g., ][]{busso99}. The
\ion{Li}{1} resonance line is clearly detected for this star, even in
our snapshot spectrum with a moderate S/N ratio. The equivalent width
of the Li line is 52m{\AA}, resulting in $\log
\epsilon$(Li)$=2.2$. This value agrees with the Li abundances
typically found for metal-poor turn-off stars (the so-called Spite
plateau value: e.g., Spite \& Spite 1982; Mel{\'e}ndez et
al. 2010). The excesses of carbon and barium in such stars is usually
interpreted as the result of mass transfer from a companion AGB
star. If the amount of mass transferred from the AGB star was large,
and the Li was depleted on the surface of the AGB star, the Li should
also be depleted in the star we are currently observing. Thus, more
accurate determinations of the Li abundance of this star will provide
an upper limit on the mass transferred from the AGB star. We have
already obtained a higher S/N spectrum of this object, and a detailed
study will appear in a separate paper in this series.
{\it SDSS J1613+5309 -- a CEMP-no star with a Mg excess}: This object
is an EMP ([Fe/H] $=-3.3$) giant that exhibits a moderate excess of Mg
([Mg/Fe] $=+0.9$), but no excess of Ba. Two previously identified CEMP
stars are known to possess large excesses of $\alpha$-elements
(CS~22949--037 and CS~29498--043: McWilliam et al. 1995, Aoki et
al. 2002a, Aoki et al. 2002b), and are referred to as CEMP-$\alpha$
stars \citep{beers05}. Although the excess of the $\alpha$-elements of
SDSS J1613+5309 is not as clear as for the two previous objects, this
star is likely a new member of the CEMP-$\alpha$ class. We note in
passing that enhanced $\alpha$-elements are often (though not always)
associated with the CEMP-no class.
{\it SDSS J1836+6317 and SDSS J1245$-$0738 -- CEMP-s stars with large
excesses of Na and Mg}: These are typical CEMP-s stars, having
[Ba/Fe] $>+2.0$. They exhibit large excesses of Na ([Na/Fe] $>+1.3$)
and moderate excesses of Mg ([Mg/Fe] $\sim +0.8$). Similar
over-abundances of Na and Mg are also found in several previously
studied CEMP-s stars, e.g., LP~625--44 \citep{aoki02a}. Although the
source of the Na and Mg in such objects is not well understood,
nucleosynthesis in AGB stars that yielded the large over-abundances of
neutron-capture elements may also be related to the production of
these light elements. For instance, the s-process models by
\citet{bisterzo11} suggest dependence of Na production by
$^{22}$Ne($n,\gamma$)$^{23}$Ne (and $\beta$-decay of $^{23}$Ne) on
stellar mass.
{\it SDSS J0126+0607 -- a ``hot'' CEMP-s star}: The {$T_{\rm eff}$} of this
object is the highest (6900~K) in our sample, and the excesses of
carbon and Ba are also the highest ([C/Fe] $=+3.1$ and [Ba/Fe]
$=+3.2$). Such CEMP-s stars could be formed by accretion of
significant amounts of carbon-enhanced material from an AGB star
across a binary system. Some previously known hot ({$T_{\rm eff}$} $\sim
7000$~K) CEMP-s stars (e.g., CS~29497--030: Sivarani et al. 2004,
Ivans et al. 2005; CS~29526--110: Aoki et al. 2008) exhibit variations of
radial velocities with short timescales (less than one year). Future
monitoring of the radial velocity for this object, as well as more
detailed chemical-abundance studies, will provide new insight for the
formation mechanism of such hot CEMP-s stars.
\subsection{The $\alpha$-elements}\label{sec:alpha}
\subsubsection{Abundance scatter and outliers}
Figure~\ref{fig:mgca} shows the abundance ratios of [Mg/Fe], [Ca/Fe],
and [Mg/Ca] for turn-off stars (filled circles) and cooler stars (open
circles). The average and standard deviation of the abundance ratios
for each 0.2~dex bin of [Fe/H] are indicated by large open circles and
bars, connected by a solid line. The average and standard deviation of
the abundance ratios determined by previous studies, which are taken
from the SAGA database \citep{suda08}, are also shown by crosses and a
dashed line, for comparison. The standard deviations of
[Mg/Fe] and [Ca/Fe] of our sample are 0.25--0.35~dex, as small as the
measurement errors. Hence, no clear intrinsic scatter of the abundance
ratios is found in these diagrams.
Non-LTE effects on abundance measurements for extremely
metal-poor stars were investigated for Mg by \citet{andrievsky10},
and for Ca by \citet{mashonkina07} and \citet{spite12}. The non-LTE
corrections for Mg are positive, and the size is 0.1--0.3~dex,
according to \citet{andrievsky10}. The corrections are
systematically larger for dwarf stars than for giants. Hence, the Mg
abundance ratios could be systematically higher than those derived
by our LTE analysis. The non-LTE corrections for Ca abundances
measured from neutral species are dependent on spectral lines: the
correction is largest for measurements based on the \ion{Ca}{1} 4226~{\AA}
line, which is used in our analysis for a portion of the sample. The
corrections are estimated to be 0.0--0.2~dex by
\citet{spite12}. Hence, the effects are not significant when other
lines (such as the subordinate lines) of \ion{Ca}{1} are available, as in the
case of analyses for giants in our sample. We note that the
abundance results taken from the SAGA database are based on LTE
analyses.
We would like to comment on possible outliers in Mg abundances as candidate
$\alpha$-element-enhanced or $\alpha$-deficient stars. Although some apparent outliers
exist in [Ca/Fe], the Ca abundances are determined from only one feature at
4226~{\AA} in many cases, for which the S/N ratios are not as high as in the red range, and
which could be affected by contamination from the CH features in carbon-enhanced
objects. Hence, the Ca abundances are discussed only for comparison purposes.
There are seven stars that have [Mg/Fe] $>+0.8$. Two of them are CEMP stars, as
discussed above. Three objects (SDSS J0840+5405, SDSS J1623+3913, and SDSS
J2104$-$0104) also exhibit some excess of Ca ([Ca/Fe] $>+0.7$), suggesting that
their excesses of the $\alpha$-elements are real.
The Mg abundance ratios of the other two stars (SDSS J1412+5609 and
SDSS J1424+5615) are also very high ([Mg/Fe]$\sim +0.9$), while their
Ca abundances appear normal. If this result is real, this suggests
scatter of chemical-abundance ratios produced by the progenitor
massive star and its supernova explosion.
There are four stars that have [Mg/Fe] $<-0.2$. One of the four stars is a cool
main-sequence star (SDSS J0018$-$0939: [Mg/Fe]$=-0.44$). The Mg abundance is
determined from the \ion{Mg}{1} b lines, which are rather sensitive to the
adopted broadening parameter. However, the non-detection of other \ion{Mg}{1}
lines (e.g., 5528~{\AA}) results in an upper limit of [Mg/Fe]$\sim 0.0$,
indicating a deficiency of Mg in this star. The [Ca/Fe] ratio of this star is
also below the solar value. Moreover, the carbon abundance of this object is
very low ([C/Fe] $= -0.7$), as mentioned in \S~\ref{sec:ana_c}. The Na is also
significantly under-abundant ([Na/Fe] $= -1.0$). Further detailed abundance
study of this object is desirable, as a candidate VMP star revealing a peculiar
nucleosynthesis episode in the early chemical enrichment of the Galaxy.
Another object (SDSS J0254+3328: [Mg/Fe] $=-0.3$) also exhibits a relatively low
Ca abundance ([Ca/Fe] $=0.0$) for a star at this very low metallicity ([Fe/H] $
=-2.8$), and could be an $\alpha$-element-deficient star. The other two stars,
SDSS J1241$-$0837 and SDSS J1633+3907, have normal Ca abundances for halo stars,
and the deficiency of the $\alpha$-elements in general is unclear.
Excluding such outliers, no clear scatter of the [$\alpha$/Fe] ratios is
detected, within the measurement errors, in our sample. This indicates that
there is no large scatter in the abundance ratios of these elements even at very
low metallicity, as suggested by previous studies
\citep{francois04, arnone05, andrievsky10}. Higher quality spectra are
required to investigate the small size of the abundance scatter, if any, which
will provide useful constraints on the early chemical enrichment of the
Galaxy by supernovae and subsequent mixing in the interstellar medium.
\subsubsection{Abundance Trends}
The averages of [Mg/Fe] and [Ca/Fe] clearly exhibit over-abundances of
these elements in EMP stars, as have been found by numerous previous
studies \citep[e.g.,][]{ryan96, mcwilliam97, cayrel04}. There is no
clear increasing or decreasing trend of the [Mg/Fe] and [Ca/Fe]
abundance ratios in the sample taken from the SAGA database, as shown
by the dashed lines in Figure~\ref{fig:mgca}. This is also the case for
stars with [Fe/H]$ \leq -2.8$ in our sample; the average values of
[Mg/Fe] and [Ca/Fe] are +0.4 and +0.3, respectively, in agreement with
those reported by many previous studies \citep[e.g., ][]{lai08,
andrievsky10}.
However, the abundance ratios at [Fe/H] $=-2.6$ ($\langle$[Mg/Fe]$\rangle=+0.08$
and $\langle$[Ca/Fe]$\rangle = -0.04$) are lower than these averages for the
stars with [Fe/H] $<-2.8$. Although the standard deviations are as large as
0.25~dex, the difference is statistically significant, given the sample size (11
objects) in this bin. Indeed, the null hypothesis that the [Mg/Fe] for stars in
the bin ($-2.7<$ [Fe/H] $\leq-2.5$) and for the lower metallicity stars ([Fe/H]
$\leq -2.7$) are drawn from the same parent population is rejected by the
Mann-Whitney rank-sum test at high significance ($p < 0.001$).
This metallicity bin includes a relatively large fraction of giants
(six giants among the 11 stars). However, there is no significant
difference in the average [Mg/Fe] between giants and turn-off stars in
our entire sample (the difference is less than 0.01~dex). Moreover,
the average [Mg/Fe] for the six giants in the metallicity range $-2.7
< $[Fe/H]$ \leq -2.5$ ($<$[Mg/Fe]$>$ = $+0.16$) is rather higher than
for the five turn-off stars in the bin ($<$[Mg/Fe]$>$ =
$-0.03$). Hence, the relatively large fraction of giants in this bin
is unlikely to be the reason for the low [Mg/Fe].
The [Mg/Ca] ratio is almost constant over the full metallicity range in
our sample, as found by previous studies. Hence, the
abundance trend of our sample suggests a decreasing trend of the
$\alpha$-elements at [Fe/H]$\sim -2.5$.
Recent abundance studies of halo stars with available full space motions suggest
different trends in the [$\alpha$/Fe] abundance ratios depending on kinematics
\citep{zhang09, ishigaki10, nissen10}. These studies mostly include less
metal-poor stars ([Fe/H]$\gtrsim -2.0$) than our sample. Further investigations
of the kinematics, as well as their chemical abundance ratios, for significantly more
metal-poor stars, such as those included in our present sample, is desired to
understand the early formation processes of the Galactic halo system.
\subsection{Sr and Ba}
Figure~\ref{fig:srba} shows the abundance ratios of [Sr/Fe], [Ba/Fe],
and [Sr/Ba] as a function of metallicity. The results are compared
with those obtained by previous studies, also taken from the SAGA
database \citep{suda08}, which are shown by open circles
(carbon-normal stars) and asterisks (carbon-enhanced stars).
Non-LTE effects on Sr and Ba abundance determinations were
investigated by \citet{andrievsky11} and \citet{andrievsky09},
respectively. The abundance corrections for Ba are positive, hence
our LTE analyses could systematically underestimate the Ba
abundances, though the correction would be at most 0.3~dex. The
correction for Sr abundances determined from the \ion{Sr}{2} 4077
and 4215~{\AA} lines could be positive and negative, depending on
the stellar parameters. The corrections are, however, at most
0.2~dex. Since these effects are much smaller than the scatter found
in the Sr and Ba abundance ratios, our discussion here is not
significantly affected by the non-LTE effects.
The [Sr/Fe] ratios (top panel) exhibit a scatter of about one order of
magnitude. Interestingly, this scatter is much {\it smaller} than that
found by previous studies at [Fe/H] $\sim -3$
\citep[e.g., ][]{mcwilliam95, ryan96, honda04, aoki05,
francois07}. However, this could be the result of a bias in the
sample, since the \ion{Sr}{2} lines are in the blue range (where the
spectral data quality is not high), and are only detected in stars
having high Sr abundance. Indeed, the objects in our sample distribute
in the range of [Sr/Fe]$\gtrsim -1$, below which many stars are found
in the SAGA sample. In other words, there are likely to be many stars
having lower [Sr/Fe] ratios in our sample for which the Sr lines are
not detected.
Although the situation is similar for the [Ba/Fe] ratios (middle
panel), the scatter is much larger than for [Sr/Fe]. This is mostly
due to the large excesses of Ba in carbon-enhanced stars (the CEMP-s
stars), which are shown by over-plotting large open circles. This is
clear from the comparison with previous studies: carbon-enhanced
objects in the SAGA sample are shown by asterisks in
Figure~\ref{fig:srba}.
The s-process at low metallicity is known to yield larger amounts of heavy
neutron-capture elements, such as Ba, compared to lighter elements
such as Sr \citep[e.g., ][]{busso99, bisterzo11}. This is clearly seen
in the [Sr/Ba] ratios (bottom panel), where most of the CEMP stars
exhibit low [Sr/Ba] ratios. There is one exception, at [Fe/H]$ =
-3.0$, that has a very high [Sr/Ba] ratio ([Sr/Ba] $=+2.2$). This
star, SDSS J1422+0031, exhibits no excess of Ba ([Ba/Fe] $ = -1.0$),
and is classified as a CEMP-no star.
Excluding the CEMP-s stars, four other stars have [Ba/Fe]
$>+0.5$. Among them, SDSS J2357--0052 is a highly r-process-enhanced
(r-II) star, reported on in detail by \citet{aoki10}. This object is
the first example of a cool EMP main-sequence star with large excesses
of r-process elements. The metallicity is the lowest, and the excess
of Eu is the highest ([Eu/Fe]=+1.9), among the r-II stars known to date. We
note that the Fe abundance of this object derived in the present work
([Fe/H]$ =-3.2$) is slightly higher than the result of \citet{aoki10},
because the {$T_{\rm eff}$} adopted here is slightly higher.
SDSS J0932+0241 is another EMP star exhibiting a large excess of Ba ([Ba/Fe]$
=+1.2$). Because of the limited quality of our spectrum and the star's high temperature
({$T_{\rm eff}$}$=6200$~K), the abundances of most other heavy elements are not
determined. We note that the [Sr/Ba] ratio of this star ([Sr/Ba] $ =-0.3$) is
significantly higher than the values found in CEMP-s stars, suggesting the
origin of these heavy elements are attributable to the r-process, rather than to the
s-process. If this is confirmed, this object is the first clear example of r-II
stars at the main-sequence turn-off \citep{sneden08}. Further detailed abundance
study is desirable for this object to firmly establish the origin of the excess
in Ba.
The other two stars, SDSS J0008--0529 and SDSS J2128--0756, exhibit
[Ba/Fe] ratios of +0.6 and +0.8, respectively. If the origin of the Ba
in these stars is the r-process, the [Eu/Fe] values are expected to be
higher than +1. Measurements of the heavy elements in these objects,
based on higher quality spectra, are also desirable for further
studies of r-II stars.
Another interesting object is SDSS J0140+2344, which has a large
overabundance of Sr ([Sr/Fe]$>+1$) with no clear excess of Ba. Though
many metal-poor stars having high Sr/Ba ratios are known \citep[e.g.,
][]{honda04, francois07}, this object is unique because of its low
metallicity ([Fe/H]$=-3.7$). Further detailed abundance study is
desired to understand the implication of the Sr overabundance in this
object.
\section{Summary}
We have determined stellar parameters and chemical compositions, based on
high-resolution spectra obtained with the Subaru/HDS, for
137 very/extremely metal-poor stars selected from SDSS/SEGUE. Comparisons of
the Fe abundances derived by the present work with the estimates by
the recent pipeline analyses for the SDSS spectra (SSPP) exhibit no
significant offset, even in the lowest metallicity range ([Fe/H]$<-3$),
while scatter in the comparisons indicates that high-resolution
spectroscopy is required to determine accurate metallicity for
individual stars. The abundance ratios of carbon, the $\alpha$-elements,
and the neutron-capture elements derived from our high-resolution spectra
will provide useful calibrations for the estimates from SDSS spectra.
The fraction of carbon-enhanced objects and the abundance ratios of
$\alpha$-elements and neutron-capture elements are discussed for the
overall sample. More detailed abundance patterns will be studied based
on higher-resolution, higher-S/N spectra for selected objects, in
particular those having the lowest metallicity ([Fe/H]$\lesssim -3.5$), .
Our sample includes three double-lined spectroscopic binaries
(including a triple system), for which chemical compositions of the
primary stars are estimated taking the veiling by the secondary into
consideration. Follow-up studies for these binaries will be useful for
understanding low-mass star formation at low metallicity in the
early era of the Galaxy.
\acknowledgments
Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred
P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National
Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the
Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for
England. The SDSS Web site is http://www.sdss.org/.
The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
University of Basel, Cambridge University, Case Western Reserve
University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the
Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns
Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the
Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean
Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos
National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA),
the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State
University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh,
University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States
Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
W.A. was supported by the JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research
(23224004). T.C.B. and Y.S.L. acknowledge partial funding of this
work from grants PHY 02-16783 and PHY 08-22648: Physics Frontier
Center/Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics (JINA), awarded by the
U.S. National Science Foundation. M.T.-H. is grateful for a support by
the JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (22540255).
{\it Facilities:} \facility{SDSS}, \facility{Subaru (HDS)}
|
\section{Introduction}
A contact structure on a complex manifold $X$ is in some sense the opposite of a foliation:
there is a vector bundle sequence
\[
0 \to F \to T_X \to L \to 0,
\]
where $T_X$ is the tangent bundle and $L$ a line bundle, with the additional property that the induced map
\[
\bigwedge^2F \to L, \ v \wedge w \mapsto [v,w]/F
\]
is everywhere non-degenerate. \\
Suppose now that $X$ is compact and K\"ahler or projective.
If $b_2(X) = 1,$ then at least conjecturally the structure is well-understood: $X$ should arise as minimal orbit in the projectivised Lie algebra of contact automorphisms.
Beauville \cite{Be98} proved this conjecture under the additional assumption that the group of contact automorphisms is reductive
and that the contact line bundle $L$ has ``enough'' sections. \\
If $b_2(X) \geq 2$ and $X$ is projective, then, due to \cite{KPSW00} and \cite{De02}, $X$ is a projectivized tangent bundle $\bP(T_Y)$ (in the sense of Grothendieck, taking hyperplanes)
over a projective manifold $Y$ (and conversely every such projectivised tangent bundle carries a contact structure).
If $X$ is only K\"ahler, the analogous conclusion is unknown. By \cite{De02}, the canonical bundle $K_X$ is still not pseudo-effective in the K\"ahler setting, but---unlike in the projective case---it is
not known whether this implies uniruledness of $X.$ \\
If however $X$ has enough symmetries, then we are able to deal with this situation:
\begin{theorem} Let $X$ be an almost homogeneous compact K\"ahler manifold carrying a contact structure.
If $b_2(X) \geq 2,$ then there is a compact K\"ahler manifold $Y$ such that $X \simeq \bP(T_Y).$
\end{theorem}
Here a manifold is said to be almost homogeneous, if the group of holomorphic automorphisms acts with an open orbit.
Equivalently, the holomorphic vector fields generate the tangent bundle $T_X$ at some (hence at the general) point. \\
In this setting it might be interesting to try to classify all compact almost homogeneous K\"ahler manifolds $X$ of the form
$X = \bP(T_Y).$ Section 4 studies this question in dimension $3.$
\vskip .2cm \noindent
In the second part of the paper we treat the deformation problem for projective contact manifolds.
We consider a family
\[
\pi\colon \sX \to \Delta
\]
of projective manifolds over the 1-dimensional disc $\Delta \subset \bC.$ Suppose that all $X_t = \pi^{-1}(t)$ are contact for $t \ne 0$.
Is then $X_0$ also a contact manifold? \\
Suppose first that $b_2(X_t) = 1.$ Then---as discussed above---$X_t$ should be
homogeneous for $t \ne 0.$ Assuming homogeneity, the
situation is well-understood by the work of Hwang and Mok. In fact, then $X_0$ is again homogeneous with one surprising $7$-dimensional
exception, discovered by Pasquier-Perrin \cite{PP10} and elaborated further by Hwang \cite{Hw10}. Therefore one has rigidity and the contact
structure survives unless the Pasquier-Perrin case happens, where the contact structure does not survive.
We refer to \cite{Hw10} and the references given at the beginning of section 5.
Therefore---up to the homogeneity conjecture---the situation is well-under\-stood. \\
If $b_2(X_t) \geq 2$, the situation gets
even more difficult; so we will assume that $X_t$ is homogeneous for $t \ne 0.$ We give a short argument in sect.~2, showing that then $X_t$
is either $\bP(T_{\bP_n})$ or a product of a torus and $\bP_n$. Then we investigate the {\it global projective rigidity} of $\bP(T_{\bP_n})$:
\begin{theorem}
Let $\pi\colon \sX \to \Delta $ be a projective family of compact manifolds. If $X_t \simeq \bP(T_{\bP_n})$ for $t \ne 0 $,
then either $X_0 \simeq \bP(T_{\bP_n})$ or $X_0 \simeq \bP(V)$ with some unstable vector bundle $V$ on $\bP_n.$
\end{theorem}
The assumption that $X_0$ is projective is indispensable for our proof. In general, $X_0$ is only Moishezon, and in particular methods from
Mori theory fail. In case $X_0$ is even assumed to be Fano, the theorem was proved by Wi\'sniewski \cite{Wi91}; in this case $X_0 \simeq \bP(T_{\bP_n}).$
The case $X_0 \simeq \bP(V)$ with an unstable bundle really occurs; we provide examples in all dimensions in section~\ref{sec:degen}. In this case $X_0$ is no longer a contact manifold.
In general, without homogeneity assumption, $X_t $ is the projectivisation of the tangent bundle of some projective variety $Y_t;$ here we have only some partial results,
see Proposition~\ref{partial}. If however $X_t$ is again homogeneous ($t \ne 0$) and not the projectivization of the tangent bundle of a projective space,
then $X_t $ is a product of a torus $A_t$ and a projective
space, and we obtain a rather clear picture, described in Section~\ref{sec:irr}.
The work on the project was started in collaboration with Kristina Frantzen. We would like to heartily thank her for her
contributions to sections 2, 3 and 4.
\section{Homogeneous K\"ahler Contact Manifolds}
We first study homogeneous manifolds which are projectivized tangent bundles.
\begin{proposition} \label{hom} Let $Y$ be compact K\"ahler. Then $X = \bP(T_Y)$ is homogeneous if and only if $Y$ is a torus or
$Y = \bP_n.$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} One direction being clear, assume that $X$ is homogeneous; thus $Y$ is homogeneous, too.
The theorem of Borel-Remmert \cite{BR62} says that
$$Y \cong A \times G/P$$ where $G/P$ is a rational homogeneous manifold ($G$ a semi-simple complex Lie group and $P$ a parabolic subgroup) and $A$ a torus, one
factor possibly of dimension $0$. Let $d = \dim A \geq 0.$ \\
We first assume that $d > 0$.
Then $T_Y = \sO_Y^d \oplus T_{G/P} $ leading to an inclusion
\[
Z := \bP(\sO_Y^d) \subset X
\]
with normal bundle
\[
N_{Z/X} = \sO_Z(1) \otimes \pi^*q^*(\Omega^1_{G/P}) = p^*(\sO(1)) \otimes \pi^*q^*(\Omega^1_{G/P}).
\]
Here $\pi\colon X \to Y$, $p\colon Z = \bP_{d-1} \times Y \to \bP_{d-1}$ and $q\colon Y \to G/P$ are the projections.
Now, $X$ being homogeneous, $N_{Z/X}$ is spanned. This is only possible when $\dim G/P = 0$ so that $Y = A$. \\
If $d = 0$, then $X$ is rational homogeneous, hence Fano. This is to say that $T_Y$ is ample, hence
$Y = \bP_n$ (we do not need Mori's
theorem here because $Y$ is already homogeneous).
\end{proof}
Proposition~\ref{hom} is now applied to obtain
\begin{proposition}
Let $X$ be a homogeneous compact K\"ahler manifold with contact structure and $\dim X = 2n-1$. Then either $X$ is a
Fano manifold (and therefore $X \simeq \bP(T_{\bP_n})$, by Prop.~\ref{hom}, unless $b_2(X) = 1$) or
\[
X \cong A \times \mathbb P_{n-1} = \mathbb P (T_A),
\]
where $A$ denotes a complex torus of dimension $n$ and $T_A$ its holomorphic tangent bundle.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Again by the theorem of Borel-Remmert, $X \cong A \times G/P$ where $G/P$ is rational-homogeneous and $A$ a torus, one
factor possibly of dimension~$0$.
If $A$ does not appear, then $X$ is Fano with $b_2(X) \geq 2$ and therefore by \cite{KPSW00} of the form $X = \bP(T_Y)$.
Then we conclude by Prop.~\ref{hom}. \\
So we may
assume $\dim A > 0$.
Since a torus does not admit a contact structure, it follows that the factor $G/P$ is nontrivial, i.e.~$\dim G/P \geq 1$.
We consider the projection $\pi\colon X \cong A \times G/P \to A $. Every fiber is $G/P$ and in particular a Fano manifold.
We may therefore use the arguments of \cite{KPSW00}, Proposition 2.11, to conclude that every fiber is $\mathbb P_{n-1}$.
Note that the arguments used in \cite{KPSW00}, Proposition 2.11
do not use the assumption that $X$ is projective. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{ The Almost homogeneous case}
The aim af this section is to generalize the previous section to almost homogeneous contact manifolds.
\subsection{Almost homogeneous projectivized tangent bundles}
We begin with the following general observation.
\begin{lemma}
Let $Y$ be a compact complex manifold and let $X = \mathbb P(T_Y)$ be its projectivised tangent bundle. If $X$ is almost homogeneous, then $Y$ is almost homogeneous.
\end{lemma}
We already mentioned that if $X$ is homogeneous, so is $Y$.
\begin{proof}
Let $\pi\colon X \to Y$ be the bundle projection and consider the relative tangent sequence
\[
0 \to T_{X/Y} \to T_X \to \pi^* T_Y \to 0.
\]
Since at a general point of $X$ the tangent bundle $T_X$ is spanned by global sections, so is $\pi^* T_Y$. So if $y \in Y$ is general, if $x \in \pi^{-1}(y)$ is general
and $v \in (\pi^*T_Y)_x $, then there exists
$$s \in H^0(X,\pi^*(T_Y))$$
such that $s(x) = v.$ Since $s = \pi^*(t)$ with
$t \in H^0(Y,T_Y),$ we obtain $t(y) = v \in T_{Y,y}.$
Thus $Y$ is almost homogeneous.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} {\rm
Note that, conversely, the projectivized tangent bundle $X=\mathbb P (T_Y)$ of an almost homogeneous manifold $Y$ is in general {\bf not} almost homogeneous. This is illustrated by the following examples. }
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
We start in a quite general setting with a projective manifold $Y$ of dimension $n$. We assume that $Y$ is almost homogeneous with $h^0(Y,T_Y) = n$. Furthermore we assume
\begin{equation} \label{eq1} h^0(Y,\Omega^1_Y \otimes T_Y) = h^0(Y,\mathrm{End}(T_Y)) = 1,\end{equation}
an assumption which is e.g.~satisfied if $T_Y$ is stable for some polarization.
We let $X = \mathbb P (T_Y)$ be the projectivized tangent bundle with projection $\pi\colon X = \mathbb P (T_Y) \to Y$ and hyperplane bundle
$\sO_X(1).$
Pushing forward the relative Euler sequence to $Y$ yields
\[
0 \to \mathcal O_Y \to \Omega^1_Y \otimes \pi_* (\mathcal O_X(1)) \to \pi_* T_{X/Y} \to 0.
\]
Since $\pi_* (\mathcal O_X(1)) = T_Y$, we obtain
\[
0 \to \mathcal O_Y \to \Omega^1_Y \otimes T_Y \to \pi_* T_{X/Y} \to 0.
\]
This sequence splits via the trace map $\Omega^1_Y\otimes T_Y\simeq\mathrm{End}(T_Y)\to\sO_Y$, so we obtain the exact sequence
\[
0 \to H^0(Y,\mathcal O_Y) \to H^0(Y, \Omega^1_Y \otimes T_Y) \to H^0(Y,\pi_* T_{X/Y} ) \to 0.
\]
Using assumption \eqref{eq1} we find
\[ H^0(X,T_{X/Y}) =
H^0(Y,\pi_* T_{X/Y}) = 0.
\]
Now the relative tangent sequence with respect to $\pi\colon X \to Y$ yields
an exact sequence
\[
0 \to H^0(X,T_{X/Y}) \to H^0(X,T_X) \to H^0(X,\pi^*(T_Y)) \simeq H^0(Y,T_Y)
\]
and therefore
\[
h^0(T_X) \leq h^0(T_Y).
\]
Hence $h^0(T_X) \leq n$, and $X$ cannot be almost homogeneous.
\vskip .2cm \noindent Notice that an inequality $h^0(T_X) \leq 2n-2$ suffices to conclude that $X$ is not almost homogeneous. Therefore we could weaken the assumptions $h^0(T_Y)=n$ and $h^0(\mathrm{End}(T_Y)) = 1$ to
\[
h^0(T_Y)+h^0(\mathrm{End}(T_Y)) \leq 2n-2.
\]
\vskip .2cm \noindent We give two specific examples.
\vskip .2cm \noindent First,
let $Y$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree six, i.e., a three-point blow-up of $\mathbb P_2$. Its automorphisms group is $(\mathbb C^*)^2 \rtimes S_3$.
In particular, $Y$ is almost homogeneous and $h^0(T_Y)=2$.
Since $h^0(\mathrm{End}(T_{\mathbb P_2}))=1$ and $Y$ is a blow up of $\mathbb P_2$, each endomorphism of $T_Y$ induces an endomorphism of $T_{\mathbb P_2}$ and it follows that
\begin{equation}
h^0(T_Y \otimes \Omega^1_Y) = h^0(\mathrm{End}(T_Y)) = 1.
\end{equation}
Hence the assumptions of our previous considerations are fulfilled and $X = \bP(T_Y)$ is not almost homogeneous.
\vskip .2cm \noindent
Here is an example with $b_2(Y) = 1.$ We let $Y$ be the Mukai-Umemura Fano threefold of type $V_{22},$ \cite{MU83}.
Here $h^0(T_Y) = 3$ and $Y$ is almost homogeneous with ${\rm Aut}^0(Y) = {\rm SL}_2(\mathbb C).$
Since $T_Y$ is known to be stable (see e.g.~\cite{PW95}), again all assumptions are satisfied and $X = \bP(T_Y)$ is not almost homogeneous.
\end{example}
\subsection{The Albanese map for almost homogeneous manifolds}
A well-known theorem of Barth-Oeljeklaus determines the structure of the Albanese map of an almost homogeneous K\"ahler manifold.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{BO74}]
Let $X$ be an almost homogeneous compact K\"ahler manifold. Then the Albanese map $\alpha\colon X \to A$ is a fiber bundle. The fibers are connected, simply-connected and projective.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The fibers $X_a$ of $\alpha$ are almost homogeneous.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
Let $x,y \in X_a$ be two general points. Then there exists $ f \in \mathrm{Aut}(X)$ with $f(x)=y$. Since the automorphism $f$ is fiber preserving,
we obtain an automorphism of $X_a$ mapping $x$ to $y$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The case $q(X) =0$}
If the irregularity of $X$ is $q(X)=0$, the Albanese map is trivial, and it follows that $X$ itself is simply-connected and projective.
\begin{lemma}
Let $X$ be an almost homogeneous compact K\"ahler manifold with contact structure. If $q(X)=0$ and $b_2(X) \geq 2$, then $X\cong \mathbb P(T_Y)$ is a projectivised tangent bundle.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
$X$ being projective, the results of \cite{KPSW00} apply. Combining them with \cite{De02} (cf. Corollary 4) yields the desired result.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{bea}
{\rm The case where $q(X)=0$ and $b_2(X) =1$ remains to be studied. Here $X$ is an almost homogeneous Fano manifold. It would be interesting to find out whether the results of \cite{Be98} apply. I.e.,
one has to check whether $\mathrm{Aut}(X)$ is reductive and
whether the map associated with the contact line bundle $L$ is generically finite.
In order to study the second property, consider the long exact sequence
\[
0 \to H^0(X,F) \to H^0(X,T_X) \to H^0(X,L) \to \dots
\]
If $H^0(X,F) \neq 0$ then $X$ has more than one contact structure \cite{Le95}, Prop.2.2, hence Corollary 4.5 of \cite{Ke01} implies that $X \cong \mathbb P_{2n+1}$ or $X \cong \mathbb P(T_Y)$.
If $H^0(X,F) = 0$ then $L$ has ``many sections'' and the map associated with $L$ is expected to be generically finite. }
\end{remark}
\subsection{The case $q(X) \geq 1$}
If the irregularity of $X$ is positive, then the Albanese map $\alpha\colon X \to A$ is a fiber bundle. We denote its fiber by $X_a$.
\begin{lemma}
Let $X$ be an almost homogeneous compact K\"ahler manifold with contact structure and $q(X) \geq 1$. If the fiber $X_a$ of the Albanese map fulfills $b_2(X_a) =1$, then $X \cong \mathbb P (T_A)= \mathbb P_n \times A$, where $A$ is the Albanese torus of~$X$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $b_2(X_a) =1$, then $X_a$ (being uniruled) is a Fano manifold. We may therefore apply Proposition 2.11 of \cite{KPSW00} (which works perfectly in our situation) to conclude
that $\alpha\colon X \to A$ is a $\mathbb P_n$-bundle. The proof of Theorem 2.12 in \cite{KPSW00} can now be adapted to conclude that $X \cong \mathbb P (T_A)$. To be more specific, we already know in our
situation that $X = \bP(\sE)$ with $\sE = \alpha_*(L).$ The only thing to be verified is the isomorphism $\sE \simeq T_A.$ But this is seen as in the last part of the proof of Theorem 2.12 in
\cite{KPSW00}, since section 2.1 of \cite{KPSW00} works on any manifold. \\
So $X \simeq \bP(T_A)$ and $X \cong \mathbb P_n \times A$.
\end{proof}
It remains to study the case where the fiber $X_a$ fulfills $b_2(X_a) \geq 2$. In this case we consider a relative Mori contraction (over $A$; the projection is a projective morphism, \cite{Na87}, (4.12))
\[
\varphi\colon X \to Y.
\]
\begin{lemma}
We have $\dim X > \dim Y$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The lemma follows from the fact that the restriction map $\varphi_a = \varphi \vert X_a$ is not birational. This can be shown by the same arguments as in Lemma 2.10 of \cite{KPSW00} using the length of the contraction and
the restriction of the contact line bundle to the fiber $X_a$. Again the projectivity of $X$ is not needed in Lemma 2.10.
\end{proof}
As above, we may now apply Proposition 2.11 of \cite{KPSW00} and conclude that the general fiber of $\varphi$ is $\mathbb P_n$. It remains to check that $\varphi$ is a $\mathbb P_n$-bundle and $X \cong \mathbb P(T_Y)$.
This is done again as in Theorem 2.12 of \cite{KPSW00} with Fujita's result generalized to the K\"ahler setting by Lemma \ref{Kaehler}.
Also the compactness assumption in \cite{Fu85} is not necessary, this will be important later.
\begin{lemma} \label{Kaehler} Let $X$ be a complex manifold, $f\colon X \to S $ a proper surjective map to a normal complex space $S.$ Let $L$ be a relatively ample line bundle on $X$ such that
$(F,L_F) \simeq (\bP_r,\sO(1))$ for a general fiber $F$ of $f.$ If $f$ is equidimensional, then $f$ is a $\bP_r$-bundle.
\end{lemma}
In total, we obtain
\begin{theorem} Let $X$ be a compact almost homogeneous K\"ahler contact manifold, $b_2(X) \geq 2.$ Then $X = \bP(T_Y)$ with a compact K\"ahler
manifold $Y.$
\end{theorem}
The arguments above actually also show the following.
\begin{theorem} Let $X$ be a compact K\"ahler contact manifold. Let $\phi\colon X \to Y$ be a surjective map with connected fibers
such that $-K_X$ is $\phi$-ample and such that $\rho(X/Y) = 1 $ (we do not require the normal variety $Y$ to be K\"ahler).
Then $Y$ is smooth and $X = \bP(T_Y).$
\end{theorem}
One might wonder whether this is still true when $X$ is Moishezon or bimeromorphic to a K\"ahler manifold. Although there is
no apparent reason why the theorem should not hold in this context, at least the methods of proof completely fail.
More generally, also the assumption that $X$ is almost homogeneous should be unnecessary. If $X$ is still K\"ahler, a Mori theory in the
non-algebraic case seems unavoidable. Already the question whether $X$ is uniruled is hard.
\subsection{Conclusion and open questions}
(1) In all but one case we find that a compact almost homogeneous K\"ahler contact manifold
$X$ has the structure of a projectivised tangent bundle. The remaining case
where $q(X)=0$ and $b_2(X) =1$ is discussed in Remark~\ref{bea}. \\
(2) Can one classify all $Y$ (necessarily almost homogeneous) such that $\mathbb P(T_Y)$ is almost homogeneous?
The case where $\dim Y= 2$ will be treated in the next section. One might also expect that if
$Y = G/P$, then $X$ should be almost homogeneous. In case $Y$ is a Grassmannian or a quadric, this has been checked by Goldstein \cite{Go83}.
Of course, if $Y = \bP_n,$ then $X$ is even homogeneous.
\section{Almost homogeneous contact threefolds}
In this section we specialize to almost homogeneous contact manifolds in dimension $3$.
\begin{theorem} \label{list}
Let $X$ be a smooth compact K\"ahler threefold which is of the form $X = \bP(T_Y)$ for some compact (K\"ahler)
surface $Y$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $X$ is almost homogeneous, then
$Y$ is a minimal surface or a blow-up of $\bP_2$ or $Y = \bF_n = \bP(\sO_{\bP_1} \oplus \sO_{\bP_1}(-n))$ for some $n \geq 0$, $n\ne 1$
\item If $Y$ is minimal, then $X$ is almost homogeneous if and only if $Y$ is one of the following surfaces.
\begin{itemize}
\item $Y = \bP_2$
\item $Y = \bF_n $ for some $n \geq 0$, $n\ne 1$
\item $Y$ is a torus
\item $Y = \bP(\sE)$ with $\sE$ a vector bundle of rank 2 over an elliptic curve which is either a direct sum
of two topologically trivial line bundles or the non-split extension of two trivial line bundles.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Suppose $X$ is almost homogeneous. Then $Y$ is almost homogeneous, too (Lemma 3.1). By Potters' classification
\cite{Po68}, $Y$ is one of the following.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $Y = \bP_2$
\item $Y = \bF_n = \bP(\sO_{\bP_1} \oplus \sO_{\bP_1}(-n))$ for some $n \geq 0$, $n\ne 1$
\item $Y$ is a torus
\item $Y = \bP(\sE)$ with $\sE$ a vector bundle of rank 2 over an elliptic curve which is either a direct sum
of two topologically trivial line bundles or the non-split extension of two trivial line bundles
\item $Y$ is a certain blow-up of $\bP_2$ or of $\bF_n.$
\end{enumerate}
This already shows the first claim of the theorem, and
it suffices to assume $Y$ to be a minimal surface of the list and to check whether $X = \bP(T_Y)$ is almost homogeneous.
In cases (1) and (3) this is clear; $X$ is even homogeneous. \\
To proceed further, consider the tangent bundle sequence
\[
0 \to T_{X/Y} \to T_X \to \pi^*(T_Y) \to 0.
\]
Notice
\[
h^0(T_{X/Y}) = h^0(-K_{X/Y}) = h^0(S^2T_Y \otimes K_Y).
\]
Applying $\pi_*$ and observing that the connecting morphism
\[
T_Y \to R^1\pi_*(T_{X/Y})
\]
(induced by the Kodaira-Spencer maps) vanishes since $\pi$ is locally trivial,
it follows that
\[
H^0(X,T_X) \to H^0(X,\pi^*(T_Y)) = H^0(Y,T_Y)
\]
is surjective. If therefore
\begin{equation}\label{reltang}
H^0(X,T_{X/Y}) \simeq H^0(Y,S^2T_Y \otimes K_Y) \ne 0, \tag{$*$}
\end{equation}
the tangent bundle $T_X$ is obviously spanned and therefore $X$ is almost homogeneous. \\
In case (4), \eqref{reltang} is now easily verified:
Let $p\colon \bP(\sE) \to C$ be the $\bP_1$-fibration over the elliptic curve $C$. The tangent bundle sequence reads
\[
0 \to -K_Y \to T_Y \to \sO_Y \to 0.
\]
Since $T_Y$ is generically spanned, the map $H^0(\sO_Y) \to H^1(-K_Y)$ must vanish, so that the sequence splits:
\[
T_Y \simeq -K_Y \oplus \sO_Y.
\]
Thus $S^2T_Y \otimes K_Y \simeq -K_Y \oplus \sO_Y \oplus K_Y $ and ($*$) follows.
\vskip .2cm
Now if $Y=\bF_n$ as in (2), let $p\colon Y\to\bP_1$ be the natural projection. The relative tangent sequence then reads
\begin{equation}\label{tangseq}
0 \to T_{Y/\bP_1}\to T_Y\to p^*\sO_{\bP_1}(2)\to0. \tag{$**$}
\end{equation}
Taking the second symmetric power and tensorizing with $K_Y$ yields
\[
0 \to T_Y \otimes T_{Y/\bP_1} \otimes K_Y \to S^2T_Y \otimes K_Y \to p^*\sO_{\bP_1}(4)\otimes K_Y \to 0,
\]
so, by~\eqref{tangseq}, we obtain an inclusion
\[
H^0(T_{Y/\bP_1}^{\otimes2}\otimes K_Y)\subset H^0(S^2T_Y\otimes K_Y).
\]
Now by the relative Euler sequence, $T_{Y/\bP_1} \simeq \sO_Y(2) \otimes p^*\sO_{\bP_1}(n)$, and thus
\[
H^0(T_{Y/\bP_1}^{\otimes2}\otimes K_Y) \simeq H^0(\sO_Y(2) \otimes p^*\sO_{\bP_1}(n-2)).
\]
Now since
\[
p_*(\sO_Y(2)\otimes p^*\sO_{\bP_1}(n-2)) \simeq \sO_{\bP_1}(n-2) \oplus \sO_{\bP_1}(-2) \oplus \sO_{\bP_1}(-n-2),
\]
we have shown \eqref{reltang} to be true for $n\ge2$. If $n=0$, i.e., $Y\simeq\bP_1\times\bP_1$, the sequence~\eqref{tangseq} splits and an easy calculation shows that~\eqref{reltang} is satisfied also in this case.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} {\rm The case that $Y$ is a non-minimal rational surface in Theorem~\ref{list} could be further studied, but this is a rather tedious task. }
\end{remark}
\section {Deformations I: the rational case}
We consider a family $\pi\colon \mathcal X \to \Delta $ of compact manifolds over the unit disc $\Delta \subset {\mathbb C}$. As usual, we let $X_t = \pi^{-1}(t).$
We shall assume $X_t$ to be a projective manifold for {\it}all $t$, so we are only interested in projective families here. If now $X_t$ is a contact
manifold for $t \ne 0,$ when is $X_0$ still a
contact manifold? \\
If $b_2(X_t) = 1,$ there is a counterexample due to \cite{PP10}, see also \cite{Hw10}. Here the $X_t$ are $7$-dimen\-sional
rational-homogeneous contact manifolds and $X_0$ is a non-homogeous non-contact manifold. If one believes that any Fano
contact manifold with $b_2 = 1$ is rational-homogeneous, then due to the results of Hwang and Mok, this is the only example
where a limit of contact manifolds with $b_2 = 1$ is not contact. \\
If $b_2(X_t) \geq 2$, it is no longer true that the limit $X_0$ is always a contact manifold, as can be seen from the following example: We let $\sY\to\Delta$ be a family of compact manifolds
such that $Y_t\simeq\bP_1\times\bP_1$ for $t\ne0$ and $Y_0\simeq \bF_2$. Then there exist line bundles $\sL_1$ and $\sL_2$ on $\sY$ such that $\sL_1|Y_t\simeq\sO_{\bP_1\times\bP_1}(2,0)$
and $\sL_2|Y_t\simeq\sO_{\bP_1\times\bP_1}(0,2)$ for every $t\ne 0$. If we let $\sX:=\bP(\sL_1\oplus\sL_2)$, then $X_t\simeq\bP(T_{Y_t})$ for $t\ne 0$, but $X_0\not\simeq\bP(T_{Y_0})$. \\
However $\bP(T_{\bP_1 \times \bP_1}) $ is not homogeneous; in fact by Proposition~\ref{hom}, $ \bP(T_{\bP_n})$ is the only homogeneous rational contact manifold with $b_2 \geq 2.$ In this prominent case
we prove global projective rigidity, i.e., $X_0 = \bP(T_{\bP_n})$, unless $X_0$ is the projectivization of some unstable bundle, so that
both contact structures survive in the limit. In the ``unstable case'', the contact structure does not survive. The special
case where $X_0$ is Fano is due to Wi\'sniewski \cite{Wi91}; here global rigiditiy always holds.
\vskip .2cm There is a slightly different point of view, asking whether projective limits of rational-homoge\-neous manifolds are
again rational-homogeneous. As before, if $b_2(X_t) = 1, $ this is true by the results of Hwang and Mok with the $7$-dimensional
exception. In case $b_2(X_t) \geq 2$, this is false in general (e.g.~for $\bP_1 \times \bP_1$), but the picture under which circumstances
global rigidity is still true is completely open.
\begin{theorem} \label{uniruled} Let $\pi\colon \mathcal X \to \Delta $ be a family of compact manifolds. Assume $X_t \simeq
\bP(T_{\bP_n})$ for $t \ne 0.$ If $X_0$ is projective, then either $X_0 \simeq \bP(T_{\bP_n})$ or $X_0 \simeq \bP(V)$ with some unstable vector
bundle $V$ on $\bP_n.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $K_{\mathcal X}$ is not $\pi$-nef, there exists a relative Mori contraction (see \cite{Na87}, (4.12), we may shrink $\Delta$)
\[
\Phi\colon \mathcal X \to \mathcal Y
\]
over $\Delta$.
Put $\Delta^* = \Delta \setminus \{0\}$
and $\mathcal X^* = \mathcal X \setminus X_0; \ \mathcal Y^* = \mathcal Y \setminus Y_0$.
Now $\phi_t = \Phi \vert X_t$ is a Mori contraction for any $t$ (cp.~\cite{KM92}, (12.3.4), but this is pretty clear in our simple situation), {\em unless possibly $\phi_t$ is biholomorphic}
for $t \ne 0$.
Now since $\sX$, $\Delta$ and $\pi$ are smooth, the latter case cannot occur by~\cite{Wi91b}, (1.3), so $\phi_t$ is the contraction of an extremal ray for any $t\in\Delta$.
Let $\tau\colon \mathcal Y \to \Delta$ be the induced projection and set $Y_t = \tau^{-1}(t), $ so that
$Y_t \simeq \bP_n$ for $t \ne 0$. Since $\mathcal Y$ is normal, the normal variety $Y_0$ must also have
dimension $n.$
\vskip .2cm \noindent From the exponential sequence, Hodge decomposition and the topological triviality of the family~$\sX,$ it follows
that
\[
{\rm Pic}(\sX) \simeq H^2(\sX,\bZ) \simeq \bZ^2
\]
and that
\[
{\rm Pic}(X_0) \simeq H^2(X_0,\bZ^2) \simeq \bZ^2.
\]
Furthermore, the restriction ${\rm Pic}(\sX) \to {\rm Pic}(X_0) $ is bijective. As an immediate consequence,
we can write
\[
-K_{\mathcal X} = n \sH
\]
with a line bundle $\sH$ on $\mathcal X.$ Let $\sH_t = \sH \vert X_t$
so that $\sH_t \simeq \sO_{\bP(T_{\bP_n})}(1)$ for $t \ne 0.$
\begin{claim} $Y_0 \simeq \bP_n.$
\end{claim}
In fact, by our previous considerations, there is a unique line bundle $\sL$ on $\mathcal X$ such that
\[
\sL \vert X_t = \phi_t^*(\sO_{\bP_n}(1))
\]
for $t \ne 0.$ Moreover $\sL \vert X_0 = \phi_0^*(\sL')$ with some ample line bundle $\sL'$ on $Y_0.$
Therefore by semi-continuity,
\[
h^0(\sL') = h^0(\sL \vert X_0) \geq n+1
\]
and
\[
c_1(\sL')^n = 1.
\]
Hence by results of Fujita \cite{Fu90}, (I.1.1), see also \cite{BS95}, (III.3.1), we have $(Y_0,\sL') \simeq (\bP_n,\sO(1)).$
In particular we obtain
\begin{subcorollary} $\mathcal Y $ is smooth and $\mathcal Y \simeq \bP_n \times \Delta$.
\end{subcorollary}
\vskip .2cm \noindent
Next we notice that the general fiber of $\phi_0$ must be $\bP_{n-1}$, since it is a smooth degeneration of fibers
of $\phi_t$ (by the classical theorem of Hir\-ze\-bruch--Ko\-dai\-ra). \\
One main difficulty is that $\phi_0$ might not be equidimensional. If we know equidimensionality, we may apply [Fu85, 2.12] to conclude that
$X_0 = \bP(\sE_0)$ with a locally free sheaf $\sE_0$ on $Y_0.$ \\
We introduce the torsion free sheaf
\[
\sF = \Phi_*(\sH) \otimes \sO_{\mathcal Y}(-1).
\]
Since
\[
\mathop{\rm codim} \Phi^{-1}({\rm Sing}(\sF)) \geq 2,
\]
the sheaf $\sF$ is actually reflexive and of course locally free outside $Y_0.$
In the following Sublemma we will prove that $\sF$ is actually locally free.
\begin{sublemma} \label{sub1} $\sF$ is locally free and therefore $\sX = \bP(\sF). $
\end{sublemma}
\begin{proof}
As explained above, it is sufficient to show that
\[
\phi_0\colon X_0 \to \bP_n
\]
is equidimensional. So let $F_0$ be an irreducible component of a fiber of~$\phi_0$. Then $F_0$ gives rise to a class
\[
[F_0] \in H^{2k}(X_0,\bQ),
\]
where we denote by~$k$ the codimension of~$F_0$ in~$X$. Obviously $k\le n$, and we must exclude the case that $k<n$.
So we assume in the following that $k<n$. Then, since $X_0$ is homeomorphic to $\bP(T_{\bP_n})$, the Leray--Hirsch theorem gives
\[
\dim H^{2k}(X_0,\bQ) = k + 1.
\]
Now if we denote by $H$ the class of a hyperplane in $\bP_n$, and by $L$ the class of an ample divisor on~$X_0$, then the classes
\begin{equation}\label{cohbasis}
L^k, L^{k-1}.(\phi_0^* H), \dots, L.(\phi_0^* H)^{k-1}, (\phi_0^* H)^k
\end{equation}
form a basis of $H^{2k}(X_0,\bQ)$, which can be seen as follows: By the dimension formula given above, it is sufficient to show linear independency, so assume that we are given $\lambda_0$, $\dots$, $\lambda_k\in\bQ$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{linunab}
\sum_{\ell=0}^k\lambda_\ell L^{k-\ell}.(\phi_0^*H)^\ell =0.
\end{equation}
Now let $\ell_0 \in \{0,\dots,k\}$. By induction, we assume that $\lambda_{\ell}=0$ for all $\ell<\ell_0$. Then intersecting \eqref{linunab} with
$L^{n-k-1+\ell_0}.(\phi_0^*H)^{n-\ell_0}$ yields
\[\lambda_{\ell_0} L^{n-1}.(\phi_0^*H)^{n} = 0,\]
thus $\lambda_{\ell_0} = 0$ since $L^{n-1}.(\phi_0^*H)^n >0$.
So \eqref{cohbasis} is indeed a basis of~$H^2(X_0,\bQ)$ and we can write
\begin{equation}\label{linkomb}
[F_0] = \sum_{\ell=0}^k\alpha_\ell L^{k-\ell}.(\phi_0^*H)^\ell
\end{equation}
for some $\alpha_0$, $\dots$, $\alpha_k\in\bQ$. We now let $\ell_0\in\{0,\dots,k\}$ and assume that $\alpha_\ell=0$ for $\ell<\ell_0$. We observe that $[F_0].(\phi_0^*H)^{n-\ell_0}=0$
since $F_0$ is contained in a fiber of~$\phi_0$ and $\ell_0\le k < n$. Hence, intersecting \eqref{linkomb} with $L^{n-k-1+\ell_0}.(\phi_0^*H)^{n-\ell_0}$ yields
\[
0 = \alpha_{\ell_0}L^{n-1}.(\phi_0^*H)^n,
\]
so we deduce $\alpha_{\ell_0}=0$ as before. Therefore by induction, we have $[F_0]=0$, which is impossible, $X_0$ being projective.
\end{proof}
Now we set $V = \sF \vert X_0.$ If the bundle $V$ is semi-stable, then $V \simeq T_{\bP_n}$ and the theorem is settled.
\end{proof}
Suppose in Theorem~\ref{uniruled} that $X_0 \simeq \bP(V)$ with an unstable bundle $V$ (we will show in section~\ref{sec:degen} that this can indeed occur).
Then $X_0$ does not carry a contact structure. In fact, otherwise $X_0 \simeq \bP(T_S)$ with some projective variety $S$, \cite{KPSW00}.
Hence $X_0$ has two extremal contractions, and therefore $X_0$ is Fano. Hence $T_S$ is ample and thus $S \simeq \bP_n$ (or apply Wi\'sniewski's theorem).
Therefore we may state the following
\begin{corollary}
Let $\pi\colon \mathcal X \to \Delta $ be a family of compact manifolds. Assume $X_t \simeq
\bP(T_{\bP_n})$ for $t \ne 0.$ If $X_0$ is a projective contact manifold, then $X_0 \simeq \bP(T_{\bP_n})$.
\end{corollary}
In the situation of Theorem~\ref{uniruled}, we had two contact structures on $X_t.$
This phenomenon is quite unique because of the following result \cite{KPSW00}, Prop. 2.13.
\begin{theorem} \label{unique} Let $X$ be a projective contact manifold of dimension $2n-1$ admitting two extremal rays in the
cone of curves
$\overline{NE}(X)$.
Then
$X \simeq \bP(T_{\bP_n})$.
\end{theorem}
Here is an extension of Theorem~\ref{unique} to the non-algebraic case.
\begin{theorem} Let $X$ be a compact contact K\"ahler manifold admitting two contractions $\phi_i\colon X \to Y_i$ to normal compact
K\"ahler spaces $Y_i$. This is to say
that $-K_X $ is $\phi_i$-ample and that $\rho(X/Y_i) = 1$.
Then $X$ is projective and therefore $X = \bP(T_{\bP_n})$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} We already know by Theorem 3.13 that $X = \bP(T_{Y_i}).$ Let $F \simeq \bP_{n-1}$ be a fiber of $\phi_2$.
Then the restriction $\phi_1 \vert F$ is finite. We claim that $Y_1$ must be projective. In fact, consider the rational quotient,
say $f\colon Y_1 \dasharrow Z$, which is an almost holomorphic map to a compact K\"ahler manifold $Z.$ By construction, the map $f$ contracts the images
$\phi_1(F)$, hence $\dim Z \leq 1$. But then $Z$ is projective and therefore $Y_1$ is projective, too (e.g. by arguing that $y_1$ cannot carry a
holomorphic $2$-form). \\
By symmetry, $Y_2$ is projective, too. Since the morphisms $\phi_i$ induce a finite map $X \to Y_1 \times Y_2 $ (onto the image of $X$), the
variety $X$ is also projective.
\end{proof}
Any projective contact manifold $X$ with $b_2(X) \geq 2$ is of the form $X = \bP(T_Y)$. Therefore it is natural ask for generalizations of Theorem \ref{uniruled},
substituting the projective space by other projective varieties.
\begin{proposition} \label{partial} Let $\pi\colon \sX \to \Delta$ be a projective family of compact manifolds $X_t$ of dimension $2n-1.$
Assume that $X_t \simeq \bP(T_{Y_t}) $ for $t \ne 0$ with (necessarily projective) manifolds $Y_t \ne \bP_n.$ Assume that
$H^q(X_t,\sO_{X_t}) = 0$ for $q = 1,2$ for some (hence all) $t$.
Then the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a relative
contraction $\Phi\colon \sX \to \sY$ over $\Delta$ such that $\Phi \vert X_t$ is the given
$\bP_{n-1}$-bundle structure for $t \ne 0$.
\item If $\phi_0 := \Phi \vert X_0$ is equidimensional, then $X_0 \simeq \bP(\sE_0) $ with a rank-$n$ bundle $\sE$ over the projective manifold $Y_0$;
and $Y_0$ is the limit
manifold of a family $\tau\colon \sY \to \Delta$ such that $Y_t \simeq \tau^{-1}(t) $ for $t \ne 0$. In other words,
$\sX \simeq \bP(\sE)$ such that $\sE = T_{\sY/\Delta} $ over $\Delta \setminus\{0\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $Y_t \ne \bP_n$ by assumption, every $X_t$, $t \ne 0$, has a unique Mori contraction,
the projection $\psi_t\colon X_t \to Y_t$, by Theorem~\ref{unique}.
As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{uniruled}, we obtain a
relative Mori contraction
\[
\Phi\colon \sX \to \sY
\]
over $\Delta$, and necessarily
$\Phi \vert X_t = \phi_t$ for all $t \ne 0$ (we use again~\cite{Wi91b}, (1.3)). This already shows Claim (1).
\vskip .2cm \noindent
If $\phi_0$ is equidimensional, we apply---as in the proof of Theorem \ref{uniruled}---\cite{BS95}, (III.3.2.1), to conclude that
there exists a locally free sheaf $\sE_0$ of rank $n$ on $Y_0$ such that
$X_0 \simeq \bP(\sE_0)$, proving (2).
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} Let $\pi\colon \sX \to \Delta$ be a projective family of compact manifolds $X_t$ of dimension $2n-1.$
Assume that $X_t \simeq \bP(T_{Y_t}) $ for $t \ne 0$ with (necessarily projective) manifolds $Y_t (\ne \bP_n).$ Assume that
$H^q(X_t,\sO_{X_t}) = 0$ for $q = 1,2$ for some (hence all) $t$. Assume moreover that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\dim X_0 \leq 5,$ or
\item $b_{2j}(Y_t) = 1 $ for some $t \ne 0$ and all $1 \leq j < {n \over {2}}$.
\end{enumerate}
Then there exists a relative
contraction $\Phi\colon \sX \to \sY$ over $\Delta$ such that $\Phi \vert X_t$ is the given
$\bP_{n-1}$-bundle structure for $t \ne 0$. Moreover there is a locally free sheaf $\sE$ on~$\sY$ such that $\sX \simeq \bP(\sE)$ and $\sE \vert Y_t \simeq T_{Y-t}$ for all $t \ne 0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} By the previous proposition it suffices to show that $\phi_0 = \Phi \vert X_0$ is equidimensional. \\
(1) First suppose that $\dim X_0 \leq 5$. Then $1 \leq \dim Y_0 \leq 3$. The case $\dim Y_0 = 1$ is trivial. If $\dim Y_0 = 2$, then
all fibers must have codimension 2, because $\phi_0$ does not contract a divisor (the relative Picard number being $1$).
If $\dim Y_0 = 3$, then by \cite{AW97}, (5.1), we cannot have a 3-dimensional fiber. Since again there is no 4-dimensional fiber, $\phi_0$ must be equidimensional also in this case. \\
(2) If $b_{2j}(Y_t) = 1 $ for some $t$ and all $1 \leq j \leq {n \over {2}}$, then $b_{2k}(X_t) = k+1$ for $k < n$ and we may simply argue as in Sublemma~\ref{sub1} to conclude that $\phi_0$ is equidimensional
(the smoothness of $Y_0$ is not essential in the reasoning of Sublemma~\ref{sub1}).
\end{proof}
\section{Degenerations of $T_{\bP_n}$}
\label{sec:degen}
In view of Theorem~\ref{uniruled}, we can ask the question which bundles can occur as degenerations of~$T_{\bP_n}$, i.e., for which rank-$n$ bundles $V$ on~$\bP_n$ there exists a rank-$n$ bundle $\sV$ on $\bP_n\times\Delta$ such that
\[
\sV_t:=\sV|{\bP_n\times\{t\}}\simeq \begin{cases}
T_{\bP_n},&\text{for $t\ne0$},\\
V, &\text{for $t=0$}.
\end{cases}
\]
In the case that~$n\ge3$ is odd, it was already observed by Hwang in~\cite{Hw06} that one can easily construct a nontrivial degeneration of~$T_{\bP_n}$ as follows: We consider the null correlation bundle on $\bP_n$, which is a rank-$(n-1)$ bundle $N$ on~$\bP_n$ given by a short exact sequence
\[
0 \longrightarrow N \longrightarrow T_{\bP_n}(-1) \longrightarrow \sO_{\bP_n}(1) \longrightarrow 0.
\]
(cf.~\cite{OSS80}, (I.4.2)).
The existence of this sequence now implies that $T_{\bP_n}$ can be degenerated to~$N(1)\oplus\sO_{\bP_n}(2)$.
When $n$ is even, matters become more complicated, but we can still obtain nontrivial degenerations:
\begin{proposition}
Let $n\ge 2$. Then there exists a rank-$n$ bundle $\sV$ on $\bP_n\times\Delta$ such that $\sV_t\simeq T_{\bP_n}$ for $t\ne 0$ and $h^0(\sV_0(-2))=1$, so in particular $\sV_0\not\simeq T_{\bP_n}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We construct an inclusion of vector bundles
\[
A\colon \Omega^1_{\bP_n\times\Delta/\Delta}(2)\oplus \sO_{\bP_n\times\Delta}
\hookrightarrow \sO_{\bP_n\times\Delta}(1)^{\oplus(n+1)}\oplus \Omega^1_{\bP_n\times\Delta/\Delta}(2)
\]
via a family $A=(A_t)_{t\in\Delta}$ of matrices
\[
A_t =
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha_t & \beta_t \\
\gamma_t & \delta_t
\end{pmatrix}
\]
of sheaf homomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\alpha_t&\colon \Omega^1_{\bP_n}(2) \to \sO_{\bP_n}(1)^{\oplus(n+1)},
&\beta_t&\colon \sO_{\bP_n} \to \sO_{\bP_n}(1)^{\oplus(n+1)},\\
\gamma_t&\colon \Omega^1_{\bP_n}(2) \to \Omega^1_{\bP_n}(2),
&\delta_t&\colon \sO_{\bP_n} \to \Omega^1_{\bP_n}(2),
\end{align*}
which we define as follows: We take $\alpha_t$ and $\beta_t$ to be the natural inclusions coming from the Euler sequence and its dual, where we choose the coordinates on~$\bP_n$ such that
\[
\beta_t(\sO_{\bP_n}) \not\subset \alpha_t(\Omega^1_{\bP_n}(2)).
\]
This implies that the map
\[
\alpha_t\oplus \beta_t\colon \Omega^1_{\bP_n}(2) \oplus \sO_{\bP_n} \to \sO_{\bP_n}(1)^{\oplus(n+1)}
\]
is generically surjective. Since $\Omega^1_{\bP_n}(2)\simeq\Lambda^{n-1}(T_{\bP_n}(-1))$ is globally generated, a general section in $H^0(\Omega^1_{\bP_n}(2))$ has
only finitely many zeroes. Since $\Omega^1_{\bP_n}(2)$ is homogeneous, we can thus choose the map $\delta_t$ in such a way that its zeroes are disjoint from the locus where $\alpha_t\oplus\beta_t$
is not surjective. Finally we let $\gamma_t=t\cdot{\rm id}$.
Now in order to show that $A$ is an inclusion of vector bundles, we need to show that for any point $(p,t)\in\bP_n\times\Delta$, the matrix
\[
A_t(p) =
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha_t(p) & \beta_t(p) \\
\gamma_t(p) & \delta_t(p)
\end{pmatrix}
\in \bC^{(2n+1)\times(n+1)}
\]
has rank~$n+1$. For semicontinuity reasons, shrinking $\Delta$ if necessary, we can assume $t=0$, then the rank condition follows easily from the choice of $\alpha_0$, $\beta_0$, $\gamma_0$, $\delta_0$.
We now let
\[
\sV := \coker A.
\]
It remains to investigate the properties of the bundles $\sV_t:=\sV|\bP_n\times\{t\}$. For each $t\in\Delta$, we have an exact sequence of vector bundles
\begin{equation}\label{monad}
0\longrightarrow \Omega^1_{\bP_n}(2)\oplus \sO_{\bP_n}
\longrightarrow \sO_{\bP_n}(1)^{\oplus(n+1)}\oplus \Omega^1_{\bP_n}(2)\longrightarrow\sV_t\longrightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
We want to calculate $H^q(\sV_t(-1-k))$ for $k=0$, $\dots$, $n$. From the Bott formula we obtain for $(k,q)\in\{0,\dots,n\}^2$:
\[
h^q(\Omega^1_{\bP_n}(1-k))=\begin{cases}
1, & \text{for $(k,q)=(1,1)$},\\
0, &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
Now if we tensorize \eqref{monad} with~$\sO_{\bP_n}(-1-k)$, take the long exact cohomology sequence and observe that $H^q(\delta_0)=0$ for every~$q$, we get for $(k,q)\in\{0,\dots,n\}^2$:
\[
h^q(\sV_0(-1-k)) = \begin{cases}
n+1, &\text{for $(k,q)=(0,0)$},\\
1, &\text{for $(k,q)\in\{(1,0),(1,1),(n,n-1)\}$},\\
0, &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
Similarly, if we observe that $H^q(\delta_t)={\rm id}$ for $t\ne0$, we obtain for $t\ne0$, $(k,q)\in\{0,\dots,n\}^2$:
\[
h^q(\sV_0(-1-k)) = \begin{cases}
n+1, &\text{for $(k,q)=(0,0)$},\\
1, &\text{for $(k,q)\in\{(n,n-1)\}$},\\
0, &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
The proposition now follows from Lemma~\ref{beillem}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{beillem}
Let $V$ be a vector bundle on~$\bP_n$ such that for any $(k,q)\in\{0,\dots,n\}^2$, we have
\[
h^q(V(-1-k)) = \begin{cases}
n+1, &\text{for $(k,q)=(0,0)$},\\
1, &\text{for $(k,q)=(n,n-1)$},\\
0, &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
Then $V\simeq T_{\bP_n}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We consider the Beilinson spectral sequence for the bundle $V(-1)$, which has $E_1$-term
\[
E_1^{pq} = H^q(V(-1+p))\otimes\Omega^{-p}_{\bP_n}(-p)
\]
(cf.~\cite{OSS80}, (II.3.1.3)).
By assumption, $E_1^{pq}=0$ for $(p,q)\not\in\{(0,0),(-n,n-1)\}$ and
\[
E_1^{0,0} = \sO_{\bP_n}^{\oplus(n+1)}, \quad E_1^{-n,n-1} = \sO_{\bP_n}(-1).
\]
In particular, the only nonzero differential occurs at the $E_n$-term, namely
\[d_n^{-n,n-1}\colon E_n^{-n,n-1}\to E_n^{0,0}.\]
Since $E_\infty^{pq}=0$ for $p+q\ne0$ and $E_\infty^{-p,p}$ are the quotients of a filtration of~$V(-1)$, the differential $d_n^{-n,n-1}$ induces a short exact sequence
\begin{equation} \label{beilinsoneuler}
0 \longrightarrow \sO_{\bP_n}(-1) \stackrel{d_n^{-n,n-1}}{\longrightarrow} \sO_{\bP_n}^{\oplus(n+1)} \longrightarrow V(-1) \longrightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
Now since $V$ is locally free, the map $d_n^{-n,n-1}$ cannot have zeroes, so \eqref{beilinsoneuler} must be an Euler sequence, whence $V(-1)\simeq T_{\bP_n}(-1)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Deformations II: positive irregularity}
\label{sec:irr}
A homogeneous compact contact K\"ahler manifold $X$ of dimension $2n+1$ with $b_2(X) \geq 2$ is either $\bP(T_{\bP_{n+1}})$ or
a product $A \times \bP_n$ with a torus $A$ of dimension $n+1$. Here we study in general the K\"ahler deformations of $A \times \bP_n,$ where $A$ is
an $m$-dimensional torus.
\begin{theorem} \label{irreg} Let $\pi\colon \mathcal X \to \Delta $ be a family of compact manifolds over the unit disc
$\Delta \subset \mathbb C$. Assume $X_t \simeq A_t \times
\bP_n$ for $t \ne 0$, where $A_t$ is a torus of dimension $m.$
If $X_0$ is in class $\sC$, then the relative Albanese morphism realises $\sX$ as a submersion $\alpha\colon \sX \to \sA$, where
$\pi\colon \sA \to \Delta$ is torus bundle such that $\pi^{-1}(t) \simeq A_t$ for $t \ne 0.$ Moreover there is a locally free sheaf
$\sE$ over $\sA$ such that $\sX = \bP(\sE)$, $\sX_t \simeq \bP(\sE_t)$ for all $t$ and $\sE \vert A_t \simeq \sO_{A_t}^{n+1}$ for $t \ne 0.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $m = \dim A_t = q(X_t)$ for $t \ne 0.$ Hodge decomposition on $X_0$ gives $q(X_0) = m.$
Let
\[
\alpha\colon \sX \to \sA
\]
be the relative Albanese map.
Then $\sA \to \Delta $ is a torus bundle and
\[
\alpha_t = \alpha \vert X_t\colon X_t \to A_t
\]
is the Albanese map for all $t.$
Since $\alpha_t$ is surjective for all $t \ne 0,$ the map $\alpha$ is surjective, too, and so is $\alpha_0$.
We may choose relative vector fields
\[
v_1, \ldots, v_m \in H^0(\sX,T_{\sX/\Delta}),
\]
such that for all $t,$ the push-forwards $(\alpha_t)_*(v_i \vert X_t)$ form a basis of $H^0(A_t,T_{A_t}).$
Since singular fibers are mapped to singular fibers by automorphisms of $X_0,$ it follows that the singular locus $S$
of $\alpha_0$, i.e., the set of points $a \in A_0$ such that the fiber over $a$ is singular, is invariant in $A_0$ under
the automorphism group. Hence $S = \emptyset$, so that $\alpha_0$ is a submersion like all the other maps $\alpha_t.$
Therefore $\alpha$ is a bundle, with fibers $ \bP_n$ over $\Delta^*.$ The global rigidity of the projective space
\cite{Si89}
applied to local sections of
$\sA$ over $\Delta,$ passing through $A_0$, implies that all fibers of $\alpha$ are $ \bP_n$. The existence of $\mathcal \sE$ follows from \cite{El82}, (4.3).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} {\rm Popovici \cite{Po09} has shown that any global deformation of projective manifolds is in class $\sC$, so that the
assumption in Theorem 6.1 that $X_0$ is in class $\sC$ can be removed in case $X_t$ is projective. The K\"ahler version of Popovici's theorem is still open.}
\end{remark}
\begin{example} {\rm We cannot conclude in Theorem 6.1 that $X_0 \simeq A_0 \times \bP_n, $ even if $m = n = 1$. Take e.g.~a rank-2 vector bundle
$\sF$ over $\bP_1 \times \Delta$ such that $\sF \vert \bP_1 \times \{t\} = \sO^2 $ for $t \ne 0$ and $\sF \vert \bP_1 \times \{0\} = \sO(1) \oplus \sO(-1)$.
Let $\eta\colon A \to \bP_1$ be a two-sheeted covering from an elliptic curve $A$ and set $\sE = (\eta \times {\rm id})^*(\sF).$ Then $\sX = \bP(\sE)$ is a family
of compact surfaces $X_t$ such that $X_t = A \times \bP_1$ for $t \ne 0$ but $X_0$ is not a product. Notice also that $X_0$ is not almost homogeneous.\\
It is a trivial matter to modify this example to obtain a map to a $2$-dimensional torus which is a product of elliptic curves. Therefore the limit of a K\"ahler contact manifold
with positive irregularity might not be a contact manifold again. }
\end{example}
\begin{corollary} Assume the situation of Theorem 6.1. Then the following assertions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $X_0 \simeq A_0 \times \bP_n$.
\item $\sE_0$ is semi-stable for some K\"ahler class $\omega$.
\item $X_0$ is homogeneous.
\item $X_0$ is almost homogeneous.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} (1) implies (2). Under the assumption of (1), there is a line bundle $L$ on $A_0$ such that $\sE_0 \simeq L^{\oplus n+1}.$ Hence $\sE$ is semi-stable
for actually any choice of $\omega.$ \\
(2) implies (3). From the semi-stability of $\sE_0$ and $h^0(\sE_0) \geq n+1,$ it follows easily that $\sE_0$ is trivial and that $X_0 $ is homogeneous as product
$A_0 \times \bP_n$. In fact, choose $n+1$ sections of $\sE_0$ and consider the induced map $\mu\colon \sO_{A_0}^{n+1} \to \sE_0$.
By the stability of $\sE_0$, the map $\mu$ is generically surjective. Hence $\det \mu \ne 0$, hence an isomorphism, so that
$\mu$ itself is an isomorphism. \\
The implication ``(3) implies (4)'' is obvious. \\
(4) implies (1). Consider the tangent bundle sequence
\[
0 \to T_{X_0/A_0} \to T_{X_0} \to \alpha_0^*(T_{A_0}) \to 0.
\]
Since $X_0$ is almost homogeneous, all vector fields on $A_0$ must lift to $X_0$.
Consequently the connecting map
\[
H^0(X_0,\pi^*(T_{A_0})) \to H^1(X_0,T_{X_0/A_0})
\]
vanishes, and therefore the tangent bundle sequence splits.
Let $\sF = \alpha_0^*(T_{A_0}). $ Then $\sF \subset T_{X_0}$ is clearly a foliation and it has compact
leaves (the limits of tori in $A_t \times \bP_n$). By \cite{Hoe07}, 2.4.3, there exists an equi-dimensional holomorphic map $f\colon X_0 \to Z_0 $
to a compact variety $Z_0$ such that the set-theoretical fibers $F$ of $f$ are leaves of $\sF$. Since the fibers $F$ have an \'etale map to $A_0$, they must be tori again.
It is now immediate that $Z_0 = \bP_n$ and that $X_0 = A_0 \times \bP_n$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} \label{corsplit} Assume in Theorem 6.1 that $m = 2$ and $n = 1$. Then either $X_0 \simeq A_0 \times \bP_1$, or $X_0 = \bP(\sE_0)$ and one of the
following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There is a torus bundle $p\colon A_0 \to B_0$ to an elliptic curve $B_0$ and the rank-2 bundle $\sE_0$ on
$A_0$ sits in an extension
\[
0 \to p^*(\sL_0) \to \sE_0 \to p^*(\sL_0^*) \to 0
\]
with $\deg \sL_0 > 0$.
\item The rank 2-bundle $\sE_0$ sits in an extension
$$ 0 \to \sS \to \sE_0 \to \sI_Z \otimes \sS^* \to 0 $$
with an ample line bundle $\sS$ and a finite non-empty set $Z$ of degree $\deg Z = c_1(\sS)^2.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} By Corollary 6.4 we may assume that $\sE_0$ is not semi-stable for some (or any) K\"ahler class $\omega.$
Let $\sS$ be a maximal destabilising subsheaf, which is actually a line bundle, leading to an exact sequence
\[
0 \to \sS \to \sE_0 \to \sI_Z \otimes \sS^* \to 0.
\]
Here $Z$ is a finite set or empty. Taking $c_2$ and observing that $c_2(\sE_0) = 0$ gives
\[
c_1(\sS)^2 = \deg Z.
\]
The destabilisation property reads
\[
c_1(\sS) \cdot \omega > 0.
\]
Since $h^0(\sE_0) \geq 2$, we deduce that $h^0(\sS) \geq 2, $ in particular, $\sS$ is nef, $\sS$ being maximal destabilizing. \\
If $\sS$ is ample, there is nothing more to prove, hence we may assume that $\sS$ is not ample. $\sS$ being nef, $c_1(\sS)^2 = 0$
and $\sS$ defines a submersion
$p\colon A_0 \to B_0$ to an elliptic curve $B_0$ such that there exists an ample line bundle $\sL_0$ with $\sS = p^*(\sL_0)$.
Therefore we obtain an extension
\[
0 \to p^*(\sL_0) \to \sE_0 \to p^*(\sL_0^*) \to 0,
\]
as required.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} {\rm The second case in Corollary \ref{corsplit} really occurs. Take a finite map $f\colon \sA \to \bP_2 \times \Delta$
over $\Delta$ and a rank-2 bundle $\sF $ on $\bP_2 \times \Delta$ such that $\sF \vert \bP_2 \times \{t\} \simeq \sO^2$
for $t \ne 0$ and such that $\sF_0$ is not trivial. For examples see e.g.~\cite{Sc83}. Now $\sE = f^*(\sF)$ gives an example we are looking for. }
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary} Assume in Theorem 6.1 that $m = 2$ and $n = 1$.
Let $\Phi\colon T_{\sX/\Delta} \to {{-K_{\sX}} \over {2}} $ be a morphism such that $\Phi \vert X_t = \phi_t$ is a contact morphism
(i.e., defines a contact structure) for $t \ne 0.$ Suppose that
\[
\phi_0\colon T_{X_0} \to {{-K_{X_0}} \over {2}}
\]
does not vanish identically.
Then the kernel $\sF_0$ of $\phi_0$
is integrable (in contrast to the maximally non-integrable bundle $\sF_t$).
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We consider a family $(\phi_t)$ of morphisms
\[
\phi_t\colon T_{X_t} \to \sH_t
\]
such that $\phi_t$ is a contact form for $t \ne 0$ and $-K_{X_t} = 2 \sH_t.$
Consider the (torsion free) kernel $\sF_0$ of $\phi_0.$ We need to show that the induced map
\[
\mu\colon (\bigwedge^2 \sF_0)^{**} = \det \sF_0 \to \sH_0.
\]
vanishes.
Since the determinant of the kernel $\sF_t$ of $\phi_t$ is isomorphic to $\sH_t,$ we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{detiso}
\det \sF_0 \simeq \sH_0 \otimes \sO_{X_0}(E) \tag{$*$}
\end{equation}
with an effective (possibly vanishing) divisor $E$ on $X_0.$
Now the induced map
\[
\mu\colon \det \sF_0 \to \sH_0
\]
must have zeroes, otherwise $X_0$ would be a contact manifold, hence $X_0 \simeq A_0 \times \bP_1.$
Thus $\mu = 0$ by~\eqref{detiso}, and $\sF_0$ is integrable.
\end{proof}
\vfill \eject
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
|
\section{Introduction}
The Group V elements As, Sb, and Bi have a structure all their
own, unshared by any other elements. This ``A7'' crystal structure
in Figure \ref{fig:unitcells}(a) is
a consequence of the unique electronic structure
of these elements, where $s$-$p$ hybridization leads to formation of a lone
pair. \cite{seo_what_1999,gonze_first-principles_1990}
As a result, the A7 structure has rhombohedral crystal symmetry
and lies in space group $R\overline{3}m$. It is only a small distortion
removed from simple cubic symmetry, which can be experimentally
accessed under applied
pressure. \cite{da_silva_first_1997,degtyareva_high-pressure_2004,beister_rhombohedral_1990}
The band structure that drives formation of the A7 phase also
causes these elements to be the prototypical semimetals, with a small
offset band overlap, small number of carriers compared to typical
metals (10$^{-5}$ as many), high mobility, and nearly equal
concentrations of electron and hole carriers. \cite{saunders_semimetals_1973}
Their unique electronic properties have made the semimetals a
fascinating arena in condensed matter physics, permitting
initial measurements of the quantum mechanical oscillatory Shubnikov-de Haas and
de Haas van Alphen effects, Seebeck's discovery of the
thermoelectric effect, and Hall's measurements of spin-dependent
transport.\cite{issi_low_1979}
Because the band overlap in semimetals is so delicate, they are
tunable by doping for thermoelectric applications\cite{tritt_advances_2000}
and in topological insulators.\cite{hasan_colloquium_2010}
Alloying the Group V elements themselves can produce unexpected results.
The Bi$_{1-x}$Sb$_x$ solid solution is semimetallic on both ends
but becomes semiconducting for $0.07 < x < 0.22$ by
opening a gap at the $L$ point and removing
overlap at the $T$ point of the Brillouin zone.\cite{jain_temperature_1959,ibrahim_thermoelectric_1985}
Bi and As are not chemically miscible.\cite{predel_as-bi}
Previous work on Sb$_{1-x}$As$_x$ has found that these elements
are miscible across the full composition range.
\cite{saunders_electrical_1965,ohyama_electrical_1966}
Ohyama studied the thermal conductivity of Sb$_{1-x}$As$_x$
and speculated that an anomaly around $x$ = 0.5 might arise
from an ordered compound but lacked any structural characterization
to substantiate this claim.\cite{ohyama_thermal_1967}
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{fig1} \\
\caption{(Color online) Unit cell of the A7 structure (a) of pure As, Sb,
and Bi (and black P at high pressure) with $R\overline{3}m$ symmetry. Ordering
the two $3a$ sites on this lattice leads to the GeTe structure in (b), lowering symmetry to
$R3m$, while retaining the same two $3a$ sites.
}
\label{fig:unitcells}
\end{figure}
While no pure elements outside Group V can form the A7 structure,
the isoelectronic IV-VI compound GeTe is closely related. It is simply an ordered
arrangement of the same structure, shown in Figure \ref{fig:unitcells}(b), with
space group $R3m$ in contrast to $R\overline{3}m$ for A7.
GeTe might make a promising ferroelectric were it not for large concentrations
of free carriers arising from Ge vacancies and a Fermi energy lying
within the valence band.\cite{steigmeier_soft_1970,bahl_amorphous_1970,rabe_structural_1987}
Again, the GeTe structure is a consequence
of $s$-$p$ hybridization and lone pairs on both Ge and Te.\cite{fons_phase_2010}
No other pure compounds are known
to crystallize in the GeTe structure, as nearby IV-VI compositions form the GeS
or rocksalt structures, which are only small displacements
away.\cite{waghmare_first-principles_2003}
Distinguishing between GeTe-type chemical ordering ($R3m$) versus an
A7 solid solution ($R\overline{3}m$) is very difficult---no new Bragg peaks
arise upon lowering symmetry, so careful analysis
of high-quality scattering data is required. For that reason, and to make clear the
case for chemical ordering, we investigated SbAs using single crystal diffraction, high-resolution
synchrotron powder diffraction, and pair distribution function (PDF) refinements.
All find preference for 80/20 ordering of Sb and As.
The PDFs do not show any short As-As distances which would
signal the onset of nanoscale
phase separation that is invisible to Bragg
diffraction.\cite{petkov_high_1999,peterson_local_2001,bera_soluble_2010,shoemaker_total_2010}
High-temperature Bragg diffraction finds the atomic
mixing to become disordered above 300$^\circ$C.
Transport and reflectivity measurements confirm that SbAs is a semimetal
with band overlap, in agreement with our first-principles calculations.
While the Seebeck coefficient and plasma frequency of SbAs lie between
those of Sb and As, the optical dielectric constant is found to be
outside the end members, implying a widening of the direct band
gap below the Fermi energy, indicating complex band structure
changes. In the case of BiSb, this
band shifting leads to opening of a semiconducting energy gap.
None is found so far in SbAs, but the effects of doping and
annealing remain a topic of further investigation.
\section{Methods}
SbAs single crystals were prepared from elemental Sb (99.99\%) and As (99.999\%).
The powders were loaded into 9 mm-diameter quartz tubes and sealed under
vacuum. Tubes were heated at 10$^\circ$C/min to 800$^\circ$C, at which point the
samples were molten. Samples were held at this temperature
for 30 min and periodically flipped to homogenize, then water
quenched to avoid an incongruent melting transition.
\cite{mansuri_equilibrium_1928}. Still sealed under vacuum, tubes were placed into a furnace
preheated to 630$^\circ$C to anneal for 60 h, then cooled
to room temperature at 10$^\circ$C/min. Under these conditions
SbAs crystallized into shiny, mirror-like crystals about 1 mm per side,
typically with triangular facets and
easily cleaved into plates along $\{001\}$ planes.
Single crystal X-ray diffraction data were collected up to $\theta$ = 35.28$^\circ$
on a STOE 2T image plate
diffractometer equipped with Mo-$K \alpha$ radiation ($\lambda$ = 0.71073 \AA) at
room temperature. Data
reduction and integration absorption correction were performed using X-Area software
provided by STOE. The crystal structure was solved using direct methods and refined by a least-
squares refinement using the SHELXTL suite of programs.\cite{sheldrick_short_2007}
All atomic displacement parameters
were refined anisotropically. A twin law (-1 -1 0 0 1 0 0 0 -1) was applied and refined to
50.2\%. The final composition refined to Sb$_{0.94}$As$_{1.06}$. Crystallographic
parameters are given in Table \ref{tab:stoe}.
High-resolution synchrotron X-ray powder diffraction was performed at
beamline 11-BM of the Advanced Photon Source (APS), using 30 keV x-rays
($\lambda = 0.413284$ \AA) and crystals
ground and sieved to 45 $\mu$m. High-temperature diffraction was
performed at beamline 1-BM using 20 keV x-rays ($\lambda = 0.6128$ \AA)
and samples sealed under vacuum in quartz capillaries.
Time-of-flight neutron powder diffraction data were collected at the NPDF
instrument at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Rietveld refinement was performed using the EXPGUI frontend\cite{toby_expgui_2001} for
\textsc{GSAS}.\cite{larson_general_2000}. Unit cells and Fourier maps
are plotted using VESTA.\cite{momma_vesta_2008}
High-momentum-transfer total scattering data were collected
at APS beamline 11-ID-B (90 keV, $\lambda = 0.13702$ \AA), and the aforementioned NPDF
instrument (neutron time-of-flight).
Extraction of the PDF was performed using PDFGetX2\cite{qiu_pdfgetx2_2004}
and $Q_{max}$ = 25\,\AA$^{-1}$
for x-ray data, and PDFGetN \cite{peterson_pdfgetn_2000} with $Q_{max}$ = 35\,\AA$^{-1}$
for neutron data. Least-squares fits to the PDF were conducted with PDFgui.\cite{farrow_pdffit2_2007}
Resistivity measurements were performed in 4-point geometry
using a Quantum Design PPMS.
The Seebeck coefficient (thermopower) of a polycrystalline SbAs ingot was
measured under helium atmosphere using an ULVAC-RIKO ZEM-3 system.
Samples used for infrared (IR) reflectivity were annealed at 630$^\circ$C
for 30 h and cooled to room temperature in 60 h, resulting in
large ingots.
A flat surface of the sample was alumina polished and washed with
ethanol. The reflectivity spectrum was
recorded as a function of wavenumber, in nearly normal incidence,
in the spectral range 100-4000 cm$^{-1}$ with a Nicolet 6700 FTIR
spectrometer equipped with a Spectra-Tech spectral reflectometer.
Electronic band structures and densities of states (DOS) were
calculated for the hexagonal unit cell of
SbAs using density functional theory (DFT).
We used a perfectly ordered
arrangement of SbAs but allowed for relaxation. All calculations
used the projector-augmented wave method \cite{bloch94, kresse99}
and the generalized gradient approximation to exchange correlation,
developed by Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof, \cite{pbe} as implemented in the
VASP code.\cite{vasp1,vasp2,vasp3} A planewave energy cutoff of 400 eV was
used and convergence was assumed when the energy difference between
subsequent self-consistent cycles was less than $10^{-4}$~eV. Self-consistent
calculations were done using 12$\times$12$\times$6 Monkhorst-Pack
\textbf{k}-point sampling\cite{monkhorst76} and the DOS is obtained by using a
finer \textbf{k}-mesh of 18$\times$18$\times$9. Scalar relativistic effects
and spin-orbit interactions were included.
Thermopower $S$ calculations using the Boltzmann transport
equation and constant relaxation time were performed with the
BoltzTrap package written by Madsen and Singh.\cite{madsen_boltztrap_2006}
\section{Results and Discussion}
\subsection{Structural refinement}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:stoe}
Structural parameters obtained from room-temperature
single-crystal refinement (full-matrix least-squares on $F^2$) of SbAs.
$R_1 = \Sigma ||F_o|-|F_c||/\Sigma|F_o|$,
$wR_2 = \{ \Sigma[ w(|F_o|^2-|F_c|^2)^2]/\Sigma[w(|F_o|^4)]\}^{1/2}$
}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\hline
Formula & Sb$_{0.94}$As$_{1.06}$\\
Formula Weight & 193.86 g/mol\\
Crystal system & Trigonal\\
Space group & $R3m$\\
$a=b$ & 4.0655(7) \AA \\
$c$ & 10.889(3) \AA \\
$V$,$Z$ & 155.87(5) \AA$^3$, 3 \\
$\rho$ & 6.196 g/cm$^3$ \\
Absorption coefficient & 28.748 mm$^{-1}$ \\
$F$(000) & 249 \\
$\theta_{max}$ & 34.62$^\circ$ \\
Reflections collected, unique & 762, 197 \\
Unique reflections & 197 \\
$R_{int}$ & 0.0203 \\
Number of parameters & 11 \\
Goodness-of-fit on $F^2$ & 1.311 \\
Final $R$ indices [$I > 2\theta$($I$)] & 0.0117 $R_1$, 0.0287 $wR_2$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
~\\
\end{table}
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab:atoms}
Atomic parameters obtained from single-crystal and synchrotron powder refinement of SbAs.
Atomic displacement parameters $U_{ij}$ are given in units of \AA$^2$.
For powder and PDF refinements, the total occupancy of each site was constrained to be 1,
but the antisite fraction was not constrained to be identical for both sites.
}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{p{1.7cm}p{1.7cm}p{1.7cm}p{1.7cm}p{1.7cm}p{1.7cm}p{1.7cm}p{1.7cm}p{1.7cm}}
\hline\hline
Atom & $x$ & $y$ & $z$ & Occupancy & $U_{11}=U_{22}$ & $U_{33}$ & $U_{12}$ & $U_{13}=U_{23}$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{c}{single-crystal Mo-$K\alpha$ refinement} \\
\hline
Sb(1) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.74(7) & 0.015(1) & 0.017(1) & 0.008(1) & 0 \\
As(1) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.26(7) & 0.015(1) & 0.017(1) & 0.008(1) & 0 \\
As(2) & 0 & 0 & 0.4623(1) & 0.80(9) & 0.016(1) & 0.017(1) & 0.008(1) & 0 \\
Sb(2) & 0 & 0 & 0.4623(1) & 0.20(9) & 0.016(1) & 0.017(1) & 0.008(1) & 0 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{c}{powder 11-BM synchrotron refinement} \\
\hline
Sb(1) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.799(4) & 0.0121(3) & 0.0163(8) & 0.0061(1) & 0 \\
As(1) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.201(4) & 0.0121(3) & 0.0163(8) & 0.0061(1) & 0 \\
As(2) & 0 & 0 & 0.46130(6) & 0.783(5) & 0.0158(4) & 0.019(1) & 0.0078(2) & 0 \\
Sb(2) & 0 & 0 & 0.46130(6) & 0.217(5) & 0.0158(4) & 0.019(1) & 0.0078(2) & 0 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{c}{X-ray PDF least-squares refinement} \\
\hline
Sb(1) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.84 & 0.0138 & 0.0158 & 0.007 & 0 \\
As(1) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.16 & 0.0138 & 0.0158 & 0.007 & 0 \\
As(2) & 0 & 0 & 0.462 & 0.89 & 0.0228 & 0.0197 & 0.011 & 0 \\
Sb(2) & 0 & 0 & 0.462 & 0.11 & 0.0228 & 0.0197 & 0.011 & 0 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
~\\
\end{table*}
Single-crystal diffraction provides the most observed reflections per
refined parameter and so is the preferred method to determine
whether SbAs forms an ordered compound or solid solution.
The cell parameters and refinement details are
summarized in Table \ref{tab:stoe}, while the atomic parameters are given
in Table \ref{tab:atoms}. It must be noted that lowering symmetry from the
A7 solid solution space group $R\overline{3}m$
to GeTe-type $R3m$ does not result in the appearance of any new reflections. Only
the peak \emph{intensities} hold information about chemical ordering.
We found that the cell contains two sites with different scattering
density. The refinement indicated that an approximate 80/20 occupation of each
site (see Table \ref{tab:atoms}) significantly improves the fit versus a pure
solid solution: refinements
with even site mixing in the $R\overline{3}m$ space group
gave final $R$ indices of $R_1$ = 0.0270 and
$wR_2$ = 0.0754 with a goodness-of-fit on $F^2$ of 1.527.
This implies that
SbAs has GeTe-type ordering with $\sim$20\% antisite disorder.
More complete ordering might be attainable by annealing below the
ordering temperature which we discuss subsequently.
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{fig2} \\
\caption{(Color online) Rietveld refinement of SbAs using synchrotron X-ray radiation at beamline
11-BM of the APS. The full refinement range is given in (a), with the high-$Q$
region enlarged to show detail. Ordering between Sb/As produces a change
in intensity in the $\{101\}$ peak at $Q$= 1.88 \AA$^{-1}$, highlighted and arrowed. This area
is enlarged in (b), where the experimental and refined pattern is compared to
the model using fully-ordered (dotted) and random solid solution (dashed).
The difference between the two models (O-D difference)
is shown at the bottom of (b). The largest intensity variation in the pattern
lies on the $\{101\}$ peak.
}
\label{fig:rietveld-11bm}
\end{figure}
Single crystal refinement indicates that SbAs is
mostly ordered, but the two structures produce such similar diffraction
patterns that multiple probes should be used to confirm correct occupancy.
To that end, we performed synchrotron powder diffraction
at beamline 11-BM of the APS, which provides unparalleled resolution
and signal/noise ratio for powder samples.\cite{wang_dedicated_2008}
The 11-BM data is shown in
Figure \ref{fig:rietveld-11bm}
and the Rietveld fit is excellent.
The 11-BM refinement comes to the same occupancies and $U_{ij}$
atomic displacement parameters as the single-crystal
refinement, within the margins of experimental error (Table \ref{tab:atoms}).
Powder diffraction patterns allow us to visualize
how much intensity is attributable to chemical ordering:
the difference
in the diffraction patterns for ordered and solid-solution SbAs
models
(``order-disorder difference'')
is plotted at the bottom of each pane in Figure \ref{fig:rietveld-11bm}.
The difference was within the noise of conventional
Cu-$K\alpha$ diffraction data. The region with the largest order-disorder
difference is highlighted in Figure \ref{fig:rietveld-11bm}(a) and
magnified in Figure \ref{fig:rietveld-11bm}(b).
Here, the exceptional signal/noise ratio of 11-BM data provides
distinction between the ordered (dotted) and disordered (dashed) models
in the $\{101\}$ peak at $Q$ = 1.88 \AA$^{-1}$. From this view
the increased experimental intensity versus the disordered model is clear,
providing strong evidence for ordering.
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{fig3} \\
\caption{(Color online) The refined structure (a) from 11-BM
X-ray data is shown with a Fourier map of observed structure factors $F_{obs}$
on the $\{100\}$ face.
The slice is viewed normal to the plane in (b), with
stronger scattering density evident on Sb versus As sites.
}
\label{fig:fourier}
\end{figure}
Since the diffraction pattern is the Fourier transform of the scattering
potential and the experimental structure factors $|F_{obs}|$ can be extracted
directly from the 11-BM data, a Fourier
map can be constructed that contains the three-dimensional distribution
of scattering density in the cell.
The $\{100\}$ slice of this map is
attached to the side of the unit cell in Figure \ref{fig:fourier} to show the relationship
between the Sb and As sites and their location on the map. The $\{100\}$ Fourier map
viewed normal to the plane in Figure \ref{fig:fourier}(b). Heavier
scattering is evident on the Sb site ($Z=51$ versus $Z=33$ for As). In a solid solution
these two sites would have equal scattering density.
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{fig4} \\
\caption{(Color online) Least-squares refinements to the SbAs PDF collected at room
temperature using (a,b) x-rays and (c) neutrons. In both cases, fits are
excellent. The inset in (a) shows a two-phase mixture of Sb and As (dashed)
that would indicate clustering. This is not present in the data.
In the x-ray PDF,
the calculated difference between ordered and solid-solution SbAs is
larger than the noise. In the neutron case, due to similar scattering
lengths, this difference is well below the noise threshold.
}
\label{fig:pdfgui-fits}
\end{figure}
The presence of nanoscale heterogeneity in SbAs cannot be entirely
excluded by single crystal and powder refinements, so we turned
to PDF analysis.
Local-structure PDF studies of the supposed solid solutions
(In,Ga)As, Zn(Se,Te), and (Li,Na)AsSe$_2$ have shown that materials with single-phase
Bragg diffraction patterns can exhibit nanoscale clustering
of the end members, evidenced by split nearest-neighbor
bond distances in the PDF.\cite{petkov_high_1999,peterson_local_2001,bera_soluble_2010}
Could there be nanoscale clustering of Sb-rich and As-rich regions, as has been
proposed by Levin, et al?\cite{levin_effect_2003}
For extensive nanoclustering of Sb and As we would
see short bonds corresponding to As--As
(2.52 \AA), plus long Sb--Sb bonds (2.91 \AA).
The low-$r$ region of the experimental x-ray PDF in Figure
\ref{fig:pdfgui-fits}(a) shows a fit to the single-phase model from Rietveld refinement,
plus a dashed line corresponding to the nanoclustered model.
None of the distinct As--As or Sb--Sb bonds are present, eliminating
the possibility of extensive nanoscale phase separation.
A unit cell model can be least-squares refined using the PDF, just as
was performed using single crystal and powder diffraction data.
The x-ray PDF gives the same refined occupancy and atomic parameters as
the single-crystal and powder refinements, providing a third
check of the Sb/As ordering. The fit is shown in Figure \ref{fig:pdfgui-fits}(b)
and refined values are given in Table \ref{tab:atoms}.
Neutron scattering does not provide sufficient contrast
between Sb and As (5.57 and 6.58 fm scattering cross-sections, respectively)
to resolve site ordering in the PDF or Bragg peaks, but higher
$r$-space resolution in the neutron PDF (a result of higher usable $Q_{max}$)
further confirms the absence of nanoscale phase
separation by the good fit at low $r$ in Figure \ref{fig:pdfgui-fits}(c).
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig5} \\
\caption{(Color online) Sequential Rietveld refinements to high-temperature
synchrotron x-ray diffraction data (beamline 1-BM, APS)
show disordering of Sb/As around 550 K, evidenced
by the site occupancy in (a), while maintaining low goodness
of fit $R_{wp}$. In (b), the temperature dependence of the
lattice parameters indicates a first-order
transition around 550 K.
}
\label{fig:1bm}
\end{figure}
High-temperature diffraction data collected upon heating a sample of
SbAs at the APS beamline 1-BM refine to the same 80/20 site ordering as
other techniques, and results of sequential refinements upon
heating are shown in Figure \ref{fig:1bm}. The site occupancy
begins to deviate from the room-temperature value around
500 K. A value of 0.5 in Figure \ref{fig:1bm}(a)
corresponds to even mixing (disorder) on both sites, and is
marked with a dashed line. Figure
\ref{fig:1bm}(b) shows a rapid change in the lattice parameters
in the interval 500 K $< T <$ 600 K, suggesting a first-order transition
around 550 K. Annealing samples below this transition temperature
may result in more complete chemical ordering.
\subsection{Transport measurements}
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{fig6} \\
\caption{(Color online) Resistivity (a) of SbAs shows impurity scattering at low
temperature and linear temperature dependence, typical of semimetals.
Resistivity of an ingot at higher temperatures (b) displays hysteresis, likely
due to the phase transition around 550 K.
Concurrent measurement of the Seebeck coefficient $S$ (c) shows $p$-type
conductivity with a broad maximum around 500 K.
}
\label{fig:resistivity}
\end{figure}
Resistivity measurements of SbAs crystals in the $ab$ plane display
metallic behavior with $\rho$ = 80 $\mu\Omega$-cm at room temperature,
shown in Figure \ref{fig:resistivity}(a). The large
residual resistivity at low $T$ is characteristic of impurity scattering.
There is no region where the temperature coefficient of resistivity is negative,
as would be expected for a
semiconducting region with finite $E_g$. The behavior of SbAs can be
contrasted with the Bi$_{1-x}$Sb$_x$ system, where 7-22\% Sb substitution
leads to an opening of $E_g$ up to 0.014 eV.\cite{jain_temperature_1959,ibrahim_thermoelectric_1985}
Saunders qualitatively suggested that SbAs does not become
a semiconductor because the band overlap in As is greater than
that in Bi, so a larger perturbation from Sb addition would be
required to shift the $L$-point band enough to create a gap.\cite{saunders_electrical_1965}
Figure \ref{fig:resistivity}(b) shows a rise in the resistivity
above 500 K, coincident with the order-disorder
transition observed by high-temperature diffraction in Figure \ref{fig:1bm}.
The measured thermopower of a polycrystalline
SbAs ingot is shown in Figure \ref{fig:resistivity}(c). The positive
($p$-type) behavior and magnitude are similar to that of pure Sb,
which reaches a maximum of 30-55 $\mu$V/K at 400 K, depending
on crystalline orientation.\cite{saunders_seebeck_1968}
The Seebeck coefficient of arsenic is about a factor of 4 smaller.\cite{saunders_seebeck_1965}
The decrease in $S$ at high temperatures indicates an increase
in $n$-type character, which could result from the effects
of different mobilities for electrons and holes or changes in band overlap due to
lattice expansion.
Given the intricacies of the band structure near $E_F$ in semimetals,
we turn to IR measurements and DFT calculations to understand
how chemical ordering in SbAs may affect the band structure.
\subsection{Infrared reflectivity}
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{fig7} \\
\caption{(Color online) Experimental reflectivity spectrum (a) of SbAs
and best-fit calculated reflectivity (solid line) using Equations \ref{eq:reflectivity}
and \ref{eq:drude}.
The Kramers-Kronig obtained Im($\varepsilon$) and the energy loss
function Im($-1/\varepsilon$) are shown in (b).
The Drude fit (Equation \ref{eq:drude}) to Im($-1/\varepsilon$) gives
the plasma frequency $\omega_p$ and complex dielectric function $\varepsilon(\omega)$.
}
\label{fig:ir1}
\end{figure}
The experimental reflectivity spectrum of SbAs is shown in Figure
\ref{fig:ir1}. This spectrum is dominated by a structureless plasmon, yielding
high reflectivity values in the low frequency range with a broad
minimum around $\sim$1300 cm$^{-1}$, followed by almost constant reflectivity
values in the high frequency regime. The spectrum was analyzed by
the Kramers-Kronig method to obtain the real $\varepsilon_1$ and the
imaginary $\varepsilon_2$ parts of the complex dielectric function $\varepsilon(\omega)$.
The $\varepsilon_2$ spectrum Im($\varepsilon$) and the energy loss function
\begin{equation}
-\mathrm{Im}\left( 1/\varepsilon \right) = \varepsilon_2 / \varepsilon_1^2 + \varepsilon_2^2
\end{equation}
are shown
in Figure \ref{fig:ir1}. The Im($\varepsilon$)
spectrum is increased in the low frequency range denoting the
contribution of free carriers, while the peak in Im($-1/\varepsilon$)
indicates a plasma frequency of $\sim$1100 cm$^{-1}$. The latter represents
the frequency of a longitudinal collective mode, when the entire
carrier gas system is displaced relative to the fixed ions.
The reflectivity $R(\omega)$ is expressed through the complex
dielectric function as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reflectivity}
R(\omega) = \left( \frac{ \sqrt{\varepsilon(\omega)}-1 }{ \sqrt{\varepsilon(\omega)}+1 } \right)^2
\end{equation}
We find that we can fit the measured reflectivity spectrum of
Figure \ref{fig:ir1}(a) with a single-carrier double-damped Drude formula for
the complex dielectric function \cite{gervais_optical_2002}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:drude}
\varepsilon(\omega) = \varepsilon_\infty \left( 1- \frac{ \omega_p^2 - i(\gamma_p - \gamma_0)\omega }{ \omega(\omega + i\gamma_0) } \right)
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_\infty$ is the optical dielectric
constant associated with the bound electrons and $\omega_p$
is the plasma frequency:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:omegap}
\omega^2_p = \frac{Ne^2}{\varepsilon_0 \varepsilon_\infty m^*}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the free carrier concentration and $m^*$ is the carrier
effective mass. In the
typical Drude expression for $\varepsilon(\omega)$, the free
carrier damping factor $\gamma_p = 1/\tau$ is considered
constant throughout the entire frequency range. In the case
of Equation \ref{eq:drude}, the carrier relaxation time $\tau$ is taken to
be frequency dependent, giving a frequency dependent
damping factor. Here $\gamma_p$ represents the linewidth of
the plasma response centred at $\omega = \omega_p$ and
$\gamma_0$ represents the linewidth of the absorption at
$\omega=0$. The ratio $\gamma_p / \omega_p$ describes the
motion of charge carriers: vibrational when the ratio is small,
diffusive or incoherent when the ratio is large. Notice that
Equation \ref{eq:drude} reduces to the simple
Drude expression when $\gamma_p = \gamma_0$.\cite{pessaud_optical_2000}
Fitting the data in Figure \ref{fig:ir1} gives the parameters in Table \ref{tab:ir}.
The single-carrier model fits our data well and also describes
the IR reflectivity spectra of Bi$_{1-x}$Sb$_x$ alloys in the
semimetallic composition range.\cite{stepanov_plasmon_2004,grabov_reflection_2001}
This, however, does not exclude a two-carrier system, i.e. electrons and holes,
because a two-carrier Drude expression with plasma frequency given by Equation
\ref{eq:twocarrier} is equivalent to that of a single carrier if the two
carriers have the same relaxation time.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:twocarrier}
\omega^2_p = \frac{e^2}{\varepsilon_0 \varepsilon_\infty}\left(\frac{N_e}{m^*_e} + \frac{N_h}{m^*_h}\right)
\end{equation}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:ir}
Drude parameters derived from room-temperature reflectivity data of SbAs
}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{p{1.8cm}p{1.8cm}p{1.8cm}p{1.8cm}}
\hline
$\omega_p$ (cm$^{-1}$) & $\varepsilon_\infty$ & $\gamma_p$ (cm$^{-1}$) & $\gamma_0$ (cm$^{-1}$) \\
1323 & 41.6 & 2044 & 1187 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
~\\
\end{table}
For SbAs the plasma frequency $\omega_p$ = 1323 cm$^{-1}$
lies between the two end members: 1000 cm$^{-1}$ for Sb,\cite{fox_optical_1974}
and 2419 or 2017 cm$^{-1}$ for two different orientations of As.\cite{riccius_plasma_1971}
Using the values of Table \ref{tab:ir} and Equation \ref{eq:omegap}
we calculated $N/m^*$ = $8.14\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$
for SbAs, which also lies between the respective values for Sb and As ($5.9\times10^{20}$ and
8.9$\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$,
respectively).\cite{fox_optical_1974,riccius_plasma_1971,riccius_proc_1968}
Meanwhile, the optical dielectric constant $\varepsilon_\infty$ for SbAs
was found to be 41.6, which is less than the values for
Sb and As (80 and 50, respectively).\cite{harris_optical_1964,riccius_proc_1968}
The polarizability of the valence electrons relative to both parent
materials is decreased, which could be explained by the empirical Moss
relation, $\varepsilon_\infty \propto E_g^{-1}$, which implies
that $\varepsilon_\infty$ decreases as the direct band gap
$E_g$ increases. This relation holds
in Bi$_{1-x}$Sb$_x$ alloys across the band-opening composition region.
\cite{stepanov_plasmon_2004,grabov_dielectric_1990}
A similar direct gap opening opening at the $L$ point of SbAs, albeit
small and below $E_F$, is found in our DFT electronic
structure calculations of SbAs.
Our IR reflectivity measurements confirm that SbAs displays
carrier concentrations typical of Sb and As, with band
overlap typical of a semimetal. However, the direct band
separation probed by $\varepsilon_\infty$ seems to have opened
wider than that of the end members. We conducted first-principles calculations
to visualize how chemical ordering affects the band structure.
\subsection{Electronic structure calculations}
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig8} \\
\caption{(Color online)
Electronic structure of SbAs (relativistic and spin orbit interaction
are included): (a) Band structure with a pseudogap along the $\Gamma L$
direction; (b) projected density of states (DOS) showing a finite value
at $E_F$. Detailed band structures around $E_F$ are shown below for (c) SbAs, (d) pure Sb,
and (e) As.
}
\label{fig:bandstructure}
\end{figure}
The calculated band structure and DOS of SbAs are shown in Figure \ref{fig:bandstructure}(a,b).
Our calculations clearly show that SbAs is a semimetal with a pseudogap,
in agreement with resistivity and IR experiments. The detailed band structure along K$\Gamma$L
near the pseudogap is given in the Figure \ref{fig:bandstructure}(c). The
valence band maximum (VBM) and conduction band minimum (CBM) occur at $\sim$0.3$\Gamma$L
and $\sim$0.9$\Gamma$L resulting in two electron and two hole pockets. The band
structure has an interesting feature near the $\Gamma$ point where the VBM
has a local minimum and the CBM has a local maximum. These bands
could produce hole and electron pockets if the chemical potential
is moved, for example by doping.
The projected DOS in Figure \ref{fig:bandstructure}(b) clearly shows the
pseudogap structure with finite DOS at the Fermi level ($E_F$). From the
projected DOS, one can see that there is strong hybridization between Sb and
As orbitals. Hybridization of Sb $s$ and As $s$ orbitals gives rise to two
bands in the DOS from -13.5~eV to -6.5~eV, separated by a gap of $\sim$1~eV.
The similar picture also applies to the hybridization between Sb $p$ and As $p$
orbitals. However, the separation between the bands is small, giving rise to
an overlap region, forming the pseudogap.
Comparing the band structure of SbAs with those of pure Sb and As
(Figures \ref{fig:bandstructure}(c-e)) reveals common features over a large
energy scale, but salient differences appear near the pseudogap region. The splitting of the
valence and conduction bands at the $L$ point in SbAs is much larger compared to
the pure compounds, which results in a larger direct
band separation probed by IR reflectivity. The effect of SOI in SbAs is
stronger than those in pure Sb and As due to the lowering of
symmetry to non-centrosymmetric $R3m$. Our structural refinements
confirm the presence of anti-site disorder in the SbAs samples which
we measured transport and reflectivity. Further investigation
is required to determine how this disorder affects the
pseudogap structure and whether it can be tuned by annealing
or doping.
Starting from the DFT electronic band structure we calculated the
thermopower $S$. For the nominally
undoped system we find that the thermopower is positive 22 $\mu$V/K, in
good agreement with our experimental value of 25$\mu$/K. However the calculated
$S$ is nearly $T$-independent in the range 300 K $< T <$ 550 K,
rising from 22 to 26 $\mu$V/K, whereas the experimental value increases from
25 to 40 $\mu$/K. The origin of this strong $T$ dependence is not clear.
The effect of the structural transition around 550 K
on the electronic structure near the Fermi energy and consequent
change in the chemical potential $\mu$ with temperature and hence $S$ merits further
theoretical study.
\section{Conclusions}
We find that the compound SbAs forms as an ordered GeTe-type structure
with 80/20 ordering upon cooling from just below the solidus
temperature, as confirmed by
single-crystal x-ray diffraction, high-resolution synchrotron
diffraction, and PDF refinements. The low-$r$ PDF data precludes
the possibility of nanoscale phase separation of Sb and As.
Transport measurements confirm semimetallic behavior analogous
to the end members, with the exception of a direct gap splitting
that is suggested by IR reflectivity to be larger than that of Sb
or As. First-principles calculations indeed find an opening of the
direct gap around the $L$ point due to subtle changes in
the $p$ orbital hybridization caused by lower symmetry.
The chemical order-disorder transition is found to be around
550 K by Rietveld refinements to high-temperature synchrotron
diffraction data. This raises the possibility that
improved ordering may be attained by slow-cooling or annealing below this temperature.
The maximum in thermal conductivity observed by Ohyama
corresponds to ordered SbAs, so the ability to tune this
behavior by control of chemical ordering arises.
Furthermore, a reinvestigation of the Sb$_{1-x}$As$_x$ phase space
is warranted. The related systems Bi$_{1-x}$Sb$_x$ and As$_{1-x}$P$_x$
may also deserve more detailed study. While a wealth of experimental
data finds no miscibility gap in Bi$_{1-x}$Sb$_x$, the behavior of As$_{1-x}$P$_x$ is comparatively
unknown---contradictory reports of the hypothetical compound
AsP have been summarized by Karakaya and Thompson.\cite{karakaya_as-p_1991}
\section{Acknowledgments}
Work at Argonne National Laboratory is supported by UChicago Argonne,
a U.S. DOE Office of Science Laboratory, operated under Contract
No. DE-AC02-06CH11357.
This work utilized NPDF at the
Lujan Center at Los Alamos Neutron Science Center, funded by the DOE Office of
Basic Energy Sciences and operated by Los
Alamos National Security LLC under DOE Contract DE-AC52-06NA25396.
|
\section*{I.Introduction}
Quantum information has allowed us to elucidate quantum physics on the basis of
information theory. The understanding of correlation in quantum state has been a central
theme in the study. Insights regarding entangled quantum
state naturally lead us to apply the basic concepts in quantum
information to quantum communication. A well known
example is quantum cryptography. A basic resource for
quantum communication is an entangled quantum state, which
cannot be obtained by local operations and classical
communications(LOCC)
between parties who share the quantum states.\\
From another perspective, quantum information in non-inertial frame has also
been studied \cite{ref:alsing1}\cite{ref:terashima1}\cite{
ref:terashima2}\cite{ref:ball}\cite{ref:fuentes}\cite{ref:versteeg}\cite{ref:alsing2}\cite{ref:martin}.
When the measurement based quantum state in an accelerated frame is
considered, one of most important aspects about the quantum state is
that the entangled quantum states of bosonic system in an
accelerated frame have vanishing entanglement at the infinite
acceleration limit however the entangled quantum states of fermionic
system in an accelerated frame have non-zero entanglement in the
same
limit.\\
The quantum discord is regarded as another way to understand the
correlation of quantum states. Discord is obtained through the
quantum correlation after removing classical correlation so that the
resulting correlation displays only the pure correlation with
quantumness. Studying quantum discord of a quantum state in an
accelerated frame can be important for a better understanding
quantum correlation of a state\cite{ref:datta}\cite{ref:brown}.
Specifically, the behavior of quantum states at the infinite
acceleration limit should be understood since such analysis could
provide insight into how quantum states behave near black holes for
instance. Discord of the quantum state of fermionic system in an
accelerated frame has been studied within single-mode approximation
though the latter may not always hold for all physical systems. In
this article, we investigate the behavior of discord for quantum
states of fermionic system in accelerated frame beyond single-mode
approximation\cite{ref:montero2}\cite{ref:montero3}\cite{ref:chang}.
There are actually different ways to compute quantum discord. In
our study, we restrict our measure to geometric discord. It is found that the
geometric discord for entangled quantum states of fermionic system
in accelerated frame need not vanish even at the inifinite
acceleration limit when the particle(Alice)-particle(Bob in region
I) case and the particle(Alice)-antiparticle(Bob in region II) one
are considered. However, the geometric discord for entangled quantum
states of fermionic system in accelerated frame disappears at the
inifinite acceleration limit for
particle(Alice)-antiparticle(Bob in region I)
and particle(Alice)-particle(Bob in region II) cases.\\
The rest of this article is described as follows: In section II, we provide a brief
description to physics of an accelerated frame. In section
III, we investigate quantum discord for quantum states of fermionic system in accelerated
frame. Finally, in section IV, we discuss and summarize our
results.
\section*{II Accelerated Frame}
An accelerated frame is best described by invoking Rindler coordinates
$(\tau,\varsigma,y,z)$, instead of employing the usual Minkowski coordinates $(t,x,y,z)$.
Rindler coordinates can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
ct&=&\varsigma \sinh(\frac{a \tau}{c}),x=\varsigma \cosh(\frac{a
\tau}{c}) \\
ct&=&-\varsigma \sinh(\frac{a \tau}{c}),x=-\varsigma \cosh(\frac{a
\tau}{c})
\end{eqnarray}
where $a$ denotes the fixed acceleration of the frame and $c$ is the
velocity of light. In fact, Eq(1) covers only the right wedge(called
region I) and Eq(2) describes the left wedge(called region II).\\
The field in Minkowski and Rindler spacetime is written as
\begin{eqnarray}
&\phi & = N_{M}\sum_{i}(a_{i,M}v^{+}_{i,M} +
b^{\dag}_{i,M}v^{-}_{i,M} )\nonumber\\
& = & N_{R}\sum_{j}(a_{j,I}v^{+}_{j,I} + b^{\dag}_{j,I}v^{-}_{j,I} +
a_{j,II}v^{+}_{j,II} + b^{\dag}_{j,II}v^{-}_{j,II} )
\end{eqnarray}
Here $a^{\dag}_{i,\Delta}(a_{i,\Delta})$ and
$b^{\dag}_{i,\Delta}(b_{i,\Delta})$, which satisfy the
anticommutation relations, are the creation(annihilation) operators
for the positive and negative energy solutions(particle and
antiparticle) and $\Delta $ denotes $M,I,II$. A combination of
Minkowski mode, called Unruh mode, can be transformed into single
Rindler mode and can annihilate the same Minkowski vacuum,
satisfying the relation
\begin{equation}
A_{\Omega,R/L}\equiv \cos r_{\Omega}a_{\Omega,I/II} - \sin r_{\Omega}
b^{\dag}_{\Omega,II/I}
\end{equation}
where $\cos r_{\Omega}=(e^{\frac{-2 \pi \Omega c}{a}}+1)^{-1/2}$.
However we may obtain more general relation such as
\begin{equation}
a^{\dag}_{\Omega,U}=q_{L}(A^{\dag}_{\Omega ,L}\otimes I_{R}) +
q_{R}(I_{L} \otimes A^{\dag}_{\Omega ,R}),
\end{equation}
beyond the single mode approximation. Using this
relation, in the case of Grassmann scalar, the Unruh vacuum and the
one-particle state is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
|0_{\Omega }\rangle_{U} &=& \cos^{2} r_{\Omega } |0000\rangle_{\Omega
} - \sin r_{\Omega } \cos r_{\Omega } |0110\rangle_{\Omega }
\nonumber\\
&+& \sin r_{\Omega } \cos r_{\Omega } |1001\rangle_{\Omega } - \sin^{2}
r_{\Omega } |1111\rangle_{\Omega } \nonumber\\
|1_{\Omega }\rangle^{+}_{U} &=& q_{R}(\cos r_{\Omega }
|1000\rangle_{\Omega } - \sin r_{\Omega } |1110\rangle_{\Omega })
\nonumber\\
&+& q_{L}(\sin r_{\Omega } |1011\rangle_{\Omega } + \cos
r_{\Omega } |0010\rangle_{\Omega }
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the notation $|pqmn\rangle_{\Omega } \equiv |p_{\Omega
}\rangle^{+}_{I}|q_{\Omega }\rangle^{+}_{II} |m_{\Omega
}\rangle^{-}_{II} |n_{\Omega }\rangle^{-}_{I} $. Here we consider
$q_{R}$ and $q_{L}$ as real number. Throughout this paper, we study within the fermionic structure
which also underlies physical framework proposed by
\cite{ref:montero2,ref:montero3,ref:chang}.
\section*{III Geometric discord of quantum state}
The quantum discord which was first introduced by Zurek {\it et al} for isolating quantum
correlation from classical correlation\cite{ref:henderson}
\cite{ref:ollivier}. The quantum correlation is obtained by
considering the difference between two different ways of writing
quantum mutual information. Quantum mutual information of quantum
state shared by Alice and Bob can be given by
\begin{equation}
I(A:B)=S(\rho_{A})+S(\rho_{B})-S(\rho_{AB})
\end{equation}
where $S(\rho)=-\mbox{tr}(\rho \log_{2}\rho) $ denotes the von Neumann
entropy. Quantum mutual information can also be described by
\begin{equation}
J(A:B)=\mbox{max}_{\{\Pi_{i}\}}(S(\rho_{B})-S_{\{\Pi_{i}\}}(B|A))
\end{equation}
where $\{\Pi_{i}\}$ means a complete set of projection operator.
Quantum discord is defined as
\begin{equation}
D(A:B)=I(A:B)-J(A:B),
\end{equation}
which can be interpreted as a pure quantum correlation of quantum state.
Quantum discord can be also defined in a geometric way in which one can regard
discord as the minimum distance between the state to the set of zero discord
states $\chi$\cite{ref:dakic}:
\begin{equation}
D_{G}=\mbox{\rm min}_{\chi \in \Omega_{0} }\| \rho_{AB}-\chi \|^{2} \nonumber
\end{equation} where
$\Omega_{0}$ denotes the set of zero discord states and $\|\| $
is the squared Hilbert-Schmidt norm. For computational convenience, the geometric discord
is shown to be equivalent to
\begin{equation}
D_{G}=\frac{1}{4}(\|\overrightarrow{x}\|^{2}+\|T\|^{2} -
\mbox{\rm max} [\mbox{ \rm eigenvalues} (\overrightarrow{x}\overrightarrow{x}^{t}+TT^{t})]
\end{equation} where $x_{i}=\mbox{tr}(\rho \sigma_{i} \otimes I)$ and $T_{ij}=\mbox{tr}(\rho
\sigma_{i}\otimes\sigma_{j})$ and $t$ denotes the transpose of vectors or matrices.\\
\subsection*{A. Two-party entangled state}
We consider a generalized $\Phi^{+}$ state such as
\begin{equation}
|\Phi^{+}\rangle=\cos \alpha |00\rangle + \sin \alpha|11^{+}\rangle \label{eq10}
\end{equation}
Suppose two parties, Alice and Bob, initially prepare a generalized $\Phi^{+}$ state in
an inertial frames and thereafter Bob moves in an accelerated frame.
Since Bob has unaccessible part due to his acceleration, the physical state that Alice
and Bob(using particle in Bob's region I) may share is given by
$\rho^{\Phi^{+}}_{AB_{I}^{+}}$, if we go
beyond the single mode approximation.
Likewise, we denote the
physical state of Alice's particle and Bob's antiparticle in Bob's
region I, Alice's particle and Bob's particle in Bob's region II,
and Alice's particle and Bob's antiparticle in Bob's region II as
$\rho^{\Phi^{+}}_{AB_{I}^{-}}$, $\rho^{\Phi^{+}}_{AB_{II}^{+}}$, and
$\rho^{\Phi^{+}}_{AB_{II}^{-}}$ respectively. The geometric discord
of $ \rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$, $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$, $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ can be shown to be
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{G}(\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}) &=& \frac{1}{4}(\cos ^2
2\alpha +(\cos 2 \gamma \cos ^2 \alpha + (q_{R}^{2}-q_{L}^{2} \cos
2\gamma) \sin^{2} \alpha )^{2} +q_{R}^{2} \cos ^{2}\gamma \sin ^2
2\alpha)+ q_{R}^{2} \cos ^{2}\gamma \sin ^2
2\alpha \nonumber\\
&-& \mbox{max} [\cos ^2 2\alpha + (\cos ^2 \alpha \cos 2\gamma
+(q_{R}^{2}-q_{L}^{2}\cos 2\gamma) \sin^{2} \alpha )^{2}, q_{R}^{2}
\cos ^{2}\gamma \sin ^2 2\alpha] \nonumber\\
D_{G}(\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}) &=& \frac{1}{4}(\cos ^2
2\alpha + (\cos ^2 \alpha \cos 2\gamma -(q_{L}^{2}+q_{R}^{2}\cos
2\gamma) \sin^{2} \alpha)^{2} + 2 q_{L}^{2} \cos ^{2}\gamma \sin^{2}
\gamma \sin ^2 2\alpha \nonumber\\
&-& \mbox{max} [\cos ^2 2\alpha + (\cos ^2 \alpha \cos 2\gamma
-(q_{L}^{2}+q_{R}^{2}\cos 2\gamma) \sin^{2} \alpha )^{2}, q_{L}^{2}
\cos ^{2}\gamma \sin^{2} \gamma \sin ^2 2\alpha] \nonumber\\
D_{G}(\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}) &=& \frac{1}{4}(\cos ^2
2\alpha + (\cos ^2 \alpha \cos 2\gamma -(q_{L}^{2}-q_{R}^{2}\cos
2\gamma) \sin^{2} \alpha )^{2} + 2
q_{L}^{2} \cos ^{2}\gamma \sin^{2} \gamma \sin ^2 2\alpha \nonumber\\
&-& \mbox{max} [\cos ^2 2\alpha + (\cos ^2 \alpha \cos 2\gamma
-(q_{L}^{2}-q_{R}^{2}\cos 2\gamma) \sin^{2} \alpha )^{2}, q_{L}^{2}
\cos ^{2}\gamma sin^{2} \gamma \sin ^2 2\alpha] \nonumber\\
D_{G}(\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}) &=& \frac{1}{4}(\cos ^2
2\alpha + q_{R}^{2} \cos ^{2}\gamma \sin ^2 2\alpha + (\cos 2 \gamma
\cos ^2 \alpha - (q_{R}^{2}+q_{L}^{2}\cos 2\gamma) \sin^{2} \alpha
)^{2} + 2 q_{R}^{2} \sin ^{2}\gamma \sin ^2 2\alpha)\nonumber\\
&-& \mbox{max} [\cos ^2 2\alpha + (\cos ^2 \alpha \cos 2\gamma -
(q_{R}^{2}+q_{L}^{2}\cos 2\gamma) \sin^{2} \alpha )^{2}, q_{R}^{2} \sin
^{2}\gamma \sin ^2 2\alpha]
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
The geometric discord for the quantum states in the various regimes
can be numerically evaluated and the behavior with acceleration is
shown in Fig 1- 2. Fig. 1 illustrates the quantum discord for the
quantum states $\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ and Fig. 2 shows the quantum
discord for the quantum states $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$. From the plots, we see
that the quantum discord for $\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$
and $ \rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ never vanish even at
the infinite acceleration, which implies that quantum states $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ have non-zero quantum
correlation even at the infinite acceleration. In case of $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ their quantum discord
disappear at the infinite acceleration, meaning that there is no
quantum correlation of $ \rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ and
$ \rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ in the limit of infinite
acceleration. It should be noted that as we have seen in the
entanglement behavior of $ \rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$, $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$, $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$, and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$, the quantum discord of
quantum state $ \rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$($
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$) coincides with that of $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$($
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$) at the infinite
acceleration.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{gdFig1.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig2}(Color online) The geometric discord of quantum
states $ \rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ when $\alpha=\frac{\pi}{4}$
and $\alpha=\frac{\pi}{12}$. The solid(dotted) lines (from top to
bottom) denote the geometric discord of $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$($
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$) at $q_{R}=1$, $q_{R}=0.75$
$q_{R}=0.5$ and $q_{R}=0.25$ respectively. The quantum states such
as $ \rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ show the non-vanishing
geometric discord even at the infinite acceleration. Here
$\gamma=\frac{\pi}{4}$ denotes the infinite acceleration. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{gdFig2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig2}(Color online) The geometric discord of quantum
states $\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ when $\alpha=\frac{\pi}{4}$
and $\alpha=\frac{\pi}{12}$. The solid(dotted) lines (from top to
bottom) denote the geometric discord of
$\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ at $q_{R}=1$, $q_{R}=0.75$
$q_{R}=0.5$ and $q_{R}=0.25$ respectively. However the quantum
discords of the quantum states such as $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{\Phi_{+}}$ disappear at the infinite
acceleration. Here $\gamma=\frac{\pi}{4}$ denotes the infinite
acceleration. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
So far we have considered the one-particle state described by $|1_{\Omega }\rangle^{+}_{U}$.
The one-particle state may also take the form
\begin{eqnarray}
|1_{\Omega }\rangle^{-}_{U} &=& q_{L}(\cos \gamma_{\Omega }
|0100\rangle_{\Omega } - \sin \gamma_{\Omega } |0111\rangle_{\Omega
})
\nonumber\\
&+& q_{R}(\sin \gamma_{\Omega } |1110\rangle_{\Omega } +\cos
\gamma_{\Omega } |0010\rangle_{\Omega }
\end{eqnarray}
In this case, one has a generalized $\Phi^{-}$ state given by
\begin{equation}
|\Phi^{-}\rangle=\cos \alpha |00\rangle +\sin \alpha|11^{-}\rangle
\end{equation}
As in the previous analysis, suppose that two parties Alice and Bob prepare the new
generalized
$\Phi^{-}$ state in inertial frames and Bob moves in an
accelerated frame afterwards.
Since Bob has unaccessible part due to his
acceleration, if we go beyond the single mode approximation,the
physical state $\rho^{\Phi^{-}}_{AB_{I}^{+}}$ that Alice and
Bob(using particle in Bob's region I) share is obtained by
tracing out all other parts. In this way, one obtains the
physical state $\rho^{\Phi^{-}}_{AB_{I}^{-}}$ of Alice and Bob(using
anti-particle in Bob's region I), the physical state
$\rho^{\Phi^{-}}_{AB_{II}^{+}}$ of Alice and antiBob(using particle
in Bob's region II), and the physical state
$\rho^{\Phi^{-}}_{AB_{II}^{-}}$ of Alice and antiBob(using
anti-particle in Bob's region II). Using
$\rho^{\Phi^{-}}_{AB_{I}^{+}}$,$\rho^{\Phi^{-}}_{AB_{I}^{-}}$,$\rho^{\Phi^{-}}_{AB_{II}^{+}}$
and $\rho^{\Phi^{-}}_{AB_{II}^{-}}$, one can compute the mutual
information, classical communication and geometric discord.
It turns out that the behavior of quantum discord
for $\rho_{AB_{I}^{+}}^{\Phi^{-}}$,$\rho_{AB_{I}^{+}}^{\Phi^{-}}$,$\rho_{AB_{I}^{+}}^{\Phi^{-}}$
and $\rho_{AB_{I}^{+}}^{\Phi^{-}}$ is the same
as that of $\rho_{AB_{I}^{+}}^{\Phi^{+}}$,$\rho_{AB_{I}^{+}}^{\Phi^{+}}$,$\rho_{AB_{I}^{+}}^{\Phi^{+}}$
and $\rho_{AB_{I}^{+}}^{\Phi^{+}}$ respectively.
\subsection*{B. Two-party mixed entangled state}
Until now, we have considered quantum discord of pure states in
fermionic system when one of parties travels with a uniform
acceleration. We next briefly consider a more general scenario when the two
parties share a mixed state. Naturally, we find that how the behavior of
quantum discord depends on the degree of mixedness. More specifically, we consider
a Werner state, where a white noise component is added to a maximally
entangled states. Suppose two parties Alice and Bob initially prepare
a Werner state \begin{equation}
\rho_{W}= F |\Phi^{+} (\alpha=\pi/4) \rangle \langle \Phi^{+}
(\alpha=\pi/4) | + \frac{1-F}{4}\mathbb{I}\label{eq9},
\end{equation}
in inertial frame where the maximally entangled state $|\Phi^{+} (\alpha=\pi/4) \rangle$
corresponds to $\alpha=\pi/4$ in
Eq. (\ref{eq10}), and then Bob moves in an
uniformly accelerated frame.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{gdFig3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig2}(Color online) The geometric discord of quantum
states $\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{+}}^{W}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{-}}^{W}$, when $F=0.9$ and $F=0.6$. The
solid(dotted) lines (from top to bottom) denote the geometric
discord of $ \rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{+}}^{W}$($
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{-}}^{W}$) at $q_{R}=1$, $q_{R}=0.75$
$q_{R}=0.5$ and $q_{R}=0.25$ respectively. The quantum states such
as $\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{+}}^{W}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{-}}^{W}$ show the non-vanishing geometric
discord even at the infinite acceleration. Here
$\gamma=\frac{\pi}{4}$ denotes the infinite acceleration. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Since Bob has unaccessible part due to his acceleration,
the physical state shared between Alice
and Bob(using particle in Bob's region I)(Alice and Bob(using
anti-particle in Bob's region I)) are given by
$\rho^{W}_{AB_{I}^{+}}$ and $\rho^{W}_{AB_{I}^{-}}$ beyond single mode approximation.
Moreover, the physical states shared between Alice and
Bob(using particle in Bob's region II)(Alice and Bob(using
anti-particle in Bob's region II)) are
$\rho^{W}_{AB_{II}^{+}}$ and $\rho^{W}_{AB_{II}^{-}}$.\\
The geometric discord of $\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{+}}^{W}$, $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{W}$, $ \rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{W}$
and $ \rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{-}}^{W}$ are found in Fig. 3 and Fig.
4. We observe that all quantum states show non-vanishing quantum
mutual information and classical information even at the infinite
acceleration but the geometric discords of the quantum states such
as $\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{W}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{W}$ disappear at the infinite
acceleration.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{gdFig4.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig2}(Color online) The geometric discord of quantum
states $\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{W}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{W}$ when $F=0.9$ and $F=0.6$. The
solid(dotted) lines (from top to bottom) denote the geometric
discord of $\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{W}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{W}$ at $q_{R}=1$, $q_{R}=0.75$
$q_{R}=0.5$ and $q_{R}=0.25$ respectively. The geometric discord of
the quantum states such as $ \rho_{AB_{\mathrm{I}}^{-}}^{W}$ and $
\rho_{AB_{\mathrm{II}}^{+}}^{W}$ disappear at the infinite
acceleration. Here $\gamma=\frac{\pi}{4}$ denotes the infinite
acceleration. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section*{III. Discussion and Conclusion}
We have investigated the geometric discord of entangled states such
as $\Phi^{+}$, $\Phi^{-}$ and the Werner state for fermionic
systems. We have found that beyond the single-mode approximation,
the geometric discord for entangled quantum states of fermionic
system in accelerated frame does not vanish even at the infinite
acceleration limit if the quantum state of Alice's particle and
Bob's particle in Bob's region I or Alice's particle and Bob's
anti-particle in Bob's region II but the quantum state of Alice's
particle and Bob's anti-particle in Bob's region I or Alice's
particle and Bob's particle in Bob's region II have vanishing
geometric discord in the same infinite acceleration limit. We also
observed that the quantum discord of $\Phi^{+}$ and $\Phi^{-}$
states behaves in the analogous way.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work is supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research
Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and
Technology (KRF2011-0027142). KLC acknowledges support from the National
Research Foundation \& Ministry of Education, Singapore.
|
\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
\setcounter{section}{0}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem*{lemma*}{Lemma}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
\newtheorem{examples}[theorem]{Examples}
\newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}
\newcommand{\mc}[1]{{\mathcal #1}}
\newcommand{\mf}[1]{{\mathfrak #1}}
\newcommand{\mb}[1]{{\mathbb #1}}
\newcommand{\bb}[1]{{\mathbb #1}}
\newcommand{\bs}[1]{{\boldsymbol #1}}
\newcommand{\ol}[1]{\,\overline {\!#1\!}\,}
\newcommand{\ul}[1]{\,\underline {\!#1\!}\,}
\newcommand\tint{{\textstyle\int}}
\newcommand{{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}}{{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}}
\renewcommand{\tilde}{\widetilde}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm End }}{\mathop{\rm End }}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm Hom }}{\mathop{\rm Hom }}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm ad }}{\mathop{\rm ad }}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm sign }}{\mathop{\rm sign }}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm Mat }}{\mathop{\rm Mat }}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm ord }}{\mathop{\rm ord }}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm Tor }}{\mathop{\rm Tor }}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm Lie }}{\mathop{\rm Lie }}
\renewcommand{\ker}{\mathop{\rm Ker }}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm Im }}{\mathop{\rm Im }}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm Vect }}{\mathop{\rm Vect }}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm loc }}{\mathop{\rm loc }}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm Span }}{\mathop{\rm Span }}
\newcommand{\mathop{\rm dc }}{\mathop{\rm dc }}
\newcommand{\ass}[1]{\stackrel{#1}{\longleftrightarrow}}
\definecolor{light}{gray}{.9}
\newcommand{\pecetta}[1]{
$\phantom .$
\bigskip
\par\noindent
\colorbox{light}{\begin{minipage}{12cm}#1\end{minipage}}
\bigskip
\par\noindent
}
\begin{document}
\title{Non-local Hamiltonian structures and applications to the theory
of integrable systems I}
\author{
Alberto De Sole
\thanks{Dipartimento di Matematica, Universit\`a di Roma ``La Sapienza'',
00185 Roma, Italy ~~
<EMAIL> ~~~~
Supported in part by Department of Mathematics, M.I.T.},~~
Victor G. Kac
\thanks{Department of Mathematics, M.I.T.,
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.~~
[email protected]~~~~
Supported in part by an NSF grant, and the Center for Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (CMTP)
in Rome.~~
}~~
}
\maketitle
\vspace{4pt}
\begin{center}
\emph{Dedicated to Minoru Wakimoto on his 70-th birthday.}
\end{center}
\vspace{2pt}
\begin{abstract}
\noindent
We develop a rigorous theory of non-local Hamiltonian structures,
built on the notion of a non-local Poisson vertex algebra.
As an application, we find conditions that guarantee applicability of the Lenard-Magri scheme
of integrability to a pair of compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures.
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Local Poisson brackets play a fundamental role in the theory of integrable systems.
Recall that a local Poisson bracket is defined by (see e.g. \cite{TF86}):
\begin{equation}\label{intro:eq1.1}
\{u_i(x),u_j(y)\}=H_{ij}\big(u(y),u'(y),\dots;\partial_y\big)\delta(x-y)\,,
\end{equation}
where $u=(u_1,\dots,u_\ell)$ is a vector valued function on a 1-dimensional manifold $M$,
$\delta(x-y)$ is the $\delta$-function: $\tint_Mf(y)\delta(x-y)dy=f(x)$,
and $H(\partial)=\big(H_{ij}(\partial)\big)_{i,j=1}^\ell$
is an $\ell\times\ell$ matrix differential operator,
whose coefficients are functions in $u,u',\dots,u^{(k)}$.
One requires, in addition, that \eqref{intro:eq1.1} ``satisfies the Lie algebra axioms''.
One of the ways to formulate this condition is as follows.
Let $\mc V$ be an algebra of differential polynomials in $u_1,\dots,u_\ell$,
i.e. the algebra of polynomials in $u_i^{(n)},\,i\in I=\{1,\dots,\ell\},\,n\in\mb Z_+$,
with $u_i^{(0)}=u_i$ and the derivation $\partial$, defined by $\partial u_i^{(n)}=u_i^{(n+1)}$,
or its algebra of differential functions extension.
The bracket \eqref{intro:eq1.1} extends, by the Leibniz rule and bilinearity,
to arbitrary $f,g\in\mc V$:
\begin{equation}\label{intro:eq1.2}
\{f(x),g(y)\}=
\sum_{i,j\in I}\sum_{m,n\in\mb Z_+}
\frac{\partial f(x)}{\partial u_i^{(m)}} \frac{\partial g(y)}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}
\partial_x^m \partial_y^n\{u_i(x),u_j(y)\}\,.
\end{equation}
Applying integration by parts, we get the following bracket on $\mc V/\partial\mc V$:
\begin{equation}\label{intro:eq1.3}
\{\tint f,\tint g\}=
\int \frac{\delta g}{\delta u}\cdot H(\partial)\frac{\delta f}{\delta u}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\tint$ is the canonical quotient map $\mc V\to\mc V/\partial\mc V$
and $\frac{\delta f}{\delta u}$ is the vector of variational derivatives
$\frac{\delta f}{\delta u_i}=\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}(-\partial)^n\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}$.
Then one requires that the bracket \eqref{intro:eq1.3}
satisfies the Lie algebra axioms.
(The skewsymmetry of this bracket is equivalent to the skewadjointness of $H(\partial)$,
but the Jacobi identity is a complicated system of non-linear PDE on its coefficients.)
In this case the matrix differential operator $H(\partial)$ is called a \emph{Hamiltonian structure}.
Given an element $\tint h\in\mc V/\partial\mc V$, called a \emph{Hamiltonian functional},
the \emph{Hamiltonian equation} associated to $H(\partial)$ is the following evolution equation:
\begin{equation}\label{intro:eq1.4}
\frac{du}{dt}=H(\partial)\frac{\delta h}{\delta u}\,.
\end{equation}
For example, taking $H(\partial)=\partial$ and $h=\frac12(u^3+cuu'')$,
we obtain the KdV equation: $\frac{du}{dt}=3uu'+cu'''$.
Equation \eqref{intro:eq1.4} is called \emph{integrable} if $\tint h$
is contained in an infinite dimensional abelian subalgebra $A$ of the Lie algebra $\mc V/\partial\mc V$
with bracket \eqref{intro:eq1.3}.
Picking a basis $\{\tint h_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}$ of $A$,
we obtain a hierarchy of compatible integrable Hamiltonian equations:
$$
\frac{du}{dt_n}=H(\partial)\frac{\delta h_n}{\delta u}\,\,,\,\,\,\,n\in\mb Z_+\,.
$$
An alternative approach, proposed in \cite{BDSK09},
is to apply the Fourier transform $F(x,y)\mapsto\tint_Mdxe^{\lambda(x-y)}F(x,y)$
to both sides of \eqref{intro:eq1.2}
to obtain the following ``Master formula'' \cite{DSK06}:
\begin{equation}\label{intro:eq1.5}
\{f_\lambda g\}=
\sum_{i,j\in I}\sum_{m,n\in\mb Z_+}
\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}
(\lambda+\partial)^n
H_{ji}(\lambda+\partial)
(-\lambda-\partial)^m
\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_i^{(m)}}\,.
\end{equation}
For an arbitrary $\ell\times\ell$ matrix differential operator $H(\partial)$
this $\lambda$-\emph{bracket}
is polynomial in $\lambda$, i.e. it takes values in $\mc V[\partial]$,
satisfies the \emph{left} and \emph{right Leibniz rules}:
\begin{equation}\label{intro:eq1.6}
\{f_\lambda gh\}=
g\{f_\lambda h\}+h\{f_\lambda g\}
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
\{fg_\lambda h\}=
\{f_{\lambda+\partial} g\}_\to h+\{f_{\lambda+\partial} h\}_\to g\,,
\end{equation}
where the arrow means that $\lambda+\partial$ should be moved to the right,
and the \emph{sesquilinerity} axioms:
\begin{equation}\label{intro:eq1.7}
\{\partial f_\lambda g\}=-\lambda\{f_\lambda g\}
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
\{f_\lambda\partial g\}=(\lambda+\partial)\{f_\lambda g\}\,.
\end{equation}
It is proved in \cite{BDSK09} that the requirement that \eqref{intro:eq1.3} satisfies the Lie algebra axioms
is equivalent to the following two properties of \eqref{intro:eq1.5}:
\begin{equation}\label{intro:eq1.8}
\{g_\lambda f\}=-\{f_{-\lambda-\partial} g\}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{intro:eq1.9}
\{f_\lambda \{g_\mu h\}\}=\{g_\mu\{f_\lambda h\}\}
+\{\{f_\lambda g\}_{\lambda+\mu}h\}\,.
\end{equation}
A differential algebra $\mc V$,
endowed with a polynomial $\lambda$-bracket, satisfying axioms \eqref{intro:eq1.6}--\eqref{intro:eq1.9},
is called a \emph{Poisson vertex algebra} (PVA).
It was demonstrated in \cite{BDSK09} that the PVA approach greatly simplifies the theory
of integrable Hamiltonian PDE, based on local Poisson brackets.
For example, equation \eqref{intro:eq1.4} becomes, in terms of the $\lambda$-bracket associated to $H$:
$$
\frac{du}{dt}=\{h_\lambda u\}\big|_{\lambda=0}\,,
$$
and the Lie bracket \eqref{intro:eq1.3} becomes
$$
\{\tint f,\tint g\}=\tint \{f_\lambda g\}\big|_{\lambda=0}\,.
$$
It is the purpose of the present paper to demonstrate that the adequate (and in fact indispensable)
tool for understanding non-local Poisson brackets is the theory of ``non-local'' PVA.
We define a \emph{non-local} $\lambda$-\emph{bracket} on the differential algebra $\mc V$
to take its values in $\mc V((\lambda^{-1}))$,
formal Laurent series in $\lambda^{-1}$ with coefficients in $\mc V$,
and to satisfy properties \eqref{intro:eq1.6} and \eqref{intro:eq1.7}.
The main example is the $\lambda$-bracket given by the Master Formula \eqref{intro:eq1.5},
where $H(\partial)$ is a matrix pseudodifferential operator.
The only problem with this definition is the interpretation of the operator $\frac1{\lambda+\partial}$;
this is defined by the geometric progression
$$
\frac1{\lambda+\partial}=\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}(-1)^n\lambda^{-n-1}\partial^n\,.
$$
Property \eqref{intro:eq1.8} of the $\lambda$-bracket is interpreted in the same way,
but the interpretation of property \eqref{intro:eq1.9} is more subtle.
Indeed, in general, we have $\{f_\lambda\{g_\mu h\}\}\in\mc V((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))$,
but $\{g_\mu\{f_\lambda h\}\}\in\mc V((\mu^{-1}))((\lambda^{-1}))$,
and $\{\{f_\lambda g\}_{\lambda+\mu} h\}\in\mc V(((\lambda+\mu)^{-1}))((\lambda^{-1}))$,
so that all three terms of \eqref{intro:eq1.9} lie in different spaces.
Our key idea is to consider the space
$$
\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}=\mc V[[\lambda^{-1},\mu^{-1},(\lambda+\mu)^{-1}]][\lambda,\mu]\,,
$$
which is canonically embedded in all three of the above spaces.
We say that a $\lambda$-bracket is \emph{admissible} if
$$
\{f_\lambda\{g_\mu h\}\}\in\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
\text{ for all } f,g,h\in\mc V\,.
$$
It is immediate to see that then the other two terms of \eqref{intro:eq1.9}
lie in $\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}$ as well,
hence \eqref{intro:eq1.9} is an identity in $\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}$.
We call the differential algebra $\mc V$, endowed with a non-local $\lambda$-bracket,
a \emph{non-local PVA}, if it satisfies \eqref{intro:eq1.8},
is admissible, and satisfies \eqref{intro:eq1.9}.
For an arbitrary pseudodifferential operator $H(\partial)$ the $\lambda$-bracket \eqref{intro:eq1.5}
is not admissible, but it is admissible for any \emph{rational} pseudodifferential operator,
i.e. contained in the subalgebra generated by differential operators and their inverses.
We show that, as in the local case (see \cite{BDSK09}),
this $\lambda$-bracket satisfies conditions \eqref{intro:eq1.8} and \eqref{intro:eq1.9}
if and only if \eqref{intro:eq1.8} holds for any pair $u_i,u_j$,
and \eqref{intro:eq1.9} holds for any triple $u_i,u_j,u_k$.
Also, \eqref{intro:eq1.8} is equivalent to skewadjointness of $H(\partial)$.
The simplest example of a non-local PVA corresponds
to the skewadjoint operator $H(\partial)=\partial^{-1}$.
Then
$$
\{u_\lambda u\}=\lambda^{-1}\,,
$$
and equation \eqref{intro:eq1.9} trivially holds for the triple $u,u,u$.
Note that \eqref{intro:eq1.1} in this case reads:
$\{u(x),u(y)\}=\partial_y^{-1}\delta(x-y)$,
which is quite difficult to work with.
The next example corresponds to Sokolov's skewadjoint operator \cite{Sok84},
$H(\partial)=u'\partial^{-1}\circ u'$.
The corresponding $\lambda$-bracket is
$$
\{u_\lambda u\}=u'\frac1{\lambda+\partial}u'\,.
$$
The verification of \eqref{intro:eq1.9} for the triple $u,u,u$ is straightforward.
A rational pseudodifferential operator $H(\partial)$ is a \emph{Hamiltonian structure} on $\mc V$
if the $\lambda$-bracket \eqref{intro:eq1.5} endows $\mc V$ with a structure of a non-local PVA
(in other words $H(\partial)$ should be skewadjoint and \eqref{intro:eq1.9} should hold
for any triple $u_i,u_j,u_k$).
Fix a ``minimal fractional decomposition'' $H=AB^{-1}$.
This means that $A,B$ are differential operators over $\mc V$,
such that $\ker A\cap\ker B=0$
in any differential domain extension of $\mc V$.
It is shown in \cite{CDSK12b} that such a decomposition always exists and that the above property
is equivalent to the property that any common right factor of $A$ and $B$
is invertible over the field of fractions of $\mc V$.
Then the basic notions of the theory of integrable systems are defined as follows.
A \emph{Hamiltonian functional} (for $H=AB^{-1}$)
is an element $\tint h\in\mc V/\partial\mc V$ such that $\frac{\delta\tint h}{\delta u}=B(\partial)F$
for some $F\in\mc V^\ell$.
Then the element $P=A(\partial)F$ is called an associated \emph{Hamiltonian vector field}.
Denote by $\mc F(H)\subset\mc V/\partial\mc V$ the subspace of all Hamiltonian functionals,
and by $\mc H(H)\subset\mc V^\ell$ the subspace of all Hamiltonian vector fields
(they are independent of the choice of the minimal fractional decomposition for $H$):
$$
\mc F(H)=\Big(\frac{\delta}{\delta u}\Big)^{-1}\Big(\mathop{\rm Im } B\Big)\subset\mc V/\partial\mc V
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
\mc H(H)=A\Big(B^{-1}\Big(\mathop{\rm Im }\frac{\delta}{\delta u}\Big)\Big)\subset\mc V^\ell\,.
$$
Then it is easy to show that $\mc F(H)$ is a Lie algebra with respect to the well-defined
bracket \eqref{intro:eq1.3}, and $\mc H(H)$ is a subalgebra of the Lie algebra $\mc V^\ell$
with bracket $[P,Q]=D_Q(\partial)P-D_P(\partial)Q$, where $D_P(\partial)$ is the Frechet derivative.
A \emph{Hamiltonian equation}, associated to the Hamiltonian structure $H$
and a Hamiltonian functional $\tint h\in\mc F(H)$,
with an associated Hamiltonian vector field $P\in\mc H(H)$,
is the following evolution equation:
\begin{equation}\label{intro:eq1.10}
\frac{du}{dt}=P\,.
\end{equation}
Note that \eqref{intro:eq1.10} coincides with \eqref{intro:eq1.4} in the local case.
The Hamiltonian equation \eqref{intro:eq1.10} is called \emph{integrable} if there exist
linearly independent infinite sequences
$\tint h_n\in\mc F(H)$ and $P_n\in\mc H(H)$, $n\in\mb Z_+$,
such that $\tint h_0=\tint h$, $P_0=P$,
$P_n$ is associated to $\tint h_n$,
and $\{\tint h_m,\tint h_n\}=0,\,[P_m,P_n]=0$
for all $m,n\in\mb Z_+$.
In this case we have a hierarchy of compatible integrable equations
$$
\frac{du}{dt_n}=P_n
\,\,,\,\,\,\, n\in\mb Z_+\,.
$$
Having given rigorous definitions of the basic notions of the theory of Hamiltonian equations
with non-local Hamiltonian structures,
we proceed to establish some basic results of the theory.
The first result is Theorem \ref{20111021:thm},
which states that if $H$ and $K$ are compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures and $K$ is invertible
(as a pseudodifferential operator), then the sequence
of rational pseudodifferential operators
$H^{[0]}=K, H^{[n]}=(H\circ K^{-1})^{n-1}\circ H,\,n\geq1$,
is a compatible family of non-local Hamiltonian structures.
(As usual \cite{Mag78,Mag80} a collection of non-local Hamiltonian structures
is called compatible if any their finite linear combination is again a non-local Hamiltonian structure.)
This result was first stated in \cite{Mag80}
and its partial proof was given in \cite{FF81}
(of course, without having rigorous definitions).
Next, we give a rigorous definition of a non-local symplectic structure and prove
(the ``well-known'' fact) that, if $S$ is invertible as pseudodifferential operator,
then it is a non-local symplectic structure if and only if $S^{-1}$ is a non-local Hamiltonian structure
(Theorem \ref{20111012:thm}).
Since we completely described (local) symplectic structures in \cite{BDSK09},
this result provides a large collection of non-local Hamiltonian structures.
We also establish a connection between Dirac structures (see \cite{Dor93} and \cite{BDSK09})
with non-local Hamiltonian structures
(Theorems \ref{20111020:thm} and \ref{20120126:prop2}).
After that we discuss the Lenard-Margi scheme of integrability
for a pair of compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures,
similar to that discussed in \cite{Mag78,Mag80,Dor93,BDSK09} in the local case,
and give sufficient conditions when this scheme works
(Theorem \ref{20120127:thm} and Remark \ref{20120201:rem2}).
Finally, we demonstrate on the example of the NLS hierarchy how this scheme works.
The corresponding pair of compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures has been written down
already in \cite{Mag80}:
$$
H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v\partial^{-1}\circ v & -v\partial^{-1}\circ u \\
-u\partial^{-1}\circ v & u\partial^{-1}\circ u
\end{array}\right)+c\partial{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
K=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array}\right)\,.
$$
In our next paper \cite{DSK12} we go systematically over well known
non-local bi-Hamiltonian structures
and construct the corresponding integrable hierarchies of Hamiltonian PDE's.
Throughout the paper, all vector spaces are considered over a field $\mb F$ of characteristic zero.
We wish to thank Pavel Etingof and Andrea Maffei for useful discussions.
\section{Rational pseudodifferential operators}
\label{sec:2}
\subsection{The space $V_{\lambda,\mu}$}
\label{sec:2.1}
Throughout the paper we shall use the following standard notation.
Given a vector space $V$, we denote by $V[\lambda]$ the space of polynomials in $\lambda$ with coefficients in $V$,
by $V[[\lambda^{-1}]]$ the space of formal power series in $\lambda^{-1}$ with coefficients in $V$,
and by $V((\lambda^{-1}))=V[[\lambda^{-1}]][\lambda]$ the space of formal Laurent series in $\lambda^{-1}$
with coefficients in $V$.
We have the obvious identifications $V[\lambda,\mu]=V[\lambda][\mu]=V[\mu][\lambda]$
and $V[[\lambda^{-1},\mu^{-1}]]=V[[\lambda^{-1}]][[\mu^{-1}]]=V[[\mu^{-1}]][[\lambda^{-1}]]$.
However the space $V((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1})$ does not coincide
with $V((\mu^{-1}))((\lambda^{-1}))$.
Both spaces contain naturally the subspace $V[[\lambda^{-1},\mu^{-1}]][\lambda,\mu]$.
In fact, this subspace is their intersection in the ambient space $V[[\lambda^{\pm1},\mu^{\pm1}]]$
consisting of all series of the form $\sum_{m,n\in\mb Z}a_{m,n}\lambda^m\mu^n$.
The most important for this paper will be the space
$$
V_{\lambda,\mu}:=V[[\lambda^{-1},\mu^{-1},(\lambda+\mu)^{-1}]][\lambda,\mu]\,,
$$
namely, the quotient of the $\mb F[\lambda,\mu,\nu]$-module
$V[[\lambda^{-1},\mu^{-1},\nu^{-1}]][\lambda,\mu,\nu]$
by the submodule
$(\nu-\lambda-\mu)V[[\lambda^{-1},\mu^{-1},\nu^{-1}]][\lambda,\mu,\nu]$.
By definition, the space $V_{\lambda,\mu}$ consists of elements which can be written (NOT uniquely) in the form
\begin{equation}\label{20111006:eq1}
A=\sum_{m=-\infty}^M\sum_{n=-\infty}^N\sum_{p=-\infty}^P a_{m,n,p}\lambda^m\mu^n(\lambda+\mu)^p\,,
\end{equation}
for some $M,N,P\in\mb Z$ (in fact, we can always choose $P\leq 0$), and $a_{m,n,p}\in V$.
In the space $V[[\lambda^{-1},\mu^{-1},\nu^{-1}]][\lambda,\mu,\nu]$
we have a natural notion of degree, by letting $\deg(\lambda)=\deg(\mu)=\deg(\nu)=1$.
Every element $A\in V[[\lambda^{-1},\mu^{-1},\nu^{-1}]][\lambda,\mu,\nu]$
decomposes as a sum
$A=\sum_{d=-\infty}^NA^{(d)}$
(possibly infinite), where $A^{(d)}$ is a finite linear combination of monomials of degree $d$.
Since $\nu-\lambda-\mu$ is homogenous (of degree 1),
this induces a well-defined notion of degree on the quotient space $V_{\lambda,\mu}$,
and we denote by $V_{\lambda,\mu}^d$, for $d\in\mb Z$,
the span of elements of degree $d$ in $V_{\lambda,\mu}$.
If $A\in\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}$ has the form \eqref{20111006:eq1}, then it decomposes as $A=\sum_{d=-\infty}^{M+N+P}A^{(d)}$,
where $A^{(d)}\in V_{\lambda,\mu}^d$ is given by
$$
A^{(d)}=\sum_{\substack{m\leq M,n\leq N,p\leq P \\ (m+n+p=d)}} a_{m,n,p}\lambda^m\mu^n(\lambda+\mu)^p\,.
$$
The coefficients $a_{m,n,p}\in V$ are still not uniquely defined,
but now the sum in $A^{(d)}$ is finite (since $d-2K\leq m,n,p\leq K:=\max(M,N,P)$).
Hence, we have the following equality
$$
V^d_{\lambda,\mu}=V[\lambda^{\pm1},\mu^{\pm1},(\lambda+\mu)^{-1}]^d\,,
$$
where, as before, the superscript $d$ denotes the subspace consisting of polynomials
in $\lambda^{\pm1},\mu^{\pm1},(\lambda+\mu)^{-1}$, of degree $d$.
\begin{lemma}\label{20110919:lem1}
The following is a basis of the space $V^d_{\lambda,\mu}$ over $V$:
$$
\lambda^{d-i}\mu^i,\,i\in\mb Z
\,\,\,\,;\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\lambda^{d+i}(\lambda+\mu)^{-i},\,i\in\mb Z_{>0}=\{1,2,\dots\}\,,
$$
in the sense that any element of the space $V^d_{\lambda,\mu}$
can be written uniquely as a finite linear combination
of the above elements with coefficients in $V$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, it suffices to prove the claim for $d=0$.
In this case, letting $t=\mu/\lambda$, the elements of $V^0_{\lambda,\mu}$
are rational functions in $t$ with poles at 0 and -1.
But any such rational functions can be uniquely written,
by partial fractions decomposition, as a linear combination of $t^i$, with $i\in\mb Z$,
and of $(1+t)^{-i}$, with $i\in\mb Z_{>0}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
One has natural embeddings of $V_{\lambda,\mu}$
in all the spaces
$V((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))$, $V((\mu^{-1}))((\lambda^{-1}))$,
$V((\lambda^{-1}))(((\lambda+\mu)^{-1}))$, $V((\mu^{-1}))(((\lambda+\mu)^{-1}))$,
$V(((\lambda+\mu)^{-1}))((\lambda^{-1}))$, $V(((\lambda+\mu)^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))$,
defined by expanding one of the variables $\lambda,\mu$ or $\nu=\lambda+\mu$
in terms of the other two.
For example, we have the embedding
\begin{equation}\label{20110919:eq1}
\iota_{\mu,\lambda}:\,V_{\lambda,\mu}\hookrightarrow V((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))\,,
\end{equation}
obtained by expanding all negative powers of $\lambda+\mu$ in the region $|\mu|>|\lambda|$:
\begin{equation}\label{20110919:eq1b}
\iota_{\mu,\lambda}(\lambda+\mu)^{-n-1}
=
\sum_{k=0}^\infty\binom{-n-1}k \lambda^k\mu^{-n-k-1}\,.
\end{equation}
Similarly in all other cases.
Note that, even though $V_{\lambda,\mu}$ is naturally embedded in both spaces
$V((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))$ and $V((\mu^{-1}))((\lambda^{-1}))$,
it is not contained in their intersection $V[[\lambda^{-1},\mu^{-1}]][\lambda,\mu]$.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{20111006:lem}
If $V$ is an algebra, then $V_{\lambda,\mu}$ is also an algebra, with the obvious product.
Namely, if $A(\lambda,\mu),B(\lambda,\mu)\in V_{\lambda,\mu}$, then $A(\lambda,\mu)B(\lambda,\mu)\in V_{\lambda,\mu}$.
More generally,
if $S,T:\,V\to V$ are endomorphisms of $V$ (viewed as a vector space), then
$$
A(\lambda+S,\mu+T)B(\lambda,\mu)\in V_{\lambda,\mu}\,,
$$
where we expand the negative powers of $\lambda+S$ and $\mu+T$ in non-negative powers of $S$ and $T$,
acting on the coefficients of $B$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We expand $A$ and $B$ as in \eqref{20111006:eq1}:
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
A(\lambda,\mu)=\sum_{m=-\infty}^M\sum_{n=-\infty}^N\sum_{p=-\infty}^P a_{m,n,p}\lambda^m\mu^n(\lambda+\mu)^p\,,
} \\
\displaystyle{
B(\lambda,\mu)=\sum_{m'=-\infty}^{M'}\sum_{n'=-\infty}^{N'}\sum_{p'=-\infty}^{P'} b_{m',n',p'}\lambda^{m'}\mu^{n'}(\lambda+\mu)^{p'}\,.
}
\end{array}
$$
Using binomial expansion, we then get
$$
A(\lambda+S,\mu+T)B(\lambda,\mu)
=
\sum_{\bar{m}=-\infty}^{M+M'}\sum_{\bar{n}=-\infty}^{N+N'}\sum_{\bar{p}=-\infty}^{P+P'} c_{\bar{m},\bar{n},\bar{p}}
\lambda^{\bar{m}}\mu^{\bar{n}}(\lambda+\mu)^{\bar{p}}\,,
$$
where
$$
\begin{array}{r}
\displaystyle{
c_{\bar{m},\bar{n},\bar{p}}=
\sum_{\substack{m\leq M,m'\leq M',i\geq0 \\ (m+m'-i=\bar{m})}}
\,
\sum_{\substack{n\leq N,n'\leq N',j\geq0 \\ (n+n'-j=\bar{n})}}
\sum_{\substack{p\leq P,p'\leq P',k\geq0 \\ (p+p'-k=\bar{p})}}
} \\
\displaystyle{
\binom{m}{i} \binom{n}{j} \binom{p}{k}
a_{m,n,p} \big(S^{i} T^{j} (S+T)^{k} b_{m',n',p'}\big)\,.
}
\end{array}
$$
To conclude, we just observe that each sum in the RHS is finite,
since, for example, in the first sum we have $i=m+m'-\bar{m}$, $\bar{m}-M'\leq m\leq M$ and $\bar{m}-M\leq m'\leq M'$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{20120131:lem1}
Let $V$ be a vector space and let $U\subset V$ be a subspace.
Then we have:
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\big\{A\in V_{\lambda,\mu}\,\big|\,\iota_{\mu,\lambda}A\in U((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))\big\}
\\
=
\big\{A\in V_{\lambda,\mu}\,\big|\,\iota_{\lambda,\mu}A\in U((\mu^{-1}))((\lambda^{-1}))\big\}
\\
=
\big\{A\in V_{\lambda,\mu}\,\big|\,\iota_{\lambda+\mu,\lambda}A
\in U((\lambda^{-1}))(((\lambda+\mu)^{-1}))\big\}
\\
=
\big\{A\in V_{\lambda,\mu}\,\big|\,\iota_{\lambda+\mu,\mu}A
\in U((\mu^{-1}))(((\lambda+\mu)^{-1}))\big\}
\\
=
\big\{A\in V_{\lambda,\mu}\,\big|\,\iota_{\lambda,\lambda+\mu}A
\in U(((\lambda+\mu)^{-1}))((\lambda^{-1}))\big\}
\\
=
\big\{A\in V_{\lambda,\mu}\,\big|\,\iota_{\mu,\lambda+\mu}A
\in U(((\lambda+\mu)^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))\big\}
= U_{\lambda,\mu}\,.
\end{array}
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We only need to prove that
$\big\{A\in V_{\lambda,\mu}\,\big|\,\iota_{\mu,\lambda}A
\in U((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))\big\}\subset U_{\lambda,\mu}$.
Indeed, the opposite inclusion is obvious,
and the argument for the other equalities is the same.
Let $A\in V^d_{\lambda,\mu}$ be such that its expansion
$\iota_{\mu,\lambda}A\in V((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))$ has coefficients in $U$.
We want to prove that $A$ lies in $U_{\lambda,\mu}$.
By Lemma \ref{20110919:lem1} $A$ can be written uniquely as
$$
A=\sum_{i=-M}^Nv_i\lambda^{d+i}\mu^{-i}+\sum_{j=1}^N w_j\lambda^{d+j}(\lambda+\mu)^{-j}\,,
$$
with $v_i,w_j\in V$.
Its expansion in $V((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))$ is
$$
\iota_{\mu,\lambda}A=
\sum_{i=-M}^Nv_i\lambda^{d+i}\mu^{-i}
+\sum_{j=1}^N\sum_{k=0}^\infty\binom{-j}{k}w_j\lambda^{d+j+k}\mu^{-j-k}\,.
$$
Since, by assumption, $\iota_{\mu,\lambda}A\in U((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))$,
we have
$$
\begin{array}{ll}
v_i\in U &\quad\text{ for }\quad -M\leq i\leq -1 \,,\\
\displaystyle{
v_i+\sum_{j=1}^i \binom{-j}{i-j}w_j
\in U
} &\quad\text{ for }\quad 0\leq i\leq N \,,\\
\displaystyle{
\sum_{j=1}^N \binom{-j}{i-j}w_j
\in U
} &\quad\text{ for }\quad i>N \,.
\end{array}
$$
From the first condition above we have that $v_i$ lies in $U$ for $i<0$.
Using the third condition, we want to deduce that $w_j$ lies in $U$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$.
It then follows, from the second condition, that $v_i$ lies in $U$ for $i\geq0$ as well,
proving the claim.
For $i>N$ and $1\leq j\leq N$ we have $\binom{-j}{i-j}=(-1)^{i-j}\binom{i-1}{j-1}$.
Hence, we will be able to deduce that $w_j$ lies in $U$ for every $j$,
once we prove that the following matrix
$$
P=\left(\,(-1)^{i+j}\binom{i-1}{j-1}\,\right)_{\substack{N+1\leq i<\infty \\ 1\leq j\leq N }}\,,
$$
has rank $N$.
First, the sign $(-1)^{i+j}$ does not change the rank of the above matrix.
So it sufficies to prove that the matrices
$$
T_h=\left(\,\binom{i-1}{j-1}\,\right)_{\substack{h+1\leq i\leq h+N \\ 1\leq j\leq N }}\,,
$$
are non-degenerate for every $h\geq0$.
This is clear since the matrix $T_0$ is upper triangular with ones on the diagonal,
and, by the Tartaglia-Pascal triangle, $T_h$ and $T_{h+1}$ have the same determinant.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Rational pseudodifferential operators}
\label{sec:2.2a}
For the rest of this section,
let $\mc A$ be a differential algebra, i.e. a unital commutative associative algebra
with a derivation $\partial$, and assume that $\mc A$ is a domain.
For $a\in\mc A$, we denote $a'=\partial(a)$ and $a^{(n)}=\partial^n(a)$, for a non negative integer $n$.
We denote by $\mc K$ the field of fractions of $\mc A$.
Recall that a \emph{pseudodifferential operator} over $\mc A$
is an expression of the form
\begin{equation}\label{20111003:eq1}
A=A(\partial)
=\sum_{n=-\infty}^N a_n \partial^n
\,\,,\,\,\,\, a_n\in\mc A\,.
\end{equation}
If $a_N\neq0$, one says that $A$ has \emph{order} $N$.
Pseudodifferential operators form a unital associative algebra,
denoted by $\mc A((\partial^{-1}))$,
with product $\circ$ defined by letting
\begin{equation}\label{20111130:eq1}
\partial^n\circ a=\sum_{j\in\mb Z_+}\binom nj a^{(j)}\partial^{n-j}
\,\,,\,\,\,\, n\in\mb Z,\, a\in\mc A\,.
\end{equation}
We will often omit $\circ$ if no confusion may arise.
Clearly, $\mc K((\partial^{-1}))$ is a skewfield,
and it is the skewfield of fractions of $\mc A((\partial^{-1}))$.
If $A\in\mc A((\partial^{-1}))$ is a non-zero pseudodifferential operator
of order $N$ as in \eqref{20111003:eq1},
its inverse $A^{-1}\in\mc K((\partial^{-1}))$ is computed as follows.
We write
$$
A
=a_N\Big(1+\sum_{n=-\infty}^{-1} a_N^{-1}a_{n+N} \partial^n\Big)\partial^N\,,
$$
and expanding by geometric progression, we get
\begin{equation}\label{20111130:eq2}
A^{-1}
=
\partial^{-N}\circ \sum_{k=0}^\infty\Big(-\sum_{n=-\infty}^{-1} a_N^{-1}a_{n+N} \partial^n\Big)^k\circ a_N^{-1}\,,
\end{equation}
which is well defined as a pseudodifferential operator in $\mc K((\partial^{-1}))$,
since, by formula \eqref{20111130:eq1},
the powers of $\partial$ are bounded above by $-N$,
and the coefficient of each power of $\partial$ is a finite sum.
The \emph{symbol} of the pseudodifferential operator $A(\partial)$ in \eqref{20111003:eq1}
is the formal Laurent series
$A(\lambda)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^N a_n \lambda^n\,\in\mc A((\lambda^{-1}))$,
where $\lambda$ is an indeterminate commuting with $\mc A$.
We thus get a bijective map $\mc A((\partial^{-1}))\to\mc A((\lambda^{-1}))$
(which is not an algebra homomorphism).
A closed formula for the associative product in $\mc A((\partial^{-1}))$
in terms of the corresponding symbols is the following:
\begin{equation}\label{20111003:eq2}
(A\circ B)(\lambda)=A(\lambda+\partial)B(\lambda)\,.
\end{equation}
Here and further on, we always expand an expression as $(\lambda+\partial)^{n},\,n\in\mb Z$,
in non-negative powers of $\partial$:
\begin{equation}\label{20111004:eq1}
(\lambda+\partial)^{n}=\sum_{j=0}^\infty\binom nj \lambda^{n-j}\partial^j\,.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the RHS of \eqref{20111003:eq2} means
$\sum_{m,n=-\infty}^N\sum_{j=0}^\infty \binom{m}{j}a_m b_n^{(j)} \lambda^{m+n-j}$.
The algebra $\mc A((\partial^{-1}))$
contains the algebra of \emph{differential operators} $\mc A[\partial]$ as a subalgebra.
\begin{definition}\label{20110926:def}
The field $\mc K(\partial)$ of \emph{rational pseudodifferential operators}
is the smallest subskewfield of $\mc K((\partial^{-1}))$ containing $\mc A[\partial]$.
We denote $\mc A(\partial)=\mc K(\partial)\cap\mc A((\partial^{-1}))$,
the subalgebra of \emph{rational pseudodifferential operators with coefficients in} $\mc A$.
\end{definition}
The following Proposition (see \cite[Prop.3.4]{CDSK12}) describes explicitly
the skewfield $\mc K(\partial)$ of rational pseudodifferential operators.
\begin{proposition}\label{20111003:thm2}
Let $\mc A$ be a differential domain, and let $\mc K$ be its field of fractions.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
Every rational pseudodifferential operator $L\in\mc K(\partial)$
can be written as a right (resp. left) fraction
$L=AS^{-1}$ (resp. $L=S^{-1}A$)
for some $A,S\in\mc A[\partial]$ with $S\neq0$.
\item
Let $L=AS^{-1}$ (resp. $L=S^{-1}A$), with $A,S\in\mc A[\partial]$,
be a decomposition of $L\in\mc K(\partial)$
such that $S$ has minimal possible order.
Then any other decomposition $L=A_1S_1^{-1}$
(resp. $L=S_1^{-1}A_1$),
with $A_1,S_1\in\mc A[\partial]$,
we have $A_1=AK$, $S_1=SK$
(resp. $A_1=KA$, $A_1=KS$),
for some $K\in\mc K[\partial]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Rational matrix pseudodifferential operators}
\label{sec:2.3}
\begin{definition}\label{20111013:def}
A matrix pseudodifferential operator $A\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc A((\partial^{-1}))$
is called \emph{rational with coefficients in $\mc A$}
if its entries are rational pseudodifferential operators with coefficients in $\mc A$.
In other words,
the algebra of rational matrix pseudodifferential operators with coefficients in $\mc A$
is $\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc A(\partial)$.
\end{definition}
Let $M=\big(A_{ij}B_{ij}^{-1}\big)_{i,j\in I}$
be a rational matrix pseudodifferential operator with coefficients in $\mc A$,
with $A_{ij},B_{ij}\in\mc A[\partial]$.
By the Ore condition (see e.g. \cite{CDSK12}),
we can find a common right multiple $B\in\mc A[\partial]$
of all operators $B_{ij}$,
i.e. for every $i,j$ we can factor $B=B_{ij}C_{ij}$ for some $C_{ij}\in\mc A[\partial]$.
Hence, $A_{ij}B_{ij}^{-1}=\tilde A_{ij}B^{-1}$, where $\tilde A_{ij}=A_{ij}C_{ij}$.
Then, the matrix $M$ can be represented as a ratio of two matrices:
$M=\tilde A (B{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}})^{-1}$.
Hence,
$$
\mathop{\rm Mat }{}_{\ell\times\ell}\mc A(\partial)
=
\left\{A(B{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}})^{-1}\,\left|\,
\begin{array}{c}
A\in\mathop{\rm Mat }{}_{\ell\times\ell}\mc A[\partial],\,B\in\mc A[\partial],\\
A_{ij}B^{-1}\in\mc A((\partial^{-1}))\,\,\forall i,j
\end{array}
\right.\right\}\,.
$$
However, in general this is not a representation of the rational matrix $M$ in ``minimal terms''
(see Definition \ref{def:minimal-fraction} below).
We recall now some linear algebra over the skewfield $\mc K((\partial^{-1}))$
and, in particular, the notion of the Dieudonn\'e determinant
(see \cite{Art57} for an overview over an arbitrary skewfield).
An \emph{elementary row operation} of an $\ell\times\ell$ matrix pseudodifferential operator
$A$ is either a permutation of two rows of it,
or the operation $\mc T(i,j;P)$, where $1\leq i\neq j\leq m$
and $P\in\mc K((\partial^{-1}))$,
which replaces the $j$-th row by itself minus $i$-th row
multiplied on the left by $P$.
Using the usual Gauss elimination, we can get the (well known) analogues
of standard linear algebra theorems for matrix pseudodifferential operators.
In particular,
any matrix pseudodifferential operator $A\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{m\times\ell}\mc K((\partial^{-1}))$
can be brought by elementary row operations to a row echelon form.
The \emph{Dieudonn\'e determinant} of a $A\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc K((\partial^{-1}))$
has the form $\det A=c\xi^d$, where $c\in\mc A$, $\xi$ is an indeterminate,
and $d\in\mb Z$.
It is defined by the following properties:
$\det A$ changes sign if we permute two rows of $A$,
and it is unchanged under any elementary row operation $\mc T(i,j;P)$ defined above,
for aribtrary $i\neq j$ and a pseudodifferential operator $P\in\mc K((\partial^{-1}))$;
moreover, if $A$ is upper triangular,
with diagonal entries $A_{ii}$ of order $n_i$ and leading coefficoent $a_i$,
then
$$
\det A=\Big(\prod_i a_i\Big) \xi^{\sum_in_i}\,.
$$
It was proved in \cite{Die43} (for any skewfield) that the Dieudonn\'e determinant is well defined
and $\det(A\circ B)=(\det A)(\det B)$
for every $\ell\times\ell$ matrix pseudodifferential operators
$A,B\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc K((\partial^{-1}))$.
The Dieudonn\'e determinant gives a way to characterize invertible matrix pseudodifferential operators,
thanks to the following well known fact (see e.g. \cite[Prop.4.3]{CDSK12}):
\begin{proposition}\label{20111005:prop2}
Let $\mc D$ be a subskewfield of the skewfield $\mc K\!((\partial^{-1}))$,\
and let $A\in\!\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc D$.
Then $A$ is invertible in $\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc D$ if and only if $\det A\neq0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}\label{20111005:prop3}
Let $A\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc K((\partial^{-1}))$
be a matrix with $\det A\neq0$.
Then $A$ is a rational matrix if and only if $A^{-1}$ is.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
It is a special case of Proposition \ref{20111005:prop2} when $\mc D$
is the subskewfield $\mc K(\partial)\subset\mc K((\partial^{-1}))$ of rational pseudodifferential operators.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{20111216:rem}
It is proved in \cite{CDSK12} that,
if $A\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc A((\partial^{-1}))$
then we have $\det A=c\xi^d$, with $c\in\bar{\mc A}$,
where $\bar{\mc A}$ is the integral closure of $\mc A$.
Furthermore, if $c$ is an invertible element of $\bar{\mc A}$,
then the inverse matrix $A^{-1}$
lies in $\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\bar{\mc A}((\partial^{-1}))$.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}[see \cite{CDSK12b}]\label{def:minimal-fraction}
Let $H\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc K(\partial)$ be a rational matrix pseudodifferential
operator with coefficients in the differential field $\mc K$.
A fractional decomposition $H=A B^{-1}$,
with $A,B\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc K[\partial]$, $\det B\neq0$,
is called \emph{minimal} if $\deg_\xi \det B$ is minimal
(recall that it is a non-negative integer).
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}[\cite{CDSK12b}]\label{prop:minimal-fraction}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
A fractional decomposition $H\!\!=\!\!A B^{-1}$
of a rational matrix pseudodifferential operator $H\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc K(\partial)$
is minimal if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{20120124:eq3}
\ker A\cap\ker B=0\,,
\end{equation}
in any differential field extension of $\mc K$.
\item
The minimal fractional decomposition of $H$ exists and is
unique up to multiplication of $A$ and $B$ on the right
by a matrix differential operator $D$
which is invertible in the algebra $\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc K[\partial]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:minimal-fraction}
In the case $\ell=1$ the fractional decomposition $H=A B^{-1}\in\mc K(\partial)$,
is minimal if and only if the the differential operators $A,B\in\mc K[\partial]$
have no right common divisor of order greater than 0
(i.e. the right greatest common divisor of $A$ and $B$ is 1).
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:minimal-fraction2}
Let $\mc A$ be a differential domain, and let $\mc K$ be its field of fractions.
A fractional decomposition $H=AB^{-1}$ of $H\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc A[\partial]$ over $\mc K$
can be turned into a fractional decomposition over $\mc A$ by clearing the denominators of $A$ and $B$.
Hence, a minimal fracitonal decomposition over $\mc A$ is also minimal over $\mc K$.
\end{remark}
\section{Non-local Poisson vertex algebras}
\label{sec:3}
\subsection{Non-local $\lambda$-brackets and non-local Lie conformal algebras}
\label{sec:3.1}
Let $R$ be a module over the algebra of polynomials $\mb F[\partial]$.
\begin{definition}\label{20110919:def1}
A \emph{non-local} $\lambda$-\emph{bracket} on $R$ is a linear map
$\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}:\,R\otimes R\to R((\lambda^{-1}))$
satisfying the following \emph{sesquilinearity} conditions ($a,b\in R$):
\begin{equation}\label{20110921:eq1}
\{\partial a_\lambda b\}=-\lambda\{a_\lambda b\}
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
\{a_\lambda\partial b\}=(\lambda+\partial)\{a_\lambda b\}\,.
\end{equation}
The non-local $\lambda$-bracket $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}$ is said to be \emph{skewsymmetric}
(respectively \emph{symmetric})
if ($a,b\in R$)
\begin{equation}\label{20110921:eq2}
\{b_\lambda a\}=-\{a_{-\lambda-\partial}b\}
\quad \Big(\text{ resp. } =\{a_{-\lambda-\partial}b\}\Big)
\,.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
The RHS of the skewsymmetry condition should be interpreted as follows:
if $\{a_\lambda b\}=\sum_{n=-\infty}^Nc_n\lambda^n$, then
$$
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
\{a_{-\lambda-\partial} b\}
=
\sum_{n=-\infty}^N(-\lambda-\partial)^n c_n
=
\sum_{n=-\infty}^N\sum_{k=0}^\infty\binom{n}{k}(-1)^n(\partial^k c_n)\lambda^{n-k}
}\\
\displaystyle{
= \sum_{m=-\infty}^N\Big(\sum_{k=0}^{N-m}\binom{m+k}{k}(-1)^{m+k}(\partial^k c_{m+k})\Big)\lambda^m
\,.
}
\end{array}
$$
In other words, we move $-\lambda-\partial$ to the left and
we expand in non negative powers of $\partial$ as in \eqref{20111004:eq1}.
In general we have $\{a_\lambda\{b_\mu c\}\}\in R((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))$
for an arbitrary $\lambda$-bracket $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}$.
Recall from Section \ref{sec:2.1} that $R_{\lambda,\mu}$ can be considered
as a subspace of $R((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))$ via the embedding $\iota_{\mu,\lambda}$.
\begin{definition}\label{20110919:def2}
The non-local $\lambda$-bracket $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}$ on $R$
is called \emph{admissible} if
$$
\{a_\lambda\{b_\mu c\}\}\in R_{\lambda,\mu}
\qquad\forall a,b,c\in R\,.
$$
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{20110919:rem}
If $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}$ is a skewsymmetric admissible $\lambda$-bracket on $R$,
then $\{b_\mu\{a_\lambda c\}\}\in R_{\lambda,\mu}$ and $\{\{a_\lambda b\}_{\lambda+\mu} c\}\in R_{\lambda,\mu}$
for all $a,b,c\in R$.
Indeed, the first claim is obvious since $R_{\lambda,\mu}=R_{\mu,\lambda}$.
For the second claim, by skewsymmetry
$\{\{a_\lambda b\}_{\lambda+\mu} c\}=-\{c_{-\lambda-\mu-\partial}\{a_\lambda b\}\}$,
and by the admissibility assumption $\{c_\nu\{a_\lambda b\}\}\in R_{\lambda,\nu}$.
To conclude it suffices to note that when replacing $\nu$ by $-\lambda-\mu-\partial$
in an element of $R_{\lambda,\nu}=R[[\lambda^{-1},\nu^{-1},(\lambda+\nu)^{-1}]][\lambda,\nu]$,
we have that $\nu^{-1}$ is expanded in negative powers of $\lambda+\mu$
and $(\lambda+\nu)^{-1}$ is expanded in negative powers of $\mu$.
As a result, we get an element of $R[[\lambda^{-1},\mu^{-1},(\lambda+\mu)^{-1}]][\lambda,\mu]=R_{\lambda,\mu}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}\label{20110921:def1}
A \emph{non-local Lie conformal algebra} is an $\mb F[\partial]$-module $R$
endowed with an admissible skewsymmetric $\lambda$-bracket
$\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}:\,R\otimes R\to R((\lambda^{-1}))$
satisfying the Jacobi identity (in $R_{\lambda,\mu}$):
\begin{equation}\label{20110922:eq3}
\{a_\lambda\{b_\mu c\}\}-\{b_\mu\{a_\lambda c\}\}=\{\{a_\lambda b\}_{\lambda+\mu} c\}
\,\,\,\,\text{ for every } a,b,c\in R\,.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{example}\label{20110921:ex1}
Let $R=\big(\mb F[\partial]\otimes V\big)\oplus\mb FC$,
where $V$ is a vector space with a symmetric bilinear form $(\cdot\,|\,\cdot)$.
Define the (non-local) $\lambda$-bracket on $R$ by
letting $C$ be a central element, defining
$$
\{a_\lambda b\}=(a|b)C\lambda^{-1}
\,\,\,\,\text{ for } a,b\in V\,,
$$
and extending it to a $\lambda$-bracket on $R$ by sesquilinearity.
Skewsymmetry for this $\lambda$-bracket holds since, by assumption, $(\cdot\,|\,\cdot)$ is symmetric.
Moreover, since any triple $\lambda$-bracket is zero,
the $\lambda$-bracket is obviously admissible and it satisfies the Jacobi identity.
Hence, we have a non-local Lie conformal algebra.
\end{example}
\subsection{Non-local Poisson vertex algebras}
\label{sec:3.2}
Let $\mc V$ be a differential algebra, i.e. a unital commutative associative algebra
with a derivation $\partial:\,\mc V\to\mc V$.
As before, we assume that $\mc V$ is a domain and denote by $\mc K$ its field of fractions.
\begin{definition}\label{20110921:def2}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
A \emph{non-local} $\lambda$-\emph{bracket} on the differential algebra $\mc V$ is a linear map
$\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}:\,\mc V\otimes \mc V\to \mc V((\lambda^{-1}))$
satisfying the sesquilinearity conditions \eqref{20110921:eq1}
and the following left and right \emph{Leibniz rules}:
\begin{equation}\label{20110921:eq3}
\begin{array}{l}
\{a_\lambda bc\}=b\{a_\lambda c\}+c\{a_\lambda b\}\,, \\
\{ab_\lambda c\}=\{a_{\lambda+\partial}c\}_\to b+\{b_{\lambda+\partial} c\}_\to a\,.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Here and further an expression $\{a_{\lambda+\partial}b\}_\to c$ is interpreted as follows:
if $\{a_{\lambda}b\}=\sum_{n=-\infty}^Nc_n\lambda^n$,
then $\{a_{\lambda+\partial}b\}_\to c=\sum_{n=-\infty}^Nc_n(\lambda+\partial)^nc$,
where we expand $(\lambda+\partial)^nc$ in non-negative powers of $\partial$ as in \eqref{20111004:eq1}.
\item
The conditions of (\emph{skew})\emph{symmetry}, \emph{admissibility} and \emph{Jacobi identity}
for a non-local $\lambda$-bracket $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}$ on $\mc V$
are the same as in Definitions \ref{20110919:def1}, \ref{20110919:def2} and \ref{20110921:def1} respectively.
\item
A \emph{non-local Poisson vertex algebra} is a differential algebra $\mc V$
endowed with a \emph{non-local Poisson} $\lambda$-\emph{bracket},
i.e. a skewsymetric admissible non-local $\lambda$-bracket,
satisfying the Jacobi identity.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{example}[cf. Example \ref{20110921:ex1}]\label{20110921:ex2}
Let $\mc V=\mb F[u_i^{(n)}\,|\,i=1,\dots,\ell,n\in\mb Z_+]$
be the algebra of diffenertial polynoamials in $\ell$ differential variables $u_1,\dots,u_\ell$.
Let $C=\big(c_{ij}\big)_{i,j=1}^\ell$ be an $\ell\times\ell$ symmetric matrix
with coefficients in $\mb F$.
The following formula defines a structure of a non-local Poisson vertex algebra on $\mc V$:
$$
\{P_\lambda Q\}
=
\sum_{m,n\in\mb Z_+}\sum_{i,j\in\mb Z_+} c_{ij}
\frac{\partial Q}{\partial u_j^{(n)}} (-1)^m
(\lambda+\partial)^{m+n-1}
\frac{\partial P}{\partial u_i^{(m)}}\,.
$$
For example, $\{{u_i}_\lambda {u_j}\}=c_{ij}\lambda^{-1}$ but, for
$P,Q\in\mb F[u_1,\dots,u_\ell]\subset\mc V$,
we get an infinite formal Laurent series in $\lambda^{-1}$:
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\{P_\lambda Q\}
=
\sum_{i,j=1}^\ell c_{ij} \frac{\partial Q}{\partial u_j}
(\lambda+\partial)^{-1} \frac{\partial P}{\partial u_i}
} \\
\displaystyle{
=\sum_{i,j=1}^\ell \sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n \frac{\partial Q}{\partial u_j}
\Big(\partial^n \frac{\partial P}{\partial u_i}\Big) \lambda^{-n-1}
\in\mc V((\lambda^{-1}))\,.
}
\end{array}
$$
We will prove that this is indeed a non-local Poisson $\lambda$-bracket
in the next section,
where we will discuss a general construction of non-local Poisson vertex algebras,
which will include this example as a special case
(see Theorem \ref{20110923:prop}).
\end{example}
\begin{proposition}\label{20111219:prop}
Let $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}$ be a non-local Poisson vertex algebra structure on the differential domain $\mc V$.
Then there is a unique way to extend it to a non-local Poisson vertex algebra structure
on the differential field of fractions $\mc K$,
and it can be computed using the following formulas ($a,b\in\mc K\backslash\{0\}$):
\begin{equation}\label{20111219:eq1}
\{a_\lambda b^{-1}\}=-b^{-2}\{a_\lambda b\}
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
\{a^{-1}_\lambda b\}=-\{a_{\lambda+\partial} b\}_\to a^{-2}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It is straightforward to check that formulas \eqref{20111219:eq1} define
a non-local $\lambda$-bracket on the field of fraction $\mc K$,
satysfying all the axioms of non-local Poisson vertex algebra.
In particular, admissibility of the $\lambda$-bracket can be derived from Lemma \ref{20111006:lem}.
The details of the proof are left to the reader.
\end{proof}
Thanks to Proposition \ref{20111219:prop}
we can extend, uniquely, a non-local Poisson vertex algebra $\lambda$-bracket
on $\mc V$ to its field of fractions $\mc K$.
The following results are useful to prove admissibility of a non-local $\lambda$-bracket.
\begin{lemma}\label{20111012:lem}
Let $\mc V$ be a differential algebra, endowed
with a non-local $\lambda$-bracket $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\}$.
Assume that $\mc V$ is a domain, and let $\mc K$ be its field of fractions.
Let $S=\big(S_{ij}\big)_{i,j\in I}\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\big(\mc K((\partial^{-1}))\big)$
be an invertible $\ell\times\ell$ matrix pseudodifferential operator with coefficients in $\mc K$.
Letting $S_{ij}=\sum_{n=-\infty}^N s_{ij;n}\partial^n$,
the following identities hold for every $a\in\mc K$ and $i,j\in I$:
\begin{equation}\label{20111012:eq2a}
\begin{array}{r}
\displaystyle{
\big\{a_\lambda (S^{-1})_{ij}(\mu)\big\}
=
-\sum_{r,t=1}^\ell\sum_{n=-\infty}^N
\iota_{\mu,\lambda}(S^{-1})_{ir}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
} \\
\displaystyle{
\{a_\lambda s_{rt;n}\} (\mu+\partial)^n (S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)
\,\in\mc K((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))
\,,
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{20111012:eq2b}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\big\{(S^{-1})_{ij}(\lambda) _{\lambda+\mu} a\big\}
=
-\sum_{r,t=1}^\ell\sum_{n=-\infty}^N
\{{s_{rt;n}}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}a\}_\to
} \\
\displaystyle{
\Big((\lambda+\partial)^n (S^{-1})_{tj}(\lambda)\Big)
\iota_{\lambda,\lambda+\mu}({S^*}^{-1})_{ri}(\mu)
\,\in\mc K(((\lambda+\mu)^{-1}))((\lambda^{-1}))
\,,
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $\iota_{\mu,\lambda}$ and $\iota_{\lambda,\lambda+\mu}$
are as in \eqref{20110919:eq1b}.
In equation \eqref{20111012:eq2b} $S^*$ denotes the adjoint
of the matrix differential operator $S$
(its inverse being $(S^{-1})^*$).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The identity $S\circ S^{-1}=1$ becomes, in terms of symbols,
$$
\sum_{t=1}^\ell S_{r,t}(\mu+\partial)(S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)=\delta_{rj}\,.
$$
Taking $\lambda$-bracket with $a$, we have, by sesquilinearity and the (left) Leibniz rule,
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
0=\sum_{t=1}^\ell \big\{a_\lambda S_{rt}(\mu+\partial)(S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)\big\}
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{t=1}^\ell\sum_{n=-\infty}^N
\big\{a_\lambda s_{rt;n} (\mu+\partial)^n (S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)\big\}
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{t=1}^\ell\sum_{n=-\infty}^N \{a_\lambda s_{rt;n}\} (\mu+\partial)^n (S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)
} \\
\displaystyle{
+\sum_{t=1}^\ell \iota_{\mu,\lambda} S_{rt}(\lambda+\mu+\partial) \big\{a_\lambda (S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)\big\}
\,.
}
\end{array}
$$
Note that $\iota_{\mu,\lambda} S(\lambda+\mu+\partial)$
is invertible in
$\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\big(\mc K[\partial]((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))\big)$,
its inverse being $\iota_{\mu,\lambda} S^{-1}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)$.
We then apply $\iota_{\mu,\lambda}(S^{-1})_{ir}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)$ on the left to both sides of the above equation
and we sum over $r=1,\dots,\ell$, to get
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{t=1}^\ell \delta_{it} \big\{a_\lambda (S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)\big\}
} \\
\displaystyle{
=-
\sum_{r=1}^\ell
\sum_{t=1}^\ell\sum_{n=-\infty}^N \iota_{\mu,\lambda}(S^{-1})_{ir}(\lambda+\mu+\partial) \{a_\lambda s_{rt;n}\} (\mu+\partial)^n (S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)\,,
}
\end{array}$$
proving equation \eqref{20111012:eq2a}.
Similarly, for the second equation we have, by the right Leibniz rule,
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
0=\sum_{t=1}^\ell \big\{S_{rt}(\lambda+\partial)(S^{-1})_{tj}(\lambda)\,_{\lambda+\mu}a\big\}
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{t=1}^\ell \sum_{n=-\infty}^N \big\{s_{rt;n}(\lambda+\partial)^n(S^{-1})_{tj}(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu}a\big\}
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{t=1}^\ell \sum_{n=-\infty}^N \big\{{s_{rt;n}}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}a\big\}_\to (\lambda+\partial)^n(S^{-1})_{tj}(\lambda)
} \\
\displaystyle{
+ \sum_{t=1}^\ell \sum_{n=-\infty}^N \big\{(S^{-1})_{tj}(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}a\big\}_\to
\iota_{\lambda,\lambda+\mu}(\lambda-\lambda-\mu-\partial)^ns_{rt;n}
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{t=1}^\ell \sum_{n=-\infty}^N \big\{{s_{rt;n}}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}a\big\}_\to (\lambda+\partial)^n(S^{-1})_{tj}(\lambda)
} \\
\displaystyle{
+ \sum_{t=1}^\ell \big\{(S^{-1})_{tj}(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}a\big\}_\to \iota_{\lambda,\lambda+\mu} S^*_{tr}(\mu)
\,.
}
\end{array}
$$
We next replace in the above equation $\mu$ (placed at the right) by $\mu+\partial$,
and we apply the resulting differential operator to $\iota_{\lambda,\lambda+\mu}({S^*}^{-1})_{ri}(\mu)$.
As a result we get, after summing over $r=1,\dots,\ell$,
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{t=1}^\ell
\big\{(S^{-1})_{tj}(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}a\big\}_\to \delta_{ti}
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
-\sum_{r=1}^\ell
\sum_{t=1}^\ell
\sum_{n=0}^N
\big\{{s_{rt;n}}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}a\big\}_\to
\Big((\lambda+\partial)^n(S^{-1})_{tj}(\lambda)\Big)
\iota_{\lambda,\lambda+\mu}({S^*}^{-1})_{ri}(\mu)
\,,
}
\end{array}
$$
proving equation \eqref{20111012:eq2b}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{20111014:cor}
Let $\mc V$ be a differential algebra, endowed
with a non-local $\lambda$-bracket $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}$.
Assume that $\mc V$ is a domain, and let $\mc K$ be its field of fractions.
Let $S=\big(S_{ij}\big)_{i,j\in I}\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\big(\mc K[\partial]\big)$
have non-zero Dieudonn\`e determinant.
Then the following identities hold for every $a\in\mc K$ and $i,j\in I$:
\begin{equation}\label{20111012:eq2c}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\big\{a_\lambda (S^{-1})_{ij}(\mu)\big\}
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
-\sum_{r,t=1}^\ell\sum_{n=0}^N
(S^{-1})_{ir}(\lambda+\mu+\partial) \{a_\lambda s_{rt;n}\} (\mu+\partial)^n (S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)
\,\in\mc K_{\lambda,\mu}
\,,
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{20111012:eq2d}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\big\{(S^{-1})_{ij}(\lambda) _{\lambda+\mu} a\big\}
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
-\sum_{r,t=1}^\ell\sum_{n=0}^N
\{{s_{rt;n}}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}a\}_\to
\Big((\lambda+\partial)^n (S^{-1})_{tj}(\lambda)\Big)
({S^*}^{-1})_{ri}(\mu)
\,\in\mc K_{\lambda,\mu}
\,,
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $S_{ij}=\sum_{n=0}^N s_{ij;n}\partial^n$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
It is immediate from equations \eqref{20111012:eq2a} and \eqref{20111012:eq2b}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{20111007:prop}
Let $\mc V$ be a differential algebra, endowed
with a non-local $\lambda$-bracket $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\}$.
Assume that $\mc V$ is a domain, and let $\mc K$ be its field of fractions.
Let $A\in\mc V(\partial)=\mc K(\partial)\cap\mc V((\partial^{-1}))$
be a rational pseudodifferential operator with coefficients in $\mc V$.
Then
$\{a_\lambda A(\mu)\}$
and $\{A(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu} a\}$
lie in $\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}$
for every $a\in\mc V$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
First, note that if the pseudodifferential operators $A,B\in\mc K((\partial^{-1}))$
satisfy the conditions
$$
\{a_\lambda A(\mu)\}
\,,\{A(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu} a\}
\{a_\lambda B(\mu)\}
\,,\{B(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu} a\}
\,\,
\in\mc K_{\lambda,\mu}\,,
$$
for every $a\in\mc K$,
so does $A\circ B$.
Indeed, by the Leibniz rule,
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\{a_\lambda (A\circ B)(\mu)\}
=
\{a_\lambda A(\mu+\partial) B(\mu)\}
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\{a_\lambda A(\mu+\partial)\}_{\to} B(\mu)
+ A(\lambda+\mu+\partial) \{a_\lambda B(\mu)\}\,,
}
\end{array}
$$
and both terms in the RHS lie in $\mc K_{\lambda,\mu}$ by the assumption on $A$ and $B$,
thanks to Lemma \ref{20111006:lem}.
Similarly, by the right Leibniz rule,
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\{ (A\circ B)(\lambda) _{\lambda+\mu} a \}
=
\{ A(\lambda+\partial) B(\lambda) _{\lambda+\mu} a \}
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\{ B(\lambda) _{\lambda+\mu+\partial} a \}_\to
\iota_{\lambda,\lambda+\mu}A^*(\mu)
+
\{ A(\lambda+\partial) _{\lambda+\mu+\partial} a \}_\to B(\lambda)
\,,
}
\end{array}
$$
and both terms in the RHS lie in $\mc K_{\lambda,\mu}$
(rather in the image of $\mc K_{\lambda,\mu}$ in $\mc K(((\lambda+\mu)^{-1}))((\lambda^{-1}))$
via $\iota_{\lambda,\lambda+\mu}$) by Lemma \ref{20111006:lem}.
By Corollary \ref{20111014:cor}
we have that, if $S\in\mc V[\partial]$, then
$\{a_\lambda S^{-1}(\mu)\}$ and $\{S^{-1}(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu} a\}$
lie in $\mc K_{\lambda,\mu}$ for all $a\in\mc K$.
Hence,
by Definition \ref{20110926:def} and the above observations,
we get that, if $A\in\mc V(\partial)=\mc K(\partial)\cap\mc V((\partial^{-1}))$,
then
$\{a_\lambda A(\mu)\}$ and $\{A(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu} a\}$
lie in $\mc K_{\lambda,\mu}$
for all $a\in\mc K$.
On the other hand, if $a\in\mc V$, we clearly have
$\{a_\lambda A(\mu)\}\in\mc V((\lambda^{-1}))((\mu^{-1}))$
and $\{A(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu} a\}\in\mc V(((\lambda+\mu)^{-1}))((\lambda^{-1}))$.
The claim follows from Lemma \ref{20120131:lem1}
applied to $V=\mc K$ and $U=\mc V$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{20111104:rem}
In the case when $S\in\mc V(\partial)$
is a rational pseudodifferential operator with coefficients in $\mc V$,
thanks to Corollary \ref{20111007:prop},
we can drop $\iota_{\mu,\lambda}$ and $\iota_{\lambda,\lambda+\mu}$ respectively from
equations \eqref{20111012:eq2a} and \eqref{20111012:eq2b},
which hold in the space $\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}$.
\end{remark}
\section{Non-local Hamiltonian structures}
\label{sec:4}
\subsection{Algebras of differential functions}
\label{sec:4.1}
Let $R_\ell=\mb F [u_i^{(n)}\, |\, i \in I,n \in \mb Z_+]$ be the algebra of differential polynomials
in the $\ell$ variables $u_i,\,i\in I=\{1,\dots,\ell\}$,
with the derivation $\partial$ defined by $\partial (u_i^{(n)}) = u^{(n+1)}_i$.
The partial derivatives $\frac{\partial}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}$
are commuting derivations of $R_\ell$, and they satisfy the following
commutation relations with $\partial$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:0.4}
\left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}, \partial \right] = \frac{\partial}{\partial u_i^{(n-1)}}
\,\,\,\,
\text{ (the RHS is $0$ if $n=0$) }\,.
\end{equation}
Recall from \cite{BDSK09} that an \emph{algebra of differential functions}
is a differential algebra extension $\mc V$ of $R_\ell$,
endowed with commuting derivations
$$
\frac{\partial}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}:\,\mc V\to\mc V
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
i \in I ,\,n \in \mb Z_+\,,
$$
extending the usual partial derivatives on $R_\ell$,
such that only a finite number of
$\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}$ are non-zero for each $f\in \mc V$,
and such that the commutation rules \eqref{eq:0.4} hold on $\mc V$.
Examples other than $R_\ell$ itself are any localization of $R_\ell$
by a multiplicative subset or any algebraic extension of $R_\ell$.
For $f\in\mc V$, as usual we denote by $\tint f$
the image of $f$ in the quotient space $\mc V/\partial\mc V$.
Recall that, by \eqref{eq:0.4}, we have a well-defined variational derivative
$\frac{\delta}{\delta u}:\,\mc V/\partial\mc V\to\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$,
given by
$$
\frac{\delta\tint f}{\delta u_i}=\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}(-\partial)^n\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_i^{(n)}},\,i\in I\,.
$$
Note that if the algebra of differential functions $\mc V$ is a domain,
then its field of fractions $\mc K$ is again an algebra of differential functions
in the same variables $u_1,\dots,u_\ell$,
with the maps $\frac{\partial}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}:\,\mc K\to\mc K$ defined in the obvious way.
When $\mc V=\mc K$ we call it a \emph{field of differential functions}.
We denote by $\mc C=\big\{c\in\mc V\,\big|\,\partial c=0\big\}\subset\mc V$ the subalgebra of \emph{constants},
and by
$$
\mc F=\Big\{f\in\mc V\,\Big|\,\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}=0
\,\,\text{ for all }\, i\in I,n\in\mb Z_+\Big\}\subset\mc V
$$
the subalgebra of \emph{quasiconstants}. It is easy to see that $\mc C\subset\mc F$.
Given $f\in\mc V$ which is not a quasiconstant, we say that is has \emph{differential order} $N$ if
$\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_i^{(N)}}\neq0$ for some $i\in I$,
and $\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}=0$ for every $j\in I$ and $n>N$.
We also set the differential order of a quasiconstant element equal to $-\infty$.
We let $\mc V_N$ be the subalgebra of elements of differential order at most $N$.
This gives an increasing sequence of subalgebras
$$
\mc C\subset\mc F=\mc V_{-\infty}\subset\mc V_0\subset\mc V_1\subset\dots\subset\mc V\,,
$$
such that $\partial\mc V_N\subset\mc V_{N+1}$.
\subsection{Construction of non-local Hamiltonian structures}
\label{sec:4.2}
Let $\mc V$ be an algebra of differential functions in the variables $u_1,\dots,u_\ell$.
Assume that $\mc V$ is a domain, and let $\mc K$ be the corresponding
field of differential functions of fractions.
Let $H=\big(H_{ij}\big)_{i,j\in I}\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V((\partial^{-1}))$
be an $\ell\times\ell$ matrix pseudodifferential operator over $\mc V$,
namely
$$
H_{ij}=\sum_{n=-\infty}^NH_{ij;n}\partial^n
\,\,\in\mc V((\partial^{-1}))
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
i,j\in I\,.
$$
We associate to this matrix $H$ a non-local $\lambda$-bracket on $\mc V$
given by the following \emph{Master Formula} (cf. \cite{DSK06})
\begin{equation}\label{20110922:eq1}
\{f_\lambda g\}_H
=
\sum_{\substack{i,j\in I \\ m,n\in\mb Z_+}}
\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}
(\lambda+\partial)^n
H_{ji}(\lambda+\partial)
(-\lambda-\partial)^m
\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_i^{(m)}}
\,\in\mc V((\lambda^{-1}))
\,.
\end{equation}
In particular
\begin{equation}\label{20110923:eq1}
\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_j}\}_H
=
H_{ji}(\lambda)
\,\,,\,\,\,i,j\in I\,.
\end{equation}
The following result gives a way to check if a matrix pseudodifferential operator
$H\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V((\partial^{-1}))$
defines a structure of non-local Poisson vertex algebra on $\mc V$.
The analogous statement in the local case was proved in \cite{BDSK09}.
\begin{theorem}\label{20110923:prop}
Let $\mc V$ be an algebra of differential functions, which is a domain,
ane let $\mc K$ be its field of fractions.
Let $H\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V((\partial^{-1}))$.
Then:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
Formula \eqref{20110922:eq1} gives a well-defined non-local $\lambda$-bracket on $\mc V$.
\item
This non-local $\lambda$-bracket is skewsymmetric if and only if $H$
is a skew-adjoint matrix pseudodifferential operator.
\item
If $H=\big(H_{ij}\big)_{i,j\in I}\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$
is a rational matrix pseudodifferential operator with coefficients in $\mc V$,
then the corresponding non-local $\lambda$-bracket
$\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}_H:\,\mc V\times\mc V\to\mc V((\lambda^{-1}))$
(given by equation \eqref{20110922:eq1}) is admissible.
\item
Let $H=\big(H_{ij}\big)_{i,j\in I}\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$
be a skewadjoint rational matrix pseudodifferential operator with coefficients in $\mc V$.
Then the non-local $\lambda$-bracket $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}_H$ defined by \eqref{20110922:eq1}
is a Poisson non-local $\lambda$-bracket, i.e. it satisfies the Jacobi identity \eqref{20110922:eq3},
if and only if the Jacobi identity holds on generators ($i,j,k\in I$):
\begin{equation}\label{20110922:eq4}
\{{u_i}_\lambda\{{u_j}_\mu {u_k}\}_H\}_H-\{{u_j}_\mu\{{u_i}_\lambda {u_k}\}_H\}_H
-\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda {u_j}\}_H}_{\lambda+\mu} {u_k}\}_H=0\,,
\end{equation}
where the equality holds in the space $\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For the proofs of (a), (b) and (d) one does the same computations
as in the proof of \cite[Thm.1.15]{BDSK09} for the local case.
So, we only prove part (c).
Let $a,f,g\in\mc V$. By the Master Formula \eqref{20110922:eq1}
and the left Leibniz rule, we have
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\{a_\lambda\{f_\mu g\}_H\}_H
=
\sum_{\substack{i,j\in I \\ m,n\in\mb Z_+}}
\big\{
a_\lambda
\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}
(\mu+\partial)^n
H_{ji}(\mu+\partial)
(-\mu-\partial)^m
\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_i^{(m)}}
\big\}_H
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{\substack{i,j\in I \\ m,n\in\mb Z_+}}
\big\{
a_\lambda
\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}
\big\}_H
(\mu+\partial)^n
H_{ji}(\mu+\partial)
(-\mu-\partial)^m
\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_i^{(m)}}
} \\
\displaystyle{
+
\sum_{\substack{i,j\in I \\ m,n\in\mb Z_+}}
\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}
(\lambda+\mu+\partial)^n
{\{
a_\lambda
H_{ji}(\mu+\partial)
\}_H}_\to
(-\mu-\partial)^m
\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_i^{(m)}}
} \\
\displaystyle{
+
\sum_{\substack{i,j\in I \\ m,n\in\mb Z_+}}
\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}
(\lambda+\mu+\partial)^n
H_{ji}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
(-\lambda-\mu-\partial)^m
\big\{
a_\lambda
\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_i^{(m)}}
\big\}_H\,.
}
\end{array}
$$
All sums in the above equations are finite.
Therefore, all three terms in the RHS lie in $\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}$,
thanks to Corollary \ref{20111007:prop} and Lemma \ref{20111006:lem}.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}\label{20111007:def}
Let $\mc V$ be an algebra of differential functions, which is a domain.
A \emph{non-local Hamiltonian structure} on $\mc V$
is a skewadjoint rational matrix pseudodifferential operator with coefficients in $\mc V$,
$H=\big(H_{ij}\big)_{i,j\in I}\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$,
satisfying equation \eqref{20110922:eq4} for every $i,j,k\in I$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{20111007:rem2}
It is easy to show that, if $L\in\mc K(\partial)$ is a rational pseudodifferential operator,
then it can be expanded as
\begin{equation}\label{20110922:eq2}
L=\sum_{s=1}^\infty
\sum_{n=0}^N
\sum_{\substack{p_1,\dots,p_s\in\mc V_M \\ (\text{finite sum})}}
p_1\partial^{-1}\circ p_2\partial^{-1}\circ\dots\partial^{-1}\circ p_s\partial^n
\,,
\end{equation}
for some fixed $M,N\in\mb Z_+$.
To see this, write $L=AS^{-1}$, where $A,S\in\mc V[\partial]$
and $S=\sum_{n=0}^Ns_n\partial^n$ has non-zero leading coefficient $s_N$,
and expand $S^{-1}$ using geometric progression:
\begin{equation}\label{20111007:eq1}
S^{-1}=
\partial^{-N}\sum_{i=0}^\infty\Big(-s_N^{-1}s_{N-1}\partial^{-1}-\dots-s_N^{-1}s_0\partial^{-N}\Big)^is_N^{-1}\,.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, it is not hard to see that if $L$ admits an expansion as in \eqref{20110922:eq2},
then $\{a_\lambda L(\mu)\}_H\in K_{\lambda,\mu}$ for every $a\in\mc K$
and every matrix pseudodifferential operator $H$.
As a consequence, if all the entries of a matrix pseudodifferential operator $H$
admit an expansion as in \eqref{20110922:eq2},
then the corresponding $\lambda$-bracket $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}_H$ on $\mc K$
is admissible.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{20111019:def}
It is claimed in the literature (without a proof) \cite{DN89}
that, in order to show that a skewadjoint operator $H$ defines a (local) Hamiltonian structure,
it suffices to check the Jacobi identity
for the Lie bracket $\{\cdot\,,\,\cdot\}_H=\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}_H\big|_{\lambda=0}$
in $\mc V/\partial\mc V$ on triples of elements of the form $\tint f u_i$, where $f\in\mc F$ is a quasiconstant.
This is indeed true, provided that the algebra of quasiconstants $\mc F$ is ``big enough'', by the following argument.
By a straightforward computation, using the Master Formula, we get
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\{\tint fu_i,\{\tint gu_j,\tint hu_k\}_H\}_H
-\{\tint gu_j,\{\tint fu_i,\tint hu_k\}_H\}_H
} \\
\displaystyle{
-\{\{\tint fu_i,\tint gu_j\}_H,\tint hu_k\}_H
=
\tint h
\Big(
\{{u_i}_\lambda\{{u_j}_\mu{u_k}\}_H\}_H
} \\
\displaystyle{
-\{{u_j}_\mu\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_k}\}_H\}_H
-\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_j}\}_H}_{\lambda+\mu}{u_k}\}_H
\Big)
\big(|_{\lambda=\partial}f\big)
\big(|_{\mu=\partial}g\big)\,.
}
\end{array}
$$
Clearly, this is zero for all $f,g,h\in\mc F$ and all $i,j,k\in I$
if and only if $H$ is a Hamiltonian structure,
provided that the algebra $\mc F$ satisfies the following non-degeneracy conditions:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item
if $\tint ha=0$ for some $a\in\mc V$ and all $h\in\mc F$, then $a=0$,
\item
if $P(\partial)f=0$ for some differential operator $P\in\mc V[\partial]$
and for all $f\in\mc F$, then $P=0$.
\end{enumerate}
Obviously, $\mc F$ fulfills these conditions if it contains the algebra of polynomials $\mb F[x]$.
Often in the literature this criterion is used also for non-local Hamiltonian structures,
which does not seem to have much sense, since in the non-local case $\mc V/\partial\mc V$
does not have a Lie algebra structure.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Examples}
\label{sec:4.3}
\begin{example}\label{20111010:ex1}
Let $\mc V$ be any algebra of differential functions in $\ell$ differential variables,
with subalgebra of quasiconstants $\mc F\subset\mc V$.
Any skewadjoint rational matrix pseudodifferential operator
with quasiconstant coefficients,
$H=\big(H_{ij}(\partial)\big)_{ij\in I}\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc F(\partial)$,
is a Hamiltonian structure.
Indeed, by askewadjointness of $H$ the $\lambda$-bracket $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}_H$
is skewsymmetric, and by the Master Formula, all triple $\lambda$-brackets are zero.
Note that, if $H\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc F((\partial^{-1}))$ is skewadjoint,
even if it is not a rational matrix,
the corresponding $\lambda$-bracket $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}_H$
is still admissible,
hence it defines a non-local Poisson vertex algebra on $\mc V$.
In the special case when $H_{ij}(\lambda)=c_{ij}\lambda^{-1}$,
and $C=(c_{ij})_{i,j=1}^\ell$ is a symmetric matrix with constant coefficients,
we recover the non-local Poisson vertex algebras from Example \ref{20110921:ex2}.
When $C$ if a symmetrized Cartan matrix or extended Cartan matrix of a simple Lie algebra,
we get the Hamiltonian structure for a Toda lattice (see \cite{Fr98}).
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{20110922:ex1}
The following three operators form a compatible family of non-local Hamiltonian structures
(i.e. any their linear combination is a non-local Hamiltonian structure)
on the algebra $R_1=\mb F[u,u',u'',\dots]$
of differential polynomials in one variable:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item
$K_{1}=\partial$ (GFZ Hamiltonina structure),
\item
$K_{-1}=\partial^{-1}$ (Toda non-local Hamiltonian structure),
\item
$H=u'\partial^{-1}\circ u'$ (Sokolov non-local Hamitonian structure),
\end{enumerate}
First, any linear combination over $\mc C$ of $K_1$ and $K_{-1}$
is a non-local Hamiltonian structure, as discussed in Example \ref{20111010:ex1}.
Next, it is easy to show (cf. \cite[Example 3.14]{BDSK09})
that $H^{-1}$ is a symplectic structure on the field of fractions $\mc K_1=\text{Frac} R_1$,
known as the Sokolov symplectic structure, \cite{Sok84}.
Hence, by Theorem \ref{20111012:thm} below,
we deduce that $H$ is a non-local Hamiltonian structure.
To conclude that $K_1,K_{-1},H$ form a compatible family,
it suffices to check that
$$
\{u_\lambda H(\mu)\}_{K_{\pm1}}
-\{u_\mu H(\lambda)\}_{K_{\pm1}}
=\{H(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu}u\}_{K_{\pm1}}\,,
$$
where $H(\lambda)=u'(\partial+\lambda)^{-1}u'\in\mc V((\lambda^{-1}))$.
This is straightforward.
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{20110922:ex2}
Dorfman non-local Hamiltonian structure
on the algebra of differential polynomials
$R_1=\mb F[u,u',u'',\dots]$ is:
$$
H=\partial^{-1}\circ u'\partial^{-1}\circ u'\partial^{-1}\,.
$$
One easily shows (cf. \cite[Example 3.14]{BDSK09})
that $H^{-1}$ is a symplectic structure on the field of fractions $\mc K_1=\text{Frac} R_1$,
known as Dorfman symplectic structre, \cite{Dor93},
hence $H$ is indeed a non-local Hamiltonian structure.
Furthermore, one can show, by a lengthy calculation,
that Sokolov's and Dorfman's non-local Hamiltonian structures
are compatible.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[cf. \cite{Dor93}]\label{20110922:ex3}
Another triple of compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures
on $R_1=\mb F[u,u',u'',\dots]$ is:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item
$K_{1}=\partial$ (GFZ Hamiltonian structure),
\item
$K_{-1}=\partial^{-1}$ (Toda non-local Hamiltonian structure),
\item
$H=\partial^{-1}\circ u'+u'\partial^{-1}$ (potential Virasoro-Magri non-local Hamiltonian structure).
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
\begin{example}[cf. \cite{Mag80}]\label{20110922:ex4}
There is yet another triple of compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures
on $R_1=\mb F[u,u',u'',\dots]$:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item
$K_1=\partial$ (GFZ Hamiltonian structure),
\item
$K_3=\partial^3$,
\item
$H=\partial\circ u\partial^{-1}\circ u\partial$
(modified Virasoro-Magri non-local Hamiltonian structure).
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
\begin{example}[cf. \cite{Mag78,Mag80}]\label{20110922:ex5}
The following is a triple of compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures
on $R_2=\mb F[u,v,u',v',\dots]$:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item
$K_1=\partial{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}$ (GFZ Hamiltonian structure),
\item
$K=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array}\right)$,
\item
$H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v\partial^{-1}\circ v & -v\partial^{-1}\circ u \\
-u\partial^{-1}\circ v & u\partial^{-1}\circ u
\end{array}\right)$ (NLS non-local Hamiltonian structure).
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
\section{Constructing families of compatible non-local \\ Hamiltonian structures}
\label{sec:6}
As in the previous sections, let $\mc V$ be an algebra of differential functions
in the variables $u_1,\dots,u_\ell$,
we assume that $\mc V$ is a domain, and we let $\mc K$ be its field of fractions.
As in the local case, two non-local Poisson vertex algebra $\lambda$-brackets on $\mc V$
(respectively two non-local Hamiltonian structures)
are said to be \emph{compatible} if any their linear combination
is again a non-local Poisson vertex algebra structure
(resp. a non-local Hamiltonian structure).
Such a pair is called a \emph{bi-Hamiltonian structure}.
More generally, a collection of non-local
Hamiltonian structures $\{H^\alpha\}_{\alpha\in\mc A}$ on $\mc V$,
is called \emph{compatible} if any their (finite) linear combination
is a non-local Hamiltonian structure on $\mc V$.
Recalling the Jacobi identity \eqref{20110922:eq4}, we introduce the following notation.
Given rational $\ell\times\ell$-matrix pseudodifferential operators
$K,H\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$,
we let $J(H,K)=J^1(H,K)-J^2(H,K)-J^3(H,K)$,
where $J^\alpha(H,K)=\big(J^\alpha_{ijk}(H,K)(\lambda,\mu)\big)_{i,j,k\in I}$, for $\alpha=1,2,3$,
are the arrays with the following entries in $\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}$:
\begin{equation}\label{20111118:eq1}
\begin{array}{rcl}
J^1(H,K)_{ijk}(\lambda,\mu)&=&\{{u_i}_\lambda\{{u_j}_\mu{u_k}\}_H\}_K\,,\\
J^2(H,K)_{ijk}(\lambda,\mu)&=&\{{u_j}_\mu\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_k}\}_H\}_K\,,\\
J^3(H,K)_{ijk}(\lambda,\mu)&=&\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_j}\}_H}_{\lambda+\mu}{u_k}\}_K\,.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Consider a collection $\{H^\alpha\}_{\alpha\in\mc A}$
of skewadjoint rational non-local matrix pseudodifferential operators.
By definition, $H^\alpha$ is a Hamiltonian structure
if and only if
$J(H^\alpha,H^\alpha)=0$.
It is easy to see that the $H^\alpha$'s form a compatible family of Hamiltonian structures
if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{20111116:eq3}
J(H^\alpha,H^\beta)+J(H^\beta,H^\alpha)=0
\,\,,\,\,\,\,\forall \alpha,\beta\in\mc A\,.
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}\label{20111021:thm}
Let $H,\,K\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$
be compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures on
the the algebra of differential functions $\mc V$, which is a domain.
Assume that $K$ is an invertible element of the algebra $\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$.
Then the following sequence of rational matrix pseudodifferential operators
with coefficients in $\mc V$:
$$
H^{[0]}=K
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
H^{[n]} :=
\big(H\circ K^{-1}\big)^{n-1}\circ H
\,\in\mathop{\rm Mat }{}_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)
\,\,,\,\,\,\,n\geq1\,,
$$
form a compatible family of non-local Hamiltonian structures on $\mc V$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{20111114:rem}
It is stated in \cite{FF81} that $H^{[n]},\,n\geq0$, are non-local Hamiltonian structures,
but the prove there is given only under the additional
assupmtion that $H$ is invertible as well.
In this case the proof becomes much easier since $H^{[n]}$ is invertible,
therefore one needs to prove that $(H^{[n]})^{-1}$ is a symplectic structure.
\end{remark}
Following the idea in \cite{TT11}, we will reduce the proof of Theorem \ref{20111021:thm}
to the following special case of it:
\begin{lemma}\label{20111116:lem1}
Let $\tilde H,\,K\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$
be compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures on $\mc V$,
and assume that $K$ is an invertible element
of the algebra $\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$.
Then the rational matrix pseudodifferential operator with coefficients in $\mc V$
$$
\tilde H(\partial)\circ K^{-1}(\partial)\circ\tilde H(\partial)\,\in\mathop{\rm Mat }{}_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)\,,
$$
is a non-local Hamiltonian structure on $\mc V$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To simplify notation, in this proof we denote $\tilde H$ by $H$,
and we let $R=H\circ K^{-1}$
so that $R^*=K^{-1}\circ H$.
Let $H^{[2]}=H\circ K^{-1}\circ H
\Big(=R\circ H=H\circ R^*\Big)$,
and let $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}_2=\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}_{H^{[2]}}$
be the non-local $\lambda$-bracket on $\mc V$ associated
to $H^{[2]}\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$
via \eqref{20110922:eq1}.
We need to prove the Jacobi identity, i.e. using the notation in \eqref{20111118:eq1},
that $J(H^{[2]},H^{[2]})=0$.
We need to compute all three terms $J^\alpha=J^\alpha(H^{[2]},H^{[2]})_{ijk}(\lambda,\mu)$, for $\alpha=1,2,3$,
of the Jacobi identity.
First, if $f\in\mc V$ and $i\in I$, we have, in $\mc V((\lambda^{-1}))$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{20111103:eq1a}
\{{u_i}_\lambda f\}_2
&=&
\displaystyle{
\sum_{s\in I}{\{{u_s}_{\lambda+\partial}f\}_H}_\to R^*_{si}(\lambda)\,,
} \\
\label{20111103:eq1b}
\{{u_j}_\mu f\}_2
&=&
\displaystyle{
\sum_{t\in I}{\{{u_t}_{\mu+\partial}f\}_H}_\to R^*_{tj}(\mu)\,,
} \\
\label{20111103:eq2}
\{f_{\lambda+\mu}{u_k}\}_2
&=&
\displaystyle{
\sum_{r\in I}R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\, \{f_{\lambda+\mu}u_r\}_H\,.
}
\end{eqnarray}
Both the above equations follow immediately from the Master formula \eqref{20110922:eq1}
and the definition of $H^{[2]}$.
The following identities are proved in a similar way, using that $K\circ K^{-1}={1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{20111121:eq1a}
\{{u_i}_\lambda f\}_H
&=&
\displaystyle{
\sum_{s\in I}{\{{u_s}_{\lambda+\partial}f\}_K}_\to R^*_{si}(\lambda)\,,
} \\
\label{20111121:eq1b}
\{{u_j}_\mu f\}_H
&=&
\displaystyle{
\sum_{t\in I}{\{{u_t}_{\mu+\partial}f\}_K}_\to R^*_{tj}(\mu)\,,
} \\
\label{20111121:eq2}
\{f_{\lambda+\mu}{u_k}\}_H
&=&
\displaystyle{
\sum_{r\in I}R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\, \{f_{\lambda+\mu}u_r\}_K\,.
}
\end{eqnarray}
Next, it is not hard to chek, using the left and right Leibniz rules
and Lemma \ref{20111012:lem}, that,
given an admissible non-local $\lambda$-bracket $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}$ on $\mc V$,
the following identities hold in $\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}$, for every $i,j,k\in I$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{20111103:eq3a}
&&\{{u_i}_\lambda H^{[2]}_{kj}(\mu)\}
=
\displaystyle{
\sum_{t\in I}
\{{u_i}_\lambda \{{u_t}_y{u_k}\}_H\} \Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big)
} \\
&&\displaystyle{
- \sum_{r,t\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)\,
\{{u_i}_\lambda \{{u_t}_y{u_r}\}_K\} \Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}\!\!\!R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big)
}\nonumber \\
&&\displaystyle{
+ \sum_{r\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\,
\{{u_i}_\lambda \{{u_j}_\mu{u_r}\}_H\}
\,,
}\nonumber \\
\label{20111103:eq3b}
&&\{{u_j}_\mu H^{[2]}_{ki}(\lambda)\}
=
\displaystyle{
\sum_{s\in I}
\{{u_j}_\mu \{{u_s}_x{u_k}\}_H\} \Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
} \\
&&\displaystyle{
- \sum_{r,s\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)\,
\{{u_j}_\mu \{{u_s}_x{u_r}\}_K\} \Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}\!\!\!R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
}\nonumber \\
&&\displaystyle{
+ \sum_{r\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\,
\{{u_j}_\mu \{{u_i}_\lambda{u_r}\}_H\}
\,,
}\nonumber \\
\label{20111103:eq3c}
&&\{H^{[2]}_{ji}(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu}{u_k}\}
=
\displaystyle{
\sum_{s\in I}
\{{\{{u_s}_x{u_j}\}_H}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}{u_k}\}_\to
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}\!\!\!R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
} \\
&&\displaystyle{
- \sum_{s,t\in I}
\{{\{{u_s}_x{u_t}\}_K}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}{u_k}\}_\to
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}\!\!\!\!R^*_{si}(\lambda)\!\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}\!\!\!\!R^*_{tj}(\mu)\!\Big)
}\nonumber \\
&&\displaystyle{
+ \sum_{t\in I}
\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_t}\}_H}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}{u_k}\}_\to
R^*_{tj}(\mu)
\,.
}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here and further we use the following notation:
given an element
$$
P(\lambda,\mu)=\sum_{m,n,p=-\infty}^N p_{m,n,p}\lambda^m\mu^n(\lambda+\mu)^p
\in\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}\,,
$$
and $f,g\in\mc V$, we let
\begin{equation}\label{20111018:eq5}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
P(x,y)\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}f\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}g\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{m,n,p=-\infty}^N
p_{m,n,p}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)^p
\big((\lambda+\partial)^mf\big)\big((\mu+\partial)^ng\big)
\,\,\in\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}
\,.
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
In equation \eqref{20111103:eq3c} we used the assumption that $H$ and $K$ are skewadjoint.
Combining equations \eqref{20111103:eq1a} and \eqref{20111103:eq3a},
equations \eqref{20111103:eq1b} and \eqref{20111103:eq3b},
and equations \eqref{20111103:eq2} and \eqref{20111103:eq3c},
we get, respectively,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{20111121:eq3a}
&&\displaystyle{
J^1 = \{{u_i}_\lambda \{{u_j}_\mu{u_k}\}_2\}_2
} \\
&&\displaystyle{
=\sum_{s,t\in I}
\{{u_s}_x \{{u_t}_y{u_k}\}_H\}_H
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big)
}\nonumber \\
&&\displaystyle{
- \sum_{r,s,t\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)\,
\{{u_s}_x \{{u_t}_y{u_r}\}_K\}_H
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big)
}\nonumber \\
&&\displaystyle{
+ \sum_{r,s\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\,
\{{u_s}_x \{{u_j}_\mu{u_r}\}_H\}_H
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
\,,
}\nonumber \\
\label{20111121:eq3b}
&&\displaystyle{
J^2 = \{{u_j}_\mu \{{u_i}_\lambda{u_k}\}_2\}_2
} \\
&&\displaystyle{
=\sum_{s,t\in I}
\{{u_j}_y \{{u_s}_x{u_k}\}_H\}_H
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big)
}\nonumber \\
&&\displaystyle{
- \sum_{r,s,t\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)\,
\{{u_t}_y \{{u_s}_x{u_r}\}_K\}_H
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big)
}\nonumber \\
&&\displaystyle{
+ \sum_{r,t\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\,
\{{u_t}_y \{{u_i}_\lambda{u_r}\}_H\}_H
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big)
\,,
}\nonumber \\
\label{20111121:eq3c}
&&\displaystyle{
J^3 = \{{\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_j}\}_2}_{\lambda+\mu}{u_k}\}_2
} \\
&&\displaystyle{
=\sum_{r,s\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\,
{\{{\{{u_s}_x{u_j}\}_H}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}{u_r}\}_H}_\to
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}\!\!\!R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
}\nonumber \\
&&\displaystyle{
- \sum_{r,s,t\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\,
{\{{\{{u_s}_x{u_t}\}_K}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}{u_r}\}_H}_\to
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\!\Big)
R^*_{tj}(\mu)
}\nonumber \\
&&\displaystyle{
+ \sum_{r,t\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\,
{\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_t}\}_H}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}{u_r}\}_H}_\to
R^*_{tj}(\mu)
\,.
}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We need to prove that $J^1-J^2-J^3=0$.
The first term of the RHS of \eqref{20111121:eq3a} combined with the first term of the RHS of \eqref{20111121:eq3b}
gives, by the Jacobi identity for $H$ and by equation \eqref{20111121:eq2},
\begin{equation}\label{20111121:eq4a}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{s,t\in I}
\!\!
\Big(\{{u_s}_x \{{u_t}_y{u_k}\}_H\}_H - \{{u_j}_y \{{u_s}_x{u_k}\}_H\}_H\Big)\!\!
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)\!\!
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{s,t\in I}
\{{\{{u_s}_x{u_t}\}_H}_{x+y}{u_k}\}_H\}
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{r,s,t\in I}
\!\!
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\{{\{{u_s}_x{u_t}\}_H}_{x+y}{u_r}\}_K
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
\!\!\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big).
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Similarly,
the third term of the RHS of \eqref{20111121:eq3a} combined with the first term of the RHS of \eqref{20111121:eq3c}
gives, by the Jacobi identity for $H$ and by equation \eqref{20111121:eq1b},
\begin{equation}\label{20111121:eq4b}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{r,s\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\,
\Big(\{{u_s}_x \{{u_j}_\mu{u_r}\}_H\}_H
-{\{{\{{u_s}_x{u_j}\}_H}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}{u_r}\}_H}_\to\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
=
\sum_{r,s\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\,
\{{u_j}_\mu \{{u_s}_x{u_r}\}_H\}_H
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{r,s,t\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\,
\{{u_t}_y \{{u_s}_x{u_r}\}_H\}_K
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big)\,.
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
In the same way,
the third term of the RHS of \eqref{20111121:eq3b} combined with the third term of the RHS of \eqref{20111121:eq3c}
gives, by the Jacobi identity for $H$ and by equation \eqref{20111121:eq1a},
\begin{equation}\label{20111121:eq4c}
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
-\sum_{r,t\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\,
\Big(
\{{u_t}_y \{{u_i}_\lambda{u_r}\}_H\}_H
+{\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_t}\}_H}_{\lambda+y}{u_r}\}_H}
\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big)
=
-\sum_{r,t\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\,
\{{u_i}_\lambda \{{u_t}_y{u_r}\}_H\}_H
} \\
\displaystyle{
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big)
=
-\sum_{r,s,t\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\,
\{{u_s}_\lambda \{{u_t}_y{u_r}\}_H\}_K
} \\
\displaystyle{
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big)\,.
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Finally, combining the second term in the RHS of \eqref{20111121:eq3a}, \eqref{20111121:eq3b} and \eqref{20111121:eq3c},
together with the RHS of equations \eqref{20111121:eq4a}, \eqref{20111121:eq4b} and \eqref{20111121:eq4c},
we get
$$
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
J^1-J^2-J^3=
\sum_{r,s,t\in I}
R_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)\,
\Big(
-\{{u_s}_x \{{u_t}_y{u_r}\}_K\}_H
} \\
\displaystyle{
+\{{u_t}_y \{{u_s}_x{u_r}\}_K\}_H
+{\{{\{{u_s}_x{u_t}\}_K}_{x+y}{u_r}\}_H}_\to
+\{{\{{u_s}_x{u_t}\}_H}_{x+y}{u_r}\}_K
} \\
\displaystyle{
+\{{u_t}_y \{{u_s}_x{u_r}\}_H\}_K
-\{{u_s}_\lambda \{{u_t}_y{u_r}\}_H\}_K
\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}R^*_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}R^*_{tj}(\mu)\Big)\,,
}
\end{array}
$$
which is zero since, by assumption, $H$ and $K$ are compatible.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{20111122:rem}
The proof of Lemma \ref{20111116:lem1} does not use the assumption that $K$
is a Hamiltonian structure.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{20111021:thm}]
We prove, by induction on $n\geq1$, that the rational matrix pseudodifferential operators
$$
H^{[0]}=K,\,H^{[1]}=H,\dots,H^{[n]}
\,\in\mathop{\rm Mat }{}_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)\,,
$$
form a compatible family of non-local Hamiltonian structures on $\mc V$.
For $n=1$, this holds by assumption.
Assuming by induction that the statement holds for $n\geq1$,
we will prove that it holds for $n+1$.
Namely,
thanks to the observations at the beginning of the section,
we need to prove that
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item
$J(H^{[n+1]},H^{[n+1]})=0$,
\item
$J(H^{[m]},H^{[n+1]})+J(H^{[n+1]},H^{[m]})=0$
for every $m=0,\dots,n$.
\end{enumerate}
By the inductive assumption, $\tilde H=\sum_{i=0}^nx_iH^{[i]}$
is a Hamiltonian structure for every $x_0,\dots,x_n\in\mb F$.
Hence, by Lemma \ref{20111116:lem1},
we get the following Hamiltonian structure for every point $(x_0,\dots,x_n)\in\mb F^{n+1}$:
$$
\tilde H\circ K^{-1}\circ\tilde H
=
\sum_{i,j=0}^nx_ix_j H^{[i]}\circ K^{-1}\circ H^{[j]}
=
\sum_{p=0}^{2n}Q_p(x_0,\dots,x_n) H^{[p]}\,,
$$
where, for $p=0,\dots,2n$,
\begin{equation}\label{20111116:eq4}
Q_p(x_0,\dots,x_n)=
\sum_{\substack{i,j=0 \\ (i+j=p)}}^n x_ix_j\,.
\end{equation}
We thus get
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
0=J(\tilde H K^{-1}\tilde H,\tilde H K^{-1}\tilde H)
=
\sum_{p=0}^{2n}Q_p^2(x_0,\dots,x_n) J(H^{[p]},H^{[p]})
} \\
\displaystyle{
+\sum_{\substack{p,q=0 \\ (p<q)}}^{2n}Q_p(x_0,\dots,x_n) Q_q(x_0,\dots,x_n)
\big(J(H^{[p]},H^{[q]})+J(H^{[q]},H^{[p]})\big)\,,
}
\end{array}
$$
for every $(x_0,\dots,x_n)\in\mb F^{n+1}$.
Note that, by the inductive assumption, $J(H^{[p]},H^{[p]})=0$
for every $0\leq p\leq n$
and $J(H^{[p]},H^{[q]})+J(H^{[q]},H^{[p]})=0$ for every $0\leq p<q\leq n$.
Hence the above equation gives
\begin{equation}\label{20111116:eq5}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{p=n+1}^{2n} Q_p^2(x_0,\dots,x_n) J(H^{[p]},H^{[p]})
} \\
\displaystyle{
+\sum_{p=0}^n\sum_{q=n+1}^{2n} Q_p(x_0,\dots,x_n) Q_q(x_0,\dots,x_n)
\big(J(H^{[p]},H^{[q]})+J(H^{[q]},H^{[p]})\big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
+\!\sum_{\substack{p,q=n+1 \\ (p<q)}}^{2n} Q_p(x_0,\dots,x_n) Q_q(x_0,\dots,x_n)
\big(J(H^{[p]},H^{[q]})+J(H^{[q]},H^{[p]})\big)=0
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for every $(x_0,\dots,x_n)\in\mb F^{n+1}$.
Next, we introduce a grading in the algebra of polynomials in $x_0,\dots,x_n$,
letting $\deg(x_i)=i$.
Then $Q_p(x_0,\dots,x_n)$ is homogeneous of degree $p$.
By looking at the terms of degree $d=2n+2$ in equation \eqref{20111116:eq5},
we get
\begin{equation}\label{20111116:eq6}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
Q_{n+1}^2(x_0,\dots,x_n) J(H^{[n+1]},H^{[n+1]})
+\sum_{p=2}^n
Q_p(x_0,\dots,x_n)
} \\
\displaystyle{
Q_{2n+2-p}(x_0,\dots,x_n)
\big(J(H^{[p]},H^{[2n+2-p]})+J(H^{[2n+2-p]},H^{[p]})\big)=0\,,
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
while,
by looking at the terms of degree $d=m+n+1$ with $m\in\{0,\dots,n\}$
in equation \eqref{20111116:eq5}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{20111116:eq7}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{p=0}^m
Q_p(x_0,\dots,x_n) Q_{m+n+1-p}(x_0,\dots,x_n)
} \\
\displaystyle{
\big(J(H^{[p]},H^{[m+n+1-p]})+J(H^{[m+n+1-p]},H^{[p]})\big)=0\,,
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for every $(x_0,\dots,x_n)\in\mb F^{n+1}$.
To conclude the proof, we only need to show that equations \eqref{20111116:eq6} and \eqref{20111116:eq7}
imply respectively relations (i) and (ii) above.
This is a consequence of the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{20111116:lem2}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
For every $n\geq1$,
\begin{equation}\label{20111117:eq1}
Q_{n+1}^2(x_0,\dots,x_n)\not\in
\mathop{\rm Span }{}_{\mb F}\Big\{Q_p(x_0,\dots,x_n) Q_{2n+2-p}(x_0,\dots,x_n)\Big\}_{2\leq p\leq n}\,.
\end{equation}
\item
For every $n\geq1$ and $m\in\{0,\dots,n\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{20111117:eq2}
Q_m Q_{n+1}
\not\in\mathop{\rm Span }{}_{\mb F}\Big\{Q_p Q_{m+n+1-p}\Big\}_{0\leq p\leq m-1}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that,
$$
\begin{array}{l}
Q_p(0,\dots,0,x_k,\dots,x_n) \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{\substack{i,j=k \\ (i+j=p)}}^nx_ix_j=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \text{ if } p<2k\,,\\
x_k^2 & \text{ if } p=2k\,,\\
\displaystyle{
2x_kx_{p-k}+\dots } & \text{ if } p>2k\,.
\end{array}\right.
}
\end{array}
$$
We prove part (a) separately in the cases when $n$ is even and odd.
If $n=2k-1$ is odd, letting $x_0=\dots=x_{k-1}=0$ we have
$Q_{n+1}=x_k^2\neq0$, and $Q_p=0$ for all $p=2,\dots,n=2k-1$.
This implies \eqref{20111117:eq1} for odd $n$.
If $n=2$, we have $Q_2=2x_0x_2+x_1^2,\,Q_3=2x_1x_2,\,Q_4=x_2^2$,
hence $Q_3^2\not\in\mb FQ_2Q_4$.
If $n=2k$ with $k\geq2$, letting $x_0=\dots=x_{k-1}=0$ we have
$Q_p=0$ for all $p=2,\dots,n-1$,
$Q_n=x_k^2$,
$Q_{n+1}=2x_kx_{k+1}$,
$Q_{n+2}=2x_kx_{k+2}+x_{k+1}^2$.
Since $Q_{n+1}^2=4x_k^2x_{k+1}^2$ is not a multiple of $Q_nQ_{n+2}=2x_k^3x_{k+2}+x_k^2x_{k+1}^2$,
\eqref{20111117:eq1} holds for even $n$.
Similarly, we prove part (b) separately in the cases when $m$ is even and odd.
If $m=2k$ is even, letting $x_0=\dots=x_{k-1}=0$ we have
$Q_{m}Q_{n+1}=x_k^2Q_{n+1}\neq0$, and $Q_p=0$ for all $p=2,\dots,m-1$.
Hence \eqref{20111117:eq2} holds for even $m$.
For $m=1\leq n$, we have $Q_0=x_0^2,\,Q_1=2x_0x_1,\,Q_{n+1}=2x_1x_n+\dots$.
Therefore, $Q_0Q_{n+2}$ is divisible by $x_0^2$, while $Q_1Q_{n+1}=2x_0x_1(2x_1x_n+\dots)$ is not.
Finally, if $m=2k+1$ is odd, with $k\geq1$, letting $x_0=\dots=x_{k-1}=0$ we have
$Q_p=0$ for all $p=2,\dots,m-2$,
$Q_{m-1}=x_k^2$,
$Q_{m}=2x_kx_{k+1}$,
$Q_{n+1}=2x_kx_{n+1-k}+2x_{k+1}x_{n-k}+\dots$.
Hence, $Q_{m-1}Q_{n+2}=x_k^2Q_{n+2}$ is divisible by $x_k^2$,
while $Q_mQ_{n+1}=4x_k^2x_{k+1}x_{n+1-k}+4x_kx_{k+1}^2x_{n-k}+\dots$ is not,
proving \eqref{20111117:eq2} for odd $m$.
\end{proof}
\end{proof}
\begin{example}\label{20120224:vic}
Let $K=\partial^3,\,H=\partial^2\circ\frac1u\partial\circ\frac1u\partial^2$. These are compatible Hamiltonian
structures (see \cite{DSKW10}).
Hence, by Theorem \ref{20111021:thm},
$$
H^{[n]}=(H\circ K^{-1})^{n-1}\circ H
=\partial^2\circ (\frac1u\circ \partial)^{2n}\circ\partial
\,\,,\,\,\,\,n\in\mb Z_+\,,
$$
are compatible Hamiltonian structures.
This was proved in \cite{DSKW10} by direct verification,
and deduced from Theorem \ref{20111021:thm} in \cite{TT11}.
\end{example}
\section{Symplectic structures and Dirac structures in terms of non-local Hamiltonian structures}
\label{sec:5}
\subsection{Simplectic structure as inverse of a non-local Hamiltonian structure}
\label{sec:5.1}
As in the previous sections,
let $\mc V$ be an algebra of differential functions in the variables $u_1,\dots,u_\ell$,
which is a domain, and let $\mc K$ be its field of fractions.
Recall that (see e.g. \cite{BDSK09}) a \emph{symplectic structure} on $\mc V$
is an $\ell\times\ell$ matrix differential operator
$S=\big(S_{ij}(\partial)\big)_{i,j\in I}\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$
which is skewadjoint and satisfies the
following \emph{symplectic identity}:
\begin{equation}\label{20111012:eq1}
\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}\Big(
\frac{\partial S_{ki}(\mu)}{\partial u_j^{(n)}} \lambda^n
-\frac{\partial S_{kj}(\lambda)}{\partial u_i^{(n)}} \mu^n
+(-\lambda-\mu-\partial)^n \frac{\partial S_{ij}(\lambda)}{\partial u_k^{(n)}}
\Big)=0\,.
\end{equation}
We can write the symplectic identity \eqref{20111012:eq1} in terms
of the \emph{Beltrami} $\lambda$-\emph{bracket}
$\langle\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\rangle:\,\mc V\times\mc V\to\mc V[\lambda]$,
introduced in \cite{BDSK09}.
It is defined as the symmetric $\lambda$-bracket such that $\langle {u_i}_\lambda u_j\rangle=\delta_{ij}$,
and extended by the Master Formula \eqref{20110922:eq1}:
$$
\langle f_\lambda g\rangle
=
\sum_{\substack{ i\in I \\ m,n\in\mb Z_+}}(-1)^m
\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}(\lambda+\partial)^{m+n}\frac{\partial f}{u_i^{(m)}}\,.
$$
Then, the symplectic identity \eqref{20111012:eq1} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{20111017:eq1}
\langle {u_j}_\lambda\{{u_i}_\mu{u_k}\}_S\rangle
-\langle {u_i}_\mu\{{u_j}_\lambda{u_k}\}_S\rangle
+\langle {\{{u_j}_\lambda {u_i}\}_S}_{\lambda+\mu}{u_k}\rangle=0
\,,
\end{equation}
where, recalling \eqref{20110922:eq1}, we let $\{{u_j}_\lambda{u_i}\}_S=S_{ij}(\lambda)$.
Note that,
if $S\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$
is a rational matrix pseudodifferential operator with coefficients in $\mc V$,
then, by Corollary \ref{20111007:prop}, all three terms in the LHS of equation \eqref{20111017:eq1}
lie in $\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}$. Hence, equation \eqref{20111017:eq1} still makes sense
(as an equation in $\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}$).
\begin{definition}\label{20111017:def}
A \emph{non-local symplectic structure} on $\mc V$
is a skewadjoint rational matrix pseudodifferential operator
$S=\big(S_{ij}(\partial)\big)_{i,j\in I}\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$
with coefficients in $\mc V$,
satisftying equation \eqref{20111017:eq1} in $\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}$ for all $i,j,k\in I$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{20111012:thm}
Let $S\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$ be a skewadjoint
rational matrix pseudodifferential operator with coefficients in
the algebra of differential functions $\mc V$.
Assume that $S$ is an invertible element of the algebra $\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$.
Then, $S$ is a non-local symplectic structure on $\mc V$ if and only if
$S^{-1}$ is a non-local Hamiltonian structure on $\mc V$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Clearly, $S$ is skewadjoint if and only if $S^{-1}$ is skewadjoint.
Hence, recalling the Definition \ref{20111007:def} of non-local Hamiltonian structure,
we only need to show that equation \eqref{20111012:eq1} in $\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}$
is equivalent to the Jacobi identity \eqref{20110922:eq4}, again in $\mc V_{\lambda,\mu}$,
for $H=S^{-1}$.
By equation \eqref{20111012:eq2a}, Remark \ref{20111104:rem},
and the Master Formula \eqref{20110922:eq1}, we have,
letting $S_{ij}(\partial)=\sum_{p=-\infty}^Ns_{ij;p}\partial^p$,
\begin{equation}\label{20111018:eq1}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\{{u_i}_\lambda\{{u_j}_\mu{u_k}\}_H\}_H
=
\big\{{u_i}_\lambda (S^{-1})_{kj}(\mu)\big\}_{S^{-1}}
=
}\\
\displaystyle{
-\sum_{r,t=1}^\ell\sum_{p=-\infty}^N
(S^{-1})_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\{{u_i}_\lambda s_{rt;p}\}_{S^{-1}} (\mu+\partial)^p (S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)
}\\
\displaystyle{
=
-\sum_{r,s,t\in I,\,n\in\mb Z_+}
(S^{-1})_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\Big(
(\lambda+\partial)^n
(S^{-1})_{si}(\lambda)
\Big)
}\\
\displaystyle{
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\Big(
\frac{\partial S_{rt}(\mu+\partial)}{\partial u_s^{(n)}}
(S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)
\Big)
\,.
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Exchanging $i$ with $j$ and $\lambda$ with $\mu$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{20111018:eq2}
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
\{{u_j}_\mu\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_k}\}_H\}_H
=
-\sum_{r,s,t\in I,\,n\in\mb Z_+}
(S^{-1})_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
}\\
\displaystyle{
\Big(
(\mu+\partial)^n
(S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)
\Big)
\Big(
\frac{\partial S_{rs}(\lambda+\partial)}{\partial u_t^{(n)}}
(S^{-1})_{si}(\lambda)
\Big)
\,.
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Similarly, by equation \eqref{20111012:eq2b} and Remark \ref{20111104:rem}, we have,
using the assumption that $S$ is skewadjoint,
\begin{equation}\label{20111018:eq3}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_j}\}_H}_{\lambda+\mu}{u_k}\}_H
=
\big\{(S^{-1})_{ji}(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu}{u_k}\big\}_{S^{-1}}
}\\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{s,t=1}^\ell\sum_{p=-\infty}^N
{\{{s_{ts;p}}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}{u_k}\}_{S^{-1}}}_\to
(S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu) (\lambda+\partial)^p (S^{-1})_{si}(\lambda)
}\\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{r,s,t\in I,\,m\in\mb Z_+}
(S^{-1})_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
(-\lambda-\mu-\partial)^m
}\\
\displaystyle{
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\Big(
(S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)
\frac{\partial S_{ts}(\lambda+\partial)}{\partial u_r^{(m)}} (S^{-1})_{si}(\lambda)
\Big)
\,.
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Combining equations \eqref{20111018:eq1}, \eqref{20111018:eq2} and \eqref{20111018:eq3},
we get that the LHS of the Jacobi identity \eqref{20110922:eq4} is
\begin{equation}\label{20111018:eq4}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\{{u_i}_\lambda\{{u_j}_\mu {u_k}\}_H\}_H-\{{u_j}_\mu\{{u_i}_\lambda {u_k}\}_H\}_H
-\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda {u_j}\}_H}_{\lambda+\mu} {u_k}\}_H
} \\
\displaystyle{
=\sum_{r,s,t\in I,\,n\in\mb Z_+}
(S^{-1})_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\Bigg(
-\frac{\partial S_{rt}(y)}{\partial u_s^{(n)}}x^n
+\frac{\partial S_{rs}(x)}{\partial u_t^{(n)}}y^n
} \\
\displaystyle{
-(-x-y-\partial)^n
\frac{\partial S_{ts}(x)}{\partial u_r^{(n)}}
\Bigg)
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}(S^{-1})_{si}(\lambda)\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}(S^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)\Big)
\,,
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where we used the notation introduced in \eqref{20111018:eq5}.
Clearly, the RHS of \eqref{20111018:eq4} is zero, provided that the symplectic identity \eqref{20111012:eq1} holds.
For the opposite implication,
we have, by \eqref{20111018:eq4},
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,k\in I}
S_{\gamma k}(x+y+\partial)
\Bigg(\{{u_i}_x\{{u_j}_y {u_k}\}_H\}_H-\{{u_j}_y\{{u_i}_x {u_k}\}_H\}_H
} \\
\displaystyle{
-\{{\{{u_i}_x {u_j}\}_H}_{x+y} {u_k}\}_H
\Bigg)
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial} S_{i\alpha}(\lambda)\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}S_{j\beta}(\mu)\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
\Bigg(
-\frac{\partial S_{\gamma\beta}(\mu)}{\partial u_\alpha^{(n)}}\lambda^n
+\frac{\partial S_{\gamma\alpha}(\lambda)}{\partial u_\beta^{(n)}}\mu^n
-(-\lambda-\mu-\partial)^n
\frac{\partial S_{\beta\alpha}(\lambda)}{\partial u_\gamma^{(n)}}
\Bigg)
\,.
}
\end{array}
$$
Hence, equation \eqref{20110922:eq4} implies equation \eqref{20111012:eq1}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Dirac structure in terms of non-local Hamiltonian structure}
\label{sec:5.2}
Let $\mc V$ be an algebra of differential functions, which is a domain,
and let $\mc K$ be its field of fractions.
Given a set $J$ and an element $X\in\mc V^J$,
we define the \emph{Frechet derivative} of $X$ as the differential operator
$D_X(\partial):\,\mc V^\ell\to\mc V^J$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{20111020:eq1}
\big(D_X(\partial)P\big)_i
=\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}\sum_{j\in I}\frac{\partial X_i}{\partial u_j^{(n)}} \partial^n P_j\,.
\end{equation}
Its adjoint operator is the map $D_X^*(\partial):\,\mc V^{\oplus J}\to\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$ given by:
\begin{equation}\label{20111020:eq2}
\big(D_X^*(\partial)Y\big)_i
=\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}\sum_{j\in I}(-\partial)^n\Big(\frac{\partial X_j}{\partial u_i^{(n)}} Y_j\Big)\,.
\end{equation}
Here and further, for a possibly infinite set $J$, $\mc V^{\oplus J}$
denotes the space of column vectors in $\mc V^J$ with only finitely many non-zero entries.
(Though in this paper we do not consider any example with infinite $\ell$,
we still distinguish $\mc V^\ell$ and $\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$ as a book-keeping device).
The following identity can be checked directly and it will be useful later:
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq1}
\tint X\cdot D_Y(\partial)P+\tint Y\cdot D_X(\partial)P
=\tint P\cdot \frac{\delta}{\delta u}(X\cdot Y)\,,
\end{equation}
for all $X\in\mc V^J,\,Y\in\mc V^{\oplus J},\,P\in\mc V^\ell$.
We have the usual pairing $\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\times\mc V^\ell\to\mc V/\partial\mc V$
given by $(F|P)=\tint F\cdot P$.
This pairing is non-degenerate (see e.g. \cite[Prop.1.3(a)]{BDSK09}).
We extend it to a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form
\begin{equation}\label{20111020:eq3}
\langle\cdot\,|\,\cdot\rangle\,:\,\,
\big(\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc V^\ell\big)\times\big(\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc V^\ell\big)\to\mc V/\partial\mc V\,,
\end{equation}
given by
$\langle F\oplus P|G\oplus Q\rangle=\tint (F\cdot Q+G\cdot P)$.
The \emph{Courant-Dorfman product} is the following product
on the space $\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc V^{\ell}$:
\begin{equation}\label{20111020:eq5}
(F\oplus P)\circ(G\oplus Q)
=
\big(
D_G(\partial)P+D_P^*(\partial)G-D_F(\partial)Q+D_F^*(\partial)Q
\big)
\oplus
[P,Q]\,,
\end{equation}
where, for $P,Q\in\mc V^\ell$, we let
\begin{equation}\label{20120126:eq1}
[P,Q]
=
D_Q(\partial)P-D_P(\partial)Q\,.
\end{equation}
The above formula takes a simpler form when $F$ and $G$ are variational derivatives
(see \cite[Rem.4.6]{BDSK09}):
\begin{equation}\label{20120127:eq1}
\Big(\frac{\delta \tint f}{\delta u}\oplus P\Big)\circ\Big(\frac{\delta \tint g}{\delta u}\oplus Q\Big)
=
\frac{\delta}{\delta u}\Big(\int P\cdot\frac{\delta g}{\delta u}\Big)\oplus[P,Q]
\,.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}\label{20111020:rem1}
All the above notions have a natural interpretation from the point of view of variational calculus.
Indeed, the space $\mc V^\ell$ is naturally identified with the Lie algebra of evolutionary vector fields $\mf g^\partial$,
and the space $\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$ is naturally identified with the space
of variational 1-forms $\Omega^1$.
Then the contraction of variational 1-forms by evolutionary vector fields gives the inner product \eqref{20111020:eq3};
the Courant-Dorfman product corresponds to the derived bracket
$[\cdot\,,\,\cdot]_d$, where $[\cdot\,,\,\cdot]$ is the Lie superalgebra bracket
on the space of endomorphisms of the space of all de Rham forms over $\mc V$,
and $d=\mathop{\rm ad }(\delta)$, where $\delta$ is the de Rham differential, \cite[Prop.4.2]{BDSK09}.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}[\cite{Dor93,BDSK09}]\label{20111020:def}
A \emph{Dirac structure} is a subspace $\mc L\subset\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc V^{\ell}$,
which is maximal isotropic with respect to the inner product \eqref{20111020:eq3},
and which is closed under the Courant-Dorfman product \eqref{20111020:eq5}.
\end{definition}
Given two $\ell\times\ell$
matrix differential operators $A,B\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$
consider the following subspace of $\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc V^{\ell}$:
\begin{equation}\label{20120109:eq1}
\mc L_{A,B}=\big\{B(\partial)X\oplus A(\partial)X\,\big|\,X\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\big\} \,.
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}\label{20120103:propa}
The subspace $\mc L_{A,B}\subset\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc V^{\ell}$ is isotropic
with respect to the inner product \eqref{20111020:eq3}
if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{20120107:eq1}
A^*\circ B+B^*\circ A=0\,.
\end{equation}
If, moreover, $\det B\neq0$ (i.e. $B$ is invertible
in the algebra $\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell} \mc K((\partial^{-1}))$),
then \eqref{20120107:eq1} holds if and only if
$A\circ B^{-1}\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell} \mc K((\partial^{-1}))$
is skewadjiont,
while if $\det A\neq0$,
then \eqref{20120107:eq1} holds if and only if
$B\circ A^{-1}\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell} \mc K((\partial^{-1}))$
is skewadjiont.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For $X,Y\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$ we have
$$
\langle B(\partial)X\oplus A(\partial)X\,|\,B(\partial)Y\oplus A(\partial)Y\rangle
=\tint Y\cdot\big(A^*(\partial)B(\partial)+B^*(\partial)A(\partial)\big)X\,.
$$
Hence, due to non-degeeracy of the pairing $(F|P)=\tint F\cdot P$,
the space $\mc L_{A,B}$ is isotropic if and only if \eqref{20120107:eq1} holds.
The remaining statements are straightforward.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}\label{20120124:ex0}
Letting $A\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V$ and $B={1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}_\ell\,\partial$,
condition \eqref{20120107:eq1} holds
if and only if $A$ is a symmetric matrix with entries in $\mc C\subset\mc V$
(the subring of constant functions).
In this case $AB^{-1}$ is a skewadjont matrix pseudodifferential operator
and
$\mc L_{A,B}=\big\{AX\oplus\partial X\,\big|\,X\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\big\}$
is an isotropic subspace of $\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc V^\ell$.
It is not hard to show directly that
$\mc L_{A,B}$ is maximal isotropic if and only if
the matrix $A$ is non-degenerate.
When $\mc V=\mc K$ is a differential field, this is a corollary of the following general result:
\end{example}
\begin{proposition}[\cite{CDSK12b}]\label{prop:max-isotrop}
Let $\mc K$ be a differential field,
and let $H=AB^{-1}$ be a minimal fractional decomposition
of the skewadjoint rational matrix pseudodifferential operator $H\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc K(\partial)$.
Then the subspace $\mc L_{A,B}\subset\mc K^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc K^\ell$
is maximal isotropic with respect to the inner product \eqref{20111020:eq3}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{20120103:propb}
Suppose that $A,B\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$
satisfy equation \eqref{20120107:eq1}.
Then the following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item
$\langle X\circ Y,Z\rangle=0$ for all $X,Y,Z\in\mc L_{A,B}$.
\item
for every $F,G\in\mc V^{\ell}$ one has:
\begin{equation}\label{20120103:eq1}
\begin{array}{l}
A^*(\partial)D_{B(\partial)G}(\partial)A(\partial)F
+A^*(\partial)D_{A(\partial)F}^*(\partial)B(\partial)G \\
-A^*(\partial)D_{B(\partial)F}(\partial)A(\partial)G
+A^*(\partial)D_{B(\partial)F}^*(\partial)A(\partial)G \\
+B^*(\partial)D_{A(\partial)G}(\partial)A(\partial)F
-B^*(\partial)D_{A(\partial)F}(\partial)A(\partial)G\,=\,0\,.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\item
for every $i,j,k\in I$, one has in the space $\mc V[\lambda,\mu]$:
\end{enumerate}
\begin{equation}\label{20120103:eq2}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{\substack{s,t\in I \\ n\in\mb Z_+}}
\!\Bigg(\!
A^*_{ks}(\lambda+\mu+\partial) \bigg(
\frac{\partial B_{sj}(\mu)}{\partial u_t^{(n)}} (\lambda+\partial)^nA_{ti}(\lambda)
-
\frac{\partial B_{si}(\lambda)}{\partial u_t^{(n)}} (\mu+\partial)^nA_{tj}(\mu)
\!\bigg)
} \\
\displaystyle{
+B^*_{ks}(\lambda+\mu+\partial) \bigg(
\frac{\partial A_{sj}(\mu)}{\partial u_t^{(n)}}
(\lambda+\partial)^nA_{ti}(\lambda)
-
\frac{\partial A_{si}(\lambda)}{\partial u_t^{(n)}}
(\mu+\partial)^nA_{tj}(\mu)
\bigg)
} \\
\displaystyle{
+A^*_{ks}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
(-\lambda-\mu-\partial)^n
\bigg(
\!
\frac{\partial A_{ti}(\lambda)}{\partial u_s^{(n)}}
B_{tj}(\mu)
+
\frac{\partial B_{ti}(\lambda)}{\partial u_s^{(n)}}
A_{tj}(\mu)
\bigg)
\!\Bigg)
=\,0\,.
}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Letting
$X=B(\partial)F\oplus A(\partial)F,\,Y=B(\partial)G\oplus A(\partial)G,\,Z=B(\partial)E\oplus A(\partial)E$,
condition (i) reads
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\tint
\big(A(\partial)E\big)
\cdot \big(D_{B(\partial)G}(\partial)A(\partial)F
+D_{A(\partial)F}^*(\partial)B(\partial)G
-D_{B(\partial)F}(\partial) A(\partial)G
\\
+D_{B(\partial)F}^*(\partial)A(\partial)G\big)
\!+\!
\big(B(\partial)E\big)
\!\!\cdot\!\!
\big(D_{A(\partial)G}(\partial)A(\partial)F
\!-\!
D_{A(\partial)F}(\partial)A(\partial)G\big)
\!=\!0
.
\end{array}
$$
Since the above equation holds for every $E\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$
it reduces, integrating by parts, to equation \eqref{20120103:eq1}.
For this we use the non-degeneracy of the pairing \eqref{20111020:eq3}.
This proves that conditions (i) and (ii) are equivalent.
We next prove that conditions (ii) and (iii) are equivalent,
provided that \eqref{20120107:eq1} holds.
For $\alpha=1,\dots,6$, let \eqref{20120103:eq1}$_\alpha$
be the $k$-entry of the $\alpha$-th term of the LHS of \eqref{20120103:eq1}:
for example
\eqref{20120103:eq1}$_1=\big(A^*(\partial)D_{B(\partial)G}(\partial)A(\partial)F\big)_k$.
We have, by the definition of the Frechet derivative and some algebraic manipulations
(similar to those used in the proof of \cite[Prop.1.16]{BDSK09}),
$$
\begin{array}{rcl}
\eqref{20120103:eq1}_1&=&
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,s,t\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
\bigg(
A^*_{ks} (\partial)\Big(\frac{\partial B_{sj}(\partial)}{\partial u_t^{(n)}} G_j\Big) \partial^n A_{ti}(\partial)F_i
}\\&&
\displaystyle{
+
A^*_{ks}(\partial)B_{sj}(\partial) \frac{\partial G_j}{\partial u_t^{(n)}} \partial^n A_{ti}(\partial)F_i
\bigg)
\,,} \\
\eqref{20120103:eq1}_2&=&
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,s,t\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
\bigg(
A^*_{ks}(\partial) (-\partial)^n
\Big(\frac{\partial A_{ti}(\partial)}{\partial u_s^{(n)}} F_i\Big) B_{tj}(\partial)G_j
}\\&&
\displaystyle{
+
A^*_{ks}(\partial) (-\partial)^n
\frac{\partial F_i}{\partial u_s^{(n)}} A^*_{it}(\partial) B_{tj}(\partial)G_j
\bigg)
\,,} \\
\eqref{20120103:eq1}_3&=&
\displaystyle{
-\sum_{i,j,s,t\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
\bigg(
A^*_{ks} (\partial)\Big(\frac{\partial B_{si}(\partial)}{\partial u_t^{(n)}} F_i\Big) \partial^n A_{tj}(\partial)G_j
}\\&&
\displaystyle{
+
A^*_{ks}(\partial)B_{si}(\partial) \frac{\partial F_i}{\partial u_t^{(n)}} \partial^n A_{tj}(\partial)G_j
\bigg)
\,,}
\end{array}
$$
$$
\begin{array}{rcl}
\eqref{20120103:eq1}_4&=&
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,s,t\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
\bigg(
A^*_{ks}(\partial) (-\partial)^n
\Big(\frac{\partial B_{ti}(\partial)}{\partial u_s^{(n)}} F_i\Big) A_{tj}(\partial)G_j
}\\&&
\displaystyle{
+
A^*_{ks}(\partial) (-\partial)^n
\frac{\partial F_i}{\partial u_s^{(n)}} B^*_{it}(\partial) A_{tj}(\partial)G_j
\bigg)
\,,} \\
\eqref{20120103:eq1}_5&=&
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,s,t\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
\bigg(
B^*_{ks} (\partial)\Big(\frac{\partial A_{sj}(\partial)}{\partial u_t^{(n)}} G_j\Big) \partial^n A_{ti}(\partial)F_i
}\\&&
\displaystyle{
+
B^*_{ks}(\partial)A_{sj}(\partial) \frac{\partial G_j}{\partial u_t^{(n)}} \partial^n A_{ti}(\partial)F_i
\bigg)
\,,}
\end{array}
$$
$$
\begin{array}{rcl}
\eqref{20120103:eq1}_6&=&
\displaystyle{
-\sum_{i,j,s,t\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
\bigg(
B^*_{ks} (\partial)\Big(\frac{\partial A_{si}(\partial)}{\partial u_t^{(n)}} F_i\Big) \partial^n A_{tj}(\partial)G_j
}\\&&
\displaystyle{
+
B^*_{ks}(\partial)A_{si}(\partial) \frac{\partial F_i}{\partial u_t^{(n)}} \partial^n A_{tj}(\partial)G_j
\bigg)
\,.}
\end{array}
$$
Combining the second terms in the RHS
of \eqref{20120103:eq1}$_1$ and \eqref{20120103:eq1}$_5$
we get zero, thanks to equation \eqref{20120107:eq1}.
Similarly, we get zero if we combine the second terms in the RHS
of \eqref{20120103:eq1}$_2$ and \eqref{20120103:eq1}$_4$,
and if we combine the second terms in the RHS
of \eqref{20120103:eq1}$_3$ and \eqref{20120103:eq1}$_6$.
Equation \eqref{20120103:eq2} thus follows from equation \eqref{20120103:eq1}
once we replace $\partial$ acting on $F_i$ by $\lambda$,
and $\partial$ acting on $G_j$ by $\mu$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
It follows by Definition \ref{20111020:def} and Proposition \ref{20120103:propb}
that a Dirac structure is a maximal isotropic
subspace $\mc L$ of $\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc V^\ell$
satisfying one of the equivalent conditions (i)--(iii) above.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{20120103:propc}
Suppose that $A,B\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$
satisfy equation \eqref{20120107:eq1}
and assume that $B$ has non-zero Dieudonn\`e determinant.
Suppose, moreover, that
the (skewadjoint) rational matrix pseudodifferential operator
$H=A\circ B^{-1}$ has coefficients in $\mc V$, i.e. $H\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$.
Consider the corresponding non-local $\lambda$-bracket $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}_H$
given by the Master Formula \eqref{20110922:eq1}.
Then the Jacobi identity \eqref{20110922:eq4} on $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}_H$
is equivalent to equation \eqref{20120103:eq2} on the entries of matrices
$A$ and $B$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Letting $A_{st}(\partial)=\sum_{m=0}^Ma_{st;m}\partial^m$
and $B_{st}(\partial)=\sum_{n=0}^M b_{ij;n}\partial^n$.
By formula \eqref{20110923:eq1} and the left Leibniz rule \eqref{20110921:eq3}
we have,
$$
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
\{{u_i}_\lambda\{{u_j}_\mu{u_k}\}_H\}_H
=
\sum_{r\in I}
\{{u_i}_\lambda A_{kr}(\mu+\partial)B^{-1}_{rj}(\mu)\}_H
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{r\in I}\sum_{m=0}^M
\{{u_i}_\lambda a_{kr;m}\}_H (\mu+\partial)^m B^{-1}_{rj}(\mu)
} \\
\displaystyle{
+\sum_{r\in I}
A_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial) \{{u_i}_\lambda B^{-1}_{rj}(\mu)\}_H
\,.}
\end{array}
$$
By equation \eqref{20111012:eq2c} we have
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\{{u_i}_\lambda B^{-1}_{rj}(\mu)\}_H
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
-\sum_{s,t\in I} \sum_{m=0}^M
(B^{-1})_{rs}(\lambda+\mu+\partial) \{{u_i}_\lambda b_{st;m}\}_H (\mu+\partial)^m (B^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)\,.
}
\end{array}
$$
Combining the above two equations we then get, using the Master Formula \eqref{20110922:eq1},
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\{{u_i}_\lambda\{{u_j}_\mu{u_k}\}_H\}_H
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{r,s,t\in I}\sum_{m=0}^M\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
\frac{\partial a_{kr;m}}{\partial u_s^{(n)}}
\Big(
(\mu+\partial)^m B^{-1}_{rj}(\mu)
\Big)
\Big(
(\lambda+\partial)^n
A_{st}(\lambda+\partial)
B^{-1}_{ti}(\lambda)
\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
-\sum_{p,q,r,s,t\in I} \sum_{m=0}^M \sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
A_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
(B^{-1})_{rs}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
} \\
\displaystyle{
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\frac{\partial b_{st;m}}{\partial u_p^{(n)}}
\Big((\mu+\partial)^m (B^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)\Big)
\Big((\lambda+\partial)^n
A_{pq}(\lambda+\partial) B^{-1}_{qi}(\lambda)\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{r,s,t\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
\Big(
\frac{\partial A_{kr}(\mu+\partial)}{\partial u_s^{(n)}}
B^{-1}_{rj}(\mu)
\Big)
\Big(
(\lambda+\partial)^n
A_{st}(\lambda+\partial)
B^{-1}_{ti}(\lambda)
\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
-\sum_{p,q,r,s,t\in I} \sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
A_{kr}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
(B^{-1})_{rs}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
} \\
\displaystyle{
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\Big(
\frac{\partial B_{st}(\mu+\partial)}{\partial u_p^{(n)}}
(B^{-1})_{tj}(\mu)\Big)
\Big((\lambda+\partial)^n
A_{pq}(\lambda+\partial) B^{-1}_{qi}(\lambda)\Big)
\,.}
\end{array}
$$
Next, we apply $B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)$ to both sides of the above equation (on the left),
replace $\lambda$ by $\lambda+\partial$ acting on $B_{ii'}(\lambda)$,
replace $\mu$ by $\mu+\partial$ acting on $B_{jj'}(\mu)$,
and sum over $i,j,k\in I$.
As a result we get, using the assumption \eqref{20120107:eq1}
(see notation \eqref{20111018:eq5}),
\begin{equation}\label{20120109:eq2}
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,k\in I}B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\{{u_i}_x\{{u_j}_y{u_k}\}_H\}_H
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}B_{ii'}(\lambda)\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}B_{jj'}(\mu)\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{k,i\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
\bigg(
B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\frac{\partial A_{kj'}(\mu)}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}
(\lambda+\partial)^n
A_{ii'}(\lambda)
} \\
\displaystyle{
+
A^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\frac{\partial B_{kj'}(\mu)}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}
(\lambda+\partial)^n
A_{ii'}(\lambda)
\bigg)
\,.}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Exchanging $i'$ with $j'$ and $\lambda$ with $\mu$ in \eqref{20120109:eq2}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{20120109:eq3}
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,k\in I}B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\{{u_j}_y\{{u_i}_x{u_k}\}_H\}_H
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}B_{ii'}(\lambda)\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}B_{jj'}(\mu)\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\!\sum_{i,j,k\in I}B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\{{u_i}_x\{{u_j}_y{u_k}\}_H\}_H
\Big(\Big|_{x=\mu+\partial}B_{ij'}(\mu)\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\lambda+\partial}B_{ji'}(\lambda)\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{k,j\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
\bigg(
B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\frac{\partial A_{ki'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}
(\mu+\partial)^n
A_{jj'}(\mu)
} \\
\displaystyle{
+
A^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\frac{\partial B_{ki'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}
(\mu+\partial)^n
A_{jj'}(\mu)
\bigg)
\,.}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
We are left to study the third term in the Jacobi identity.
By the right Leibniz rule \eqref{20110921:eq3} we get,
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_j}\}_H}_{\lambda+\mu}{u_k}\}_H
=
\sum_{r\in I}
\{A_{jr}(\lambda+\partial)B^{-1}_{ri}(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu}{u_k}\}_H
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{r\in I}\sum_{m=0}^M
{\{{a_{jr;m}}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}{u_k}\}_H}_\to
(\lambda+\partial)^m B^{-1}_{ri}(\lambda)
} \\
\displaystyle{
+
\sum_{r\in I}\sum_{m=0}^M
{\{B^{-1}_{ri}(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}{u_k}\}_H}_\to
(-\mu-\partial)^m a_{jr;m}
\,.}
\end{array}
$$
By equation \eqref{20111012:eq2d} we have
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
{\{B^{-1}_{ri}(\lambda)_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}{u_k}\}_H}_\to
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
-\sum_{s,t=1}^\ell\sum_{m=0}^M
\{{b_{st;m}}_{\lambda+\mu+\partial}{u_k}\}_\to
\circ
\Big((\lambda+\partial)^m (B^{-1})_{ti}(\lambda)\Big)
({B^*}^{-1})_{sr}(\mu+\partial)
\,.}
\end{array}
$$
Combining the above two equations and using the Master Formula \eqref{20110922:eq1} we then get
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_j}\}_H}_{\lambda+\mu}{u_k}\}_H
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{\substack{r,s,t\in I \\ n\in\mb Z_+}}
A_{kt}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)B^{-1}_{ts}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
(-\lambda-\mu-\partial)^n
\frac{\partial A_{jr}(\lambda+\partial)}{\partial u_s^{(n)}} B^{-1}_{ri}(\lambda)
} \\
\displaystyle{
-
\sum_{\substack{r,p,q,s,t\in I \\ n\in\mb Z_+}}
A_{kq}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)B^{-1}_{qp}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
(-\lambda-\mu-\partial)^n
} \\
\displaystyle{
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\Big(
\frac{\partial B_{st}(\lambda+\partial)}{\partial u_p^{(n)}}
(B^{-1})_{ti}(\lambda)\Big)
\Big(({B^*}^{-1})_{sr}(\mu+\partial) A^*_{rj}(\mu)\Big)
\,.}
\end{array}
$$
Hence, if we apply, as before, $B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)$ on the left,
replace $\lambda$ by $\lambda+\partial$ acting on $B_{ii'}(\lambda)$,
replace $\mu$ by $\mu+\partial$ acting on $B_{jj'}(\mu)$,
and sum over $i,j,k\in I$, we get, using \eqref{20120107:eq1},
\begin{equation}\label{20120109:eq4}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,k\in I}B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\{{\{{u_i}_x{u_j}\}_H}_{x+y}{u_k}\}_H
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}B_{ii'}(\lambda)\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}B_{jj'}(\mu)\Big)
=
-\sum_{j,k\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
A^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
(-\lambda-\mu-\partial)^n
} \\
\displaystyle{
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\bigg(
\frac{\partial A_{ji'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_k^{(n)}} B_{jj'}(\mu)
+
\frac{\partial B_{ji'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_k^{(n)}}
A_{jj'}(\mu)
\bigg)
\,.}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{20120109:eq2}, \eqref{20120109:eq3} and \eqref{20120109:eq4},
we get that the expression
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,k\in I}B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\Big(
\{{u_i}_x\{{u_j}_y{u_k}\}_H\}_H
-\{{u_j}_y\{{u_i}_x{u_k}\}_H\}_H
} \\
\displaystyle{
-\{{\{{u_i}_x{u_j}\}_H}_{x+y}{u_k}\}_H
\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}B_{ii'}(\lambda)\Big)
\Big(\Big|_{y=\mu+\partial}B_{jj'}(\mu)\Big)
}
\end{array}
$$
is the same as the LHS of \eqref{20120103:eq2}.
The claim follows from the assumption that
the matrix $B\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$
has non-zero Dieudonn\`e determinant.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{20111020:thm}
Let $\mc V$ be an algebra of differential functions in the variables $u_1,\dots,u_\ell$,
which is a domain, and let $\mc K$ be its field of fractions.
Let $H=A B^{-1}$, with $A,B\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$, $\det B\neq0$,
be a minimal fractional decomposition (cf. Definition \ref{def:minimal-fraction}
and Remark \ref{rem:minimal-fraction2}) of the rational matrix pseudodifferential
operator $H\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$.
Then the subspace
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dirac}
\mc L_{A,B}(\mc K)=\big\{B(\partial)X\oplus A(\partial)A\,\big|\,X\in\mc K^{\oplus\ell}\big\}
\,\subset\mc K^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc K^\ell\,,
\end{equation}
is a Dirac structure if and only if
$H$ is a non-local Hamiltonian structure on $\mc V$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It immediately follows from Remark \ref{rem:minimal-fraction2}
and Propositions \ref{20120103:propa}, \ref{prop:max-isotrop},
\ref{20120103:propb} and \ref{20120103:propc}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
We may define a ``generalized'' Dirac structure
as a subspace $\mc L$ of $\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc V^\ell$,
such that $\mc L\subset\mc L^\perp$ (i.e. $\mc L$ is isotropic),
and $\mc L\circ\mc L\subset\mc L^\perp$ (i.e. condition (i) in Proposition \ref{20120103:propb} holds),
where $\mc L^\perp$ is the orthogonal complement to $\mc L$
with respect to the inner product \eqref{20111020:eq3}.
Note that a Dirac structure is a special case of this when $\mc L$ is maximal isotropic.
If $A,B\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$, $\det B\neq0$,
then $\mc L_{A,B}$ is a generalized Dirac structure
if and only if $H=AB^{-1}$ is a non-local Hamiltonian structure on $\mc V$
(not necessarily in its minimal fractional decomposition).
Note also that any subspace of a generalized Dirac structure is a generalized Dirac structure.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Compatible pairs of Dirac structures}
\label{sec:6.3}
The notion of compatibility of Dirac structures was introduced by Gelfand and Dorfman
\cite{GD80}, \cite{Dor93} (see also \cite{BDSK09}).
In this paper we introduce a weaker, but more natural,
notion of compatibility, which still can be used to implement successfully
the Lenard-Magri scheme of integrability, and which is more closely related
to the notion of compatibility of the corresponding non-local Hamiltonian structures.
Given two Dirac structures $\mc L$ and $\mc L^\prime\subset\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc V^\ell$,
we define the relations
\begin{equation}\label{eq:20090322_1}
\begin{array}{l}
\mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}
=
\big\{P\oplus P^\prime
\,\big|\,
F\oplus P\in\mc L,\,F\oplus P^\prime\in\mc L^\prime\,\text{ for some } F\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\big\}
\subset\mc V^\ell\oplus\mc V^\ell\,,
\\
\mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}\!\!\!\!\!\!\widecheck{}\,\,\,\,\,\,
=
\big\{F\oplus F^\prime
\,\big|\,
F\oplus P\in\mc L,\,F^\prime\oplus P\in\mc L^\prime\,\text{ for some } P\in\mc V^{\ell}\big\}
\subset\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\!\oplus\!\mc V^{\oplus\ell}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}\label{2006_NRel}
Two Dirac structures $\mc{L},\,\mc{L}^\prime\,\subset \mc V^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc V^\ell$
are said to be \emph{compatible} if
for all $P,P^\prime,Q,Q^\prime\in\mc V^\ell,\,
F,F^\prime,F^{\prime\prime}\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$
such that
$$
P\oplus P^\prime,\,Q\oplus Q^\prime\,\in\mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}
\,\,\,\,\text{ and }\,\,\,\,
F\oplus F^\prime,\,F^\prime\oplus F^{\prime\prime}
\in \mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}\!\!\!\!\!\!\widecheck{}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,,
$$
we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:20090320_1}
(F|[P,Q])-(F^\prime|[P,Q^\prime])-(F^\prime|[P^\prime,Q])
+(F^{\prime\prime}|[P^\prime,Q^\prime])\,=\,0\,,
\end{equation}
where, as before, $(F|P)=\tint F\cdot P$,
and, for $P,Q\in\mc V^\ell$, $[P,Q]$ is given by \eqref{20120126:eq1}.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{oldcompatibility}
The original notion of compatibility, introduced by Dorfman in \cite{Dor93},
is similar, except that $\mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}\!\!\!\!\!\!\widecheck{}\,\,\,\,\,\,$
is replaced by the ``dual'' relation
$$
\mc N^*_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}
\,=\,
\big\{F\oplus F^\prime\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc V^{\oplus\ell}
\,\big|\,
\tint F\cdot P=\tint F^\prime\cdot P^\prime\,\text{ for all } P\oplus P^\prime
\in\mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}\big\}\,.
$$
Since $\mc L$ and $\mc L^\prime$ are isotropic, we have, for
$F\oplus F^\prime\in\mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}\!\!\!\!\!\!\widecheck{}\,\,\,\,\,\,$,
and for $Q\oplus Q^\prime\in\mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}$,
$\tint F\cdot Q=-\tint G\cdot P=\tint F^\prime\cdot Q^\prime$,
where $P\in\mc V^\ell$ and $G\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$ are such that
$F\oplus P,G\oplus Q\in\mc L,\,F^\prime\oplus P,G\oplus Q^\prime\in\mc L^\prime$.
Hence, $\mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}\!\!\!\!\!\!\widecheck{}\,\,\,\,\,\,\subset\mc N^*_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}$.
\end{remark}
Even with the weaker notion of compatibility,
the following important theorem still holds (cf. \cite[Thm.4.13]{BDSK09}).
\begin{theorem}\label{mtst}
Let $(\mc L,\mc L^\prime)$ be a pair of compatible Dirac structures.
Let $F_0,F_1,F_2\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$ be such that:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item
$D_{F_n}^*(\partial)=D_{F_n}(\partial)$, for $n=0,1$;
\item
$F_0\oplus F_1,\,F_1\oplus F_2\,\in\mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}\!\!\!\!\!\!\widecheck{}\,\,\,\,\,\,$.
\end{enumerate}
Then, for all $P\oplus P^\prime,Q\oplus Q^\prime\in\mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq2}
\tint Q^\prime\cdot \big(D_{F_2}(\partial)-D_{F_2}^*(\partial)\big)P^\prime
=0\,.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By the assumption \eqref{eq:20090320_1}, we have
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
0=(F_0|[P,Q])-(F_1|[P,Q^\prime])-(F_1|[P^\prime,Q])
+(F_2|[P^\prime,Q^\prime])
} \\
\displaystyle{
=\int \Big(
F_0\cdot D_Q(\partial)P -F_0\cdot D_P(\partial)Q
-F_1\cdot D_{Q^\prime}(\partial)P +F_1\cdot D_P(\partial)Q^\prime
} \\
\displaystyle{
-F_1\cdot D_Q(\partial)P^\prime +F_1\cdot D_{P^\prime}(\partial)Q
+F_2\cdot D_{Q^\prime}(\partial)P^\prime -F_2\cdot D_{P^\prime}(\partial)Q^\prime
\Big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=\int P\cdot \frac{\delta}{\delta u} \big((F_0|Q)-(F_1|Q^\prime)\big)
-\int Q\cdot\frac{\delta}{\delta u} \big((F_0|P)-(F_1|P^\prime)\big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
-\int P^\prime\cdot \frac{\delta}{\delta u}\big((F_1|Q)- (F_2|Q^\prime)\big)
+\int Q^\prime\cdot \frac{\delta}{\delta u} \big((F_1|P)-(F_2|P^\prime)\big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
-\int Q\cdot D_{F_0}(\partial)P
+\int P\cdot D_{F_0}(\partial)Q
+\int {Q^\prime}\cdot D_{F_1}(\partial)P
-\int P\cdot D_{F_1}(\partial)Q^\prime
} \\
\displaystyle{
+\int Q\cdot D_{F_1}(\partial)P^\prime
-\int {P^\prime}\cdot D_{F_1}(\partial)Q
-\int {Q^\prime}\cdot D_{F_2}(\partial)P^\prime
+\int {P^\prime}\cdot D_{F_2}(\partial)Q^\prime
\,.
}\end{array}
$$
In the second identity we used the definition \eqref{20120126:eq1} of the Lie bracket on $\mc V^{\ell}$,
and in the last identity we used equation \eqref{20120405:eq1}.
Since, by assumption, $F_0\oplus F_1\in\mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}\!\!\!\!\!\!\widecheck{}\,\,\,\,\,\,$
and $Q\oplus Q^\prime\in\mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}$, we have (by Remark \ref{oldcompatibility})
that $(F_0|Q)=(F_1|Q^\prime)$.
Hence the first term in the RHS above is zero,
and, by the same argument, the first four terms are zero.
The following six terms are also zero since, by assumption, $D_{F_0}(\partial)$
and $D_{F_1}(\partial)$ are selfadjoint.
In conclusion, equation \eqref{20120405:eq2} holds.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures
and corresponding compatible pairs of Dirac structures}
\label{sec:6.4}
In Theorem \ref{20111020:thm} we proved that to a non-local Hamiltonian
structure $H\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$
in its minimal fractional decomposition $H=AB^{-1}$,
with $A,B\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$,
there corresponds a Dirac structure $\mc L_{A,B}(\mc K)$
on the field of frations $\mc K$.
In this section we prove that to a compatible pair
of non-local Hamiltonian structures $H=AB^{-1},\,K=CD^{-1}$,
in their minimal fractional decompositions,
there corresponds a compatible pair
of Dirac structures $\mc L_{A,B}(\mc K),\,\mc L_{C,D}(\mc K)$ on $\mc K$.
This is stated in the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{20120126:prop2}
Let $\mc V$ be an algebra of differential functions in $u_1,\dots,u_\ell$,
which is a domain, and let $\mc K$ be its field of fractions.
Let $H,\,K\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$ be compatible
non-local Hamiltonian structures on $\mc V$.
Let $H=AB^{-1},\,K=CD^{-1}$ be their minimal fractional decompositions
(cf. Definition \ref{def:minimal-fraction}).
Then $\mc L_{A,B}(\mc K)$ and $\mc L_{C,D}(\mc K)$
are compatible Dirac structures on $\mc K$.
\end{theorem}
By Theorem \ref{20110923:prop},
the Hamiltonian structures $H$ and $K$ on $\mc V$ are compatible
if and only if we have the following ``mixed'' Jacobi identity on generators
($i,j,k\in I$):
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq3}
\begin{array}{l}
\{{u_i}_\lambda\{{u_j}_\mu {u_k}\}_H\}_K-\{{u_j}_\mu\{{u_i}_\lambda {u_k}\}_H\}_K
-\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda {u_j}\}_H}_{\lambda+\mu} {u_k}\}_K \\
+\{{u_i}_\lambda\{{u_j}_\mu {u_k}\}_K\}_H-\{{u_j}_\mu\{{u_i}_\lambda {u_k}\}_K\}_H
-\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda {u_j}\}_K}_{\lambda+\mu} {u_k}\}_H
=0\,,
\end{array}\end{equation}
In order to relate the above condition to the compatibility
of the corresponding Dirac structures $\mc L_{A,B}$ and $\mc L_{C,D}$,
we need to compute explicitly each term of the above equation.
This is done in the following:
\begin{lemma}\label{20120405:lem1}
Suppose that the pairs $(A,B)$ and $(C,D)$, with $A,B,C,D\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$,
satisfy equation \eqref{20120107:eq1}:
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:skew}
A^*\circ B+B^*\circ A=0
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
C^*\circ D+D^*\circ C=0\,.
\end{equation}
Assume that $B$ and $D$ have non-zero Dieudonn\`e determinant,
and that the (skewadjoint) rational matrix pseudodifferential operators
$H=A B^{-1}$ and $K=CD^{-1}$
have coefficients in $\mc V$, i.e. $H,K\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$.
Consider the corresponding non-local $\lambda$-brackets
$\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}_H$ and $\{\cdot\,_\lambda\,\cdot\}_K$
given by the Master Formula \eqref{20110922:eq1}.
Then, in terms of notation \eqref{20111018:eq5},
we have the following identities for every $i',j',k'\in I$:
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:A1}
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,k\in I}
B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\{{u_i}_x\{{u_j}_y {u_k}\}_H\}_K
\big(\big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}D_{ii'}(\lambda)\big)
\big(\big|_{y=\mu+\partial}B_{jj'}(\mu)\big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{i,k\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\frac{\partial A_{kj'}(\mu)}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}
(\lambda+\partial)^n C_{ii'}(\lambda)
} \\
\displaystyle{
+\sum_{i,k\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
A^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\frac{\partial B_{kj'}(\mu)}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}
(\lambda+\partial)^n C_{ii'}(\lambda)
\,,}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:A2}
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,k\in I}
D^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\{{u_i}_x\{{u_j}_y {u_k}\}_K\}_H
\big(\big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}B_{ii'}(\lambda)\big)
\big(\big|_{y=\mu+\partial}D_{jj'}(\mu)\big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{i,k\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
D^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\frac{\partial C_{kj'}(\mu)}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}
(\lambda+\partial)^n A_{ii'}(\lambda)
} \\
\displaystyle{
+\sum_{i,k\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
C^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\frac{\partial D_{kj'}(\mu)}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}
(\lambda+\partial)^n A_{ii'}(\lambda)
\,,}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:B1}
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,k\in I}
B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\{{u_j}_y\{{u_i}_x {u_k}\}_H\}_K
\big(\big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}B_{ii'}(\lambda)\big)
\big(\big|_{y=\mu+\partial}D_{jj'}(\mu)\big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{j,k\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\frac{\partial A_{ki'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}
(\mu+\partial)^n C_{jj'}(\mu)
} \\
\displaystyle{
+\sum_{j,k\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
A^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\frac{\partial B_{ki'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}
(\mu+\partial)^n C_{jj'}(\mu)
\,,}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:B2}
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,k\in I}
D^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\{{u_j}_y\{{u_i}_x {u_k}\}_K\}_H
\big(\big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}D_{ii'}(\lambda)\big)
\big(\big|_{y=\mu+\partial}B_{jj'}(\mu)\big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
\sum_{j,k\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
D^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\frac{\partial C_{ki'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}
(\mu+\partial)^n A_{jj'}(\mu)
} \\
\displaystyle{
+\sum_{j,k\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
C^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\frac{\partial D_{ki'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}
(\mu+\partial)^n A_{jj'}(\mu)
\,,}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:C1}
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,k\in I}
D^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\{{\{{u_i}_x{u_j}\}_H}_{x+y}{u_k}\}_K
\big(\big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}B_{ii'}(\lambda)\big)
\big(\big|_{y=\mu+\partial}B_{jj'}(\mu)\big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
-\sum_{j,k\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
C^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
(-\lambda-\mu-\partial)^n
\frac{\partial A_{ji'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_k^{(n)}}
B_{jj'}(\mu)
} \\
\displaystyle{
-\sum_{j,k\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
C^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
(-\lambda-\mu-\partial)^n
\frac{\partial B_{ji'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_k^{(n)}}
A_{jj'}(\mu)
\,,}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:C2}
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i,j,k\in I}
B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
\{{\{{u_i}_x{u_j}\}_K}_{x+y}{u_k}\}_H
\big(\big|_{x=\lambda+\partial}D_{ii'}(\lambda)\big)
\big(\big|_{y=\mu+\partial}D_{jj'}(\mu)\big)
} \\
\displaystyle{
=
-\sum_{j,k\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
A^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
(-\lambda-\mu-\partial)^n
\frac{\partial C_{ji'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_k^{(n)}}
D_{jj'}(\mu)
} \\
\displaystyle{
-\sum_{j,k\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
A^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)
(-\lambda-\mu-\partial)^n
\frac{\partial D_{ji'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_k^{(n)}}
C_{jj'}(\mu)
\,.}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For equation \eqref{20120405:A1},
we can use the Leibniz rule and equation \eqref{20111012:eq2c} to get
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\{{u_i}_x\{{u_j}_y {u_k}\}_H\}_K
=\sum_{r\in I}\{{u_i}_x A_{kr}(y+\partial)(B^{-1})_{rj}(y)\}_K
} \\
\displaystyle{
=\sum_{r\in I}\sum_{m\in\mb Z_+}\{{u_i}_x a_{kr;m}\}_K
(y+\partial)^m(B^{-1})_{rj}(y)
} \\
\displaystyle{
-\sum_{\substack{r,p,q\in I \\ m\in\mb Z_+}}\!\!\!
A_{kr}(x+y+\partial)
(B^{-1})_{rp}(x+y+\partial)
\{{u_i}_\lambda b_{pq;m}\}_K
(y+\partial)^m(B^{-1})_{qj}(y)\,.
}
\end{array}
$$
We can then use the Master Formula \eqref{20110922:eq1} to get
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\{{u_i}_x\{{u_j}_y {u_k}\}_H\}_K
=\sum_{r,s\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}
\Big(\frac{\partial A_{kr}(y+\partial)}{\partial u_s^{(n)}} (B^{-1})_{rj}(y)\Big)
(x+\partial)^n K_{si}(x)
} \\
\displaystyle{
-\sum_{\substack{r,p,q,s\in I \\ n\in\mb Z_+}}\!\!\!
A_{kr}(x+y+\partial)
(B^{-1})_{rp}(x+y+\partial)
\Big(\frac{\partial B_{pq}(y+\partial)}{\partial u_s^{(n)}} (B^{-1})_{qj}(y)\Big)
(x+\partial)^n K_{si}(x)
\,.
}
\end{array}
$$
If we now replace $x$ with $\lambda+\partial$ acting on $D_{ii'}(\lambda)$
and $y$ by $\mu+\partial$ acting on $B_{jj'}(\mu)$,
and we apply $B^*_{k'k}(\lambda+\mu+\partial)$, acting from the left,
to both sides of the above equation,
we get, after using the assuption \eqref{20120405:skew},
that equation \eqref{20120405:A1} holds.
Equation \eqref{20120405:A2} is obtained from \eqref{20120405:A1}
by exchanging the roles of $H$ and $K$.
Equation \eqref{20120405:B1} is obtained from \eqref{20120405:A1}
by exchanging $\lambda$ with $\mu$ and $i$ and $i'$ with $j$ and $j'$ respectively,
and equation \eqref{20120405:B2} is obtained
from \eqref{20120405:B1} by exchaing the roles of $H$ and $K$.
Finally, equations \eqref{20120405:C1} and \eqref{20120405:C2}
can be derived with a similar computation,
which involves the right Leibniz rule (instead of the left)
and equation \eqref{20111012:eq2d} (instead of \eqref{20111012:eq2c}).
\end{proof}
Let us next describe the relations \eqref{eq:20090322_1}
associated to Dirac structures $\mc L_{A,B}(\mc K)$ and $\mc L_{C,D}(\mc K)$
defined in \eqref{eq:dirac}.
We have
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq5}
\begin{array}{l}
\mc N_{\mc L_{A,B}(\mc K),\mc L_{C,D}(\mc K)}
=
\big\{
A(\partial)X\oplus C(\partial)X^\prime
\,\big|\,
X,X^\prime\in\mc K^{\oplus\ell}\,,\,\,B(\partial)X=D(\partial)X^\prime
\big\}
\,,
\\
\mc N_{\mc L_{A,B}(\mc K),\mc L_{C,D}(\mc K)}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\widecheck{}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
=
\big\{
B(\partial)Z\oplus D(\partial)Z^\prime
\,\big|\,
Z,Z^\prime\in\mc K^{\oplus\ell}\,,\,\,A(\partial)Z=C(\partial)Z^\prime
\big\}
\,.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Hence, by Definition \ref{2006_NRel},
the Dirac structures $\mc L_{A,B}$ and $\mc L_{C,D}$
are compatible if and only if,
for every $X,X^\prime,Y,Y^\prime,Z,Z^\prime,W,W^\prime\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq6}
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
B(\partial)X=D(\partial)X^\prime
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
B(\partial)Y=D(\partial)Y^\prime
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
B(\partial)W=D(\partial)Z^\prime
\,,}\\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
A(\partial)Z=C(\partial)Z^\prime
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
A(\partial)W=C(\partial)W^\prime
\,,}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
we have the following identity:
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq7}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\big(B(\partial)Z\big|[A(\partial)X,A(\partial)Y]\big)
-\big(D(\partial)Z^\prime\big|[A(\partial)X,C(\partial)Y^\prime]\big)
}\\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\big(B(\partial)W\big|[C(\partial)X^\prime,A(\partial)Y]\big)
+\big(D(\partial)W^\prime\big|[C(\partial)X^\prime,C(\partial)Y^\prime]\big)
=0
\,.}
\end{array}\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{20120405:lem2}
Suppose that $H=AB^{-1}$ and $K=CD^{-1}$ are non-local Hamiltonian structures,
and that conditions \eqref{20120405:eq6} hold.
Then equation \eqref{20120405:eq7} is equivalent to the following equation:
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq16}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{B(\partial)X}(\partial)C(\partial)Z^\prime
+\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D^*_{B(\partial)X}(\partial) C(\partial)Z^\prime
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\tint (B(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{C(\partial)Z^\prime}(\partial)A(\partial)X
-\tint (B(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{A(\partial)X}(\partial) C(\partial)Z^\prime
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{D(\partial)Z^\prime}(\partial)A(\partial)X
+\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D^*_{A(\partial)X}(\partial) D(\partial)Z^\prime
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{B(\partial)W}(\partial)C(\partial)X^\prime
+\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D^*_{C(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial) B(\partial)W
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{D(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial)A(\partial)W
+\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D^*_{D(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial) A(\partial)W
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\tint (D(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{A(\partial)W}(\partial)C(\partial)X^\prime
-\tint (D(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{C(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial) A(\partial)W
=0\,.
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By \eqref{20120126:eq1} and \eqref{20120405:eq1}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq8}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\big(B(\partial)Z\big|[A(\partial)X,A(\partial)Y]\big)
=\tint (B(\partial)Z)\cdot D_{A(\partial)Y}(\partial)A(\partial)X
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (B(\partial)Z)\cdot D_{A(\partial)X}(\partial)A(\partial)Y
=\tint (A(\partial)X)\cdot\frac{\delta}{\delta u}(B(\partial)Z|A(\partial)Y)
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{B(\partial)Z}(\partial)A(\partial)X
-\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D^*_{A(\partial)X}(\partial) B(\partial)Z
\,.
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
Similarly, we have
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq9}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\big(D(\partial)Z^\prime\big|[A(\partial)X,C(\partial)Y^\prime]\big)
=\tint (A(\partial)X)\cdot\frac{\delta}{\delta u}(D(\partial)Z^\prime|C(\partial)Y^\prime)
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{D(\partial)Z^\prime}(\partial)A(\partial)X
-\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D^*_{A(\partial)X}(\partial) D(\partial)Z^\prime
\,,
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq10}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\big(B(\partial)W\big|[C(\partial)X^\prime,A(\partial)Y]\big)
=\tint (C(\partial)X^\prime)\cdot\frac{\delta}{\delta u}(B(\partial)W|A(\partial)Y)
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{B(\partial)W}(\partial)C(\partial)X^\prime
-\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D^*_{C(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial) B(\partial)W
\,,
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq11}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\big(D(\partial)W^\prime\big|[C(\partial)X^\prime,C(\partial)Y^\prime]\big)
=\tint (C(\partial)X^\prime)\cdot\frac{\delta}{\delta u}(D(\partial)W^\prime|C(\partial)Y^\prime)
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{D(\partial)W^\prime}(\partial)C(\partial)X^\prime
-\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D^*_{C(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial) D(\partial)W^\prime
\,.
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
By the skewadnointness of $H$ and $K$, which translates to \eqref{20120405:skew},
and by conditions \eqref{20120405:eq6}, we have
$$
\begin{array}{l}
(B(\partial)Z|A(\partial)Y)
=-(A(\partial)Z|B(\partial)Y) \\
=-(C(\partial)Z^\prime|D(\partial)Y^\prime)
=(D(\partial)Z^\prime|C(\partial)Y^\prime)
\,,
\end{array}
$$
hence the first terms in the RHS of \eqref{20120405:eq8} and \eqref{20120405:eq9}
cancel.
Similarly for the first terms in the RHS of \eqref{20120405:eq10} and \eqref{20120405:eq11}.
Therefore, combining equations \eqref{20120405:eq8}--\eqref{20120405:eq11}, we get that
equation \eqref{20120405:eq7} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq12}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{B(\partial)Z}(\partial)A(\partial)X
-\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D^*_{A(\partial)X}(\partial) B(\partial)Z
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{D(\partial)Z^\prime}(\partial)A(\partial)X
+\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D^*_{A(\partial)X}(\partial) D(\partial)Z^\prime
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{B(\partial)W}(\partial)C(\partial)X^\prime
+\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D^*_{C(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial) B(\partial)W
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{D(\partial)W^\prime}(\partial)C(\partial)X^\prime
-\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D^*_{C(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial) D(\partial)W^\prime
=0\,.
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
Next, since by assumption $H=AB^{-1}$ is a non-local Hamiltonian structure,
it follows by Propositions \ref{20120103:propc} and \ref{20120103:propb}
that equation \eqref{20120103:eq1} holds.
In particular,
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq14}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{B(\partial)Z}(\partial)A(\partial)X
-\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D^*_{A(\partial)X}(\partial) B(\partial)Z
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
=-\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{B(\partial)X}(\partial)A(\partial)Z
+\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D^*_{B(\partial)X}(\partial) A(\partial)Z
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\tint (B(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{A(\partial)Z}(\partial)A(\partial)X
-\tint (B(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{A(\partial)X}(\partial) A(\partial)Z
\,.
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
Similarly, using the assumption that $K=CD^{-1}$ is a non-local Hamiltonian structure,
we get
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq15}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{D(\partial)W^\prime}(\partial)C(\partial)X^\prime
-\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D^*_{C(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial) D(\partial)W^\prime
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
=-\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{D(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial)C(\partial)W^\prime
+\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D^*_{D(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial) C(\partial)W^\prime
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\tint (D(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{C(\partial)W^\prime}(\partial)C(\partial)X^\prime
-\tint (D(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{C(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial) C(\partial)W^\prime
\,.
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
Combining equations \eqref{20120405:eq12}, \eqref{20120405:eq14} and \eqref{20120405:eq15},
we get \eqref{20120405:eq16}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{20120126:prop2}]
By Lemma \ref{20120405:lem2},
we only need to prove that, if condition \eqref{20120405:eq3} holds,
then equation \eqref{20120405:eq16} holds
for every $X,X^\prime,Y,Y^\prime,W,Z^\prime$
satisfying the first three identities in \eqref{20120405:eq6}.
It follows by some straightforward computation that
we can rewrite each term in the LHS of \eqref{20120405:eq16} as follows
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:X1}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{B(\partial)X}(\partial)C(\partial)Z^\prime
=-\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot B(\partial)D_X(\partial)C(\partial)Z^\prime
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\int \!\!\!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ j,k,\in I,\, n\in\mb Z_+}}\!\!\!\!
Y_{k'}A^*_{k'k}(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)
\frac{\partial B_{ki'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_j^{(n)}} (\mu+\partial)^n C_{jj'}(\mu)
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}X_{i'}\big)\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}Z^\prime_{j'}\big)
\,,
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:X2}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D^*_{D(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial) C(\partial)Z^\prime
=\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D^*_{X^\prime}(\partial)D^*(\partial)C(\partial)Z^\prime
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\int \!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ j,k,\in I, n\in\mb Z_+}}\!\!\!\!\!\!
Y_{k'}A^*_{k'k}\!(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)
(\!-\!\lambda\!-\!\mu\!-\!\partial)^n
\frac{\partial D_{ji'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_k^{(n)}} C_{jj'}(\mu)
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}\!X^\prime_{i'}\big)\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}\!Z^\prime_{j'}\big)
\,,
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:X3}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\tint (D(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{C(\partial)Z^\prime}(\partial)A(\partial)X
=\tint (D(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot C(\partial)D_{Z^\prime}(\partial)A(\partial)X
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\int \!\!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ i,k,\in I, n\in\mb Z_+}}\!\!\!
Y^\prime_{k'}D^*_{k'k}(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)
\frac{\partial C_{kj'}(\mu)}{\partial u_i^{(n)}} (\lambda+\partial)^n A_{ii'}(\lambda)
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}X_{i'}\big)\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}Z^\prime_{j'}\big)
\,,
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:X4}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (B(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{A(\partial)X}(\partial) C(\partial)Z^\prime
=-\tint (B(\partial)Y)\cdot A(\partial)D_X(\partial)C(\partial)Z^\prime
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\int \!\!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ j,k,\in I, n\in\mb Z_+}}\!\!\!
Y_{k'}B^*_{k'k}(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)
\frac{\partial A_{ki'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_j^{(n)}} (\mu+\partial)^n C_{jj'}(\mu)
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}X_{i'}\big)\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}Z^\prime_{j'}\big)
\,,
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:X5}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{D(\partial)Z^\prime}(\partial)A(\partial)X
=\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D(\partial)D_{Z^\prime}(\partial)A(\partial)X
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\int \!\!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ i,k,\in I, n\in\mb Z_+}}\!\!\!
Y^\prime_{k'}C^*_{k'k}(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)
\frac{\partial D_{kj'}(\mu)}{\partial u_i^{(n)}} (\lambda+\partial)^n A_{ii'}(\lambda)
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}X_{i'}\big)\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}Z^\prime_{j'}\big)
\,,
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:X6}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D^*_{A(\partial)X}(\partial) B(\partial)W
=\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D^*_{X}(\partial)A^*(\partial)B(\partial)W
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\int \!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ j,k,\in I, n\in\mb Z_+}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
Y^\prime_{k'}C^*_{k'k}\!(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)
(\!-\!\lambda\!-\!\mu\!-\!\partial)^n
\frac{\partial A_{ji'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_k^{(n)}} B_{jj'}(\mu)
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}\!X_{i'}\big)\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}\!W_{j'}\big)
,
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:X7}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{B(\partial)W}(\partial)C(\partial)X^\prime
=\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot B(\partial)D_W(\partial)C(\partial)X^\prime
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\int \!\!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ i,k,\in I, n\in\mb Z_+}}\!\!\!
Y_{k'}A^*_{k'k}(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)
\frac{\partial B_{kj'}(\mu)}{\partial u_i^{(n)}} (\lambda+\partial)^n C_{ii'}(\lambda)
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}X^\prime_{i'}\big)\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}W_{j'}\big)
\,,
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:X8}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D^*_{C(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial) D(\partial)Z^\prime
=\tint (A(\partial)Y)\cdot D^*_{X^\prime}(\partial)C^*(\partial)D(\partial)Z^\prime
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\int \!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ j,k,\in I, n\in\mb Z_+}}\!\!\!\!\!\!
Y_{k'}A^*_{k'k}\!(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)
(\!-\!\lambda\!-\!\mu\!-\!\partial)^n
\frac{\partial C_{ji'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_k^{(n)}} D_{jj'}(\mu)
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}\!X^\prime_{i'}\big)\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}\!Z^\prime_{j'}\big)
\,,
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:X9}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{D(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial)A(\partial)W
=-\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D(\partial)D_{X^\prime}(\partial)A(\partial)W
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\int \!\!\!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ j,k,\in I, n\in\mb Z_+}}\!\!\!\!
Y^\prime_{k'}C^*_{k'k}(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)
\frac{\partial D_{ki'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_j^{(n)}} (\mu+\partial)^n A_{jj'}(\mu)
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}X^\prime_{i'}\big)\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}W_{j'}\big)
\,,
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:X10}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D^*_{B(\partial)X}(\partial) A(\partial)W
=\tint (C(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D^*_{X}(\partial)B^*(\partial)A(\partial)W
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\int \!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ j,k,\in I, n\in\mb Z_+}}\!\!\!\!\!\!
Y^\prime_{k'}C^*_{k'k}\!(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)
(\!-\!\lambda\!-\!\mu\!-\!\partial)^n
\frac{\partial B_{ji'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_k^{(n)}} A_{jj'}(\mu)
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}\!X_{i'}\big)\!\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}\!W_{j'}\big)
,
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:X11}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\tint (B(\partial)Y)\cdot D_{A(\partial)W}(\partial)C(\partial)X^\prime
=\tint (B(\partial)Y)\cdot A(\partial)D_W(\partial)C(\partial)X^\prime
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
+\int \!\!\!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ i,k,\in I, n\in\mb Z_+}}\!\!\!\!
Y_{k'}B^*_{k'k}(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)
\frac{\partial A_{kj'}(\mu)}{\partial u_i^{(n)}} (\lambda+\partial)^n C_{ii'}(\lambda)
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}X^\prime_{i'}\big)\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}W_{j'}\big)
\,,
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:X12}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\tint (D(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot D_{C(\partial)X^\prime}(\partial) A(\partial)W
=-\tint (D(\partial)Y^\prime)\cdot C(\partial)D_{X^\prime}(\partial)A(\partial)W
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\int \!\!\!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ j,k,\in I, n\in\mb Z_+}}\!\!\!\!
Y^\prime_{k'}D^*_{k'k}(\lambda\!+\!\mu\!+\!\partial)
\frac{\partial C_{ki'}(\lambda)}{\partial u_j^{(n)}} (\mu+\partial)^n A_{jj'}(\mu)
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}X^\prime_{i'}\big)\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}W_{j'}\big)
\,.
}\end{array}
\end{equation}
It follows from the skewadjointness conditions \eqref{20120405:skew}
that the first term in the RHS of \eqref{20120405:X1}
cancels with the first term in the RHS of \eqref{20120405:X4},
the first term in the RHS of \eqref{20120405:X2}
cancels with the first term in the RHS of \eqref{20120405:X8},
the first term in the RHS of \eqref{20120405:X3}
cancels with the first term in the RHS of \eqref{20120405:X5},
the first term in the RHS of \eqref{20120405:X6}
cancels with the first term in the RHS of \eqref{20120405:X10},
the first term in the RHS of \eqref{20120405:X7}
cancels with the first term in the RHS of \eqref{20120405:X11},
and the first term in the RHS of \eqref{20120405:X9}
cancels with the first term in the RHS of \eqref{20120405:X12}.
Furthermore,
combining the second terms of the RHS's of \eqref{20120405:X7} and \eqref{20120405:X11},
we get, thanks to \eqref{20120405:A1},
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\int
\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ i,j,k\in I}}
\big(B_{kk'}(\partial)Y_{k'}\big)
\{{u_i}_\lambda\{{u_j}_\mu {u_k}\}_H\}_K
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}D_{ii'}(\partial)X^\prime_{i'}\big)
\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}B_{jj'}(\partial)W_{j'}\big)
\,.
}\end{array}
$$
Combining the second terms of the RHS's of \eqref{20120405:X3} and \eqref{20120405:X5},
we get, thanks to \eqref{20120405:A2},
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\int \sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ i,j,k,\in I}}
\big(D_{kk'}(\partial)Y^\prime_{k'}\big)
\{{u_i}_\lambda\{{u_j}_\mu {u_k}\}_K\}_H
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}B_{ii'}(\partial)X_{i'}\big)
\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}D_{jj'}(\partial)Z^\prime_{j'}\big)
\,.
}\end{array}
$$
Combining the second terms of the RHS's of \eqref{20120405:X1} and \eqref{20120405:X4},
we get, thanks to \eqref{20120405:B1},
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\int \!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ i,j,k,\in I}}\!\!
\big(B_{kk'}(\partial)Y_{k'}\big)
\{{u_j}_\mu\{{u_i}_\lambda {u_k}\}_H\}_K
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}B_{ii'}(\partial)X_{i'}\big)
\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}D_{jj'}(\partial)Z^\prime_{j'}\big)
\,.
}\end{array}
$$
Combining the second terms of the RHS's of \eqref{20120405:X9} and \eqref{20120405:X12},
we get, thanks to \eqref{20120405:B2},
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\int \!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ i,j,k,\in I}}\!\!
\big(D_{kk'}(\partial)Y^\prime_{k'}\big)
\{{u_j}_\mu\{{u_i}_\lambda {u_k}\}_K\}_H
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}D_{ii'}(\partial)X^\prime_{i'}\big)
\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}B_{jj'}(\partial)W_{j'}\big)
\,.
}\end{array}
$$
Combining the second terms of the RHS's of \eqref{20120405:X6} and \eqref{20120405:X10},
we get, thanks to \eqref{20120405:C1},
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\int \!\!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ i,j,k,\in I}}\!\!\!
\big(D_{kk'}(\partial)Y^\prime_{k'}\big)
\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_j}\}_H}\!_{\lambda+\mu}\!{u_k}\}_K
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}B_{ii'}(\partial)X_{i'}\big)
\!\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}B_{jj'}(\partial)W_{j'}\big)
.
}\end{array}
$$
Finally,
combining the second terms of the RHS's of \eqref{20120405:X2} and \eqref{20120405:X8},
we get, thanks to \eqref{20120405:C2},
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\int \!\!\!\sum_{\substack{i',j',k'\in I \\ i,j,k,\in I}}\!\!\!
\big(B_{kk'}(\partial)Y_{k'}\big)
\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_j}\}_K}_{\lambda+\mu}\!{u_k}\}_H
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}D_{ii'}(\partial)X^\prime_{i'}\big)
\!\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}D_{jj'}(\partial)Z^\prime_{j'}\big)
.
}\end{array}
$$
Putting together all the above results, we conclude that the LHS of \eqref{20120405:eq16}
is equal to
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
\int \sum_{i,j,k\in I}
\big(B(\partial)Y\big)_k
\Big(
\{{u_i}_\lambda\{{u_j}_\mu {u_k}\}_H\}_K
+\{{u_i}_\lambda\{{u_j}_\mu {u_k}\}_K\}_H
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\{{u_j}_\mu\{{u_i}_\lambda {u_k}\}_H\}_K
-\{{u_j}_\mu\{{u_i}_\lambda {u_k}\}_K\}_H
-\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_j}\}_H}_{\lambda+\mu}{u_k}\}_K
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
-\{{\{{u_i}_\lambda{u_j}\}_K}_{\lambda+\mu}\!{u_k}\}_H
\Big)
\big(\big|_{\lambda=\partial}B(\partial)X\big)_i
\big(\big|_{\mu=\partial}B(\partial)W\big)_j
\,,
}\end{array}
$$
which is zero by \eqref{20120405:eq3}.
\end{proof}
In view of Theorem \ref{20120126:prop2},
we can translate Theorem \ref{mtst} in terms of compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures.
\begin{theorem}\label{mtst-nonloc}
Let $\mc V$ be an algebra of differential functions in $u_1,\dots,u_\ell$, which is a domain.
Let $H,K\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$
be compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures on $\mc V$.
Let $H=AB^{-1},$ and $K=CD^{-1}$ be their minimal fractional decompositions
(cf. Definition \ref{def:minimal-fraction}),
with $A,B,C,D\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$, $\det B\neq0$, $\det D\neq0$.
Let $F_0=B(\partial)Z,\,F_1=D(\partial)Z^\prime=B(\partial)W,\,F_2=D(\partial)W^\prime$,
with $Z,Z^\prime,W,W^\prime\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$, be such that
$$
D(\partial)Z^\prime=B(\partial)W
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
A(\partial)Z=C(\partial)Z^\prime
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
A(\partial)W=C(\partial)W^\prime
\,,
$$
and
$$
D_{F_0}^*(\partial)=D_{F_0}(\partial)
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
D_{F_1}^*(\partial)=D_{F_1}(\partial)
\,.
$$
Then:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
For all $X,\,Y\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$, such that
$D(\partial)X,D(\partial)Y\in\mathop{\rm Im }(B)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{20120405:eq2b}
\tint Y\cdot C^*(\partial)\big(D_{F_2}(\partial)-D_{F_2}^*(\partial)\big)C(\partial)X
=0\,.
\end{equation}
\item
If we also assume that $\det K\neq0$, then $D_{F_2}^*(\partial)=D_{F_2}(\partial)$.
\item
If, moreover, we assume that $\mc V$ is a normal algebra of differential functions,
then $F_2$ is exact: $F_2=\frac{\delta f_2}{\delta u}$ for some $\tint f_2\in\mc V/\partial\mc V$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{20120126:prop2}, $\mc L_{A,B}(\mc K)$ and $\mc L_{C,D}(\mc K)$
are compatible Dirac structures over $\mc K$, the field of fractions of $\mc V$.
Recalling the expressions \eqref{20120405:eq5} of $\mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}\!\!\!\!\!\!\widecheck{}\,\,\,\,\,\,$
and $\mc N_{\mc L,\mc L^\prime}$ for these Dirac structures,
we get by Theorem \ref{mtst} that equation \eqref{20120405:eq2b} holds over $\mc K$,
hence over $\mc V$, proving (a).
Let us prove part (b).
It is proved in \cite{CDSK12b} that any two matrices $B(\partial)$ and $D(\partial)$
with non zero determinant have a right common multiple
$B(\partial)D_1(\partial)=D(\partial)B_1(\partial)$,
where $B_1(\partial),D_1(\partial)\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc K[\partial]$
have non-zero determinant.
By clearing denominators, we can assume that $B_1(\partial)$ and $D_1(\partial)$
have coefficients in $\mc V$.
Hence, if $X,Y\in\mathop{\rm Im }(B_1)$, we have $D(\partial)X,D(\partial)Y\in\mathop{\rm Im }(B)$.
Therefore, by part (a) we have
$$
\int G\cdot B_1^*(\partial)C^*(\partial)\big(D_{F_2}(\partial)-D_{F_2}^*(\partial)\big)C(\partial)B_1(\partial)F
=0\,,
$$
for all $F,G\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$.
Since, by assumption, $C$ and $B_1$ have non-zero determinants,
it follows that $D_{F_2}^*(\partial)=D_{F_2}(\partial)$, as we wanted.
Finally, part (c) follows by the fact that, under the assumption that $\mc V$ is normal,
the variational complex is exact (see \cite[Thm.3.2]{BDSK09}).
\end{proof}
\section{Hamiltonian equations associated to a non-local Hamiltonian structure}
\label{sec:7}
\subsection{Local functionals, Hamiltonian equations and integrability}
\label{sec:7.1}
Let $\mc V$ be an algebra of differential functions in the variables $u_i,\,i\in I$,
assume that it is a domain, and let $\mc K$ be it field of fractions.
Let $H\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$ be a non-local Hamiltonian structure on $\mc V$.
Recall that, since $H$ has rational entries, it admits a minimal fractional decomposition
$H=AB^{-1}$, where $A,B\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$ and $\det B\neq0$
(cf. Definition \ref{def:minimal-fraction}).
Throughout this section we fix such a minimal fractional decomposition for $H$.
Recall that $\mc L_{A,B}$ is a Dirac structure on $\mc V$ by Theorem \ref{20111020:thm}.
\begin{definition}\label{20120124:def}
A \emph{Hamiltonian functional} (for $H=AB^{-1}$)
is an element $\tint h\in\mc V/\partial\mc V$
such that $\frac{\delta h}{\delta u}=B(\partial)F$
for some $F\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$.
Then, $P=A(\partial)F\in\mc V^\ell$ is called a \emph{Hamiltonian vector field}
associated to $\tint h$.
We denote by $\mc F(H)\subset\mc V/\partial\mc V$ the subspace of all Hamiltonian functionals,
and by $\mc H(H)\subset\mc V^\ell$ the subspace of all Hamiltonian vector fields:
$$
\mc F(H)=\Big(\frac{\delta}{\delta u}\Big)^{-1}(\mathop{\rm Im } B)\,\subset\mc V/\partial\mc V
\quad,\qquad
\mc H(H)=A\Big(B^{-1}\Big(\mathop{\rm Im }\frac{\delta}{\delta u}\Big)\Big)\,\subset\mc V^\ell\,.
$$
We say that $\tint f\in\mc F(H)$ and $P\in\mc H(H)$ are \emph{associated}
(with respect to the Hamiltonian structure $H=AB^{-1}$)
if there exists $F\in\mc V^\ell$ such that
$\frac{\delta f}{\delta u}=B(\partial)F,\,P=A(\partial)F$.
In this case we write $\tint f\ass{H} P$.
\begin{remark}\label{20120201:rem3}
Note that, the spaces $\mc F(H)\subset\mc V/\partial\mc V$
and $\mc H(H)\subset\mc V^\ell$,
as well as the relation $\tint h\ass{H}P$, for $\tint h\in\mc F(H)$ and $P\in\mc H(H)$,
may depend not only on the non-local Hamiltonian structure $H$,
but also on its fractional decomposition $H=AB^{-1}$.
However, if $A$ and $B$ are multiplied on the right by a matrix differential operator $D$
which is invertible in the algebra $\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$,
the spaces $\mc F(H)$ and $\mc H(H)$,
as well as the relation $\tint h\ass{H}P$, are unchanged.
In particular, in the special case when $\mc V=\mc K$ is a field,
by Proposition \ref{prop:minimal-fraction},
the spaces $\mc F(H), \mc H(H)$, and the relation $\tint h\ass{H}P$,
are independent of the minimal fractional decomposition of $H$.
\end{remark}
In the local case, when $H\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$
is a (local) Hamiltonian structure on $\mc V$,
then
$\tint f\in\mc F(H)=\mc V/\partial\mc V$
and $P\in\mc H(H)=H(\partial)\Big(\mathop{\rm Im }\frac{\delta}{\delta u}\Big)\,\subset\mc V^\ell$
are associated if and only if
$P=H(\partial)\frac{\delta\tint f}{\delta u}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{20120124:lem}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
The space $\mc V^\ell$ is a Lie algebra with bracket
\eqref{20120126:eq1},
and $\mc H(H)\subset\mc V^\ell$ is its subalgebra.
\item
We have a representation $\phi$ of the Lie algebra $\mc V^\ell$
on the space $\mc V/\partial\mc V$ given by
$$
\phi(P)\big(\tint h\big)=\int P\cdot\frac{\delta h}{\delta u}\,,
$$
and the subspace $\mc F(H)\subset\mc V/\partial\mc V$
is preserved by the action of the Lie subalgebra $\mc H(H)\subset\mc V^\ell$.
\item
If $\tint h\ass{H}P$ and $\tint h\ass{H}Q$ for some $\tint h\in\mc F(H)$,
then the action of $P,Q\in\mc H(H)$on $\mc F(H)$ is the same:
$$
\int P\cdot\frac{\delta g}{\delta u}
=\int Q\cdot\frac{\delta g}{\delta u}
\,\,\text{ for all } \tint g\in\mc F(H)\,.
$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows immediately from \cite[Lem.4.7-8]{BDSK09}.
\end{proof}
Thanks to Lemma \ref{20120124:lem},
we have a well-defined map
$\{\cdot\,,\,\cdot\}_H:\,\mc F(H)\times\mc F(H)\to\mc F(H)$
given by
\begin{equation}\label{20120124:eq4}
\{\tint f,\tint g\}_H
=
\int P\cdot\frac{\delta g}{\delta u}
\quad
\Big(
=\int \frac{\delta g}{\delta u}\cdot A(\partial) B^{-1}(\partial) \frac{\delta f}{\delta u}
\,\,\Big)\,,
\end{equation}
where $P\in\mc H(H)$ is such that $\tint f\ass{H}P$.
\begin{proposition}\label{20120124:prop}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
The bracket \eqref{20120124:eq4} is a Lie algebra bracket on the space
of Hamiltonian functionals $\mc F(H)$.
\item
The Lie algebra action of $\mc H(H)$ on $\mc F(H)$ is by derivations
of the Lie bracket \eqref{20120124:eq4}.
\item
The subspace
$$
\mc A(H)=\Big\{(\tint f,P)\in\mc F(H)\times\mc H(H)\,\Big|\,\tint f\ass{H}P\Big\}\,
$$
is a subalgebra of the direct product of Lie algebras $\mc F(H)\times\mc H(H)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It follows immediately from \cite[Prop.4.9, Rem.4.6]{BDSK09}.
\end{proof}
A \emph{Hamiltonian equation} associated to the Hamiltonian structure $H$
and to the Hamiltonian functional $\tint h\in\mc F(H)$,
with an associated Hamiltonian vector field $P\in\mc H(H)$,
is, by definition, the following evolution equation on the variables $u=\big(u_i\big)_{i\in I}$:
\begin{equation}\label{20120124:eq5}
\frac{du}{dt}
=P\,.
\end{equation}
By the chain rule, any element $f\in\mc V$ evolves according to the equation
$$
\frac{df}{dt}=\sum_{i\in I}\sum_{n\in\mb Z_+}(\partial^nP_i)\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_i^{(n)}}\,,
$$
and, integrating by parts,
a local functional $\tint f\in\mc V/\partial\mc V$
evolves according to
$$
\frac{d\tint f}{dt}=\int P\cdot\frac{\delta f}{\delta u}\,.
$$
An \emph{integral of motion} for the Hamiltonian equation \eqref{20120124:eq5}
is a Hamiltonian functional $\tint f\in\mc F(H)$ such that
$$
\frac{d\tint f}{dt}=\{\tint h,\tint f\}_H=0\,,
$$
i.e. $\tint f$ lies in the centralizer of $\tint h$ in the Lie algebra $\mc F(H)$.
The Hamiltonian equation \eqref{20120124:eq5} is said to be \emph{integrable}
if there is an infinite sequence of pairs $(\tint h_n,P_n)\in\mc F(H)\times\mc H(H),\,n\geq0$,
such that $\tint h_0=\tint h$, $P_0=P$,
we have $\tint h_n\ass{H}P_n$ for every $n\in\mb Z_+$,
the sequence $\{\tint h_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}$ spans
an infinite-dimensional abelian subalgebra of the Lie algebra $\mc F(H)$,
and the sequence $\{P_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}$ spans an infinite-dimensional
abelian subalgebra of the Lie algebra $\mc H(H)$.
(Equivalently, if there exists an abelian subalgebra $\mf h$
of the Lie algebra $\mc A(H)$ defined in Proposition \ref{20120124:prop}(c),
such that both its canonical projections $\pi_1(\mf h)$ and $\pi_2(\mf h)$
in $\mc F(H)$ and $\mc H(H)$ are infinite dimensional,
and $\tint h\in\pi_1(\mf h)$.)
In this case, we have an \emph{integrable hierarchy} of Hamiltonian equations
$$
\frac{du}{dt_n} = P_n\,,\,\,n\in\mb Z_+\,.
$$
\subsection{The Lenard-Magri scheme of integrability}
\label{sec:7.2}
Throughout the section, we
let $H,K\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$ be a pair of compatible Hamiltonian structures
on the algebra of differential functions $\mc V$.
We also let $H=AB^{-1}$ and $K=CD^{-1}$,
with $A,B,C,D\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$
and $\det B\neq0,\det D\neq0$,
be their minimal fractional decomposition,
and let $\mc L_{A,B},\mc L_{C,D}\subset\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\oplus\mc V^\ell$
be the corresponding compatible Dirac structures
(see Theorems \ref{20111020:thm} and \ref{20120126:prop2}).
The \emph{Lenard-Magri scheme of integrability}
consists in finding sequences
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
0=\tint h_{-1},\,\tint h_0,\,\tint h_1,\,\tint h_2,\dots\in\mc F(H)\cap\mc F(K)\,,
} \\
\displaystyle{
\vphantom{\Big(}
P_0,\,P_1,\,P_2,\dots\in\mc H(H)\cap\mc H(K)\,,
}
\end{array}
$$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{maxi}
\UseTips
\xymatrix{
& P_{n-1} \ar@{<->}[dl]_{H} \ar@{<->}[dr]^{K} & &
P_n \ar@{<->}[dl]_{H} \ar@{<->}[dr]^{K} & &
P_{n+1} \ar@{<->}[dl]_{H} \ar@{<->}[dr]^{K} & \\
\dots & & \tint h_{n-1} & & \tint h_n & & \dots
}
\end{equation}
Explicitly, diagram \eqref{maxi} holds if and only if there exists a sequence
$\{F_n\}_{n\geq-1}$ in $\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$ such that the following equations hold:
\begin{equation}\label{20120315:eq1}
B(\partial)F_{-1}=0
\,\,,\,\,\,
C(\partial)F_{2n}=A(\partial)F_{2n-1}=P_n
\,\,,\,\,\,
B(\partial)F_{2n+1}=D(\partial)F_{2n}=\frac{\delta h_n}{\delta u}
\end{equation}
for all $n\geq 0$.
\begin{proposition}\label{20120126:prop3}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
If the sequence of pairs $\big(\tint h_n,P_n\big)$, $0\leq n\leq N+1$,
where $\tint h_n\in\mc F(H)\cap\mc F(K)$,
$P_n\in\mc H(H)\cap\mc H(K)$,
satisfies
$\tint h_{n-1}\ass{H}P_{n}\ass{K}\tint h_n$
for $0\leq n\leq N$,
then
\begin{equation}\label{20120126:eq3}
\{\tint h_m,\tint h_n\}_H=\{\tint h_m,\tint h_n\}_K=0
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
0\leq m,n\leq N\,.
\end{equation}
\item
We have
\begin{equation}\label{20120126:eq4}
[P_m,P_n]
\,\in\,\ker B^*\cap\ker D^*
\,\,\,\,
\text{ for all } m,n\leq N\,.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For $m=n$ equation \eqref{20120126:eq3} holds trivially,
by the skew symmetry of the Lie brackets $\{\cdot\,,\,\cdot\}_{H}$ and $\{\cdot\,,\,\cdot\}_{K}$.
Assuming $m<n$,
we prove \eqref{20120126:eq3} by induction on $n-m$.
We have, by the assumption on the $\tint h_n$'s and $P_n$'s
and the definition \eqref{20120124:eq4} of the Lie bracket on $\mc F(H)$,
$$
\big\{\tint h_m,\tint h_n\big\}_H=\int P_{m+1}\cdot\frac{\delta h_n}{\delta u}
=\big\{\tint h_{m+1},\tint h_n\big\}_K=0\,,
$$
by the inductive assumption.
Similarly,
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\vphantom{\Big(}
\big\{\tint h_m,\tint h_n\big\}_K
=-\big\{\tint h_n,\tint h_m\big\}_K
=-\int P_n\cdot\frac{\delta h_m}{\delta u}
\\
\vphantom{\Big(}
=-\big\{\tint h_{n-1},\tint h_m\big\}_H
=\big\{\tint h_{m},\tint h_{n-1}\big\}_H
=0\,.
\end{array}
$$
By Theorem \ref{20111020:thm}, $\mc L_{A,B}$ and $\mc L_{C,D}$
are Dirac structures, hence they are closed under
the Courant-Dorfman product \eqref{20111020:eq5}.
By formula \eqref{eq:dirac} and
the assumption on the $\tint h_n$'s and $P_n$'s,
we have that
$\frac{\delta\tint h_{n-1}}{\delta u}\oplus P_n\in\mc L_{A,B}$,
and $\frac{\delta\tint h_n}{\delta u}\oplus P_n\in\mc L_{C,D}$, for every $0\leq n\leq N$.
It then follows, by equation \eqref{20120127:eq1} and formulas
\eqref{20120126:eq1} and \eqref{20120124:eq4}, that
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\Big(\frac{\delta\tint h_{m-1}}{\delta u}\oplus P_m\Big)
\circ
\Big(\frac{\delta\tint h_{n-1}}{\delta u}\oplus P_n\Big)
=
\frac{\delta}{\delta u}\{\tint h_{m-1},\tint h_{n-1}\}_H\oplus[P_m,P_n]
} \\
\displaystyle{
\Big(\frac{\delta\tint h_{m}}{\delta u}\oplus P_m\Big)
\circ
\Big(\frac{\delta\tint h_{n}}{\delta u}\oplus P_n\Big)
=
\frac{\delta}{\delta u}\{\tint h_{m},\tint h_{n}\}_K\oplus[P_m,P_n]
}
\end{array}
$$
Hence, by \eqref{20120126:eq3}, we get that
$0\oplus[P_m,P_n]\in\mc L_{A,B}\cap\mc L_{C,D}$.
Namely, there exist $F\in\ker B\subset\mc V^\ell$ and $G\in\ker D\subset\mc V^\ell$
such that $[P_m,P_n]=AF=CG\in A(\ker B)\cap C(\ker D)$.
To conclude, we finally observe that, by skewadjointness of $H$ and $K$,
we have $B^*A=-A^*B$ and $D^*C=-C^*D$, which immediately implies
$A(\ker B)\subset\ker B^*$ and $C(\ker D)\subset\ker D^*$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{20120127:cor}
Suppose that the sequences $\{\tint h_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+},\,\{P_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}$,
span infinite dimensional subspaces of $\mc V/\partial\mc V$ and $\mc V^\ell$ respectively,
and satisfy conditions \eqref{maxi} (where $\tint h_{-1}=0$).
Suppose, moreover, that $\ker B^*\cap\ker D^*=0$.
Then,
the hierarchy of bi-Hamiltonian equations
$$
\frac{du}{dt_n}=P_n\,\,,\,\,\,\,n\in\mb Z_+\,.
$$
is integrable.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
It is immediate from Proposition \ref{20120126:prop3}
and the definition of integrability.
\end{proof}
Next, we want to discuss in which situations one can apply successfully the Lenard-Magri scheme.
In order to do so, recall that an algebra of differential functions $\mc V$
is called \emph{normal} \cite{BDSK09}
if $\frac{\partial}{\partial u_i^{(m)}}(\mc V_{m,i})=\mc V_{m,i}$ for every $m\in\mb Z_+,i\in I$,
where
$$
\mc V_{m,i}
=\Big\{f\in\mc V\,\Big|\,\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_j^{(n)}}=0
\text{ for } (n,j)>(m,i) \quad (\text{in lexicographic order})
\Big\}\,.
$$
For example, the algebra of differential polynomials in $\ell$ variables is normal,
and any algebra of differential functions $\mc V$ can be included in a normal one.
\begin{theorem}\label{20120127:thm}
Let $\mc V$ be a normal algebra of differential functions.
Let $H,K\!\in\!\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\!\mc V(\partial)$ be a pair of compatible
non-local Hamiltonian structures on $\mc V$
and assume that $\det K\neq0$.
Let $H=AB^{-1}$, $K=CD^{-1}$, be their minimal fractional decompositions,
with $A,B,C,D\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial]$.
Let $N\geq0$,
and let $0=\tint h_{-1},\tint h_0,\tint h_1,\dots,\tint h_N\in\mc F(H)\cap\mc F(K)$
and $P_0,P_1,\dots,P_N\in\mc H(H)\cap\mc H(K)$
be such that
$\tint h_{n-1}\ass{H}P_{n}\ass{K}\tint h_n$ for $0\leq n\leq N$.
Suppose, moreover, that the following orthogonallity conditions hold:
$$
\big(\mathop{\rm Span }{}_{\mc C}\big\{\frac{\delta h_n}{\delta u}\big\}_{n=0}^N\big)^\perp\subset\mathop{\rm Im } C
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
\big(\mathop{\rm Span }{}_{\mc C}\big\{P_n\big\}_{n=0}^N\big)^\perp \subset\mathop{\rm Im } B\,,
$$
where the orthogonal complement is with respect to the pairing
$\mc V^{\oplus\ell}\times\mc V^\ell\to\mc V/\partial\mc V$,
defined by $(F,P)\mapsto\tint F\cdot P$.
Then, there exist infinite sequences
$\{\tint h_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}\subset\mc F(H)\cap\mc F(K)$
and $\{P_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}\subset\mc H(H)\cap\mc H(K)$,
extending the given finite sequences,
satisfying conditions \eqref{maxi}.
In other words, the Lenard-Magri scheme of integrability can be applied.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{20120126:prop3}, we have
$$
\tint\frac{\delta h_N}{\delta u}\cdot P_n=\{\tint h_N,\tint h_n\}_K=0\,,
$$
for all $n=0,\dots,N$.
Hence, by the second orthogonality condition we get that
$\frac{\delta h_N}{\delta u}=B(\partial)X$ for some $X\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$.
Let $P_{N+1}=A(\partial)X\in\mc V^\ell$.
Again by Proposition \ref{20120126:prop3}, we have
$$
\tint\frac{\delta h_n}{\delta u}\cdot P_{N+1}=\{\tint h_n,\tint h_N\}_H=0\,,
$$
for all $n=0,\dots,N$.
Hence, by the first orthogonality condition we get that
$P_{N+1}=C(\partial)Y$ for some $Y\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$.
Let $F_{N+1}=D(\partial)Y\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$.
It follows by Theorem \ref{mtst-nonloc}(c)
(with $\frac{\delta h_{N-1}}{\delta u}$ in place of $F_0$,
$\frac{\delta h_{N}}{\delta u}$ in place of $F_1$,
and $F_{N+1}$ in place of $F_2$)
that $F_{N+1}$ is exact,
i.e. $F_{N+1}=\frac{\delta h_{N+1}}{\delta u}$
for some $\tint h_{N+1}\in\mc V/\partial\mc V$.
By construction,
$\tint h_{N}\ass{H}P_{N+1}\ass{K}\tint h_{N+1}$.
Hence, we extended the sequences $\{\tint h_n\}_{n=-1}^N$ and $\{P_n\}_{n=0}^N$
by one step.
The claim follows by induction.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{20120201:rem2}
Let $\mc V$ be an algebra of differential function in $u_i,\,i\in I$.
Assume that $\mc V$ is a domain, and let $\mc K$ be its field of fractions.
Let $H=AB^{-1},\,K=CD^{-1}\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V(\partial)$
be skewadjoint rational matrix differential operators with coefficients in $\mc V$,
with $A,B,C,D\in\mathop{\rm Mat }_{\ell\times\ell}\mc V[\partial],\,\det B,\det D\neq0$.
Let $\xi_{-1}=0,\xi_0,\dots \xi_N\in\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$
and $P_0,\dots,P_N\in\mc V^\ell$ be such that
\begin{equation}\label{20120201:eq1}
\xi_{n-1}=B(\partial)F_n
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
P_n=A(\partial)F_n
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
\xi_n=D(\partial)G_n
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
P_n=C(\partial)G_n
\,,
\end{equation}
for $0\leq n\leq N$ and some $F_0,\dots,F_N,G_0,\dots,G_N\in\mc V^\ell$, and
$$
\big(\mathop{\rm Span }{}_{\mc C}\{\xi_n\}_{n=0}^N\big)^\perp
\subset\mathop{\rm Im } C
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
\big(\mathop{\rm Span }{}_{\mc C}\{P_n\}_{n=0}^N\big)^\perp\subset\mathop{\rm Im } B\,.
$$
By the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem \ref{20120127:thm} we can extend the
given seguences to infinite sequences
$\{\xi_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}\subset\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$ and $\{P_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}\subset\mc V^\ell$
satisying conditions \eqref{20120201:eq1} for every $n\in\mb Z_+$.
Next, suppose that $H=AB^{-1}$ and $K=CD^{-1}$
are minimal fractional decompositions (cf. Definition \ref{def:minimal-fraction})
and that $H$ and $K$ are compatible Hamiltonian structures on $\mc V$.
Suppose, moreover, that $\det K\neq0$ and $\xi_0=\frac{\delta h_0}{\delta u}$
for some $\tint h_0\in\mc V/\partial\mc V$.
Then it follows by Theorem \ref{mtst-nonloc} that all $\xi_n$'s are closed in $\mc K^{\oplus\ell}$,
i.e. $D_{\xi_n}(\partial)$ is self-adjoint for every $n\in\mb Z_+$.
Hence, all the $\xi_n$'s are closed in $\mc V^{\oplus\ell}$.
Finally, taking, if necesary, a normal extension $\tilde{\mc V}$ of $\mc V$,
one proves that all the $\xi_n$'s are exact,
i.e. there exist elements $\tint h_n\in\tilde{\mc V}/\partial\tilde{\mc V}$
such that $\xi_n=\frac{\delta\tint h_n}{\delta u},\,n\in\mb Z_+$,
\cite[Thm.3.2]{BDSK09}.
Hence, the Lenard-Magri scheme can be applied.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{20121004:rem}
Recall from Theorem \ref{20111021:thm} that,
given two compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures $H$ and $K$,
with $\det(K)\neq0$ ,
we get an infinite family of compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures
given by $H^{[0]}=K$, and $H^{[s]}=(H\circ K^{-1})^{s-1}\circ H$, for $s\geq1$.
Suppose that the infinite sequences
$\{\tint h_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}\subset\mc F(H)\cap\mc F(K)$,
$\{P_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}\subset\mc H(H)\cap\mc H(K)$
satisfy the Lenard-Magri recursive relations
$\tint h_{n-1}\ass{H} P_n\ass{K}\tint h_n$ for every $n\geq0$
(we let $\tint h_{-1}=\tint 0$).
Then, for every $n,s\in\mb Z_+$ we have the relations
$\tint h_n\ass{H^{[s]}} P_{n+s}$.
This will be proved in \cite{DSK12}.
Consequently, all the evolutionary equations $\frac{du}{dt_n}=P_n$
are Hamiltonian with respect to all the non-local Hamiltonian structures $H^{[s]},\,s\in\mb Z_+$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Example: NLS integrable hierarchy}
\label{sec:7.3}
Consider the algebra of differential polynoamials in two variables $R_2=\mb F[u,v,u',v',\dots]$,
and its extension $\mc V_u=\mb F[u^{\pm1},v,u',v',\dots]$.
Let also $\mc K$ be the field of fractions of $R_2$ (which is the same as that of $\mc V_u$).
Consider the following pair of compatible non-local Hamiltonian structures
with coefficients in $R_2$ from Example \ref{20110922:ex5}:
$$
H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v\partial^{-1}\circ v & -v\partial^{-1}\circ u \\
-u\partial^{-1}\circ v & u\partial^{-1}\circ u
\end{array}\right)+c\partial{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
K=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array}\right)\,,
$$
where $c\in\mb F$ is a fixed constant.
The operators $H$ and $K$ admit the following fractional decompositions:
$H=AB^{-1},\,K=CD^{-1}$, where $C=K$, $D={1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}$, and
$$
A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
c\partial\circ u & -u^2v \\
c\partial\circ v & u^3+c\partial\circ(u\partial+2u')
\end{array}\right)
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
u & 0 \\
v & u\partial+2u'
\end{array}\right)
\,.
$$
This fractional decomposition of $H$ is minimal over $\mc K$
by Proposition \ref{prop:minimal-fraction}
since $\ker\bar B\subset\bar{\mc K}^2$ is spanned by
$\left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ u^{-2} \end{array}\right)$,
which does not lie in $\ker\bar A$.
Let $\tint h_{-1}=0,\,\tint h_0=\frac12(u^2+v^2)\in\mc V_u/\partial\mc V_u$
and $P_0=\left(\begin{array}{c} -v \\ u \end{array}\right)\in\mc V_u^2$.
We have $0=\tint h_{-1}\ass{H}P_0\ass{K}\tint h_0$.
Indeed,
letting $F_{-1}=\left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ u^{-2} \end{array}\right)$
and $F_0=\left(\begin{array}{c} u \\ v \end{array}\right)$,
we have
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
B(\partial)F_{-1}
=0=\frac{\delta\tint h_{-1}}{\delta u}
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
A(\partial)F_{-1}
=\left(\begin{array}{c} -v \\ u \end{array}\right)=P_0
} \\
\displaystyle{
{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}} F_0
=\frac{\delta\tint h_0}{\delta u}
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
KF_0
=\left(\begin{array}{c} -v \\ u \end{array}\right)=P_0
\,.
}
\end{array}
$$
Note that, even though $0=\tint h_1,\tint h_0\in R_2/\partial R_2$ and $P_0\in R_2^2$,
they are NOT associated within the algebra $R_2$,
since $F_{-1}$ does not lie in $R_2^2$.
Next, we prove the orthogonality conditions:
$\big(\frac{\delta\tint h_0}{\delta u}\big)^\perp\subset\mathop{\rm Im }{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}$,
$\big(P_0\big)^\perp\subset\mathop{\rm Im }(B:\,\mc V_u^2\to\mc V_u^2)$.
The first condition is obvious.
For the second, $F=\left(\begin{array}{c} f \\ g \end{array}\right)\in\mc V_u^2$
is orthogonal to $P_0$ if and only if
$$
-vf+ug=\partial h\in\partial\mc V_u\,.
$$
In this case,
$F=B(\partial)\left(\begin{array}{c} f/u \\ h/u^2 \end{array}\right)\in\mathop{\rm Im } B$.
By the observations in Remark \ref{20120201:rem2},
there exist sequences $\{\xi_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}$ and $\{P_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}$ in $\mc V_u^2$
satisfying condition \eqref{20120201:eq1} for all $n\in\mb Z_+$,
and all the $\xi_n$'s are closed, in the sense that
their Frechet derivative $D_{\xi_n}(\partial)$ is self-adjoint for every $n$.
We argue that, in fact, all these elements $\xi_n,P_n,\,n\in\mb Z_+$,
lie in $R_2^2$.
Indeed, it is not hard to show, using the explicit form of the matrices $A$ and $B$,
that, if $\xi_{n-1}$ lies in $R_2^2$, then necessarily
both $P_n$ and $\xi_n$ lie in $R_2^2$.
Alternatively, we can exchange the roles of $u$ and $v$
to prove that all $\xi_n$'s and $P_n$'s lie in $\mc V_v^2$, hence in $R_2^2$.
First, we observe that,
since $\ker B$ is one dimensional over $\mb F$ and $C=K$ is invertible,
the flag of subspaces
\begin{equation}\label{20120202:eq1}
\begin{array}{l}
U_0=\mathop{\rm Span }_{\mb F}\{\xi_0\}\,,
U_1=\mathop{\rm Span }_{\mb F}\{\xi_0,\xi_1\}\,,\dots
\,,\\
V_0=\mathop{\rm Span }_{\mb F}\{P_0\}\,,
V_1=\mathop{\rm Span }_{\mb F}\{P_0,P_1\}\,,\dots
\subset \mc{V}_u^2\,,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
associated to the sequences
$\{\xi_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}$ and $\{P_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}$
satisfying condition \eqref{20120201:eq1} for every $n\in\mb Z_+$,
is uniquely defined.
Consider now
the new fractional decomposition $H=A_1B_1^{-1}$,
where
$$
A_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v^3+c\partial\circ(v\partial+2v') & c\partial\circ u \\
-uv^2 & c\partial\circ v
\end{array}\right)
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
B_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v\partial+2v' & u \\
0 & v
\end{array}\right)
\,.
$$
By the same argument as above,
we get that there exist sequences
$\{\xi^1_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}$ and $\{P^1_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}$ in $\mc V_v^2$,
satysfying condition \eqref{20120201:eq1}
with respect to the new fractional decomposition, i.e.
$$
\xi^1_{n-1}=B_1(\partial)F^1_n
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
P^1_n=A_1(\partial)F^1_n
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
\xi^1_n=D(\partial)G^1_n
\,\,,\,\,\,\,
P^1_n=C(\partial)G^1_n
\,,
$$
for some elements $F^1_n,\,G^1_n\in\mc V_v^2$.
Note that the two fractional decompositions $H=AB^{-1}$ and $H=A_1B_1^{-1}$
are equivalent,
in the sense that $A_1$ and $B_1$ are obtained from $A$ and $B$
by multiplication on the right by the matrix
$$
D=B^{-1}B_1=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
u^{-1}v^{-1}\partial\circ v^2 & 1 \\
-u^{-2}v^2 & 0
\end{array}\right)
\,,
$$
which is invertible in $\mathop{\rm Mat }{}_{\ell\times\ell} \mc K[\partial]$.
Hence, by the arguments in Remark \ref{20120201:rem2}
we get that both the sequences
$\{\xi_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+},\,\{P_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}\subset\mc V_u^2$,
and the sequences
$\{\xi^1_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+},\,\{P^1_n\}_{n\in\mb Z_+}\subset\mc V_v^2$,
considered as sequences in $\mc K^2$,
satisfy condition \eqref{20120201:eq1} for every $n\in\mb Z_+$.
Therefore, by the uniqueness of the flag \eqref{20120202:eq1},
we get that
the subspaces
$U_n=\mathop{\rm Span }_{\mb F}\{\xi_0,\dots,\xi_n\}\subset\mc V_u^2$
and $U^1_n=\mathop{\rm Span }_{\mb F}\{\xi^1_0,\dots,\xi^1_n\}\subset\mc V_v^2$
must be the same subspace of $\mc K^2$,
and similarly the subspaces
$V_n=\mathop{\rm Span }_{\mb F}\{P_0,\dots,P_n\}\subset\mc V_u^2$
and $V^1_n=\mathop{\rm Span }_{\mb F}\{P^1_0,\dots,P^1_n\}\subset\mc V_v^2$
must be the same subspace of $\mc K^2$.
In conclusion, all $\xi_n$'s and $P_n$'s lie in $\mc V_u^2\cap\mc V_v^2=R_2^2$.
Since $R_2$ is a normal algebra of differential functions,
it follows from \cite[Thm.4.13]{BDSK09} that all $\xi_n$'s are exact,
i.e. there exists elements $\tint h_n\in\mc V/\partial\mc V,\,n\in\mb Z_+$,
such that $\xi_n=\frac{\delta\tint h_n}{\delta u}$.
Hence, the Lenard scheme can be applied.
It is not hard to show, by induction on $n$, that both entries of $\xi_n\in R_2^2$
have differential order $n$.
Therefore, the vectors $\xi_n$ are linearly independent.
It follows that the elements $\tint h_n\in\mc V/\partial\mc V,\,n\in\mb Z_+$
and the elements $P_n=K\xi_n\in R_2^2,\,n\in\mb Z_+$,
are linearly independent as well.
Since $D={1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}$, we can apply Proposiion \ref{20120126:prop3} and Corollary \ref{20120127:cor}
to deduce that
we have an infinite hierarchy of compatible integrable equations
$\frac{du}{dt_n}=P_n,\,n\in\mb Z_+$,
for which $\tint h_n\in\mc F(H)\cap\mc F(K)$ are integrals of motion.
We can compute the first few equations of this integrable hierarchy,
called the non-linear Schroedinger (NLS) hierarchy:
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\frac{d}{dt_0}
\left(\begin{array}{c}u \\ v \end{array}\right)
=
\left(\begin{array}{c}-v \\ u \end{array}\right)\,,
} \\
\displaystyle{
\frac{d}{dt_1}
\left(\begin{array}{c}u \\ v \end{array}\right)
=
c\left(\begin{array}{c}u' \\ v' \end{array}\right)\,,
} \\
\displaystyle{
\frac{d}{dt_2}
\left(\begin{array}{c}u \\ v \end{array}\right)
=
\left(\begin{array}{c} c^2v''+\frac{c}{2} v(u^2+v^2) \\ -c^2u''-\frac{c}{2} u(u^2+v^2) \end{array}\right)\,,
} \\
\displaystyle{
\frac{d}{dt_3}
\left(\begin{array}{c}u \\ v \end{array}\right)
=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
-c^3u'''-\frac32 c^2 (u^2+v^2)u' \\
-c^3 v'''-\frac32 c^2 (u^2+v^2)v'
\end{array}\right)\,.
} \\
\dots
\end{array}
$$
The third equation is called the (coupled) NLS equation.
The first four integrals of motion are
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\tint h_0=\int \frac12 (u^2+v^2)\,,\,\,
\tint h_1=c\int uv'\,,\,\,
} \\
\displaystyle{
\tint h_2=\int\Big(\frac{c^2}{2}(u'^2+v'^2)-\frac{c}{8}(u^2+v^2)^2\Big)\,,
} \\
\displaystyle{
\tint h_3=\int\Big(-c^3uv'''-\frac{c^2}{2}(u^3v'-v^3u')\Big)
\,.
}
\end{array}
$$
Of course this is a very well known hierarchy, studied by many different methods,
see e.g. \cite{TF86,Dor93,BDSK09}.
The approach of the last two papers, based on a Dirac structure, is close to ours
(even though in \cite{Dor93} the proposed Dirac structure is not quite a Dirac structure).
|
\section{Introduction}
When a fireball produced in heavy-ion collisions is studied in an azimuthal
angle, it is very useful to parametrize its initial shape with the help of the
Fourier decomposition \cite%
{Ollitrault:1992bk,Ackermann:2000tr,Voloshin:2008dg}.
This decomposition clarifies trends in the elliptic flow,
the fluctuations in elliptic flow, and the higher harmonics flows, which are associated with the triangularity and other shape parameters of the fireball \cite%
{Alver:2010gr,Teaney:2010vd}.
The harmonic analysis gives important information about the
transverse initial conditions in heavy-ion collisions, and the
mechanism of the subsequent evolution of the produced fireball -- see {\it e.g.} \cite%
{Florkowski:book}. In particular, the success of the hydrodynamic
model in describing the $v_n$ data at RHIC and LHC places new constraints
on the initial conditions in the transverse direction.
A similar idea can be applied to study the shape of the fireball in the
longitudinal direction. In this paper we will focus on rapidity, $y$, but
our arguments hold for any longitudinal variable. This study was initiated
in Ref. \cite{Bialas:2011bz} (see also \cite{Bialas:2012zz}) where it was
argued that long-range rapidity correlations can be interpreted in terms
of the fluctuating rapidity density of the created fireball. When applied to
the STAR data \cite{Abelev:2009ag}, a significant asymmetric component in
the fireball's rapidity shape was found in the most central Au+Au
collisions.
In this paper we extend the discussion presented in Ref. \cite{Bialas:2011bz}.
We demonstrate that the fluctuations in the fireball rapidity
density result in a nontrivial structure of the rapidity correlation
function, and propose to study the additional components beyond
asymmetry described above. The experimental method to
extract various components is also discussed.
The structure of this paper is following. In the next section we discuss the
problem in a simple model. We show that an event-by-event difference between
the number of wounded nucleons in the target and the projectile results in a
long-range asymmetry of the fireball. We derive the correlation function and
show that it depends on both the rapidity difference and the rapidity sum.
In section 3, we decompose the different components of the fireball
rapidity density with Chebyshev polynomials, and show how to extract the
strength of these components from the measured rapidity correlation
function. The practical application of this idea is discussed in section 4,
where we also include several comments. We summarize our paper with the
conclusions in section 5.
\section{Simple model}
In this section we explicitly demonstrate in a simple model that an
event-by-event global fluctuations of the fireball rapidity shape lead to a
nontrivial two-particle rapidity correlation function.
For a given heavy ion event, we denote
the number of wounded nucleons moving to the left and to the right with $w_L$ and $w_R$ respectively.
The average over many events will be denoted by $\left\langle
w_{L}\right\rangle $ and $\left\langle w_{R}\right\rangle $.
In collisions characterized by $\left\langle w_{L}\right\rangle \neq
\left\langle w_{R}\right\rangle $, the single particle rapidity distribution
is asymmetric with respect to $y=0$, where $y$ represents the rapidity in
the center-of-mass frame. This asymmetry is clearly evident in d+Au collisions as measured at RHIC \cite{Back:2004mr}, and is easily
reproduced by practically all models of heavy-ion collisions -- see {\it e.g.} \cite%
{Bialas:2007eg,Deng:2010mv,Tribedy:2011aa,Bozek:2011if}.
In symmetric heavy ion collisions (Au+Au for example) we have $%
\left\langle w_{L}\right\rangle =\left\langle w_{R}\right\rangle $, and the
single particle rapidity distribution is obviously symmetric with respect to
$y=0$ \cite{Back:2001bq}. However, this distribution is symmetric only when
averaged over many events. In a single event the shape (in rapidity) of the
fireball may be asymmetric since $w_{L}\neq w_{R}$.\footnote{%
The asymmetry due to the finite number of produced particles is not
relevant to this analysis.
} Indeed, in a single event the number of wounded nucleons going
to the left may differ from the number of wounded nucleons going to the
right. As discussed below, the asymmetry can be quantified by $\left\langle
(w_{L}-w_{R})^{2}\right\rangle $,
which is significantly larger than zero in Au+Au collisions.
It is a useful exercise to calculate in a simple model the two-particle
rapidity correlation function originating from fluctuations in $w_{L}-w_{R}$.
Here we consider the wounded nucleon model \cite{Bialas:1976ed}, which
is a very useful model for understanding many features of
heavy-ion data \cite%
{Bialas:2004su,Bialas:2007eg,Bzdak:2009dr}. To simplify our
considerations, let us assume that the single particle rapidity distribution
measured in d+Au collisions can be approximated by a liner function of
rapidity\footnote{%
This assumption is quite reasonable outside the fragmentation regions \cite%
{Back:2004mr}.}. Consequently the distribution from a single wounded nucleon
is also a linear function of rapidity. In the wounded nucleon model, the
single particle distribution at a given $w_{L}$ and $w_{R}$ is given by \cite%
{Bialas:2004su}%
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho (y;w_{L},w_{R}) &=&w_{R}(a+by)+w_{L}(a-by) \nonumber \\
&=&a\left( w_{L}+w_{R}\right) -by\left( w_{L}-w_{R}\right) , \label{roLR}
\end{eqnarray}%
where $a+by$ is the rapidity distribution from a right-mowing wounded
nucleon, and $a-by$ is the contribution form a left-mover. As seen from
above equation we have an asymmetric component that is proportional to $y$.
Assuming further that at a given $w_{L}$ and $w_{R}$ there are no
correlations in the system\footnote{%
We want to study correlations originating only from shape fluctuations and
we neglect all other correlations. We will come back to this point in
section 4.}, the two-particle rapidity distribution at a given $w_{L}$ and $%
w_{R}$ is%
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho _{2}(y_{1},y_{2};w_{L},w_{R}) &=&\rho (y_{1};w_{L},w_{R})\rho
(y_{2};w_{L},w_{R}) \nonumber \\
&=&a^{2}\left( w_{L}+w_{R}\right)
^{2}-ab(w_{L}^{2}-w_{R}^{2})(y_{1}+y_{2})+y_{1}y_{2}b^{2}(w_{L}-w_{R})^{2}.
\label{ro2LR}
\end{eqnarray}%
Summing Eq. (\ref{ro2LR}) over $w_{L}$ and $w_{R}$ with an appropriate
probability distribution, $P(w_{L},w_{R})$, we obtain the experimentally
accessible two-particle rapidity distribution. Taking $\left\langle
w_{L}^{2}\right\rangle =\left\langle w_{R}^{2}\right\rangle $, corresponding
to symmetric Au+Au collisions, we obtain%
\begin{equation}
\rho _{2}(y_{1},y_{2})=a^{2}\left\langle \left( w_{L}+w_{R}\right)
^{2}\right\rangle +y_{1}y_{2}b^{2}\left\langle
(w_{L}-w_{R})^{2}\right\rangle .
\end{equation}%
Consequently, the two-particle rapidity correlation function reads
\begin{eqnarray}
C(y_{1},y_{2}) &\equiv&\rho _{2}(y_{1},y_{2})-\rho (y_{1})\rho (y_{2}) \, , \nonumber
\\
&=&a^{2}\left[ \left\langle w_{+}^{2}\right\rangle -\left\langle
w_{+}\right\rangle ^{2}\right] +y_{1}y_{2}b^{2}\left\langle
w_{-}^{2}\right\rangle , \label{C}
\end{eqnarray}%
where $w_{+}=$ $w_{L}+w_{R}$ and $w_{-}=w_{L}-w_{R}$. As seen from Eq. (\ref%
{C}) the fluctuations in $w_{L}-w_{R}$ result in a nontrivial rapidity
structure of the two-particle correlation function. $C(y_1,y_2)$ depends not only on
the rapidity difference, $y_{-}=y_{1}-y_{2}$, but also on the rapidity sum, $%
y_{+}=y_{1}+y_{2}$. Indeed,
the correlation function
\begin{equation}
C(y_{1},y_{2})\sim y_{1}y_{2}b^{2}\left\langle w_{-}^{2}\right\rangle =\frac{%
1}{4}b^{2}(y_{+}^{2}-y_{-}^{2})\left\langle w_{-}^{2}\right\rangle ,
\end{equation}%
decreases as a function of rapidity difference, $y_{-}$, and increases
as a function of rapidity sum, $y_{+}$. This
dependence on $y_+$ can distinguish fluctuations of the fireball
shape from well known sources of correlations (such as resonance decays) that depend mainly on $y_{1}-y_{2}$.
Eq. (\ref{C}) should be taken as an illustration of the
problem we would like to adress in this paper. Despite its
simplicity, the model result shows quite convincingly that the event-by-event asymmetry of the fireball shape
that is present in symmetric heavy-ion collisions can lead to interesting rapidity correlations \cite{Bialas:2011bz}. Obviously there can
be more complicated sources of this asymmetry in more realistic models, {\it e.g.} the difference in the
number of flux-tubes in the CGC/Glasma approach \cite{Gelis:2010nm,Dusling:2009ni}.
In Fig. \ref{fig_A} we present $\left\langle (w_{L}-w_{R})^{2}\right\rangle $
divided by the total number of wounded nucleons $\left\langle
w_{L}+w_{R}\right\rangle $. We performed our calculations at $\sqrt{s}=200$
GeV in Au+Au and p+Au collisions in the Monte-Carlo Glauber model.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{pA} \hfill %
\includegraphics[height=2.45in]{AA}
\caption{Asymmetry in wounded nucleons in p+Au (left) and Au+Au (right)
collisions at $\protect\sqrt{s}=200$ GeV as a function of the impact
parameter $b$.}
\label{fig_A}
\end{figure}
It is interesting to notice that $\left\langle
(w_{L}-w_{R})^{2}\right\rangle $ in Au+Au collisions is quite large and
comparable in magnitude to the total number of wounded nucleons. Thus,
event-by-event rapidity fluctuations
are of order $\sim 1/(w_L+w_R)^{1/2}$ compared to the average, and this
is large compared to normal statistical fluctuations of order $\sim 1/N^{1/2}$,
where $N$ is the number of particles.
In the next section we generalize Eq. (\ref{C}) to analyze
arbitrary rapidity fluctuations of the fireball shape.
\section{General shape fluctuations}
In the previous section we discussed the asymmetric component of the
fireball rapidity density, originating from a non-zero values of $%
w_{L}-w_{R} $. As seen in Eq. (\ref{roLR}) for the simple model of
the previous section, the single particle rapidity distribution
at a given $w_{L}-w_{R}$ is proportional to rapidity $y$,
{\it i.e.} the fireball is denser on one side of the rapidity window
than on the other. There may be different
sources of this asymmetry such as the left-right difference in the
number of collisions, or the difference in the number of asymmetric
long-range flux-tubes in the CGC/Glasma approach \cite{Gelis:2010nm,Dusling:2009ni}. Let us
denote the parameter that characterizes this asymmetry by $a_{1}$. In our
simple model, $a_{1}\propto w_{L}-w_{R}$.
Equation (\ref{roLR}) also contains a term that is proportional to the total
number of wounded nucleons. Fluctuations of this quantity lead to symmetric,
rapidity independent, fluctuations of the \emph{whole} fireball. This can
naturally originate from impact parameter fluctuations, which are
always present in heavy-ion collisions. Let $a_{0}$ denote the
parameter that characterizes this source of fluctuation. In our simple
model, $a_{0}\propto w_{L}+w_{R}$.
The natural question arises if there are more components in the fluctuating
shape of the fireball. For example,
a ``butterfly'' component would characterize a symmetric fireball with higer (or lower)
density on both sides of the midrapidity region, and lower (or higher) density at mid-rapidity.%
\footnote{%
Such ``butterfly" fluctuations are suggested by the measured
forward-backward rapidity correlations at RHIC \cite{Abelev:2009ag}. For a fixed number of particles at midrapidity,
it was observed that the particle yields in pair of narrow rapidity bins located
symmetrically about midrapidity strongly fluctuate. Surprisingly, these
fluctuations are also strongly correlated. Thus, even if the density is
approximately fixed in the middle of the fireball, both sides of the
fireball fluctuate together. The physical origin of this correlation is currently under investigation -- see Refs. \cite{Bzdak:2011nb,Lappi:2009vb}.} The single particle
rapidity distribution affected by this component would be proportional to $%
y^{2}$. Let us denote by $a_{2}$ the parameter that characterizes the
strength of this effect. We will parametrize the fireball asymmetry
and the butterfly component with the two Chebyshev polynomials, $T_1(y/Y)$ and $T_2(y/Y)$, which are shown in Fig. \ref{fig_cheb}.
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{cheb}
\caption{Two components of the fluctuating fireball rapidity density: An
asymmetry (solid black line) and a butterfly (dashed blue line).}
\label{fig_cheb}
\end{figure}
Similarly, we can introduce additional components to fully parametrize shape fluctuations in rapidity.
Thus, it is tempting to expand the single
particle rapidity distribution at a given $a_{0},a_{1},...$ in terms of the
orthogonal polynomials%
\begin{equation}
\rho (y;a_{0},a_{1},...)=\rho (y)\left[ 1+\sum\nolimits_{i=0}a_{i}T_{i}%
\left( y/Y\right) \right] , \label{ro-an}
\end{equation}%
where $\rho (y)$ is the single particle distribution averaged over $%
a_{0},a_{1},\ldots$\,. Here we have expanded the distribution in Chebyshev polynomials\footnote{%
For example: $T_{0}(x)=1,$ $T_{1}(x)=x,$ $T_{2}(x)=2x^{2}-1,$ $%
T_{3}(x)=4x^{3}-3x$ etc.}, but other choices are certainly possible.
The parameter $Y$ characterizes the
scale of long-range rapidity fluctuations in the system. We will discuss reasonable values of $Y$ in the next section. Averaging both
sides of Eq. (\ref{ro-an}) over $a_{0},a_{1},...$ with an appropriate
probability distribution, $P(a_{0},a_{1},...)$, we obtain $\left\langle
a_{i}\right\rangle =0$ for all $i\geq 0$.
Assuming that at a given $a_{0},a_{1},...$ there are no other large sources of long-range rapidity correlations, the two-particle rapidity distribution is%
\begin{equation}
\rho _{2}(y_{1},y_{2};a_{0},a_{1},...)=\rho (y_{1};a_{0},a_{1},...)\rho
(y_{2};a_{0},a_{1},...) \, .
\end{equation}%
Taking an average over $a_{i}$ and subtracting $\rho (y_{1})\rho (y_{2})$,
we obtain the two-particle rapidity correlation function%
\begin{equation}
C(y_{1},y_{2})=\rho (y_{1})\rho (y_{2})\left[ \sum\nolimits_{i,k=0}\left%
\langle a_{i}a_{k}\right\rangle T_{i}\left( y_{1}/Y\right) T_{k}\left(
y_{2}/Y\right) \right] \, . \label{C-gen}
\end{equation}%
It is useful to recall the physical meaning of the first few terms in Eq. (\ref%
{C-gen}): $\left\langle a_{0}^{2}\right\rangle $ represents the rapidity
independent fluctuations of the fireball as a whole,
$\left\langle
a_{0}a_{1}\right\rangle y_{2}$ describes the correlation between rapidity
independent fluctuations of the fireball and its asymmetry, $\left\langle
a_{1}^{2}\right\rangle y_{1}y_{2}$ is the asymmetric component discussed in
the previous section, and $\left\langle a_{2}^{2}\right\rangle [2\left(
y_{1}/Y\right) ^{2}-1][2\left( y_{2}/Y\right) ^{2}-1]$ represents the
butterfly contribution, {\it etc.}\,.
From the previous section, we know that the asymmetric component, $%
\left\langle a_{1}^{2}\right\rangle $, introduces a long-range rapidity
correlation that is a decreasing function of the rapidity difference, $%
y_{-}=y_{1}-y_{2}$, and an increasing function of the rapidity sum, $%
y_{+}=y_{1}+y_{2}$. It is a straightforward to verify that the
rapidity structure originating from the butterfly component leads to a
correlation function that is decreasing both in $y_{-}$ and $y_{+}$.
To conclude this section, we point out that the values of $%
\left\langle a_{i}a_{k}\right\rangle $ can be extracted directly from the
correlation function $C(y_{1},y_{2})$. Using the orthogonality of Chebyshev polynomials%
\begin{equation}
\int_{-1}^{1}T_{i}(x)T_{k}(x)\left( 1-x^{2}\right) ^{-1/2}dx=c_{i}\delta
_{i,k} \, ,
\end{equation}%
where $c_{0}=\pi $ and $c_{i}=$ $\pi /2$ for $i>0$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\left\langle a_{i}a_{k}\right\rangle =\frac{1}{c_{i}c_{k}}\int_{-Y}^{Y}\frac{%
C(y_{1},y_{2})}{\rho (y_{1})\rho (y_{2})}\frac{T_{i}(y_{1}/Y)T_{k}(y_{2}/Y)}{%
\left[ 1-(y_{1}/Y)^{2}\right] ^{1/2}\left[ 1-(y_{2}/Y)^{2}\right] ^{1/2}}%
\frac{dy_{1}dy_{2}}{Y^{2}} \, . \label{aiak}
\end{equation}
In the next section we will discuss how Eq. (%
\ref{aiak}) can be used in practice.
\section{Comments}
In this section we list several comments to clarify the
analysis presented in this paper.
In deriving Eq. (\ref{C-gen}) and Eq. (\ref{C}), we assumed
that at a given $a_{0},a_{1},...$ there are no correlations in the system.
In other words, the only sources of correlations are fluctuations in the
fireball rapidity density. Unfortunately, short-range correlations may
contribute to the left-hand side of Eq. (\ref{C-gen}), and contaminate the
signal coming from the shape fluctuations. Particularly problematic may be
the correlations from resonance decays and local local charge conservation \cite%
{Schlichting:2010qia,Bozek:2012en}. These problems can be mitigated by studying Eq. (\ref%
{C-gen}) for positive and negative particles separately, which significantly
reduces these unwanted backrounds. Moreover, the dependence of the correlation
function on the rapidity sum, $y_{+}$, can be used to distinguish
between rapidity density fluctuations and the
short-range correlations of the background.
One could also worry that at a given $w_{L}+w_{R}$ the distribution
of final particles is given approximately by a negative binomial
distribution (NBD) \cite{Adare:2008ns,Gelis:2009wh} which introduces long-range rapidity correlations into the system. This concern
is unfounded, however, because
the NBD leads to the following two-particle rapidity distribution\footnote{%
We sample particles from NBD and distribute them randomly in rapidity
according to $\rho (y)$.}%
\begin{equation}
\rho _{2}(y_{1},y_{2})=\rho (y_{1})\rho (y_{2})\left( 1+1/k\right) ,
\end{equation}%
where $k$ measures deviation from Poisson distribution. As seen from Eq. (%
\ref{C-gen}), the NBD $\rho _{2}$ influences only $\left\langle
a_{0}^{2}\right\rangle $. In fact, this is the expected result, since the NBD can be
viewed as a rapidity independent fluctuation of the whole fireball.
As pointed out in the previous section, it is not obvious what is
the appropriate value of $Y$ in the preceding formulas. Clearly,
$Y$ parametrizes the range of global rapidity fluctuations in
the fireball density.
For instance, at $\sqrt{s}=200$ GeV the single particle distribution in
d+Au collisions \cite{Back:2004mr} is approximately linear as a function of $%
y$ for $\left| y\right| <2$. Thus, for the asymmetric component parametrized by $a_{1}$, $Y\approx 2$ is a reasonable choice. For higher and
lower energies, this parameter can be rescaled by the ratio of
beam rapidities. This value of $Y$ roughly corresponds to the size of
the thermal fireball, and it is plausible that higher components, if
they exist, are present in this region. If the measurement is performed in
the smaller window than $[-Y,Y]$, fitting the measured correlation
function with Eq. (\ref{C-gen}) can determine the parameters of interest, $%
\left\langle a_{i}a_{k}\right\rangle $.
Another choice is to assign $Y$ to
the rapidity interval of the measurement, and to
investigate how the components $\left\langle a_i a_k\right\rangle$ change when
this rapidity scale is varied.
It is possible that the different fluctuating components are visible at different rapidity scales, and a systematic study of this sort can sort out these differences.
It would be very interesting to compare the strengths of different components,
$\left\langle a_{i}a_{k}\right\rangle $, between heavy-ion and proton-proton
collisions. This could reveal interesting differences in the longitudinal
initial conditions between these two systems. For instance, in Ref.
\cite{Bialas:2011bz} it was shown that the asymmetric component is
significantly stronger in p+p collisions than in central Au+Au collisions.
Further, the ideas presented in this paper could be extended by incorporating
the multi-bin analysis proposed in Refs. \cite{Bzdak:2009bc,Bialas:2010zb,Bialas:2011xk}.
This multi-bin analysis can be used
to investigate the different sources of particles production, providing
a detailed picuture of the fireball in the longitudinal direction.
Finally, we point out that the results obtained in this paper
can be easily generalized to three- and many-particle correlation functions.
\section{Conclusions}
In conclusion, we showed that event-by-event fluctuations of the fireball
rapidity density introduce interesting rapidity correlations that depend
both on the rapidity difference, $y_{1}-y_{2},$ and the rapidity sum, $%
y_{1}+y_{2}$. We demonstrated this explicitly in the wounded nucleon model,
where an event-by-event difference between the number of wounded nucleons in
a target and a projectile, $w_{L}-w_{R}$, leads to the long-range asymmetry
of the fireball. The resulting correlation function in symmetric A+A
collisions is given in Eq. (\ref{C}).
We further proposed to expand the measured two-particle rapidity correlation
function in a series of the Chebyshev polynomials (see Eq. (\ref{C-gen})),
where each polynomial represents a different component of the fireball's
fluctuating rapidity density. The quadratic polynomial in this expansion
describes the ``butterfly'' fluctuations described above, which are suggested by recent measurements at
RHIC. The coefficients of this expansion, $\left\langle
a_{i}a_{k}\right\rangle $, characterize the strength of various components,
and we propose to extract these coefficients from the measured correlation
function. This can reveal nontrivial information about the structure of the
fireball in the longitudinal direction, and can test various models of particle
production in hadronic collisions.
\vspace{\baselineskip}
\noindent{ \bf Acknowledgments:} \\
{}\\
We thank Andrzej Bialas and Larry McLerran for interesting discussions and encouragement.
A.~Bzdak is supported through the RIKEN-BNL Research Center, and by a grant from the Polish
Ministry of Science and Higher Education, No. N202 125437.
D.~Teaney is a RIKEN-RBRC research fellow, and is supported by the
Sloan Foundation and by the Department of Energy through the Outstanding Junior
Investigator program, DE-FG-02-08ER4154.
|
\section{Introduction}
The nuclear SM was proposed almost sixty years ago\cite{Gop49,Hax49}. Soon after, the interacting SM was developed and used extensively to understand a wealth of data on nuclear levels, moments, collective excitations, electromagnetic and $\beta$ decays, and various particle decays. Interacting SM describes the nucleus as a closed quantum system: nucleons occupy bound, hence well localized, single-particle orbits of a harmonic oscillator potential and are isolated from the environment of unbound scattering states. Since the scattering continuum is not considered explicitly, the presence of decay thresholds and the interplay of Hermitian (internal) and anti-Hermitian (external, via the continuum) mixing of SM configurations is neglected. This competition yields a complicate interference pattern\cite{rf:28} and is a source of many collective features such as, e.g., the resonance trapping\cite{rf:12,rf:13,rf:14} and super-radiance phenomenon\cite{rf:15,rf:16}, the multichannel coupling effects in reaction cross-sections\cite{rf:19} and shell occupancies\cite{rf:20},
the clustering\cite{rf:40}, the modification of spectral fluctuations\cite{rf:17}, the deviations from Porter-Thomas resonance widths distribution\cite{rf:14,rf:18}, and so on.
It was clear in fifties that the SM is a phenomenological tool which employs the strongly renormalized bare nuclear interaction between nucleons\cite{Brueckner} and neglects coupling to the continuum\cite{Wigner}. The overwhelming success of the SM, its elegance and simplicity resulted in neglecting most of these questionable assumptions. Unfortunately, the divide between discrete and continuum states in SM has led to an artificial separation of nuclear structure from nuclear reactions, and hindered a deeper understanding of nuclear properties. It is often believed that the understanding why the simple interacting SM works so well will be advanced when the goal of {\em ab initio} many-body approaches including the continuum coupling will be achieved.
Many structural properties of the nucleus are determined by means of nuclear collisions and this calls for a unified theoretical framework. Feshbach at the beginning of sixties formulated a unified theory of nuclear reactions using the effective Hamiltonian and the projection operator method to select the open channel components of the wave function\cite{fesh}. This development led to various formulations of the real-energy continuum shell model (CSM)\cite{Mah69,Bar77,Phi77,Ben99,Vol06,Rot06}. Nowadays, the real-energy CSM provides a unified description of the structure and reactions with up to two nucleons in the scattering continuum\cite{Ben99,Rot06}.
At the same time, Fano noticed that the exact coincidence of different configurations above the lowest particle emission threshold makes the perturbation theory inadequate and calls for a generalization of the standard SM\cite{fano}. The achievement of Fano's goal took almost forty years and required the development of new mathematical approach of the rigged Hilbert space\cite{gel}, new methods to deal with diverging integrals (matrix elements of one- and two-body operators) involving resonance and scattering states\cite{Zel60,Hok65,Rom68,Zim70,Gya71}, the formulation of the generalized completeness relation including single-particle (s.p.) bound states, resonances and scattering states\cite{berggren}. These different and independent developments in mathematics and physics enabled finally a satisfactory formulation of the new many-body theory, the GSM\cite{Mic02,Idb02,Mic03,Mic04}, which offers a fully symmetric treatment of bound, resonance and scattering states in the multiparticle framework. In this formulation, the maximum number of particles in the scattering continuum is not {\it a priori} prescribed as in the real-energy CSM, but follows from the Schr\"{o}dinger variational principle for the many-body Hamiltonian.
Until now, GSM has been primarily used in the context of nuclear structure. (For a recent review, see Ref. \cite{Mic09}.)
In this paper, we shall extend GSM to reaction problems by the coupled-channel (CC) formulation of the scattering problem. The very first application of the GSM-CC formalism will be presented in this paper for the proton scattering on $^6$He target. The proposed GSM-CC formalism can be easily straightforwardly generalized for the description of nuclear reactions in the {\it ab initio} framework of the No-Core Gamow Shell Model\cite{papa12}.
In Sect. 2 we present essential features of the GSM. The reaction wave function and the derivation of GSM-CC equations in the coordinate space representation are discussed in Sect. 3. The method for solving the CC equations is presented in Sect. 4. The first application of the GSM-CC formalism for a description of $^6$He+p reaction is discussed in Sect. 5. Finally, main conclusions of this work are summarized in Sect. 6.
\section{The Gamow Shell Model }
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11cm,angle=-90]{fig1.ps}
\vskip-1cm
\caption{The schematic illustration of a complete s.p. basis in $k$-plane for GSM calculations. The complete many-body basis is spanned by Slater determinants involving nucleons on bound, resonant and continuum s.p. states along the contour $L_+$ in the complex $k$-plane. GSM Hamiltonian matrix is complex symmetric and yields complex energy eigenvalues above the first particle emission threshold.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Resonance phenomena are generic intrinsic properties of many mesoscopic systems. What is specific to atomic nuclei are strong nucleon-nucleon correlations which impose a simultaneous description of the configuration mixing and the coupling to decay channels. The fundamental difficulty in the CSM formulation and the reason why the Fano's program\cite{fano} had to wait forty years to find a comprehensive solution is the fact that resonances do not belong to the Hilbert space. Therefore, whatever strategy is chosen to formulate a configuration interaction approach in open quantum systems, a key points are always: (i) the treatment of s.p. resonances in a many-body framework, and (ii) the definition of complete s.p. and many-body bases.
For the GSM, a s.p. basis is given by the Berggren ensemble\cite{berggren} which consists of Gamow (resonant) states and the non-resonant continuum (see Fig. \ref{fig:1}). (For a detailed description of the GSM see Ref. \cite{Mic09}.)
The GSM Hamiltonian is Hermitian. However, since the s.p. vectors have either outgoing or scattering asymptotics, the Hamiltonian matrix in GSM is complex symmetric and its eigenvalues are complex above the first particle emission threshold. Hence, both real-energy and complex-energy CSM formulations lead to a non-Hermitian eigenvalue problem above the threshold and contain all salient features of an interplay between opposite effects of Hermitian and anti-Hermitian couplings.
\subsection{The Hamiltonian}
The translationally invariant GSM Hamiltonian in intrinsic nucleon-core coordinates of the cluster-orbital shell
model\cite{Ikeda}, can be written as:
\begin{equation}
H= \sum_{i=1}^{A_{val}}\left[ \frac{p_{i}^{2}}{2\mu_i} + U_{i} \right] + \sum_{i<j}^{A_{val}} \left[ V_{ij}
+ \frac{1}{M_c} \bf{p}_{i}\bf{p}_{j}
\right],
\label{GSM_Hamiltonian}
\end{equation}
where $M_c$ is the mass of the core, $\mu_i$ is the reduced mass of either the proton or neutron ($1 / \mu_i =1/m_i + 1/M_{c}$),
$U$ is the s.p. potential describing the field of the core, $V$ is the two-body residual interaction between
valence nucleons. The last term in (\ref{GSM_Hamiltonian}) represents the recoil term.
The particle-core interaction is a sum of nuclear and Coulomb terms: $U = U^N + U^C$. The nuclear potential $U^N$ is approximated either by a Woods-Saxon (WS) field with a spin-orbit term\cite{Mic03} or by the
Gamow-Hartree-Fock (GHF) potential\cite{Mic04}. The Coulomb field $U^C$ is generated by a Gaussian density of $Z_c$ core protons\cite{Mic10}. Similarly, the residual interaction can split into nuclear and Coulomb parts: $V = V^N + V^C$, where $V^N$ is the modified surface Gaussian interaction (MSGI)\cite{Mic10} and $V^C$ is the two-body Coulomb interaction.
$V^C$ can be rewritten as: $U^C_{Z_{val}-1} + \left[V^C - U^C_{Z_{val}-1}\right]^{HO}$,
where $U^C_{Z_{val}-1}$ takes care of the asymptotic behavior of the Coulomb interaction.
The second term in this equation and the two-body recoil term can be expanded in the harmonic oscillator basis\cite{PRC_real_inter_2006,Mic10} which provides an accurate treatment of the long-range physics of the Coulomb potential. In this work, we took 9 harmonic oscillator shells with the oscillator length $b = 2$\,fm.
\section{N-body GSM reaction wave functions}
The CC framework is a convenient to formulate the GSM description of reactions involving one proton (neutron) scattering processes. The CC equations are obtained from the following $A$-body matrix elements:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \mathcal{A} \{ \langle \Psi_f |^{J_f} \otimes \langle r_f~\ell_f~j_f~\tau_f | \}^{J_A}_{M_A}| H | \mathcal{A} \{ | \Psi_i \rangle^{J_i} \otimes |r_i~\ell_i~j_i~\tau_i \rangle \}^{J_A}_{M_A}\rangle \label{cc_eqs_NBME} ~ \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $|\Psi_i\rangle^{J_i}_{M_i}$~~($|\Psi_f\rangle^{J_f}_{M_f}$) are initial (final) GSM eigenvectors of $(A-1)$-body system, $r_i$, $r_f$ are radial coordinates,
$\tau_i$, $\tau_f$ are isospin quantum numbers (proton or neutron), and $\ell_i$, $j_i$, $\ell_f$, $j_f$ are angular quantum numbers. All $A$-body wave functions are fully antisymmetrized, as emphasized by the $\mathcal{A}$ symbol.
In order to express the antisymmetry in a convenient way, the $|r \ell j \tau \rangle$ channel is expanded in a s.p. basis of GSM wave functions $u_n(r)$ generated by the s.p. potential $U_{basis}$. This implies for the associated creation operator:
\begin{eqnarray}
a^{\dag}_{r \ell j \tau}=\sum_n u_n(r) ~ a^{\dag}_{n \ell j \tau} \label{a_dagger} ~ \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, the expression of considered $A$-body wave function becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{A} | \{ | \Psi \rangle^{J} \otimes |r \ell j \tau \rangle \}^{J_A}_{M_A} \rangle
&=& \sum_n u_n(r) \{a^{\dag}_{n \ell j \tau} | \Psi \rangle^{J} \}^{J_A}_{M_A} ~ \ .
\label{coupled_Psi_rljtau}
\end{eqnarray}
States of the target $(A-1)$-nucleus are eigenstates of the Hamiltonian and can be expressed in the basis of Slater determinant. It is then convenient to express channel states in $(A)$-nucleus in the same Slater determinant basis. Consequently, all formal operations involving many-body operators and channel/target states become straightforward using the second quantization.
\subsection{GSM-CC equations in the coordinate space} \label{cc_eqs_derivation}
In order to evaluate Eq. (\ref{cc_eqs_NBME}), we separate the Hamiltonian $H=T+U_{core}+V_{res}$ into basis and residual parts:
\begin{eqnarray}
H=T+U_{basis} + (V_{res}-U_0) \label{H_Ubasis_Vres} ~ \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $U_{basis}$ is the optimal potential of $A$-particle system and $U_0 = U_{basis} - U_{core}$. $U_{core}$ is the potential generated by the core. The advantage of this decomposition is that $V_{res}-U_0$ is finite-range and $T+U_{basis}$ is diagonal in the basis of Slater determinants used.
Let us consider first: $|\ell_i~j_i~\tau_i \rangle = |\ell_f~j_f~\tau_f \rangle = |\ell j \tau \rangle$ in Eq. (\ref{cc_eqs_NBME}), as $H$ in this case contains infinite-range components leading to Dirac delta's which have to be calculated analytically. In order to derive these expressions, we suppose that only a finite number of Slater determinants appear in target many-body states. This assumption is always valid because GSM eigenvectors expansion coefficients decrease exponentially with the energy of basis scattering Slater determinants and, therefore, can be approximated with any arbitrary precision by a finite expansion of Slater determinants. As a consequence, the antisymmetry between $|u_n \ell j \tau \rangle$ and $| \Psi \rangle^J$ in Eq. (\ref{coupled_Psi_rljtau}) no longer plays any role for $n$ larger than a given $n_{max}$. This implies that the creation operators in Eq. (\ref{coupled_Psi_rljtau}) can be replaced by the tensor products.
It is convenient to have matrix elements $\langle \alpha \beta | V_{res}-U_0 | \gamma \delta \rangle$ vanished when $n_\alpha > n_{max}$ (same for $\beta, \gamma$ or $\delta$). This is always the case in GSM calculations as one uses a finite model space. It is thus convenient to rewrite the Hamiltonian $H$ of Eq. (\ref{H_Ubasis_Vres}) introducing an operator acting only on the target:
\begin{eqnarray}
H &=& T + U_{basis} + (V_{res}-U_0)^{A-1} + [(V_{res}-U_0) - (V_{res}-U_0)^{A-1}] \ ,
\label{H_Ubasis_Vres_A_minus_one}
\end{eqnarray}
where one defines $(V_{res}-U_0)^{A-1}$ by its action on the non-antisymmetrized $A$-body states $| \Psi \rangle^{J}_{M} \otimes |u_n \ell j m \tau \rangle$:
\begin{eqnarray}
(V_{res}-U_0)^{A-1} (| \Psi \rangle^{J}_{M} \otimes |u_n \ell j m \tau \rangle) = [(V_{res}-U_0) | \Psi \rangle^{J}_{M}] \otimes |u_n \ell j m \tau \rangle \label{Vres_restricted}\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
{\em i.e.}, $(V_{res}-U_0)^{A-1}$ is the finite-range part of $V_{res}-U_0$ acting on $(A-1)$-body states only. Inserting (\ref{H_Ubasis_Vres_A_minus_one}), (\ref{Vres_restricted}) in (\ref{coupled_Psi_rljtau}), one can show that it is only the sum involving $T + U_{basis} + (V_{res}-U_0)^{A-1}$ and $n \geq 0$ which generates Dirac delta's in the matrix element
(\ref{cc_eqs_NBME}). Consequently, one can rewrite the matrix element as a sum of two terms, one which is finite and the other which is infinite:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle \mathcal{A} \{ \langle \Psi_f |^{J_f} \otimes \langle r_f \ell j \tau | \}^{J_A}_{M_A}| H | \mathcal{A} \{ | \Psi_i \rangle^{J_i} \otimes |r_i \ell j \tau \rangle \}^{J_A}_{M_A}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&= \left[ \sum_{n_i n_f}^{n_{max}} u_{n_i}(r_i) ~ u_{n_f}(r_f) ~
\langle \mathcal{A} \{ \langle \Psi_f |^{J_f} \otimes \langle u_{n_f} \ell j \tau | \}^{J_A}_{M_A}| H | \mathcal{A} \{ | \Psi_i \rangle^{J_i} \otimes | u_{n_i} \ell j \tau \rangle \}^{J_A}_{M_A}\rangle \right. \nonumber \\
&&-\left. \sum_{n \leq n_{max}} u_{n}(r_i) ~ u_{n}(r_f) ~
\langle \{ \langle \Psi_f |^{J_f} \otimes \langle u_{n} \ell j \tau | \}^{J_A}_{M_A}| T + U_{basis} + (V_{res}-U_0)^{A-1} | \{ | \Psi_i \rangle^{J_i} \otimes | u_{n} \ell j \tau \rangle \}^{J_A}_{M_A}\rangle \right]
\nonumber \\
&&+ \sum_{n \geq 0} u_{n}(r_i) ~ u_{n}(r_f) ~
\langle \{ \langle \Psi_f |^{J_f} \otimes \langle u_{n} \ell j \tau | \}^{J_A}_{M_A}| T + U_{basis} + (V_{res}-U_0)^{A-1} | \{ | \Psi_i \rangle^{J_i} \otimes | u_{n} \ell j \tau \rangle \}^{J_A}_{M_A}\rangle ~ \ . \nonumber \\
\label{H_concise_decomposition}
\end{eqnarray}
The term in between square bracket is finite and can be calculated using Slater determinant expansion of considered many-body states and employing standard SM formulas. As $| \Psi_i \rangle^{J_i}_{M_i}$ and $| \Psi_f \rangle^{J_f}_{M_f}$ are eigenvectors of $H$, the second term of Eq. (\ref{H_concise_decomposition}) does not vanish if: $$| \Psi_i \rangle^{J_i}_{M_i} = | \Psi_f \rangle^{J_f}_{M_f} = | \Psi \rangle^{J}_{M} \ .$$
If $|\ell_i~j_i~\tau_i \rangle \neq |\ell_f~j_f~\tau_f \rangle$, one can show using the orthogonality of $|\ell_i~j_i~\tau_i \rangle$ and $|\ell_f~j_f~\tau_f \rangle$ that only the sum over $n_i, n_f$ in Eq. (\ref{H_concise_decomposition}) is nonzero and can be calculated straightforwardly from the Slater determinant expansions of $| \Psi_i \rangle^{J_i}_{M_i}$ and $| \Psi_f \rangle^{J_f}_{M_f}$.
\section{Resolution of the CC equations}
Let us consider the scattering $A$-body state decomposed in reaction channels:
\begin{eqnarray}
| \Phi \rangle = \sum_{c} \int_0^{+\infty} \mathcal{A} | \{ | \Psi_{c} \rangle^{J_{c}} \otimes |r~\ell_{c} j_{c} \tau_{c} \rangle \}^{J_A}_{M_A}\rangle u_{c}(r) r^2 ~ dr ~ \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $c$ is the reaction channel defined by the $(A-1)$-body state $| \Psi_{c} \rangle^{J_{c}}_{M_{c}}$ and the one-body quantum numbers $(\ell_{c},j_{c},\tau_{c})$. $u_{c}(r)$ is the radial amplitude of the $c$ channel to be determined. The CC equations in this basis follow from the Schr{\"o}dinger equation $H | \Phi \rangle = E | \Phi \rangle$:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{c'} \int_0^{+\infty} \langle \mathcal{A} \{ \langle \Psi_c |^{J_c} \otimes \langle r~\ell_c j_c \tau | \}^{J_A} | H - E| \mathcal{A} \{ | \Psi_{c'} \rangle^{J_{c'}} \otimes |r' \ell_{c'} j_{c'} \tau_{c'} \rangle \}^{J_A} \rangle
u_{c'}(r') (r')^2 ~ dr' = 0 \label{cc_eqs_formal_radial} ~ \ .
\end{equation}
Eq. (\ref{cc_eqs_formal_radial}) is a generalized eigenvalue problem. Indeed, different channels are mutually non-orthogonal because target and projectile are antisymmetrized.
In order to deal with a standard eigenvalue problem, one introduces the channel overlap matrix:
\begin{equation}
O(n,c,n',c') = \langle \mathcal{A} \{ \langle \Psi_c |^{J_c} \otimes \langle n~\ell_c j_c \tau | \}^{J_A} | \mathcal{A} \{ | \Psi_{c'} \rangle^{J_{c'}} \otimes |n' \ell_{c'} j_{c'} \tau_{c'} \rangle \}^{J_A} \rangle \label{overlap_matrix} ~ \ .
\end{equation}
Eq. (\ref{cc_eqs_formal_radial}) can then be written in a matrix form: $H U = E O U$, where $U = \{ u_c(r) \}_c$ is the vector of considered channels. Introducing: $W = O^{\frac{1}{2}} U$, and the modified Hamiltonian: $H_m = O^{-\frac{1}{2}} H O^{-\frac{1}{2}}$, one obtains the standard eigenvalue problem: $H_m W = E W$.
The overlap matrix $O$ is defined in the Berggren basis and can be calculated using the Slater determinant expansion of channels. As the antisymmetry acts locally, it is convenient to introduce the harmonic oscillator expansion for the finite-range part of $O^{-\frac{1}{2}}$. For this, $O$ is expanded in the basis of harmonic oscillator channels to obtain the finite-range part of $O^{-\frac{1}{2}}$: $\Delta = O^{-\frac{1}{2}} - I_d$.
Then, $H_m$ can be separated into long- and short-range parts: $$H_m = H + H \Delta + \Delta H + \Delta H \Delta ~ ,$$
where all terms involving $\Delta$ are expanded in the harmonic oscillator basis. Thus, the added part of $H$ in $H_m$ can be treated similarly to the short-range residual interaction.
Using results of Sec. (\ref{cc_eqs_derivation}) and the transformation described above, one can write Eq. (\ref{cc_eqs_formal_radial}) as a system of non-local differential equation with respectively local ($V^{(loc)}_{c c'}(r)$) and non-local ($V^{(non-loc)}_{c c'}(r,r') ~ \forall c$) optical potentials:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{\hbar^2}{2 \mu} \left( -w_c''(r) + \frac{\ell_c(\ell_c+1)}{r^2} w_c(r) \right) + \sum_{c'} \left( V^{(loc)}_{c c'}(r) w_{c'}(r) + \int_0^{+\infty} \!\!\!\! V^{(non-loc)}_{c c'}(r,r') w_{c'}(r') ~ dr' \right) = \nonumber \\
&&=(E - E_{T_c}) ~ w_c(r)
\label{cc_eqs_diff_radial} ~ \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu$ is the reduced mass of the particle and $E_{T_c}$ is the energy of $| \Psi_{c} \rangle^{J_{c}}_{M_{c}}$.
This set of non-local differential equations is then solved numerically using the modified equivalent potential method which yields equations local without singularities in the potentials\cite{Mic09x}. The initial vector $U = \{ u_c(r) \}_c$ of channel functions is obtained by multiplying solutions of Eq. (\ref{cc_eqs_diff_radial}): $W = \{ w_c(r) \}_c$, by $ O^{-\frac{1}{2}}$: $U = W + \Delta W$.
\section{Discussion of results for $^6$He+p reaction}
Results presented in this section correspond to $^6$He target nucleus in 2 states: $J^{\pi}=0_1^+$ and $2_1^+$. The configuration space for neutrons correspond to $0p_{3/2}$ resonance and 17 states of a discretized $p_{3/2}$ contour in the complex $k$ plane. The configuration space for protons includes $0p_{1/2}$ and $0p_{3/2}$ resonances and 17 states of a discretized contour for each resonance. Moreover, for protons we include partial waves $s,d,f,g,h$ which are decomposed using a real-energy contour as in this case the resonant poles are high in energy and very broad.
The s.p. basis in $^6$He and $^7$Li is generated by the same GHF potential, produced by the WS potential of the core and the MSGI two-body interaction between valence nucleons. Parameters of the core potential: the radius $R=1.993$ fm (1.954 fm), the depth of the central part $V_0=50.188$ MeV (49.268 MeV), the diffuseness $d=0.497$ fm (0.657 fm), and the spin-orbit strength $V_{so}=7.488$ MeV (8.23 MeV) for protons (neutrons) have been chosen to fit $p_{1/2}$ and $s_{1/2}$ phase shifts in $^4$He+p and $^4$He+n, and energies/widths of $3/2_1^-$ and $1/2_1^-$ resonances in $^5$He and $^5$Li. The radius of the Coulomb potential in this calculation is $R_C=1.952$ fm. Parameters of the MSGI interaction have been chosen to reproduce energies of the states in $^6$He ($0_1^+$ and $2_1^+$) and in $^7$Li ($3/2_1^-$, $1/2_1^-$, $7/2_1^-$ and $5/2_1^-$) relative to the $^4$He core.
Eq. (\ref{cc_eqs_diff_radial}) are then solved using the multidimensional variant of one-dimensional iterative procedure\cite{Mic09x} where the input functions for the first iteration come from the diagonalization of $H_m$ in the Berggren basis.
\subsection{Numerical tests}
Before showing results for $^6$He+p scattering, it is instructive to compare the spectra of GSM-CC calculations with those obtained in GSM by a direct diagonalization in Berggren basis. One should remember that the configuration space in both calculations is in general not the same.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11.5cm,angle=00]{CC_vs_stucture_He5.eps}
\vskip-0.5cm
\caption{Relative energy difference between GSM and GSM-CC calculations for $^6$He in $J^{\pi}=0^+$ (the solid line) and $2^+$ (the dashed line) states as a function of the depth of the WS potential generated by $^4$He core. The model space is spanned by $0p_{3/2}$ resonance and 30 $p_{3/2}$ states of the discretized continuum. As a two-body interaction, the MSGI interaction with coupling strengths: $V(J=0,T=1)=-20$MeV$\times$fm$^3$ and $V(J=2,T=1)=-15$MeV$\times$fm$^3$ is used.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11.5cm,angle=00]{convergence_discretisation_scat.eps}
\vskip-0.5cm
\caption{The real part of $3/2^-$ scattering wave function at the CM energy $E_{CM}$=5 MeV in the entrance channel $[ ^6{\rm He}(0_1^+) \otimes \pi p_{3/2} ]$ is plotted for different discretization densities of the $p_{3/2}$ contour in the complex $k$-plane.}
\label{fig:3}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Fig. \ref{fig:2} compares results of the GSM calculation for $^6$He with the GSM-CC results for a system $^5$He$(3/2_1^-)$+n in a model space including $0p_{3/2}$ s.p. resonance and $p_{3/2}$ continuum discretized with 30 points. One can see that if the continuum coupling is weak, {\em i.e.} for deep WS potentials, then the relative difference between GSM and GSM-CC calculations tends to zero. On the contrary, for weakly bound systems the GSM-CC approach with a limited number of reaction channels can be a poor approximation of the GSM calculation in the complete many-body space.
The discretization density of the Berggren basis is an essential ingredient of the GSM-CC calculations.
Fig. \ref{fig:3} shows a convergence of the $3/2^-$ scattering wave function in $^7$Li as a function of the number of $p_{3/2}$ states on the discretized contour. One can see that the scattering wave function is fully converged with 17 continuum states.
\subsection{Elastic and inelastic $^6$He+p cross section}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=16.5cm,angle=00]{pHe6_MSGI_35_1_35_7_MeV.eps}
\vskip-0.5cm
\caption{Elastic (left panel) and inelastic (right panel) GSM-CC angular cross sections for the reaction $^6$He+p at the CM energy $E_{CM}$=35.1 MeV. The experimental data are taken from Ref. \cite{Lag01}.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure*}
Angular cross-sections calculated in GSM-CC for $^6$He+p reaction at $E_{CM}=35.1$ MeV are in the qualitative agreement with experimental data\cite{Lag01} (see Fig. \ref{fig:4}). Quantitative discrepancies between theory and experiment may have several origins.
Firstly, the excitation energy in Fig. \ref{fig:4} is such that the contribution of $^4$He core excitations in this reaction cannot be neglected. Secondly, the chosen effective interaction is rather schematic.
Thirdly and most importantly, the target is a weakly bound halo state whereas the reaction product ($^7$Li) in its ground state is well bound with strong $^3$H cluster correlations due to the proximity of $^3$H decay threshold. This implies that the GSM-CC configuration space generated by adding one proton to $^6$He in 2 discrete states ($0_1^+$ ground state and $2_1^+$ resonance) only, may by insufficient to produce configurations obtained by a direct diagonalization of $^7$Li in the Berggren basis. Indeed, the configuration spaces in GSM-CC and GSM become equivalent if {\em all} discrete and continuum states of $^6$He are used to generate $^7$Li configurations. Including only few states of $^6$He in GSM-CC approach requires a strong renormalization of the effective nucleon-nucleon interaction (the optical potentials) to compensate for the missing configurations. By construction, such a renormalization will generate identical energy spectra for both full space and restricted space GSM-CC calculations. However, the reaction cross-sections in these two settings will be different.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:1}GSM and GSM-CC spectra for low-lying states of $^7$Li are compared with the experimental data. For the details of these calculations, see the discussion in the text.}
\vskip 0.5cm
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\br
$J^{\pi}$ & $E_{GSM}$ (MeV) & $E_{GSM-CC}$ (MeV) & $E_{exp}$ (MeV)\\
\mr
$3/2^-$ & -17.83 & -10.946 & -10.949 \\
$1/2^-$ & -21.18 & -10.469 & -10.471 \\
$7/2^-$ & -21.01 & -6.307 & -6.297 \\
$5/2^-$ & -31.26 & -4.509 & -4.345 \\
\br
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The comparison between energy spectra obtained for the same Hamiltonian either by a direct diagonalization in Berggren basis or by solving GSM-CC equations for a limited number of many-body target states gives indication of how strong should be the renormalization of effective two-body interaction (the optical potentials) due to the neglected channels. In Table \ref{tab:1}, we compare energy spectra obtained in GSM and GSM-CC approaches using the same MSGI interaction which was fitted in the GSM-CC approach to reproduce the low-lying states of $^6$He and $^7$Li. One may see that $^7$Li configurations involving $^6$He scattering states which are missing in the GSM-CC calculation, lead to a dramatic lowering of the GSM eigenenergies and, hence, are essential to understand the dynamics in the $^6$He+p reaction.
Results shown in Table \ref{tab:1} demonstrate that none of the CC approaches which neglects continuum states of the target can provide a realistic description of the proton scattering on weakly-bound neutron-rich nuclei. Similar conclusion about the importance of high-lying states in the continuum of a target $(A-1)$-nucleus on low-lying properties of the $(A)$-nucleus have been made recently in the Shell Model Embedded in the Continuum\cite{Oko08}.
\section{Conclusions}
We have proposed the unified description of nuclear structure and nuclear reactions in the framework of GSM which includes continuum couplings in the many-body framework. This CC formulation of the GSM can be employed further in the No-Core GSM framework\cite{papa12} with the bare interaction between free nucleons. The great advantage of the GSM-CC formalism is that the approximation of neglecting high-lying target states can be checked by comparing the calculated GSM-CC energy spectrum with those obtained in (complete) GSM calculation. In this way, one can quantify the role of these neglected configurations in the $(A)$-particle wave function and estimate the scale of renormalization corrections in the microscopic optical potentials.
In spite of recent developments in {\it ab initio} description of nuclear states and progress in open quantum system formulation of the nuclear many-body problem, the microscopic description of nuclear reactions with weakly bound targets continues to be a formidable challenge as it requires including large number of target states to obtain convergent results. In this respect, the task of a unified microscopic description of nuclear structure and nuclear reactions with weakly bound exotic nuclei remains still a distant perspective.
\ack
This paper is written to honor important and numerous contributions of Jerry P. Draayer to the nuclear many-body theory.
This work has been supported in part by the by the MNiSW grant No. N N202 033837; the Collaboration COPIN-GANIL; and U.S. Department of Energy under Contract Nos. DE-FG02-96ER40963 (University of Tennessee) and DE-FG02-10ER41700 (French-U.S. Theory Institute for Physics with Exotic Nuclei).
\vfill
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Originally, one form of Newton's identity on symmetric polynomials is $ke_k=\sum_{i=1}^k(-1)^{i-1}p_ie_{k-i}$, where $p_i$ and $ e_i$ are power sum symmetric polynomials and elementary symmetric polynomials respectively in finite but arbitrary variables. As this number goes to infinity, the identity becomes an identity in the ring of
symmetric functions. Applying the standard involution $\omega$ which sends $p_i$ to $(-1)^{i-1}p_i$ and $e_i$ to $s_i$ on this identity, Newton's identity becomes
\begin{equation}\label{F:NewtonIdentity}
ks_k=\sum_{i\geq1}p_is_{k-i},
\end{equation}
where $s_k$ is the one-row Schur function or the $k$th complete symmetric function. Applications of these identities can be found in Galois theory, invariant theory, group theory, combinatorics and so on. Concerning (\ref{F:NewtonIdentity}), one may wonder what would happen to $\sum_{i,j\geq1}p_{i+j}s_{m-i}s_{n-j}$ for a two-row partition $\lambda=(m,n)$ or generally to $A=\sum_{i_1,\cdots,i_s\geq1}p_{i_1+\cdots+i_s}s_{\lambda_1-i_1}\cdots s_{\lambda_s-i_s}$ for a partition $\lambda$ of length $s$. It is clear that $A$ is homogeneous of degree $|\lambda|$, thus it should be of the form $\sum_{\mu\vdash|\lambda|} c_{\lambda\mu}q_{\mu}$, where $q_\mu=s_{\mu_1}s_{\mu_2}\cdots$. In fact, a corollary of our generalized Newton's formula asserts that $c_{\lambda\mu}\neq0$ only if $\mu\geq\lambda$; (see the remark of Corollary \ref{R:directgeneralizedNewton}). For $\lambda=(m,n)$ the identity is given by Lemma 3.8 in \cite{CJ2}, where it plays a crucial role in the proof of the Laplace-Beltrami operator for Jack functions.
Jack symmetric functions \cite{St} are certain one-parameter deformation of Schur symmetric functions. They are special cases of the more general Macdonald symmetric functions \cite{M} in two free parameters. When the two parameters
take special forms they include a variety of classical symmetric functions including Jack functions and Hall-Littlewood functions.
Two driving problems of Macdonald polynomials are the inner product conjecture and
the positivity conjecture \cite{M}. Cherednik introduced the double affine Hecke algebras (DAHA) to solve the
inner product conjecture by extending the problem to the more general nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials \cite{C}.
Haiman's proof \cite{Ha} of Garsia-Haiman's $n!$ conjecture (which implies Macdonald positivity conjecture) demonstrated the broadness of Macdonald polynomials and their deep connection with Hilbert schemes and resolution
of singularities. Similar positivity phenomena have also been observed in
Lascoux-Lapointe-Morse $k$-Schur functions \cite{LLM}. Haglund's combinatorial formula for Macdonald polynomials
also relied on more general combinatorial statistics \cite{Hg, HHL} (also \cite{As}). These developments often take place by
generalizing Macdonald polynomials.
On the other hand, Macdonald polynomials have also been studied by exploring different characterizations
and related applications.
The interpolation Macdonald polynomials of Okounkov \cite{O},
Knop and Sahi \cite{KS} (see also Rains \cite{R}, Coskun
and Gustafson \cite{CG}) showed that Macdonald polynomials can be characterized by
the zero patterns. This part of developments demonstrated the importance of Macdonald polynomials in modern
harmonic analysis and related fields. For example, Lascoux gave a new characterization of
Macdonald polynomials by using the Yang-Baxter equation and difference operators \cite{La}.
Interesting connections with Selberg-type integrals have also been studied in
the context of Macdonald polynomials, which have
triggered new studies on more generalized hypergeometric series (see \cite{Ka, W, Sc}).
The most general form of Macdonald type hypergeometric functions has also been studied
by Schlosser \cite{Sc}.
In this paper, we seek a new characterization and generalization of Macdonald polynomials by using a commutative algebra generalization of Newton's identity in symmetric functions. Based on the generalized Newton formula
we construct a self-adjoint vertex operator which acts as certain raising operators
on generalized complete symmetric functions. The eigenvectors of this operator are essentially Macdonald symmetric functions. In fact, two specializations to the operator leads to two different operators; both of the operators diagonalize the original Macdonald functions. One of the operators was considered by Shiraishi (cf. \cite{S}). Applying this method, we hope that a further generalization of Newton's identity or a generalized vertex operator would lead to some generalized Macdonald symmetric functions.
In Macdonald's original construction \cite{M}, a discrete Casimir operator was used to diagonalize Macdonald functions in finitely many variables; and then passed on to infinitely many variables. The operator considered in this paper
will directly ensure the triangularity property and thus the existence follows immediately; this can be viewed as
a generalization of our previous work \cite{CJ2}. As specialization of the differential operator, we also obtain
an operator that diagonalizes Hall-Littlewood polynomials directly. This suggests that one may develop a theory of Hall-Littlewood polynomials as some eigenfunctions of a differential operator
directly without reference to Macdonald polynomials. It would be interesting to see if this operator
has any meaning over p-adic fields as Hall-Littlewood polynomials are spherical functions over $GL_n(\mathfrak p)$
\cite{M}.
In the development of classical symmetric functions, vertex operators have been helpful in realization of
Hall-Littlewood symmetric functions \cite{J}
as well as rectangular Jack polynomials \cite{CJ}.
Recently we have also derived an iterated vertex operator realization of Jack symmetric functions \cite{CJ3}.
We hope the new vertex operator constructed in this paper will play a role in vertex operator realization of
Macdonald polynomials. It is also interesting to note the similarity of our vertex operator with the operator
considered by Garsia-Haiman \cite{GH}.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we introduce some definitions and recall some simple results about partitions and symmetric functions. In section 3, we generalize Newton's identity in a commutative algebra. In section 4, this formula is used to find a vertex operator that has Macdonald functions as eigenvectors, and we also recover the explicit formula for two-row Macdonald functions.
\section{Partitions and symmetric functions}
A partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_s)$ of $n$ is a sequence of weakly decreasing non-negative integers,
and $n$ is the weight of $\lambda$: $n=|\lambda|=\sum_i\lambda_i$, which we also denote as $\lambda\vdash n$. Sometimes we also write $\lambda=(1^{m_1}2^{m_2}\cdots)$, where $m_i=m_i(\lambda)$ is the multiplicity of $i$ in $\lambda$. The length of $\lambda$ is defined as $l(\lambda)=\sum_im_i$ and we also denote $z_\lambda=1^{m_1}m_1!2^{m_2}m_2!\cdots\in\mathbb{N}$. One defines the union of two partitions $\lambda\cup\mu$ by $m_i(\lambda\cup\mu)=m_i(\lambda)+m_i(\mu)$ for all $i$. Let $\mathcal P_n$ be the set of partitions of weight $n$ and $\mathcal P$ the set of all partitions.
For $\lambda,\mu\in\mathcal P_n$, the dominance order $\lambda\geq\mu$ is defined by $\sum_{j\leq i}(\lambda_j-\mu_j)\geq0$ for all $i$.
We write $\lambda>\mu$ if $\lambda\geq\mu$ but $\lambda\neq\mu$.
The ring $\Lambda$ of symmetric functions in the variables $x_i$ is a $\mathbb Z$-module
with basis $m_{\lambda}$, $\lambda\in\mathcal{P}$, where for a partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_s)$, the monomial
symmetric function $m_\lambda(x)=\sum_{\alpha}x_1^{\alpha_1}x_2^{\alpha_2}\cdots$, where $\alpha$ runs over
distinct permutations of $\lambda$.
For example $m_{(n)}=x_1^n+x_2^n+\cdots$, $n\geq1$, is the power sum $p_n$. For convenience,
we define $p_0=1$ and $p_n=0$ when $n<0$. The power sum symmetric functions $p_\lambda=p_{\lambda_1}p_{\lambda_2}\cdots$
form another basis of $\Lambda_F=\Lambda\otimes_\mathbb{Z}F$ for a field $F$ of characteristic $0$.
The $p_\lambda$'s with $|\lambda|=n$ span a subspace of $\Lambda_F$, denoted as $\Lambda_F^n$. An element in $\Lambda_F^n$ is said to be homogeneous of degree $n$.
Let $\epsilon=(\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2, \cdots)$ be a sequence of (finite or infinite) non-zero parameters.
We will denote the extension field $\mathbb{Q}(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\cdots)$ of $\mathbb{Q}$ by $F^\epsilon$. We use the notation $\Lambda(\epsilon)$ for the algebra of symmetric functions $\Lambda\otimes_\mathbb{Z}F^\epsilon$ which has been associated with the scalar product given by
\begin{align} \label{def}
\langle p_{\lambda}, p_{\mu}\rangle=\delta_{\lambda
\mu}\epsilon_\lambda z_\lambda, ~~(\lambda, \mu \in \mathcal P)
\end{align}
where $\delta$ is the Kronecker symbol, and $\epsilon_\lambda=\epsilon_{\lambda_1}\epsilon_{\lambda_2}\cdots$, with $\epsilon_0=1$.
Fix an total order in $\mathcal{P}_n$ which is compatible with the dominance order, then we can apply Gram-Schmidt process to the basis $m_\lambda$'s to get an orthogonal basis $P^\epsilon_\lambda$'s such that the leading coefficients
are $1$. In \cite{Ke}, Kerov called this basis generalized Hall-Littlewood (GHL) functions and characterized this basis from the $\epsilon_n$'s. Note that the specializations of $\epsilon_n=1, \alpha, (1-t^n)^{-1}$ or $\frac{1-q^n}{1-t^n}$ corresponds to Schur, Jack, Hall-Littlewood or Macdonald functions respectively.
For each $\lambda\in\mathcal{P}$, define the generalized complete symmetric function $q_\lambda^\epsilon=q_{\lambda_1}^{\epsilon} q_{\lambda_2}^{\epsilon}\cdots$, where $q^\epsilon_n$ is given by the generating function:
$$\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{z^n}{n\epsilon_n}p_n\Big)=\sum_n q_{n}^\epsilon z^n.$$
Thus $q^\epsilon_n=0$ for $n<0$ and for $n\geq0$, we have
$$q_{n}^\epsilon=\sum_{\lambda\vdash n}\frac{p_\lambda}{z_\lambda\epsilon_\lambda}.$$
From this expression we see that $q^\epsilon_\lambda$ is homogeneous of degree $|\lambda|$.
Similar to the cases of Jack functions and Macdonald functions, the $m_\lambda$'s and $q_\lambda$'s are dual to each other as shown in the following lemma. Now assume that $P^\epsilon_\lambda$'s and $Q^\epsilon_\lambda$'s are dual orthogonal bases of $\Lambda(\epsilon)$. If $P^\epsilon_\lambda$ is of the form $P^\epsilon_\lambda=\sum_{\mu\leq\lambda}C_{\lambda\mu}m_\mu$ with $C_{\lambda\la}\neq0$, then $Q^\epsilon_\mu$ has the form $Q^\epsilon_\mu=\sum_{\lambda\geq\mu}D_{\mu\lambda}q^\epsilon_\lambda$ with $D_{\mu\mu}\neq0$.
Similar to Macdonald symmetric functions (cf. \cite{M}) we also have
\begin{lemma}
We have $\langle m_\mu, q^\epsilon_\lambda\rangle=\delta_{\lambda\mu}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For a partition $\lambda$, denote $p'_\lambda(x)=\epsilon_\lambda^{-1}z_\lambda^{-1}p_\lambda(x)$, then $\langle p'_\lambda, p_\mu\rangle=\delta_{\lambda\mu}$.
Set $q_\lambda^\epsilon=\sum_\rho a_{\lambda\rho}p'_\rho$, $m_\mu=\sum_\rho b_{\mu\rho}p_\rho$, then we need to prove
\begin{equation}\label{E:qmrangle}
\langle q_\lambda^\epsilon, m_\mu\rangle=\sum_\rho a_{\lambda\rho}b_{\mu\rho}=\delta_{\lambda\mu}.
\end{equation}
We denote $p'_n(x)=p'_{(n)}(x)$ and set $$F=\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}p'_n(x)p_n(y)\Big).$$
On one hand we have
\begin{align*}
F&=\prod_{n\geq1}\sum_{i\geq0}\frac{1}{i!}p'_n(x)^ip_n(y)^i=\sum_\lambda p'_\lambda(x)p_\lambda(y).
\end{align*}
On the other hand we have
\begin{align*}
F&=\prod_{n\geq1}\exp\big(\sum_i p'_n(x)y_i^n\big)=\prod_{n\geq1}\sum_{i\geq0}q_n^\epsilon(x)y_i^n\\
&=\sum_\lambda q_\lambda^\epsilon(x)m_\lambda(y)=\sum_\lambda \sum_{\rho,\tau}a_{\lambda\rho}b_{\lambda\tau}p'_\rho(x)p_{\tau}(y)\\
&=\sum_{\rho,\tau}\sum_\lambda a_{\lambda\rho}b_{\lambda\tau}p'_\rho(x)p_{\tau}(y).
\end{align*}
Thus we have $\sum_{\lambda}a_{\lambda\rho}b_{\lambda\tau}=\delta_{\rho\tau}$, which is equivalent to equation (\ref{E:qmrangle}).
\end{proof}
We need some linear operators on $\Lambda(\epsilon)$. Define $h_n\in \text{End}_{F^\epsilon}(\Lambda(\epsilon))$ by
\begin{align}
h_n.v&=n\epsilon_n\frac{\partial}{\partial p_{n}}v,\\
h_{-n}.v&=p_{n}v,\\
h_0.v&=v,
\end{align} where $n>0$ and $v\in \Lambda(\epsilon)$.
It can be verified that
\begin{equation}
h_mh_n-h_nh_m=m\epsilon_m\delta_{m, -n}h_0.
\end{equation}
Thus the Lie sub-algebra of $\text{End}_{F^\epsilon}(\Lambda(\epsilon))$ generated by the $h_n$'s is a Heisenberg algebra.
For an operator $A$ on $\Lambda(\epsilon)$, the conjugate $A^*$ of $A$ is defined by $\langle A.u,v\rangle=\langle u,A^*.v\rangle$ for all $u,v\in \Lambda(\epsilon)$. An operator $A$ is called {\it self-adjoint} if $A=A^*$. For a partition $\lambda$, if $A.q^\epsilon_\lambda$ is of the form $A.q^\epsilon_\lambda=\sum_{\mu\geq\lambda}a_{\lambda\mu}q^\epsilon_\lambda$, we say that $A$ {\it raises} $q^\epsilon_\lambda$.
The following result is immediate from definition.
\begin{lemma}\label{L:propertyofh_n}
We have following the properties for $h_n$'s:\\
(1) $h_{n}^*=h_{-n}$ for $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ ,\\
(2) $h_i.q^{\epsilon}_n=q^{\epsilon}_{n-i}$, for $n\in\mathbb{Z}, i>0$.
\end{lemma}
\section{A generalization of Newton's formula}
For non-negative integers $a_1,\cdots, a_s$, we can rearrange them in decreasing order to get a partition, denoted as $[a_1,\cdots,a_s]$.
For any partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_s)$ with $s\geq2$ and $\lambda_s>0$, we define the partition $\lambda^+=[\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_{s-2},\lambda_{s-1}+1,\lambda_s-1]$.
Clearly $\lambda^+>\lambda$.
The following fact on unions of partitions is well-known.
For two partitions $\mu\geq\lambda$, and a partition $\nu$, we have $\mu\cup\nu\geq\lambda\cup\nu$.
For a commutative algebra $\mathcal{A}$ over a field $F$, let $R_n, q_n\in\mathcal{A}$ ($n\geq0$), and $q_0=1$ is the unit element of $\mathcal{A}$. For a partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_s)$, define $q_\lambda=q_{\lambda_1}q_{\lambda_2}\cdots q_{\lambda_s}\in\mathcal{A}$. For convenience, we set $q_n=0$ for $n<0$.
\begin{theorem}\label{T:Newtongeneralization}
Assume that $\sum_{i\geq1}R_iq_{n-i}=c_nq_n$ with $c_n\in F$ for each $n\geq1$. Then for any partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_s)$ of length $s$, we have \begin{equation}
\sum_{i_1,\cdots,i_s\geq1}R_{i_1+\cdots+i_s}q_{\lambda_1-i_1}\cdots q_{\lambda_s-i_s}=\sum_{\mu\geq\lambda}c_{\lambda\mu}q_\mu,
\end{equation}
where $c_{\lambda\mu}\in\sum_{i\geq0}\mathbb{Z}c_{\mu_i}$,
and specifically $c_{\lambda\la}=(-1)^{l(\lambda)-1}c_{\lambda_s}$.
\end{theorem}
Iteratively using $\sum_{i\geq1}R_iq_{n-i}=c_nq_n$, we can write $R_n$ as linear combinations of $q_\lambda$'s
with $\lambda\vdash n$. Thus it is clear that $T.q_\lambda=\sum_{\mu\vdash|\lambda|}c_{\lambda\mu}q_\mu$.
We need to show that $q_\mu$ appears only when $\mu\geq\lambda$. Before we prove the theorem,
we give the following corollary of this theorem which directly generalizes Newton's identity.
\begin{corollary}\label{R:directgeneralizedNewton}
In the commutative algebra $\Lambda(\epsilon)$, assume that $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_s)$ is a partition of length $s$. Then we have $$\sum_{i_1,\cdots,i_s\geq1}\epsilon_{i_1+\cdots+i_s}^{-1}p_{i_1+\cdots+i_s}q^\epsilon_{\lambda_1-i_1}\cdots q^\epsilon_{\lambda_s-i_s}=\sum_{\mu\geq\lambda} c_{\lambda\mu} q_\mu^\epsilon$$ with $c_{\lambda\la}=(-1)^{s-1}\lambda_s$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We only need to prove that $\sum_{i\geq1}\epsilon_i^{-1}p_iq^\epsilon_{n-i}=nq^\epsilon_n$ for each $n\geq1$, and then the corollary follows directly as a special case of Theorem \ref{T:Newtongeneralization}, where we set $\mathcal{A}=\Lambda(\epsilon)$, $R_n=\epsilon_n^{-1}p_n$, $q_n=q^\epsilon_n$ and $c_n=n$.
Consider the action of the operator $A=\sum_{i\geq1}\epsilon_i^{-1}h_{-i}h_i=\sum_{i\geq1}ip_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}$ acting on $q_n^\epsilon$. On one hand, Lemma \ref{L:propertyofh_n} implies $A.q_n^\epsilon=\sum_{i\geq1}\epsilon_i^{-1}p_iq^\epsilon_{n-i}$. On the other hand, writing $p_\lambda=p_1^{m_1}p_2^{m_2}\cdots$ with $m_i=m_i(\lambda)$, we find $A.p_{\lambda}=|\lambda|p_{\lambda}$; thus $A.q_n^\epsilon=nq_n^\epsilon$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{R:generalizingNewton}
In the case of $l(\lambda)=s=1$ and $\epsilon=(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\dots)=(1,1,\dots)$, $q^\epsilon_n$ is the Schur function $s_n$ and this gives (\ref{F:NewtonIdentity}), one form of Newton's formula.
In the case of $l(\lambda)=s=2$ and $\epsilon=(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\dots)=(\alpha,\alpha,\dots)$, it gives the \emph{crucial} Lemma 3.8 in \cite{CJ2}, where we consider the following operator $$D(\alpha)=\sum_{i,j\geq 1}h_{-i}h_{-j}h_{i+j}+\sum_{i,j\geq
1}h_{-(i+j)}h_{i}h_{j}+(\alpha-1)\sum_{i\geq 1}ih_{-i}h_i.
$$
Let us show briefly how this operator diagonalizes Jack functions. We only need to show that $D(\alpha)$ is self-adjoint and raises the $q^\epsilon_\lambda$'s. It is self-adjoint since $h_n^*=h_{-n}$. From the expression $q^\epsilon_n=\sum_{\lambda\vdash n}\alpha^{-l(\lambda)}z_\lambda^{-1}p_\lambda$, it is not difficult to show that $D(\alpha).q^\epsilon_n$ is a scalar multiple of $q^\epsilon_n$. Then we write $D(\alpha)=A(\alpha)+B(\alpha)$ with $B(\alpha)=\sum_{i,j\geq
1}h_{-(i+j)}h_{i}h_{j}$. Note that $A(\alpha)$ is a derivation on $\Lambda(\epsilon)$ and $B(\alpha)$ is a second ordered differential operator. When acting on a product $q^\epsilon_\lambda=q^\epsilon_{\lambda_1}\cdots q^\epsilon_{\lambda_s}$ we have
\begin{align*}
&D(\alpha).q^\epsilon_\lambda=\sum_i q^\epsilon_{\lambda_1}\cdots(D(\alpha).q^\epsilon_{\lambda_i})\cdots q^\epsilon_{\lambda_s}\\
&\qquad\qquad +2\sum_{1\leq k<l\leq s}\sum_{i,j\geq1}h_{-(i+j)}q^\epsilon_{\lambda_1}\cdots (h_i.q^\epsilon_{\lambda_k})\cdots (h_j.q^\epsilon_{\lambda_l})\cdots q^\epsilon_{\lambda_s}.
\end{align*}
The first summand is a scalar multiple of $q^\epsilon_\lambda$ because $D(\alpha)$ diagonalizes the $q^\epsilon_n$'s. Note that $h_i.q^\epsilon_n=q^\epsilon_{n-i}$ and by the $s=2$ case of Corollary \ref{R:directgeneralizedNewton}, $\sum_{i,j\geq1}h_{-(i+j)}q^\epsilon_{\lambda_k-i}q^\epsilon_{\lambda_l-j}$ is of the form $\sum_{(s,t)\geq(\lambda_k,\lambda_l)}C_{s,t}q^\epsilon_{(s,t)}$. Now we see that for each pair $k<l$, the term in the second summand is of
the form $\sum_{\mu\geq\lambda}C_{\lambda\mu}q^\epsilon_\mu$ by the union property of
partitions.
Thus $D(\alpha)$ raises $q^\epsilon_\lambda$'s.
\end{remark}
Now we turn to the proof of the theorem.
To simplify the notation, we denote
\begin{equation}\label{F:defineT}
T.q_\lambda=\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_s\geq 1}R_{i_1+\cdots+i_s}q_{\lambda_1-i_1}\cdots q_{\lambda_s-i_s},
\end{equation}
for a partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_s)$ of length $s\geq1$.
Note that we do not allow $0$ parts for $\lambda$ in the notation $T.q_{\lambda}$. The reason is that the right side of (\ref{F:defineT}) vanishes if one of the $\lambda_i=0$.
If the $q_n$ for $n\geq1$ form a set of (algebraic) generators in $\mathcal{A}$, $T$ defines an operator on $\mathcal{A}$. This operator depends on the $R_n$'s.
The following lemma gives an iterative formula for the action of $T$.
\begin{lemma}\label{L:iterationformula}
Let $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_s,a+1)$ be a partition with $a\geq1$. Then we have
\begin{align}\label{F:iteration1}
T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_s,1)}&=T.q_{[\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},\lambda_s+1]}-q_{\lambda_s}T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},1)},\\
\label{F:iteration}
T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_s,a+1)}&=T.q_{[\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},\lambda_s+1,a]}\\\nonumber
&+q_aT.q_{[\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},\lambda_s+1]}-q_{\lambda_s}T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},a+1)}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first formula comes directly from the following computations:
\begin{align*}
&T.q_{[\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},\lambda_s+1]}\\
&=\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_s\geq 1}R_{i_1+\cdots+i_s}q_{\lambda_1-i_1}\cdots q_{\lambda_{s-1}-i_{s-1}} q_{\lambda_s+1-i_s}\\
&=\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_{s-1}\geq1,i_s\geq 0}R_{i_1+\cdots+i_s+1}q_{\lambda_1-i_1}\cdots q_{\lambda_{s-1}-i_{s-1}}q_{\lambda_s-i_s}\\
&=\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_{s-1},i_s\geq 1}R_{i_1+\cdots+i_s+1}q_{\lambda_1-i_1}\cdots q_{\lambda_s-i_s}\\
&\qquad+\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_{s-1}\geq1}R_{i_1+\cdots+i_{s-1}+1}q_{\lambda_1-i_1}\cdots q_{\lambda_{s-1}-i_{s-1}}q_{\lambda_s}\\
&=\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_{s-1},i_s,j\geq 1}R_{i_1+\cdots+i_s+j}q_{\lambda_1-i_1}\cdots q_{\lambda_s-i_s}q_{1-j}\\
&\qquad+q_{\lambda_s}\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_{s-1},j\geq1}R_{i_1+\cdots+i_{s-1}+j}q_{\lambda_1-i_1}\cdots q_{\lambda_{s-1}-i_{s-1}}q_{1-j}\\
&=T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_s,1)}+q_{\lambda_s}T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},1)}.
\end{align*}
Note that for the second last equal sign we use the given condition $q_0=1$.
Directly using this result and then formula (\ref{F:iteration1}), we have
\begin{align*}
T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_s,a+1)}&=T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s},a,1)}+q_{a}T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s},1)}\\
&=T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s},a,1)}+q_{a}(T.q_{[\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},\lambda_s+1]}-q_{\lambda_s}T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},1)}).
\end{align*}
Similarly, we have
\begin{align*}
T.q_{[\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_s+1,a]}=T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s},a,1)}+q_{\lambda_s}(T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},a+1)}-q_aT.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},1)}).
\end{align*}
Combining these two formulae, we find formula (\ref{F:iteration}).
\end{proof}
Now we can prove the theorem by using another induction inside the first induction.
\begin{proof}
We use induction on $l(\lambda)$. The statement is true for $l(\lambda)=1$. Assume the statement holds for
any partition $\lambda$ such that $l(\lambda)\leq s$. We prove the case of $l(\lambda)=s+1$ by induction on $\lambda_{s+1}$.
We first consider $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_s,1)$, thus $\lambda^+=[\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},\lambda_s+1]>\lambda$. By formula (\ref{F:iteration1}), we have $T.q_{\lambda}=T.q_{\lambda^+}-q_{\lambda_s}T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},1)}$, and the theorem is true for this $\lambda$ by the induction hypothesis and the
union property of partitions.
Now we assume that the theorem is true for $\lambda$ with $l(\lambda)=s+1$ and $\lambda_{s+1}=a$ ($a\geq1$). For the partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_s,a+1)$, we have $\lambda^+=[\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},\lambda_s+1,a]$, and formula (\ref{F:iteration}) becomes:
$$T.q_{\lambda}=T.q_{\lambda^+}+q_aT.q_{[\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},\lambda_s+1]}-q_{\lambda_s}T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},a+1)}.$$
Note that $[\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},\lambda_s+1]\cup(a)=\lambda^+>\lambda$, and the term $q_\lambda$ appears only in $-q_{\lambda_s}T.q_{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{s-1},a+1)}$. So, by the induction hypothesis and the union property of partitions, the theorem is true in this case.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{L:tworowaction}
Under the assumption of Theorem \ref{T:Newtongeneralization}, for $\lambda=(m,n)$ of length $2$ we have
$$T.q_{\lambda}=\sum_{(i,j)>\lambda}(c_i-c_j)q_{(i,j)}-c_nq_{(m,n)},$$
where we set $c_0=0$ for convenience.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We prove it by induction on $n$ with the help of Lemma \ref{L:iterationformula}. For $n=1$ we have
\begin{align*}
T.q_\lambda&=T.q_{n+1}-q_nT.q_1=c_{n+1}q_{n+1}-c_1q_{(n,1)}
\end{align*}
and thus it is true in this case. Assume it is true for $n=a$ ($a\geq1$). Now for $\lambda=(m,a+1)$ we have
\begin{align*}
T.q_\lambda&=T.q_{m+1,a}+q_aT.q_{m,1}-q_mT.q_{a,1}\\
&=\sum_{(i,j)>(m+1,a)}(c_i-c_j)q_{(i,j)}-c_aq_{(m+1,a)}+q_a(c_{m+1}q_{m+1}-c_1q_{(m,1)})\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad-q_m(c_{a+1}q_{a+1}-c_1q_{(a,1)})\\
&=\sum_{(i,j)>(m+1,a)}(c_i-c_j)q_{(i,j)}+(c_{m+1}-c_a)q_{(m+1,a)}-c_{a+1}q_{(m,a+1)}\\
&=\sum_{(i,j)>(m,a+1)}(c_i-c_j)q_{(i,j)}-c_{a+1}q_{(m,a+1)}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\section{Macdonald symmetric functions}
For two parametric vectors $\eta=(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dots), \tau=(\tau_1,\tau_2,\dots)$ we define the following vertex operator $$X^{\eta\tau}(z)=\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{z^{n}}{n}\eta_n h_{-n}\Big)\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{z^{-n}}{n}\tau_n h_n\Big)=\sum_n X_{n}^{\eta\tau} z^{-n},$$
which maps $\Lambda(\epsilon)$ to $\Lambda(\epsilon)[[z]]$, the set of formal power series of $z$ in $\Lambda(\epsilon)$.
We want to find the \emph{right} choice of $\epsilon_n, \eta_n$ and $\tau_n$, such that $X_0^{\eta\tau}$ is self-adjoint and acts on $q^\epsilon_\lambda$ triangularly.
For a partition $\mu=(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_s)$, define the operators $h_\mu=h_{\mu_1}\cdots h_{\mu_s}$ and $h_{-\mu}=h_{-\mu_1}\cdots h_{-\mu_s}$. For any series of constants $c=(c_{\mu\nu})_{|\mu|=|\nu|}$, $T_c=\sum_{|\mu|=|\nu|}c_{\mu\nu}h_{-\mu} h_{\nu}$ defines a linear operator on $\Lambda(\epsilon)$.
The following lemma can easily be proved.
\begin{lemma} \label{L:zerooperator} The operator $T_c=0$ if and only if $c=0$, i.e. $T_c.v=0$ for every $v\in \Lambda(\epsilon)$ if and only if $c_{\mu\nu}=0$ for each pair $(\mu,\nu)$ with $|\mu|=|\nu|$.
\end{lemma}
The following lemma gives a necessary and sufficient condition for $X_0^{\eta\tau}$ to be self-adjoint.
\begin{lemma}\label{L:conjugate}
Assume $\eta_1\tau_1\neq0$. We have that $X_0^{\eta\tau}$ is self-adjoint, i.e. $X_0^{\eta\tau}=(X_0^{\eta\tau})^*$ if and only if there is an nonzero constant $c$ such that $\eta_n=\tau_n c^n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It can be shown that $$X_0^{\eta\tau}=\sum_{|\mu|=|\nu|}z_\mu^{-1}\eta_\mu h_{-\mu} z_\nu^{-1}\tau_\nu h_{\nu},$$
where $\eta_\mu=\eta_{\mu_1}\cdots\eta_{\mu_s}$ for a partition $\mu=(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_s)$, and similarly for $\tau_\nu$.
On the other hand we have $(X_0^{\eta\tau})^*=X_0^{\tau\eta}$. By Lemma \ref{L:zerooperator}, $X_0^{\eta\tau}$ is self-adjoint if and only if
$\eta_\mu \tau_\nu=\eta_\nu \tau_\mu$ for each pair $(\mu,\nu)$ with $|\mu|=|\nu|$. Specifically, one needs $\eta_n \tau_1^n=\eta_1^n \tau_n$ for $n\geq1$, and thus $\eta_n=(\eta_1/\tau_1)^n \tau_n$. Note that $\eta_n=\tau_nc^n$ implies $\eta_\lambda=\tau_\lambda c^{|\lambda|}$; the sufficiency follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{L:creatingpart}
Set $\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{z^{n}}{n}\eta_n p_{n}\Big)=\sum_{n\geq0}R_nz^n$. If $\eta_n=\epsilon_n^{-1}(b^n-1)$, then we have $$\sum_{i\geq1}R_iq^\epsilon_{n-i}=(b^n-1)q_n^\epsilon.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We compute that
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{n\geq0}(\sum_{i\geq0}R_iq^\epsilon_{n-i})w^n=\sum_{i\geq0}R_iw^i\cdot\sum_{j\geq0}q^\epsilon_jw^j\\
&=\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{w^{n}}{n}\eta_n p_{n}\Big)\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{w^n}{n\epsilon_n}p_{n}\Big)=\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{w^n}{n\epsilon_n}b^np_{n}\Big)\\
&=\sum_{n\geq0}q^\epsilon_n(bw)^n,
\end{align*}
which implies the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{T:target operator}
Fix constants $a,b, c$, and set
\begin{align} \label{E:relation1}
&\tau_n=1-a^n, \nonumber \\
&\eta_n=(1-a^n)c^n, \\
&\epsilon_n=\frac{b^n-1}{1-a^n}c^{-n}. \nonumber
\end{align}
Then $X^{\eta\tau}_0$ is self-adjoint and raises $q^\epsilon_\lambda$'s, i.e. $X^{\eta\tau}_0.q^\epsilon_\lambda=\sum_{\mu\geq\lambda}c_{\lambda\mu}q^\epsilon_\mu$.
Moreover $$c_{\lambda\la}=1+(1-a)\sum_{i=1}^{l(\lambda)}(b^{\lambda_i}-1)a^{i-1}.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The equations (\ref{E:relation1}) are equivalent to the following relations
\begin{align} \label{E:relation2}
&\tau_n=1-a^n, \nonumber \\
&\eta_n=\epsilon_n^{-1}(b^n-1),\\
&\eta_n=c^{n}\tau_n. \nonumber
\end{align}
By Lemma \ref{L:conjugate}, $X^{\eta\tau}_0$ is self-adjoint.
We also need another operator on $\Lambda(\epsilon)$ defined by:
\begin{equation}\label{E:qgenerating}
Y^\epsilon(w)=\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{w^n}{n\epsilon_n}h_{-n}\Big)=\sum_n Y_{n}^\epsilon w^n.
\end{equation}
Note that the action of $Y^\epsilon_n$ on $\Lambda(\epsilon)$ is the multiplication of $q^\epsilon_n$, i.e. $Y^\epsilon_{n}.v=q^\epsilon_{n}\cdot v$.
For a partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_s)$,
$X^{\eta\tau}_0.q^\epsilon_\lambda$ is the coefficient of $z^0w_1^{\lambda_1}\cdot w_s^{\lambda_s}$ in the following
\begin{align*}
&X^{\eta\tau}(z).Y^\epsilon(w_1)\cdots Y^\epsilon(w_s).1\\
&=\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{z^{n}}{n}\eta_n h_{-n}\Big)\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{z^{-n}}{n}\tau_n h_n\Big).\prod_{i=1}^s \exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{w_i^n}{n\epsilon_n}h_{-n}\Big).1\\
&=\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{z^{n}}{n}\eta_n h_{-n}\Big)\prod_{i=1}^s \exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{w_i^n}{n\epsilon_n}h_{-n}\Big)\prod_{i=1}^s \exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{(w_i/z)^{n}}{n}\tau_n\Big).1\\
&=\sum_{n\geq0}R_nz^n\cdot\sum_{n_1,\dots,n_s\geq0}q_{n_1}w_1^{n_1}\cdots q_{n_s}w_s^{n_s}\cdot\prod_{i=1}^s\frac{1-aw_i/z}{1-w_i/z}.
\end{align*}
Note that $\frac{1-aw_i/z}{1-w_i/z}=\sum_{k\geq0}d_k (w_i/z)^k$, with $d_0=1$ and $d_k=1-a$ for $k\geq1$. We have
\begin{align}\label{E:actionofX0}
X^{\eta\tau}_0.q^\epsilon_\lambda=\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_s\geq0}R_{i_1+\cdots+i_s}d_{i_1}q^\epsilon_{\lambda_1-i_1}\cdots d_{i_s}q^\epsilon_{\lambda_s-i_s}.
\end{align}
With the assistance of Lemma \ref{L:creatingpart}, we can apply Theorem \ref{T:Newtongeneralization} to the right side of expression (\ref{E:actionofX0}) with $c_n=b^n-1$. Note that although these $i_j$'s start from $0$, this will not affect the triangularity of $X^{\eta\tau}_0.q^\epsilon_\lambda$ by the fact of unions of
partitions (cf. before
Theorem \ref{T:Newtongeneralization}),
and the leading coefficient has the desired form.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} For the algebra of symmetric functions $\Lambda(\epsilon)$, set $\epsilon_n=\frac{b^n-1}{1-a^n}c^{-n}$.
Then for each partition $\lambda$, there is a unique symmetric function $Q_\lambda$ such that\\
(1) $Q_\lambda= \sum_{\mu\geq\lambda}C_{\lambda\mu}q^\epsilon_\mu$ with $C_{\lambda\la}=1,$\\
(2) $Q_\lambda$ is an eigenvector of $X^{\eta\tau}_0$.\\
Moreover these $Q_\lambda$'s give rise to an orthogonal basis of $\Lambda$ and $X^{\eta\tau}_0.Q_\lambda=c_{\lambda\la}Q_\lambda$ with $c_{\lambda\la}$ given in Theorem \ref{T:target operator}.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We first prove the second statement by assuming the first statement is true. We first have $X^{\eta\tau}_0.Q_\lambda=c_{\lambda\la}Q_\lambda$ by Theorem \ref{T:target operator}. Note that $c_{\lambda\la}\neq c_{\mu\mu}$ for $\lambda\neq\mu$, and also $X^{\eta\tau}_0$ is self-adjoint. We have orthogonality by the following
\begin{align*}
&c_{\lambda\la}\langle Q_\lambda,Q_\mu\rangle=\langle X^{\eta\tau}_0.Q_\lambda,Q_\mu\rangle=\langle Q_\lambda,X^{\eta\tau}_0.Q_\mu\rangle\\
&=c_{\mu\mu}\langle Q_\lambda,Q_\mu\rangle.
\end{align*}
Now we turn to prove the first statement. We need to show that there is a unique family $C_{\lambda\mu}, \mu\geq\lambda$ with $C_{\lambda\la}=1$ such that $\sum_{\mu\geq\lambda}C_{\lambda\mu}q_\mu^\epsilon$ is an eigenvector of $X^{\eta\tau}_0$. Thus we need
\begin{align}\label{E:findingcoefficients}
\sum_{\mu\geq\lambda}c_{\lambda\la}C_{\lambda\mu}q_\mu^\epsilon=\sum_{\mu\geq\lambda}C_{\lambda\mu}X^{\eta\tau}_0.q_\mu^\epsilon.
\end{align}
Notice here that the eigenvalue has to be $c_{\lambda\la}$.
Set $X^{\eta\tau}_0.q_\mu^\epsilon=\sum_{\nu\geq\mu} c_{\mu\nu}q_\nu^\epsilon$. Consider the coefficients of $q^\epsilon_\nu$ for $\nu\geq\lambda$ in both sides of (\ref{E:findingcoefficients}). For $\nu=\lambda$, the coefficients in both sides are already equal, and $C_{\lambda\la}=1$ is fixed. For $\nu>\lambda$, we need
\begin{align*}
C_{\lambda\nu}=\frac{\sum_{\nu>\mu\geq\lambda}C_{\lambda\mu}c_{\mu\nu}}{c_{\lambda\la}-c_{\nu\nu}}.
\end{align*}
Starting from $C_{\lambda\la}=1$, and making induction on the dominance order, each $C_{\lambda\nu}$ can be found uniquely.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} Several specializations of $a,b,c$ lead to some interesting results. \\
(A) Set $a=t, b=c=q^{-1}$; then $\epsilon_n=\frac{1-q^n}{1-t^n}$ corresponds to the standard Macdonald case, with the vertex operator and eigenvalue
\begin{align*}
&X^{\eta\tau}(z)=\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
(1-t^n)q^{-n}\frac{z^{n}h_{-n}}{n} \Big) \exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
(1-t^n) \frac{z^{-n}h_n}{n}\Big),\\
&c_{\lambda\la}=1+(1-t)\sum_{i=1}^{l(\lambda)}(q^{-\lambda_i}-1)t^{i-1}.
\end{align*}
(B) Setting $b=q,~c=t,~a=t^{-1}$, we have $\epsilon_n=\frac{q^n-1}{t^n-1}$. This also gives the Macdonald case, with
\begin{align*}
&X^{\eta\tau}(z)=\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{h_{-n}z^{n}}{n}(t^{n}-1) \Big)\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{h_nz^{-n}}{n}(1-t^{-n})\Big),\\
&c_{\lambda\la}=1+(1-t^{-1})\sum_{i=1}^{l(\lambda)}(q^{\lambda_i}-1)t^{1-i}.
\end{align*}
In this specialization, if we set $E=(X^{\eta\tau}_0-1)/(t-1)$, then $E$ is exactly the limit operator used by Macdonald on p. 321 (Sec. 4, ch. 6) in \cite{M}.\\\\
(C) In (B), we can still set $q=0$ to get an operator diagonalizing Hall-Littlewood functions. The corresponding eigenvalues are different for partitions of different length.\\\\
(D) Setting $b=a^{-1}=c$, we have $\epsilon_n=1$ and this is the Schur case, with
\begin{align*}
&X^{\eta\tau}(z)=\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{h_{-n}z^{n}}{n}(a^{-n}-1) \Big)\exp\Big(\sum_{n\geq1}
\frac{h_nz^{-n}}{n}(1-a^n)\Big),\\
&c_{\lambda\la}=1+(1-a)\sum_{i=1}^{l(\lambda)}(a^{-\lambda_i}-1)a^{i-1}.
\end{align*}
It can be observed that the eigenvalues associated with different partitions are different.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Example: Jing-J\"ozefiak formula}
We can use Lemma \ref{L:tworowaction} and expression (\ref{E:actionofX0}) to find an explicit formula for two-row functions $Q_{(m,n)}$. Note that now $c_i=b^{i}-1$, and we have
\begin{align*}
X_0^{\eta\tau}.q^\epsilon_{m,n}&=q^\epsilon_{(m,n)}+(1-a)[(b^m-1)+(b^n-1)]q^\epsilon_{(m,n)}\\
&\qquad+(1-a)^2[\sum_{(i,j)>(m,n)}[(b^i-1)-(b^j-1)]q^\epsilon_{(i,j)}-(b^n-1)q^\epsilon_{(m,n)}].
\end{align*}
Setting $X'_0=\frac{X_0^{\eta\tau}-1}{1-a}$, we have
\begin{align*}
X'_0.q^\epsilon_{(m,n)}&=[(b^m-1)+a(b^n-1)]q^\epsilon_{(m,n)}+(1-a)\sum_{(i,j)>(m,n)}(b^i-b^j)]q^\epsilon_{(i,j)}.
\end{align*}
Let $X'_0$ act on both sides of $Q_{(m,n)}=\sum_{i\geq0}g_iq^\epsilon_{m+i,n-i}$ and consider the coefficients of $q^\epsilon_{(m+i,n-i)}$ ($g_0=1$). we have:
\begin{align}
\label{F:iterative2row}
&g_i=\frac{(1-a)(b^{m-n+2i}-1)}{(1-b^i)(b^{m-n+i}-a)}\sum_{j<i}g_j.
\end{align}
Starting from $g_0=1$ and iteratively using formula \ref{F:iterative2row}, we can compute $g_1,g_2,\dots$, find the general expression for $g_i$ and prove the following theorem, where both the specializations $a=t, b=q^{-1}$ and $a=t^{-1}, b=q$ lead to the coefficients for two-row Macdonald functions.
Note that the two-row formula has been generalized to multiple rows by Lassalle and Schlosser \cite{LS},
see also \cite{EW}.
\begin{theorem}\cite{JJ} Assume that $Q_{(m,n)}=\sum_{i\geq0}g_iq^\epsilon_{m+i}q^\epsilon_{n-i}$, then $g_0=1$ and for $i\geq1$
\begin{equation}\label{E:JJ}
g_i=\frac{(1-ab^0)\cdots(1-ab^{i-1})}{(1-b^1)\cdots(1-b^i)}
\frac{(b^{m-n+1}-1)\cdots(b^{m-n+(i-1)}-1)}{(b^{m-n+1}-a)\cdots(b^{m-n+i}-a)}(b^{m-n+2i}-1).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume that (\ref{E:JJ}) is true for $i\leq s$. Then these evaluations of $g_1,\dots,g_s$ satisfy equation (\ref{F:iterative2row}) for $i=s$; thus we have
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{j<s+1}g_j=g_s+\sum_{j<s}g_j=g_s+g_s\frac{(b^{m-n+s}-a)(1-b^s)}{(1-a)(b^{m-n+2s}-1)}\\
&=g_s\frac{(b^{m-n+s}-1)(1-ab^s)}{(1-a)(b^{m-n+2s}-1)}.
\end{align*}
By formula \ref{F:iterative2row} we have
\begin{align*}
g_{s+1}&=\frac{(1-a)(b^{m-n+2s+2}-1)}{(1-b^{s+1})(b^{m-n+s+1}-a)}\sum_{j<s+1}g_j\\
&=\frac{(1-a)(b^{m-n+2s+2}-1)}{(1-b^{s+1})(b^{m-n+s+1}-a)}g_s\frac{(b^{m-n+s}-1)(1-ab^s)}{(1-a)(b^{m-n+2s}-1)}.
\end{align*}
Replacing $g_s$ by its expression, we find that Eq. (\ref{E:JJ}) is true for $i=s+1$.
\end{proof}
\centerline{\bf Acknowledgments}
The first author would like to thank the support of Universit\"at Basel.
He also thanks Professor Michael Schlosser for discussion. The second author
gratefully acknowledges the partial support of Simons Foundation grant 198129,
and NSF grants 1014554 and 1137837 during this work.
\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
Scattering amplitudes in gauge theories rapidly become difficult to compute as the number of external legs increases. The difficulty is encountered especially when seeking analytic expressions. However, recent advances involving on-shell techniques have enabled the discovery of many new formulas for amplitudes. Notably, the BCFW construction generates tree-level amplitudes efficiently and compactly through recursion relations, via the Cauchy residue theorem.
The phrase ``on-shell technique'' refers to methods of computing scattering amplitudes in which certain propagators are taken to their on-shell limits, and amplitudes are then constructed from knowledge of the corresponding factorization properties. The key is that these factorization limits are calculated in terms of amplitudes of lower complexity, i.e. fewer legs or loops.
It is interesting to study amplitudes (or rather, currents) in which one or more legs is continued {\em off shell}, since they carry even more information than on-shell amplitudes. For example, the Berends-Giele recursion relation among gluon currents in Yang-Mills theory \cite{Berends:1987me}
is not only computationally powerful for numerical results, but was also the crucial stepping stone to establishing the first formulas for gluon amplitudes with arbitrary numbers of legs, in certain helicity configurations \cite{Berends:1987me, Kosower:1989xy}. It is still possible to consider the limits in which internal propagators go on-shell and apply the BCFW construction to find recursion relations \cite{Feng:2011twa}. Compared to the recursion relations for on-shell amplitudes, the ones for currents require committing to a gauge choice, and summing over all internal polarization states, including unphysical polarizations.
In this paper, we seek compact analytic forms for currents of $n-2$ gluons and two massive quarks, where one of the quarks is off shell and the remaining particles are on shell. These currents are key ingredients of an on-shell method of
computing 1-loop amplitudes with external massive fermions \cite{Britto:2011cr}. Such amplitudes are of particular interest in the context of LHC searches for new physics, where production of top quarks plays a large role in both signals and backgrounds. Massive fermion currents can be computed with the off-shell Berends-Giele recursion \cite{Berends:1987me}. In \cite{Rodrigo:2005eu}, this was used to give a compact result in the case where all gluons have the same helicity, with a particular gauge choice relative to the massive spinors.
We study the validity of the BCFW construction \cite{Britto:2005fq,Badger:2005jv} for these massive fermion currents. The construction begins by shifting the momenta of a pair of on-shell external legs by $+zq$ and $-zq$ respectively, where $z$ is a complex variable and $q$ is obtained by requiring that both legs remain on shell after the shift.
Then, the residue theorem produces a recursion relation from poles in $z$ taking values where propagators go on shell. The construction breaks down if there are poles from other sources. In Yang-Mills theory, the only other possible source is a ``boundary term,'' from a nonvanishing limit as $z$ is taken to infinity.\footnote{If the theory is sufficiently well understood, it is possible to include a boundary term explicitly at each step of the recursion \cite{Feng:2009ei,Feng:2010ku,Benincasa:2011kn,Benincasa:2011pg,Feng:2011twa}.}
For off-shell currents, there is another problematic source of poles, which we call ``unphysical poles.'' They are due to the dependence on gauge choice, and they spoil the recursion relation, since we have no information about how to calculate their residues independently.
We identify conditions under which the boundary terms and unphysical poles vanish for massive fermion currents, so that the BCFW construction produces a recursion relation. We then proceed to solve the recursion relation in the particular case where all gluons have equal helicities. Compared to the more compact result of \cite{Rodrigo:2005eu}, our formula also requires all gluons to use the same reference spinor but preserves the genericity of its value.
Our analysis of boundary terms is based on grouping Feynman diagrams conveniently and applying the Ward identity and inductive arguments. The argument establishes the absence of boundary terms for {\em general} off-shell objects in Feynman gauge, provided that there are two on-shell gluons available to construct the momentum shift.
In our study of unphysical poles, we use off-shell gluon currents of the type originally derived by Berends and Giele \cite{Berends:1987me}. We are motivated to generalize the currents in which one gluon has opposite helicity to all the others, by taking its reference spinor to be arbitrary. When the opposite-helicity gluon is color-adjacent to the off-shell leg, we find a very compact form for the current. When it is centrally located among the other gluons, we prove that the current is, in fact, independent of the arbitrary reference spinor.
This paper is organized as follows. The remainder of this introduction contains details of our conventions and notation. Section 2 reviews the BCFW construction of recursion relations in the context of massive fermion currents and describes the origin of boundary terms and unphysical poles. Section 3 derives sufficient conditions for good boundary behavior; Section 4 derives sufficient conditions for the absence of unphysical poles. Section 5 presents sample results from our recursion relations. In particular, we find a closed form for $n$-point currents in which all gluons have the same helicity. Section 6 is a summary with proposals for future work. Appendix A works out a technical point in the proof of Section 3, namely the use of Ward identities in Feynman gauge. Appendix B presents a generalization of Berends-Giele currents with one gluon of opposite helicity, in which the choice of reference spinor is relaxed. Appendix C contains a fully non-recursive formula as an alternative to the $n$-point current given in Section 5, and outlines its derivation.
For reference, analytic formulas for on-shell amplitudes of gluons with massive quarks may be found in \cite{Quigley:2005cu, Schwinn:2006ca, Ozeren:2006ft, Ferrario:2006np, Schwinn:2007ee, Hall:2007mz, Chen:2011sba, Boels:2011zz, Huang:2012gs}, all of which use BCFW recursion relations, sometimes in combination with SUSY Ward identities or Berends-Giele recursion.
\subsection{Conventions and notation}
Momenta of gluons are directed outward, while momenta of fermions are directed inward. We will be considering color-ordered amplitudes and off-shell currents with one massive fermion line, for example, $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{}, 3_g, 4_g, \dots, n_g\right)$, where the star means that the indicated leg is considered off-shell, while the remaining legs are on-shell. We do not include the propagator for the off-shell leg in our definition. For this current, the quark line has its arrow pointing from leg 2 to leg 1. When the quark line matrices are read against the arrow, then the gluon indices are contracted in reverse numerical order. In slightly different notation, we can write
\begin{equation}
i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{}, 3_g^{h_3}, 4_g^{h_4}, \dots, n_g^{h_n} \right)
= | n^{h_n} \dots 4^{h_4} 3^{h_3} | 2 ) ,
\label{altnotation}
\end{equation}
where the round bracket $|2)$ can be equal to either $ |2 \rangle $ or $|2]$, depending on its spin. This notation emphasizes the fact that the current is a spinorial object. For example, to obtain the corresponding amplitude, one should first put $p_1$ on shell and then contract the current with either $[1|$ or $ \langle 1| $.
Our color-ordered Feynman rules use the following gluon vertices:
\begin{eqnarray}
\parbox{17mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{graph67} \fmfframe(10,10)(10,0){
\begin{fmfgraph*}(30,30)
\fmflabel{$p, \lambda$}{g1}
\fmflabel{$q, \mu$}{g2}
\fmflabel{$r, \nu$}{g3}
\fmftop{g2,g3}
\fmfbottom{g1}
\fmf{photon}{g2,v,g3}
\fmf{photon}{g1,v}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile}
}
& = & -\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ g_{\lambda \mu} (p - q)_{\nu}
+ g_{\mu \nu} (q - r)_{\lambda}
+ g_{\nu \lambda} (r - p)_{\mu} \right] ,
\label{vertex3G} \\
\parbox{17mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{graph68} \fmfframe(10,10)(10,0){
\begin{fmfgraph*}(30,30)
\fmflabel{$\lambda$}{g1}
\fmflabel{$\mu$}{g2}
\fmflabel{$\nu$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\rho$}{g4}
\fmfleft{g1,g2}
\fmfright{g4,g3}
\fmf{photon}{g1,v,g2}
\fmf{photon}{g3,v,g4}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile}
}
& = & \frac{i}{2} \left[ 2 g_{\lambda \nu} g_{\mu \rho}
- g_{\lambda \rho} g_{\mu \nu}
- g_{\lambda \mu} g_{\nu \rho} \right] .
\label{vertex4G}
\end{eqnarray}
The polarization vector for a gluon of momentum $p$ is, depending on helicity \cite{Berends:1981rb,DeCausmaecker:1981bg,Kleiss:1985yh,Xu:1986xb,Gunion:1985vca},
\begin{eqnarray}
\varepsilon^\mu_{p-} = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\tgb{n_p|\gamma^\mu|p}}{\cb{n_p p}},
\qquad
\varepsilon^\mu_{p+} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\gb{n_p|\gamma^\mu|p}}{\vev{n_p p}},
\label{eq:pvectors}
\end{eqnarray}
where $n_p$ is an arbitrary but fixed ``reference'' momentum satisfying $n_p^2=0$ and either $\vev{n_p p} \neq 0$ or $\cb{n_p p} \neq 0$, so that the denominator is nonzero. The null reference momenta are chosen independently for each gluon. The set of reference momenta is what we refer to as the gauge choice for a particular calculation, within the Feynman gauge used throughout the spinor-helicity formalism. Any current we construct with a specific gauge choice is expected to fit into a larger calculation, such as the one-loop computations of \cite{Britto:2011cr}, in which all external legs are on-shell, so that ultimately, after being combined with other ingredients computed in the same gauge, no trace of the gauge choice remains. Therefore the reference spinors can be chosen to maximize computational convenience. We delay the choice as far as possible, so that convenience can be evaluated later in the full context of a larger calculation.
The spinors for the massive fermions satisfy the Dirac equation. We do not require any further details of their definitions, so any of various conventions (e.g. \cite{Kleiss:1985yh}, \cite{Schwinn:2005pi}) can be used.
The massless limit is smooth.
We use the Lorentz vector $P_{i,j}$ to denote the sum of color-adjacent momenta in increasing cyclic order, between and including legs $i$ and $j$.
\section{The recursive construction}
We choose to apply the momentum shift to a pair of gluons, since they are always on-shell in this context. The shift denoted by $\tgb{kl}$ shifts the momenta of gluons labeled by $k$ and $l$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\ket{k}} = \ket{k}, \qquad
\hat{\sqket{k}} = \sqket{k}-z\sqket{l}, \qquad
\hat{\ket{l}} = \ket{l}+z\ket{k}, \qquad
\hat{\sqket{l}} = \sqket{l},
\label{kl-shift}
\end{eqnarray}
or
\begin{eqnarray}
\widehat{p}_k = p_k - z q, \qquad \widehat{p}_l & = p_l + z q,
\end{eqnarray}
with the complex-valued shift vector
\begin{eqnarray}
q^\mu = \frac{1}{2} \gb{k|\gamma^\mu|l}.
\label{q}
\end{eqnarray}
The BCFW construction is to
apply the residue theorem on $iJ(z)/z$ to recover the current as
\begin{eqnarray}
iJ(z=0) = - \sum_{\rm{poles}} {\rm{Res}}\left(\frac{iJ(z)}{z}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
To obtain recursion relations among currents, we must have no pole at infinity. This is assured if $J(z)$ goes to zero in the limit $z \to \infty$, which we call {\em good boundary behavior}.
The remaining poles can have two possible origins, due to their construction from Feynman rules: (1) the vanishing of a propagator, or (2) the vanishing of the denominator of a polarization vector, when written as in (\ref{eq:pvectors}).
The first type of pole, from a vanishing propagator, is familiar from the recursion relation for on-shell amplitudes. The corresponding residues are easy to evaluate as the product of two currents or amplitudes with fewer legs, since the vanishing of the propagator is an on-shell condition.
The second type of pole will be called an {\em unphysical pole}. In an on-shell amplitude, the reference spinor in such a pole could be freely chosen to eliminate the $z$ dependence in the denominator, but now with a quark line off-shell, we must fix all reference spinors from the start, and they play an explicit role. These unphysical poles are problematic, since their location has no natural physical meaning, and we have no independent way of computing their residues. Thus, we will find conditions on the currents and shift that prevent the appearance of unphysical poles.
With good boundary behavior and no unphysical poles, there will be a recursion relation that takes the schematic form
\begin{eqnarray}
i J_n(z=0) = \sum_{k, z_{\rm poles}} \sum_{h} i {\hat J}_{k+1}(z) ~\frac{i}{P^2}~ i {\hat J}_{n-k+1}(z),
\end{eqnarray}
where the $i{\hat J}$ are currents and amplitudes with fewer legs; the hat denotes their evaluation at shifted momentum values; $P$ is the momentum flowing between them which goes on-shell at the pole $z$; and the second sum is over internal helicities. Of course, the propagator acquires a mass if it is fermionic. If all of the off-shell legs belong to just one of the two currents on the right-hand side, then the other is replaced by a shifted on-shell amplitude, $i{\hat M}(z)$.
\section{Boundary behavior}
In this section, we study the behavior as $z \to \infty$ of the fermionic current $iJ\left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, 3_g, 4_g, \dots, n_g\right) $ under the $ [ k l \rangle $ shift (\ref{kl-shift}), where $k$ and $l$ represent any of the gluons. We will conclude that the boundary term vanishes in the helicity cases $(k_g^-,l_g^+)$, $(k_g^-,l_g^-)$ and thus $(k_g^+,l_g^+)$ as well, for a generic gauge choice. In fact, our argument is much more general, since none of the unshifted gluons need to be on shell. Moreover, the number of fermion lines is not crucial either.
\subsection{Choice of shift: helicities and polarizations}
Consider the superficial boundary behavior of individual Feynman diagrams, following the flow of the additional momentum $zq$. Without the polarization vectors, the diagrams where the $zq$ momentum goes only through 3-gluon vertices and gluon propagators behaves the worst --- as $ O(z) $. If $zq$ runs through a 4-gluon vertex or through a fermion line, then such a diagram already behaves as $ O(1) $ or better. Now, if we contract the vector indices for the $\tgb{kl}$-shifted gluons with their polarization vectors,
\begin{eqnarray} \begin{aligned}
\hat{\varepsilon}_{k-}^{\mu} & = - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\frac{ [n_k |\gamma^{\mu}| k \rangle }
{ [n_k k] - z [n_k l] } &
\hat{\varepsilon}_{k+}^{\mu} & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\frac{ \langle n_k| \gamma^{\mu}| k] -z \langle n_k |\gamma^{\mu} |l] }
{ \langle n_k k \rangle } \\
\hat{\varepsilon}_{l-}^{\nu} & = - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\frac{ [n_l| \gamma^{\nu} |l \rangle + z [n_l |\gamma^{\nu}| k \rangle }
{ [n_l l] } \ &
\hat{\varepsilon}_{l+}^{\nu} & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\frac{ \langle n_l |\gamma^{\nu} |l] }
{ \langle n_l l \rangle + z \langle n_l k \rangle },
\label{polvectors}
\end{aligned} \end{eqnarray}
we see that for a generic gauge choice the off-shell current superficially has $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $ behavior in the $ (k_g^-,l_g^+) $ case, $O(z)$ in the $ (k_g^-,l_g^-) $ and $ (k_g^+,l_g^+) $ cases, and $O(z^3)$ in the $ (k_g^+,l_g^-) $ case. Note that this behavior can be altered by special gauge choices, i.e. if $ n_k = l $ or $ n_l = k $, then $ \hat{\varepsilon}_{k-}^{\mu} $ and $ \hat{\varepsilon}_{l+}^{\nu} $ lose their $z$ dependence instead of being $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $.
The helicity case $(k_g^-,l_g^+)$ is thus safe automatically, for a generic gauge choice. In Subsection \ref{subsec:mixhelspecialgauge}, we will discuss boundary behavior for a special gauge choice that will be needed in the following sections.
In the remainder of this section, we will prove that in a generic gauge (where $n_k \neq l$), the off-shell current with helicities $ (k_g^-,l_g^-) $ also vanishes at infinity, at least as $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $. To do that, let us multiply this current by the $z$-independent factor $ - \sqrt{2} [n_l l] $, so that only the numerator, $ [n_l |\gamma^{\nu}| \hat{l}\rangle $, remains contracted with the $l$-th gluon's Lorentz index $\nu$. The resulting expression depends only linearly on $[n_l|$, which is a 2-dimensional massless spinor and thus can be expressed as a linear combination of any two independent spinors of the same kind:
\begin{equation}
[n_l| = \alpha [l| + \beta [n_k| .
\label{n_l}
\end{equation}
Therefore it is enough to show that we get $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $ behavior for the two special cases $n_l = l$ and $n_l=n_k$. Let us examine them one by one.
\subsection{Like-helicity shift, first term}
The first term in (\ref{n_l}) yields $ [l|\gamma^{\nu}|\hat{l} \rangle = 2 \hat{l}^{\nu} $, making it possible to use the Ward identity, which diagrammatically can be expressed as follows:
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
\hat{l}_{\nu}
\left[ \parbox{37mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph0}
\fmfframe(12,18)(0,18){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(80,60)
\fmflabel{$1$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$3$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d1}
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l},\nu$}{gl}
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d3}
\fmflabel{$n$}{gn}
\fmfleft{q2,g3,d1,gk}
\fmftop{d2}
\fmfright{q1,gn,d3,gl}
\fmf{fermion}{c,q1}
\fmf{fermion}{q2,c}
\fmf{photon}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon}{gk,c}
\fmf{photon}{gl,c}
\fmf{photon}{gn,c}
\fmfblob{0.25w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} } \right]
= g \left\{
\parbox{37mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph1}
\fmfframe(12,18)(0,18){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(80,60)
\fmflabel{$1-\hat{l}$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$3$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d1}
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d2}
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d3}
\fmflabel{$n$}{gn}
\fmfleft{q2,g3,d1,gk}
\fmftop{d2}
\fmfright{q1,gn,d3,gl}
\fmf{fermion}{c,q1}
\fmf{fermion}{q2,c}
\fmf{photon}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon}{gk,c}
\fmf{phantom}{gl,c}
\fmf{photon}{gn,c}
\fmfblob{0.25w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
\hspace{2mm} \right.
& +
\hspace{2mm}
\parbox{37mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph2}
\fmfframe(12,18)(0,18){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(80,60)
\fmflabel{$1$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2-\hat{l}$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$3$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d1}
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d2}
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d3}
\fmflabel{$n$}{gn}
\fmfleft{q2,g3,d1,gk}
\fmftop{d2}
\fmfright{q1,gn,d3,gl}
\fmf{fermion}{c,q1}
\fmf{fermion}{q2,c}
\fmf{photon}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon}{gk,c}
\fmf{phantom}{gl,c}
\fmf{photon}{gn,c}
\fmfblob{0.25w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} } \\
+ \hspace{4mm}
\parbox{39mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph3}
\fmfframe(12,18)(0,18){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(80,60)
\fmflabel{$1$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$3+\hat{l}$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d1}
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d2}
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d3}
\fmflabel{$n$}{gn}
\fmfleft{q2,g3,d1,gk}
\fmftop{d2}
\fmfright{q1,gn,d3,gl}
\fmf{fermion}{c,q1}
\fmf{fermion}{q2,c}
\fmf{photon}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon}{gk,c}
\fmf{phantom}{gl,c}
\fmf{photon}{gn,c}
\fmfblob{0.25w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
+ \dots & + \hspace{2mm} \left.
\parbox{43mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph4}
\fmfframe(12,18)(0,18){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(80,60)
\fmflabel{$1$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$3$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d1}
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d2}
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d3}
\fmflabel{$n+\hat{l}$}{gn}
\fmfleft{q2,g3,d1,gk}
\fmftop{d2}
\fmfright{q1,gn,d3,gl}
\fmf{fermion}{c,q1}
\fmf{fermion}{q2,c}
\fmf{photon}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon}{gk,c}
\fmf{phantom}{gl,c}
\fmf{photon}{gn,c}
\fmfblob{0.25w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
\right\} .
\label{ward}
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
Each diagram on the right-hand side of (\ref{ward}) is supposed to have an appropriate gauge group generator contracted with the leg to which the momentum $ \hat{l} $ is added, but that is irrelevant for the discussion of $ z \rightarrow \infty $ behavior. For any leg that is initially on shell, such as the $k$-th gluon, the corresponding right-hand-side term should naturally vanish, because the resulting leg would go off shell and thus would be left out when extracting the on-shell pole residue according to the standard LSZ procedure.
Now consider what the Feynman rules tell us about the diagrams on the right-hand side. In case there are off-shell gluons, if a diagram has the $zq$ momentum going from the $k$-th gluon to another through 3-gluon vertices, it must now behave no worse than $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $! Indeed, it still has $ \hat{\varepsilon}_{k-}^{\mu} \sim O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $ on the $k$-th leg, and in addition to that the gluon propagator on the off-shell leg is now $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $ as well. If $zq$ runs through a 4-gluon vertex or through a fermion line and ends up still on a gluon leg, then such a diagram will behave at most as $ O\left( \frac{1}{z^2} \right) $. A new ingredient here is the diagrams that have $zq$ momentum flowing through 3-point vertices to an off-shell fermion leg, but it is easy to see that they will also behave like $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $ or better. In sum, applying the Ward identity in this way reduces the maximal superficial power of $z$ at infinity by two.
There is one technical caveat about this argument: strictly speaking, the Ward identity (\ref{ward}) is valid for a ghostless gauge, whereas in Feynman gauge it is necessary to introduce some extra terms on the right-hand side. We address this issue carefully in Appendix \ref{app:wardid} and find that the argument still holds in Feynman gauge.
\subsection{Like-helicity shift, second term}
Now we consider the case $ n_l = n_k = n $. It turns out to be possible to deduce some interesting facts about the boundary behavior of an off-shell current simply from the Feynman rules.
\subsubsection{Gluon trees, leading power of $z$}
We start with the leading $ O(z) $ diagrams, in which the $zq$ momentum flows only through 3-gluon vertices and gluon propagators, which thus behave as $ O(z) $ at most. Let us look closely at the part of such a diagram that is directly adjacent to the $zq$ momentum flow, i.e.\ just a gluon tree with all but the $k$-th and $l$-th legs off-shell and their propagators amputated, keeping in mind that any of the off-shell legs can be extended by any sort of $z$-independent tree, including a fermion line.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\vspace{4mm}
\begin{fmffile}{graph6}
\fmfframe(0,0)(0,-5){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(100,50)
\fmflabel{$\lambda_1$}{g1}
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\lambda_2$}{g2}
\fmflabel{$\lambda_3$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\lambda_4$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l}$}{gl}
\fmflabel{$\lambda_5$}{g5}
\fmftop{gk,,g2,g3,g4}
\fmfbottom{g1,g5,,gl}
\fmf{photon}{gk,v1,v5,v2,v3,v4,gl}
\fmffreeze
\fmf{photon}{g1,v1}
\fmf{photon}{g2,v2}
\fmf{photon}{g3,v3}
\fmf{photon}{g4,v4}
\fmf{photon}{g5,v5}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile}
\end{center}
\caption{A generic gluon tree diagram with only 3-point vertices. \label{gluontree}}
\end{figure}
A tree with $n$ legs will have $(n-2)$ vertices $ \sim O(z) $, $(n-3)$ internal propagators $ \sim O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $ and $(n-2)$ free indices. The highest power of $z$ will be accumulated if we pick up $zq^{\lambda}$ from each vertex, a $ z [n |\gamma^{\nu}| k \rangle $ term from the $l$-th gluon's polarization vector, and another $ [n |\gamma^{\mu}| k \rangle $ coming from the $k$-th gluon: $n$ vectors in total. Apart from that, vertices and propagator numerators can only offer various combinations of metric tensors, and the fact that there are only $(n-2)$ free indices means that at least one contraction will take place among those vectors. But any such contraction eliminates a power of $z$, since
\begin{eqnarray*}
[n |\gamma^{\nu}| k \rangle q_{\mu} & = 0 , \\
q^2 & = 0 .
\end{eqnarray*}
So the leading $ O(z) $ term vanishes and we are left only with $ O(1) $ at most.
\subsubsection{Fermion line insertion, leading power of $z$}
Similarly, the leading $ O(1) $ term vanishes for the diagrams in which $zq$ flows through the fermion line. To see this, consider once again only the terms directly adjacent to the $zq$ momentum flow, i.e.\ the relevant part of the fermion line and mostly off-shell gluon trees on both of its sides.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\vspace{4mm}
\begin{fmffile}{graph7}
\fmfframe(0,0)(0,-15){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(100,50)
\fmflabel{$\lambda_1$}{g1}
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\lambda_2$}{g2}
\fmflabel{$\lambda_3$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\lambda_4$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l}$}{gl}
\fmftop{,g2,g3,}
\fmfleft{q2,g1,gk}
\fmfright{q1,g4,gl}
\fmf{fermion}{q2,vf2,vf3,vf1,q1}
\fmffreeze
\fmf{photon}{gk,v1,v2,vf2}
\fmf{photon}{vf1,v4,gl}
\fmf{photon}{g1,v1}
\fmf{photon}{g2,v2}
\fmf{photon}{g3,vf3}
\fmf{photon}{g4,v4}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile}
\end{center}
\caption{A generic diagram with $zq$ flowing through the fermion line and only 3-point gluon vertices. \label{fermionline}}
\end{figure}
The leading power of $z$ in a generic diagram with $n$ gluons will now be attained by accumulating $(n-1)$ powers of $zq^{\lambda}$ from 3-gluon vertices and the numerators of fermion propagators. As before, $ [n |\gamma^{\mu}| k \rangle $ and $ z [n |\gamma^{\nu}| k \rangle $ will come from the $k$-th and $l$-th gluons respectively, so in total we have $(n+1)$ vectors with only $(n-2)$ free indices to attribute to them. Note that the relevant part of the fermion line consists of an odd number of $\gamma$-matrices and thus can always be expressed as a linear combination of eight basic matrices $ \{\gamma^{\mu}\}_{\mu=0}^3 \cup \{\gamma^{\mu} \gamma^5\}_{\mu=0}^3 $ just by using the standard formula:
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
\gamma^{\lambda} \gamma^{\mu} \gamma^{\nu}
= g^{\lambda \mu} \gamma^{\nu}
- g^{\lambda \nu} \gamma^{\mu}
+ g^{\mu \nu} \gamma^{\lambda}
+ i \epsilon^{\lambda \mu \nu \rho} \gamma_{\rho} \gamma^5 .
\label{threegamma}
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
The free index of the $ \gamma^{\mu} $ or $ \gamma^{\mu} \gamma^5 $ can either be left free as an off-shell gluon index (leaving us with only $(n-3)$ free indices left for $(n+1)$ vectors) or be contracted with one of the $(n+1)$ vectors. So the number of free indices is smaller than the number of vectors at least by two. The difference with the previous case is that now we have not only metric tensors to do the index-contraction work, but also the totally antisymmetric tensor coming from (\ref{threegamma}). So, lowering the number of free vector indices by two can be achieved by either dotting one vector to another, in which case we get zero just as in the gluon-tree case; or by contracting three vectors to one antisymmetric tensor constructing terms like $ \epsilon_{\lambda \mu \nu \rho} \cdot z q^{\lambda} \cdot [n |\gamma^{\mu}| k \rangle \cdot z [n| \gamma^{\nu}| k \rangle $, all of which vanish due to the fact that we have copies of only two vectors in the leading $O(z)$ term. Thus all diagrams with $zq$ momentum flow through a fermion line necessarily vanish at $ z \rightarrow \infty $.
\subsubsection{Gluon trees, next-to-leading power of $z$}
What is left to consider is the possible $O(1)$ contribution from gluon trees. To begin with, calculate the simplest gluon tree, i.e.\ a single 3-gluon vertex contracted with the two polarization vectors as given in (\ref{polvectors}):
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
\parbox{17mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{graph8} \fmfframe(0,0)(0,0){
\begin{fmfgraph*}(30,30)
\fmflabel{$\lambda$}{g}
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l}$}{gl}
\fmftop{gk,gl}
\fmfbottom{g}
\fmf{photon}{gk,v,gl}
\fmf{photon}{g,v}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile}
}
& = \hat{\varepsilon}_{k-}^{\mu}
\left( g_{\mu \nu} (\hat{k} - \hat{l})_{\lambda}
+ g_{\nu \lambda} (2 \hat{l} + \hat{k})_{\mu}
- g_{\lambda \mu} (2 \hat{k} + \hat{l})_{\nu}
\right)
\hat{\varepsilon}_{l-}^{\nu} \\
& = - \frac{1}{ 2 z [nl]^2 }
\left( z \langle k |\gamma_{\lambda} |n] \cdot 2 \langle k | l | n] )
+ \langle k |\gamma_{\lambda}| n] \langle l |\gamma^{\nu} |n]
\cdot z \langle k |\gamma_{\nu}| l]
\right) + O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) \\
& = - \frac{\langle k |\gamma_{\lambda} |n]}{2 [nl]^2 }
\left( 2 \langle k l \rangle [ln]
+ 2 \langle l k \rangle [ln]
\right) + O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) = O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) .
\label{gluonthree}
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
Here the $O(z)$ terms vanish trivially in accord with our previous considerations, but we see from the Fierz identity that the $O(1)$ term is canceled as well. At four legs these cancellations continue to take place, but start to involve $O(1)$ diagrams with a single quartic vertex insertion, for instance:
\begin{eqnarray} \begin{aligned}
\parbox{17mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{graph12} \fmfframe(10,10)(10,0){
\begin{fmfgraph*}(30,40)
\fmflabel{$\lambda_1$}{g1}
\fmflabel{$\lambda_2$}{g2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l}$}{gl}
\fmfleft{g1,gk}
\fmfright{gl,g2}
\fmf{photon}{gk,v2,v1,gl}
\fmf{photon}{g1,v1}
\fmf{photon}{g2,v2}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile}
}
+
\parbox{22mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{graph13} \fmfframe(10,10)(10,0){
\begin{fmfgraph*}(40,30)
\fmflabel{$\lambda_1$}{g1}
\fmflabel{$\lambda_2$}{g2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l}$}{gl}
\fmfleft{g1,gk}
\fmfright{gl,g2}
\fmf{photon}{gk,v1,v2,gl}
\fmf{photon}{g1,v1}
\fmf{photon}{g2,v2}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile}
}
+
\parbox{17mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{graph14} \fmfframe(10,10)(10,0){
\begin{fmfgraph*}(30,30)
\fmflabel{$\lambda_1$}{g1}
\fmflabel{$\lambda_2$}{g2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l}$}{gl}
\fmfleft{g1,gk}
\fmfright{gl,g2}
\fmf{photon}{gk,v,gl}
\fmf{photon}{g1,v}
\fmf{photon}{g2,v}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile}
}
& = O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) .
\label{gluonfour}
\end{aligned} \end{eqnarray}
Evidently, such an intricate cancellation cannot be deduced by examining Feynman diagrams separately. Let us look again at the 3-gluon vertex (\ref{gluonthree}) from another point of view. Attaching a gluon propagator to the off-shell line obviously does not change the power of $z$, and the resulting off-shell 3-gluon current is a Lorentz vector. If we contract it with a simple fermion line, we obtain the first diagram in Fig. \ref{gluonthreeappend}, which is a part of a scattering amplitude --- a gauge invariant object that is well established to behave as $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $ for the $ (k_g^-,l_g^-) $ shift.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\parbox{17mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{graph15} \fmfframe(0,0)(0,-5){
\begin{fmfgraph*}(40,60)
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l}$}{gl}
\fmflabel{$p'$}{out}
\fmflabel{$r'$}{in}
\fmftop{gk,gl}
\fmfbottom{out,in}
\fmf{photon}{gk,v,gl}
\fmf{photon}{g,v}
\fmf{fermion}{in,g,out}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile}
}
+ \hspace{5mm}
\parbox{25mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{graph16} \fmfframe(0,0)(0,-5){
\begin{fmfgraph*}(60,40)
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l}$}{gl}
\fmflabel{$p'$}{out}
\fmflabel{$r'$}{in}
\fmftop{gk,gl}
\fmfbottom{out,in}
\fmf{photon}{gk,vk}
\fmf{photon}{gl,vl}
\fmf{fermion}{in,vl,vk,out}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile}
}
\end{center}
\caption{Diagrams for the amplitude of 2 gluon and 1 fermion line. \label{gluonthreeappend}}
\end{figure}
Moreover, the second diagram in Fig. \ref{gluonthreeappend} has $zq$ momentum flow through its fermion line, so according to our previous discussion it is of order $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $ by itself. Thus we can conclude that the first one is $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $ as well. We obtained it by contracting the initial off-shell current vector with a correctly defined fermion line. The freedom of choosing the on-shell fermion momenta and helicities spans the whole Minkowski space. Therefore, the vector must have the same boundary behavior.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\parbox{44mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph17}
\fmfframe(12,5)(0,0){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(80,60)
\fmflabel{$\lambda_1$}{g1}
\fmflabel{$\lambda_2$}{g2}
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d1}
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l}$}{gl}
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d3}
\fmflabel{$\lambda_{n-3}$}{gn3}
\fmflabel{$\lambda_{n-2}$}{gn2}
\fmfbottom{,g1,gn2,}
\fmfleft{,g2,d1,gk}
\fmftop{d2}
\fmfright{,gn3,d3,gl}
\fmf{photon}{g1,c}
\fmf{photon}{g2,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.7}{gk,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.7}{gl,c}
\fmf{photon}{gn3,c}
\fmf{photon}{gn2,c}
\fmfblob{0.25w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
$ \Rightarrow $ \hspace{3mm}
\parbox{48mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph18}
\fmfframe(12,5)(0,-12){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(100,75)
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d1}
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l}$}{gl}
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d3}
\fmfbottom{,out1,in1,outn2,inn2,}
\fmfleft{,in2,out2,d1,gk}
\fmftop{d2}
\fmfright{,outn3,inn3,d3,gl}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.4}{g1,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.4}{g2,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.7}{gk,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.7}{gl,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.4}{gn3,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.4}{gn2,c}
\fmf{fermion}{in1,g1,out1}
\fmf{fermion}{in2,g2,out2}
\fmf{fermion}{inn3,gn3,outn3}
\fmf{fermion}{inn2,gn2,outn2}
\fmfblob{0.21w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
\end{center}
\caption{Contracting a gluon off-shell current with fermion lines. \label{gluontensor}}
\end{figure}
Along the same lines, we can now prove a very general statement: \emph{An $n$-gluon off-shell current with only two shifted like-helicity legs on shell behaves as $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $.} The current has a free Lorentz index for each off-shell leg, so it is actually a tensor of rank $(n-2)$. If we contract every index with its own fermion line (independent of $z$), we will obtain an expression corresponding to a scalar amplitude (Fig. \ref{gluontensor}) which we know behaves as a whole as $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $ under the $ (k_g^-,l_g^-) $ shift. The freedom of choice of fermion momenta and helicities guarantees that if the contracted expression vanishes at $ z \rightarrow \infty $, then the initial tensor is bound to vanish too.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\parbox{48mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph19}
\fmfframe(0,10)(0,-10){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(125,75)
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l}$}{gl}
\fmfbottom{out1,in1,out4,,in4,}
\fmftop{gk,in2,out2,gl,}
\fmfright{,out3,in3,}
\fmf{photon}{g1,gk}
\fmf{photon}{g1,v1}
\fmf{photon}{g1,g2}
\fmf{photon}{g2,v2}
\fmf{photon}{g2,v5}
\fmf{photon}{g3,gl}
\fmf{photon}{g3,v3}
\fmf{photon}{g3,v4}
\fmf{fermion}{in1,v1,out1}
\fmf{fermion}{in2,v2,out2}
\fmf{fermion}{in3,v3,out3}
\fmf{fermion}{in4,v4,v5,out4}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
\hspace{3mm}
\parbox{60mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph20}
\fmfframe(0,10)(0,-10){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(150,75)
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l}$}{gl}
\fmfbottom{out1,,in1,out4,,,in4,}
\fmftop{gk,in2,out2,gl,}
\fmfright{,out3,in3,}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{gk,v5}
\fmf{photon,tension=1}{g2,v1}
\fmf{photon,tension=2}{g2,v2}
\fmf{photon,tension=1}{g2,v7}
\fmf{photon,tension=0}{gl,v6}
\fmf{photon}{v3,v4}
\fmf{fermion}{in1,v1,v5,out1}
\fmf{fermion}{in2,v2,out2}
\fmf{fermion}{in3,v3,out3}
\fmf{fermion}{in4,v4,v6,v7,out4}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
\end{center}
\caption{Diagrams for $ 4 \times \{ q \bar{q} \} \rightarrow \hat{g_k} \hat{g_l} $ with $zq$ momentum flow through fermion propagators. \label{gluontensorlacking1}}
\end{figure}
Of course, we will still lack some diagrams to build the full amplitude, but the lacking terms will in fact be those for which we have already proven the good behavior at $ z \rightarrow \infty $. Indeed, the result resembles an amplitude for a process where $(n-2)$ (distinct) quark-antiquark pairs go to 2 gluons, so it should contain not only the diagrams which are given by the right-hand side of Fig. \ref{gluontensor}, but also those where some fermion lines have multiple fermion vertices and thus have fermion propagator insertions in them. Some of them look like the diagrams which are shown in Fig. \ref{gluontensorlacking1}, i.e.\ have $zq$ flow through at least one of those fermion lines and thus vanish at $ z \rightarrow \infty $.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\parbox{48mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph21}
\fmfframe(0,10)(0,-10){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(125,75)
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l}$}{gl}
\fmfbottom{out1,in1,out4,,in4,}
\fmftop{gk,in2,out2,gl,}
\fmfright{,out3,in3,}
\fmf{photon}{g1,gk}
\fmf{photon,tension=3}{g1,v1}
\fmf{photon}{g1,g3}
\fmf{photon,tension=3}{g3,v5}
\fmf{photon,tension=4}{g3,g2}
\fmf{photon,tension=2}{g2,v2}
\fmf{photon}{g2,gl}
\fmf{photon}{v4,v3}
\fmf{fermion}{in1,v1,out1}
\fmf{fermion}{in2,v2,out2}
\fmf{fermion}{in3,v3,out3}
\fmf{fermion}{in4,v4,v5}
\fmf{fermion,tension=3}{v5,out4}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
\hspace{3mm}
\parbox{48mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph22}
\fmfframe(0,10)(0,-10){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(125,75)
\fmflabel{$\hat{k}$}{gk}
\fmflabel{$\hat{l}$}{gl}
\fmfleft{,out1,in1,}
\fmfbottom{,out4,,dummy,,in4,}
\fmftop{,,gk,,in2,out2,,}
\fmfright{,out3,in3,gl,,}
\fmf{photon}{v1,v6}
\fmf{photon,tension=3}{g1,v5}
\fmf{photon}{g1,gk}
\fmf{photon,tension=3}{g1,g2}
\fmf{photon,tension=2}{g2,gl}
\fmf{photon,tension=3}{g2,v2}
\fmf{photon,tension=2}{v3,v4}
\fmf{fermion}{in1,v1,out1}
\fmf{fermion}{in2,v2,out2}
\fmf{fermion}{in3,v3,out3}
\fmf{fermion}{in4,v4}
\fmf{fermion,tension=2}{v4,v5,v6}
\fmf{fermion}{v6,out4}
\fmf{phantom,tension=4}{v5,dummy}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
\end{center}
\caption{Diagrams for $ 4 \times \{ q \bar{q} \} \rightarrow \hat{g_k} \hat{g_l} $, that can be reduced to the case of smaller number of gluon legs. \label{gluontensorlacking2}}
\end{figure}
Others, however, may look like the diagrams shown in Fig. \ref{gluontensorlacking2}, i.~e. contain some fermion lines connected to the shifted gluons only through their connection to other fermion lines. These diagrams can be reduced to the case of a smaller number of off-shell legs in the initial gluon current.
Thus, we can construct an inductive argument, for which we have already verified the base case of $n=3$, to see that all the diagrams that we need to add to the contracted $n$-gluon current to form an amplitude behave as $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $ and the current itself is therefore bound to be $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $.
By the way, this inductive proof did not use the weaker $O(1)$ statement of section 3.3.1, though we relied heavily on the $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $ statement of section 3.3.2. To conclude, let us recall the steps of our argument:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Any diagram with $zq$ momentum flow through at least one fermion propagator behaves well.
\item The boundary behavior of the diagrams with $zq$ momentum flow strictly through gluon propagators is the same as that of a gluon-only off-shell current.
\item Any off-shell current with 3 gluon legs vanishes as $ z \rightarrow \infty $ due to the cancellation which ensures the good behavior of the amplitude $ q \bar{q} \rightarrow \hat{g} \hat{g} $.
\item Any off-shell current with $n$ gluon legs vanishes as $ z \rightarrow \infty $ to ensure the good behavior of the amplitude $ (n-2) \times \{ q \bar{q} \} \rightarrow \hat{g} \hat{g} $, provided the good behavior of the $(n-1)$--gluon current and the diagrams with fermion propagator insertions.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Mixed-helicity shift in special gauges}
\label{subsec:mixhelspecialgauge}
For a generic gauge, the boundary behavior of individual Feynman diagrams under the $ [ k l \rangle $ shift is automatically $ O\left( \frac{1}{z} \right) $ in the mixed-helicity case $(k_g^-,l_g^+)$. But in the following section, we will find that in order to avoid unphysical poles we need to use special gauge choices $ n_k = p_l $ or $ n_l = p_k $. Such gauges eliminate the $z$-dependence from one of the polarization vector denominators and thus turn the superficial behavior into $O(1)$. However, we can easily rephrase our power-counting arguments from the sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 for the mixed-helicity case and find that the leading power of $z$ must always involve at least one contraction of two of the following three vectors: $ zq^{\lambda} $, $ [n_k |\gamma^{\mu}| k \rangle $ and $ \langle n_l| \gamma^{\nu} |l] $, with either $g_{\mu \nu}$ or $\epsilon_{\lambda \mu \nu \rho}$. Either by imposing $ n_k = p_l $ or $ n_l = p_k $, we can guarantee that any such contraction will give zero and thus ensure vanishing of the boundary term.
It is worth noting that if we take $ n_k = p_l $ and $ n_l = p_k $ simultaneously, the superficial boundary behavior is worsened by two powers of $z$, and the argument will in general be invalid. Suppose that we first impose $ n_l = p_k $ and have $n_k$ unfixed. Then we will be guaranteed to have no pole at infinity, but might still have an unphysical pole at $ z_k = [n_k k]/[n_k l] $. Now if we take $ n_k = p_l $, we can see that the pole $z_k$ goes smoothly to infinity. In this way the unphysical pole and the boundary term can be traded one for another, and the problem is to find gauges in which neither survives.
\section{Avoiding unphysical poles}
In this section, we address the question of unphysical poles, i.e.\ the poles that come from polarization vectors (\ref{polvectors}) instead of propagators. We construct explicit recursive proofs of the vanishing of the unphysical poles for the following currents:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $ [ 3 4 \rangle $-shifted $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{}, \hat{3}_g^-, \hat{4}_g^-, 5_g^-, \dots, n_g^- \right) $ with $ n_3 = n_4 = \dots = n_n $ ;
\item $ [ 4 3 \rangle $-shifted $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{}, \hat{3}_g^+, \hat{4}_g^-, 5_g^-, \dots, n_g^- \right) $ with $ n_4 = n_5 = \dots = n_n = p_3 $ ;
\item $ [ 3 4 \rangle $-shifted $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, \hat{3}_g^-, \hat{4}_g^+, 5_g^-, \dots, n_g^- \right) $ with $ n_3 = n_5 = \dots = n_n = p_4 $ .
\end{enumerate}
It is straightforward to prove analogous statements for the currents with the opposite quark off shell or for flipped helicity assignments. For example, $ i J ( 1_{\bar{Q}}, 2_Q^*, 3_g^-, \dots, \widehat{(n\!-\!1)}_g^-, \hat{n}_g^+ ) $ has no unphysical poles under the $ [ n\!-\!1 | n \rangle $-shift if $ n_3 = \dots = n_{n-1} = p_n $. One can also make a simultaneous flip of all gluon helicities trivially.
In short, the good gauge choices are:
\begin{itemize}
\item in the all-minus case, put all reference momenta equal to each other: $ n_i = q $ ;
\item in the one-plus cases, put reference momenta of negative-helicity gluons equal to the momentum of the positive-helicity gluon: $ n_- = p_+ $.
\end{itemize}
Note that in the one-plus case with the positive-helicity gluon in central position the unphysical poles vanish for a matrix-valued current $ | n^- \dots 5^- 4^+ 3^- | $ with \emph{both} fermions off shell, i.~e. lacking spinors on both sides of the quark line. In fact, there is strong evidence (see the numerical results in the following section) that it will continue to be true for such one-plus currents $ | n^- \dots (m\!+\!1)^- m^+ (m\!-\!1)^- \dots 3^- | $ irrespective of the position of the positive-helicity gluon with respect to the fermions.
In each case, our recursive argument is based on the following expansion \cite{Berends:1987me}. Consider constructing the $n$-particle current with one fermion line by attaching the $n$-th gluon to the corresponding $(n\!-\!1)$-particle current. Due to color-ordering, it can be coupled directly to the off-shell quark, to the $(n\!-\!1)$-th gluon, or to some more complicated gluon tree. If we focus our attention on those gluon trees that include the $n$-th gluon and attach to the quark line as a whole, we can expand the current according to the number of legs in such trees, as shown pictorially in equation (\ref{vertexrecursion}).
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
\parbox{30mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph41}
\fmfframe(12,12)(12,0){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(60,60)
\fmflabel{$1$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n$}{gn}
\fmftop{,g4,,g5,d,}
\fmfbottom{,q2,,,q1,}
\fmfleft{,,g3,}
\fmfright{,,gn,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.5}{q2,c,q1}
\fmf{photon}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon}{g4,c}
\fmf{photon}{g5,c}
\fmf{photon}{gn,c}
\fmfblob{0.25w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
= &
\parbox{36mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph42}
\fmfframe(12,12)(12,0){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(75,60)
\fmflabel{$1$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n\!-\!1$}{gn1}
\fmflabel{$n$}{gn}
\fmftop{,g4,,d,gn1,,,,,}
\fmfbottom{q2,q1}
\fmfleft{,,,g3,,}
\fmfright{,,,gn,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=2.3}{q2,c}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.7}{c,v,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{g4,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{gn1,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.5}{gn,v}
\fmfblob{0.20w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
+
\parbox{40mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph43}
\fmfframe(12,12)(12,0){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(90,60)
\fmflabel{$1$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n\!-\!2$}{gn2}
\fmflabel{$n\!-\!1$}{gn1}
\fmflabel{$n$}{gn}
\fmftop{,g4,,d,gn2,,gn1,,,}
\fmfbottom{q2,,,q1,}
\fmfleft{,,g3,}
\fmfright{,,,gn,,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=2.3}{q2,c}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.7}{c,v}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.2}{v,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{g4,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{gn2,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=2.0}{v,vg}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.5}{gn1,vg}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.5}{gn,vg}
\fmfblob{0.25h}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} } \\
+ &
\parbox{42mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph44}
\fmfframe(12,12)(12,0){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(90,60)
\fmflabel{$1$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n\!-\!3$}{gn3}
\fmflabel{$n\!-\!2$}{gn2}
\fmflabel{$n\!-\!1$}{gn1}
\fmflabel{$n$}{gn}
\fmftop{,g4,,d,gn3,,gn2,,,}
\fmfbottom{q2,,,q1,}
\fmfleft{,,g3,}
\fmfright{,,,gn,,gn1,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=2.3}{q2,c}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.7}{c,v}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.2}{v,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{g4,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{gn3,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=2.0}{v,vg}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.0}{gn2,vg}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.0}{gn1,vg}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.0}{gn,vg}
\fmfblob{0.25h}{vg}
\fmfblob{0.25h}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
+ \dots +
\parbox{36mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph45}
\fmfframe(12,12)(12,0){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(90,60)
\fmflabel{$1$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$6$}{g6}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n$}{gn}
\fmftop{,,,g4,,,g5,,g6,}
\fmfbottom{q2,,,q1,}
\fmfleft{,,g3,}
\fmfright{,,,gn,d,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=2.3}{q2,c}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.7}{c,v}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.2}{v,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.75}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.75}{g4,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=2.0}{v,vg}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.75}{g5,vg}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.75}{g6,vg}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.0}{gn,vg}
\fmfblob{0.25h}{vg}
\fmfblob{0.25h}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} } \\
+ &
\parbox{36mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph46}
\fmfframe(12,12)(12,0){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(75,60)
\fmflabel{$1$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n$}{gn}
\fmftop{,,g4,,g5,}
\fmfbottom{q2,,q1,}
\fmfleft{,,g3,}
\fmfright{,,,gn,d,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.7}{q2,v2,v1}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.2}{v1,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.2}{v1,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.0}{g3,v2}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{g4,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{g5,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{gn,c}
\fmfblob{0.20w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
+
\parbox{30mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph47}
\fmfframe(12,12)(12,0){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(60,60)
\fmflabel{$1$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n$}{gn}
\fmftop{,g4,,g5,d,}
\fmfbottom{,q2,,q1,}
\fmfleft{,,g3,}
\fmfright{,,gn,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.7}{q2,v,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=2}{v,c}
\fmf{photon}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon}{g4,c}
\fmf{photon}{g5,c}
\fmf{photon}{gn,c}
\fmfblob{0.25w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
\label{vertexrecursion} .
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
\subsection{All-minus currents}
Let us prove that for the $ [ 3 4 \rangle $-shifted all-minus current $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{}, \hat{3}_g^-, \hat{4}_g^-, 5_g^-, \dots, n_g^- \right) $ the residue at the unphysical pole $ z_3 = [n_3 3]/[n_3 4] $ vanishes when we make all the gluon reference momenta equal: $ n_3 = n_4 = \dots = n_n \equiv q $.
Now if we already know that the residue at the unphysical pole $ z_3 = [q3]/[q4] $ vanishes for all the corresponding off-shell currents with fewer legs, then only the last two diagrams in (\ref{vertexrecursion}) remain to be calculated. That can easily be done just by using color-ordered Feynman rules,
where we make use of the Berends-Giele formula \cite{Berends:1987me} for currents of like-helicity gluons,
which in our conventions is given by
\begin{equation}
i J^{\mu} (1^-,2^-, \dots, n^-) =
- \frac{[q|\gamma^{\mu} {\not}P_{1,n} |q]}{\sqrt{2} [q 1] [1 2] \dots [n\!-\!1~n] [n q] } .
\label{berendsgieleminus}
\end{equation}
Evaluating the sum at the pole $z_3=0$, defined by $ [q \hat{3}] = 0 $, and performing some manipulations using a Schouten identity between the two contributions, we find the
residue of (\ref{vertexrecursion}) at the unphysical pole:
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
\left[q \hat{3}\right] \left\{
\parbox{40mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph50}
\fmfframe(20,12)(10,12){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(75,60)
\fmflabel{$1^*$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}^-$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}^-$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5^-$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n^-$}{gn}
\fmftop{,,g4,,g5,}
\fmfbottom{q2,,q1,}
\fmfleft{,,g3,}
\fmfright{,,,gn,d,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.7}{q2,v2,v1}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.2}{v1,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.2}{v1,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.0}{g3,v2}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{g4,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{g5,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{gn,c}
\fmfblob{0.20w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
+
\parbox{33mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph51}
\fmfframe(15,12)(10,12){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(60,60)
\fmflabel{$1^*$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}^-$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}^-$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5^-$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n^-$}{gn}
\fmftop{,g4,,g5,d,}
\fmfbottom{,q2,,q1,}
\fmfleft{,,g3,}
\fmfright{,,gn,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.7}{q2,v,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=2}{v,c}
\fmf{photon}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon}{g4,c}
\fmf{photon}{g5,c}
\fmf{photon}{gn,c}
\fmfblob{0.25w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
\right\} =
\frac{ i |q] \langle 3|{\not}P_{3,n}|q] [q| ({\not}p_2 - m) |2) }
{ \langle 3|2|q] [3 4] [4 5] \dots [n\!-\!1~n] [n q] } .
\label{minusn1}
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
It becomes obvious that (\ref{minusn1}) vanishes due to the presence of the on-shell spinor $|2)$ next to $({\not}p_2 - m)$.
To conclude the proof, we do not even need to calculate the base of the recursion separately, because all the preceding formulas were general enough be valid for $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{}, \hat{3}_g^-, \hat{4}_g^- \right) $ as well. Indeed, in that case the last two diagrams in (\ref{vertexrecursion}) turn out to be the usual Feynman diagrams with the Berends-Giele current representing just the polarization vector of the shifted $4$th gluon.
\subsection{Currents with a single positive-helicity gluon in extreme position}
For the $ [ 4 3 \rangle $-shifted current $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{}, \hat{3}_g^+, \hat{4}_g^-, 5_g^-, \dots, n_g^- \right) $ we put $ n_4 = \dots = n_n = p_3 $ and rename $ n_3 \equiv q $. Consider the same expansion (\ref{vertexrecursion}). As in the previous case, for a recursive proof of the vanishing of the residue at $ z_3 = - \langle q 3 \rangle / \langle q 4 \rangle $ we only need to calculate the last two diagrams in (\ref{vertexrecursion}).
We use the following formula for the one-plus Berends-Giele current:
\begin{equation}
i J^{\mu} (1^+,2^-, \dots, n^-) =
- \frac{[1|\gamma^{\mu} {\not}P_{1,n} |1]}{\sqrt{2} [1 2] [2 3] \dots [n\!-\!1~n] [n 1] }
\left\{ \sum_{l=3}^{n} \frac{ [1| {\not}P_{1,l} {\not}P_{1,l-1} |1] }
{ P_{1,l}^2 P_{1,l-1}^2 }
+ \frac{ \langle 2q \rangle }{ \langle 21 \rangle \langle 1q \rangle }
\right\} ,
\label{berendsgieleplus1}
\end{equation}
in which we retain dependence on the reference momentum $ n_1 \equiv q $ of the positive-helicity gluon. This generalization is discussed in Appendix \ref{app:berendsgiele}. It turns out that relaxing one reference momentum results in only one extra term in (\ref{berendsgieleplus1}), which subsequently generates the pole for $i {\not}J ( \hat{3}^+, \hat{4}^-, \dots, n^-)$ at $ \langle \hat{3} q \rangle = 0 $.
Using the currents (\ref{berendsgieleminus}) and (\ref{berendsgieleplus1}),
we see again that the residue at $z_3$ vanishes due to the presence of the on-shell spinor $|2)$ next to $({\not}p_2 - m)$:
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
\langle q \hat{3} \rangle \left\{
\parbox{40mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph56}
\fmfframe(20,12)(10,12){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(75,60)
\fmflabel{$1^*$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}^+$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}^-$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5^-$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n^-$}{gn}
\fmftop{,,g4,,g5,}
\fmfbottom{q2,,q1,}
\fmfleft{,,g3,}
\fmfright{,,,gn,d,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.7}{q2,v2,v1}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.2}{v1,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.2}{v1,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.0}{g3,v2}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{g4,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{g5,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{gn,c}
\fmfblob{0.20w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
+
\parbox{33mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph57}
\fmfframe(15,12)(10,12){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(60,60)
\fmflabel{$1^*$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}^+$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}^-$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5^-$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n^-$}{gn}
\fmftop{,g4,,g5,d,}
\fmfbottom{,q2,,q1,}
\fmfleft{,,g3,}
\fmfright{,,gn,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.7}{q2,v,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=2}{v,c}
\fmf{photon}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon}{g4,c}
\fmf{photon}{g5,c}
\fmf{photon}{gn,c}
\fmfblob{0.25w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
\right\} =
\frac{-i |3] \langle 4q \rangle \langle q|{\not}P_{3,n}|3] [3| ({\not}p_2 - m) |2) }
{ \langle q|2|3] \langle 43 \rangle [3 4] [\hat{4} 5] \dots [n\!-\!1~n] [n 3] } .
\label{plusn1}
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
This evaluation is valid as well for $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{}, \hat{3}_g^+, \hat{4}_g^- \right) $, thus ensuring the base of the recursive argument.
\subsection{Currents with a single positive-helicity gluon in next-to-extreme position}
In this section we consider a matrix-valued $\tgb{34}$-shifted current $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, \hat{3}_g^-, \hat{4}_g^+, 5_g^-, \dots, n_g^- \right) $ with the positive-helicity gluon separated from the fermion line by one negative-helicity gluon. We put $ n_3 = n_5 = \dots = n_n = p_4 $ and $ n_4 \equiv q $. In expansion (\ref{vertexrecursion}), we now need to examine the last three terms. More specifically, we need to examine only their $q$-dependent parts, since these are the ones that can have the unphysical pole at $\vev{q \hat{4}}=0.$
The very last diagram in (\ref{vertexrecursion}) contains the gluon current $ i J \left( \hat{3}^-, \hat{4}^+, 5^-, \dots, n^- \right), $ for which we do not know a simple analytic formula. Fortunately, according to the inductive argument outlined in Appendix \ref{app:berendsgiele}, it does not depend on $q$, so that diagram cannot contribute to the residue at $ \langle q \hat{4} \rangle = 0 $. We are thus left with the other two diagrams.
As before,
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
\parbox{33mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph59}
\fmfframe(10,12)(10,12){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(75,60)
\fmflabel{$1^*$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2^*$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}^-$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}^+$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5^-$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n^-$}{gn}
\fmftop{,,g4,,g5,}
\fmfbottom{q2,,q1,}
\fmfleft{,,g3,}
\fmfright{,,,gn,d,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.7}{q2,v2,v1}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.2}{v1,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.2}{v1,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.0}{g3,v2}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{g4,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{g5,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.5}{gn,c}
\fmfblob{0.20w}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
=
\frac{i}{\sqrt{2} [43]} i {\not}J (\hat{4}^+, 5^-, \dots, n^-)
\frac{ {\not}p_2 - {\not}\widehat{p}_3 + m }{ (p_2 - \widehat{p}_3)^2 - m^2 }
\Big( |4] \langle 3| + |3 \rangle [4| \Big) .
\label{plus43}
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
We use the formula
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, 3_g^-, 4_g^+ \right)
= \frac{i}{ [n_3 3] \langle n_4 4 \rangle } \Bigg\{
\Big( |4] \langle n_4| \!+\! |n_4 \rangle [4| \Big)
\frac{ {\not}p_2 \!-\! {\not}p_3 \!+\! m }{ (p_2 \!-\! p_3)^2 \!-\! m^2 }
& \Big( |n_3] \langle 3| \!+\! |3 \rangle [n_3| \Big) \\
+ \frac{ [n_3 4] \langle n_4 3 \rangle }{ 2 [3 4] \langle 4 3 \rangle }
({\not}p_3 \!-\! {\not}p_4)
+ \frac{ [n_3 4] }{ [3 4] } \Big( |4] \langle n_4| \!+\! |n_4 \rangle [4| \Big)
- \frac{ \langle n_4 3 \rangle }{ \langle 4 3 \rangle }
& \Big( |n_3] \langle 3| \!+\! |3 \rangle [n_3| \Big)
\Bigg\} ,
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
which is derived simply from Feynman rules, to evaluate the third-to-last diagram in expansion (\ref{vertexrecursion}):
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
\parbox{40mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph58}
\fmfframe(12,12)(12,0){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(90,60)
\fmflabel{$1^*$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2^*$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}^-$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}^+$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5^-$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$6^-$}{g6}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n^-$}{gn}
\fmftop{,,,g4,,,g5,,g6,}
\fmfbottom{q2,,,q1,}
\fmfleft{,,g3,}
\fmfright{,,,gn,d,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=2.3}{q2,c}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.7}{c,v}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.2}{v,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.75}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.75}{g4,c}
\fmf{photon,tension=2.0}{v,vg}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.75}{g5,vg}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.75}{g6,vg}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.0}{gn,vg}
\fmfblob{0.25h}{vg}
\fmfblob{0.25h}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
= & -
\frac{i}{\sqrt{2} \langle q \hat{4} \rangle [43]} i {\not}J (5^-, 6^-, \dots, n^-)
\frac{ {\not}p_2 - {\not}p_3 - {\not}p_4 + m }{ (p_2 - p_3 - p_4)^2 - m^2 } \\ &
\Bigg\{
\Big( |4] \langle q| \!+\! |q \rangle [4| \Big)
\frac{ {\not}p_2 - {\not}\widehat{p}_3 + m }{ (p_2 - \widehat{p}_3)^2 - m^2 }
- \frac{ \langle q 3 \rangle }{ \langle 4 3 \rangle }
\Bigg\}
\Big( |4] \langle 3| + |3 \rangle [4| \Big) ,
\label{plus45}
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
After using the formulas (\ref{berendsgieleminus}) and (\ref{berendsgieleplus1}) for the Berends-Giele currents and substituting
\begin{equation}
|q \rangle = |\hat{4} \rangle \frac{\langle 3q \rangle}{\langle 34 \rangle}
\label{g4plus}
\end{equation}
in the residue of the unphysical pole,
we can combine the $q$-dependent terms of (\ref{plus43}) and (\ref{plus45}) into one term with the following spinor matrix in the middle:
\begin{equation}
\frac{ {\not}p_2 - {\not}\widehat{p}_3 - {\not}\widehat{p}_4 + m }
{ (p_2 - \widehat{p}_3 - \widehat{p}_4)^2 - m^2 } ~ {\not}\widehat{p}_4 ~
\frac{ {\not}p_2 - {\not}\widehat{p}_3 + m }
{ (p_2 - \widehat{p}_3)^2 - m^2 } -
\frac{ {\not}p_2 - {\not}\widehat{p}_3 - {\not}\widehat{p}_4 + m }
{ (p_2 - \widehat{p}_3 - \widehat{p}_4)^2 - m^2 } +
\frac{ {\not}p_2 - {\not}\widehat{p}_3 + m }
{ (p_2 - \widehat{p}_3)^2 - m^2 } = 0 .
\label{g4plusmatrix}
\end{equation}
Having established the induction, we turn back to $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, \hat{3}_g^-, \hat{4}_g^+, 5_g^- \right) $ and see that its expansion (\ref{vertexrecursion}) contains precisely the three diagrams that we have just examined in a more general case. This provides the base of our inductive argument for $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, 3_g^-, 4_g^+, 5_g^-, \dots, n_g^- \right) $.
Our numerical results (see below) indicate that the statement about the matrix-valued one-plus currents might be true irrespective of the position of the positive-helicity gluon as long as it is separated from the fermion by at least one negative-helicity gluon. Unfortunately, it remains a challenge to show it. Here, we used an explicit formula for $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, 3_g^-, 4_g^+ \right) $ to evaluate one of the diagrams. To prove the vanishing of the unphysical pole for $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, 3_g^-, \dots, (m\!-\!1)_g^-, m_g^+, (m\!+\!1)_g^-, \dots, n_g^- \right) $ in the same manner, one would need to have an explicit formula either for $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, 3_g^-, \dots, (m\!-\!1)_g^-, m_g^+\right) $ or for $ i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, m_g^+, (m\!+\!1)_g^-, \dots, n_g^- \right) $.
\section{Results for currents}
In this section, we apply the constructions established in the previous section to compute massive fermion currents from recursion relations. First, we list 3- and 4-point currents as a starting point. Next, we give a closed-form expression for currents with an arbitrary number of gluons if their helicities are all alike. A fully non-recursive version and its derivation are given in Appendix \ref{app:closedform}. Finally, we state our numerical results for shifts producing recursion relations in the case of one gluon of opposite helicity.
\subsection{3-point and 4-point currents}
For completeness, we begin by listing the 3- and 4-point currents, which are straightforward to derive from Feynman rules, with full freedom of the choice of reference spinors.
\begin{subequations} \begin{align}
i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, 3_g^- \right) = - i &
\frac{ |n_3] \langle 3| \!+\! |3 \rangle [n_3| }
{ [n_3 3] } , \\
i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, 3_g^+ \right) = i &
\frac{ |3] \langle n_3| \!+\! |n_3 \rangle [3| }
{ \langle n_3 3 \rangle } .
\label{M3}
\end{align} \end{subequations}
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{}, 3_g^-, 4_g^- \right)
& = \frac{i}{ [n_3 3] [n_4 4] } \Bigg\{
\frac{1}{ \langle 3|2|3] }
\Bigg( |4 \rangle [n_4|2|3 \rangle [n_3|
- |n_4] \langle 4|1|n_3] \langle 3| \\
& + m |4 \rangle [n_4 n_3] \langle 3|
+ m |n_4] \langle 4 3 \rangle [n_3| \Bigg)
- \frac{1}{[34]}\Bigg( [n_4 3] \Big( |n_3] \langle 3| + |3 \rangle [n_3| \Big) \\
& + [n_3 4] \Big( |n_4] \langle 4| + |4 \rangle [n_4| \Big)
+ \frac{[n_3 n_4]}{2}({\not}p_3 - {\not}p_4) \Bigg)
\Bigg\} |2) .
\label{iJ4mmq2}
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, 3_g^-, 4_g^- \right)
= - \frac{i}{ [n_3 3] [n_4 4] } \Bigg\{
\Big( |n_4] \langle 4| \!+\! |4 \rangle [n_4| \Big)
\frac{ {\not}p_2 \!-\! {\not}p_3 \!+\! m }{ (p_2 \!-\! p_3)^2 \!-\! m^2 }
& \Big( |n_3] \langle 3| \!+\! |3 \rangle [n_3| \Big) \\
+ \frac{1}{[3 4]} \bigg[ \frac{[n_3 n_4]}{2}({\not}p_3 \!-\! {\not}p_4)
+ [n_3 4] \Big( |n_4] \langle 4| \!+\! |4 \rangle [n_4| \Big)
+ [n_4 3]&\Big( |n_3] \langle 3| \!+\! |3 \rangle [n_3| \Big)
\bigg]
\Bigg\} ,
\label{M4mm}
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, 3_g^-, 4_g^+ \right)
= \frac{i}{ [n_3 3] \langle n_4 4 \rangle } \Bigg\{
\Big( |4] \langle n_4| \!+\! |n_4 \rangle [4| \Big)
\frac{ {\not}p_2 \!-\! {\not}p_3 \!+\! m }{ (p_2 \!-\! p_3)^2 \!-\! m^2 }
& \Big( |n_3] \langle 3| \!+\! |3 \rangle [n_3| \Big) \\
+ \frac{ [n_3 4] \langle n_4 3 \rangle }{ 2 [3 4] \langle 4 3 \rangle }
({\not}p_3 \!-\! {\not}p_4)
+ \frac{ [n_3 4] }{ [3 4] } \Big( |4] \langle n_4| \!+\! |n_4 \rangle [4| \Big)
- \frac{ \langle n_4 3 \rangle }{ \langle 4 3 \rangle }
& \Big( |n_3] \langle 3| \!+\! |3 \rangle [n_3| \Big)
\Bigg\} ,
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, 3_g^+, 4_g^- \right)
= \frac{i}{ \langle n_3 3 \rangle [n_4 4] } \Bigg\{
\Big( |n_4] \langle 4| \!+\! |4 \rangle [n_4| \Big)
\frac{ {\not}p_2 \!-\! {\not}p_3 \!+\! m }{ (p_2 \!-\! p_3)^2 \!-\! m^2 }
& \Big( |3] \langle n_3| \!+\! |n_3 \rangle [3| \Big) \\
+ \frac{ \langle n_3 4 \rangle [n_4 3] }{ 2 \langle 3 4 \rangle [4 3] }
({\not}p_3 \!-\! {\not}p_4)
+ \frac{ \langle n_3 4 \rangle }{ \langle 3 4 \rangle }
\Big( |n_4] \langle 4| \!+\! |4 \rangle [n_4| \Big)
- \frac{ [n_4 3] }{ [4 3] }&\Big( |3] \langle n_3| \!+\! |n_3 \rangle [3| \Big)
\Bigg\} .
\label{M4pm}
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
\subsection{Closed form for all-minus currents}
For $n \geq 5$, we compute the all-minus current $i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{}, 3_g^-, 4_g^-,\ldots, n_g^- \right)$ by doing a $ [34 \rangle $ shift and setting all reference momenta equal to an arbitrary null vector $q$.
Since we have established the absence of boundary terms and unphysical poles in the preceding sections, the BCFW expansion
is given as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{bcfw-allminus}
i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{}, \hat{3}_g^-, \hat{4}_g^-,\ldots, n_g^- \right)
&=&
i J\left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, (2-\hat{3})_Q, \hat{4}_g^-,5_g^-,\ldots, n_g^- \right)
\frac{ i ( {\not}p_2 - {\not}\widehat{p}_3 + m ) }
{ (p_2 - {p}_3)^2 - m^2 }
i M \left(-(2-\hat{3})_{\bar{Q}} , 2_Q , \hat{3}_g^- \right)
\\ &&
+
\sum_{(h,\tilde{h})}
\left[
i J\left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{}, \hat{3}_g^-, (\hat{4}+5)_g^h,6_g^-,\ldots, n_g^- \right)
\frac{i}{ (p_4 + p_5)^2 }
i M \left( -(\hat{4} \!+\!5)_g^{\tilde{h}}, \hat{4}_g^-, 5_g^- \right)
\nonumber \right. \\ && \left.
+\sum_{k=6}^n
i J\left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{}, \hat{3}_g^-, (\hat{P}_{4,k})_g^h,(k+1)_g^-,\ldots, n_g^- \right)
\frac{i}{ P_{4,k}^2 }
i M \left( -(\hat{P}_{4,k})_g^{\tilde{h}}, \hat{4}_g^-, 5_g^- ,\ldots,k_g^-\right)
\right]
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\parbox{27mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph62}
\fmfframe(0,12)(0,12){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(60,60)
\fmflabel{$1^*$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$3^-$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$4^-$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5^-$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n^-$}{gn}
\fmftop{g3,,,g4,,,g5,d,,gn}
\fmfbottom{,q2,,,q1,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=2.3}{q2,c,q1}
\fmf{photon}{g3,c}
\fmf{photon}{g4,c}
\fmf{photon}{g5,c}
\fmf{photon}{gn,c}
\fmfblob{0.25h}{c}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
$ = $ \hspace{5mm}
\parbox{34mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph63}
\fmfframe(0,12)(0,12){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(90,60)
\fmflabel{$1^*$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}^-$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}^-$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5^-$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$\vdots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n^-$}{gn}
\fmfleft{,q2,,,g3,}
\fmftop{,cut2,g4,}
\fmfbottom{,cut1,q1,}
\fmfright{,gn,d,g5,}
\fmf{fermion}{q2,c3}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.7}{c3,cut}
\fmf{fermion,tension=1.7}{cut,c5}
\fmf{fermion,tension=10}{c5,q1}
\fmf{photon}{g3,c3}
\fmf{photon,tension=10}{g4,c5}
\fmf{photon}{g5,c5}
\fmf{photon}{gn,c5}
\fmf{dashes,tension=100}{cut1,cut,cut2}
\fmfblob{0.25h}{c5}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
\hspace{3mm} $ + $ \hspace{5mm}
\parbox{38mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph65}
\fmfframe(0,12)(0,12){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(100,60)
\fmflabel{$1^*$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}^-$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}^-$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5^-$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$6^-$}{g6}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n^-$}{gn}
\fmfleft{,q1,,q2,}
\fmftop{,,,g3,,cut2,,}
\fmfbottom{,,gn,d,g6,cut1,,}
\fmfright{,g5,,,g4,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=3}{q2,c5,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=10}{g3,c5}
\fmf{photon,tension=4}{gn,c5}
\fmf{photon,tension=6}{g6,c5}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.7}{cut,c5}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.7}{cut,c3}
\fmf{photon}{g4,c3}
\fmf{photon}{g5,c3}
\fmf{dashes,tension=100}{cut1,cut,cut2}
\fmfblob{0.25h}{c5}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} } \\
\vspace{3mm}
$ + $ \hspace{5mm}
\parbox{45mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph64}
\fmfframe(0,12)(0,12){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(120,60)
\fmflabel{$1^*$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}^-$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}^-$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5^-$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$6^-$}{g6}
\fmflabel{$7^-$}{g7}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n^-$}{gn}
\fmfleft{,q1,,q2,}
\fmftop{,,,g3,,cut2,,g4,,}
\fmfbottom{,,gn,d,g7,cut1,,g6,,}
\fmfright{g5}
\fmf{fermion,tension=3}{q2,c5,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=10}{g3,c5}
\fmf{photon,tension=4}{gn,c5}
\fmf{photon,tension=6}{g7,c5}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.7}{cut,c5}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.7}{cut,cg}
\fmf{photon,tension=10}{g4,cg}
\fmf{photon}{g5,cg}
\fmf{photon,tension=10}{g6,cg}
\fmf{dashes,tension=100}{cut1,cut,cut2}
\fmfblob{0.25h}{c5}
\fmfblob{0.25h}{cg}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
\hspace{3mm} $ + \, \dots \, + $ \hspace{5mm}
\parbox{40mm}{ \begin{fmffile}{graph66}
\fmfframe(0,12)(0,12){ \begin{fmfgraph*}(100,60)
\fmflabel{$1^*$}{q1}
\fmflabel{$2$}{q2}
\fmflabel{$\hat{3}^-$}{g3}
\fmflabel{$\hat{4}^-$}{g4}
\fmflabel{$5^-$}{g5}
\fmflabel{$\dots$}{d}
\fmflabel{$n^-$}{gn}
\fmfleft{q2}
\fmftop{,g3,cut2,g4,}
\fmfbottom{,q1,cut1,gn,}
\fmfright{,d,g5,,}
\fmf{fermion,tension=0.5}{q2,c4}
\fmf{fermion,tension=10}{c4,q1}
\fmf{photon,tension=10}{g3,c4}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.7}{cut,c4}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.7}{cut,cg}
\fmf{photon,tension=10}{g4,cg}
\fmf{photon}{g5,cg}
\fmf{photon,tension=10}{gn,cg}
\fmf{dashes,tension=100}{cut1,cut,cut2}
\fmfblob{0.14w}{c4}
\fmfblob{0.14w}{cg}
\end{fmfgraph*} }
\end{fmffile} }
\end{center}
\caption{BCFW derivation of $i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{}, 3_g^-, 4_g^-,\ldots, n_g^- \right)$. \label{nmmmm}}
\end{figure}
See Fig. \ref{nmmmm}.
Because we are working with off-shell currents,
the sum over intermediate gluon polarization states $(h,\tilde{h})$ must now include the unphysical polarization state combinations $(L,T), (T,L)$, which vanished automatically in the on-shell case due to the Ward identity. This subtlety was first treated in a similar context in \cite{Feng:2011twa}. Specifically, the numerator of the Feynman propagator is decomposed as
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
-g_{\mu \nu} = \varepsilon_{\mu}^+ \varepsilon_{\nu}^-
+ \varepsilon_{\mu}^- \varepsilon_{\nu}^+
+ \varepsilon_{\mu}^L \varepsilon_{\nu}^T
+ \varepsilon_{\mu}^T \varepsilon_{\nu}^L ,
\label{metric}
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray} \begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_{\mu}^L & = k_{\mu} , &
\varepsilon_{\mu}^T & = - \frac{ q_{\mu} }{ kn } .
\label{polvectorsfull}
\end{aligned} \end{eqnarray}
It is clear that the gluon amplitude in the third line of (\ref{bcfw-allminus}) (the second line of Fig. \ref{nmmmm}) vanishes identically, due to the form of the all-minus Berends-Giele current (\ref{berendsgieleminus}) contracted with any of the polarization vectors. The three-point gluon amplitude in the second line of (\ref{bcfw-allminus}) (the last diagram of the first line of Fig. \ref{nmmmm}) vanishes as well. Therefore the only contribution that is left is the single term in the first line, involving a fermionic propagator. The general expression for an $n$-point all-minus current can then be written as
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}
| n^- (n\!-\!1)^- \dots 4^- 3^- | 2 ) =
& \frac{-i}{ [q \hat{3}] [q \hat{4}] \dots [q ~\widehat{n\!-\!2}] [q ~n\!-\!1] [q n] } \\
\times \Bigg\{
\Big( |q] \langle n| \!+\! |n \rangle [q| \Big)
& \frac{ {\not}p_2 \!-\! {\not}\widehat{P}_{3,n\!-\!1} \!+\! m }
{ (p_2 \!-\! P_{3,n\!-\!1})^2 \!-\! m^2 }
\Big( |q] \langle \widehat{n\!-\!1}| \!+\! |\widehat{n\!-\!1} \rangle [q| \Big) \\
+ \frac{1}{[n\!-\!1~ n]} \bigg[ [q n]
\Big( |q] \langle n| + & |n \rangle [q| \Big) + [q~n\!-\!1]
\Big( |q] \langle \widehat{n\!-\!1}| \!+\! |\widehat{n\!-\!1} \rangle [q| \Big)
\bigg] \Bigg\} \\ \times
& \frac{ {\not}p_2 \!-\! {\not}\widehat{P}_{3,n\!-\!2} \!+\! m }
{ (p_2 \!-\! P_{3,n\!-\!2})^2 \!-\! m^2 }
\Big( |q] \langle \widehat{n\!-\!2}| \!+\! |\widehat{n\!-\!2} \rangle [q| \Big) \times \cdots \\ \times
& \frac{ {\not}p_2 \!-\! {\not}\widehat{P}_{3,4} \!+\! m }
{ (p_2 \!-\! P_{3,4})^2 \!-\! m^2 }
\Big( |q] \langle \hat{4}| \!+\! |\hat{4} \rangle [q| \Big) \\ \times
& \frac{ {\not}p_2 \!-\! {\not}\widehat{p}_3 \!+\! m }
{ (p_2 \!-\! p_3)^2 \!-\! m^2 }
\Big( |q] \langle 3| \!+\! |3 \rangle [q| \Big) |2) ,
\label{iJminus}
\end{aligned} \end{equation}
where the shifted momenta are defined recursively by
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
z_k & = \frac{ \langle \hat{k}| {\not}p_2 \!-\! {\not}\widehat{P}_{3,k\!-\!1} |k] }
{ \langle \hat{k}| {\not}p_2 \!-\! {\not}\widehat{P}_{3,k\!-\!1} |k\!+\!1] } \\
|\hat{k}] & = |k] - z_k |k\!+\!1] \\
|\widehat{k\!+\!1} \rangle & = |k\!+\!1 \rangle + z_k |\hat{k} \rangle \\
{\not}\widehat{P}_{3,k} & \equiv {\not} P_{3,k} - z_k \Big( |k\!+\!1] \langle \hat{k}| \!+\! |\hat{k} \rangle [k\!+\!1| \Big) ,
\end{aligned} \right.
\label{shiftk}
\end{equation}
with $ k = 3, 4, \dots, n - 2 $, and the initial values
\begin{eqnarray}
z_2=0, \qquad z_3=\frac{\gb{3|2|3}}{\gb{3|2|4}}.
\label{z-init}
\end{eqnarray}
We have verified this formula numerically through $n=6$ by comparison with sums of Feynman diagrams.
The massless version ($m=0$) was found in \cite{Berends:1987me} for one helicity choice of the on-shell spinor, namely $i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^{+}, 3_g^-, \ldots, n_g^- \right)$ in our reversed fermion momentum convention, so that $|2)=\ket{2}$. In our calculation, rather than take the massless limit of (\ref{iJminus}), it would be more effective to return to the recursion relation as given in the nonvanishing first line of (\ref{bcfw-allminus}), so that the propagators can be replaced by simple spinor products at each step of the recursion. Recovering the compact form of \cite{Berends:1987me} is not immediate for general $n$, however, because
we preserve a form of the current in which the quark spinor $|2)$ is an explicit factor at the right of the expression, free to take either helicity value. This is important, because the shift of the quark momentum means that the full internal helicity sum occurs at each stage of our recursion.
It is possible to solve the recursion exactly and write the shifted spinors for (\ref{iJminus}) in a fully closed form. We write this non-recursive form and outline its derivation in Appendix \ref{app:closedform}.
\subsection{Numerical results}
Beyond the case of all gluons having the same helicity, we have found valid shifts numerically through $n=6$ in the case of one gluon of opposite helicity to the others (the ``one-plus'' case or its parity conjugate). A sufficient condition for a valid shift is to take the reference momenta of all the negative-helicity gluons equal to the momentum of the positive-helicity gluon: $n_- = p_+$.
For the choice of shifted gluons, we have identified two valid possibilities:
\begin{itemize}
\item Shift the two gluons closest to the on-shell fermion; if they both have negative helicities, choose the shift so that the unphysical pole would come from the gluon adjacent to the on-shell fermion. (These shifts are all valid in the all-minus case as well.)
\item In the case with the plus-helicity gluon in central position shift the plus-gluon along with the any of the adjacent minus-gluons irrespective of their position with respect to the fermions. The unphysical poles then vanish, even with both fermions off-shell.
\end{itemize}
To be more precise, we found that for
$i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, 3_g^-, 4_g^+, 5_g^-, 6_g^- \right)$
in gauge $ n_3 = n_5 = n_6 = p_4 $ not only $[34\rangle$ shift produces no unphysical poles (as we have proved in Section 4.3), but $[54\rangle$ as well. Similarly,
$i J \left( 1_{\bar{Q}}^*, 2_Q^*, 3_g^-, 4_g^-, 5_g^+, 6_g^- \right)$
in gauge $ n_3 = n_4 = n_6 = p_5 $ suffers from no unphysical poles both under $[65\rangle$ and $[45\rangle$ shifts.
In the 6-point case we also have currents with two plus and two minus helicities, but unfortunately we were unable to find a good gauge choice for them.
\section{Summary and discussion}
We have studied currents of $n-2$ gluons of ``mostly-minus'' helicity and a massive quark-antiquark pair, where the antiquark is off shell.
Because of the off-shellness of the antiquark, the choice of reference spinors plays an important role.
BCFW-type recursion relations are obtained under the following conditions, which ensure the absence of a boundary term and unphysical poles.
The reference spinors of the negative-helicity gluons are all chosen to be equal. If there is a single positive-helicity gluon, its momentum is taken to be the reference spinor of the negative-helicity gluons.
\begin{itemize}
\item In the case where all gluons have negative helicity, we have obtained both a recursive and a closed form for the current derived from recursion relations.
\item In the case where one gluon has positive helicity, and it is color-adjacent to the quark or antiquark, we have proven the validity of the recursion relation, but we do not have a closed form.
\item In the case where one gluon has positive helicity, and it is color-adjacent to two other gluons, we have found numerical evidence for the validity of the recursion relation in general, but were able to prove it only for the simplest configuration, with the positive gluon in next-to-extreme position.
\end{itemize}
In Yang-Mills theory, an on-shell alternative to the BCFW construction is the MHV diagram expansion \cite{Cachazo:2004kj},
in which maximally helicity violating (MHV) amplitudes play the role of interaction vertices, with a suitable on-shell prescription for the intermediate legs.
For off-shell currents, there is apparently no sensible expansion in MHV diagrams when the off-shell leg carries color charge, such as the Berends-Giele currents for gluons.
One might consider applying a BCFW shift to the massive fermion pair, but this construction fails off-shell.
With a conventional definition of massive spinors \cite{Kleiss:1985yh,Schwinn:2005pi} in terms of a single reference vector, good boundary behavior is evident, but there are unavoidable, complicated unphysical poles, due to $\sqrt{z}$-dependence of the denominators of the massive spinors.
Even with both fermions on shell, the only shift known to be valid is quite specialized:
each of the two massive fermion spinors has its reference vector constructed in terms of the other \cite{Boels:2011zz}.
This choice is not well suited for repeated application in an analytic recursion relation, because it is undesirable to keep track of the data of internal legs. One would like the choice of reference spinor to be fixed once for all. Nevertheless, we looked at extending this construction off-shell. There is no $z$-dependence in the denominators, but when either of the on-shell massive spinors are stripped off, the miraculous cancellation reducing the boundary behavior from $O(1)$ to $O(1/z)$ no longer takes place.
In the course of studying boundary behavior in Section 3, we have proven the good boundary behavior of general off-shell objects in Feynman gauge, as long as they contain at least two on-shell gluons that can be shifted. This meshes with a similar argument of \cite{Boels:2011mn} in the light-cone gauge $ q\!\cdot\! A = 0 $ specified by the BCFW-shift vector $q$, (\ref{q}). Thus we could see that it is not the boundary behaviour that hinders the BCFW recursion off shell, but the unphysical poles, coming from the polarization vectors.
Several questions arise for future exploration. Is there any choice of shift and reference spinors that eliminates boundary terms and unphysical poles for more general helicity configurations? If so, can the recursion relation be solved neatly? Do some shifts give more compact results than others? Is there a neat solution for the current with a single gluon of opposite helicity, for which we have already proved the existence of recursion relations? In cases where unphysical poles are present: is there any way to understand them, so that their residues could be incorporated explicitly in the recursion relation? Regarding the generalized Berends-Giele currents of Appendix \ref{app:berendsgiele}: can the current with one opposite-helicity gluon in a central position be written in a compact form, manifestly independent of the generic reference spinor? Further results addressing these questions would certainly illuminate our understanding of the BCFW construction and its applicability to gauge-dependent objects.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Z. Bern, R. S. Isermann and E. Mirabella for helpful conversations.
This work is supported in part by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche under grant number ANR-09-CEXC-009-01, and by the Research Executive Agency (REA) of the European Union under the Grant Agreement number PITN-GA-2010-264564 (LHCPhenoNet).
|
\section{Introduction}
The recent Beam Energy Scan (BES) program \cite{Kumar:2011de,Shi:2011ad,QM12BES} at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) pursues one of the major goals of heavy-ion collision experiments: to explore the QCD phase diagram and search for the phase boundary between the normal nuclear matter and quark-gluon plasma (QGP). The BES program at RHIC together with Pb+Pb collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) provide us with a unique opportunity to study systematically the collision energy dependence of a large number of relativistic heavy-ion collision observables.
Here we study the collision energy dependence of charged hadron transverse momentum spectra and elliptic flow coefficients \cite{Shen:2012vn}, using (2+1)-d viscous hydrodynamics coupled with a modern lattice QCD based equation of state \cite{Huovinen:2009yb, Shen:2010uy}. Our work focuses on qualitative tendencies rather than quantitative comparison with experimental data. It makes simplifying assumptions that are justified at high energies but gradually break down at lower $\sqrt{s}$: longitudinal boost invariance, an equation of state for matter with zero net baryon density, and a purely hydrodynamic approach with constant specific shear viscosity, including for the dilute hadronic rescattering stage which at lower energies occupies an increasing fraction of the fireball's dynamical history and should be described microscopically
\cite{Song:2010mg}. These limitations can be cured in future work; they are expected to modify our conclusions quantitatively but not qualitatively.
\section{Results and discussion}
\noindent
{\bf Evolution of charged hadron multiplicity and total elliptic flow: }
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{0.79\linewidth}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth,height=0.35\linewidth]{figs/fig1a.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth,height=0.35\linewidth]{figs/fig1b.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth,height=0.35\linewidth]{figs/fig1c.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth,height=0.35\linewidth]{figs/fig1d.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.2\linewidth}
\caption{{\bf (a):} Centrality dependence of final charged hadron multiplicity per participant nucleon pair as a function of $N_\mathrm{part}$ for MC-Glauber initial conditions, with collision energies varying from $\sqrt{s}{\,=\,}7.7A$\,GeV to $\sqrt{s}{\,=\,} 2760 A$\,GeV. {\bf (c):} Centrality dependence of $\frac{dN_\mathrm{ch}}{d\eta}$ from the lower energy runs in (a) scaled up to the LHC results, for shape comparison. {\bf (b, d):} Same as (a, c) but for MC-KLN initial conditions.}
\label{fig1}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
In Figs.\,\ref{fig1}(a,b) we show the centrality dependence of the charged hadron multiplicity for both MC-Glauber and MC-KLN models with collision energies from $\sqrt{s}=7.7$ to 2760\,$A$\,GeV. The curves account for viscous entropy production during the hydrodynamic evolution. At LHC and top RHIC energies our results for both initialization models agree well with the experimental data \cite{Adler:2004zn,Aamodt:2010cz}. Our lower collision energy predictions can be checked against data from the RHIC BES program. In Figs.\,\ref{fig1}c,d we scale the lower energy results by constant factors to align them with the LHC curve in central (0-10\%) collisions, to see how the centrality dependence changes with $\sqrt{s}$. For the MC-Glauber model, the curves fall almost on top of each other. This is because we keep the mixing ratio between the wounded nucleons and binary collisions fixed for the low energy runs at RHIC, and it also reflects the fact that viscous entropy production is small and has little effect on the centrality dependence. For the MC-KLN model, however, the slope of the centrality dependence gets flatter as the collision energy decreases. Only the top RHIC and LHC energy curves approximately fall on top of each other. We found that this tendency originates in the nature of the MC-KLN model itself. Our MC-KLN calculations thus predict a violation of the $\sqrt{s}$-scaling of the centrality dependence of $\frac{dN_\mathrm{ch}}{d\eta}$ at lower collision energies that is not seen with the MC-Glauber initial conditions. This may help to discriminate experimentally between these models.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{0.79\linewidth}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{figs/fig2a.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{figs/fig2b.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.2\linewidth}
\caption{Eccentricity-scaled $p_T$-integrated $v_2$ plotted as a function of the charged hadron multiplicity density for different collision energies, for MC-Glauber initial conditions with $\eta/s=0.08$ (a) and MC-KLN profiles with $\eta/s=0.2$ (b), respectively. }
\label{fig2}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
In Fig.~\ref{fig2} we explore the scaling of elliptic flow with charged hadron multiplicity density (``multiplicity scaling'') over a wider range of $\sqrt{s}$ than previously studied, for both of the initialization models. For MC-Glauber initial conditions (Fig.~\ref{fig2}a) the ``multiplicity scaling'' curve $v_2/\varepsilon_2$ vs. $(1/S)(dN_\mathrm{ch}/d\eta)$ shows excellent universality over the entire collision energy range between 7.7 and 2760\,$A$\,GeV. But for MC-KLN (Fig.~\ref{fig2}b), lower collision energies result in larger $v_2/\epsilon_2$ values at the same charged hadron multiplicity density (as previously shown in \cite{Shen:2011eg}). We find that the main reason for the different collision energy dependences of the two models lies in their different behavior of the initial overlap area $S$: As the collisions become more peripheral, $S$ decreases more rapidly in the MC-KLN model than in the MC-Glauber model \cite{Shen:2012vn}. This slightly faster drop of $S$ in the MC-KLN model shifts the ``universal'' scaling curves in Fig.~\ref{fig2} to the right and shrinks the covered range in $(1/S) dN_\mathrm{ch}/d\eta$. The different $\sqrt{s}$-dependences of $v_2/\epsilon_2$ as function of $dN_\mathrm{ch}/d\eta$ in Figs.~\ref{fig2}a and \ref{fig2}b thus reflect primarily the fact that the shape of the initial profiles evolves differently with centrality in the two initialization models.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf ``Saturation'' of differential elliptic flow: }
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{0.79\linewidth}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth,height=0.33\linewidth]{figs/fig3a.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth,height=0.33\linewidth]{figs/fig3b.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth,height=0.33\linewidth]{figs/fig3c.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth,height=0.33\linewidth]{figs/fig3d.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.2\linewidth}
\caption{{\bf(a, b):} Differential elliptic flow of all charged hadrons at 20-30\% centrality in Au+Au and Pb+Pb collisions for different collision energies. {\bf(c, d):} $\sqrt{s}$-dependence of the differential charged hadron elliptic flow $v^\mathrm{ch}_2(p_T, \sqrt{s})$ at 5 fixed $p_T$ values below 2 GeV/$c$.}
\label{fig3}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
In Figs.\,\ref{fig3}a,b, we show the differential charged hadron elliptic flow for Au-Au or Pb-Pb collisions at 20-30\% centrality. The differential elliptic flow is affected by both total elliptic and radial flow. With MC-Glauber initial conditions the differential elliptic flow for $p_T{\,<\,}2$\,GeV/$c$ remains almost unchanged for $\sqrt{s}{\,\ge\,}39$\,$A$\,GeV. As the collision energy increases, both radial and elliptic flow increase, due to the longer fireball lifetime. Naively the increasing total elliptic flow should also lead to a larger differential $v_2$, but this tendency is counteracted by the growing radial flow which blueshifts the momentum anisotropy to larger $p_T$. For the runs with MC-KLN initial conditions we use a larger $\eta/s$ value. The resulting larger viscous effects suppress the total elliptic flow at lower collision energies more strongly than for the MC-Glauber runs, leading to a monotonous decrease of the slope of the differential $v_2(p_T)$ with decreasing collision energy. To further illustrate this point we plot in Fig.~\ref{fig3}c,d the $\sqrt{s}$-dependence of $v_2^\mathrm{ch}(p_T)$ at 5 fixed $p_T$ points. In this representation one sees that for the MC-Glauber model with $\eta/s{\,=\,}0.08$, $v_2^\mathrm{ch}$ at any fixed $p_T{\,\le\,}2$\,GeV/$c$ features, as a function of $\sqrt{s}$, a very broad maximum around top RHIC energy (200\,$A$\,GeV). For lower $p_T{\,<\,}0.5$\,GeV/$c$, heavier particles, or smaller $\eta/s$ this maximum moves towards lower $\sqrt{s}$. With the larger $\eta/s{\,=\,}0.2$ used in the MC-KLN model, the strong reduction of $v_2^\mathrm{ch}$ at low collision energies shifts the maximum of $v_2^\mathrm{ch}$ at any fixed $p_T$ towards higher $\sqrt{s}$; Fig.~\ref{fig3}d shows that for $\eta/s{\,=\,}0.2$ this observable does not peak below the top LHC energy, except for very small $p_T{\,<\,}200$\,MeV/$c$.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Freeze-out shape analysis: }
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.6\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figs/fig4.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.4\linewidth}
\caption{$\sqrt{s}$-dependence of the final spatial eccentricity $\varepsilon_\mathrm{f}$ of
the isothermal kinetic freeze-out surface at $T_\mathrm{dec}{\,=\,}120$\,MeV, for 10-30\%
centrality. The initial eccentricity is 0.26 for the MC-Glauber model and 0.32 for the MC-KLN
model. The experimental points indicate preliminary data \cite{Anson:2011ik} from an
azimuthal HBT analysis by the STAR Collaboration.}
\label{fig4}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig4}, we show the final fireball eccentricity calculated along the kinetic freeze-out surface, $T_\mathrm{dec}=120$\,MeV, as a function of collision energy. As the collision energy increases, the final spatial eccentricity $\varepsilon_\mathrm{f}$ decreases monotonically for both MC-Glauber and MC-KLN models. This is because at higher collision energy the fireball has longer lifetime to decompress its original deformation and become more isotropic. In Fig.\,\ref{fig4}, we compare our results with recent STAR data from an azimuthal HBT analysis \cite{Anson:2011ik}. Our calculations qualitatively agree with the experimental data and reproduce the trend of the collision energy dependence of $\varepsilon_\mathrm{f}$. MC-Glauber runs with $\eta/s{\,=\,}0.08$ quantitatively reproduce the data at $\sqrt{s}{\,=\,}200\,A$\,GeV while underpredicting the final eccentricity by $\sim$10\% at lower energies. MC-KLN initial conditions with $\eta/s{\,=\,}0.2$ result in 15-20\% larger final eccentricities, due to the $\sim$20\% larger initial eccentricities of the MC-KLN profiles. Within the explored range, we found weak sensitivity of these curves to $\eta/s$. Extending our calculations to LHC energy we predict that $\varepsilon_\mathrm{f}$ will approach zero around $\sqrt{s}{\,=\,}2.76$-5.5\,$A$\,TeV.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgments: }
We thank Christopher Anson and Mike Lisa for stimulating discussions.This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grants No. \rm{DE-SC0004286} and (within the framework of the JET Collaboration) \rm{DE-SC0004104}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Probing correlation length scales in amorphous systems has become the subject of much current activity due to their important role in understanding the physical mechanism of the glass transition~\cite{Berthier1, Mosayebi, Sausset1, Charbonneau}. Since the collective nature of the dynamics of supercooled liquids approaching the glass transition point has already indicated the existence of a growing dynamic length scale~\cite{Glotzer1, Glotzer2, DH}, a deeper understanding of the correlation length scales allows to explain the glassy phenomena such as slow dynamics and dynamic heterogeneity. For example, evidence has been provided by studying higher-order static correlations~\cite{Tanaka1, Tanaka2, Sausset2} or analyzing local geometric structures~\cite{Coslovich, Pedersen} that slow dynamics and dynamic heterogeneity possess some structural features in some model glass-formers, which sheds insight into the structural origin of slow dynamics in glass-forming liquids. On the other hand, the study of correlation length scales could facilitate the testing of theoretical predictions since most theories of the glass transition have treated characteristic length scales as a key ingredient~\cite{Berthier1, Tarjus, Biroli1}. Moreover, understanding of the glass transition has been improved recently by studying the point-to-set correlations due to their generic features in describing spatial information of glass-forming liquids~\cite{PTS1, PTS2, PTS3, PTS4}.
The growing dynamic length scale in glass-forming liquids has triggered a large body of work to search connections between dynamics and structure~\cite{WidmerCooper1,
WidmerCooper2, WidmerCooper3, WidmerCooper4}. In this situation, conventional methods such as the static pair correlations cannot be used to detect structural order since they do not show dramatic change on the approach to the glass transition point. Instead, the higher-order static correlations has been frequently emphasized within the glass community. An intriguing result, emerging in recent years, is that the bond orientational order has been suggested to be the origin of slow dynamics and dynamic heterogeneity in the so-called weakly frustrated glass-forming liquids~\cite{Tanaka1, Tanaka2}. By using polydispersity to control the strength of frustration, Kawasaki and coworkers~\cite{Tanaka1, Tanaka2} have shown that in a weakly frustrated glass-forming liquid there exist transient clusters of highly ordered particles, whose size and lifetime increase towards the glass transition point. They also found that particles in the clusters are less mobile than others and that both dynamic length (characterizing the increasing heterogeneity of the dynamics) and structural length (characterizing the spatial extension of the local bond orientational order) tend to diverge at the ideal glass transition point. Thus it may suggest a static thermodynamic origin of dynamic heterogeneity rather than a purely dynamic one at least for the weakly frustrated glass-forming liquids. However, there are also studies which show a decoupling between the structural correlation length and the dynamic one, e.g., Sausset and Tarjus~\cite{Sausset2} observed that the static correlation length of a weakly glass-forming liquid in negatively curved space first grows and then saturates as temperature decreases whereas the dynamic correlation length always increases with decreasing temperature. Therefore, even in the weakly frustrated glass-forming liquids, the origin of slow dynamics and dynamic heterogeneity is still unclear and whether the bond orientational order can provide a complete description of dynamic heterogeneity remains elusive.
In this work, we examine the connection between dynamic heterogeneity and bond orientational order in a weakly frustrated glass-forming liquid by taking advantage of assessing the effect of attractions on the correlation length scales. Our study is inspired by the results of effect of attractions on the structure and the dynamics of liquids, which has been reevaluated recently in the context of glass formation~\cite{Attract1, Attract2}. By comparing the static pair structure and the relaxation dynamics of a binary Lennard-Jones (denoted by LJ in the following) glass-former and its corresponding purely repulsive variant (proposed by Weeks, Chandler and Andersen~\cite{WCA} and denoted by WCA in the following), Berthier and Tarjus~\cite{Attract1, Attract2} have shown that attractions can affect the relaxation dynamics of liquids in both quantitative and qualitative ways but have little effect on the static pair correlations. From these results, one can also expect significant effect of attractions on dynamic heterogeneity of supercooled liquids since it has been well established that the dynamic slowing down accompanies the development of dynamic heterogeneity. Thus, a crucial test of the role of bond orientational order in weakly frustrated glass-forming liquids can be made by examining whether similar effect of attractions occurs on bond orientational order and the associated static correlation length or not.
We demonstrate via molecular dynamics simulation that attractions can strongly affect the dynamic heterogeneity of the liquid and the associated dynamic correlation length. However, their influence on the bond orientational order and the associated static correlation length shows a different manner and is reminiscent of the effect of attractions on the thermodynamics of liquids. In the supercooled regime, dependence of the dynamic correlation length on the structural relaxation time is nearly the same and shows a power-law relation for models with and without attractions. Although we can also identify a power-law relation between the static correlation length and the structural relaxation time in the same temperature range, the exponent of the power laws for the two models is not the same. This implies that the growth of bond orientational order and static correlation length scale might be merely a manifestation of favoring the configurational entropy in weakly frustrated glass-forming liquids. Thus, our results lead strong evidence that the bond orientational order cannot provide a complete description of dynamic heterogeneity even in weakly frustrated glass-forming systems.
\section{Model and methods}
We compare the dynamical and structural properties of a LJ glass-forming liquid in two dimensions as well as its corresponding WCA variant. The pair potential for the two systems is given by
\begin{equation}
U_{jk}(r)=\left\{\!\!\!
\begin{array}{ll}
4\epsilon [(\sigma_{jk}/r)^{12}-(\sigma_{jk}/r)^{6}+C_{jk}], & \text{for $r<r_{jk}^{c}$}\\
0, &
\text{otherwise,}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is the depth of the potential well, $r$ is the distance between two particles and $\sigma_{jk}=(\sigma_{j}+\sigma_{k})/2$ with $\sigma_{j}$ the diameter of particle $j$, $r_{jk}^{c}$ is equal to the position of the minimum of $U_{jk}(r)$ for the WCA model (i.e., $2^{1/6}\sigma_{jk}$) and to a conventional cutoff of $2.5\sigma_{jk}$ for the LJ model, and $C_{jk}$ is constant which is fixed such that $U_{jk}(r_{jk}^{c})=0$. The difference between the two potentials is that the LJ potential has a long-ranged attractive tail while the WCA potential has only one short-ranged repulsive component. To form a weakly frustrated glass-forming system, the particle diameters uniformly distribute in the range $0.8-1.2$ with an interval of $0.001$, then the size polydispersity for the system is $\Delta=\sqrt{(<\sigma^{2}>-<\sigma>^{2})}/<\sigma>=11.59\%$, where $<\cdot\cdot\cdot>$ is the average of the corresponding variable among all the particles. Such system prevents occurrence of crystallization and tends to form a local hexagonal structure, and one can readily identify the static structural order and detect the corresponding spatial correlations.
We employed molecular dynamics simulation for a system with the particle number $N=6400$ in the $NVT$ ensemble, where Newton's equations of motion are integrated with the velocity form of the Verlet algorithm under periodic boundary conditions and the temperature $T$ is maintained by the Nos\'{e}-Hoover thermostat~\cite{Frenkel1}. All the particles have the same mass $m$. Length, time and temperature are reported in units of $<\sigma>$, $\sqrt{m<\sigma>^{2}/\epsilon}$ and $\epsilon/k_{B}$ with $k_{B}$ the Boltzmann's constant. The time step is $\Delta t=0.005$. The number density is fixed at $\rho=N/L^{2}=0.95$ ($L\simeq82.08$) with $L$ the box dimension. We also performed simulations for a system with $N=1000$ ($L\simeq32.44$) in order to check the possible finite size effects and we found that similar effect of attractions also occurs for the smaller system. We note that the finite size effects do affect the results of dynamic correlation length in simulations, as pointed out recently~\cite{Sastry1, Sastry2, Szamel}. However, our aim is to correctly identify the effect of attractions on the correlation length scales, rather than to quantify a true liquid. Thus, we only present the results for the system with $N=6400$ in this paper. At each state point, the system was first equilibrated for at least $100\tau_{\alpha}$ ($\tau_{\alpha}$ is the structural relaxation time and see below for its definition) before collecting data. In order to obtain reliable results and improve the statistics, we performed a production run for at least $500\tau_{\alpha}$ and $8$ independent runs.
\section{Results and discussion}
In this section, we first compare the relaxation dynamics and the static pair correlations of LJ and WCA models. Then we discuss the effect of attractions on dynamic heterogeneity, bond orientational order and the associated correlation lengths.
\subsection{Relaxation dynamics and static pair structure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig1.eps}
\caption{(a) The self-intermediate scattering function for LJ and WCA models at several temperatures. (b) Arrhenius plot of the structural relaxation time $\tau_{\alpha}$ for LJ and WCA models. Inset: Power-law fittings of $\tau_{\alpha}$ (see text). The fitting temperature ranges are $0.53-0.75$ and $0.43-0.6$ for LJ and WCA models respectively. The fitting results are: $T_{c}=0.47$, $\gamma=3.06$ for the LJ model and $T_{c}=0.38$, $\gamma=2.72$ for the WCA model.}
\end{figure}
We first consider the effect of attractions on the relaxation dynamics of liquids by calculating the self-intermediate scattering function (ISF), which is defined as
\begin{equation}
F_{s}(q,t)=\frac{1}{N}<\sum_{j=1}^{N}\exp\{i\textbf{q}\cdot[\textbf{r}_{j}(t)-\textbf{r}_{j}(0)]\}>,
\end{equation}
where $<\cdot\cdot\cdot>$ indicates the thermal average, $i=\sqrt{-1}$ and the wave number $q\simeq6.5$ corresponds to the first peak of the static structure factor (which will be shown later). The typical results are shown in Fig. 1(a). Consistent with the results in a binary glass-former~\cite{Attract1, Attract2}, we observe that although the difference of $F_{s}(q,t)$ between the two systems is very small at high temperatures, it becomes significant as the liquid enters the supercooled regime where typical two-step relaxation process occurs. This phenomenon can be more clearly seen from the dependence of the structural relaxation time $\tau_{\alpha}$ on $T$, which is shown in Fig. 1(b). Here, we define $\tau_{\alpha}$ as $F_{s}(q,t=\tau_{\alpha})=0.2$ (we have checked that choosing other reasonable values will not alter the qualitative results). We find that $\tau_{\alpha}$ for the two models is almost identical at $T=2.0$, but $\tau_{\alpha}$ of the LJ model is over $2$ orders of magnitude larger than that of the WCA model at $T=0.5$. We can also confirm the quantitative effect of attractions by comparing the mode-coupling glass transition point $T_{c}$ of the two models, as determined by power-law fittings of $\tau_{\alpha}$ (i.e., $\tau_{\alpha} \sim (T-T_{c})^{-\gamma}$)~\cite{MCT}. The results are presented in the inset of Fig. 1(b) and we find that $T_{c}^{LJ}$ is significantly larger than $T_{c}^{WCA}$ for the studied density (note that the difference between them will become smaller at higher densities~\cite{Attract1, Attract2}). As demonstrated in Refs.~\cite{Attract1, Attract2}, the effect of attractions on the dynamics is not only quantitative but also qualitative. The latter was evidenced by the absence in the WCA model of the density scaling of $\tau_{\alpha}$ which holds in the LJ model. We have also calculated the relaxation times at various number densities (ranging from $0.85$ to $1.05$) for the system with $N=1000$ and found the distinct qualitative behavior for the two models. Thus, the quantitative and qualitative effects of attractions on the relaxation dynamics are independent of dimensionality and should be universal in glass-forming liquids.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig2.eps}
\caption{(a) Pair correlation function and (b) static structure factor for LJ and WCA models at several temperatures. The results have been shifted for clarity. Note that the solid and open symbols are indistinguishable due to the almost perfect collapse of data for the two models.}
\end{figure}
We present the results of the static pair correlations for the two systems at several temperatures in Fig. 2. Clearly, attractions have negligible effects on the pair correlation function $g(r)$ and the static structure factor $S(q)$ even in the supercooled regime. It should be noted that although the long-range positional order is obviously prevented in the two systems, the splitting second peaks in both $g(r)$ and $S(q)$ become more apparent as $T$ decreases (note that this phenomenon is more evident for $S(q)$), which suggests the development of the locally preferred order with decreasing $T$ and provides evidence that the model here has only weak frustration. The negligible effect of attractions on the static pair correlations indicates that the large difference seen in the relaxation dynamics cannot be explained at the static pair level~\cite{Attract3}. In fact, it has been shown that considering locally preferred structures and higher-order static correlations can help to rationalize the effect of attractions on the relaxation dynamics~\cite{Attraction1, Attraction2}. In the following, we will show that even if we consider the locally preferred bond orientational order in our models, it brings little help for understanding the large difference of the dynamics.
\subsection{Dynamic heterogeneity, bond orientational order and correlation length scales}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig3.eps}
\caption{Arrhenius plot of (a) $\tau_{\chi}$ and (b)$\chi_{4, max}^{ss}$ for LJ and WCA models. Insets: $\tau_{\chi}$ and $\chi_{4, max}^{ss}$ as a function of $\tau_{\alpha}$ for LJ and WCA models. Note that dependence of $\tau_{\chi}$ and $\chi_{4, max}^{ss}$ on $\tau_{\alpha}$ is almost the same for the two models.}
\end{figure}
It is widely observed that the dynamic slowing down accompanies growing dynamic heterogeneity in glass-forming liquids. Therefore, it can be expected that similar effect of attractions on relaxation dynamics will occur on dynamic heterogeneity. Here, we quantify the dynamic heterogeneity by the self part of the four-point density correlations, which dominates results of the total four-point density correlations~\cite{Glotzer1, Glotzer2}. First, a time-dependent self-overlap order parameter $Q_{s}(t)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
Q_{s}(t)=\frac{1}{N}<\sum_{j=1}^{N}w(|\textbf{r}_{j}(t)-\textbf{r}_{j}(0)|)>,
\end{equation}
with $w=1(0)$ for$|\textbf{r}_{j}(t)-\textbf{r}_{j}(0)|\leq(>)a$, where $a=0.3$ is a threshold value and choosing other appropriate values dose not change the qualitative results. The mean square variance of $Q_{s}(t)$ defines the four-point susceptibility
\begin{equation}
\chi_{4}^{ss}(t)=\frac{L^2}{N^2}[<Q_{s}(t)^{2}>-<Q_{s}(t)>^{2}],
\end{equation}
which measures the degree of the cooperativity of structural relaxation. For a typical glass-forming liquid, the peak height $\chi_{4, max}^{ss}$ of $\chi_{4}^{ss}(t)$ increases and the peak time $\tau_{\chi}$ shifts to larger times as $T$ decreases~\cite{Berthier2}. We present the results of $\tau_{\chi}$ and $\chi_{4, max}^{ss}$ for the two models in Fig. 3. We find that both models exhibit growing dynamic heterogeneities as $T$ is lowered. Attractions do lead to enhancement of dynamic heterogeneity of supercooled liquids, which has been pointed out in the previous work~\cite{Attract1, Attract2, Weeks, Chandler}. Moreover, attractions affect $\tau_{\chi}$ and $\chi_{4, max}^{ss}$ in a similar manner as compared to their influence on $\tau_{\alpha}$, which can be confirmed by plotting $\tau_{\chi}$ and $\chi_{4, max}^{ss}$ as a function of $\tau_{\alpha}$, as illustrated in the insets of Fig. 3. We observe that dependence of both $\tau_{\chi}$ and $\chi_{4, max}^{ss}$ on $\tau_{\alpha}$ is almost the same for LJ and WCA models.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig4.eps}
\caption{(a) $S_{4}^{ss}(q,\tau_{\chi})$ for LJ and WCA models at several temperatures. Lines are the results of the OZ fittings (see text). (b) Arrhenius plot of $\xi_{4}$ for LJ and WCA models.}
\end{figure}
The dynamic correlation length is investigated by the four-point, time-dependent structure factor for the self-overlapping particles, which is defined as
\begin{equation}
S_{4}^{ss}(q,t)=\frac{L^2}{N^2}<\widetilde{\rho}(q, t)\widetilde{\rho}(-q, t)>,
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{\rho}(q,t)=\sum_{j=1}^{N}w(|\textbf{r}_{j}(t)-\textbf{r}_{j}(0)|)\exp[i\textbf{q}\cdot\textbf{r}_{j}(0)]$. Here, the time $t$ is taken as $\tau_{\chi}$, where dynamic heterogeneity becomes most pronounced~\cite{Glotzer1}. Representative results for the two models are given in Fig. 4(a). $S_{4}^{ss}(q,\tau_{\chi})$ at low-$q$ region can be well fitted by the Ornstein-Zernike (OZ) function $S_{0}/[1+(q\xi_{4})^{2}]$ and then the dynamic correlation length $\xi_{4}$ is obtained in this way. The results of $\xi_{4}$ for the two models are shown in Fig. 4(b). It is seen that difference of $\xi_{4}$ between the two models is very small at high temperatures and becomes pronounced as $T$ decreases, indicating that the same effect of attractions on relaxation dynamics and dynamic heterogeneity occurs on the dynamic correlation length. This is not surprising since $\xi_{4}$ provides similar information as $\chi_{4, max}^{ss}$ does. Therefore, attractions can strongly affect dynamic heterogeneity of glass-forming liquids.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig5.eps}
\caption{(a) $g_{6}(r)/g(r)$ for LJ and WCA models at several temperatures. Lines are the results of the OZ fittings (see text). (b) Arrhenius plot of $\xi_{6}$ for LJ and WCA models. Inset: the average hexagonal order parameter $\overline{\Psi}_{6}$ as a function of $1/T$.}
\end{figure}
Turning to the static properties, one may wonder whether similar effect of attractions will occur on the bond orientational order and the associated static correlation length. Since the local preferred order in our model is hexagonal, we use a sixfold bond-orientation order parameter for each particle to characterize the local structure. First, we define $\psi_{6}^{j}=\frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum_{m=1}^{n_{j}}\exp(i6\theta_{m}^{j})$ and $\Psi_{6}^{j}=|\psi_{6}^{j}|$. Here, $n_{j}$ is the number of the nearest neighbors for particle $j$ which is determined by the Voronoi construction~\cite{Allen}, and $\theta_{m}^{j}$ is the angle between $(\textbf{r}_{m}-\textbf{r}_{j})$ and the $x$ axis (particle $m$ is a neighbor of particle $j$). The order parameter of the system is defined as $\overline{\Psi}_{6}=\frac{1}{N}<\sum_{j=1}^{N}\Psi_{6}^{j}>$. The spatial correlation of $\psi_{6}^{j}$ is then calculated as
\begin{equation}
g_{6}(r)=\frac{L^2}{2\pi r\Delta rN(N-1)}<\Sigma_{j\neq k}\delta(r-|\textbf{r}_{jk}|)\psi_{6}^{j}\psi_{6}^{k*}>.
\end{equation}
The results of $g_{6}(r)/g(r)$ for several temperatures are presented in Fig. 5(a). The static correlation length $\xi_{6}$ can be obtained by fitting the envelops of $g_{6}(r)/g(r)$ to an OZ formula $r^{-1/2}\exp(-r/\xi_{6})$. We show results of $\xi_{6}$ in Fig. 5(b). In the inset of Fig. 5(b), we also present $\overline{\Psi}_{6}$ as a function of $1/T$. In both systems, we find that $\xi_{6}$ and $\overline{\Psi}_{6}$ monotonically increase in the studied $T$ range as $T$ decreases, as found in other weakly glass-forming liquids~\cite{Tanaka1, Tanaka2}. It is seen that attractions do lead to an increase of $\xi_{6}$ and $\overline{\Psi}_{6}$ in the studied $T$ range. Yet, the manner how attractions affect bond orientational order and the associated static correlation length is very different as compared to their effect on relaxation dynamics and dynamic heterogeneity, i.e., the difference of $\xi_{6}$ and $\overline{\Psi}_{6}$ between the two models is already seen in the high $T$ regime, but it does not increase with decreasing $T$ and remains nearly constant in the studied $T$ range. We note that this is reminiscent of effect of attractions on the thermodynamics of liquids, e.g., the pressure of the WCA model is roughly shifted up by a constant from that of the LJ model at fixed density~\cite{Attract2}. Obviously, the growth of bond orientational order and the static correlation length scale on the approach to the glass transition point, which might be merely a manifestation of favoring the configurational entropy in weakly frustrated glass-forming liquids, cannot rationalize the effect of attractions on relaxation dynamics.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig6.eps}
\caption{$\xi_{4}$ as a function of $\xi_{6}$ for LJ and WCA models. A decoupling between static and dynamic length scales is apparent, i.e., $\xi_{4}$ can be much larger than $\xi_{6}$ in the LJ model, while the difference between the two length scales is small in the WCA model.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.40\textwidth]{Fig7.eps}
\caption{Trajectories of particles with different hexagonal order during an interval of $\tau_{\alpha}$ for (a) LJ model at $T=0.5$ and (b) WCA model at $T=0.4$. Note that cyan particles relax more slowly than green and yellow particles in both models, revealing an unexpected relationship between hexagonal structure and dynamic heterogeneity.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig8.eps}
\caption{Probability distribution of $\overline{\Psi}_{6}^{j}$ averaged over an interval of $\tau_{\alpha}$ for LJ model at $T=0.5$ and WCA model at $T=0.4$.}
\end{figure}
The above results clearly indicate that attractions can affect dynamic heterogeneity and bond orientational order in different manners. In Fig. 6, we plot $\xi_{4}$ as a function of $\xi_{6}$ for both models, in order to make direct comparisons between dynamic and static correlation lengths and thus better illustrate the decoupling between them. It should be mentioned that the values of $\xi_{4}$ and and $\xi_{6}$ are slightly dependent on the used parameter (e.g., the threshold value $a$ in the definition of the four-point density correlations) and the data range in the fitting procedure (in this work, we obtain $\xi_{4}$ by fitting $S_{4}^{ss}(q,\tau_{\chi})$ at $q<1.0$ and $\xi_{6}$ by fitting $g_{6}(r)/g(r)$ at $r<6.0$.). However, we can still fairly compare $\xi_{4}$ and $\xi_{6}$ for the two models by employing the same criterion. It is seen in Fig. 6 that an apparent decoupling between dynamic length and static one appears, i.e., $\xi_{4}$ can be much larger than $\xi_{6}$ in the LJ model, while the difference between the two length scales is small in the WCA model. To demonstrate more clearly what order is present in the system and how the two kinds of correlation length scales differ, we monitor the relaxation process of particles with different hexagonal order for the LJ model at $T=0.5$ and the WCA model at $T=0.4$. As the dynamic correlation length is similar but the static one shows a relatively large difference at these two state points (see Figs. 3-5), we can detect how different kinds of structure relate to the growing dynamic heterogeneity. As can be seen in Fig.7, the particles with high hexagonal order (magenta dots) do dominate the relaxation process. However, the particle trajectories also reveal an unexpected relationship between hexagonal structure and dynamic heterogeneity: the particles with low hexagonal order (cyan dots) relax more slowly and thus contribute to the growing dynamic heterogeneity more than those with moderate hexagonal order (green and yellow dots). This is consistent with a previous work and the particles with low hexagonal order indeed have five or seven neighbors~\cite{Xu}. Thus, even if the average hexagonal order in the LJ model at $T=0.5$ is lower than that in the WCA model at $T=0.4$ (see the inset of Fig. 5), dynamic heterogeneity and dynamic correlation length can be similar for the two state points due to the larger amount of particles with low hexagonal order in the LJ system, as evidenced in Fig. 8, where we present the probability distribution of $\overline{\Psi}_{6}^{j}=1/\tau_{\alpha}\int_{0}^{\tau_{\alpha}}\Psi_{6}^{j}dt$ for the corresponding two state points. On the other hand, since $\xi_{6}$ indeed measures the extent to hexagonal order in a system, it can be expected that the static correlation length for the LJ model at $T=0.5$ is smaller than that for the WCA model at $T=0.4$.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig9.eps}
\caption{Log-log plot of $\xi_{4}$ (upper panel) and $\xi_{6}$ (lower panel) versus $\tau_{\alpha}$. Solid lines are power-law fits.}
\end{figure}
The different effect of attractions on dynamic heterogeneity and bond orientational order implies that bond orientational order does not provide a complete description of dynamic heterogeneity, and this conclusion can be more evident in the log-log plot of $\xi_{4}$ and $\xi_{6}$ versus $\tau_{\alpha}$, as illustrated in Fig. 9. As can be seen in the upper panel of Fig. 9, the dependence of $\xi_{4}$ on $\tau_{\alpha}$ is almost the same for LJ and WCA models and follows power-law relations (the exponent of the power law decreases from $\sim0.74$ in the high temperature regime to $\sim0.10$ in the supercooled regime), indicating that slow dynamics always accompanies growing dynamic length scales irrespective of attractions. Here, we point out that data collapse in LJ and WCA systems is also found for point-to-set correlation length and structural relaxation time~\cite{PTS4}. The situation changes for $\xi_{6}$: although we can identify power-law relations between $\xi_{6}$ and $\tau_{\alpha}$ for LJ and WCA models, the two sets of data deviate from each other and $\xi_{6}$ grows with $\tau_{\alpha}$ at a larger rate in the WCA model than that in the LJ model. It should be noted that the power-law relation between correlation length and structural relaxation time is consistent with Refs.~\cite{Glotzer1, Glotzer2, Xu} but disagrees with Refs.~\cite{Tanaka1, Tanaka2}. Therefore, even if there exists a link between static correlation length and structural relaxation time in the weakly frustrated glass-forming liquids, the bond orientational order cannot provide a complete description of dynamic heterogeneity.
\section{Conclusions}
In summary, by assessing the effect of attractions on dynamic heterogeneity, bond orientational order and the associated correlation length scales in a weakly frustrated two-dimensional glass-forming liquid, we have made a crucial examination of the role of the bond orientational order in such systems. We found that attractions affect dynamic heterogeneity and the associated dynamic length of the liquid in a similar manner as compared to their effect on relaxation dynamics. However, their influence on bond orientational order and the associated static length shows a different manner and is reminiscent of the effect of attractions on the thermodynamics of liquids. In the supercooled regime, dependence of the dynamic length on the structural relaxation time is nearly the same and shows a power-law relation for models with and without attractions. Although a power-law relation between the static correlation length and the structural relaxation time can be also identified in the same temperature range, the exponent of the power laws for the two models is not the same. This implies that the growth of bond orientational order and static correlation length scale might be merely a manifestation of favoring the configurational entropy in weakly frustrated glass-forming liquids. Our results clarify the role of bond orientational order and lead strong evidence that bond orientational order cannot provide a complete description of dynamic heterogeneity even in weakly frustrated glass-forming systems.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work is subsidized by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program, 2012CB821500), and supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (21074137, 21222407, 50930001) programs and the fund for Creative Research Groups (50921062).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Accurate predictions for processes with a fixed number of final-state jets are crucial for many LHC applications. A well-known example is that of a Higgs boson decaying to $W$-bosons at the LHC~\cite{Aad:2012npa,Chatrchyan:2012ty}. The background composition to this signal changes as a function of jet multiplicity. In the zero-jet bin the background is dominated by continuum $WW$ production, while in the one-jet and two-jet bins, top-pair production becomes increasingly important. The optimization of this search requires cuts dependent on the number of jets observed, and therefore also on theoretical predictions for exclusive jet multiplicities.
Theoretical predictions for processes with an exclusive number of jets are notoriously difficult to obtain. Fixed-order perturbation theory is plagued by large logarithms of the form $\text{ln} (Q/p_T^{veto})$, where $Q$ denotes the hard scale
in the process, such as $m_H$. For experimentally relevant values $p_T^{veto} \sim 25-30$ GeV, residual scale variations in fixed-order calculations lead to estimated errors that do not accurately reflect uncalculated higher-order corrections~\cite{Anastasiou:2008ik,Stewart:2011cf,Banfi:2012yh}. Progress in resummation of these logarithms to all orders has been slow. Event-shape variables such as jettiness~\cite{Stewart:2010tn} allow resummation of jet-veto effects to arbitrary logarithmic accuracy, and have been applied to study the production of vector bosons or Higgs bosons plus multiple jets at the LHC~\cite{Liu:2012zg,Berger:2010xi}. However, experimental measurements typically utilize jet algorithms such as the anti-$k_T$ algorithm, and conclusions drawn from calculations using jettiness necessarily remain qualitative only. Resummation of jet-veto logarithms for the Higgs cross section in the zero-jet bin in the presence of the anti-$k_T$ algorithm has been performed at next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) accuracy using the semi-numerical program {\tt CAESER}~\cite{Banfi:2012yh}\footnote{We note that different schemes for counting logarithms are employed in the literature; we specify in detail the order-counting scheme we use in Section~\ref{secfact}.}. Recent work has extended these results to their NNLL accuracy~\cite{Becher:2012qa,Banfi:2012jm}. It has been pointed out the potentially large $ \text{ln} \,R$ corrections, where $R$ is the jet-radius parameter in the anti-$k_T$ algorithm, could have a significant numerical impact on the predictions~\cite{Tackmann:2012bt}. These terms have yet to be studied at all orders and warrant further investigation.
We consider in this manuscript the resummation of the jet-veto logarithms for production of one or more color-neutral particles, such as a Higgs boson or electroweak gauge bosons, in association with one or more jets. We accomplish this by deriving a factorization theorem using soft-collinear effective theory (SCET)~\cite{Bauer:2000ew,Bauer:2000yr,Bauer:2001ct,Bauer:2001yt,Bauer:2002nz} that assumes that the transverse momenta of the hard jets are larger than the veto scale. As an example application, we consider explicitly Higgs boson production in association with a single jet. This calculation is of direct phenomenological interest for understanding the properties of the new Higgs-like state observed at the LHC~\cite{:2012gk,:2012gu}. It extends previous work on understanding the effect of resummation on the Higgs plus zero-jet cross section~\cite{Becher:2012qa,Banfi:2012jm,Tackmann:2012bt}. We resum the logarithms $\text{ln} (Q/p_T^{veto})$ through the next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) level, where $Q \sim m_H \sim p_T^J$ and $p_T^J$ is the transverse momentum of the observed jet. We demonstrate that the residual scale variation of the theoretical prediction is drastically reduced by the inclusion of the NLL resummation, and that the NLL+NLO result provides reliable predictions over a larger kinematic range. Since the factorization theorem we derive is valid for both more jets and other color-neutral particles, our result also serves as a framework for how to augment a host of fixed-order calculations with resummation of a class of large logarithms.
In the context of recent work suggesting that it is difficult to extend resummation of jet-veto logarithms in the presence of the anti-$k_T$ algorithm beyond the NLL level~\cite{Tackmann:2012bt}, a relevant question to consider is the required accuracy of the resummation to match experimental needs. Phrased more colloquially, how many N's of logarithmic accuracy are needed? In the example above, the numerical value of the
leading logarithmic term in the experimentally interesting region is $\text{ln}^2 (Q/p_T^{veto}) \approx 2.5$. This is not an overwhelmingly large correction. The ability to supplement fixed-order codes with simple analytical resummation of important sources of logarithms to the NLL level should be sufficient. This would allow these programs to be extended near regions of phase space where large logarithms appear, while still producing reliable central values and theoretical error estimates within a controlled theoretical approximation. We comment in more detail later in this manuscript on the numerical relevance of missing higher-order corrections that may arise at the NNLL level. We find that in the experimentally interesting parameter region for Higgs production, it is justified to resum the large logarithms associated with the jet veto.
Our paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{secfact}, we
derive our factorization theorem using SCET. We apply our
formalism to study Higgs plus one-jet production, and discuss our numerical results, in Section~\ref{sechiggs}. We conclude and discuss future directions in Section~\ref{seccon}. All formulae needed for resummation at the NLL level are given in the Appendix.
\section{Factorization and Resummation}\label{secfact}
In this section we derive a factorization theorem for multi-jet production at the LHC in the presence of a jet veto. We discuss the resummation of the logarithms associated with the jet veto through NLL accuracy. We use $pp \to {\rm Higgs} + 1\ {\rm jet}$ via gluon-gluon fusion as an example to highlight the derivation procedure. The generalization to additional jets is straightforward, and is presented here. Our primary results are contained in Eqs.~(\ref{facthiggs}),~(\ref{factgen}),~(\ref{resumhiggs}) and~(\ref{resumgen}).
\subsection{Discussion of the jet constraints}
We focus on the case in which the jets are defined using the hadron collider
anti-$k_T$ algorithm~\cite{Cacciari:2008gp}. The following distance metrics are used:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{ij} &=& {\rm min}(p_{T,i}^{-1},p_{T,j}^{-1})\Delta R_{ij}/R, \nonumber \\
\rho_i &=& p_{T,i}^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
The anti-$k_T$ algorithm merges particles $i$ and $j$ to form a new particle by adding their four momenta
if $\rho_{ij}$ is the smallest among all the metrics. Otherwise, $i$ or $j$ is promoted to a jet depending on whether $\rho_i$ or $\rho_j$ is smaller, and removed from the set of considered particles. This procedure is repeated until all particles are grouped into jets. We note that $\Delta R_{ij}^2 = \Delta \eta_{ij}^2 + \Delta \phi_{ij}^2$,
where $\Delta \eta_{ij}$
and $\Delta \phi_{ij}$ are the rapidity and azimuthal angle
difference between particles $i$ and $j$, respectively. $R$ is the
jet radius parameter and in practice is chosen to be around $0.4-0.5$.
After clustering the partons, we demand that the final state contains no additional jets with transverse momentum greater than a threshold $p_T^{veto}$. For Higgs searches, typically $p_T^{veto} \sim 25-30$ GeV. Since $p_T^{veto}$ is usually substantially lower than the partonic center of mass ($\lambda \equiv p_T^{veto}/\sqrt{\hat{s}} \ll 1$),
the vetoed observables are usually very sensitive to soft and collinear emissions.
Additional constraints beyond the jet veto can be imposed on the final state. In the following derivation, we require that the measured leading jets are all well-separated so that no additional
small scales will be generated. We also assume that leading jet momentum $p_T^J \sim m_H \sim \sqrt{\hat{s}}$ and
$1\gg R^2\gg \lambda^2 $ while $\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi} \log^2 R \ll 1$. The second of these requirements is necessary to insure that the measurement function factorizes into separate measurements in each of the collinear sectors. This is discussed in detail in the next section. The third requirement ensures that logarithms associated with the anti-$k_T$ parameter $R$ need not be resummed. Given that $p_T^{veto} \approx 25-30{\rm GeV}$ and $R \approx 0.4-0.5$
for Higgs production,when the leading jet $p_T^J \approx m_H \approx 125{\rm GeV}$, these assumptions are justified.
\subsection{Derivation of the factorization theorem}
We use SCET~\cite{Bauer:2000ew,Bauer:2000yr,Bauer:2001ct,Bauer:2001yt,Bauer:2002nz} to establish our factorization theorem. SCET makes manifest the infrared limits of QCD by re-formulating
the QCD Lagrangian using soft and collinear modes whose momenta scale with a small power-counting parameter $\lambda$ in appropriate ways. For Higgs production, this parameter is of order $p_T^{veto}/\sqrt{\hat{s}}$ for radiation outside
the measured jet, and is of order $R$ for radiation inside the measured jet. Consideration of the jet algorithm and jet veto lead to the following relevant degrees of freedom in the effective theory:
\begin{itemize}
\item a collinear jet mode with momentum
$p_J = \frac{\omega_J}{2} n_J + k_J$, where $n_J$ is the light-cone vector along the jet direction;
\item two collinear modes propagating along the beam
axes $a$ and $b$, with $p_i = \frac{\omega_i}{2}n_i + k_i$ for $i = a,b$;
\item a soft mode with momentum $k_s$.
\end{itemize}
The residual momenta $k_J$, $k_i$
and the soft momentum $k_s$ all scale as $\sqrt{\hat{s}} \lambda$, while
the large components of the three collinear momenta scale as $\omega_i \sim \sqrt{\hat{s}}$. We note that no ultrasoft fields ($k_{us}\sim \sqrt{\hat{s}} \lambda^2$) are needed for the process
we are considering here. Any phase space measurement $\hat{{\cal M}}$
is assumed to be insensitive to these modes in the final state, so that
$\sum_{us}\hat{{\cal M}}|X_{us}\rangle \langle X_{us}| =
\sum_{us}|X_{us}\rangle \langle X_{us}| = 1 +{\cal O}(\lambda)
$, where $X_{us}$ denotes the final-state particles with an ultrasoft momentum scaling.
The leading-power SCET operator which mediates gluon-fusion Higgs plus one jet production is
\begin{eqnarray}
H{\cal O}(x) = \sum_{\omega_i,n_i}
e^{-i\left(\frac{\omega_1}{2}n_1 + \frac{\omega_2}{2}n_2 - \frac{\omega_3}{2}n_3 \right)\cdot x} \,
C_{\alpha\beta\mu}^{abc} H \,
S^{aa'}_{n_1}S^{bb'}_{n_2}S^{cc'}_{n_3}
{\cal B}_{\omega_1,n_1}^{\alpha,a'}{\cal B}_{\omega_2,n_3}^{\beta,b'}{\cal B}_{\omega_3,n_3}^{\mu,c'}(x)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have explicitly written out the Lorentz indices $\alpha\beta\mu$ and
the color indices $abc$. $H$ is the operator which creates
a Higgs boson in the final state. $C_{\alpha\beta\mu}^{abc}$ is the hard Wilson coefficient which encodes
the hard virtual fluctuations. It can be obtained order-by-order by calculating
the corresponding QCD diagrams. The $n$-collinear gauge invariant boson field~\cite{Bauer:2002nz}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal B}^\alpha_{n,\omega} = \frac{1}{g_s}\left[W^\dagger_n({\cal P}^\alpha_\perp + g_s A^\alpha_{n\perp})W_n\right] \delta_{\omega,{\cal \bar{P}}}\,
\delta_{n,\hat{n}}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
which creates (annihilates) a collinear gluon in the final (initial) state, is built out of the collinear Wilson line~\cite{Bauer:2001ct}
\begin{eqnarray}
W_n=\sum_{\rm perm.} \exp\left[-g_s\frac{1}{\cal {\bar P}}{\bar n}\cdot A_n \right]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
${\cal P}$ is the projective operator acting on the collinear fields
sitting to the right of it inside the parentheses. At leading power, the
interactions between collinear and soft fields can be eliminated through an
operator redefinition ${\cal B}^a_n \to S^{aa'}_n {\cal B}^{a'}_n $, which results in the soft Wilson line $S_n^{aa'}$~\cite{Bauer:2001yt}.
The cross section with a jet veto can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{ \mathrm{d} \Phi_H } =\frac{1}{8s}\sum_{spin} \sum_X
\int \mathrm{d}x \, e^{-iq_H\cdot x}
\langle p_ap_b| {\cal O}^\dagger(x){\cal \hat{M}}|X_aX_bX_JX_s\rangle \langle X_sX_JX_bX_a|{\cal O}(0) |p_ap_b\rangle \,.
\end{eqnarray}
We have decomposed the final state into different sectors based on
the momentum scaling. The operator ${\cal O}$ has been written
in a factorizable form, but in order to proceed, we must demonstrate that the measurement operator
${\cal \hat{M}}$, which includes the jet clustering operation and jet vetoing,
can also be factored into different sectors up to power suppressed corrections~\cite{Walsh:2011fz}. The factorizability of the measurement operator $\hat{{\cal M}}$ can be seen
through power-counting the anti-$k_T$ algorithm metrics $\rho_{ij}$ and $\rho_i$. Recalling that the transverse momentum $p_T$ for each sector
scales as
\begin{eqnarray}
p_T^J \sim {\cal O}(1)\,,
\hspace{3.ex}
p_T^s \sim p_T^a \sim p_T^b \sim {\cal O}(\lambda)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\rho_{JJ} \lesssim \rho_J\sim 1\,,
\hspace{3.ex}
\rho_{Js} \sim R^{-1}\,,
\hspace{3.ex}
\rho_{Ja} \sim \rho_{Jb} \sim R^{-1}\log \lambda^{-1}\,, \nonumber\\
&&\rho_{ss} \sim \rho_{aa}\sim \,
\rho_{bb} \sim (\lambda R)^{-1}\,,
\hspace{3.ex}
\rho_{sa}\sim \rho_{sb} \sim \rho_{ab} \sim (\lambda R)^{-1} \log\lambda^{-1} \,, \nonumber\\
&& \rho_s \sim \rho_a \sim \rho_b \sim \lambda^{-1} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
These scalings indicate that for the jet-radius parameter $R$ not too large
($R \ll \log \lambda^{-1} $), the contributions from
the mixing between the jet and beam sectors, and the mixing between the soft and beam sectors, are power suppressed. Jets tend to form separately within each sector. As long as $R \ll 1$, radiation collinear to the jet direction will be combined before it is clustered with soft radiation. This means that the soft radiation is insensitive
to the details of the collinear radiation except for the jet direction. Therefore, $\hat{\cal M}$ can also be factored between these two sectors. The measurement operator can therefore be factored as
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\cal M} = \hat{\cal M}_J\hat{\cal M}_s\hat{\cal M}_a\hat{\cal M}_b,
\end{eqnarray}
up to power-suppressed corrections in $p_T^{veto}$ and $R$. The individual ${\cal M}_A$ will be given in the Appendix.
Plugging in the definition of the operator ${\cal O}$, the cross section can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d} \Phi_H}
& =& \frac{1}{8s} \sum_{spin} \sum_{n_A}\int\mathrm{d} \omega_A
\int \mathrm{d}x \, e^{i\left(\frac{\omega_a}{2}n_a + \frac{\omega_b}{2}n_b - \frac{\omega_J}{2}n_J -q_H\right)\cdot x}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{5.ex}\times C_{\alpha\beta\mu}^{abc\dagger}C_{\alpha'\beta'\mu'}^{a'b'c'}
\sum_{X_s}'\langle 0| S^{aa_1}_{n_a}S^{bb_1}_{n_b}S^{cc_1}_{n_J}(x)|X_s \rangle\,
\langle X_s | S^{a_1'a'}_{n_a}S^{b_1'b'}_{n_b}S^{c_1'c'}_{n_J}(0)|0\rangle \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{5.ex}\times \,
\sum_{X_a}'
\langle p_a|{\cal B}_{n_a}^{\alpha,a_1}(x^-_{n_a},x^\perp_{n_a},0_{n_a})|X_a\rangle
\langle X_a|\delta(\omega_a-\bar {\cal P}_a)\delta_{n_a,\hat{n}_a}{\cal B}_{n_a}^{\alpha',a_1'}(0) |p_a\rangle \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{5.ex}\times\,
\sum_{X_b}'
\langle p_b|{\cal B}_{n_b}^{\beta,b_1}(x^-_{n_b},x^\perp_{n_b},0_{n_b})|X_b\rangle
\langle X_b|\delta(\omega_b-\bar {\cal P}_b)\delta_{n_b,\hat{n}_b}{\cal B}_{n_b}^{\beta',b_1'}(0) |p_b\rangle
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{5.ex} \times\,
\sum_{n_J}\sum_{X_J}'
\langle 0|{\cal B}_{n_J}^{\mu,c_1}(x^-_{n_J},x^\perp_{n_J},0_{n_J}) |X_J\rangle
\langle X_J|\delta(\omega_J-\bar {\cal P}_J)\delta_{n_J,\hat{n}_J}{\cal B}_{n_J}^{\mu',c_1'}(0) |0 \rangle \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\sum_X'$ means summing over the final states with the restrictions imposed by $\hat{\cal M}$. We have suppressed $\hat{\cal M}$ for simplicity. In the last line, $\sum_{n_J}$ indicates the need to sum over all possible directions of different $n_J$-jet modes.
We have removed several Kronecker-deltas using the discrete sums. The remaining ones
have been turned into integrals $\int \mathrm{d} \omega_A$ and delta functions $\delta(\omega_A-\bar{\cal P}_A)$, after combining the residual momentum $k^-_{n_A} \equiv {\bar n}_A \cdot k_A$ with the label momentum $\omega_A$
in the collinear sector $A$ for $A =a,b,J$. We note that the collinear sectors do not depend on $x_A^+ \equiv n_A\cdot x$.
We further modify this expression by performing a translational operation in each
sector and inserting several residual momentum operators $\int \mathrm{d}k \delta(k-\hat{k})$ to remove the explicit momentum dependence on the final states. This gives us
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{ \mathrm{d} \Phi_H }
& =& \frac{1}{8s}\sum_{spin} \sum_{n_A}\int\mathrm{d} \omega_A
\int \mathrm{d}x \int\mathrm{d}^4k_s \int\mathrm{d}{\bf k}_A \,
e^{i\left(\frac{\omega_a}{2}n_a + \frac{\omega_b}{2}n_b - \frac{\omega_J}{2}n_J \,
-q_H-k_s + {\bf k}_a + {\bf k}_b -{\bf k}_j\right)\cdot x}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{5.ex}\times C_{\alpha\beta\mu}^{abc\dagger}C_{\alpha'\beta'\mu'}^{a'b'c'}\,
\sum_{X_s}'
\langle 0| S^{aa_1}_{n_a}S^{bb_1}_{n_b}S^{cc_1}_{n_J}(0)|X_s \rangle\,
\langle X_s |\delta^4(k_s-\hat{k}_s) S^{a_1'a'}_{n_a}S^{b_1'b'}_{n_b}S^{c_1'c'}_{n_J}|0\rangle \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{5.ex}\times \,
\sum_{X_a}'\,
\langle p_a|{\cal B}_{n_a}^{\alpha,a_1}(0)|X_a\rangle
\langle X_a|\delta(k_a^+-\hat{k}_a^+)\delta^2(k_a^\perp - \hat{k}_a^\perp)\delta(\omega_a-\bar {\cal P}_a)\delta_{n_a,\hat{n}_a}{\cal B}_{n_a}^{\alpha',a_1'}(0) |p_a\rangle \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{5.ex}\times\,
\sum_{X_b}'\,
\langle p_b|{\cal B}_{n_b}^{\beta,b_1}(0)|X_b\rangle
\langle X_b|\delta(k_b^+-\hat{k}_b^+)\delta^2(k_b^\perp - \hat{k}_b^\perp)\delta(\omega_b-\bar {\cal P}_b)\delta_{n_b,\hat{n}_b}{\cal B}_{n_b}^{\beta',b_1'}(0) |p_b\rangle
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{5.ex} \times\,
\sum_{X_J}'\,
\langle 0|{\cal B}_{n_J}^{\mu,c_1}(0) |X_J\rangle
\langle X_J|\delta(k_J^+-\hat{k}_J^+)\delta^2(k_J^\perp - \hat{k}_J^\perp)\delta(\omega_J-\bar {\cal P}_J){\cal B}_{n_J}^{\mu',c_1'}(0) |0 \rangle \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathrm{d}{\bf k} \equiv \mathrm{d}k^+\mathrm{d}^2k^\perp$.
We now drop all residual momenta of order $\lambda$ or higher, keeping homogeneously only the leading power terms in the exponent (dropping the contributions of order $\lambda$ means that we ignore the recoil effect in the transverse plane).
We perform the integration over the $k^+_A$ component in each
collinear sector to indicate that no restrictions are applied
on this residual momentum~\footnote{We note that this assumes that no pseudorapidity cut is imposed on the observed jet. It is straightforward to remove this constraint if desired; for simplicity of presentation we do not do so here.}.
This leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d} \Phi_H }
& =& \frac{1}{8s} \sum_{spin} \int\mathrm{d} \omega_A\,
\sum_{n_J} \mathrm{d}^2k_J^\perp \,
(2\pi)^4 \delta^4\left(\frac{\omega_a}{2}n_a + \frac{\omega_b}{2}n_b - \frac{\omega_J}{2}n_J \,
-q_H\right)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{5.ex}\times C_{\alpha\beta\mu}^{abc\dagger}C_{\alpha'\beta'\mu'}^{a'b'c'}\,
\int\mathrm{d}^4k_s\langle 0| S^{aa_1}_{n_a}S^{bb_1}_{n_b}S^{cc_1}_{n_J}(0)
\hat{\cal M}_s
\delta^4(k_s-\hat{k}_s) S^{a_1'a'}_{n_a}S^{b_1'b'}_{n_b}S^{c_1'c'}_{n_J}|0\rangle \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{5.ex}\times
\int\mathrm{d}^2 k^\perp_a
\langle p_a|{\cal B}_{n_a}^{\alpha,a_1}(0)\,
\hat{\cal M}_a\,
\delta^2(k_a^\perp - \hat{k}_a^\perp)\delta(\omega_a-\bar {\cal P}_a){\cal B}_{n_a}^{\alpha',a_1'}(0) |p_a\rangle \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{5.ex}\times
\int\mathrm{d}^2k^\perp_b
\langle p_b|{\cal B}_{n_b}^{\beta,b_1}(0)\,
\hat{\cal M}_b\,
\delta^2(k_b^\perp - \hat{k}_b^\perp)\delta(\omega_b-\bar {\cal P}_b){\cal B}_{n_b}^{\beta',b_1'}(0) |p_b\rangle
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{5.ex} \times\,
\langle 0|{\cal B}_{n_J}^{\mu,c_1}(0) \,
\hat{\cal M}_J\,
\delta^2(k_J^\perp - \hat{k}_J^\perp)\delta(\omega_J-\bar {\cal P}_J){\cal B}_{n_J}^{\mu',c_1'}(0) |0 \rangle \,.
\end{eqnarray}
To reach the formula above, we have summed over the final states using
$\sum_X |X\rangle \langle X| = 1$ and have re-inserted the measurement operators $\hat{\cal M}_A$. We next define the beam and the jet functions
\begin{eqnarray}\label{functions}
&&f_{\perp g/p}(z,p_T^{veto},R) = \,
\int\mathrm{d}^2k^\perp\sum_{spin} -\omega \langle p|{\cal B}_{n}^{\alpha,a}(0)\,
\hat{\cal M}_B\,
\delta^2(k^\perp-\hat{k}^\perp)\delta(\omega-\bar {\cal P}){\cal B}_{n,\alpha,a}(0) |p\rangle \,,\nonumber\\
&&J(R)g_\perp^{\mu\mu'}\delta^{cc'}= \,
2 (2\pi)^3 (-\omega_J)
\langle 0|{\cal B}_{n_J}^{\mu,c}(0)\,
\hat{\cal M}_J
\delta^2(k_J^\perp - \hat{k}_J^\perp)\delta(\omega_J-\bar {\cal P}_J){\cal B}_{n_J}^{\mu',c'}(0) |0 \rangle \,,
\end{eqnarray}
and the soft function
\begin{eqnarray}
S({\bf n}_J,R,p_T^{veto}) = \int\mathrm{d}^4k_s \langle 0| S^{aa_1}_{n_a}S^{bb_1}_{n_b}S^{cc_1}_{n_J}(0)\,
\hat{\cal M}_s\,
\delta^4(k_s-\hat{k}_s) S^{a_1a'}_{n_a}S^{b_1b'}_{n_b}S^{c_1c'}_{n_J}(0)|0\rangle \,.
\end{eqnarray}
We emphasize that the beam and jet functions are well-defined only after
the soft zero-bin subtraction has been properly performed~\cite{Manohar:2006nz}.
Finally, we arrive at our result
\begin{eqnarray}\label{facthiggs}
\mathrm{d}\sigma &=& \mathrm{d}\Phi_H \mathrm{d}\Phi_J\,\int\mathrm{d}x_a \mathrm{d} x_b\,
\frac{1}{2\hat{s}} \frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{1}{N_c^2-1}\right)^2\,
(2\pi)^4 \delta^4\left(q_a + q_b - q_J -q_H\right)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{5.ex}\times {\rm Tr}(H \cdot S )\,
f_{\perp g/p_a}(x_a,p_T^{veto},R)
f_{\perp g/p_b}(x_b,p_T^{veto},R)
J(R) \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the help of identifying
$\sum_n \frac{1}{2(2\pi)^3\omega_J}\mathrm{d}\omega_J \mathrm{d}^2k_J^\perp$
as the massless particle phase space
$\mathrm{d}\Phi_J = \frac{{\bar q}_J}{8(2\pi)^3}\mathrm{d}q_J\mathrm{d}\Omega$.
We define the hard function $H \equiv C C^\dagger$. The trace
is over the color indices. Since $p_T^{veto}$ is much larger
than $\Lambda_{QCD}$, the beam function can be further matched onto
parton distribution functions at the beam scale $\mu_B \sim p_T^{veto}$:
$f_{i,\perp} = {\cal I}_{ij} \otimes f_j(x)$. The matching
coefficient ${\cal I}_{ij}$ can be calculated perturbatively.
We have chosen our normalization so that
at leading order, ${\cal I}_{ij} = \delta(1-x)\delta_{ij}$, $J(R) = 1$ and
$S = \delta^{aa'}\delta^{bb'}\delta^{cc'}$. The factorization reproduces the tree-level $gg\to Hg$ cross section. We note
that for NLL resummation, only the leading-order matching coefficients are needed. In the Appendix, we will present the NLO results for the jet and beam functions, up to ${\cal O}(R)$ corrections.
The formalism is easily generalized to processes with an arbitrary number
of jets and non-strongly interacting particles in the final state. All
the arguments go through identically. We find
\begin{eqnarray}\label{factgen}
\mathrm{d}\sigma &=& \mathrm{d}\Phi_{H_c}\mathrm{d}\Phi_{J_i}\,
{\cal F}(\Phi_{H_c},\Phi_{J_i})
\,
\sum_{a,b}\int \mathrm{d}x_{a} \mathrm{d}x_b \frac{1}{2\hat{s}}\,
(2\pi)^4 \delta^4\left(q_a + q_b - \sum_i^nq_{J_i} -\sum_cq_{H_c}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\times
\bar{\sum_{\rm spin}}
\bar{\sum_{\rm color}}
{\rm Tr}(H\cdot S)\,
{\cal I}_{a,i_aj_a} \otimes f_{j_a}(x_a)\,
{\cal I}_{b,i_bj_b} \otimes f_{j_b}(x_b)
\prod_i^n J_{J_i}(R)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathrm{d}\Phi_{Hc}$ and $\mathrm{d}\Phi_{j_i}$
denote the phase space measures for the color neutral particle $H_c$ and
the massless jets $J_i$, respectively. ${\cal F}(\Phi_{H_c},\Phi_{J_i})$ includes all additional
phase-space cuts other than the $p_T$ veto acting on $H_c$ and the $n$ hard jets, which should
guarantee well separated $n$-jet final states ($n_{J_i}\cdot n_{J_j} \gg \lambda$). The measured jet $p_T^J$ should be much larger than $p_T^{veto}$.
We note that possible issues arise when attempting to extend the resummation to the NNLL level, as pointed out in Ref.~\cite{Tackmann:2012bt}. For $R \gg \lambda$, corrections of the form
\begin{equation}
\alpha_s^2 \,R^2 \,\text{ln} \,\lambda
\label{prob1}
\end{equation}
appear, which prohibit soft-collinear factorization. In the limit $R \sim \lambda$, clustering logarithms of the form
\begin{equation}
\alpha_s^2 \,\text{ln} \, R \,\, \text{ln} \,\lambda
\label{prob2}
\end{equation}
which prohibit even NLL resummation occur. Let us study the numerical impact of these terms for the parameter values relevant for Higgs production. Setting $R=0.4$, $m_H=126$ GeV, and $p_T^{veto}=25$ GeV, we find
$R^2 = 0.16$, $\text{ln} \, (1/\lambda) =1.6$, and $\text{ln} \, (1/R) = 0.92$. For $R=0.5$, $\text{ln} \, (1/R) = 0.69$. It is clear that the corrections of Eq.~(\ref{prob1}) are indeed power-suppressed for experimentally-relevant value of $R\approx 0.4-0.5$. They can be obtained to sufficient accuracy by matching to fixed-order results. There is also a hierarchy $\text{ln} \, (1/\lambda) > \text{ln} \, (1/R)$; the clustering logarithms are not large for relevant jet parameters. An eventual inclusion of the leading clustering effects by combining the resummation with a NNLO calculation of Higgs plus one-jet production should be sufficient. \OMIT{ It may also be possible to improve the accuracy of the $\text{ln}\, R$ terms using a refactorization ansatz for the soft function~\cite{Ellis:2009wj,Chien:2012ur}.} We therefore believe that it makes sense to study the resummation of jet-veto logarithms in Higgs production, and proceed with our analysis.
\subsection{NLL Resummation}
Each ingredient in Eqs.~(\ref{facthiggs}) and~(\ref{factgen}) describes
fluctuations with a particular momentum scaling. When the hard, jet,
beam and soft functions are calculated near their natural scales, no large
logarithms will arise. The typical scales for each sector
are
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu_H \sim p_T^J\,,
\hspace{3.ex}
\mu_J \sim p_T^J R\,,
\hspace{3.ex}
\mu_B \sim \mu_S \sim p_T^{veto}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
However, calculating the cross section requires all the functions to
be evaluated at the same factorization scale $\mu$, which generates large
logarithms of the following ratios:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{p_T^J}{\mu}\,,
\hspace{3.ex}
\frac{ p_T^J R}{\mu}\,,
\hspace{3.ex}
\frac{ p_T^{veto}}{\mu}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
These large logarithms can be resummed by evolving each function to the scale $\mu$ using the renormalization group (RG) equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu\frac{\mathrm{d}F}{\mathrm{d}\mu} =
\gamma_\mu(\mu) F(\mu)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The anomalous dimension $\gamma_\mu$ can be extracted most easily from the
$\epsilon$ poles of each function calculated using dimensional regularization.
However, like for small-$q_T$ resummation, a subtlety arises because of the identical virtuality shared by the collinear and soft degrees of freedom~\cite{Manohar:2006nz, Chiu:2012ir}. Various efforts have been made in SCET to regulate
this rapidity divergence~\cite{Chiu:2012ir, Mantry:2009qz, Becher:2011dz}, which all have shown be able
to reproduce correctly the NLO fixed-order QCD singularities. In our current
approach, we adopt the formalism proposed in Ref.~\cite{Chiu:2012ir}. We regulate the extra divergence by modifying the collinear and the soft Wilson lines as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&W_n \to \sum_{\rm perm.}\,
\exp\left(-g_s\frac{1}{\bar {\cal P}}\,
\left[w^2 \frac{|{\bar {\cal P}}|^{-\eta}}{\nu^{-\eta}}
{\bar n} \cdot A_n\right] \right)\,, \nonumber \\
&&S_n \to \sum_{\rm perm.}\,
\exp\left(-g_s\frac{1}{{\cal P}}\,
\left[w \frac{|2{ {\cal P}}^3|^{-\eta/2}}{\nu^{-\eta/2}}
n \cdot A_s\right] \right) \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the bookkeeping parameter $w$ will be set to $1$ as $\eta \to 0$.
The effective rapidity cut-off $\nu$ and the new parameter
$\eta$ play similar roles as $\mu$ and $\epsilon$ in dimensional
regularization. The corresponding rapidity-RG equation commutes
with the conventional one for the beam and the soft functions:
$[\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}, \nu\frac{\partial}{\partial\nu}] = 0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu\frac{\mathrm{d}F_{B,S}}{\mathrm{d}\nu} =
\gamma_\nu(\nu) F_{B,S}(\nu)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The natural $\nu$-scale choices for the beam and the soft functions are
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu_B \sim x_{a,b}\sqrt{s}\,,
\hspace{3.ex}
\nu_S \sim p_T^{veto} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Since the physical cross section is $\mu$ and $\nu$ independent,
the anomalous dimensions must obey the consistency conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\gamma_H^\mu + \gamma_J^\mu + \gamma_B^\mu + \gamma_S^\mu = 0 \,, \nonumber \\
&&\gamma_B^\nu + \gamma_S^\nu = 0 \,,
\label{consistency}
\end{eqnarray}
up to power corrections of order
$\lambda$ and effects due to finite jet (beam) separations~\cite{Ellis:2009wj}. We will use these conditions to extract the anomalous dimension for
the soft function. The general solution to the RG equation can be formally written as
\begin{eqnarray}
F(\mu,\nu) = U(\mu,\nu,\mu_0,\nu_0) F(\mu_0,\nu_0) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
The explicit form of the evolution kernel $U$ for each function along with all details needed for NLL resummation are given in the Appendix.
Recalling that for NLL resummation only the tree-level Wilson
coefficients are needed, we find the following simplified expression for production of a color-neutral particle plus one jet:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{resumhiggs}
\mathrm{d}\sigma_{\rm NLL}
&=& \sum_{ab}\int \mathrm{d}\hat{\sigma}^{ab\to h k}_{\rm LO}(\mu_H,x_a,x_b)\,
f_a(\mu_B,x_a)f_b(\mu_B,x_b) \nonumber \\
&& \times U_{H,k}(\mu,\mu_H)\,
U_{S,k}(\mu,\nu,\mu_S,\nu_S)\,
{\cal I}_{B,a,b}(\mu,\nu,\mu_B,\nu_B,x_a,x_b)\,
{\cal R}_{J}(\mu,\mu_J,R)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
For a more general process, the evolutions of the hard and
the soft functions will usually induce operator mixing in color space. Therefore, the NLL
cross section for multi-jet production reads
\begin{eqnarray}\label{resumgen}
\mathrm{d}\sigma_{\rm NLL}
&=& \sum_{ab}\int \mathrm{d}x_a \mathrm{d}x_b\,
{\rm Tr}\left[H^{ab\to h_c \{k\}}_{\rm LO}(\mu_H)\,S\,
U_{H,\{k\}}(\mu,\mu_H)\,
U_{S,\{k\}}(\mu,\nu,\mu_S,\nu_S)\right]
\nonumber \\
&& \times \,
f_a(\mu_B,x_a)f_b(\mu_B,x_b)
{\cal I}_{B,a,b}(\mu,\nu,\mu_B,\nu_B,x_a,x_b)\,
\prod_{i}{\cal R}_{J_i}(\mu,\mu_J,R)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We note that due to the separation between the
scales inside and outside the allowed jets, a full refactorization or a
refactorization ansatz of the soft
function~\cite{Ellis:2009wj,Chien:2012ur} may be helpful in improving the resummation
accuracy. Since this involves $\text{ln} \, R$ effects and is therefore moderate for the experimentally-interesting $p_T^{veto}$ and $R$, its will
be left for further studies. There also exist
non-global logarithms~\cite{Dasgupta:2001sh} beginning at the NNLL level whose
resummation is beyond the scope of our formalism presented in this work.
Different schemes are used in the literature to determine the accuracy of resummation prescriptions. When calling our result NLL, we use the order-counting defined in Ref.~\cite{Berger:2010xi}. Denoting the large logarithms associated with the veto scale generically as $L$, our NLL captures the two leading logarithms at each order in $\alpha_s$. We correctly obtain
$\alpha_s L^2$ and $\alpha_s L$, $\alpha_s^2 L^4$ and $\alpha_s^2 L^3$, $\alpha_s^3 L^6$ and $\alpha_s^3 L^5$, and so on. To obtain the next tower of logarithms ($\alpha_s^2 L^2$, $\alpha_s^3 L^4$, etc.), we would need to include the jet, beam and soft functions at 1-loop. This would correspond to NLL' in the language of Ref.~\cite{Berger:2010xi}. All ingredients are currently known for this extension except for the one-loop soft function, which is not difficult to obtain. We plan to include this term in future detailed numerical studies. Control over the next tower of logarithms ($\alpha_s^2 L$, $\alpha_s^3 L^3$, etc.) would require the two-loop non-cusp anomalous dimensions $\gamma_x$, and would correspond to NNLL in the notation of Ref.~\cite{Berger:2010xi}.
\section{Numerical results for Higgs+jet production}\label{sechiggs}
We present in this section numerical results for $pp\to h + \text{jet}$ at
an $8 {\rm TeV}$ LHC with a jet veto imposed. We combine our
resummation with the NLO cross section from MCFM to produce NLL+NLO results. In the numerics presented here we restrict the leading jet rapidity to $|\eta_J|<2.5$ and veto all other jets with $p_{T,i}>p_T^{veto}$ and $|\eta_i|<\infty $ for simplicity. Experiments typically only veto jets in the range $|\eta| \lesssim 4.5$. However, we expect that this boundary effect will be small~\cite{Banfi:2012yh}. It is simple to include this constraint if desired, as discussed in the previous section. We have included the $gg$, $qg$, and $q\bar{q}$ partonic scattering channels in obtaining these results. All relevant beam, jet and soft functions, as well as anomalous dimensions needed for this calculation, are presented in the Appendix.
We begin by demonstrating that our formalism correctly sums all the next-to-leading logarithms
of $p_T^{veto}/p_T^J$ by comparing the expanded NLL production rate
with the MCFM NLO result~\cite{Campbell:2010ff}. In the expanded NLL result, we have included the large non-logarithmic virtual corrections by using the full
NLO hard function taken from Ref.~\cite{Schmidt:1997wr}.
The validity of our
formalism is shown in Fig.~\ref{SCETMCFM}, where we show the agreement between these two results in the region where $\log p_T^{J}/p_T^{veto}$ becomes large. This demonstration is based on the dominance of the
log terms over the other contributions omitted in SCET in the small $p_T^{veto}$ region.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.5in,angle=0]{compare2.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Presented is the ratio of the expanded SCET cross section $|\sigma_{\rm exp}|$ and the full NLO QCD calculation
from MCFM $\sigma_{\rm MCFM}$, $|\sigma_{\rm exp}-\sigma_{\rm MCFM}|/|\sigma_{\rm MCFM}|$.
We have required the leading jet
$p^J_T > 120{\rm GeV}$, $|\eta_J| < 2.5$, have set $R = 0.1$ and have made
$p_T^{veto}$ as low as $0.01{\rm GeV}$. The excellent agreement
between the expanded SCET prediction and the MCFM cross section for such low
$p_T^{veto}$ implies that our formalism catches all the NLL structures. }\label{SCETMCFM}
\end{figure}
We next study the cross section for Higgs+jet production. Since Eq.~(\ref{resumhiggs}) is only valid for $p_T^{veto} \ll p_T^J$, in order to give a prediction over the entire allowed kinematic range, we have to combine
the resummed formula of Eq.~(\ref{resumhiggs}) with the full NLO result. For this purpose,
we adopt the matching scheme proposed in Ref.~\cite{Banfi:2012yh}, in which
the RG-improved cross section is taken as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{RGimprove}
\sigma = \,
\left( \frac{\sigma_{\rm NLL}}{\sigma_{\rm LO} } \right)^Z\,
\Big[ \sigma_{\rm NLO}(\mu) - Z \left(\sigma_{\rm exp}(\mu)-\sigma_{\rm LO}(\mu) \right) \Big]\,,
\label{fixedmatch}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Z = \left(1-p_T^{veto}/p_{T,veto}^{max} \right)$. $\sigma_{\rm LO}$ is the LO cross section and $\sigma_{\rm NLO}$ is the cross section calculated through NLO
using MCFM.
$\sigma_{\rm exp}$ is obtained by expanding the resummed cross section $\sigma_{\rm NLL}$ in Eq.~(\ref{resumhiggs}).
We postpone rigorous study of the uncertainty induced by the choice of matching procedure to future work. In evaluating the resummed production rate
$\sigma_{\rm NLL}$, we fix
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mu_H = \Big[(x_a\sqrt{s})^{T_a\cdot T_a}( x_b \sqrt{s})^{T_b\cdot T_b}\,
( p_T^J )^{T_J\cdot T_J}\Big]^{\frac{1}{\sum_iT_i\cdot T_i}}\,,\nonumber \\
&&\mu_J = p_T^J R \,, \nonumber \\
&&\mu_B = \mu_S = p_T^{veto} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
These choices minimize the logarithmic dependence in the hard, jet and the beam functions. When we use this set of scale choices, the cross section
is also independent of the rapidity scale $\nu$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.0in,angle=90]{xsec_pT_120_extend.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.0cm}
\caption{Shown are the NLO$+$NLL prediction and the NLO cross section as a function of $p_T^{veto}$ for $p_T^J \ge 120 $ GeV. The solid-blue
curve represents the RG-improved cross section in Eq.~(\ref{RGimprove}). The
dashed-red line shows the NLO result for the scale choice $\mu=m_H$, while the dotted red lines show the NLO result for $\mu=m_H/2$ and $\mu=2 m_H$ . The blue band reflects the scale uncertainty of the RG-improved rate. The band boundaries are set by the values at the scale choices $m_H/2$ and $2m_H$.}
\label{NLONLL}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{NLONLL}, we demonstrate the improvement obtained with NLL resummation
by showing the dependence of both the NLO and RG-improved integrated cross sections on different choices of $p_T^{veto}$. We have set $p_T^J > 120{\rm GeV}$, $\mu= m_H = 126{\rm GeV}$ and have taken the anti-$k_T$ parameter
$R = 0.4$. For the matching in Eq.~(\ref{fixedmatch}), we use $p_{T,veto}^{max} = 120$ GeV in $Z$. We use the MSTW2008 NLO PDF set~\cite{Martin:2009bu} with two-loop $\alpha_s$ running. We can see that for small values of $p_T^{veto}$,
the fixed-order cross section becomes negative while the ${\rm NLO}+ {\rm NLL}$ result remains positive. We also vary the scale $\mu$ from
$m_H/2$ to $2m_H$ to estimate the theoretical uncertainty. We can see that resumming the large logarithms greatly reduces the residual scale variation for the experimentally relevant values $p_T^{veto} \approx 25-30$ GeV, leading to a more reliable prediction. The fixed-order cross section exhibits little scale variation for $p_T^{veto} \approx 55$ GeV. Similar behavior is observed for the Higgs plus zero-jet cross section~\cite{Anastasiou:2008ik,Stewart:2011cf}, and was argued to result from an accidental cancellation between several higher-order corrections with different origins. The same argument holds here for the Higgs plus one-jet result. As $p_T^{veto}$ becomes large, the fixed-order and resumed cross section coincide. Since the separation between the hard scale and $p_T^{veto}$ vanishes in this limit, this behavior is expected.
To gain some intuition regarding how low in $p_T^J$ the resummation of jet-veto logarithms leads to a difference from fixed-order, we fix $p_T^{veto} = 25$ GeV and integrate over the leading-jet transverse momentum subject to the constraint
$p_T^J \geq p_{T,min}^j$. We stress that some caution must be exercised in using these results. Our effective theory framework is only valid when the hierarchy $p_T^{veto} \ll p_T^J$ exists. When $p_T^{veto} \sim p_T^J$, our result reduces to the fixed-order result, which contains the ratio of scales $p_T^{veto} \ll m_H$. A different effective theory framework consisting is needed to resume logarithms of this ratio. With these caveats stated, we plot in Fig.~\ref{NLONLLpT} the NLO and NLL$+$NLO results as a function of the minimum allowed jet $p_T$ for $p_T^{veto} =25$ GeV. Significant differences between both the central values and residual scale uncertainties persist down to low values of $p_T^{min}$, indicating the need to augment the fixed-order results with resummation over the entire $p_T^J$ region. \OMIT{ The vanishing of the scale variation band for both the NLL$+$NLO and NLO results for $p_T^{min} \sim 40$ GeV indicates the continued need for resummation in this region, and also the need to switch to a different effective-theory description for low $p_T^{min}$.}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.0in,angle=90]{xsec_fix_pT.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.0cm}
\caption{The NLO$+$NLL prediction and the NLO cross section as a function of $p_T^{min}$ for $p_T^{veto} =25 $GeV. The solid-blue
curve represents the RG-improved cross section in Eq.~(\ref{RGimprove}). The
dashed-red line shows the NLO result for the scale choice $\mu=m_H$, while the dotted red lines show the NLO result for $\mu=m_H/2$ and $\mu=2 m_H$ . The blue band reflects the scale uncertainty of the RG-improved rate. The band boundaries are set by the values at the scale choices $m_H/2$ and $2m_H$.}
\label{NLONLLpT}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}\label{seccon}
In this manuscript, we have established a formalism for the production
of color-singlet particles produced in association with an exclusive number of jets at the LHC. Using effective field theory techniques, we have proven the factorization theorem of Eqs.~(\ref{facthiggs}) and~(\ref{factgen}), which allows us
to resum large Sudakov logarithms of the form
$\log p_T^{veto}/p_T^J$ to all orders. We have focused on Higgs production in association with a jet as an example. We have demonstrated
by the excellent agreement between the expanded NLL result and NLO QCD cross section that our formalism correctly captures all relevant large logarithms in the $p_T^{veto} \to 0$ limit. The scale uncertainty of the cross section is greatly reduced by inclusion of the resummation. By matching our results with MCFM, we provide a NLL+NLO result for Higgs+jet production valid over the entire kinematic range. With our results, it is easy to supplement fixed-order results for vector boson or Higgs boson production with the resummation of jet-veto logarithms in order to provide predictions valid throughout phase space.
Several future directions remain to be pursued. With our results it is possible to improve the theoretical predictions for Higgs plus one or two jets. This will be of great phenomenological importance as the properties of the new state discovered at the LHC are further analyzed. We plan to further investigate these phenomenological application of our formalism. It is also interesting to study the effective theory valid when both the veto scale and the leading jet $p_T$ are smaller than $m_H$. Beyond NLL, extra
clustering effects will enter the cross section, which are
not completely understood~\cite{Tackmann:2012bt} yet. We have argued that the numerical impact of these terms should
be subdominant to the effects studied here. However, a NNLO calculation
of the jet, beam and soft functions would be helpful in determining whether
this formalism can be extended beyond NLL. In the current work,
we have simplified the calculation of the
anti-$k_T$ jet function by keeping the leading $R$ contributions only in the resummation formulae. It will
be phenomenologically interesting to include higher order corrections in $R$
to improve the accuracy. We have also neglected for simplicity the boundary effects due
to the experimentally finite $\eta$ range. These issues will be addressed in future detailed phenomenological studies.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Kirill Melnikov, Jui-yu Chiu, Sonny Mantry, Markus Schulze,
Jonathan Walsh, Frank Tackmann and Giulia Zanderighi for helpful discussions. We thank Joey Huston to point out a numerical bug in
Fig.~\ref{NLONLLpT} in the previous verison of this work.
This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357 and the grants DE-FG02-95ER40896 and DE-FG02-08ER4153.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
One of the challenging goals of modern nuclear theory is to elaborate the approaches which would
enable the characteristics of unstable nuclei to be predicted.
Therefore, a developed theoretical approach should have a very high predictive power. The Energy Density Functional (EDF) approach is one of such approaches.
As a rule, odd-odd nuclei are unstable ones, so here we will consider their characteristics using the self-consistent Theory of Finite Fermi Systems (TFFS) \cite{khodelsap} based on the EDF by Fayans et al.\cite{Fay}.
Quite recently, a good description of the ground state quadrupole \cite{BE2,QM} and magnetic\cite{Tol-Sap} moments of odd near- and semi-magic nuclei has been obtained within this self-consistent approach where the ``single quasi-particle approximation'' developed in the framework of the standard TFFS \cite{AB} has been used. This approximation means that one
quasi-particle with the local charge $e_q$ is added to the even-even core and the core is polarized due to the Landau-Migdal (LM) interaction between the particle considered and the core nucleons. In other words, the quasi-particle possesses the effective charge $e_{eff}$ caused by the polarizability of the core, which should be found by solving the TFFS equations. Within the TFFS, static moments of odd nucleus are determined by the
diagonal matrix element of the effective field $V$ in the external field $V_{0}$ (see Eq.(\ref{Vef_s}) below).
As the odd-odd nuclei are more complicated objects than the even-odd ones, here we only consider the odd-odd near-magic
nuclei together with the corresponding odd near-magic one. Within the above-mentioned self-consistent EDF approach, we will calculate the ground state quadrupole moments of odd-odd near-magic nuclei with the use, for simplicity, of the approximation that there is no interaction between two odd particles. As we will see, such a simple approximation
allows us to check this approximation rather successfully in a pure phenomenological way.
\section{Quadrupole moments of odd and odd-odd near-magic nuclei}
Within the TFFS \cite{AB} , the static quadrupole moment $Q_{\lambda}$ of an
odd near-magic nucleus with the odd nucleon in the state $\lambda \equiv (n, j, l, m)$ can be
found in terms of the diagonal matrix element
of the effective field $V$:
\begin{equation}\label{quodd}
Q_\lambda = \langle\lambda|
V(\omega =0)|\lambda\rangle = c_{j} \langle njl \parallel V \parallel njl \rangle ,
\end{equation}
where 3j-symbol $c_{j}=2j(2j-1)^{1/2}\left[(2j+3)(2j+2)\right. \times $ \\$\left. \times(2j+1)2j \right]^{-1/2}$.
In the framework of the above-mentioned TFFS single quasi-particle approximation and of our main approximation
that there is no interaction between two quasi-particles, the quadrupole moment of odd-odd nucleus with spin $I$ is as follows
\begin{equation}\label{qu}
Q_I=<II \mid V^p + V^n \mid II>,
\end{equation}
where $\Psi_{II} = \Sigma \varphi_1 \varphi_2 <j_1m_1 j_2m_2\mid II>$, for the case of odd particle-odd particle.
Here $\varphi_1$ is the single-particle wave function with the quantum numbers
$1 \equiv \lambda_1 \equiv (n_1,j_1,l_1,m_1)$. In the limit of no interaction between the core and odd quasi-particles
the effective fields $V^p$ and $V^n$ should be replaced by $e_{q}^{p}V_0$ and $e_{q}^{n}V_0$, see Eq. (\ref{Vef_s})
below.
Then the expression for ground state quadrupole moments of odd-odd near-magic nuclei has the form (for the case of particle-particle or hole-hole):
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Qoddodd}
Q_I = (2I+1)
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
{I} &{2} &{I}\\
{I} &{0} &{-I} \end{array}\right)
(-1)^{j_p+j_n+I+2} \times\nonumber\\
\times \left[\left\lbrace\ \begin{array}{ccc}
{j_p} &{I} &{j_n}\\
{I} &{j_p} &{2}
\end{array} \right\rbrace c^{-1}_{j_{p}} Q^{p}
+ \left\lbrace \begin{array}{ccc}
j_n & I & j_p\\
I & j_n & 2
\end{array}\right\rbrace c^{-1}_{j_{n}} Q^{n} \right] ,
\end{eqnarray}
and for the case of particle-hole we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Qoddoddph}
Q_I = (2I+1)
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
{I} &{2} &{I}\\
{I} &{0} &{-I} \end{array}\right)
(-1)^{j_p+j_n+I+2}\times \nonumber\\
\times \left[\left\lbrace\ \begin{array}{ccc}
{j_p} &{I} &{j_n}\\
{I} &{j_p} &{2}
\end{array} \right\rbrace c^{-1}_{j_{p}} Q^{p}
+(-1)^{j_p-j_n} \left\lbrace \begin{array}{ccc}
j_n & I & j_p\\
I & j_n & 2
\end{array}\right\rbrace c^{-1}_{j_{n}} Q^{n} \right] ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $Q^p$ and $Q^n$ are the quadrupole moments of corresponding odd nuclei which are determined by Eq.(\ref{quodd}). A similar formula can be easily obtained for the hole-particle case.
Thus, within such a simple approximation, the problem is reduced to the calculations of quadrupole moments of corresponding odd-even nuclei. One can take the values of quadrupole moments of odd nuclei from the experiment (phenomenological approach, Sect. \ref{phenapp}) and one can also calculate them and obtain the quadrupole moments of corresponding odd-odd nuclei according to Eqs. (3,4) (microscopic approach, Sects. \ref{selfcalc})
\section{Phenomenological approach}
\label{phenapp}
We have found only three odd-odd nuclei where there are all three necessary experimental values.
Our main approximation is confirmed by a reasonable agreement with the experiment in Table 1, where the experimental values of quadrupole moments of corresponding odd nuclei have been used. The experimental data used here and what follows have been taken from \cite{stone}.
\begin{table}[th]
\caption{Quadrupole moments \textit{Q} (e b) of odd-odd near-magic nuclei (phenomenological approach).}
\label{tablphen}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c }
\hline \hline \noalign{\smallskip}
nucl. & $J^{\rm \pi}$
&\hspace*{1.ex} $T_{\rm 1/2}$\hspace*{1.ex} &\hspace*{1.ex} $Q_{\rm phen}$ &\hspace*{1.ex}$Q_{\rm exp}$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
${^{40}_{19}}$K$_{21}$ & 4$^{-}$ & 1.248$\times$10$^{9}$ y & -0.106(6) & -0.071(1) \\
${^{92}_{41}}$Nb$_{51}$ & 7$^{+}$ & 3.47$\times$10$^{7}$ y & -0.43(7) & -0.35(3)\\
${^{210}_{83}}$Bi$_{127}$ & 1$^{-}$ & 5.01 d & +0.22(6) & +0.19(6)\\
\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
More convincing results which confirm our approximation have been obtained for static ground state magnetic moments of odd-odd near-magic nuclei where there are much more experimental data, see
Ref. \cite{kaevyadfiz}
\section{Self-consistent calculations}
\label{selfcalc}
These calculations are performed within the self-consistent Theory of Finite Fermi Systems (TFFS) based on the Energy Density Functional (EDF) by Fayans et al. with the known DF3-a parameters \cite{Tol-Sap1}.
The details of the calculations for odd nuclei have been described in Ref. \cite{BE2}. Here we summarize
several formulas which are required for understanding the main
ingredients of the approach.
In this method, the ground
state energy of a nucleus is considered as a functional of normal
and anomalous densities,
\begin{equation} E_0=\int {\cal E}[\rho_n({\bf
r}),\rho_p({\bf r}),\nu_n({\bf r}),\nu_p({\bf r})] d^3r.\label{E0}
\end{equation}
According to Eq.(1), the static quadrupole moment $Q_{\lambda}$ of an
odd nucleus with the odd nucleon in the state $\lambda$ can be
found by solving the equation
for the effective field $V$ in the
static external field
$ V_0({\bf r}) =
\sqrt{\frac{16 \pi} {5}} r^2 Y_{20}({\bf n})$.
\begin{equation}
\label{Vef_s}{\hat V}(\omega)= {\hat e_q} V_0(\omega)+{\hat {\cal F}}
{\hat A}(\omega) {\hat V}(\omega),
\end{equation}
where $e_q$ is the local
quasi-particle charge with respect to the external field $V_0$
and all terms are matrices in the isotopic space.
In the standard TFFS notation, the particle-hole propagator $A$
in the coordinate representation reads:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{A}
A(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^\prime, \omega ) = -\sum_{1} n_1 \varphi_{1}^{*}(\textbf{r}) \varphi_1(\textbf{r}^\prime )\times \nonumber\\
\times\left[G(\textbf{r}^\prime ,\textbf{r}; \epsilon _1 + \omega ) + G(\textbf{r}^\prime ,\textbf{r}; \epsilon _1 -\omega )\right]
\end{eqnarray}
where $n_1 = (0,1)$ are occupation numbers, summation is over states below the Fermi surface
and the known single-particle Green functions $G$ already contain the entire single-particle continuum.
Just due to this feature of the Green function, the single-particle continuum is taken into account completely in the TFFS.
In our case, the local charges in Eq. (\ref{Vef_s}) are $e_q^p=1,\; e_q^n=0$.
The explicit form of the above equations
is written down for the case of the electric ($t$-even)
symmetry we deal with.
In Eq. (\ref{Vef_s}), ${\cal F}$ is the usual LM amplitude,
\begin{equation} {\cal F}=\frac {\delta^2 {\cal E}}{\delta \rho^2},
\label{LM}\end{equation}
Using formulas (\ref{E0}) -- (\ref{LM}) we have calculated self-consistently ground state quadrupole moments of odd and corresponding odd-odd near-magic nuclei. The method used has a high predictive power and, according to Eq. (7), takes into account completely the single-particle continuum,which is especially important for nuclei with the small
separation energy, like $^{78}$Ni ($S_n \approx$ 5.8 MeV) and $^{100}$Sn ($S_p \approx$ 2.4 MeV) . For this reason, first of all we have calculated the quadrupole moments values of the odd and odd-odd nuclei near unstable double-magic nuclei $^{56}$Ni, $^{78}$Ni, $^{100}$Sn and $^{132}$Sn.
\subsection{Odd near-magic nuclei}
\label{selfodd}
The final expression for the quadrupole moment of an odd nucleus, Eq.(1),
is as follows
\begin{equation}\label{Vlam}
Q_{\lambda} = V_{\lambda} = \pm \frac{2j-1}{2j+2} \int V(r) R_{nlj}^2(r)
r^{2}dr.
\end{equation}
where the - sign should be taken for the odd particle and + stands for the odd hole \cite{BM}.
(The replacement of the effective field $V$ by $e_{q}V_{0}$ which was considered in \cite{BM}
does not change the sign).
The $j$-dependent factor in (\ref{Vlam})
appears due to the angular integral. For $j>1/2$ it is
always negative. The equation for the quantity $V(r)$, which was obtained from Eq.(\ref{Vef_s}),
has been solved in the coordinate space using Eqs.(\ref{A},\ref{LM}). The same set of DF3-a parameters
has been used to calculate the self-consistent single-particle basis and the effective LM interaction.
The results of calculations are shown in Table 2 and Table 3, where in column Q$_{\rm theor}$ the self-consistent values are shown for odd nuclei near double-magic nuclei $^{56,78}$Ni, $^{100,132}$Sn, $^{208}$Pb. To compare with the well-known phenomenological description, the results with the effective charger $e{^p_{eff}}=2$, $e{^n_{eff}}=1$ are represented in columns Q${\rm _{eff}}$, where they have been calculated with the same self-consistent single-particle basis. These values have been justified microscopically within TFFS
in Ref. \cite{kaevyadfiz1965} where they have been introduced as
$(e^p_{eff})_{\lambda} = V_{\lambda}^p$/$(V_{0})_{\lambda}$ and
$e{^n_{eff}} = V_{\lambda}^n$/$(V_{0})_{\lambda}$. Note that in nuclei with paring these values are $e_{eff} \cong 4-6$ \cite{BE2} due to the contribution of unfilled nuclear shells. Comparing the values in columns $Q_{eff}$ and $Q_{theor}$,
one can see that the use of the phenomenological effective charger $e{^p_{eff}}=2$, $e{^n_{eff}}=1$ is not always good quantitatively.
\begin{table}[th]
\label{tablqoddn}
\caption{Quadrupole moments \textit{Q} (e b) of odd-neutron near-magic nuclei.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c }
\hline \hline \noalign{\smallskip}
nucl. & $J^{\rm \pi}$
&\hspace*{1.ex} $T_{\rm 1/2}$\hspace*{1.ex} &\hspace*{1.ex}$Q_{\rm eff}$\hspace*{1.ex} &\hspace*{1.ex} $Q_{\rm theor}$ &\hspace*{1.ex}$Q_{\rm exp}$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
${^{55}_{28}}$Ni$_{27}$ & 7/2$^{+}$ & 204.7 ms & 0.11 & 0.26 & --\\
${^{57}_{28}}$Ni$_{29}$ & 3/2$^{-}$ & 35.6 h & -0.07 & -0.17 & --\\
${^{77}_{28}}$Ni$_{49}$ & (9/2)$^{+}$ & 128 ms & 0.16 & 0.20 & --\\
${^{79}_{29}}$Ni$_{50}$ & (5/2$^{+}$) & 635 ns & -0.17 & -0.12 & --\\
${^{101}_{50}}$Sn$_{51}$ & (5/2)$^{+}$ & 1.7 s & -0.13 & -0.21 & --\\
${^{131}_{50}}$Sn$_{81}$ & (3/2$^{+}$) & 56 s & 0.10 & 0.10 & -0.04(8)\\
${^{133}_{50}}$Sn$_{83}$ & 7/2$^{-}$ & 1.46 s & -0.23 & -0.17 & --\\
${^{207}_{82}}$Pb$_{125}$ & (1/2)$^{-}$& stable & 0 & 0 & --\\
${^{209}_{82}}$Pb$_{127}$ & (9/2)$^{+}$& 3.253 h & -0.29 & -0.26 & -0.3(2)\\
\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[tH]
\label{tablqoddp}
\caption{Quadrupole moments \textit{Q} (e b) of odd-proton near-magic nuclei.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c }
\hline \hline \noalign{\smallskip}
nucl. & $J^{\rm \pi}$
&\hspace*{1.ex} $T_{\rm 1/2}$\hspace*{1.ex} &\hspace*{1.ex}$Q_{\rm eff}$\hspace*{1.ex} &\hspace*{1.ex} $Q_{\rm theor}$ &\hspace*{1.ex}$Q_{\rm exp}$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
${^{55}_{27}}$Co$_{28}$ & 7/2$^{-}$ & 17.53 h & 0.22 & 0.31 & --\\
${^{57}_{29}}$Cu$_{28}$ & 3/2$^{-}$ & 196.3 ms & -0.15 & -0.20 & --\\
${^{79}_{29}}$Cu$_{50}$ & (3/2$^{-}$) & 188 ms & -0.14 & -0.13 & --\\
${^{99}_{49}}$In$_{50}$ & (9/2)$^{+}$ & 3 s & 0.35 & 0.35 & --\\
${^{131}_{49}}$In$_{82}$ & (9/2)$^{+}$ & 0.28 s & 0.40 & 0.28 & --\\
${^{133}_{51}}$Sb$_{82}$ & (7/2)$^{+}$ & 2.34 m & -0.34 & -0.23 & --\\
${^{207}_{81}}$Tl$_{126}$ & 1/2$^{+}$ & 4.77 m & 0 & 0 & --\\
${^{209}_{83}}$Bi$_{126}$ & (9/2)$^{-}$& stable & -0.51 & -0.34 & -0.37(3), -0.55(1)\\
& & & & & -0.77(1), -0.40(5)\\
\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Odd-odd near-magic nuclei}
Using Eqs.(3),(4) and the values of quadrupole moments of odd nuclei presented in Tables 2 and 3, we have calculated
quadrupole moments of corresponding odd-odd nuclei with both the phenomenological values
$e{^p_{eff}}=2$, $e{^n_{eff}}=1$ (column $Q_{eff})$ and the self-consistently calculated quadrupole moments of odd nuclei (column $Q_{theor})$, see Table 4. Unfortunately, the experimental data are scarce and may be not achievable, so the $Q_{theor}$ results in Table 4 are
our predictions of the quadrupole moments in the exotic unstable nuclei under consideration.
\begin{table}[h]
\label{selfodd-odd}
\caption{Quadrupole moments \textit{Q} (e b) of odd-odd near-magic nuclei.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c }
\hline \hline \noalign{\smallskip}
nucl. & $J^{\rm \pi}$
&\hspace*{1.ex} $T_{\rm 1/2}$\hspace*{1.ex} &\hspace*{1.ex}$Q_{\rm eff}$\hspace*{1.ex} &\hspace*{1.ex} $Q_{\rm theor}$ &\hspace*{1.ex}$Q_{\rm exp}$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
${^{54}_{27}}$Co$_{27}$ & 0$^{+}$ & 193.28 ms & -- & -- & --\\
${^{56}_{27}}$Co$_{29}$ & 4$^{+}$ & 77.236 d & 0.19 & 0.30 & +0.25(9)\\
${^{56}_{29}}$Cu$_{27}$ & (4$^{+}$) & 93 ms & 0.14 & 0.28 & --\\
${^{58}_{29}}$Cu$_{29}$ & 1$^{+}$ & 3.204 s & 0.09 & 0.15 & --\\
${^{78}_{29}}$Cu$_{49}$ & (3$^{-}$) & 637 s & -0.18 & -0.21 & --\\
& (4$^{-}$) & & 4$\times 10^{-5}$ & -0.03 & --\\
${^{100}_{49}}$In$_{51}$& (6$^{+}$) & 5.9 s & 0.24 & 0.21 & --\\
${^{130}_{49}}$In$_{81}$& 1$^{-}$ & 0.29 s & -0.08 & -0.07 & --\\
${^{132}_{49}}$In$_{83}$& (7$^{-}$) & 0.207 s & -0.40 & -0.29 & --\\
${^{132}_{51}}$Sb$_{81}$& (4)$^{+}$ & 2.79 m & -0.30 & -0.22 & --\\
${^{134}_{51}}$Sb$_{83}$& (0$^{-}$) & 0.78 s & -- & -- & --\\
${^{206}_{81}}$Tl$_{125}$& 0$^{-}$ & -- & -- & -- & --\\
${^{208}_{81}}$Tl$_{127}$& 5$^{+}$ & 3.053 m & -0.30 & -0.27 & --\\
${^{208}_{83}}$Bi$_{125}$& 5$^{+}$ & 3.68E+5 y & -0.51 & -0.35 & -0.64(6)\\
${^{210}_{83}}$Bi$_{127}$& 1$^{-}$ & 5.012 d & 0.21 & 0.16 & +0.136(1)\\
\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusions}
A reasonable agreement with all available experimental data for quadrupole moments in odd and odd-odd
near-magic nuclei has been obtained in our self-consistent calculations using the approximation of no interaction between odd particles.
The self-consistent approach has a high predictive power required to describe properties of nuclei where there is no experimental data. In this connection, our predictions for quadrupole moments of nuclei near unstable $^{56,78}$Ni, $^{100,132}$Sn are of special interest.
\begin{acknowledgement}
The authors thank E.E. Saperstein and V.I. Isakov for useful discussions.
The work was partly supported by the DFG
and RFBR Grants Nos.436RUS113/994/0-1 and 09-02-91352NNIO-a, by the
Grants NSh-7235.2010.2 and 2.1.1/4540 of the Russian Ministry for
Science and Education, and by the RFBR grants 11-02-00467-a and
12-02-00955-a.
\end{acknowledgement}
|
\section{Introduction}
In~\cite{emerton-helm}, Matthew Emerton and the author introduce a
``modified mod $p$ local Langlands correspondence,'' a ``mod $p$''
version of the local Langlands correspondence that is well-behaved under
specialization and has useful applications to the cohomology of modular curves
and the ``local Langlands correpondence in families'' of~\cite{emerton-helm}.
Section 5 of~\cite{emerton-helm} gives a general characterization of this mod $p$
correspondence in terms of its basic properties. If one restricts to the group $\operatorname{GL}_2$,
it is easy in most cases to go from
this list of characterizing properties to an explicit description of this correspondence.
These easy cases are discussed in detail in section 5.2 of~\cite{emerton-helm}. When $p$ is odd
the cases discussed come close to a complete description of the correspondence, but omit
certain more difficult special cases. The purpose of this note is to explicitly describe the
correspondence in these more difficult cases and thus complete the description of the modified mod $p$
local Langlands correspondence for $\operatorname{GL}_2$ and odd $p$.
Let $F$ be a finite extension of ${\mathbb Q}_{\ell}$ whose residue field has order $q$,
let $p$ be an odd prime distinct from $\ell$,
and let $k$ be a finite field of characteristic $p$.
The modified mod $p$ local Langlands correspondence is an association ${\overline{\rho}} \mapsto {\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$,
where ${\overline{\rho}}: G_F \rightarrow \operatorname{GL}_n(k)$ is a continuous $n$-dimensional representation of the absolute Galois
group of $F$, and ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$ is a finite length indecomposable smooth representation of
$\operatorname{GL}_n(F)$. Its interest arises from its nice behaviour under specialization, which
we discuss below, and also from the fact that it arises ``in nature'' in the cohomology
of the tower of modular curves. Indeed, in~\cite{emerton-lg}, Emerton considers the following situation:
Let $\Sigma$ be a finite set of primes containing $p$, and let $H^1_{\Sigma}$ be the direct
limit:
$$\lim_{\operatorname{Supp} N \subseteq \Sigma} H^1_{\mbox{\rm \tiny \'et}}(X(N)_{\overline{{\mathbb Q}}}, k).$$
(Here $\operatorname{Supp} N$ denotes the set of primes dividing an integer $N$, so the limit is
over $N$ divisible only by primes in $\Sigma$, ordered by divisibility.)
The space $H^1_{\Sigma}$ acquires actions of $G_{{\mathbb Q}}$, of $\operatorname{GL}_2({\mathbb Q}_p)$, and of $\operatorname{GL}_2({\mathbb Q}_{\ell})$
for $\ell \neq p$, as well as of the Hecke operators $T_r$ for $r \notin \Sigma$ and the diamond operators
$\<d\>$ for $d$ not divisible by any prime of $\Sigma$. Let ${\mathbb T}_{\Sigma}$ be the subalgebra
of $\operatorname{End}_k(H^1_{\Sigma})$ generated by these Hecke operators and diamond operators.
Let ${\overline{\rho}}: G_{{\mathbb Q}} \rightarrow \operatorname{GL}_2(k)$ be a modular Galois representation unramified outside $\Sigma$.
Then there is a maximal ideal ${\mathfrak m}$ of ${\mathbb T}_{\Sigma}$ attached to ${\overline{\rho}}$, and
(under certain hypotheses on the local behavior of ${\overline{\rho}}$ at $p$),
Emerton has shown (\cite{emerton-lg}, Theorem 6.2.13 and Proposition 6.1.20)
that $H^1_{\sigma}[{\mathfrak m}]$ is a product of ``local factors'':
$$H^1_{\sigma}[{\mathfrak m}] \cong {\overline{\rho}} \otimes \pi_p \otimes
\bigotimes_{\ell \neq p, \ell \in \Sigma} \pi_{\ell}$$
where $\pi_p$ is attached to ${\overline{\rho}}|_{G_{{\mathbb Q}_p)}}$ by considerations from the $p$-adic Langlands
program (see~\cite{emerton-lg}, section 3, for details)
and each $\pi_{\ell}$ is the representation ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}}|_{G_{{\mathbb Q}_{\ell}}})$ attached to
the restriction of ${\overline{\rho}}$ to a decomposition group at $\ell$ via the modified mod $p$ local
Langlands correspondence for $\operatorname{GL}_2({\mathbb Q}_{\ell})$. Thus an explicit description of the modified mod
$p$ local Langlands correspondence for $\operatorname{GL}_2({\mathbb Q}_{\ell})$ gives an explicit description
of the action of $\operatorname{GL}_2({\mathbb Q}_{\ell})$ on the cohomology of the modular tower.
We now recall more precisely the definition of the modified mod $p$ local Langlands
correspondence. The starting point is the characteristic zero ``generic local Langlands
correspondence'' of Breuil-Schneider~\cite{BS}. We refer the reader to sections 4.2 and 4.3
of~\cite{emerton-helm} for the basic properties of this correspondence. In particular, this
correspondence associates to any $n$-dimensional
Frobenius-semisimple Weil-Deligne representation $(\rho,N)$
over a field $K$ containing ${\mathbb Q}_p$ an indecomposable (but often reducible) admissible
representation $\pi(\rho,N)$ of $\operatorname{GL}_n(F)$.
The representations $\pi(\rho,N)$ have several nice properties. In particular, they are
{\em essentially AIG} representations, a concept introduced in section 3.2 of~\cite{emerton-helm}.
A smooth representation $\pi$ of $\operatorname{GL}_n(F)$ over a field $K$ is called essentially AIG if
\begin{itemize}
\item the socle of $\pi$ is absolutely irreducible and generic,
\item $\pi$ contains no generic irreducible subquotients other than its socle, and
\item $\pi$ is the sum of its finite length submodules.
\end{itemize}
Such representations have several useful properties. In particular, their only endomorphisms are scalars
(\cite{emerton-helm}, Lemma 3.2.3), any submodule of an essentially AIG representation is essentially AIG,
any nonzero map of essentially AIG representations is an embedding, and such an embedding, if it
exists at all, is unique up to a scalar factor (\cite{emerton-helm}, Lemma 3.2.2).
Moreover, if $\pi$ is an absolutely irreducible generic representation of $\operatorname{GL}_n(F)$, then there is an
essentially AIG representation $\operatorname{env}(\pi)$, known as the essentially AIG envelope of $\pi$, such that
the socle of $\operatorname{env}(\pi)$ is isomorphic to $\pi$ and any essentially AIG representation $\pi'$ with socle
isomorphic to $\pi$ embeds in $\operatorname{env}(\pi)$ (\cite{emerton-helm}, Proposition 3.2.7). Moreover,
all the subquotients of $\operatorname{env}(\pi)$ (or, more generally, of any essentially AIG representation) have the
same supercuspidal support (\cite{emerton-helm}, Corollary 3.2.14).
A final useful property of essentially AIG representations is that they contain distinguished lattices (up to
homothety). In particular, let ${\mathcal O}$ be a discrete valuation ring with residue field $k$ and field of fractions
$K$, and let $\pi$ be an essentially AIG representation over $K$. Suppose further that $\pi$ is ${\mathcal O}$-integral;
that is, contains a $\operatorname{GL}_n(F)$-invariant ${\mathcal O}$-lattice. Then there is an ${\mathcal O}$-lattice $\pi^{\circ}$ in
$\pi$, unique up to homothety, such that $\pi^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k$ is essentially AIG (\cite{emerton-helm},
Proposition 3.3.2).
This last property is crucial because it allows for a definition of the modified mod $p$ local Langlands
correspondence via ``compatibility with reduction mod $p$'' from the characteristic zero correspondence of
Breuil-Schneider. More precisely, one has:
\begin{thm}[\cite{emerton-helm}, Theorem 5.1.5]
Let $k$ be a finite field of characteristic $p$. There is a map ${\overline{\rho}} \mapsto {\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$
from the set of isomoprhism classes of continuous representations $G_F \rightarrow \operatorname{GL}_n(k)$ to the set
of isomorphism classes of finite length admissible smooth $\operatorname{GL}_n(F)$-representations over $k$, uniquely
determined by the following three conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any ${\overline{\rho}}$, the associated $\operatorname{GL}_n(F)$-representation ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$ is essentially AIG.
\item If $K$ is a finite extension of ${\mathbb Q}_p$, with ring of integers ${\mathcal O}$ and residue field $k'$ containing $k$,
$\rho: G_F \rightarrow \operatorname{GL}_n({\mathcal O})$ is a continuous representation lifting ${\overline{\rho}} \otimes_k k'$, and $\pi^{\circ}$
is the unique ${\mathcal O}$-lattice in $\pi(\rho)$ such that $\pi^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$ is essentially AIG,
then there is an embedding
$$\pi^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k' \hookrightarrow {\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}}) \otimes_k k'.$$
\item The representation ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$ is minimal with respect to satisfying conditions (1) and (2);
that is, for any ${\overline{\rho}}$, and any representation $\pi$ satisfying these conditions with respect to
${\overline{\rho}}$, there is an embedding of ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$ in $\pi.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
The construction of ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$ is straightforward. One shows that for a given ${\overline{\rho}}$, and any lift
$\rho$ of ${\overline{\rho}}$ as in condition (2), the socle of $\pi^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$ is the unique absolutely
irreducible generic representation ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$ of $\operatorname{GL}_n(F)$ whose supercuspidal support corresponds to ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mbox{\rm \tiny ss}}$
under the mod $p$ semisimple local Langlands correspondence of Vigneras~\cite{vigss}.
Thus $\pi^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$ embeds in the essentially AIG envelope $\operatorname{env}({\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}})$, so that
$\operatorname{env}({\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}})$ satisfies conditions (1) and (2) of the theorem, but may be too large. One obtains
${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$ by taking the sum, inside $\operatorname{env}({\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}) \otimes_k \overline{k}$, of the subobjects
$\pi^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} \overline{k}$ over all lifts $\rho$ as in (2), and descending from $\overline{k}$ to $k$.
When $n=2$ and $p$ is odd, this perspective is all that one needs to explicitly describe the modified
mod $p$ local Langlands correspondence. In particular, when ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mbox{\rm \tiny ss}}$ is not a twist of
the direct sum $1 \oplus \overline{\omega}$, where $\overline{\omega}$ is the mod $p$ cyclotomic character, then
$\operatorname{env}({\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}})$ is irreducible, and thus the inclusions
${\overline{\pi}}^{gen} \subseteq {\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}}) \subseteq \operatorname{env}({\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}})$
are all equalities. When ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mbox{\rm \tiny ss}}$ is a twist of $1 \oplus \overline{\omega}$, the situation is slightly more
complicated, but still easy as long as $q$ is not congruent to $\pm 1$ modulo $p$. We refer the reader to section 5.2
of~\cite{emerton-helm} for details.
In section 2 we cover the case when $q$ is congruent to $-1$ modulo $p$, and
${\overline{\rho}}^{\mbox{\rm \tiny ss}}$ is a twist of $1 \oplus \omega$. This case was worked out independently by
Emerton in unpublished work. It is similar to the case when $q$ is not congruent to $\pm 1$ modulo $p$,
but is slightly more complicated because $\operatorname{env}({\overline{\pi}}^{gen})$ has length $3$ instead of $2$.
The remaining sections are devoted to the case when $q$ is congruent to $1$ modulo $p$, and ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mbox{\rm \tiny ss}}$ is
a twist of $1 \oplus \overline{\omega}.$ (Note that $\overline{\omega}$ is trivial in this setting.) This case is
the most difficult because in this setting
there is a one-parameter family of representations ${\overline{\rho}}$ whose semisimplification is trivial. It turns out
(Theorem~\ref{thm:main2})
in this case that the modified mod $p$ local Langlands correspondence is sensitive enough to distinguish between
these distinct extensions. This is in stark contrast to the situation in characteristic zero, where the
Breuil-Schneider correspondence is insensitive to Frobenius-semisimplification. This ``extra sensitivitity'' is quite
striking and would be worth investigating in situations where $n$ is greater than two.
{\em Acknowledgements}
The results in this paper grew out of a series of discussions with Matthew Emerton, and I am indebted to him
for his ideas and suggestions. The paper was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1161582.
\section{$q \equiv -1$ mod $p$}
In this section we write $G$ for $\operatorname{GL}_2(F)$, for conciseness. Let $B$ be the standard Borel
subgroup of $G$.
Suppose that $q$ is congruent to $-1$ modulo $p$, and that
${\overline{\rho}}^{\mbox{\rm \tiny ss}}$ is a twist of $1 \oplus \overline{\omega}$. Since the modified mod $p$
local Langlands correspondence is compatible with twisting, we may assume that ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mbox{\rm \tiny ss}}$
is equal to $1 \oplus \overline{\omega}$. The semisimple mod $p$ local Langlands correspondence
of Vigneras then shows that ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$, and indeed every Jordan-H\"older constituent of
$\operatorname{env}({\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}})$, has supercuspidal support given by the two characters $\mid~\;~\mid^{\pm \frac{1}{2}}$.
Thus every Jordan-H\"older constituent of $\operatorname{env}({\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}})$ is also a Jordan-Holder
constituent of the normalized parabolic induction $i_B^G \mid~\;~\mid^{\frac{1}{2}} \otimes \mid~\;~\mid^{-\frac{1}{2}}$.
There are three such constituents in this setting (c.f. Example II.2.5 of~\cite{vigbook}):
the trivial character of $G$, the character $\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det$ (which has values in $\pm 1$ because
of our assumption on $q$), and a cuspidal subquotient, which is the unique generic subquotient
and is thus isomorphic to ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$. More precisely, we have exact sequences:
$$0 \rightarrow W \rightarrow i_B^{\operatorname{GL}_2(F)} \mid~\;~\mid^{-\frac{1}{2}} \otimes \mid~\;~\mid^{\frac{1}{2}}
\rightarrow \mid~\;~\mid \circ \det \rightarrow 0$$
$$0 \rightarrow 1_G \rightarrow W \rightarrow {\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}\rightarrow 0$$
for a suitable representation $W$. Both of these sequences are nonsplit, as ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$
is cuspidal and thus is neither a subobject nor a quotient of any parabolic induction.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:ext1}
Any nonsplit extension of ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$ by the trivial character of $G$ is isomorphic to $W$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $W'$ be such an extension.
The parabolic restriction $r_{\operatorname{GL}_2(F)}^B W'$
is isomorphic to $\mid~\;~\mid^{-\frac{1}{2}} \otimes \mid~\;~\mid^{\frac{1}{2}}$. As parabolic induction
is a right adjoint to parabolic restriction, this isomorphism gives rise to a nonzero
map:
$$W' \rightarrow i_B^G \mid~\;~\mid^{-\frac{1}{2}} \otimes \mid~\;~\mid^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
It is clear that such a map must be injective with image $W$.
\end{proof}
Twisting by $\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det$ we find that $W \otimes (\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det)$ is the
unique nonsplit extension of ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$ by $\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det$.
As ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$ is self-dual, it is clear that $W^{\vee}$ and $W^{\vee} \otimes (\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det)$
are essentially AIG representations with socle ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$. It follows that the representation
$V$ obtained as the pushout of the diagram:
$$
\begin{array}{ccc}
W^{\vee} & \rightarrow & V\\
\uparrow & & \uparrow\\
{\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}} & \rightarrow & W^{\vee} \otimes (\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det)
\end{array}
$$
is also essentially AIG. Note that $V$ is an extension of $1_G \oplus (\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det)$
by ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$.
\begin{prop}
The representation $V$ is an essentially AIG envelope of ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We must show that $V$ is not properly contained in an essentially AIG representation
$V'$. Suppose there were such a $V'$. Then the socle of $V'/V$ is a contains no generic summand,
and is thus isomorphic to a direct sum of characters, each of which is either trivial
or isomorphic to $\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det$. Observing that $V$ is isomorphic to $V \otimes (\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det)$
we can ensure, twisting $V'$ if necessary, that $V'/V$ contains a one-dimensional subspace on
which $G$ acts trivially. Let $V''$ be the preimage of this subspace under the surjection
$$V' \rightarrow V'/V.$$
Then $V''$ is an essentially AIG representation containing $V$, such that $V''/V$ is the
character $1_G$, and it suffices to show that such a representation cannot exist.
Note that $V''$ is essentially AIG, and hence its only endomorphisms are scalars. In
particular the center of $G$ acts on $V''$ by a character, and this character must be trivial
since the center of $G$ acts trivially on ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$. On the other hand,
$V''/{\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$ is en extension of $1_G$ by $1_G \oplus (\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det)$, and it is
easy to see that such an extension must split if the center of $G$ acts trivially.
Thus $V''$ is an extension of $1_G \oplus 1_G \oplus (\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det)$ by ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$.
Appliying duality to Lemma~\ref{lem:ext1} shows that there is a unique nonsplit extension
of $1_G$ by ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$, and one deduces from this that the socle of $V''$ contains at least
one copy of $1_G$, contradicting the hypothesis that $V''$ was essentially AIG.
\end{proof}
We now turn to understanding the modified mod $p$ local Langlands correspondence. If ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mbox{\rm \tiny ss}}$
is isomorphic to $1 \oplus \overline{\omega}$, then ${\overline{\rho}}$ is either a nonsplit extension
of $\overline{\omega}$ by $1$, a nonsplit extension of $1$ by $\overline{\omega}$, or the direct sum
$1 \oplus \overline{\omega}$.
By contrast, let us consider the representations $\rho: G_F \rightarrow \operatorname{GL}_2(K)$ whose mod $p$
reduction has semisimplification $1 \oplus \overline{\omega}$. There are several cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\rho$ is irreducible, in which case its reduction modulo $p$ can be any of the three possibilities
described above.
\item $\rho$ is a nonsplit extension of $\chi_1$ by $\chi_2$, where the mod $p$ reduction of $\chi_1$
is trivial and the mod $p$ reduction of $\chi_2$ is $\overline{\omega}$. In this case the mod $p$ reduction
of $\rho$ has a subrepresentation isomorphic to $\overline{\omega}$, and thus cannot be a nonsplit extension of
$\overline{\omega}$ by $1$.
\item $\rho$ is a nonsplit extension of $\chi_2$ by $\chi_1$, where the mod $p$ reduction of $\chi_1$
is trivial and the mod $p$ reduction of $\chi_2$ is $\overline{\omega}$. In this case the mod $p$
reduction of $\rho$ cannot be a nonsplit extension of $1$ by $\overline{\omega}$.
\item $\rho$ is a direct sum of two characters. In this case the mod $p$ reduction of $\rho$ must be
the direct sum $1 \oplus \overline{\omega}$.
\end{enumerate}
It is straightforward to describe $\pi(\rho)$, and the reduction $\pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$,
in each of the above cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\pi(\rho)$ is irreducible and cuspidal. In this case there is a unique homothety class
of lattices in $\pi^{\rho}$, and the reduction $\pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$
is also cuspidal, hence isomorphic to ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}} \otimes_k k'$.
\item $\pi(\rho)$ is a twist of the Steinberg representation by a character that is trivial modulo $p$.
The reduction mod $p$ of $\pi(\rho)$ then has two Jordan-H\"older constituents, isomorphic to
${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}}$ and $\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det$. In particular $\pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$
is a nonsplit extension of $(\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det) \otimes_k k'$ by ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}} \otimes_k k'$,
and is thus isomorphic to $W^{\vee} \otimes (\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det) \otimes k'$.
\item $\pi(\rho)$ is a twist of the Steinberg representation by a character that is congruent
to $\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det$ modulo $p$. In this case $\pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$
is isomorphic to $W^{\vee} \otimes k'$.
\item $\pi(\rho)$ is a parabolic induction, that contains a lattice whose reduction modulo $p$
is $i_B^G \mid~\;~\mid^{\frac{1}{2}} \otimes \mid~\;~\mid^{-{\frac{1}{2}}}$. The reduction of
$\pi(\rho)^{\circ}$ thus has length $3$ and embeds in $V \otimes_k k'$, and is thus isomorphic to $V \otimes_k k'$.
\end{enumerate}
It is now easy to establish the modified mod $p$ local Langlands correspondence for
these ${\overline{\rho}}$:
\begin{thm} \label{thm:main1}
Let ${\overline{\rho}}$ be a representation of $G_F$ such that ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mbox{\rm \tiny ss}} \cong 1 \oplus \overline{\omega}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If ${\overline{\rho}} = 1 \oplus \overline{\omega}$, then ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$ is isomorphic to $V$.
\item If ${\overline{\rho}}$ is a nonsplit extension of $1$ by $\overline{\omega}$, then ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$ is isomorphic
to $W^{\vee} \otimes (\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det)$.
\item If ${\overline{\rho}}$ is a nonsplit extension of $\overline{\omega}$ by $1$, then ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$ is
isomorphic to $W^{\vee}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
In case (1), ${\overline{\rho}}$ has a lift $\rho$ of type (4), and then $\pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$ is isomoprhic to
$V \otimes_k k'$. On the other hand ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$ is contained in $V$ and ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}}) \otimes_k k'$
contains $\pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$. We must thus have ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}}) = V$.
In case (2), ${\overline{\rho}}$ has lifts of type (1) and (2), but not (3) or (4). Thus $\pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$
is contained in $W^{\vee} \otimes (\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det) \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$, and the two are sometimes equal.
We must thus have ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}}) = W^{\vee} \otimes (\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det)$. Case (3) follow from case (2) by
twisting by $\mid~\;~\mid \circ \det$.
\end{proof}
\section{Lattices in direct sums of characters} \label{sec:lattice}
Before we turn to the case where $q \equiv 1$ mod $p$, we need a technical result. For this section,
let $G$ be an arbitrary locally profinite group. Let ${\mathcal O}$ be a discrete valuation ring with residue field
$k$, uniformizer $\varpi$, and field of fractions $K$.
Let $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ be two distinct characters $G \rightarrow {\mathcal O}^{\times}$ that are trivial modulo $\varpi$.
We will attach a class $\sigma(\chi_1,\chi_2)$ in $H^1(G,k)$ (where $G$ acts trivially on $k$) to this pair of
characters.
Let $a$ be the largest integer such that $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ are congruent modulo $a$. Then for $g$ in $G$
we define $\sigma(\chi_1,\chi_2)_g$ to be the reduction modulo $\varpi$ of the element
$\frac{1}{\varpi^a}(\chi_1(g) - \chi_2(g))$.
Note that $H^1(G,k)$ is isomorphic to $\operatorname{Ext}^1_G(1_G,1_G)$, where $1_G$ denotes the trivial character
of $G$ with values in $k$. There is thus a bijection between lines in $H^1(G,k)$ and nonsplit extensions
of $1_G$ by $1_G$. This bijection can be made entirely explicit as follows: let $E$ be such an extension,
let $e_1$ span the invariant line in $E$, and complete this to a $k$-basis $\{e_1,e_2\}$ of $E$.
For any $g$, $ge_2 - e_2$ is equal to $\sigma_g e_1$ for some $\sigma_g$ in $k$; the cocycle
$g \mapsto \sigma_g$ represents a class in $H^1(G,k)$ that is nontrival because $E$ is not split. A different
choice of basis $\{e_1,e_2\}$ changes $\sigma$ by a nonzero scalar, and this gives the desired bijection of
extensions $E$ with lines in $H^1(G,k)$.
Our goal in this section is to interpret the class $\sigma(\chi_1,\chi_2)$ in terms of this isomorphism.
Let $L$ be a free ${\mathcal O}$-module of rank two, with basis $e_1$ and $e_2$. Define an action of
$G$ on $L$ by $ge_1 = \chi_1(g) e_1$ and $ge_2 = \chi_2(g) e_2$. Let $L'$ be a $G$-stable ${\mathcal O}$-lattice
in $L \otimes K$. Then $L'/\varpi L'$ is an extension of $1_G$ by $1_G$, and we have:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:class}
Suppose $L'/\varpi L'$ is nonsplit. Then $\sigma(\chi_1,\chi_2)$ generates the line in $H^1(G,k)$
corresponding to the extension $L'/\varpi L'$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since replacing $L'$ with $\varpi L'$ does not change the extension $L'/\varpi L'$, we may assume without
loss of generality that $L \subset L'$ but $L \not \subseteq \varpi L'$. Then the map
$$L/\varpi L \rightarrow L'/\varpi L'$$
has one-dimensional image. Swapping $e_1$ and $e_2$ (and thus $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$) if necessary
we may assume that $e_1$ generates the image of $L/\varpi L$ in $L'/\varpi L'$. (Note that this only
changes $\sigma(\chi_1,\chi_2)$ by a sign.
Since $e_1$ is nonzero in $L'/\varpi L'$ we may complete it to a basis $e_1, e_3$ of $L'$.
Let $b$ be the smallest integer greater than zero such that $\varpi^b e_3$ lies in $L$,
and write $\varpi^b e_3 = \alpha e_1 + \beta e_2$ for $\alpha, \beta \in {\mathcal O}$. We then have
$g e_3 = \chi_2(g) e_3 + \frac{1}{\varpi^b} \alpha(\chi_1(g) - \chi_2(g)) e_1$. Note that
by assumption the coefficient of $e_1$ lies in ${\mathcal O}$, as $L'$ is $G$-stable.
Let $\overline{e}_1$, $\overline{e}_3$ be the images of $e_1$ and $e_2$ in $L'/\varpi L'$. The action
of $G$ fixes $\overline{e}_1$, whereas $g\overline{e}_3 = \overline{e}_3 + \sigma_g \overline{e}_1$,
where $\sigma_g$ is the reduction modulo $\varpi$ of $\frac{1}{\varpi b} \alpha (\chi_1(g) - \chi_2(g))$.
As $L'/\varpi L'$ is nonsplit, $\sigma_g$ is nonzero for some $g$, and thus $\frac{1}{\varpi^b} \alpha$
must lie in $\frac{1}{\varpi^a} {\mathcal O}^{\times}$. Thus $\sigma$ is a scalar multiple of
$\sigma(\chi_1,\chi_2)$ as claimed.
\end{proof}
\section{$q \equiv 1$ mod $p$}
We now consider the case in which $q \equiv 1$ mod $p$. In this case $\overline{\omega}$ is
the trivial character, and, so, up to twist, the only case it remains to consider is when
${\overline{\rho}}^{\mbox{\rm \tiny ss}}$ is the two-dimensional trivial representation of $G = \operatorname{GL}_2(F)$. As above,
we begin by computing the appropriate essentially AIG envelope.
In this setting every subquotient of the essentially AIG envelope that contains ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$
has supercuspidal support given by two copies of the trivial character, and is thus isomorphic
to a subquotient of the parabolic induction $i_B^G 1_T$, where $B \subset G$ is the standard Borel,
$T$ is the standard torus, and $1_T$ is the trivial character of the torus over $k$. This induction
has two Jordan-H\"older constituents: the trivial character $1_G$, and the Steinberg representation
$\operatorname{St}$ of $G$ over $k$. We thus have ${\overline{\pi}}^{\operatorname{gen}} = \operatorname{St}$.
\begin{lemma} There is an isomorphism:
$$i_B^G 1_T \cong 1_G \oplus \operatorname{St}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The restrictions $r_G^B 1_G$ and $r_G^B \operatorname{St}$ are both isomorphic to the trivial character $1_T$,
because the norm character $\mid~\;~\mid$ is trivial. We thus have:
$$\operatorname{Hom}_G(1_G, i_B^G 1_T) = \operatorname{Hom}_T(1_T,1_T)$$
$$\operatorname{Hom}_G(\operatorname{St}, i_B^G 1_T) = \operatorname{Hom}_T(1_T,1_T)$$
and the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} The space $\operatorname{Ext}^1_G(1_G,\operatorname{St})$ is two-dimensional.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Adjointess of parabolic induction and restriction gives an isomorphism:
$$\operatorname{Ext}^1_G(1_G, i_B^G 1_T) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^1_T(1_T,1_T)$$
and the latter is four dimensional. On the other hand
$$\operatorname{Ext}^1_G(1_G, i_B^G 1_T) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^1_G(1_G,1_G) \oplus \operatorname{Ext}^1_G(1_G,\operatorname{St}).$$
One easily sees that $\operatorname{Ext}^1_G(1_G,1_G)$ is two-dimensional, and the result follows.
\end{proof}
Let $V$ be the ``universal extension'' of $1_G$ by $\operatorname{St}$, in other words the unique
extension of $1_G \oplus 1_G$ by $\operatorname{St}$ that contains every isomorphism class of
extension of $1_G$ by $\operatorname{St}$ (more prosaically $V$ may be constructed as the pushout:
$$
\begin{array}{ccc}
W & \rightarrow & V\\
\uparrow & & \uparrow\\
\operatorname{St} & \rightarrow & W'
\end{array}
$$
where $W$ and $W'$ are any two nonisomorphic extensions of $1_G$ by $\operatorname{St}$.) We then have:
\begin{prop} The representation $V$ is an essentially AIG envelope of $\operatorname{St}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose not. Then (just as in the $q \equiv -1$ mod $p$ case), there is an essentially AIG
representation $V'$ containing $V$ with $V'/V$ isomorphic to $1_G$. The quotient $V'/\operatorname{St}$
is an extension of $1_G$ by $1_G \oplus 1_G$ on which the center of $G$ acts trivially; since $p$
is odd such an extension is split. Thus $V'$ is an extension of $1_G \oplus 1_G \oplus 1_G$ by
$\operatorname{St}$; since $\operatorname{Ext}^1_G(1_G,\operatorname{St})$ is only two dimensional we must have that $1_G$ is a direct summand of
$V'$, contradicting the fact that $V'$ is essentially AIG.
\end{proof}
It will be useful to be able to classify the nonsplit extensions of $1_G$ by $\operatorname{St}$. Observe:
\begin{lemma} Let $W$ be a nonsplit extension of $1_G$ by $\operatorname{St}$. Then $r_G^B W$ is a nonsplit
extension of $1_T$ by $1_T$. (Equivalently, the map
$$\operatorname{Ext}^1_G(1_G,\operatorname{St}) \rightarrow \operatorname{Ext}^1_T(1_T,1_T)$$
induced by $r_G^B$ is injective.)
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $r_G^B W$ is split. Then $\operatorname{Hom}_T(r_B^G W, 1_T)$ is two dimensional, so $\operatorname{Hom}_G(W,i_B^G T)$
is also two dimensional. It follows that there is a surjection of $W$ onto $\operatorname{St}$, implying that $W$ must also
be split.
\end{proof}
It is not difficult to characterise the image of this map:
\begin{lemma}
Let $E$ be an extension of $1_G$ by $1_G$. Then there exists an extension $W$ of
$1_G$ by $\operatorname{St}$ with $r_G^B W = E$ if, and only
if, the center $Z$ of $G$ acts trivially on $E$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The representation $W$ is essentially AIG and so $Z$ acts on $W$ by scalars, and hence trivially.
Thus the same is true of $r_B^G W$. Thus the image of the map
$$r_G^B: \operatorname{Ext}^1_G(1_G,\operatorname{St}) \rightarrow \operatorname{Ext}^1_T(1_T,1_T)$$
is contained in the subspace $\operatorname{Ext}^1_{T/Z}(1_{T/Z},1_{T/Z})$ of $\operatorname{Ext}^1_T(1_T,1_T)$. This
subspace is two-dimensional, as is the image of $r_G^B$, proving the claim.
\end{proof}
The sequence of isomorphisms: $W_F^{\mbox{\rm \tiny ab}} \cong F^{\times} \cong T/Z$ (where the last isomorphism
sends $x \in F^{\times}$ to the class of the diagonal matrix with entries $a$ and $1$) induces
a chain of isomorphisms:
$$\operatorname{Ext}^1_{G_F}(1_{G_F}, 1_{G_F}) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^1_{W_F}(1_{W_F},1_{W_F}) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^1_{F^{\times}}(1_{F^{\times}},1_{F^{\times}})
\cong \operatorname{Ext}^1_{T/Z}(1_{T/Z},1_{T/Z}).$$
Denote the composition of these morphisms by $\phi$. We observe:
\begin{lemma}
Let $K$ be a finite extension of ${\mathbb Q}_p$ with uniformizer $\varpi$,
residue field $k'$ and ring of integers ${\mathcal O}$.
Let ${\hat \chi}_1$ and ${\hat \chi}_2$ be distinct characters of $G_F$ with values in ${\mathcal O}$,
whose reductions mod $\varpi$ are trivial,
and let $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ be the corresponding characters of $F^{\times}$. Then
the sequence of maps:
$$H^1(G_F, 1_G) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^1_{G_F}(1_G,1_G) \stackrel{\phi}{\rightarrow} \operatorname{Ext}^1_{T/Z}(1_{T/Z},1_{T/Z})
\cong H^1(T/Z, 1_{T/Z})$$
takes $\sigma(\chi_1,\chi_2)$ to a nonzero
multiple of the class $\sigma(\chi_1 \otimes \chi_2,\chi_2 \otimes \chi_1)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is an easy computation.
\end{proof}
We are now in a position to descrive ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$ for each ${\overline{\rho}}$. We first enumerate
the possible lifts $\rho$ of ${\overline{\rho}}$. There are four cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\rho$ is a two-dimensional representation of $G_F$ on which $G_F$ acts via a single
character ${\hat \chi}$. In this case ${\overline{\rho}}$ must be trivial.
\item $\rho$ is the direct sum of two distinct characters ${\hat \chi}_1$ and ${\hat \chi}_2$ whose reductions
are trivial. In this case ${\overline{\rho}}$ is either trivial or the unique nonsplit extension of
$1_{G_F}$ by $1_{G_F}$ of class $\sigma({\hat \chi}_1,{\hat \chi}_2)$.
\item $\rho$ is a nonsplit extension of a character $\hat \chi$ by the character $\omega \hat \chi$.
\item $\rho$ is a twist of the unique unramified extension of the trivial representation of $G_F$ over $K$
by itself. In this case ${\overline{\rho}}$ is either trivial or the unique unramified extension of $1_{G_F}$ by
$1_{G_F}$.
\end{enumerate}
The next step is to describe $\pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$. We first observe:
\begin{lemma}
Let $K$ be a finite extension of ${\mathbb Q}_p$, and let $\pi$ be the irreducible
parabolic induction $i_B^G 1_{T,K}$, where $1_{T,K}$ is the one-dimensional trivial
representation of $T$ over $K$. Then $r_G^B \pi$ is the unique nonsplit extension
of $1_{T,K}$ by $1_{T,K}$ on which the action of $T$ factors through
the quotient: $T \rightarrow T/Z \cong F^{\times} \rightarrow {\mathbb Z}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that the extension $r_G^B \pi$ is nonsplit, as we have isomorphisms:
$$K \cong \operatorname{End}_G(\pi) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_T(r_G^B \pi, 1_{T,K}).$$
It is also clear that the action of $T$ on $r_G^B \pi$ factors through $T/Z$.
On the other hand the representation $\pi$ is an irreducible representation
with an Iwahori fixed vector, and it is well-known that for such $\pi$,
the subgroup ${\mathcal O}^{\times} \times {\mathcal O}^{\times}$ of $T$ acts trivially
on $r_G^B \pi$.
\end{proof}
We can now describe $\pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$ in each of the above cases.
\begin{enumerate}
\item In this case $\pi(\rho)$ is a twist of $i_B^G 1_{T,K}$, and the lemma above then implies
that $\pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$ is the unique extension $W$ of $1_G$ by $\operatorname{St}$ such that
the action of $T$ on $r_G^B W$ factors through $T \rightarrow T/Z \cong F^{\times} \rightarrow {\mathbb Z}.$
\item In this case $\pi(\rho)$ is the parabolic induction $i_B^G \chi_1 \otimes \chi_2$, where $\chi_1$
and $\chi_2$ are the characters of $F^{\times}$ arising from ${\hat \chi}_1$ and ${\hat \chi}_2$ by
local class field theory. It follows
that $r_G^B \pi(\rho)$ is the direct sum of the characters $\chi_1 \otimes \chi_2$ and $\chi_2 \otimes \chi_1$,
and $r_G^B \pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$ is then the nonsplit extension of $1_T$ by $1_T$
of class $\sigma(\chi_1 \otimes \chi_2,\chi_2 \otimes \chi_1)$.
\item In this case $\pi(\rho)$ is a twist of the Steinberg representation, and $\pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$
is isomorphic to $\operatorname{St} \otimes_k k'$.
\item In this case $\pi(\rho)$ is a twist of $i_B^G 1_{T,K}$, and the same discussion as in case (1) applies.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{thm} \label{thm:main2}
If ${\overline{\rho}}$ is trivial, then ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}}) = V$. On the other hand, if ${\overline{\rho}}$ is
the nonsplit extension of $1_{G_F}$ by $1_{G_F}$ represented by $\sigma \in \operatorname{Ext}^1_{G_F}(1_{G_F},1_{G_F})$,
then ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$ is the unique nonsplit extension of $1_G$ by $\operatorname{St}$ such that
$r_G^B {\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$ represents the class $\phi(\sigma)$ in $\operatorname{Ext}^1_T(1_T,1_T)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
If ${\overline{\rho}}$ is trivial, then ${\overline{\rho}}$ has lifts of type (2) above for an arbitrary choice of
${\hat \chi}_1$ and ${\hat \chi}_2$. Thus $\pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$ can be an
arbitrary nonsplit extension of $1_G$ by $\operatorname{St}$. As ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}}) \otimes_k k'$ must contain
all of these extensions, and is contained in $V$, we must have ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}}) = V$.
If ${\overline{\rho}}$ is nontrivial and ramified, then ${\overline{\rho}}$ has lifts of type (2) and possibly (3), but not (1)
or (4). If $\rho$ is a lift of type (3) then $\pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k$ is isomorphic to
$\operatorname{St}$ and thus tells us nothing about ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$. On the other hand, if $\rho = {\hat \chi}_1 \oplus {\hat \chi}_2$
is a lift of type (2), we have $\sigma = \sigma({\hat \chi}_1,{\hat \chi}_2)$. Then
$\pi(\rho)^{\circ} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} k'$ is the extension of $1_G$ by $\operatorname{St}$ corresponding to the class
$\sigma(\chi_1 \otimes \chi_2,\chi_2 \otimes \chi_1)$ in $\operatorname{Ext}^1_T(1_T,1_T)$. This class is a nonzero
multiple of
$\phi(\sigma)$. It is thus clear that ${\overline{\pi}}({\overline{\rho}})$ is the extension corresponding to $\phi(\sigma)$
as claimed.
If ${\overline{\rho}}$ is nontrivial but unramified, the discussion of the previous paragraph applies
but one must also consider lifts of type (4). It suffices to check that these produce the same
extension of $1_G$ by $\operatorname{St}$ as the lifts of type (2); that is, that when
$\sigma$ is the class attached to an unramified nonsplit extension of $1_{G_F}$ by $1_{G_F}$,
then $\phi(\sigma)$ corresponds to the extension of $1_T$ by $1_T$ on which the action of $T$
factors through $T \rightarrow T/Z \cong F^{\times} \rightarrow {\mathbb Z}$. This is a straightforward
calculation.
\end{proof}
|
\section{#1}}
\def\begin{eqnarray}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\def\end{eqnarray}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\nonumber}{\nonumber}
\newcommand\para{\paragraph{}}
\newcommand{\ft}[2]{{\rmstyle\frac{#1}{#2}}}
\newcommand{\eqn}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\pl}[1]{\frac{\partial L}{\partial{#1}}}
\newcommand{\ppp}[2]{\frac{\partial {#1}}{\partial {#2}}}
\newcommand{\ph}[1]{\frac{\partial H}{\partial{#1}}}
\newcommand\balpha{\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}
\newcommand\bbeta{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}
\newcommand\bgamma{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}
\newcommand\bomega{\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}}
\newcommand\blambda{\mbox{\boldmath $\lambda$}}
\newcommand\bmu{\mbox{\boldmath $\mu$}}
\newcommand\bphi{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}
\newcommand\bzeta{\mbox{\boldmath $\zeta$}}
\newcommand\bsigma{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}
\newcommand\bepsilon{\mbox{\boldmath $\epsilon$}}
\newcommand\btau{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}
\newcommand\beeta{\mbox{\boldmath $\eta$}}
\newcommand\btheta{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}
\newcommand\valpha{\vec{\alpha}}
\newcommand\vg{\vec{g}}
\def\,\,{\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-12mu D}{\,\,{\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-12mu D}}
\def\,\,{\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-12mu {\bar D}}{\,\,{\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-12mu {\bar D}}}
\def\,\,{\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-9mu \partial}{\,\,{\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-9mu \partial}}
\def\,\,{\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-9mu {\bar\partial}}{\,\,{\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-9mu {\bar\partial}}}
\def\,\,{\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-9mu p}{\,\,{\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-9mu p}}
\def\,\,{\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-12mu {\cal D}}{\,\,{\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-12mu {\cal D}}}
\newcommand\Bprime{B${}^\prime$}
\newcommand{{\rm sign}}{{\rm sign}}
\newcommand{{\cal D}}{{\cal D}}
\newcommand\bx{{\bf x}}
\newcommand\br{{\bf r}}
\newcommand\bF{{\bf F}}
\newcommand\bp{{\bf p}}
\newcommand\bL{{\bf L}}
\newcommand\bR{{\bf R}}
\newcommand\bP{{\bf P}}
\newcommand\bE{{\bf E}}
\newcommand\bB{{\bf B}}
\newcommand\bA{{\bf A}}
\newcommand\bee{{\bf e}}
\newcommand\bte{\tilde{\bf e}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb N}}{{\mathbb N}}
\newcommand{{\bf Z}}{{\bf Z}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb Z}}{{\mathbb Z}}
\newcommand{{\bf Q}}{{\bf Q}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb Q}}{{\mathbb Q}}
\newcommand{{\bf R}}{{\bf R}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb R}}{{\mathbb R}}
\newcommand{{\bf C}}{{\bf C}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb C}}{{\mathbb C}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb P}}{{\mathbb P}}
\newcommand{\,{\rm e}}{\,{\rm e}}
\newcommand{{\bf CP}}{{\bf CP}}
\newcommand{\langle}{\langle}
\newcommand{\rangle}{\rangle}
\newcommand{{\rm Tr}}{{\rm Tr}}
\newcommand{{\cal N}}{{\cal N}}
\newcommand{AdS${}_4$\ }{AdS${}_4$\ }
\def\Rightarrow{\Rightarrow}
\def\longrightarrow{\longrightarrow}
\def\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow}
\def\ridiculousrightarrow{\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\relbar%
\joinrel\rightarrow}
\def\underarrow#1{\mathrel{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{#1}}}
\def\onnearrow#1{\mathrel{\mathop{\nearrow}\limits^{#1}}}
\def\undernearrow#1{\mathrel{\mathop{\nearrow}\limits_{#1}}}
\def\onarrow#1{\mathrel{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits^{#1}}}
\def\onArrow#1{\mathrel{\mathop{\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow}\limits^{#1}}}
\def\OnArrow#1{\mathrel{\mathop{\ridiculousrightarrow}\limits^{#1}}}
\def\mathrel{\mathop{\smash{\lower .5 ex \hbox{$\stackrel>\sim$}}}}{\mathrel{\mathop{\smash{\lower .5 ex \hbox{$\stackrel<\sim$}}}}}
\def\mathrel{\mathop{\smash{\lower .5 ex \hbox{$\stackrel>\sim$}}}}{\mathrel{\mathop{\smash{\lower .5 ex \hbox{$\stackrel>\sim$}}}}}
\def\stackrel?={\stackrel?=}
\def\thesection.\arabic{equation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\title{Fluctuation and Dissipation at a Quantum Critical Point}
\author{David Tong and Kenny Wong \\
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, UK \\
{\tt d.tong, <EMAIL>}
}
\abstract{In non-relativistic field theories, quantum fluctuations give rise to dissipative behaviour even at zero temperature. Here we use holographic methods to explore the
dissipative dynamics of massive particles coupled to quantum critical theories. We present analytic expressions for
correlation functions and response functions. The behaviour changes qualitatively as the dynamical exponent passes through $z=2$. In particular,
for $z>2$, the long time dynamics of the particle is independent of its inertial mass.}
\begin{document}
\pagestyle{plain} \setcounter{page}{1}
\newcounter{bean}
\baselineskip16pt
\section{Introduction}
At a {\it quantum critical point}, physics is invariant under the dynamical scaling symmetry
\begin{eqnarray} \vec{x}\rightarrow \lambda \vec{x} \ \ \ \ ,\ \ \ \ t\rightarrow \lambda^z t\label{scaling}\end{eqnarray}
$z$ is called the {\it dynamical exponent}. Such theories have been studied in great detail, starting with \cite{hertz,millis}. For $z=1$, the theory is typically Lorentz invariant, with the scaling symmetry promoted to the full conformal group. Theories with $z\neq 1$ arise naturally in a number of condensed matter contexts.
\para
A gravity dual for non-relativistic critical points was first proposed in \cite{shamit}. The $(d+1)$-dimensional background metric is known as the {\it Lifshitz geometry} and takes the simple form
\begin{eqnarray} ds^2 = -r^{2z}dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{r^2} +r^2d\vec{x}^2\label{metric}\end{eqnarray}
where we have set the curvature of spacetime to unity.
Several physical phenomena have been studied in this background, including mechanisms for linear DC conductivity and power-law AC conductivity \cite{strange} and fermions at finite density \cite{umut,liffermi,umut2}\footnote{Intriguingly, the Lifshitz geometry appears to exhibit Ouroborosian stability properties, with divergent tidal forces in the far infra-red leading to a stringy instability \cite{way} which is sometimes resolved \cite{eva} and sometimes not, the latter case resulting in a background $AdS_2\times {\bf R}^2$ geometry \cite{sarah} which can itself be unstable to form a Lifshitz geometry \cite{strange} which has divergent tidal forces in the far infra-red leading to...}.
\para
Despite enjoying both energy and momentum conservation, when $z\neq 1$ certain processes exhibit a form of dissipation, even at zero temperature. This is seen most clearly in the ballistic motion of objects --- whether lumps of energy created from the fields or massive probe particles --- both of which slow down, seemingly experiencing a friction force. There is no mystery here. Indeed, for relativistic $z=1$ theories the constant speed of the centre of mass is not due to momentum conservation but instead can be traced to invariance under boosts. For $z\neq 1$, energy and momentum are conserved but drain into the soft infra-red modes of the theory. The higher the value of $z$, the greater the number of these modes\footnote{This can be seen, for example, in the single particle density of states. A particle with dispersion relation $E \sim k^z$ in $d-1$ spatial dimensions has density of states $\rho(E)\sim E^{-1+(d-1)/z}$.} and the greater the friction.
\para
Moreover, for such ``dissipative" processes, there is sometimes a qualitative difference between theories with $z<2$ and theories with $z>2$. Perhaps the simplest example is the following: take a massive particle in the metric \eqn{metric} and throw it in a direction $x$ parallel to the boundary. Of course, the particle will follow a timelike geodesic, falling into the infra-red, $r\rightarrow 0$, of the geometry. The question we would like to ask is: how far does the particle travel in the $x$ direction? This is a simple exercise. One finds that for $z\leq 2$, the particle reaches $x\rightarrow \infty$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$. But for $z>2$, the particle only travels a finite distance.
\para
From the perspective of the boundary theory, this experiment corresponds to constructing a lump of energy and giving it a kick. As the bulk particle falls towards $r\rightarrow 0$, the lump disperses, while the motion in the $x$ direction tracks the centre of mass of the lump. For any $z> 1$, the lump slows down. But for $z>2$ the centre of mass never gets further than some finite distance\footnote{Although this statement holds true for any theory with a gravity dual, it does not appear to be a generic feature of quantum critical points. The counter-example is simply the non-relativistic Schr\"odinger equation, viewed as a classical field theory with $z=2$. The centre of mass travels with constant velocity.}.
\para
A zero temperature friction force also occurs for massive probe particles. In the context of string theory embeddings, these massive particles are modelled by strings attached to D-branes which sit at some fixed radial position in the background. The dynamics of such strings were first explored in AdS black hole backgrounds as a model of quarks ploughing through the quark-gluon plasma \cite{seattle}. In Lifshitz spacetimes, analogous string dragging calculations reveal the existence of a friction force at zero temperature \cite{strange,kiritsis,mohsen,kazem}. Furthermore, in the regime of linear response, there is again a difference between theories with $z<2$ and $z>2$. This manifests itself, for example, in the AC conductivity due to massive charge carriers
which becomes non-analytic for $z>2$ \cite{strange}. (We will review the calculation behind this in Section \ref{dissec}).
\para
There is a simple dimensional argument for the crossover in behaviour that occurs for $z=2$ \cite{strange}. The kinetic term for a particle with inertial mass $m$ is
\begin{eqnarray} S = \frac{1}{2} \int dt\ m\, \dot{\vec{X}}\cdot\dot{\vec{X}}
\label{kinetic}\end{eqnarray}
The dimensions are inherited from the ambient critical fields, with scaling \eqn{scaling}. This means $[X]=-1$ and $[t]=-z$. The mass then has dimension $[m]=2-z$ and the kinetic term on the worldline of the particle is irrelevant for $z>2$. The result is that the inertial mass, $m$, should play no role in the long-time dynamics of the particle when $z>2$.
\para
The purpose of this short note is to elaborate on this $z=2$ crossover. Our main result, presented in the next section, is an analytic formula for the correlation function $\langle X(t) X(0)\rangle$ for a massive particle coupled to a quantum critical point. We will find that the long time behaviour is indeed independent of the inertial mass when $z>2$. In Section 3, we revisit the calculation of the response function for the particle presented in \cite{strange}. We confirm the zero temperature fluctuation-dissipation theorem computed through the bulk variables. We further describe the diffusion of the particle at finite temperature.
\section{Fluctuation}
Throughout this paper we model massive particles in the Lifshitz background as strings\footnote{Lifshitz geometries in supergravity and, importantly, type II string theories have been constructed, starting with \cite{strange,balas,jerome,ruth,varela}. The Lifshitz geometry also appeared in a different context in \cite{koroteev} and discussed in \cite{singh}.}, suspended from a D-brane that fills the spacetime hypersurface at radial coordinate $r = r_b$. The string hangs from this D-brane, and extends down into the IR $r\rightarrow 0$ of the geometry \eqn{metric}. While the endpoint of the string on the D-brane represents the position of the point particle, the string itself is to be interpreted as the strongly-coupled critical fields sourced by the particle.
\para
In static gauge, the dynamics of the string are governed by the Nambu-Goto action
\begin{eqnarray}
S = -\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha '} \int_0^{r_b} dr dt\ r^{z-1} \sqrt{1+ r^4 \vec{x}^{\,\prime}\cdot \vec{x}^{\,\prime} - \frac{1}{r^{2z-2}}\dot{\vec{x}}\cdot \dot{\vec{x}} }
\label{ng}\end{eqnarray}
with Neumann boundary conditions imposed at the D-brane
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{x}^{\,\prime}(r_b) = 0\label{neumann}\end{eqnarray}
The classical ground state of the string is simply the trivial solution $\vec{x}={\rm constant}$. The energy of this straight string is
\begin{eqnarray}
E = \frac{ 1}{2\pi \alpha'}\frac{r_b^z}{z}
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
$E$ is the energy cost to create the string. For $z\neq 1$, this is not the same thing as the inertial mass $m$ in \eqn{kinetic}. Indeed, on dimensional grounds $[E]=z$ and $[m]=2-z$ so we expect
\begin{eqnarray} m \sim E^{(2-z)/z}\label{eism}\end{eqnarray}
In Section \ref{dissec}, we will compute the response function and make this relation more precise.
\para
Our goal is to understand the quantum fluctuations of the end point of the string,
\begin{eqnarray} \vec{X}(t)\equiv \vec{x}(t,r_b)\label{end}\end{eqnarray}
We do so by computing the two-point Green's function for the $x(t,r)$ fields, evaluated at $r_b$, namely $\langle X(t)X(0)\rangle$. For small fluctuations, we linearise the equations of motion about the average configuration $\vec{x}(t,r)=0$. The Nambu-Goto action reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
S \approx {\rm const} - \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha '} \int dr dt\, \left( r^{z+3} \vec{x}^{\,\prime}\cdot\vec{x}^{\,\prime} - \frac 1 {r^{z-1}} \dot{\vec{x}}\cdot\dot{\vec{x}} \right)
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
with the resulting equation of motion
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^{z+3} \frac{\partial \vec{x}}{\partial r} \right) - \frac{1}{r^{z-1}} \frac{\partial^2 \vec{x}}{\partial t^2} = 0\ .
\label{eom}\end{eqnarray}
Since the dynamics in each of the transverse dimensions decouple from one another, we will drop the vector notation and focus on just a single direction, $x$.
Because the equation of motion is linear and invariant under time translations, we can Fourier decompose the most general solution as an integral over frequencies.
\begin{eqnarray}
x(t,r) = \sqrt{\frac{\pi \alpha ' } z} \int_0^\infty d\omega\ U_\omega(r)\left[a(\omega) e^{-i\omega t} + a(\omega)^\dagger e^{i\omega t} \right]\label{sol1}\end{eqnarray}
where the modes are given by the $J$ and $Y$ Bessel functions in the combination
\begin{eqnarray}
U_\omega(r) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+C_\omega^2}}\frac{1}{r^{1+z/2}}\Big(J_{\frac 1 2 + \frac 1 z}
\left( \frac \omega {z r^z} \right) + C_\omega \, Y_{\frac 1 2 + \frac 1 z} \left( \frac \omega {z r^z} \right) \Big)
\label{mode}\end{eqnarray}
We have chosen a particular normalization of these modes which will be explained shortly. The coefficient $C_\omega$, which fixes the relative weights of the $J$ and $Y$ Bessel functions, is determined by the requirement of Neumann boundary conditions \eqn{neumann} at the D-brane. It is
\begin{eqnarray}
C_\omega = - \frac{ J_{\frac 1 z - \frac 1 2} \left( \frac \omega {z r_b^z} \right) } { Y_{\frac 1 z - \frac 1 2} \left( \frac \omega {z r_b^z} \right) }\ .
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
At this stage, we turn to the quantum theory. The momentum conjugate to $x(t,r)$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi(t,r) = \frac 1 {2\pi \alpha' } \frac{1}{r^{z-1}}\, \dot x(t,r) \ ,
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
and we impose the usual equal-time canonical commutation relations
\begin{eqnarray}
[x(t,r), \pi(t,r')] = i\delta(r-r'), \qquad [x(t,r), x(t,r')] = [\pi(t,r), \pi(t,r')] = 0.
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
The reason for the cleverly chosen normalization of \eqn{sol1} and \eqn{mode} now becomes apparent. Taking the inverse Fourier transform of \eqn{sol1}, and using various integral properties of the Bessel functions, we find that the equal time commutation relations above imply that the creation and annihilation operators are correctly normalized\footnote{In fact, there is more to this calculation than we're letting on. To do things carefully, we first impose an IR cut-off which renders the spectrum discrete, as in \cite{mukund}. This allows us to correctly normalize the modes, which then merge into a continuum as the cut-off is removed, resulting in \eqn{aacom}.},
\begin{eqnarray}
[a(\omega), a^\dagger(\omega')] = \delta (\omega - \omega'), \qquad [a(\omega), a(\omega')] = [a^\dagger (\omega), a^\dagger(\omega')] = 0.
\label{aacom}\end{eqnarray}
Finally, we define the vacuum state to be
\begin{eqnarray}
a(\omega) \vert 0 \rangle = 0\ \ \ \ \forall\ \omega
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
This is the vacuum appropriate for observers that are stationary with respect to the coordinates in \eqn{metric}.
\para
We now have everything in place to compute the two-point function of the end point of the string \eqn{end}. Substituting $r=r_b$ into the mode expansion \eqn{sol1} and engaging in some appropriate Besselology, we find
\begin{eqnarray} \langle X(t)X(0)\rangle = \int_0^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\ e^{-i\omega t}\, \langle X(\omega) X(0)\rangle\label{cor1}\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray} \langle X(\omega) X(0)\rangle = 8\alpha ' z \, \frac{r_b^{z-2}}{\omega^2} \left[J_{\frac 1 z - \frac 1 2}^2 \left( \frac{\omega}{z r^z_b} \right) + Y_{\frac 1 z - \frac 1 2}^2 \left( \frac{\omega}{z r_b^z} \right)\right]^{-1}
\label{result}\end{eqnarray}
It is instructive to look at the behaviour of the correlation function at low frequencies, for here we first see the crossover in behaviour at $z=2$ that we described in the introduction. From the standard series expansions for the Bessel functions, we have that for $\omega \ll r_b^z$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle X(\omega) X(0)\rangle\sim \left\{\
\begin{array}{cc} E^{2-\frac 4 z} \omega^{\frac 2 z - 3} & \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 < z< 2, \\
\omega^{-1-\frac 2 z} & \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ z > 2 \end{array}\right.
\label{lowf}\end{eqnarray}
Constant factors in these expressions have been suppressed for clarity. As advertised, the energy $E$ of the particle and, by \eqn{eism}, the inertial mass $m$, does not enter into the low frequency correlation for $z>2$.
\para
In the special case of $z = 1$ (pure AdS), the Fourier integral \eqn{cor1} can be evaluated exactly to give
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle X(t) X(0)\rangle = -\frac 1 {4 \pi^2 \alpha 'E^2} (\log \vert t \vert + \gamma_E )
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
For other values of $z$, no analytic expression for the inverse Fourier integral can be found. However, it is possible to obtain some estimate of the behaviour of the integrals at large times by assuming that the dominant contributions to the integrals come from the low frequency part of the integration range \eqn{lowf}. Using these expressions, we find the long time behaviour
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle X(t) X(0)\rangle\sim \left\{\
\begin{array}{cc} E^{2-\frac 4 z} \vert t \vert^{2 - \frac 2 z} & \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 < z< 2, \\
\vert t \vert ^{\frac 2 z} & \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ z > 2 \end{array}\right.
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
A marked transition occurs at $z = 2$. Here the two-point function grows linearly with $t$, which is its maximum rate of growth. The minimum growth occurs for $z=1$ and $z\rightarrow \infty$, both of which exhibit logarithmic behaviour. Moreover, for $z>2$, the long-time correlation of the particles has the peculiar behaviour of being independent of how heavy the particle is.
\section{Dissipation}\label{dissec}
We now turn to discuss the dissipation of momentum as the particle moves through the quantum critical bath. We will continue to work at zero temperature. However, at the end of this section we will briefly discuss the thermal contributions to the diffusion of the particle.
\para
We start by computing the linear response of the particle to an external force $\vec{F}(\omega)$,
\begin{eqnarray} \langle \vec{X}(\omega)\rangle = \chi(\omega) \vec{F}(\omega)\label{response}\end{eqnarray}
The essence of this calculation can be found in \cite{strange} (see also \cite{mukund}). A force $\vec{F}(\omega)=\vec{E}e^{-i\omega t}$ is added to the endpoint of the string by the application of an oscillating electric field $E$ on the D-brane. The string action receives an additional boundary term from the associated gauge field $A_\mu$,
\begin{eqnarray}
S = \left.\int dt \ A_t + \vec{A}\cdot\dot{\vec{x}}\ \right|_{r=r_b}
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
Varying this action results in a new contribution to the boundary condition for the string endpoint. The Neumann boundary condition \eqn{neumann} is now replaced by
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{x}^{\,\prime}(r_b) = \frac{2\pi\alpha'}{r_b^{z+3}} \,\vec{F}.
\label{force}\end{eqnarray}
As in the previous section, we look for solutions to the equation of motion \eqn{eom}. We again restrict to motion in just a single direction, parallel to $\vec{F}$, now with $x(t,r) = x(r) e^{-i\omega t}$. Solutions are again constructed of Bessel functions, but this time our boundary conditions differ, both on the D-brane and, crucially, in the infra-red. Let us start with the infra-red. Here we impose ingoing boundary conditions, appropriate to the computation of the retarded Green's function $\chi(\omega)$. These select the first Hankel function, $H^{(1)}=J+iY$, over the second,
\begin{eqnarray} x(t,r) = \frac{1}{r^{1+z/2}}\,H^{(1)}_{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{z}}\left(\frac{\omega}{zr^z}\right)e^{-i\omega t}\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
This solution is supported by a force $F(\omega)$ which can be computed using \eqn{force}. It is
\begin{eqnarray} F(\omega) = \frac{1}{2\pi\alpha'}\,\omega r_b^{1-z/2}\,H^{(1)}_{\frac{1}{z}-\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{\omega}{zr_b^z}\right)\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
Using \eqn{response}, we then have the response function
\begin{eqnarray} \chi(\omega) = \frac{2\pi\alpha'}{\omega r_b^2}\,\frac{H^{(1)}_{\frac{1}{z}+\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{\omega}{zr_b^z}\right)}{H^{(1)}_{\frac{1}{z}-\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{\omega}{zr_b^z}\right)}\label{responsible}\end{eqnarray}
It is again instructive to look at the low-frequency expansion of the response function. For $\omega \ll r_b^z$, the expansion takes the form
\begin{eqnarray} \chi(\omega) \sim \frac{1}{m(i\omega)^2 + \gamma(-i\omega)^{1+2/z}+\ldots}\label{understand}\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray} m = \frac{1}{(2-z)}\frac{1}{r_b^{z-2}}\ \ \ ,\ \ \ \gamma = \frac{1}{(2z)^{2/z}}\frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{z}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{z}\right)}\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
The form of the response function \eqn{understand} has a very natural interpretation. $m$ is identified with the inertial mass \eqn{kinetic}. As we anticipated earlier, we see that it is indeed related to the energy as \eqn{eism}. However, perhaps more surprising, it changes sign at $z=2$.
\para
The second term in the denominator of \eqn{understand} is the self-energy of the particle. For $z>2$, the self-energy dominates over the inertial mass at low frequencies. This is the manifestation of the simple dimensional analysis argument given in the introduction. It is responsible for the non-analytic power-law behaviour in optical conductivity observed in \cite{strange}. Note that $\gamma$ also changes sign at $z=2$, and it does so in such a way that the ratio $\gamma/m$ is continuous at $z=2$ and the response function suffers no pathologies.
\subsubsection*{The Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem}
The fluctuation-dissipation theorem relates the correlation function \eqn{result} to the imaginary, dissipative part of the response function
\begin{eqnarray} \langle X(\omega) X(0)\rangle = 2\left[ n_B(\omega)+1\right]\,{\rm Im}\,\chi(\omega)\label{flucdis}\end{eqnarray}
where $n_B(\omega) = (e^{\beta \omega}-1)^{-1}$ is the Bose-Einstein distribution and captures the dissipation due to thermal noise. The ``$+1$" in \eqn{flucdis} is the contribution due to quantum noise and in the zero temperature limit, $\beta\rightarrow\infty$, is all that survives.
\para
Of course, it is straightforward to prove the fluctuation-dissipation theorem \eqn{flucdis} in quantum mechanics through spectral decomposition. Our purpose here is to verify this result from the bulk perspective. This has been previously studied in the AdS black hole background in \cite{mukund,son,teaney} where the black hole horizon and the associated finite temperature play a key role in the connection. There has also been related work on understanding current noise in the holographic context \cite{julian}. Here we verify that the result also holds for quantum dissipation at zero temperature in Lifshitz backgrounds.
\para
Indeed, the result is straightforward. Using a standard Bessel function identity, the imaginary part of the full response function \eqn{responsible} is
\begin{eqnarray} {\rm Im}\,\chi(\omega) = \frac{4\alpha ' z r_b^{z-2}}{\omega^2}\,\frac{1}{J^2_{\frac{1}{z}-\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{\omega}{zr_b^z}\right)+Y^2_{\frac{1}{z}-\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{\omega}{zr_b^z}\right)}\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
As expected, this is proportional to the correlation function $\langle X(\omega) X(0)\rangle$ given in \eqn{result}. We have
\begin{eqnarray} {\rm Im} \,\chi(\omega) = \frac{1}{2}\langle X(\omega) X(0)\rangle, \nonumber\end{eqnarray}
confirming the zero temperature fluctuation-dissipation theorem for strings propagating in a Lifshitz background.
\subsection*{Thermal Diffusion}
For completeness, we finish with a discussion of dissipation at finite temperature. In the present context, this means looking at the string correlation functions in the background of a Lifshitz black hole. There is now a rather extensive literature on constructing black holes in Lifshitz spacetimes. Many of these constructions are numerical, starting with \cite{lars}, while analytic solutions often involve a running dilaton breaking the scale invariance. (See, for example, \cite{stefan}).
\para
Here we give these difficulties short shrift. Following \cite{strange}, we simply work in a fixed background, paying no heed to the equations of motion that it solves. The $(d+1)$-dimensional metric we choose is
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2 = -r^{2z} f(r) dt^2 + \frac{dr^2}{f(r) r^2} + r^2 d\vec{x}\cdot d\vec{x}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The precise form of $f(r)$ will not concern us. We require only that $f(r)=0$ has a single zero at the position of the horizon: $f(r)\sim (r-r_h)$ for $r\approx r_h$. The temperature of the boundary theory is the same as the Hawking temperature of the black hole,
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta = \frac {4\pi} {(z+d-1)}\frac{1}{r_h^z}.
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
A massive particle in the hot Lifshitz bath is once again modelled by a string suspended from a D-brane placed at $r=r_b$. Our goal is to understand the thermal fluctuations of the endpoint of the string as it undergoes Brownian motion. This is a rather straightforward generalisation of the results in \cite{mukund,son,teaney} for asymptotically AdS black holes. Over long time scales, the endpoint is expected to wander diffusively, with the characteristic expectation value, now taken in the canonical ensemble, given by
\begin{eqnarray} \langle\, :\!(X(t)-X(0))^2\!:\,\rangle = 2(d-1) D t\label{thermalc}\end{eqnarray}
Here the $:$'s denote normal ordering. They remove the UV-divergent quantum fluctuations, leaving just the finite fluctuations due to the thermal bath. Our interest here is in computing the temperature dependence of the diffusion constant $D$.
\para
Rather than compute the correlation function \eqn{thermalc} directly, we will instead invoke the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, now in the form of the Einstein relation. The diffusion constant can be related to the response function $\chi(\omega)$ defined in \eqn{response} by
\begin{eqnarray}
D = \frac {1} {\beta} \lim_{\omega \to 0}\left(-i\omega \chi(\omega)\right).
\label{einstein}\end{eqnarray}
Our goal, therefore, is once again to compute $\chi(\omega)$, now at finite temperature. The steps are exactly the same as the calculation that we just performed at zero temperature, but with one exception: we can't find exact solutions to the equations. The linearized equation of motion for the string in the black hole background is now
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d }{dr}\left(r^{z+3} f(r) \frac{dx}{dr}\right)+\frac{\omega^2 }{r^{z-1}f(r)}x = 0.
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
subject to the boundary condition \eqn{force} on the D-brane.
In terms of the tortoise radial coordinate $r^\star = \int dr f(r)^{-1} r^{-z-1}$, the equation of motion takes a Schrodinger-like form
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \frac{d^2}{dr^{\star 2}} + \omega^2 - V(r) \right) (r x(r)) = 0,
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
where the effective potential is
\begin{eqnarray}
V(r) = r^{2z} f(r) \left( (z+1) f(r) + rf'(r)\right)
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
Although we are unable to solve these equations analytically, all that we require to determine the diffusion constant is the low frequency behaviour of the response function $\chi(\omega)$. Following \cite{mukund}, we calculate it by a patching procedure, splitting the spacetime into three regions:
\begin{itemize}
\item Region A: $r\sim r_h$, $V \ll \omega^2$
\item Region B: $r\sim r_h$, $V \gg \omega^2 $
\item Region C: $r \gg r_h$
\end{itemize}
In region A, we can drop the potential $V(r)$ from the equation of motion. We choose the causal, ingoing solution with $x_A = a e^{-i\omega r^\star}$ asymptotics. This is
\begin{eqnarray}
x_A(r) = a \left( 1 - \frac{i\omega}{(d+z-1) r_h^z} \log \left( \frac r {r_h} - 1 \right) + O(\omega^2) \right)
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
In region C, the emblackening factor $f(r)$ is approximately unity, so the solution is the same superposition of Bessel functions \eqn{mode} that we found in the Lifshitz geometry at zero temperature. We are interested in the small $\omega$ behaviour of the solution, so we focus on the leading terms in its series expansion.
\begin{eqnarray}
x_C = c_1 \left( 1 +O(\omega^2) \right) + c_2 \left( \frac \omega {2z r^z} \right)^{1+ \frac 2 z} \left( 1 + O(\omega^2)\right)
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
Finally, in region B, we drop the $\omega$ term from the equation of motion. The solution is
\begin{eqnarray}
x_B = b_1\left( 1 +O(\omega^2) \right) - b_2 r_h^{z+2} \int_r^\infty \frac{dr'}{{r'}^{z+3} f(r')}\left( 1 +O(\omega^2) \right).
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
At the UV end of region B, $r \gg r_h$, we have $f(r)\approx 1$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
x_B \approx b_1 \left( 1 +O(\omega^2) \right) - \frac{b_2 r_h^{z+2}}{(z+2) r^{z+2}} \left( 1 +O(\omega^2) \right),
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
From this, we deduce that the solutions in regions B and C are consistent if
\begin{eqnarray}
b_1 = c_1, \qquad
b_2 = - c_2 \frac{(z+2)}{r_h^{z+2}} \left( \frac \omega {2z} \right)^{1 + \frac 2 z}
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
At the IR end of region B, $r \sim r_h$, we need only use the fact that $f(r)$ has a single zero to find
\begin{eqnarray}
x_B \approx b_1 + b_2 \left( \frac{1}{d+z-1} \log \left( \frac{r}{r_h} - 1\right) + k \right).
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
where $k$ is a constant of integration. Patching solutions in regions A and B requires
\begin{eqnarray}
b_1 + b_2 k = a, \qquad
b_2 = - \frac{i \omega a}{r_h^z}.
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
Combining all of these results, we find that at lowest order in $\omega$,
\begin{eqnarray}
x_C(r_b) = a(1+O(\omega)), \qquad {x}^\prime_C(r_b) = \frac{i\omega r_h^2 a}{r_b^{z+3}}\,(1+O(\omega)).
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
Thus we arrive at an expression for the response function at low frequencies
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi(\omega)\approx \frac { 2\pi i \alpha '}{ r_h^2}\omega.
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
Using the Einstein relation \eqn{einstein}, we learn what we set out to find: the dependence of the diffusion constant on the temperature is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
D \sim \beta^{\frac 2 z -1}.
\label{thisisd}\end{eqnarray}
Having struggled with us through our patching pain, the reader will be delighted to learn that this result can also be derived by some simple dimensional analysis. (A similar argument is given in \cite{mukund}). If we assume that the mean free path of the particle depends only on the temperature, then $L_{\rm mfp}\sim T^{-1/z}$. Meanwhile, if the relaxation time similarly depends only on temperature then $\tau \sim 1/T$. In time $t$, the particle undergoes $N\sim t/\tau$ collisions and, assuming a diffusive mode of transport, travels a distance $\Delta X=\sqrt{N}L_{\rm mfp}$. The upshot is
\begin{eqnarray} \Delta X^2 \sim \frac{L^2_{\rm mfp}}{\tau}\,t \sim Dt. \nonumber\end{eqnarray}
This reproduces \eqn{thisisd}.
\para
In line with the general theme of this note, we find that there is again a difference as we cross $z=2$. For $z<2$, the rate of diffusion decreases with temperature. For $z>2$, we have the more usual situation where the rate increases with temperature. However, given the dimensional analysis argument above, this crossover does not seem to be related to the irrelevance of the inertial mass which occurs at zero temperature.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Mike Blake, David Khmelnitskii, Mukund Rangamani, Julian Sonner and Andrei Starinets for useful discussions. We are supported by STFC and by the ERC STG grant 279943, ``Strongly Coupled Systems".
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Intro}
\noindent Extrapolations to the distant futurity of trends in the
growth of high-performance computing (HPC) have led philosophers to
question ---in a logically compelling way--- whether the universe that
we currently inhabit is a numerical simulation performed by our
distant descendants~\cite{Bostrom2003}. With the current developments
in HPC and in algorithms it is now possible to simulate Quantum
Chromodynamics (QCD), the fundamental force in nature that gives rise
to the strong nuclear force among protons and neutrons, and to nuclei
and their interactions. These simulations are currently performed in
femto-sized universes where the space-time continuum is replaced by a
lattice, whose spatial and temporal sizes are of the order of several
femto-meters or fermis ($1~{\rm fm}=10^{-15}~{\rm m}$), and whose
lattice spacings (discretization or pixelation) are fractions of
fermis~\footnote{Surprisingly,
while QCD and the electromagnetic force are currently being
calculated on the lattice, the difficulties in simulating the weak
nuclear force and gravity on a lattice have so far proved
insurmountable.}. This endeavor, generically referred to as lattice
gauge theory, or more specifically lattice QCD, is currently leading
to new insights into the nature of matter~\footnote{ See Refs.~\protect\cite{Kronfeld:2012ym,Fodor:2012gf} for
recent reviews of the progress in using lattice gauge theory to
calculate the properties of matter. }. Within the next decade,
with the anticipated deployment of exascale computing resources, it is
expected that the nuclear forces will be determined from QCD, refining
and extending their current determinations from experiment, enabling
predictions for processes in extreme environments, or of exotic forms
of matter, not accessible to laboratory experiments. Given the
significant resources invested in determining the quantum fluctuations
of the fundamental fields which permeate our universe, and in
calculating nuclei from first principles (for recent works, see
Refs.~\cite{Beane:2012vq,Yamazaki:2012hi,Aoki:2012tk}), it stands to
reason that future simulation efforts will continue to extend to
ever-smaller pixelations and ever-larger volumes of space-time, from
the femto-scale to the atomic scale, and ultimately to macroscopic
scales. If there are sufficient HPC resources available, then future
scientists will likely make the effort to perform complete simulations
of molecules, cells, humans and even beyond. Therefore, there is a
sense in which lattice QCD may be viewed as the nascent science of
universe simulation, and, as will be argued in the next paragraph,
very basic extrapolation of current lattice QCD resource trends into
the future suggest that experimental searches for evidence that our
universe is, in fact, a simulation are both interesting and logical.
There is an extensive literature which explores various aspects of our
universe as a simulation, from philosophical
discussions~\cite{Bostrom2003}, to considerations of the limits of
computation within our own universe~\cite{Lloyd:1999}, to the
inclusion of gravity and the standard model of particle physics into a
quantum computation~\cite{Lloyd:2005js}, and to the notion of our
universe as a cellular
automaton~\cite{Zuse1969rr,Fredkin:1990,wolfram02,'tHooft:2012uy}. There have
also been extensive connections made between fundamental aspects of
computation and physics, for example, the translation of the
Church-Turing principle~\cite{Church:1936,Turing:1936} into the
language of physicists by Deutsch~\cite{Deutsch:1985}. Finally, the
observational consequences due to limitations in accuracy or flaws in
a simulation have been considered~\cite{Barrow:2008}. In this work,
we take a pedestrian approach to the possibility that our universe is
a simulation, by assuming that a classical computer (i.e. the
classical limit of a quantum computer) is used to simulate the quantum
universe (and its classical limit), as is done today on a very small
scale, and ask if there are any signatures of this scenario that might
be experimentally detectable. Further, we do not consider the
implications of, and constraints upon, the underlying information, and
its movement, that are required to perform such extensive simulations.
It is the case that the method of simulation, the algorithms, and the
hardware that are used in future simulations are unknown, but it is
conceivable that some of the ingredients used in present day
simulations of quantum fields remain in use, or are used in other
universes, and so we focus on one aspect only: the possibility that
the simulations of the future employ an underlying cubic lattice
structure.
In contrast with Moore's law, which is a statement about the
exponential growth of raw computing power in time, it is interesting
to consider the historical growth of measures of the computational
resource requirements (CRRs) of lattice QCD calculations, and
extrapolations of this trend to the future. In order to do so, we
consider two lattice generation programs: the MILC asqtad
program~\cite{MILC}, which over a twelve year span generated ensembles
of lattice QCD gauge configurations, using the
Kogut-Susskind~\cite{Kogut:1974ag} (staggered) discretization of the
quark fields, with lattice spacings, $b$, ranging from $0.18$ to
$0.045~$fm, and lattice sizes (spatial extents), $L$, ranging from
$2.5$ to $5.8~$fm, and the on-going anisotropic program carried out by
the SPECTRUM collaboration~\cite{SPECTRUM}, using the
clover-Wilson~\cite{Wilson:1974sk,Sheikholeslami} discretization of
the quark fields, which has generated lattice ensembles at $b\sim
0.1~$fm, with $L$ ranging from $2.4$ to $4.9~$fm~\cite{Lin:2008pr}.
At fixed quark masses, the CRR of a lattice ensemble generation (in
units of petaFLOP-years) scales roughly as the dimensionless number
$\lambda_{QCD}L^5/b^6$, where $\lambda_{QCD}\equiv 1~$fm is a typical
QCD distance scale. In fig.~\ref{fig:MILCextrap} (left panel), the
CRRs are presented on a logarithmic scale, where year one corresponds
to 1999, when MILC initiated its asqtad program of $2+1$-flavor
ensemble generation. The bands are linear fits to the data. While the
CRR curves in some sense track Moore's law, they are more than a
statement about increasing FLOPS.
Since lattice QCD simulations include the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum and the effects of the strong
nuclear force, the CRR curve is a statement about simulating universes
with realistic fundamental forces. The extrapolations of the CRR
trends into the future are shown in the right panel of
fig.~\ref{fig:MILCextrap}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.40]{Past.pdf} \ \ \ \ \includegraphics[scale=0.41]{Future.pdf}
\caption{Left panel: linear fit to the logarithm of the CRRs of
MILC asqtad and the SPECTRUM anisotropic lattice ensemble generations.
Right panel:
extrapolation of the fit curves into the future, as discussed in
the text.
The blue (red) horizontal line corresponds to lattice sizes of one micron (meter),
and vertical bands show the corresponding extrapolated years beyond 1999 for
the lattice generation programs.
}
\label{fig:MILCextrap}
\end{figure}
The blue (red) horizontal line corresponds to a lattice of the size of a
micro-meter (meter), a typical length scale of a cell (human), and at a
lattice spacing of $0.1~$fm. There are, of course, many caveats to
this extrapolation. Foremost among them is the assumption that an
effective Moore's Law will continue into the future, which requires
technological and algorithmic developments to continue as they have
for the past 40 years. Related to this is the possible existence of
the technological singularity~\cite{Vinge,Kurzweil:2006}, which could
alter the curve in unpredictable ways. And, of course, human
extinction would terminate the exponential growth~\cite{Bostrom2003}.
However, barring such discontinuities in the curve, these estimates
are likely to be conservative as they correspond to full simulations
with the fundamental forces of nature. With finite resources at their
disposal, our descendants will likely make use of effective theory
methods, as is done today, to simulate every-increasing complexity,
by, for instance, using meshes that adapt to the relevant physical
length scales, or by using fluid dynamics to determine the behavior of
fluids, which are constrained to rigorously reproduce the fundamental
laws of nature. Nevertheless, one should keep in mind that the
CRR curve is based on lattice QCD ensemble generation and therefore
is indicative of the ability to simulate the quantum fluctuations
associated with the fundamental forces of nature at a given lattice
spacing and size. The cost to perform the measurements
that would have to be done in the background of these fluctuations in
order to simulate ---for instance--- a cell could, in principle,
lie on a significantly steeper curve.
We should comment on the simulation scenario in the context of ongoing
attempts to discover the theoretical structure that underlies the
Standard Model of particle physics, and the expectation of the
unification of the forces of nature at very short distances. There has
not been much interest in the notion of an underlying lattice
structure of space-time for several reasons. Primary among them is
that in Minkowski space, a non-vanishing spatial lattice spacing
generically breaks space-time symmetries in such a way that there are
dimension-four Lorentz breaking operators in the Standard Model,
requiring a large number of fine-tunings to restore Lorentz invariance
to experimentally verified levels~\cite{Coleman:1998ti}. The fear is
that even though Lorentz violating dimension four operators can be
tuned away at tree-level, radiative corrections will induce them back
at the quantum level as is discussed in Refs. \cite{Gagnon:2004xh,
Collins:2004bp}.
This is not an issue if one assumes the
simulation scenario for the same reason that it is not an issue when
one performs a lattice QCD calculation~\footnote{Current lattice QCD
simulations are performed in Euclidean space, where the underlying
hyper-cubic symmetry protects Lorentz invariance breaking in dimension four
operators. However, Hamiltonian lattice formulations, which are
currently too costly to be practical, are also possible.}.
The underlying space-time symmetries respected by the lattice action will necessarily
be preserved at the quantum level. In addition, the notion of a
simulated universe is sharply at odds with the reductionist prejudice
in particle physics which suggests the unification of forces with a
simple and beautiful predictive mathematical description at very short
distances. However, the discovery of the string
landscape~\cite{Kachru:2003aw,Susskind:2003kw}, and the current
inability of string theory to provide a useful predictive framework
which would post-dict the fundamental parameters of the Standard
Model, provides {\it the simulators} (future string theorists?) with a
purpose: to systematically explore the landscape of vacua through
numerical simulation. If it is indeed the case that the fundamental
equations of nature allow on the order of $10^{500}$
solutions~\cite{Douglas:2003um}, then perhaps the most profound quest
that can be undertaken by a sentient being is the exploration of the
landscape through universe simulation. In some weak sense,
this exploration is already underway with current investigations of a
class of confining beyond-the-Standard-Model (BSM) theories, where
there is only minimal experimental guidance at present (for one recent
example, see Ref.~\cite{Appelquist:2012nz}).
Finally, one may be
tempted to view lattice gauge theory as a primitive numerical tool,
and that the simulator should be expected to have more efficient ways
of simulating reality. However, one should keep in mind that the only
known way to define QCD as a consistent quantum field theory is in the
context of lattice QCD, which suggests a fundamental role for the
lattice formulation of gauge theory.
Physicists, in contrast with philosophers, are interested in
determining observable consequences of the hypothesis that we are a
simulation~\footnote{
There are a number of peculiar observations that
could be attributed to our universe being a simulation, but that
cannot be tested at present. For instance, it could be that the observed
non-vanishing value of the cosmological constant is simply a
rounding error resulting from the number zero being entered into a simulation
program with insufficient precision.}~\footnote{
Hsu and Zee~\cite{Hsu:2005nn} have suggested that the CMB provides an
opportunity for a potential creator/simulator of our universe to
communicate with the created/simulated without further intervention in the
evolution of the universe. If, in fact, it is determined that
observables in our universe are consistent with those that would
result from a numerical simulation, then the Hsu-Zee scenario becomes
a more likely possibility. Further, it would then become interesting
to consider the possibility of communicating with the simulator, or
even more interestingly, manipulating or controlling the simulation
itself.
}.
In lattice QCD, space-time is
replaced by a finite hyper-cubic grid of points over which the fields
are defined, and the (now) finite-dimensional quantum mechanical path
integral is evaluated. The grid breaks Lorentz symmetry (and hence
rotational symmetry), and its effects have been defined within the
context of a low-energy effective field theory (EFT), the Symanzik
action, when the lattice spacing is small compared with any physical
length scales in the
problem~\cite{SymanzikI,SymanzikII}~\footnote{The finite volume of the
hyper-cubic grid also breaks Lorentz symmetry.
A recent analysis of the CMB suggests that universe
has a compact topology, consistent with two compactified spatial
dimensions and with a greater than
$4\sigma$ deviation from three uncompactified spatial dimensions~\cite{Aslanyan:2011zp}.
}.
The lattice action can be modified to
systematically improve calculations of observables, by adding
irrelevant operators with coefficients that can be determined
nonperturbatively. For instance, the Wilson action can be ${\cal
O}(b)$-improved by including the
{ShakeMy} term~\cite{Sheikholeslami}. Given this low-energy
description, we would like to investigate the hypothesis that we are a
simulation with the assumption that the development of simulations of
the universe in some sense parallels the development of lattice QCD
calculations. That is, early simulations use the computationally ``cheapest''
discretizations with no improvement.
In particular, we will assume
that the simulation of our universe is done on a hyper-cubic grid~\footnote{The
concept of the universe consisting of fields defined on nodes, and interactions
propagating along the links between the nodes,
separated by distances of order the Planck length,
has been considered previously,
e.g. see Ref.~\cite{Jizba:2009qf}.}
and, as a starting point,
we will assume that {\it the simulator} is
using an unimproved Wilson action, that produces ${\cal O}(b)$
artifacts of the form of the {ShakeMy}
operator in the low-energy theory~\footnote{It has been recently pointed
out that the domain-wall formulation of lattice fermions
provides a mechanism by which the number of generations of fundamental
particles is tied to the form of the dispersion relation~\cite{Kaplan:2011vz}.
Space-time would then be a topological insulator.
}.
In section~\ref{sec:unimproved}, the simple scenario of
an unimproved Wilson action is introduced. In section~\ref{sec:RIM}, by looking at the
rotationally-invariant dimension-five operator arising from this action, the bounds on
the lattice spacing are extracted from the current experimental
determinations, and theoretical calculations, of
$g-2$ of the electron and muon,
and from the fine-structure constant, $\alpha$, determined by the Rydberg
constant. Section~\ref{sec:RSB} considers the simplest effects of
Lorentz symmetry breaking operators that first appear at ${\cal
O}(b^2)$, and modifications to the energy-momentum
relation.
Constraints on the energy-momentum relation due to cosmic
ray events are found to provide the most stringent bound on
$b$. We conclude in section~\ref{sec:conc}.
\section{Unimproved Wilson Simulation of the Universe}
\label{sec:unimproved}
\noindent
\noindent The simplest gauge invariant action of fermions which does not
contain doublers is the Wilson action,
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{(W)} & = & b^4 \sum_{x} {\cal L}^{(W)}(x)
= b^4
\left( m + {4\over b} \right)\ \sum_{x}\ \overline{\psi}(x)\psi(x)
\nonumber\\
& + &
{b^{3}\over 2} \sum_{x}\ \overline{\psi}(x)
\left[\, \left(\gamma_\mu-1\right)\ U_\mu(x)\ \psi(x+b\hat\mu)
-
\left(\gamma_\mu+1\right)\ U^\dagger_\mu(x-b\hat\mu)\ \psi(x-b\hat\mu)
\, \right],
\label{eq:wilson}
\end{eqnarray}
which describes a fermion, $\psi$, of
mass $m$ interacting with a gauge field, $A_\mu(x)$, through the gauge link,
\begin{eqnarray}
U_\mu(x)
& = &
\exp\ \left( ig\int_x^{x+b\hat\mu}\ dz A_\mu(z) \ \right),
\label{eq:link}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat\mu$ is a unit vector in the $\mu$-direction, and $g$ is the coupling constant of the theory.
Expanding the Lagrangian density, ${\cal L}^{(W)}$, in the lattice spacing (that
is small compared with the physical length scales),
and performing a field redefinition~\cite{Luscher:1984xn},
it can be shown that the Lagrangian density takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}^{(W)}
& = &
\overline{\psi}D\hskip-0.65em /\psi\ +\ \tilde m \overline{\psi}\psi\
\ +\ {\cal C}_p{g b\over 4} \overline{\psi}\sigma_{\mu\nu}G^{\mu\nu} \psi
\ +\ {\cal O}(b^2),
\label{eq:effd}
\end{eqnarray}
where $G_{\mu\nu}=-i[\,D_\mu\,,\,D_\nu\,]/g$ is the field strength
tensor and $D_{\mu}$ is the covariant derivative. $\tilde m$ is
a redefined mass which contains ${\cal O}(b)$ lattice spacing
artifacts (that can be tuned away). The coefficient of the Pauli term
$\overline{\psi}\sigma_{\mu\nu}G^{\mu\nu} \psi$ is fixed at tree
level, ${\cal C}_p=1+{\cal O}(\alpha)$, where
$\alpha = g^2/(4\pi)$. It is worth noting that as is
usual in lattice QCD calculations, the lattice action can be ${\cal
O}(b)$ improved by adding a term of the form $\delta{\cal
L}^{(W)} = C_{sw}{g b\over 4}
\overline{\psi}\sigma_{\mu\nu}G^{\mu\nu} \psi
$
to the Lagrangian with $C_{sw}=-{\cal C}_p +{\cal O}(\alpha)$. This is the
so-called {ShakeMy} term.
Of course there is no reason to assume that \textit{the simulator} had to have
performed such an
improvement in simulating the universe.
\section{Rotationally Invariant Modifications}
\label{sec:RIM}
\noindent
Lorentz symmetry is recovered in lattice calculations as the lattice
spacing vanishes when compared with the scales of the system.
It is useful to consider
contributions to observables from a non-zero lattice spacing that are
Lorentz invariant and consequently rotationally invariant,
and those that are not.
While the former type of modifications could arise from many different BSM
scenarios, the latter,
particularly modifications that
exhibit cubic symmetry, would be suggestive of a structure consistent
with an underlying discretization of space-time.
\subsubsection{QED Fine Structure Constant and the Anomalous Magnetic Moment}
\noindent
For our present purposes, we will assume that Quantum Electrodynamics
(QED) is simulated with this unimproved action,
eq. (\ref{eq:wilson}). The ${\cal O}(b)$ contribution to the
lattice action induces an additional contribution to the fermion
magnetic moments. Specifically, the Lagrange density that describes
electromagnetic interactions is given by eq. (\ref{eq:effd}), where
the interaction with an external magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$ is
described through the covariant derivative $D_\mu = \partial_\mu + i e
{\hat Q} A_\mu$ with $e>0$ and the electromagnetic charge operator
${\hat Q}$, and where the vector potential satisfies
$\nabla\times\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{B}$.
The interaction Hamiltonian density in Minkowski-space is
given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}_{int}
& = &
{e\over 2 m} \overline{\psi} A_\mu (i\overrightarrow \partial^\mu -
i\overleftarrow\partial^\mu) {\hat Q} \psi
\ +\ {{\hat Q} e\over 4 m} \overline{\psi}\sigma_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} \psi
\ +\ {\cal C}_p{{\hat Q} e b\over 4} \overline{\psi}\sigma_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} \psi
\ +\ ...
\ .
\label{eq:EMSWb}
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$
is the electromagnetic field strength tensor,
and the ellipses denote terms suppressed by additional powers of $b$.
By performing a non-relativistic reduction, the
last two terms in eq. \ref{eq:EMSWb} give rise to
$\mathcal{H}_{int,mag}=-{\bm\mu}\cdot {\bm B}$,
where the electron magnetic moment $\bm{\mu}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bm\mu}
& = &
{{\hat Q} e\over 2 m} \left( g + 2 m b \ {\cal C}_p + ...\right)\ {\bm S}
\ =\
g(b) \ {{\hat Q} e\over 2 m}\ {\bm S}
\ ,
\label{eq:mueint}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g$ is the usual fermion g-factor and ${\bm S}$ is its spin.
Note that the lattice spacing contribution to the magnetic moment is
enhanced relative to the Dirac contribution by one power of the particle mass.
For the electron, the effective $g$-factor has an expansion at finite lattice spacing of
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{g^{(e)}(b)}{2}
& = &
1 + C_2 \left({\alpha\over\pi}\right)
+ C_4 \left({\alpha\over\pi}\right)^2
+ C_6 \left({\alpha\over\pi}\right)^3
+ C_8 \left({\alpha\over\pi}\right)^4
+ C_{10} \left({\alpha\over\pi}\right)^{5}
\nonumber\\
&&
\ +\ a_{\rm hadrons}\ +\ a_{\mu,\tau}\ +\ a_{\rm weak}
\ +\
m_e b \ {\cal C}_p
\ +\ ...
\ \ \ ,
\label{eq:ge}
\end{eqnarray}
where the coefficients $C_i$, in general, depend upon the ratio of lepton
masses.
The calculation by Schwinger provides the
leading coefficient of $C_2={1\over 2}$.
The experimental value of
$g^{(e)}_{\rm expt}/2 =
1.001\ 159\ 652\ 180\ 73(28)$
gives rise to the best determination of the fine structure constant
$\alpha$ (at $b=0$)~\cite{Mohr:2012tt}. However, when the lattice
spacing is non-zero,
the extracted value of $\alpha$ becomes a function of $b$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha(b) & = &
\alpha(0)\ -\ 2\pi m_e b \ {\cal C}_p\ +\ \mathcal{O} \left(\alpha ^{2}b \right)
\ \ \ ,
\label{eq:alphaexp}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha(0)^{-1} = 137.035\ 999\ 084(51)$ is determined from the
experimental value of electron g-factor as quoted above. With one
experimental constraint and two parameters to determine, $\alpha$ and
$b$, unique values for these quantities cannot be established, and an
orthogonal constraint is required. One can look at the muon $g-2$
which has a similar QED expansion to that of the electron, including
the contribution from the non-zero lattice spacing,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{g^{(\mu)}(b)}{2}
& = &
1 + C^{(\mu)}_2 \left({\alpha\over\pi}\right)
+ C^{(\mu)}_4 \left({\alpha\over\pi}\right)^2
+ C^{(\mu)}_6 \left({\alpha\over\pi}\right)^3
+ C^{(\mu)}_8 \left({\alpha\over\pi}\right)^4
+ C^{(\mu)}_{10} \left({\alpha\over\pi}\right)^{5}
\nonumber\\
&&
\ +\ a^{(\mu)}_{\rm hadrons}\ +\ a^{(\mu)}_{e,\tau}\ +\ a^{(\mu)}_{\rm weak}
\ +\
m_\mu b \ {\cal C}_p
\ +\ ...
\ \ \ .
\label{eq:gmuon}
\end{eqnarray}
Inserting the
electron $g-2$ (at finite lattice spacing)
gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{g^{(\mu)}(b)}{2}
& = &
\frac{g^{(\mu)}(0)}{2}
\ +\
(m_\mu-m_e) b\ {\cal C}_p \ + \ \mathcal{O} \left(\alpha ^{2}b \right)
\ \ \ .
\label{eq:gmuonexp}
\end{eqnarray}
Given that the standard model calculation of $g^{(\mu)}(0)$
is consistent with the experimental value, with a $\sim 3.6\sigma$
deviation, one can put a limit on $ b$ from the difference
and uncertainty in theoretical and experimental values of $g^{(\mu)}$,
$g^{(\mu)}_{\rm expt}/2 = 1.001\ 165\ 920\ 89(54)(33)$ and
$g^{(\mu)}_{\rm theory}/2 = 1.001\ 165\ 918\
02(2)(42)(26)$~\cite{Mohr:2012tt}.
Attributing this difference to a finite lattice spacing,
these values give rise to
\begin{eqnarray}
b^{-1} & = &
\left( 3.6\pm 1.1 \right) \times 10^{7}~{\rm GeV}
\ \ \ ,
\label{eq:binvfixmuon}
\end{eqnarray}
which provides an approximate upper bound on the lattice spacing.
\subsubsection{The Rydberg Constant and $\alpha$}
\label{subsec:Rydberg-alpha}
\noindent
Another limit can be placed on the lattice spacing from differences
between the value of $\alpha$ extracted from the electron $g-2$ and
from the Rydberg constant, $R_\infty$. The latter extraction, as
discussed in Ref.~\cite{Mohr:2012tt}, is rather complicated, with the
value of the $R_\infty$ obtained from a $\chi^2$-minimization fit
involving
the experimentally determined energy-level splittings. However, to
recover the constraints on the Dirac energy-eigenvalues (which then
lead to $R_\infty$), theoretical corrections must be first removed from
the experimental values.
To begin with, one can obtain an estimate
for the limit on $b$ by considering the differences between
$\alpha$'s obtained from various methods assuming that the only
contributions are from QED and the lattice spacing.
Given that
it is the reduced mass ($\mu\sim m_e$) that will
compensate the lattice spacing in these QED
determinations (for an atom at rest in the lattice frame), one can write
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta\alpha & = & 2 \pi m_e b\ \mathcal{\tilde C}_{p}
\ \ \ ,
\label{eq:delalpha}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{\tilde C}_{p}$ is a number ${\cal O}(1)$ by
naive dimensional analysis, and is a combination of the contributions
from the two independent extractions of $\alpha$. There is no reason
to expect complete cancellation between the contributions from two
different extractions. In fact, it is straightforward to show that the
${\cal O}(b)$ contribution to the value of $\alpha$ determined from
the Rydberg constant is suppressed by $\alpha^{4}m_{e}^{2}$, and
therefore the above assumption is robust. In addition to the electron
$g-2$ determination of fine structure constant as quoted above, the
next precise determination of $\alpha$ comes form the atomic recoil
experiments,
$\alpha^{-1} = 137.035\ 999\ 049(90)$~\footnote{Extracted from a
$^{87} Rb$ recoil experiment~\cite{Bouchendira}.}
~\cite{Mohr:2012tt}, given
an a priori determined value of the Rydberg
constant.
This gives rise to a difference of $|\delta\alpha| = \left(1.86\pm
5.51\right)\times 10^{-12}$
between two extractions,
which translates into
\begin{eqnarray}
b & = &
| \left( -0.6\pm 1.7\right)\times 10^{-9} |~{\rm GeV}^{-1}
\ \ \ .
\label{eq:bfixAtomes}
\end{eqnarray}
As this result is consistent with zero, the
$1\sigma$ values of
the lattice spacing give rise to a limit of
\begin{eqnarray}
b^{-1} & \raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}$ } & 4\times 10^8~{\rm GeV}
\ \ \ ,
\label{eq:MfixAtomes}
\end{eqnarray}
which is seen to be an order of magnitude more precise than that
arising from the muon $g-2$.
For more sophisticated simulations in which chiral symmetry is preserved by the lattice
discretization, the coefficient $ {\cal C}_p$ will vanish or will be exponentially small.
As a result, the bound on the lattice spacing derived from the muon $g-2$
and from the differences between determinations of $\alpha$
will be significantly weaker.
In these analyses, we have worked with QED only, and have not included the full
electroweak interactions as chiral gauge theories have not yet been
successfully latticized. Consequently, these constraints are to be considered
estimates only, and a more complete analysis needs to be performed when chiral
gauge theories can be simulated.
\section{Rotational Symmetry Breaking}
\label{sec:RSB}
\noindent
While there are more conventional scenarios for BSM physics
that generate deviations in $g-2$ from
the standard model prediction, or differences between independent
determinations of $\alpha$, the breaking of rotational symmetry would
be a solid indicator of an underlying space-time grid, although not the
only one. As has been extensively discussed in the literature, another
scenario that gives rise to rotational invariance violation involves
the introduction of an external background with a preferred
direction. Such a preferred direction can be defined via a fixed
vector, $u_{\mu}$~\cite{Colladay}.
The effective low-energy Lagrangian of
such a theory contains Lorentz covariant higher dimension operators
with a coupling to this background vector, and breaks both parity and
Lorentz invariance~\cite{Myers:2003fd}. Dimension three, four and
five operators, however, are shown to be severely constrained by
experiment, and such contributions in the low-energy
action (up to dimension five) have been ruled out~\cite{Colladay,
Coleman:1998ti, Carroll, Laurent:2011he}.
\subsubsection{Atomic Level Splittings}
\noindent
At ${\cal O}(b^2)$ in the lattice spacing expansion of the
Wilson action, that is relevant to describing low-energy processes,
there is a rotational-symmetry breaking operator that is consistent
with the lattice hyper-cubic symmetry,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}^{RV} & = &
C^{RV}\ {b^2\over 6}\ \sum_{\mu=1}^4\ \overline{\psi} \ \gamma_\mu D_\mu D_\mu D_\mu\
\psi
\ \ \ ,
\label{eq:RVopb}
\end{eqnarray}
where the tree-level value of $C^{RV}=1$. In taking matrix elements
of this operator in the Hydrogen atom, where the binding energy is
suppressed by a factor of $\alpha$ compared with the typical momentum, the
dominant contribution is from the spatial components. As each spatial momentum scales as $m_e \alpha$, in the non-relativistic limit,
shifts in the energy levels are expected to be of order
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta E & \sim &
C^{RV}\ \alpha^4 m_e^3 b^2 \ .
\label{eq:J52energies}
\end{eqnarray}
To understand the size of energy splittings, a lattice spacing of
$b^{-1} = 10^8~{\rm GeV}$ gives an energy shift of order
$\delta E\sim 10^{-26}~{\rm eV}$, including for the splittings
between substates in given irreducible representations of SO(3)
with angular momentum $J\geq 2$.
This magnitude of energy shifts and
splittings is presently unobservable.
Given present technology,
and constraints imposed on the lattice spacing by other observables,
we
conclude that there is little chance to see such an effect in the
atomic spectrum.
\subsubsection{The Energy-Momentum Relation and Cosmic Rays}
\noindent
Constraints on Lorentz-violating perturbations to the
standard model of electroweak interactions from differences in the
maximal attainable velocity (MAV) of particles (e.g. Ref.~\cite{Coleman:1998ti}),
and on interactions with a non-zero vector field (e.g. Ref.~\cite{Maccione:2009ju}),
have been determined
previously.
Assuming that each
particle satisfies an energy-momentum relation of the form $E_i^2 =
|{\bf p}_i|^2 c_i^2 + m_i^2 c_i^4$ (along with the conservation of
both energy and momentum in any given process), if $c_\gamma$ exceeds
$c_{e^\pm}$, the process $\gamma\rightarrow e^+ e^-$ becomes possible
for photons with an energy greater than the critical energy $E_{\rm
crit.} = 2 m_e c_e^2 c_\gamma /\sqrt{ c_\gamma^2-c_{e^\pm}^2}$, and
the observation of high energy primary cosmic photons with
$E_\gamma\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}$ } 20~{\rm TeV}$ translates into the constraint $c_\gamma
- c_{e^\pm} \raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}$ } 10^{-15}$. Ref.~\cite{Coleman:1998ti} presents a
series of exceedingly tight constraints on differences between the
speed of light between different particles, with typical sizes of
$\delta c_{ij}\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}$ } 10^{-21} - 10^{-22}$ for particles of species $i$
and $j$. At first glance, these constraints~\cite{Gagnon:2004xh}
would appear to also provide tight constraints on the size of the
lattice spacing used in a simulation of the universe. However, this
is not the case. As the speed of light for each particle
in the discretized space-time depends on
its three-momentum, the constraints obtained by Coleman and
Glashow~\cite{Coleman:1998ti} do not directly apply to processes
occurring in a lattice simulation.
The dispersion relations satisfied by bosons and Wilson fermions in a
lattice simulation (in
Minkowski space) are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\sinh^2({b E_b\over 2})\ -\
\sum_{j=1,2,3} \sin^2({b k_j\over 2})
\ - \ ({b m_b\over 2})^2 \ = \ 0 \ ;
\nonumber\\
&& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
E_b
\ =\
\sqrt{|{\bf k}|^2+m_b^2}
\ +\ {\cal O}(b^2)
\ \ \ ,
\label{dispersionrelationsb}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\sinh^2\left({b E_f}\right)-
\sum_{j=1,2,3} \sin^2({b k_j}) -
\left[
b m_f + 2 r \left( \sum_{j=1,2,3} \sin^2({b k_j\over 2}) -
\sinh^2({b E_f\over 2}) \right)\right]^2
\ =\ 0 \ ;
\nonumber\\
&& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
E_f
\ =\
\sqrt{|{\bf k}|^2+m_f^2}
\ - \ {r \ b \ m_f^3 \over 2 \sqrt{|{\bf k}|^2+m_f^2}}
\ +\ {\cal O}(b^2)
\ \ \ ,
\label{dispersionrelationsf}
\end{eqnarray}
respectively, where $r$ is the coefficient of the Wilson term, $E_b$ and
$E_f$ are the energy of a boson and fermion with momentum ${\bf k}$,
respectively. The summations are performed over the components
along the lattice Cartesian axes corresponding to the x,y, and z spatial
directions. The implications of these dispersion relations for
neutrino oscillations along one of the lattice axes have been
considered in Ref.~\cite{Motie:2012qj}. Further, they have been
considered as a possible explanation~\cite{Xue:2011tz} of the (now
retracted) OPERA result suggesting superluminal
neutrinos~\cite{Adam:2011zb}. The violation of Lorentz invariance
resulting from these dispersion relations is due to the fact that they
have only cubic symmetry and not full rotational symmetry, as shown in
fig.~\ref{fig:Epxpy}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{SRplusWplot_sm.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{fig:Epxpy}
The energy surface of a massless, non-interacting
Wilson fermion with $r=1$ as a function of momentum in the x and y
directions, bounded by $-\pi < b p_{x,y} < \pi$,
for $p_z=0$ is shown in blue.
The continuum dispersion relation is shown as the red surface.
}
\end{figure}
It is in the limit of small momentum, compared to the inverse lattice
spacing, that the dispersion relations exhibit rotational
invariance. While for the fundamental particles, the dispersion
relations in
eq.~(\ref{dispersionrelationsb}) and
eq.~(\ref{dispersionrelationsf})
are valid, for composite
particles, such as the proton or pion, the dispersion relations will
be dynamically generated.
In the present analysis we assume that the
dispersion relations for all particles take the form of those in
eq.~(\ref{dispersionrelationsb}) and
eq.~(\ref{dispersionrelationsf}).
It is also interesting to note
that the
polarizations of the massless vector fields are not exactly perpendicular to
their direction of propagation for some directions of propagation with respect
to the lattice axes, with longitudinal components present
for non-zero lattice spacings.
Consider the process $p\rightarrow p + \gamma$, which is forbidden in
the vacuum by energy-momentum conservation in special relativity when
the speed of light of the proton and photon are equal, $c_p=c_\gamma$.
Such a process can proceed in-medium when $v_p > c_\gamma$,
corresponding to Cerenkov radiation. In the situation where the
proton and photon have different MAV's, the absence of this process in
vacuum requires that $|c_p-c_\gamma|\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}$ }
10^{-23}$~\cite{Coleman:1997xq,Coleman:1998ti}. In lattice
simulations of the universe, this process could proceed in the vacuum
if there are final state momenta which satisfy energy conservation for
an initial state proton with energy $E_i$ moving in some direction
with respect to the underlying cubic lattice. Numerically, we find
that there are no final states that satisfy this condition, and
therefore this process is forbidden for all proton
momentum~\footnote{A more complete treatment of this process involves
using the parton distributions of the proton to relate its energy to
its momentum~\cite{Gagnon:2004xh}. For the composite proton, the $p\rightarrow p +
\gamma$ process becomes kinematically allowed, but with a rate that
is suppressed by ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^8 b^7)$ due to the
momentum transfer involved, effectively preventing the process from
occuring. With momentum transfers of the scale $\sim 1/b$, the
final states that would be preferred in inclusive decays,
$p\rightarrow X_h + \gamma$, are kinematically forbidden, with
invariant masses of $\sim 1/b$. More refined explorations of this
and other processes are required.}. In contrast, the process
$\gamma\rightarrow e^+e^-$, which provides tight constraints on
differences between MAV's~\cite{Coleman:1998ti}, can proceed for very
high energy photons (those with energies comparable to the inverse
lattice spacing) near the edges of the Brillouin zone. Further, very
high energy $\pi^0$'s are stable against
$\pi^0\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, as is the related process
$\gamma\rightarrow \pi^0\gamma$.
With the dispersion relation of special relativity, the structure of
the cosmic ray spectrum is greatly impacted by the inelastic
collisions of nucleons with the cosmic microwave background
(CMB)~\cite{Greisen:1966jv,Zatsepin:1966jv}. Processes such as
$\gamma_{\rm CMB}+N\rightarrow\Delta$ give rise to the predicted
GKZ-cut off scale~\cite{Greisen:1966jv,Zatsepin:1966jv} of $\sim
6\times 10^{20}~{\rm eV}$ in the spectrum of high energy cosmic rays.
Recent experimental observations show a decline in the fluxes starting
around this value~\cite{Abraham:2010mj,Sokolsky:2010kb}, indicating
that the GKZ-cut off (or some other cut off mechanism) is present in
the cosmic ray flux. For lattice spacings corresponding to an energy
scale comparable to the GKZ cut off, the cosmic ray spectrum will
exhibit significant deviations from isotropy, revealing the cubic
structure of the lattice. However, for lattice spacings much smaller
than the GKZ cut off scale, the GKZ mechanism cuts off the spectrum,
effectively hiding the underlying lattice structure.
When the lattice rest frame coincides with the CMB rest frame,
head-on interactions between a high energy proton with momentum
$|{\bf p}|$ and a photon of (very-low) energy $\omega$ can proceed through the $\Delta$
resonance when
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega & = & {m_\Delta^2-m_N^2\over 4|{\bf p}|}
\left[ 1 +
{ \sqrt{\pi}b^2 |{\bf p}|^2\over 9}
\left( Y_4^0(\theta,\phi)\ +\
\sqrt{5\over 14}\left( Y_4^{+4}(\theta,\phi)\ +\ Y_4^{-4}(\theta,\phi)\right)\right)
\right]
\nonumber\\
&&\ -\ {m_\Delta^3-m_N^3\over 4|{\bf p}|} b r
\ +\ ...
\ \ \ ,
\label{eq:gkzkins}
\end{eqnarray}
for $|{\bf p}|\ll 1/b$, where $\theta$ and $\phi$ are the polar and azimuthal angles of the
particle momenta in the rest frame of the lattice, respectively.
This represents a lower bound for the energy of photons participating in
such a process with arbitrary collision angles.
The lattice spacing itself introduces a cut off to the cosmic ray
spectrum.
For both the fermions and the bosons, the cut off from the dispersion relation is
$E^{\rm max} \sim 1/ b$.
Equating this to the GKZ cut off
corresponds to a lattice spacing of $b\sim 10^{-12}~{\rm fm}$, or a
mass scale of $b^{-1}\sim 10^{11}~{\rm GeV}$. Therefore, the
lattice spacing used in the lattice simulation of the universe must be
$b \raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}$ } 10^{-12}~{\rm fm}$ in order for the GZK cut off to be present
or for the lattice spacing itself to provide the cut off in the cosmic
ray spectrum. The most striking feature of the scenario in which the
lattice provides the cut off to the cosmic ray spectrum is that the
angular distribution of the highest energy components would exhibit
cubic symmetry in the rest frame of the lattice,
deviating significantly from isotropy. For smaller
lattice spacings, the cubic distribution would be less significant,
and the GKZ mechanism would increasingly dominate the high energy
structure.
It may be the case that
more advanced simulations will be performed with non-cubic
lattices. The results obtained for cubic lattices indicate that
the symmetries of the non-cubic lattices should be imprinted, at some level,
on the high energy cosmic ray spectrum.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conc}
\noindent
In this work, we have taken seriously the possibility that our
universe is a numerical simulation. In particular, we have explored a
number of observables that may reveal the underlying structure of a
simulation performed with a rigid hyper-cubic space-time grid. This is
motivated by the progress in performing lattice QCD calculations
involving the fundamental fields and interactions of nature in
femto-sized volumes of space-time, and by the simulation hypothesis of
Bostrom~\cite{Bostrom2003}. A number of elements required for a
simulation of our universe directly from the fundamental laws of
physics have not yet been established, and we have assumed that they will,
in fact, be developed at some point in the future; two important
elements being an algorithm for simulating chiral gauge theories, and
quantum gravity. It is interesting to note that in the simulation
scenario, the fundamental energy scale defined by the lattice spacing
can be orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck scale, in which
case the conflict between quantum mechanics and gravity should be
absent.
The spectrum of the highest energy cosmic rays provides the most
stringent constraint that we have found on the lattice spacing of a
universe simulation, but precision measurements, particularly the muon
$g-2$, are within a few orders of magnitude of being sensitive to the
chiral symmetry breaking aspects of a simulation employing the
unimproved Wilson lattice action.
Given the ease with which current
lattice QCD simulations incorporate improvement or employ
discretizations that preserve chiral symmetry,
it seems unlikely
that any but the very earliest universe simulations would be
unimproved with respect to the lattice spacing.
Of course, improvement
in this context masks much of our ability to probe the possibility that our
universe is a simulation, and we have seen that, with the exception of
the modifications to the dispersion relation and the associated maximum values
of energy and momentum, even ${\cal O}(b^2)$
operators in the Symanzik action easily avoid obvious experimental
probes. Nevertheless, assuming that the universe is finite and
therefore the resources of potential simulators are finite, then
a volume containing a simulation will be finite and a lattice spacing
must be non-zero, and therefore in principle there always remains the
possibility for the simulated to discover the simulators.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Eric Adelberger, Blayne Heckel, David Kaplan,
Kostas Orginos, Sanjay Reddy and Kenneth Roche for
interesting discussions.
We also thank William Detmold, Thomas Luu and Ann Nelson for comments on earlier versions
of the manuscript.
SRB was partially supported by the INT during
the program INT-12-2b: Lattice QCD studies of excited resonances and
multi-hadron systems, and by NSF continuing grant PHY1206498.
In addition, SRB gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of HISKP and the
support of the
Mercator programme of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
ZD and MJS
were supported in part by the DOE grant DE-FG03-97ER4014.
|
\section{Introduction}
In~\cite[Lemma~2]{Yang-Fan-2008-Dec-simp.tex}, the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{e-1-t-1}
\psi'(t)<e^{1/t}-1
\end{equation}
on $(0,\infty)$ was obtained and applied, where $\psi(t)$ stands for the digamma function which may be defined by the logarithmic derivative
\begin{equation*}
\psi(t)=[\ln\Gamma(t)]'=\frac{\Gamma'(t)}{\Gamma(t)}
\end{equation*}
and $\Gamma(t)$ is the classical Euler gamma function which may be defined for $\Re z>0$ by
\begin{equation*
\Gamma(z)=\int^\infty_0t^{z-1} e^{-t}\td t.
\end{equation*}
The derivatives $\psi'(z)$ and $\psi''(z)$ of $\psi(z)$ are respectively called the tri- and tetra-gamma functions. As a whole, the derivatives $\psi^{(k)}(z)$ for $k\in\{0\}\cup\mathbb{N}$ are called the polygamma functions.
\par
The first aim of this paper is to generalize the inequality~\eqref{e-1-t-1} to complete monotonicity of a difference between both sides of~\eqref{e-1-t-1}.
\par
Our first result can be formulated as Theorem~\ref{CM-Exp-thm} below.
\begin{thm}\label{CM-Exp-thm}
The function
\begin{equation}\label{alpha-exp=psi-eq}
h(t)=e^{1/t}-\psi'(t)
\end{equation}
is completely monotonic, that is, $(-1)^{k-1}h^{(k-1)}(t)\ge0$ for $k\in\mathbb{N}$, on $(0,\infty)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{h(t)-limit=1}
\lim_{t\to\infty}h(t)=1.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
Recently, the notion ``completely monotonic degree'' was introduced in~\cite{psi-proper-fraction-degree-two.tex}, which may be regarded as a slight but essential modification of~\cite[Definition~1.5]{Koumandos-Pedersen-09-JMAA}.
\begin{dfn}[{\cite[Definition~1]{psi-proper-fraction-degree-two.tex}}]\label{x-degree-dfn}
Let $f(t)$ be a function defined on $(0,\infty)$ and have derivatives of all orders. A number $r\in\mathbb{R}\cup\{\pm\infty\}$ is said to be the completely monotonic degree of $f(t)$ with respect to $t\in(0,\infty)$ if $t^rf(t)$ is a completely monotonic function on $(0,\infty)$ but $t^{r+\varepsilon}f(t)$ is not for any positive number $\varepsilon>0$.
\end{dfn}
For convenience, the notation
\begin{equation}
\cmdeg{t}[f(t)]
\end{equation}
was designed in~\cite[p.~9890]{psi-proper-fraction-degree-two.tex} to denote the completely monotonic degree $r$ of $f(t)$ with respect to $t\in(0,\infty)$.
\par
It was pointed out in~\cite[p.~9890]{psi-proper-fraction-degree-two.tex} that the degrees of completely monotonic functions on $(0,\infty)$ are at least zero and that if a function $f(t)$ on $(0,\infty)$ has a nonnegative completely monotonic degree then it must be a completely monotonic function on $(0,\infty)$. Equivalently speaking, a function defined on $(0,\infty)$ is completely monotonic if and only if its completely monotonic degree is not negative.
\par
The second aim of this paper is to compute the completely monotonic degree and to establish integral representations of the remainder of the Laurent series expansion of the exponential function $e^{1/z}$.
\par
Our second result may be stated as the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{exp=k=degree=k+1-int-thm}
For $k\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$ and $z\ne0$, let
\begin{equation}\label{exp=k=sum-eq-degree=k+1}
H_k(z)=e^{1/z}-\sum_{m=0}^k\frac{1}{m!}\frac1{z^m}.
\end{equation}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The completely monotonic degree of $H_k(t)$ on $(0,\infty)$ meets
\begin{equation}\label{H-k(t)-degree}
\cmdeg{t}[H_k(t)]=k+1.
\end{equation}
\item
For $\Re z>0$, the function $H_k(z)$ has the integral representation
\begin{equation}\label{exp=k=degree=k+1-int}
H_k(z)=\frac1{k!(k+1)!}\int_0^\infty {}_1F_2(1;k+1,k+2;t)t^k e^{-zt}\td t,
\end{equation}
where the hypergeometric series
\begin{equation}
{}_pF_q(a_1,\dotsc,a_p;b_1,\dotsc,b_q;x)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{(a_1)_n\dotsm(a_p)_n} {(b_1)_n\dotsm(b_q)_n}\frac{x^n}{n!}
\end{equation}
for $b_i\notin\{0,-1,-2,\dotsc\}$ and the shifted factorial $(a)_0=1$ and
\begin{equation}
(a)_n=a(a+1)\dotsm(a+n-1)
\end{equation}
for $n>0$ and any real or complex number $a$.
\item
For $\Re z>0$, the function $H_k(z)$ has the integral representation
\begin{equation}\label{exp=k=degree=k+1-int-bes}
H_k(z)=\frac1{z^{k+1}}\int_0^\infty \frac{I_{k+2}\bigl(2 \sqrt{t}\,\bigr)}{t^{(k+2)/2}} e^{-zt}\td t,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{I=nu(z)-eq}
I_\nu(z)= \sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac1{k!\Gamma(\nu+k+1)}\biggl(\frac{z}2\biggr)^{2k+\nu}
\end{equation}
for $\nu\in\mathbb{R}$ and $z\in\mathbb{C}$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
As an application of Theorems~\ref{CM-Exp-thm} and~\ref{exp=k=degree=k+1-int-thm}, the following inequality for the first order modified Bessel function of the first kind $I_1$ may be derived.
\begin{thm}\label{Bessel-2-ineq-thm}
For $t>0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{I=1-exp-ineq}
I_1(t)>\frac{(t/2)^3}{1-e^{-(t/2)^2}}.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{CM-Exp-thm}}
From the well known formula
\begin{equation}\label{polygamma}
\psi^{(n)}(z)=(-1)^{n+1}\int_0^{\infty}\frac{u^n}{1-e^{-u}}e^{-zu}\td u
\end{equation}
for $\Re z>0$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$, see~\cite[p.~260, 6.4.1]{abram}, it is ready that $\lim_{t\to\infty}\psi^{(n)}(t)=0$ for $n\in\mathbb{N}$. So, the limit~\eqref{h(t)-limit=1} may be deduced immediately and, by
\begin{equation}\label{exp-frac1x-expans}
\bigl(e^{1/t}\bigr)^{(i)}=(-1)^ie^{1/t}\frac1{t^{2i}}\sum_{k=0}^{i-1}a_{i,k}t^{k}
\end{equation}
for $i\in\mathbb{N}$ and $t\ne0$, where
\begin{equation}
a_{i,k}=\binom{i}{k}\binom{i-1}{k}{k!}
\end{equation}
for $0\le k\le i-1$, in~\cite[Theorem~2.1]{exp-reciprocal-cm-IJOPCM.tex},
\begin{equation}\label{h(t)-i-der-to0}
h^{(i)}(t)=\bigl(e^{1/t}\bigr)^{(i)}-\psi^{(i+1)}(t) =(-1)^ie^{1/t}\sum_{k=0}^{i-1}\frac{a_{i,k}}{t^{2i-k}}-\psi^{(i+1)}(t)\to0
\end{equation}
for $i\in\mathbb{N}$ as $t\to\infty$.
\par
Utilizing the recurrence formula
\begin{equation}\label{abram-6.4.7}
\psi^{(n)}(z+1)=\psi^{(n)}(z)+(-1)^n\frac{n!}{z^{n+1}}
\end{equation}
in~\cite[p.~260, 6.4.7]{abram} and calculating reveal
\begin{align*}
h(t+1)-h(t)&=e^{1/(t+1)}-e^{1/t}+\psi'(t)-\psi'(t+1)\\
&=e^{1/(t+1)}-e^{1/t}+\frac1{t^2}\\
&=\frac1{t^2}+\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac1{(k+1)!}\biggl[\frac1{(t+1)^{k+1}}-\frac1{t^{k+1}}\biggr],
\end{align*}
\begin{equation*}
[h(t+1)-h(t)]^{(i)}=(-1)^i\frac{(i+1)!}{t^{i+2}} +\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{(-1)^i(i+k)!}{(k+1)!k!} \biggl[\frac1{(t+1)^{i+k+1}}-\frac1{t^{i+k+1}}\biggr],
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{align*}
(-1)^i[h(t+1)-h(t)]^{(i)}&=\frac{(i+1)!}{t^{i+2}} +\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{(i+k)!}{(k+1)!k!} \biggl[\frac1{(t+1)^{i+k+1}}-\frac1{t^{i+k+1}}\biggr]\\
&<\frac{(i+1)!}{t^{i+2}} +\sum_{k=0}^2\frac{(i+k)!}{(k+1)!k!} \biggl[\frac1{(t+1)^{i+k+1}}-\frac1{t^{i+k+1}}\biggr]\\
&=\frac{i!}{12t^{i+3}(t+1)^{i+3}}f_i(t),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
f_i(t)&=6(i+1)t(t+1)\bigl[(t+1)^{i+2}+t^{i+2}\bigr] -12 t^2(t+1)^2\bigl[(t+1)^{i+1}-t^{i+1}\bigr]\\
&\quad-(i+1)(i+2)\bigl[(t+1)^{i+3}-t^{i+3}\bigr]\\
&=6(i+1)t(t+1)\Biggl[\sum_{\ell=0}^{i+2}\binom{i+2}{\ell}t^{\ell}+t^{i+2}\Biggr] -12 t^2(t+1)^2\sum_{\ell=0}^{i}\binom{i+1}{\ell}t^{\ell}\\
&\quad-(i+1)(i+2)\sum_{\ell=0}^{i+2}\binom{i+3}{\ell}t^{\ell}\\
&=\frac{(i-1)(i+4)(i+5)}{2}\biggl[\frac{(2-i)(i+3)}{3}t-i\biggr]t^2-i(i+1)(i+5)t\\
&\quad-\sum_{\ell=4}^{i}\biggl[(i+1)(i+2)\binom{i+3}{\ell}-6(i+1)\binom{i+3}{\ell-1} +12\binom{i+3}{\ell-2}\biggr]t^\ell\\
&=\frac{(i-1)(i+4)(i+5)}{2}\biggl[\frac{(2-i)(i+3)}{3}t-i\biggr]t^2-i(i+1)(i+5)t\\
&\quad-(1+i)(2+i)-(i+4)(i+5)\sum_{\ell=4}^{i} \frac{(i-\ell+1)(i-\ell+2)}{\ell(i-\ell+5)}\binom{i+3}{\ell-1}t^\ell
\end{align*}
and an empty sum is understood to be nil. As a result, the function $f_i(t)$ is negative and
\begin{equation}\label{(-1)=i[h(t+1)-h(t)]=(i)}
(-1)^i[h(t+1)-h(t)]^{(i)}=(-1)^i[h(t+1)]^{(i)}-(-1)^i[h(t)]^{(i)}<0
\end{equation}
for all $i\ge0$ and $t\in(0,\infty)$. Hence, by consecutive recursion and~\eqref{h(t)-i-der-to0},
\begin{multline*}
(-1)^i[h(t)]^{(i)}\ge(-1)^i[h(t+1)]^{(i)}\ge(-1)^i[h(t+2)]^{(i)}\ge \dotsm\\*
\ge(-1)^i[h(t+k)]^{(i)}\ge(-1)^i\lim_{k\to\infty}[h(t+k)]^{(i)}=0
\end{multline*}
for $i\in\mathbb{N}$ and $t\in(0,\infty)$. This implies that the function $h(t)$ is decreasing on $(0,\infty)$. Combining this monotonicity with~\eqref{h(t)-limit=1} gives $h(t)>1$ on $(0,\infty)$. In conclusion, by definition, the function $h(t)$ is completely monotonic on $(0,\infty)$. The proof of Theorem~\ref{CM-Exp-thm} is complete.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{exp=k=degree=k+1-int-thm}}
It is general knowledge that the exponential function $e^{1/z}$ for $z\in\mathbb{C}$ with $z\ne0$ can be expanded into the Laurent series
\begin{equation}\label{exp-reciproc-series}
e^{1/z}=\sum_{m=0}^\infty\frac1{m!}\frac1{z^m},\quad z\ne0.
\end{equation}
Therefore, it is clear that
\begin{equation}\label{exp-residue-term}
H_k(z)=\sum_{m=k+1}^\infty\frac{1}{m!}\frac1{z^m},\quad z\ne0
\end{equation}
and $x^{k+1}H_k(x)$ is completely monotonic on $(0,\infty)$. That is,
\begin{equation}\label{H-k(t)-degree>k+1}
\cmdeg{t}[H_k(t)]\ge k+1.
\end{equation}
Since, for any $\varepsilon>0$, the function
\begin{equation*}
x^{k+1+\varepsilon}H_k(x)=x^\varepsilon\sum_{m=0}^\infty\frac{1}{(m+k+1)!}\frac1{x^m}
\end{equation*}
tends to $\infty$ as $x\to\infty$, we see that for any $\varepsilon>0$ the function $x^{k+1+\varepsilon}H_k(x)$ is not completely monotonic on $(0,\infty)$. That is,
\begin{equation}\label{H-k(t)-degree<k+1}
\cmdeg{t}[H_k(t)]\le k+1.
\end{equation}
Combining~\eqref{H-k(t)-degree>k+1} and~\eqref{H-k(t)-degree<k+1} leads to~\eqref{H-k(t)-degree}.
\par
For $\Re z>0$ and $\Re k>0$, it was listed in~\cite[p.~255, 6.1.1]{abram} that
\begin{equation*
\Gamma(z)=k^z\int_0^\infty t^{z-1}e^{-kt}\td t.
\end{equation*}
This formula can be rearranged as
\begin{equation}\label{Gamma(z)=k-z-int-rearr}
\frac1{z^w}=\frac1{\Gamma(w)}\int_0^\infty t^{w-1}e^{-zt}\td t
\end{equation}
for $\Re z>0$ and $\Re w>0$. Substituting the formula~\eqref{Gamma(z)=k-z-int-rearr} into~\eqref{exp-residue-term} yields
\begin{align*}
H_k(z)&=\int_0^\infty \Biggl[\sum_{m=k+1}^\infty\frac{1}{m!}\frac1{\Gamma(m)}t^{m-1}\Biggr]e^{-zt}\td t\\
&=\frac1{k!(k+1)!}\int_0^\infty {}_1F_2(1;k+1,k+2;t)t^k e^{-zt}\td t.
\end{align*}
The integral representation~\eqref{exp=k=degree=k+1-int} follows.
\par
The function $H_k(z)$ can be rewritten as
\begin{align*}
H_k(z)&=\frac1{z^{k+1}}\sum_{m=0}^\infty\frac{1}{(k+1+m)!}\frac1{z^m}\\
&=\frac1{z^{k+1}}\int_0^\infty \Biggl[\sum_{m=0}^\infty\frac{1}{(k+1+m)!} \frac1{\Gamma(m)}t^{m-1}\Biggr] e^{-zt}\td t\\
&=\frac1{z^{k+1}}\int_0^\infty \frac{I_{k+2}\bigl(2 \sqrt{t}\,\bigr)}{t^{(k+2)/2}} e^{-zt}\td t.
\end{align*}
The integral representation~\eqref{exp=k=degree=k+1-int-bes} follows.
Theorem~\ref{exp=k=degree=k+1-int-thm} is thus proved.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{Bessel-2-ineq-thm}}
When $k=0$, the integral representations~\eqref{exp=k=degree=k+1-int} and~\eqref{exp=k=degree=k+1-int-bes} become
\begin{equation}\label{open-answer-1}
e^{1/z}=1+\int_0^\infty \frac{I_1\bigl(2\sqrt{t}\,\bigr)}{\sqrt{t}\,} e^{-zt}\td t
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{open-answer-2}
e^{1/z}=1+\frac1{z}\int_0^\infty \frac{I_{2}\bigl(2 \sqrt{t}\,\bigr)}{t} e^{-zt}\td t
\end{equation}
for $\Re z>0$. Hence, by~\eqref{polygamma} for $n=1$, the function $h(z)$ defined by~\eqref{alpha-exp=psi-eq} has the following integral representation
\begin{equation}\label{h(t)-int-rep-eq}
h(z)=1+\int_0^\infty \biggl[\frac{I_1\bigl(2\sqrt{u}\,\bigr)}{\sqrt{u}\,} -\frac{u}{1-e^{-u}}\biggr]e^{-zu}\td u
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{h(t)-int-rep-eq-der}
(-1)^kh^{(k)}(t)=\int_0^\infty \biggl[\frac{I_1\bigl(2\sqrt{u}\,\bigr)}{\sqrt{u}\,} -\frac{u}{1-e^{-u}}\biggr]u^ke^{-tu}\td u
\end{equation}
for $k\ge1$ are completely monotonic on $(0,\infty)$.
The famous Hausdorff-Bernstein-Widder Theorem~\cite[p.~161, Theorem~12b]{widder} states that a necessary and sufficient condition that $f(x)$ should be completely monotonic for $0<x<\infty$ is that
\begin{equation} \label{berstein-1}
f(x)=\int_0^\infty e^{-xt}\td\alpha(t),
\end{equation}
where $\alpha(t)$ is non-decreasing and the integral converges for $0<x<\infty$. Consequently, the function in the bracket of~\eqref{h(t)-int-rep-eq-der} is not less than zero, that is,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{I_1\bigl(2\sqrt{u}\,\bigr)}{\sqrt{u}\,} \ge\frac{u}{1-e^{-u}}
\end{equation*}
in which replacing $2\sqrt{u}\,$ by $t$ yields the inequality~\eqref{I=1-exp-ineq}. The proof of Theorem~\ref{Bessel-2-ineq-thm} is complete.
\begin{rem}
The integral representations~\eqref{open-answer-1} and~\eqref{open-answer-2} supply answers to an open problem posed in~\cite[p.~127, Section~4]{exp-reciprocal-cm-IJOPCM.tex}.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
This paper is a corrected and extended version of the preprint~\cite{simp-exp-degree.tex}.
\end{rem}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{vi}
The radial motion of a test particle falling in a black hole is
one of the key issues in general relativity. The infalling motion
has been studied specifically for Schwarzschild black hole by
several authors (\cite{lan71},\cite{Wald},\cite{Bergmann},\cite{Moller}). All of them reached the same conclusion that
velocity of the infalling particle approaches that of light near
the event horizon, which for the Schwarzschild case is at $r=2M$,
where $M$ is the mass of the black hole. The observers, called
static observers, are at rest with respect to the mass creating
the gravitational field. They are actually the world lines on the
hypersurface of orthogonal killing vector field for the metric
describing the gravitational field. However there exists a common
misconception that particle approaches the speed of light as it
moves to the black hole horizon for all observers, but not as a
limiting procedure for a static observer at $r$ as $r \rightarrow
2M$. However if we assume that the particle approaches the event
horizon at the speed of light for a static observer, as we have
defined it earlier, then simple velocity composition law tells
that it should approach the speed of light for all local observers
as space time is locally Minkowskian.
So we have to modify our notion of velocity for a test particle
near a black hole for a static observer which was done for
Schwarzschild black hole (\cite{Crawford},\cite{jan77}). The notion of observer is implemented and used in various co-ordinate frames by several
authors (\cite{bol11},\cite{ell85},\cite{bol06}).
However recently a progress has been made in obtaining trajectory around a general spherically symmetric non-rotating black hole by
choosing a general metric ansatz \cite{cha11},
\begin{equation}\label{i1}
ds^{2}=-f(r)dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{f(r)}+r^{2}d\Omega ^{2}
\end{equation}
For this general case we find the velocity of the test particle
with respect to a static observer ($r=$constant) to be a function
of $f(r)$. While for the case of a general observer such that both
the observer and the test particle moves along geodesic in $\theta
=\frac{\pi}{2}$ plane then the velocity of the test particle with
respect to the observer to our surprise, do not depend on the
choice of the function $f(r)$ provided the particle has high
energy which is the most common case for astrophysical bodies,
however it depends on the angular momenta which was absent in
earlier works \cite{Crawford}. Then we have used some classes of
spherically symmetric solutions in alternative gravity theories
to find the relative velocity of a test particle with respect to an
observer. We have discussed spherically symmetric solution in
string inspired dilaton model \cite{Garfinkle}, and calculate
motion of a test particle in this spacetime. Secondly we have
considered a spherically symmetric solution in quadratic gravity
obtained in a recent paper \cite{Yunes} to discuss the velocity
profile of an object. Finally we have discussed motion in
spherically symmetric solutions in
Einstein-Maxwell-Gauss-Bonnet(EMGB) theory and vacuum solution in
$F(R)$ gravity. Throughout the paper we shall use natural unit
such that $G=c=1$.
This paper is organized as follows, in section ($\ref{vc}$) we introduce the general idea of observer and co-ordinate frames which we shall use
throughout this work. In section ($\ref{vs}$) we discuss the motion in spherical symmetric space-time for the general choice of metric
as presented in equation ($\ref{i1}$). In the next section we discuss some classes of alternative gravity theories. The paper ends with a
short discussion on the
results obtained.
\section{Co-ordinate System, Reference Frames and Observers}\label{vc}
The mathematical beauty of general relativity is the freedom of
choice of coordinates in the description of physical phenomenon.
We could choose any co-ordinate system as we wish, this choice
might be taken in favor of the symmetry involved in the problem.
Also the co-ordinates are not sufficient we need reference frame
as well. However the co-ordinate system and reference frames are
not independent, for example in one reference frame one set of
co-ordinates may be important while it could change in other
reference frame. However in literature \cite{Bergmann} it is
often seen that co-ordinate system and reference frames are used
interchangeably. However in our discussion we find the use of
"reference frame" and "co-ordinate system" to be distinct. By
reference frame we shall mean a set of observers to take
measurements, for example the set of all observers moving in a
time like geodesic form a reference frame, whereas co-ordinate
system refer to numbers specified over the whole space time
manifold.
In special relativity an infinite lattice work of sticks and clocks \cite{Wheeler} suffice to define a unique reference frame.
However in general relativity we cannot have such rigid framework since the space time is Minkowskian only locally, so we replace this rigid system
by a fluid \cite{Moller}. In a strictly mathematical sense the set of observers represents a set of future pointing time like congruence,
which is a three parameter family of curves $x^{\mu}(\lambda ,y^{i})$, where $\lambda$ is an affine parameter defined over the path, and $y^{i}$
labels the spatial parts of the curve.
Observer in general theory is very local and it is a material particle parameterized by proper time. An observer field i.e. its velocity field
$u$ on the manifold $M$ is stationary provided there exist a smooth function $f$ greater than $0$, such that $fu=\xi$ is a killing vector field,
so the lie derivative of the metric with respect to the vector field $\xi$ vanishes
(i.e. $L_{\xi}g_{\mu \nu}=0$).
There is a natural way for an $u$-observer to define the speed of any particle with four velocity $t^{\mu}$ as it passes an event $p\in M$,
then the observer measure the square of the speed at event $p$ to yield \cite{Crawford},
\begin{equation}\label{i4}
v^{2}=\frac{(g_{\mu \nu}+u_{\mu}u_{\nu})t^{\mu}t^{\nu}}{(u_{\alpha}t^{\alpha})^{2}}
\end{equation}
Then we have $g_{\mu \nu}t^{\mu}t^{\nu}=-1$ and as well as $u_{\mu}u_{\nu}t^{\mu}t^{\nu}=(u_{\alpha}t^{\alpha})^{2}$.
Thus the above relation can be simplified to yield,
\begin{equation}\label{i3}
v^{2}=1-\frac{1}{(u^{\mu}t_{\mu})^{2}}
\end{equation}
Note that the two velocities $u^{\mu}$ and $t^{\mu}$ are time like
as observer and the test particle are both time like.
\section{Motion in a General Spherically Symmetric Space Time}\label{vs}
\subsection{Test Particle Geodesic}
We shall assume that our test particle is confined to a plane
which is generally chosen as $\theta=\pi/2$ for calculational
simplicity and as well as we have spherical symmetry so if we
discuss the situation for some specified $\theta$ plane then it
would be the same for all. Thus this no longer represent a
radially ingoing particle but a more generalized case where the
particle has two variables to specify namely, ($r,\phi$). The
motion is determined by the Euler equations corresponding to the
lagrangian formed as $2L=g_{\mu \nu}\dot{x}_{\mu}\dot{x}_{\nu}$,
Which has the following explicit form (using equation
($\ref{i1}$)),
\begin{equation}\label{v1}
2L=-f(r)\dot{t}^{2}+\frac{1}{f(r)}\dot{r}^{2}+r^{2}\dot{\phi}^{2}
\end{equation}
where dot denotes differentiation with respect to proper time of
the particle. This equation can be written in terms of the
particle proper time and then along the orbit we have $2L=-1$.
This finally leads to,
\begin{equation}\label{v2}
d\tau ^{2}=f(r)dt^{2}-\frac{1}{f(r)}dr^{2}-r^{2}d\phi ^{2}=f(r)dt^{2}[1-v^{2}]
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{v3}
v^{2}=\frac{1}{f(r)^{2}}\left(\frac{dr}{dt}\right)^{2}+\frac{r^{2}}{f(r)}\left(\frac{d\phi}{dt}\right)^{2}
\end{equation}
This is the velocity of the particle with respect to a static observer (r=constant) as illustrated by plugging $u^{\mu}=(1,0,0,0)$ in
equation (\ref{i4}); i.e. the particle moves through a distance $\frac{1}{\sqrt{f}}\sqrt{dr^{2}+r^{2}fd\phi ^{2}}$ in a proper time given by
$\sqrt{f}dt$, where from now on we shall use simply $f$ for $f(r)$ due to notational simplicity.
Since the lagrangian as given in ($\ref{v1}$) do not contain $t$ explicitly we have a constant of motion which is nothing but the
energy of the particle and it is given by,
\begin{equation}\label{v4}
-\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{t}}=f\dot{t}=E
\end{equation}
This constant of motion actually originates from the killing
vector field $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$, this can be phrased
as, if the 4-velocity of the particle $t^{a}$ is a geodesic, then
we have $\triangledown _{t}t=0$. From ($\ref{v2}$) and
($\ref{v4}$) we have obtained,
\begin{equation}\label{v5}
v=\sqrt{1-\frac{f}{E^{2}}}
\end{equation}
Also the energy can be determined from the initial value of
radius and velocity using ($\ref{v5}$) such that,
$E^{2}=\frac{f(R)}{1-v_{0}^{2}}$. Where $R$ is the initial radial
co-ordinate and $v_{0}$ is the initial velocity.
We have another constant of motion in this case which corresponds to the angular momentum of the particle and could be given by,
\begin{equation}\label{v6}
\dot{\phi}=\frac{L}{r^{2}}
\end{equation}
Thus finally the velocity in proper frame on the plane $\theta =\frac{\pi}{2}$ is given by,
\begin{equation}\label{v7}
\left(\frac{dr}{d\tau}\right)^{2}=\left(\frac{dr}{dt}\right)^{2}\left(\frac{dt}{d\tau}\right)^{2}=E^{2}-V^{2}
\end{equation}
where $V^{2}=f\left[1+\frac{r^{2}}{f^{2}}E^{2}\left(\frac{d\phi}{dt}\right)^{2}\right]=f\left[1+\frac{L^{2}}{r^{2}}\right]$.
Thus the 4-velocity components for the geodesic particle specified by energy and angular momentum is given by,
\begin{equation}\label{v8}
t^{\mu}=\left(\frac{E}{f},\sqrt{E^{2}-V^{2}},0,\frac{L}{r^{2}}\right)
\end{equation}
written in terms of the constants of motion $E$ and $L$. As a check we can use the identity $t_{\mu}t^{\mu}=-1$.
Thus equation (\ref{v8}) represents the four velocity of a test particle in a space-time metric given by equation (\ref{i1}).
\subsection{Static Limit}
In some cases the velocity is measured in terms of proper time, as determined by clocks synchronized along trajectory of the
particle. The velocity in case of radial particle is given by \cite{lan71},
\begin{equation}\label{v9}
v^{2}=\left(g_{00}+g_{01}\frac{dx^{1}}{dx^{0}}\right)^{-2}\left(g_{01}^{2}-g_{00}g_{11}\right)\left(\frac{dx^{1}}{dx^{0}}\right)^{2}
\end{equation}
When we generalize this result to our case where we have three
co-ordinates $x^{0},x^{1}$ and $x^{3}$ (since $x^{2}=\theta
=constant$), then velocity expression generalizes to,
\begin{equation}\label{v10}
v^{2}=\frac{\left(g_{10}^{2}-g_{00}g_{11}\right)\left(\frac{dx^{1}}{dx^{0}}\right)^{2}+
\left(g_{30}^{2}-g_{00}g_{33}\right)\left(\frac{dx^{3}}{dx^{0}}\right)^{2}+
2\left(g_{10}g_{30}-g_{13}g_{00}\right)\frac{dx^{1}}{dx^{0}}\frac{dx^{3}}{dx^{0}}}
{\left(g_{00}+g_{10}\frac{dx^{1}}{dx^{0}}+g_{30}\frac{dx^{3}}{dx^{0}}\right)^{2}}
\end{equation}
Note that if we let $\frac{dx^{3}}{dx^{0}}$ to be zero, then it
reduces to equation ($\ref{v9}$). In our case keeping the non zero
terms we obtain,
\begin{equation}\label{v11}
v^{2}=\frac{1}{f^{2}}\left( \frac{dr}{dt} \right)^{2}+\frac{r^{2}}{f}\left( \frac{d\phi}{dt} \right)^{2}
\end{equation}
which is completely identical to ($\ref{v3}$). This definition has
co-ordinate invariance. The 4 velocity has components
$u_{\mu}=(-g_{00})^{-1/2}g_{\mu 0}$ and that for the particle
reduces to
$t^{\mu}=(\frac{dx^{0}}{d\tau},\frac{dx^{1}}{d\tau},0,\frac{dx^{3}}{d\tau})$.
Thus using equation ($\ref{i3}$) we obtain the same equation as
($\ref{v11}$).
From equation ($\ref{v5}$) we see that as $f(r)=0$, the velocity
is equal to 1. Hence for static observers $v$ approaches the speed
of light at the event horizon and they predict faster than light
speed inside event horizon.
It might seem at first sight that this result has nothing to do with $f(r)=0$ but is connected to the co-ordinate system.
However it has nothing to do with co-ordinate system but with the observer. So we should generalize our observer set.
Also no observer can be at rest at $r=2M$ except photon, with respect to photon all particle traverse at speed of light.
To get a clear view we discuss the acceleration of a static observer in the field of the gravitating body.
The acceleration is necessary as in general relativity an observer at rest is not geodesic and is accelerated.
The four acceleration field is defined as,
\begin{equation}\label{v12}
a^{\eta}=u^{\eta}_{;\mu}u^{\mu}=\left(u^{\eta}_{,\mu}+u^{\alpha}\Gamma ^{\eta}_{\alpha \mu}\right)
\end{equation}
The only non zero component is given by using the definition of four velocities for static observers , $u_{\mu}=\frac{g_{\mu 0}}{\sqrt{-g_{00}}}$
to yield,
\begin{equation}\label{v13}
a^{1}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{df}{dr}
\end{equation}
So acceleration depends on the function $f(r)$.
\subsection{Ingoing Observers}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=3.5in, width=3.5in]{velocity1.eps}
\caption{The figure shows variation of $v^{2}$ with radial co-ordinate r for different choice of $E_{1}$, $E_{2}$, $L_{1}$ and $L_{2}$.\label{fig1}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=3.5in, width=3.5in]{velocity2.eps}
\caption{The figure shows variation of $v^{2}$ with
test particle energy for different observer energy and radial
distance.\label{fig2}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=3.5in, width=3.5in]{velocity3a.eps}
\caption{The figure shows variation of $v^{2}$ with
test particle angular momentum for different choices of test
particle energy.\label{fig3}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=3.5in, width=3.5in]{velocity3b.eps}
\caption{The figure shows variation of $v^{2}$ with $E_{2}$ and r.\label{fig4}}
\end{figure}
We consider motion of two particles such that the four velocities are given by,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{v14}
\left.\begin{array}{c}
t^{\mu}=\left( \frac{E_{1}}{f}, \sqrt{E^{2}_{1}-V^{2}_{1}}, 0, \frac{L^{2}_{1}}{r^{2}} \right)\\
u^{\nu}=\left( \frac{E_{2}}{f}, \sqrt{E^{2}_{2}-V^{2}_{1}}, 0, \frac{L^{2}_{2}}{r^{2}} \right)
\end{array}\right\}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence we obtain the following result,
\begin{equation}\label{v15}
t^{\mu}u_{\mu}=g_{\mu \nu}t^{\mu}u^{\nu}=-\frac{E_{1}E_{2}}{f}+
\frac{\sqrt{\left( E^{2}_{1}-V^{2}_{1} \right) \left( E^{2}_{2}-V^{2}_{1} \right)}}{f}+\frac{L_{1}L_{2}}{r^{2}}
\end{equation}
Thus we obtain,
\begin{equation}\label{v16}
\left( t^{\mu}u_{\mu} \right)^{2}=\left( \frac{E_{1}E_{2}}{f} \right)^{2}
\left[ 1-\frac{fL_{1}L_{2}}{r^{2}E_{1}E_{2}}-\sqrt{\left( 1-fa_{1} \right)\left( 1-fa_{2} \right)} \right]^{2}
\end{equation}
Where, $a_{1}=\frac{1}{E^{2}_{1}}\left( 1+\frac{L^{2}_{1}}{r^{2}} \right)$ and
$a_{2}=\frac{1}{E^{2}_{2}}\left( 1+\frac{L^{2}_{2}}{r^{2}} \right)$.
Simplifying and rearranging terms we have obtained that,
\begin{equation}\label{v17}
\left( t^{\mu}u_{\mu} \right)^{2}=E^{2}_{1}E^{2}_{2}
\left[\frac{1}{2}\left( a_{1}+a_{2} \right)-\frac{L_{1}L_{2}}{r^{2}E_{1}E_{2}} \right]^{2}
\end{equation}
We know that the relative velocity could be given by, $v^{2}=1-\frac{1}{\left(u^{\mu}t_{\mu}\right)^{2}}$. Thus using equation ($\ref{v17}$) and assuming that energy of both the particle and the observer are high enough or the distance is large enough we ultimately arrive at,
\begin{equation}\label{v18}
v^{2}=1-\frac{4}{E^{2}_{1}E^{2}_{2}\left[ \left( \frac{1}{E^{2}_{1}}+\frac{1}{E^{2}_{2}} \right)+
\frac{1}{r^{2}}\left( \frac{L_{1}}{E_{1}}-\frac{L_{2}}{E_{2}} \right)^{2} \right]^{2}}
\end{equation}
Note that as $r\rightarrow 0$ the velocity approaches that of
light i.e. $v=1$. However if the particle and the observer has the
same impact parameter i.e.
$\frac{L_{1}}{E_{1}}=\frac{L_{2}}{E_{2}}$ then even if
$r\rightarrow 0$ the velocity does not approach $1$, which is a
very interesting result. Also at short distance the velocities and
hence energies are very high so $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ are small
quantities, however at large distance not $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ but
$f(r)$ become smaller and thus as they appear in product form in
the velocity expression it holds good for all $r$. Thus we can say
that equation ($\ref{v18}$) is a general result. This result is
valid in spherically symmetric solutions for Einstein gravity like
the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m solutions but also
for the Einstein-Maxwell-Gauss Bonnet theory. There exists two
additional well known spherically symmetric solution but they do
not have the form used. So we shall consider them in the next two
sections.
Note from figure-$\ref{fig1}$, as radial co-ordinate of the particle is decreased the velocity remain less than speed of light.
As $r\rightarrow 0$ the velocity also approaches $1$ in our system of units, which is justified and shows the actual motion that happen as the
particle moves within the event horizon. It is also clear that with increase of the energy of the particle the velocity increases and it also
increases with increasing the angular momenta.
From figure-$\ref{fig2}$ we see that as energy of the particle is increased we get a interesting behavior, at first it decreases and become zero,
then it again increases. Thus here the combined quantity in the denominator becomes 4. This happens when $E_{1}$ coincides with $E_{2}$
(see the figure), as we have chosen $L_{1}=L_{2}$ (see equation $\ref{v18}$). However changing the radius has a very small effect on velocity profile.
From figure-$\ref{fig3}$ we find that velocity varies with angular momentum in some what the same manner as it does with energy.
However by proper choice of $E_{2}=E_{1}$ the velocity can be made zero when $L_{2}=E_{2}$ as we have chosen other parameters such that $L_{1}=E_{1}$,
since under this condition the denominator in equation ($\ref{v18}$) become $4$. As well as we can eliminate that zero by changing $E_{2}$.
Figure-$\ref{fig4}$ shows the variation of velocity both with radial co-ordinate and the energy of the particle. This graph merely shows combined effects of
varying radius and energy as we have illustrated in earlier graphs.
\section{Motion for Some Classes of Alternative Gravity Theories}\label{vs2}
Current theoretical cosmology has two fundamental problems, namely inflation and late time acceleration of the universe. The usual scenarios used to explain both these accelerating cosmology epochs are to develop acceptable dark energy model, such as: scalar, spinor, cosmological constant and higher dimensions. Even if such a scenario seems to be partially succesful it is hindered by the coupling with usual matter, compatibility with standard elementary particle theories.
However another natural choice is the classical generalization of general relativity, called modified gravity or alternative gravity theory (\cite{cald03}, \cite{noj03},\cite{noj07},\cite{noj11}). Thus a gravitational alternative to explain inflation and dark energy seems very reasonable on the ground of the expectation that general relativity is just an approaximation that is valid at small curvature. A sector of modified gravity containing the gravitational terms relevent at high energy produced the inflationary epoch. During evolution curvature decreases and general relativity describes to an good approaximation the intermediate universe. With a furthur decrease of curvature as sub-dominant terms grow we see a transition from deceleration to cosmic acceleration. There exists traditional $F(R)$, string inspired models, scalar tensor theory, Gauss-Bonnet theory and some other models. In the next subsections we shall discuss motion of a test particle and hence its velocity in four spherically symmetric solutions for different alternative gravity theories.
\subsection{Motion in Dilaton Coupled Electromagnetic Field}\label{va1}
Static uncharged black hole in general relativity are described by
Schwarzschild solution. If mass of the black hole is much large
compared to Planck mass then this also, to a good approximation,
describes the uncharged black hole in string theory except regions
near singularity. However there was some departure from the
schwarzschild scenario when an exact calculation is made \cite{Yunes}. We shall discuss this solution later in this work.
From now on we shall assume that the above assertion is correct.
However for Einstein-Maxwell solutions the string inspired theory
differ widely from the known classical solution i.e. the
Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m solution.
The dilaton coupling with $F^{2}$ implies that every solution with non zero $F_{\mu \nu} $ will come with a non zero dilaton.
Thus the charged black hole solution in general relativity (which is the Reissner-nordstr\"{o}m solution) appears in a new form in string
theory due to
the presence of dilaton. The effective four dimensional low energy Lagrangian obtained from string theory is,
$$S=\int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g}[-R+e^{-2\Phi}F^{2}+2(\nabla\Phi)^{2}]$$
where $F_{\mu \nu} $ is the Maxwell field associated with a $U(1)$ subgroup of $E_{8}\times E_{8}$ or $Spin(32)/Z_{2}$.
We have set the remaining gauge fields and antisymmetric tensor field $H_{\mu \nu \rho}$ to zero and $\Phi $ is the dilaton field
(\cite{Garfinkle},\cite{Coleman},\cite{Vega},\cite{Bekensteina},\cite{Bekensteinb},\cite{Bocha},\cite{Witten2}).
Extremizing with respect to the $U(1)$ potential $A_{\mu}$, $\Phi$ and $g_{\mu \nu}$ leads to the following field equations,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{n1}
\left.\begin{array}{c}
(a) \nabla _{\mu} \left(e^{-2\Phi}F^{\mu \nu} \right)=0\\
(b) \nabla ^{2}\Phi +\frac{1}{2}e^{-2\Phi}F^{2}=0\\
(c) R_{\mu \nu}=2\nabla _{\mu}\Phi \nabla _{\nu}\Phi +2e^{-2\Phi}F_{\mu \lambda}F^{\lambda}_{\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu}e^{-2\Phi}F^{2}
\end{array}\right\}
\end{eqnarray}
The static spherically symmetric solution corresponding to the
above field equation (\ref{n1}) would give the following line
element as, \cite{Garfinkle}
$$ds^{2}=-(1-\frac{2M}{r})dt^{2}+\frac{1}{(1-\frac{2M}{r})}dr^{2}+r(r-e^{2\Phi_{0}}\frac{Q^{2}}{M})d\Omega^{2}$$
where, $d\Omega^{2}=d\theta^{2}+sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2}$. Once
again due to isometry we have taken our motion in the equatorial
plane such that, $d\Omega^{2}=d\phi^{2}$. Here $\Phi_{0}$ is the
asymptotic value of dilaton and $Q$ represents the black hole
charge. Note that this is almost identical to the Schwarzschild
metric, with a difference that areas of spheres of constant r and
t now depend on Q. In particular the surface
$r=\frac{Q^{2}e^{2\Phi_{0}}}{M}$ is singular. Also $r=2M$ is the
regular event horizon. Also the evolution of the scalar field
$\Phi$ could be given by,
\begin{equation}\label{n2}
e^{-2\Phi}=e^{-2\Phi _{0}}-\frac{Q^{2}}{Mr}
\end{equation}
We can define the dilaton charge as,
$$D=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int d^{2}\sigma^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}\Phi$$
where the integral is over a two sphere at spatial infinity and $\sigma^{\mu}$ is the normal to the two sphere at spatial infinity.
For charged black hole this leads to,
\begin{equation}\label{n3}
D=-\frac{Q^{2}e^{2\Phi_{0}}}{2M}
\end{equation}
Here D depends on the asymptotic value of dilaton field, which is determined once M and Q are given and is always negative.
Note that the actual dependance on dilaton field is described by, $e^{-\Phi /M_{pl}}$. Since we have walked in the unit $M_{pl}\sim 1$ we have the
term modified to $e^{-\Phi}$. so as $\Phi \rightarrow \Phi _{0}\sim M_{pl}$, this term is expected to become significant.\\
Now we write the above metric in a generalized form,
\begin{equation}\label{v21}
2L=-f(r)\dot{t}^{2}+\frac{1}{f(r)}\dot{r}^{2}+g(r)\dot{\phi}^{2}
\end{equation}
As usual we have $f(r)=(1-\frac{2M}{r})$ and $g(r)=r(r-e^{2\Phi_{0}}\frac{Q^{2}}{M})$, however due to notational simplicity we have taken
them to be simply $f$ and $g$ respectively. Then the velocity has the following expression,
\begin{equation}\label{v22}
v^{2}=\frac{1}{f^{2}}\left( \frac{dr}{dt} \right)^{2}+\frac{g}{f}\left(\frac{d\phi}{dt}\right)^{2}
\end{equation}
The potential has the following expression which could be given by,
\begin{equation}\label{v23}
V^{2}=f\left(1+\frac{L^{2}}{g}\right)
\end{equation}
Thus 4-velocity components are given by for this potential to yield,
\begin{equation}\label{v24}
t^{\mu}=\left(\frac{E}{f},-\sqrt{E^{2}-V^{2}},0,\frac{L}{g}\right)
\end{equation}
Note that for this case as well we have the following result $t^{\mu}t_{\mu}=-1$. If we have used equation ($\ref{v10}$) then we might have obtained
that the velocity has the same expression as that given by ($\ref{v22}$).
Also the acceleration has no change only $a^{1}$ is non zero and has the value given by ($\ref{v13}$). If we proceed in an identical way then we
obtain the following result for the velocity of a particle relative to an observer,
\begin{equation}\label{v25}
v^{2}=1-\frac{4}{E^{2}_{1}E^{2}_{2}\left[ \left( \frac{1}{E^{2}_{1}}+\frac{1}{E^{2}_{2}} \right)+
\frac{1}{g}\left( \frac{L_{1}}{E_{1}}-\frac{L_{2}}{E_{2}} \right)^{2} \right]^{2}}
\end{equation}
The most interesting part of this velocity expression corresponds to the fact that when at some finite $r$ the quantity $g=0$ then $v=1$.
So even if it had not go to $r=0$ the particle is seen to move with the velocity of light. However under the same situation as above such that both
the particle and the observer moves with the same impact parameter we obtain that this case is prohibited and the particle has $v$ less than $1$ for
all $r$. This singularity corresponds to $r=e^{2\Phi_{0}}\frac{Q^{2}}{M}$
However this particular result is actually an artifact of our
co-ordinate system. For string theory, the statement that the
spacetime has singularity when $r=e^{2\Phi_{0}}\frac{Q^{2}}{M}$ is
actually irrelevant. Since the strings do not couple to the metric
$g_{\mu \nu}$ but rather to $e^{2\Phi} g_{\mu \nu}$. This metric
appear in string $\sigma$ model. In terms of the string metric the
effective lagrangian would become \cite{Garfinkle},
$$S=\int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g}e^{-2\Phi}\left[-R-4(\nabla \Phi)^{2}+F^{2} \right]$$
Hence the charged black hole metric,
\begin{equation}\label{n4}
ds^{2}_{string}=-\frac{1-2Me^{\Phi _{0}}/\rho}{1-Q^{2}e^{3\Phi _{0}}/M\rho}d\tau ^{2}+\frac{d\rho ^{2}}{\left(1-2Me^{\Phi _{0}}/\rho \right)\left(1-Q^{2}e^{3\Phi _{0}}/M\rho\right)}+\rho ^{2}d\Omega
\end{equation}
This metric is identical to the metric given in equation
$(\ref{i2})$ where we have just rescaled the metric by some
conformal factor which is finite every where outside and on the
horizon. With this choice of metric and the assumption that energy
is high or radius is small we obtain the following expression for
relative velocity,
\begin{equation}\label{v18a}
v^{2}=1-\frac{4}{E^{2}_{1}E^{2}_{2}\left[ \left( \frac{1}{E^{2}_{1}}+\frac{1}{E^{2}_{2}} \right)+
\frac{1}{\rho ^{2}}\left( \frac{L_{1}}{E_{1}}-\frac{L_{2}}{E_{2}} \right)^{2} \right]^{2}}
\end{equation}
This is completely identical to the result in equation ($\ref{v18}$), however the metric is completely different, here the general form would
be $ds^{2}=-\frac{f(r)}{g(r)}dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{f(r)g(r)}+r^{2}d\Omega ^{2}$ where $f(r)=1-2Me^{\Phi _{0}}/\rho$ and $g(r)=1-Q^{2}e^{3\Phi _{0}}/M\rho$.
Hence we arrive at a very important result that for both the spherically symmetric solution in section (\ref{vs1}) and that for dilaton gravity has
the same velocity profile.
\subsection{Spherically Symmetric Solution in Quadratic Gravity}\label{va2}
In this section we consider a class of alternative theories of gravity in four dimensions defined by modifying the Einstein-Hilbert action through
all possible quadratic, algebraic curvature scalars, multiplied by constants or non-constant couplings as (\cite{Yunes},\cite{Stewart},\cite{Green2}),\\
$S=\int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g}[\kappa R+\alpha _{1}f_{1}(\upsilon)R^{2}+\alpha _{2}f_{2}(\upsilon)R_{ab}R^{ab}+\alpha _{3}f_{3}(\upsilon)R_{abcd}R^{abcd}$
\begin{equation}\label{62}
+\alpha _{4}f_{4}(\upsilon)R_{abcd}^{*}R^{abcd}-\frac{\beta}{2}\left(\nabla _{a}\upsilon \nabla ^{a}\upsilon +2V(\upsilon)\right)+L_{matter}]
\end{equation}
where $g$ is the determinant of the metric $g_{ab}$;
$(R,R_{ab},R_{abcd},R_{abcd}^{*})$ are the Ricci scalar and
tensor, the Riemann tensor and its dual \cite{Yunes2},
respectively; $L_{matter}$ is the lagrangian density for other
matter; $\upsilon$ is a scalar field; $(\alpha _{i},\beta)$ are
coupling constants; and $\kappa=(16\pi G)^{-1}$. All other
quadratic curvature terms are linearly dependent e.g., the Weyl
tensor squared. Theories of this type are motivated from low
energy expansion of string theory (\cite{Deser},\cite{Green}).
Varying equation $(\ref{62})$ with respect to the metric and setting $f_{i}(\upsilon)=1$, we find the modified field equations,
\begin{equation}\label{63}
\kappa G_{ab}+\alpha _{1}H_{ab}+ \alpha _{2}I_{ab}+ \alpha _{3}J_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}T_{ab}^{matter}
\end{equation}
where $T_{ab}^{matter}$ is the stress energy of matter, and,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{64}
\left. \begin{array}{c}
(a) H_{ab}=2R_{ab}R-\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}R^{2}- 2 \nabla _{ab}R+ 2g_{ab}\square R\\
(b) I_{ab}=\square R_{ab}+2R_{abcd}R^{cd}-\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}R_{cd}R^{cd}+\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}\square R -\nabla _{ab}R,\\
(c) J_{ab}=8R^{cd}R_{acbd}-2g_{ab}R^{cd}R_{cd}+4\square R_{ab}-2RR_{ab}+\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}R^{2}-2\nabla _{ab}R
\end{array}\right \}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\nabla _{a}$, $\nabla _{ab}=\nabla _{a}\nabla _{b}$, and $\square = \nabla _{a}\nabla ^{a}$ the first and second order covariant derivative
and the D'Alembertian.
The scalar field equation can be given by,
\begin{equation}\label{64a}
\beta \square \upsilon -\beta \frac{dV}{d\upsilon}=-\alpha _{1}R^{2}-\alpha _{2}R_{ab}R^{ab}-\alpha _{3}R_{abcd}R^{abcd}- \alpha _{4}R_{abcd}^{*}R^{abcd}
\end{equation}\\
The spherically symmetric solution to the above field equations
imposing dynamical arguments could be written using the metric
ansatz as \cite{Yunes},
\begin{equation}\label{65}
ds^{2}=-f_{0}\left[1+\epsilon h_{0}(r)\right]dt^{2}+ f_{0}^{-1}\left[1+\epsilon k_{0}(r)\right]dr^{2}+r^{2}d\Omega ^{2}
\end{equation}
and $\upsilon = \upsilon _{0}+\epsilon \upsilon _{0}$, where
$f_{0}=1-2M_{0}/r$, with $M_{0}$ the bare or GR BH mass and
$d\Omega _{2}$ is the line element on two sphere. The free
functions $(h_{0},k_{0})$ are small deformations about the
Schwarzschild metric.
The scalar field equation can be solved to yield,
\begin{equation}\label{66}
\upsilon _{0}=\frac{\alpha _{3}}{\beta}\frac{2}{M_{0}r}\left(1+\frac{M_{0}}{r}+\frac{4M_{0}^{2}}{3r^{2}} \right)
\end{equation}
We can use this scalar field solution to solve modified field equations to linear in $\epsilon$.
Requiring the metric to be asymptotically flat and regular at $r=2M_{0}$, we find the unique solution $h_{0}=F\left(1+\tilde{h_{0}}\right)$
and $K_{0}=-F\left(1+\tilde{h_{0}}\right)$, where $F=-(49/40)\zeta (M_{0}/r)$ and,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$\tilde{h_{0}}=\frac{2M_{0}}{r}+\frac{548}{147}\frac{M_{0}^{2}}{r^{2}}+\frac{8}{21}\frac{M_{0}^{3}}{r^{3}}-\frac{416}{147}\frac{M_{0}^{4}}{r^{4}}-\frac{1600}{147}\frac{M_{0}^{5}}{r^{5}}$
\begin{equation}\label{67}
\tilde{k_{0}}=\frac{58}{49}\frac{M_{0}}{r}+\frac{76}{49}\frac{M_{0}^{2}}{r^{2}}-\frac{232}{21}\frac{M_{0}^{3}}{r^{3}}-\frac{3488}{147}\frac{M_{0}^{4}}{r^{4}}-\frac{7360}{147}\frac{M_{0}^{5}}{r^{5}}
\end{equation}
Here we have defined the dimensionless coupling function $\zeta=\frac{\alpha _{3}^{2}}{\beta \kappa M_{0}^{4}}$,
which is of the order of $\epsilon$. Such a solution is most general for all dynamical, algebraic, quadratic gravity theories, in spherical symmetry.
We can define the physical mass $M=M_{0}\left[1+(49/80)\zeta\right]$, such that only modified metric components become $g_{tt}=-f(1+h)$ and
$g_{rr}=f^{-1}(1+k)$ where $h=\zeta /(3f)(M/r)^{3}\tilde{h}$ and $k=-(\zeta / f)(M/r)^{2}\tilde{k}$, and
\begin{equation}\label{68}
\tilde{h}=1+\frac{26M}{r}+\frac{66}{5}\frac{M^{2}}{r^{2}}+\frac{96}{5}\frac{M^{3}}{r^{3}}-\frac{80M^{4}}{r^{4}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{69}
\tilde{k}=1+\frac{M}{r}+\frac{52}{3}\frac{M^{2}}{r^{2}}+\frac{2M^{3}}{r^{3}}+ \frac{16M^{4}}{5r^{4}}- \frac{368}{3}\frac{M^{5}}{r^{5}}
\end{equation}
where $f=1-2M/r$. Note from the above expression for metric element that Physical observables are related to renormalized mass $M$ not on bare mass
$M_{0}$.\\
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=3.5in, width=3.5in]{velocitya1.eps}
\caption{The figure shows variation of $v^{2}$ with test particle angular momentum $L_{2}$ for different choices of $E_{2}$.\label{fig5}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=3.5in, width=3.5in]{velocitya2.eps}
\caption{The figure shows variation of $v^{2}$ with
test particle energy for different observer energy and test
particle angular momenta.\label{fig6}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=3.5in, width=3.5in]{velocitya3.eps}
\caption{The figure shows variation of $v^{2}$ with test particle energy and radial distance.\label{fig7}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=3.5in, width=3.5in]{velocitya4.eps}
\caption{The figure shows variation of $\Delta v^{2}$ with $E_{2}$.\label{fig8}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=3.5in, width=3.5in]{velocitya5.eps}
\caption{The figure shows variation of $\Delta v^{2}$ with $L_{2}$.\label{fig9}}
\end{figure}
In this case the lagrangian has the specific form given by,
\begin{equation}\label{70}
2L=-f(r)\left[1+h(r)\right]\dot{t}^{2}+\frac{\left[1+k(r)\right]}{f(r)}\dot{r}^{2}+r^{2}\dot{\phi}^{2};
\end{equation}
from this we can easily found components of velocity by differentiation. Since the lagrangian does not involve time we have two conserved quantities,
$E$ the energy per particle mass and $L$ the angular momentum per particle mass given by,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{71}
\left.\begin{array}{c}
E=-\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{t}}=f(r)\left[1+h(r)\right]\dot{t}\\
L=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\phi}}=r^{2}\dot{\phi}
\end{array}\right\}
\end{eqnarray}
where the time derivatives are with respect to affine co-ordinate $\tau$. Finally the equation of motion would be given by \citep{Yunes},
\begin{equation}\label{72}
\left(\frac{dr}{d\tau}\right)^{2}=V_{eff}^{GR}-\left[E^{2}h(r)+V_{eff}^{GR}k(r)\right]=V_{eff}
\end{equation}
where we have obtained $V_{eff}^{GR}=E^{2}-f(r)\left[1+\frac{L^{2}}{r^{2}}\right]$. Then the 4-velocity vector could be given by,
\begin{equation}\label{73}
t^{\mu}=\left(\frac{E}{f(1+h)},\sqrt{V_{eff}},0,\frac{L}{r^{2}}\right)
\end{equation}
we can easily check that $t^{\mu}t_{\mu}=-1$. Now we can proceed in an identical way as presented in the previous two sections and that finally
leads to the following expression for relative velocity of a particle with respect to an observer in this space-time to yield,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{v71}
\begin{array}{c}
v^{2}=v^{2}_{GR}-\Delta v^{2}=1-\frac{4}{E^{2}_{1}E^{2}_{2}\left[ \left( \frac{1}{E^{2}_{1}}+\frac{1}{E^{2}_{2}} \right)+
\frac{1}{\rho ^{2}}\left( \frac{L_{1}}{E_{1}}-\frac{L_{2}}{E_{2}} \right)^{2} \right]^{2}}
-\frac{2f^{2}}{E^{2}_{1}E^{2}_{2}\left[1-\frac{fL_{1}L_{2}}{E_{1}E_{2}r^{2}}- \sqrt{E^{2}_{1}-
V^{2}_{1}}\sqrt{E^{2}_{2}-V^{2}_{2}}\right]^{3}} \\
\left[h\left(1-\frac{fL_{1}L_{2}}{E_{1}E_{2}r^{2}}-
\sqrt{E^{2}_{1}-V^{2}_{1}}\sqrt{E^{2}_{2}-V^{2}_{2}}\right) + 2 \left(\frac{V_{1}V_{2}}
{E_{1}E_{2}}\left(h+k+\frac{1}{2}\left(E_{1}\frac{\delta V_{1}}{V^{2}_{1}}+E_{2}\frac{\delta V_{2}}
{V^{2}_{2}}\right)\right)+\frac{L_{1}L_{2}fh}{r^{2}E_{1}E_{2}}\right)\right]
\end{array}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined $V_{1}=V_{eff}^{GR}(E_{1},L_{1})$ and
similarly $V_{2}=V_{eff}^{GR}(E_{2},L_{2})$ with similar
interpretation such that $\delta V=-hE^{2}-kV_{eff}^{GR}$. Here
the quantities $f,h,k$ are defined earlier, among them
$f(r)=1-2M/r$ and $h,k$ are given by equations (\ref{68}) and
(\ref{69}). Also note that first two terms are just the velocity
expression we have obtained in equation (\ref{v18}) for a general
spherically symmetric solution and in equation (\ref{v18a}) for
dilaton coupled gravity and refereed to $v_{GR}^{2}$. Also note
that the last term which is the correction term due to alternative
gravity has a negative contribution and when $\zeta =0$ then we
recover our original equation (\ref{v18}).
Figure-$\ref{fig5}$ and figure-$\ref{fig6}$ represents the variation of $v^{2}$ with
test particle angular momentum and energy respectively, as well as
figure-$\ref{fig7}$ represents the variation with both test particle energy
and radial distance. We can very easily verify by comparison with
previous graphs that the effect of introducing quadratic terms in
the action alters the velocity profile near $r=0$ and for low test
particle energy and angular momentum. The effect of test particle
energy and angular momentum on the extra piece $\delta v^{2}$ is
shown in the figure-$\ref{fig8}$ and figure-$\ref{fig9}$, which verifies our
previous assertion. At low energy and angular momentum the
velocity is mostly dictated by the gravitational effect of the
source and that is when the effect of introduction of quadratic
terms could be evident. Hence the above result can be interpreted
as a astrophysical manifestation of the stringy signature, as
these quadratic terms come from some high energy effective string
theory.
\subsection{Motion in Einstein-Maxwell-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity}\label{va3}
Theories with extra spatial dimension have been an active area of
interest even since the original work of Kaluza and Klein, and the
advent of string theory which predicts the presence of extra
spatial dimension. Among many alternatives the Brane world
scenario is considered as a strong candidate which has theoretical
basis in some underlying string theory. Usually, the effect of
string theory on classical gravitational physics (\cite{Green2},\cite{Davies}) is investigated by means of a low
energy effective action, which in addition to the Einstein-Hilbert
action contain squares and higher powers of curvature term.
However the field equations become fourth order and brings in
ghosts \cite{Zumino}. In this context Lovelock \cite{Lovelock} showed that if the higher curvature terms appear
in a particular combination, the field equation become second
order and consequently the ghosts disappear.
In Einstein-Maxwell-Gauss-Bonnet (EMGB) gravity, the action in five dimensional spacetime ($M,g_{\mu \nu}$) can be written as,
\begin{equation}\label{46}
S=\frac{1}{2}\int _{M} d^{5}x \sqrt{-g} \left[R+\alpha L_{GB}+L_{matter} \right],
\end{equation}
where $L_{GB}=R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}R^{\alpha \beta \gamma
\delta}-4R_{\mu \nu}R^{\mu \nu}+R^{2}$ is the GB Lagrangian and
$L_{matter}=F^{\mu \nu}F_{\mu \nu}$ is the Lagrangian for the
electromagnetic field. Here $\alpha$ is the coupling constant of
the GB term having dimension $(length)^{2}$. As $\alpha$ is
regarded as inverse string tension, so $\alpha \geq 0$.
The gravitational and electromagnetic field equations obtained by varying the above action with respect to $g_{\mu \nu}$ and $A_{\mu}$
we could have obtained (see \cite{Chakraborty}),
\begin{eqnarray}\label{47}
\left. \begin{array}{c}
G_{\mu \nu}-\alpha H_{\mu \nu}=T_{\mu \nu}\\
\bigtriangledown _{\mu}F^{\mu}_{\nu}=0\\
H_{\mu \nu}=2\left[RR_{\mu \nu}-2R_{\mu \lambda}R^{\lambda}_{\mu}-2R^{\gamma \delta}R_{\mu \gamma \nu \delta}+R^{\alpha \beta \gamma}_{\mu}R_{\nu \alpha \beta \gamma} \right]-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu}L_{GB}
\end{array}\right \}
\end{eqnarray}
where $T_{\mu \nu}=2F^{\lambda}_{\mu}F_{\lambda \nu}-\frac{1}{2}F_{\lambda \sigma}F^{\lambda \sigma}g_{\mu \nu}$ is the electromagnetic field tensor.
A spherically symmetric solution to the above action has been obtained by \cite{Dehghani} and the line element is given by,
\begin{equation}\label{48}
ds^{2}=-g(r)dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{g(r)}+r^{2}d\Omega _{3}^{2},
\end{equation}
where the metric co-efficient is,
\begin{equation}\label{49}
g(r)=K+\frac{r^{2}}{4\alpha}\left[1\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{8\alpha \left(m+2\alpha \mid K \mid \right) }{r^{4}} -\frac{8\alpha q^{2}}{3r^{6}}} \right]
\end{equation}
Here $K$ is the curvature, $m+2\alpha \mid K\mid$ is the geometrical mass and $d\Omega _{3}^{2}$ is the metric of a 3D hypersurface such that,
\begin{equation}\label{50}
d\Omega _{3}^{2}=d\theta _{1}^{2}+sin^{2}\theta _{1}\left( d\theta _{2}^{2}+sin^{2}\theta _{2}d\theta _{3}^{2}\right)
\end{equation}
The range is given by $\theta _{1},\theta _{2}:[0,\pi]$.
We assume that there is a constant charge $q$ at $r=0$ and the vector potential be $A_{\mu}=\Phi (r)\delta_{\mu}^{0}$ such that
$\Phi (r)=-\frac{q}{2r^{2}}$.
In this metric the metric function $g(r)$ will be real for $r \geq r_{0}$ where $r_{0}^{2}$ is the largest real solution of the cubic equation,
\begin{equation}\label{51}
3z^{3}+24\alpha \left(m+2\alpha \mid K \mid \right)z-8\alpha q^{2}=0
\end{equation}
By a transformation of the radial co-ordinates we can show that $r=r_{0}$ is an essential singularity of the spacetime.
We shall choose $K=1$ and shall consider the $-$ve sign in front of square root of equation $(\ref{49})$ which leads to asymptotically flat solution.
However note that the line element as presented in equation ($\ref{48}$) is exactly of the same form as we have used in equation ($\ref{i1}$). Thus the velocity of a test particle relative to an observer would have the same form as presented in equation ($\ref{v18}$). Thus all the properties of this velocity remain valid in this EMGB gravity and shows the usefulness of our definition of velocity.
\subsection{Motion in F(R) gravity}\label{va4}
General Relativity (GR) is a widely accepted as a fundamental
theory relating matter energy density to geometric properties of
spacetime. The standard big-bang cosmological model can explain
the evolution of the universe well except inflation and late time
cosmic acceleration. Although many scalar field models have been
constructed in the frame work of string theory and supergravity to
explain inflation but Cosmic Microwave Background radiation still
do not show any evidence in favor of a particular model. The same
kind of approach is also taken to explain cosmic acceleration by
introducing different dark energy models where also concrete
observation is still lacking.
Thus one of the simplest choice is to modify GR action by introducing a term $F(R)$
in the lagrangian, where $F$ is an arbitrary function of scalar curvature $R$. There exists
two methods for deriving field equations, first, by varying the action with respect to metric tensor $g_{\mu \nu}$. The other method called
Palatini method should not be discussed here .In F(R) gravity (\cite{nel10},\cite{cor10},\cite{bal10},\cite{fel10}), the scalar curvature $R$
in the Einstein-Hilbert action
\begin{equation}\label{va11}
S_{EH}=\int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g}\left(\frac{R}{16\pi} +L_{matter}\right),
\end{equation}
gets replaced by an appropriate function of scalar curvature:
\begin{equation}\label{va12}
S_{F(R)}=\int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g}\left(\frac{F(R)}{16\pi} +L_{matter}\right)
\end{equation}
Varying this action we readily obtain the corresponding field equation to be given by,
\begin{equation}\label{va13}
\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu}F(R)-R_{\mu \nu}F'(R)-g_{\mu \nu}\square F'(R)+\nabla _{\mu}\nabla _{\nu}F'(R) =-4\pi T_{matter \mu \nu}
\end{equation}
Several solutions (often exact) to this field equation may be found but due to complicated nature of field equations the number of such exact
solutions are much less than that in general relativity. Without any matter and assuming the Ricci tensor to be covariantly
constant equation ($\ref{va13}$) reduces to the following algebraic equation,
\begin{equation}\label{va14}
0=2F(R)-RF'(R)
\end{equation}
From the above equation we can show that Schwarzchild-(anti-)de
Sitter space is an exact vacuum solution to it. Thus the
respective line element would be given by,
\begin{equation}\label{va15}
ds^{2}=-\left(1-\frac{2M}{r}\mp \frac{r^{2}}{L^{2}}\right)dt^{2}+ \left(1-\frac{2M}{r}\mp \frac{r^{2}}{L^{2}}\right)^{-1}dr^{2}+r^{2}d\Omega ^{2}
\end{equation}
Here the minus and plus sign corresponds to de Sitter and anti de Sitter space respectively, $M$ is the mass of the black hole
and $L$ is the length parameter of (anti-)de Sitter space, which is related to the curvature $R=\pm \frac{12}{L^{2}}$ (the plus sign corresponds
to de Sitter space and minus sign corresponds to anti de Sitter space).
The vacuum solution for $F(R)$ gravity also has the same form as
we have used in equation ($\ref{i1}$). Thus all the results of
section \label{vs1} will remain valid here as well. Hence the
relative velocity will have the same characteristics in vacuum
solution for $F(R)$ gravity theory as well. This justifies our
assertion as stated in section $\ref{vc}$.
\section{Discussion}\label{vd}
We have shown that velocity of any ingoing particle with respect
to observer sets as defined in the section ($\ref{vc}$) for a
general spherically symmetric potential with unit 2-sphere is
always less than that of light outside the singular point, it
approaches the speed of light as $r\rightarrow 0$. However the
notion of static observers are not valid for $r\leq 2M$. It is
valid only for region outside the event horizon. Thus we have
defined ingoing observers and determine velocity with respect to
the observer. We found that velocity of the test particle always
remain less than 1. For a different choice of metric with a
function on 2-sphere we found that the velocity is always less
than 1 which may not be self-evident in one set of co-ordinates,
but by going to another set we have actually shown that the
previous results are retained. Finally the spherically symmetric
solution in quadratic gravity shows another instance of the
correctness of our result. However there we have obtained a
correction factor to the velocity expression due to presence of
quadratic terms and hence this directly shows that the velocity
profile of an object differ considerably in alternative theories
from the result in Einstein gravity. However that particular
correction term would be Planck suppressed and hence very
difficult to observe, however just out side the event horizon of
the BH, where the tidal effects are huge these effects can in
principle be observed. For the other two theories we
have obtained the same expression as for the general spherically
symmetric model. Thus they follow our previous assertion
connecting to the relative velocity of a test particle. Also it
should be noted that the above analysis is not restricted to
Einstein gravity or the solutions we have discussed, it can also
be applied to other spherically symmetric black hole solutions in
other modified gravity theories. Also it could be extended to
higher dimensional black holes.
Extension to rotating black holes would be an interesting work for the future.\\
\acknowledgements The author thanks prof. Subenoy
Chakraborty of Jadavpur University and Prof. Soumitra Sengupta of
IACS for helpful discussion. The author also thanks DST, Govt. of
India for awarding KVPY fellowship. He gratefully thanks IUCAA,
Pune, for warm hospitality where a part of this work was done.
|
\section{Introduction}
The scale function for inner automorphisms of totally disconnected locally compact groups was introduced by Willis \cite{Willis} and developed in his later works; among them we mention \cite{Willis5,Willis2,Willis3}, where the scale function was defined for topological automorphisms of such groups as well. A wealth of results concerning the explicit computation of the scale function in $p$-adic Lie groups and in linear groups over local fields were obtained by Gl\" ockner \cite{Gl1,Gl2,GW}.
On the other hand, Adler, Konheim and McAndrew introduced in \cite{AKM} the topological entropy for continuous selfmaps of compact spaces, while later on Bowen in \cite{B} gave a different definition of topological entropy for uniformly continuous selfmaps of metric spaces, and this was extended to uniformly continuous selfmaps of uniform spaces by Hood in \cite{hood}. As explained in detail in \cite{DG-islam}, this definition can be significantly simplified in the case of continuous endomorphisms of totally disconnected locally compact groups.
For a topological automorphism of a totally disconnected locally compact group, the scale function and the topological entropy seem to be strongly related. A question in this direction was posed by Thomas Weigel, who asked for a possible relation of the scale function with either the topological entropy or the algebraic entropy. Even if they do not coincide in general, we see in this paper that the values of the scale function and of the topological entropy can be obtained in a similar way, and this permits to find the precise relation between them.
Further aspects of the connection of the scale function to the topological and the algebraic entropy are discussed in the forthcoming paper \cite{BDGT}.
\medskip
So in this paper we are mainly concerned with a totally disconnected locally compact group $G$ and a topological automorphism $\phi:G\to G$; when not explicitly said, we are assuming to be under these hypotheses.
It is worth recalling immediately that a totally disconnected locally compact group $G$ has as a local base at $e_G$ the family $\mathcal B(G)$ of all open compact subgroups of $G$, as proved by van Dantzig in \cite{vD}.
\bigskip
\bigskip
We start now giving the precise definition of scale function as it was introduced in \cite{Willis3}.
For $G$ a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism, the \emph{scale} of $\phi$ is
\begin{equation}\label{(S)}
s_G(\phi) = \min\{s_G(\phi,U): U \in \mathcal B(G)\},
\end{equation}
where $$s_G(\phi,U)=[\phi(U):U\cap\phi(U)].$$
Note that for every $U\in\mathcal B(G)$ the index $s_G(\phi,U)$ is finite as $U\cap \phi(U)$ is open and $\phi(U)$ is compact, so the value $s_G(\phi)$ of the scale function of $\phi$ is always a natural number. We use the notations $s(\phi,U)$ and $s(\phi)$ when the group $G$ is clear from the context.
It is worth to observe immediately that the scale function of any topological automorphism $\phi$ of $G$ is trivial (i.e., $s(\phi)=1$), whenever the group $G$ is either compact or discrete.
\medskip
Since the scale function is defined as a minimum, there exists $U \in \mathcal B(G)$ for which this minimum realizes, that is $s(\phi) =s(\phi,U)$, and such $U$ is called \emph{minimizing} for $\phi$ in \cite{Willis2}. Let $\mathcal M(G,\phi)$ be the subfamily of $\mathcal B(G)$ consisting of all compact open subgroups of $G$ that are minimizing for $\phi$, that is
$$\mathcal M(G,\phi)=\{U\in\mathcal B(G):U\ \text{minimizing for}\ \phi\}.$$
Moreover, we say that a subgroup $U$ of $G$ is $\phi$-\emph{invariant} if $\phi(U)\subseteq U$, \emph{inversely} $\phi$-\emph{invariant} if $U\subseteq \phi(U)$ (i.e., $\phi^{-1}(U)\subseteq U$), and $\phi$-\emph{stable} if $\phi(U)=U$ (i.e., $U$ is both $\phi$-invariant and inversely $\phi$-invariant).
\smallskip
It is easy to see that $\mathcal M(G,\phi)$ contains all $\phi$-invariant or inversely $\phi$-invariant $U\in\mathcal B(G)$; in particular,
$s(\phi)=1$ precisely when there exists a $\phi$-invariant $U\in\mathcal B(G)$, that is, $\mathcal M(G,\phi)=\{U\in\mathcal B(G): U\ \text{$\phi$-invariant}\}$ when $s(\phi)=1$ (see Lemma \ref{invariantsubgroup}).
\smallskip
On the other hand, if one has to use only the definition of scale function, the subgroups minimizing for $\phi$ that are not $\phi$-invariant or inversely $\phi$-invariant become quite hard to come by, since in \eqref{(S)} one has to check all subgroups from the large filter base $\mathcal B(G)$. So, in order to characterize and find minimizing subgroups, a different approach is adopted by Willis and we describe it in what follows. For $U\in \mathcal B(G)$ let
\begin{equation}\label{upiu}
U_{\phi+}= \bigcap_{n\in\mathbb N} \phi^n(U)\ \quad \text{and}\ \quad U_{\phi-}= \bigcap_{n\in\mathbb N} \phi^{-n}(U);
\end{equation}
and also
\begin{equation}\label{upiupiu}
U_{\phi++}=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N} \phi^n(U_{\phi+})\ \quad\text{and}\ \quad U_{\phi--}=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N} \phi^{-n}(U_{\phi-}).
\end{equation}
Note that $U_{\phi-}=U_{\phi^{-1}+}$ is $\phi$-invariant and $U_{\phi+}=U_{\phi^{-1}-}$
is inversely $\phi$-invariant (for further properties of these subgroups see Lemma \ref{invariantsubgroup} and the diagram \eqref{carpet}).
When the automorphism $\phi$ is clear from the context it is omitted from these notations.
The subgroup $U$ is said to be:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] \emph{tidy above} for $\phi$ if $U = U_+U_-$ (or equivalently, $U=U_-U_+$);
\item[(b)] \emph{tidy below} for $\phi$ if $U_{++}$ is closed;
\item[(c)] \emph{tidy} for $\phi$ if it is tidy above and tidy below for $\phi$.
\end{itemize}
The consequence of the so-called ``tidying procedure" given in \cite{Willis2} is the following fundamental theorem showing that the minimizing subgroups are precisely the tidy subgroups, namely $$\mathcal M (G,\phi)=\{U\in\mathcal B(G):U\ \text{tidy for}\ \phi\}.$$
\begin{theorem}\label{TP}\emph{\cite[Theorem 3.1]{Willis2}}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group, $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism and $U\in\mathcal B(G)$. Then $U$ is minimizing for $\phi$ if and only if $U$ is tidy for $\phi$. In this case $$s(\phi)=[\phi(U_+):U_+].$$
\end{theorem}
Note that the index $[\phi(U_+):U_+]$ is finite as $U_+ = U \cap \phi(U_+)$ and $U$ is open, so $U_+$ is open in $\phi(U_+)$, while $\phi(U_+)$ is compact.
\bigskip
We pass now to recall the definition of topological entropy in this setting,
following \cite{DG-islam}. Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group, $\phi:G\to G$ a continuous endomorphism and $U\in\mathcal B(G)$. For an integer $n\geq 0$ let
\begin{equation}\label{uenne}
U_n=\bigcap_{k=0}^n\phi^k(U)\quad\text{and}\quad U_{-n}=\bigcap_{k=-n}^0\phi^k(U).
\end{equation}
The \emph{topological entropy of $\phi$ with respect to $U$} is given by the following limit, which is proved to exist,
$$H_{top}(\phi,U)=\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{\log[U:U_{-n}]}{n};$$
and the \emph{topological entropy} of $\phi$ is $$h_{top}(\phi)=\sup\{H_{top}(\phi,U):U\in\mathcal B(G)\}.$$
As mentioned above the scale function of any topological automorphism of any totally disconnected compact group is trivial. This is not the case for the topological entropy; indeed, for example for a prime $p$ the topological entropy of the left Bernoulli shift of $\mathbb Z(p)^\mathbb Z$ is $\log p$ (see Example \ref{beta}). So it is immediately clear that the topological entropy does not always coincide with the logarithm of the scale function.
\medskip
The following limit free formula for the computation of the topological entropy was proved in \cite{DG-htop} and gives the possibility to easily compare the scale function with the topological entropy. An analogous formula for the topological entropy of continuous endomorphisms of totally disconnected compact groups was previously given in \cite{DG-limitfree}.
\begin{theorem}\label{lf}\emph{\cite{DG-htop}}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group, $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism and $U\in\mathcal B(G)$; then
$$H_{top}(\phi,U)=\log[\phi(U_+):U_+].$$
\end{theorem}
In \cite{DG-htop} this formula is applied to verify the basic properties of the topological entropy, well-known for compact groups (see \cite{St}), also for topological automorphisms of totally disconnected locally compact groups. These properties are the so-called Logarithmic Law, Invariance under conjugation, Monotonicity for subgroups and quotients, Weak Addition Theorem and Continuity for inverse limits (see Fact \ref{properties} below).
\paragraph*{Contents of the paper.}
\bigskip
\bigskip
The paper is organized as follows.
\medskip
In the first part of Section \ref{scale-sec} we recall some basic properties of the tidy subgroups, which are applied in the following sections to prove the main results of this paper. Then we give a background on a subgroup considered in \cite{BW} and studied more in deed and given a name in \cite{Willis4}, which is strongly related to tidy subgroups and the scale function. Namely, for $G$ a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism, the \emph{nub} of $\phi$ is the intersection of all subgroups $U\in\mathcal B(G)$ tidy for $\phi$, that is, in view of Theorem \ref{TP},
\begin{equation}\label{DefNUB}
\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\bigcap\{U\in\mathcal{B}(G): U\in\mathcal M(G,\phi)\}.
\end{equation}
Clearly, $\mathcal M(G,\phi)$ is a local base at $e_G$ precisely when $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\{e_G\}$ (see Corollary \ref{tidylocalbase}). Moreover, $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)$ is $\phi$-stable and compact (see Fact \ref{nub_erg}), so $s(\phi\restriction_{\mathrm{nub}(\phi)})=1$.
\medskip
In Section \ref{comp} we compare the values of the logarithm of the scale function with those of the topological entropy. Indeed, we see that for $G$ a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism, they are respectively the $\min$ and the $\sup$ of the same subset of $\log\mathbb N_+$, that is
$$\{\log [\phi(U_+):U_+]:U\in\mathcal B(G)\}.$$
An immediate consequence is that the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{logs<htop}
\log s(\phi)\leq h_{top}(\phi)
\end{equation}
holds in general (see Theorem \ref{logs<htop-th}). Moreover, this inequality can be strict, even in the non-compact (abelian) case (see Example \ref{example}), and this occurs precisely when the nub is not trivial. Indeed, the following theorem gives the precise relation between the scale function and the topological entropy, so answers the above mentioned question motivating this paper.
\begin{theorem}\label{nubbanale}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism. Then $\log s(\phi)=h_{top}(\phi)$ if and only if $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\{e_G\}$.
\end{theorem}
In the first version of this paper Theorem \ref{nubbanale} was formulated as a conjecture. More precisely, the sufficiency of the condition $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\{e_G\}$ for the equality $\log s(\phi)=h_{top}(\phi)$ was proved (see Proposition \ref{nubb}), while we only conjectured the necessity of that condition.
Two different proofs of the necessity, included at the end of Section \ref{comp}, were offered to us by Udo Baumgartner (a more topological one) and by Pablo Spiga (a more algebraically oriented one).
\medskip
In Section \ref{ep} we give the properties of the scale function with respect to the typical properties of the topological entropy. Logarithmic Law, Invariance under conjugation and Monotonicity for subgroups and quotients were proved in \cite{Willis,Willis2}, while we see that also the Weak Addition Theorem holds true and we discuss Continuity for direct and inverse limits.
\medskip
In Section \ref{yf-bt} we present an explicit computation of the scale function of any topological automorphism of $\mathbb Q_p^n$, where $\mathbb Q_p$ denotes the field of $p$-adic numbers and $n$ is a positive integer (see Theorem \ref{formulaQpN}). This result is inspired by the so-called $p$-adic Yuzvinski Formula for the topological entropy. Indeed, the Yuzvinski Formula was proved in \cite{Y} by Yuzvinski and it gives the values of the topological entropy of topological automorphisms $\phi$ of $\widehat \mathbb Q^n$ in terms of the Mahler measure of the characteristic polynomial of $\phi$. A different and clear proof of the Yuzvinski Formula is given in \cite{LW}, and it is based on the computation of the topological entropy of topological automorphisms of $\mathbb Q_p^n$, that is the result we referred to above as $p$-adic Yuzvinski Formula.
A particular case of Theorem \ref{formulaQpN} (when all eigenvalues of $\phi$ belong to $\mathbb Q_p$) was mentioned without proof in \cite{Willis3}. Moreover, one can obtain this result directly from the general method given by Gl\"ockner in \cite{Gl2} for computing the scale function on $p$-adic Lie groups.
\smallskip
In the second part of Section \ref{yf-bt} we assume the totally disconnected locally compact group $G$ to be abelian. Under the hypothesis that $G$ is covered by its compact subgroups, that ensures total disconnectedness of the Pontryagin dual $\widehat G$ of $G$, we prove that
$$s(\phi)=s(\widehat \phi),$$
where $\widehat\phi:\widehat G\to \widehat G$ is the dual automorphism of the topological automorphism $\phi$ of $G$ (see Theorem \ref{BTS}). This is a so-called Bridge Theorem, inspired by the analogous one from \cite{DG-btlca} connecting the topological entropy with the algebraic entropy in the same setting.
\subsection*{Notation and terminology}
As usual, $\mathbb N$ denotes the set of natural numbers and $\mathbb N_+$ the set of positive integers, $\mathbb P$ denotes the set of all prime numbers,
$\mathbb Z$ denotes the group of integers and $\mathbb{T}$ denotes the circle group with its usual topology.
For $p\in\mathbb P$, $\mathbb Z(p)=\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z$ denotes the cyclic group of order $p$, $\mathbb{J}_p$ denotes the group/ring of $p$-adic integers and
$\mathbb Q_p$ denotes the field of $p$-adic numbers.
If $G$ and $H$ are topological groups we indicate by $G\cong H$ that they are topological isomorphic, that is, they are isomorphic both as groups and as topological spaces.
Let $F$ be a group and consider $G=F^{\mathbb Z}$; then the left Bernoulli shift on $G$ is the automorphism $\sigma\colon G\to G$ defined by $\sigma\bigl((f_i)_{i\in\mathbb Z}\bigr)=(f_{i+1})_{i\in\mathbb Z}$; if $F$ is a topological group and $G$ is endowed with the product topology, then $\sigma:G\to G$ is a topological automorphism.
Let $G$ be a topological abelian group, then the Pontryagin dual $\widehat{G}$ of $G$ is the (abelian) group of all continuous
homomorphisms $\chi\colon G\to\mathbb{T}$ (i.e., characters), endowed with the compact-open topology. If $\phi\colon G\to G$ is a continuous endomorphism, then its
dual homomorphism $\widehat{\phi}\colon \widehat{G}\to\widehat{G}$ is defined by $\widehat{\phi}(\chi)=\chi\circ\phi$ for every $\chi\in\widehat{G}$. If $G$ is a locally compact abelian group, so is its dual group $\widehat{G}$, and the dual endomorphism $\widehat \phi:\widehat G\to \widehat G$ is continuous. Moreover, if $G$ is finite then $G\cong \widehat{G}$, and $G$ is discrete if and only if $\widehat{G}$ is compact.
Recall also that, if $X\subseteq G$, the annihilator of $X$ in $\widehat G$ is
$X^\bot=\{\chi\in\widehat{G}:\chi(x)=0\ \forall x\in X\}$ and, if $Y\subseteq \widehat{G}$, the annihilator of $Y$ in $G$ is $Y^\bot=\{g\in G: \chi(g)=0\ \forall \chi\in Y\}.$
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
It is a pleasure to thank Thomas Weigel for asking the question that inspired this work, George Willis for sending us his preprint \cite{Willis4} which was fundamental for give an answer to the question, Udo Baumgartner and Pablo Spiga for their kind permission to include here their proofs of our conjecture.
Last, but not least, we thank the referee for the sharp and useful comments and suggestions.
\section{Scale function and tidy subgroups}\label{scale-sec}
In the first part of this section we are mainly concerned with basic properties of tidy subgroups.
\medskip
The next lemma collects in particular known immediate examples of minimizing subgroups.
\begin{lemma}\label{invariantsubgroup}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group, $\phi\colon G\to G$ a topological automorphism and $U\in\mathcal B(G)$. Then:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] if $U$ is $\phi$-invariant then $U$ is minimizing for $\phi$ and $s(\phi)=s(\phi,U)=1$;
\item[(b)] $U$ is minimizing for $\phi$ if and only if $U$ is minimizing for $\phi^{-1}$, i.e., $\mathcal M(G,\phi)=\mathcal M(G,\phi^{-1})$;
\item[(c)] if $U$ is inversely $\phi$-invariant then $U$ is minimizing for $\phi$ and $s(\phi)=s(\phi,U)\geq 1$, with equality exactly when $U$ is also $\phi$-stable;
\item[(d)] consequently, the following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $s(\phi) = 1$
\item[(ii)] there exists a $\phi$-invariant $U \in \mathcal B(G)$;
\item[(iii)] $\mathcal M(G,\phi)=\{U\in\mathcal B(G): U\ \text{$\phi$-invariant}\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(a) follows immediately from the definition of scale function, (b) is \cite[Corollary 1]{Willis}, (c) follows from (a) and (b), while (d) from (a) and the definition of scale function.
\end{proof}
If $G$ is a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism,
for a subgroup $U\in\mathcal B(G)$ one can consider the following diagram, helping to memorize better
the subgroups defined in \eqref{upiu}, \eqref{upiupiu} and \eqref{uenne}, and their interrelations. Note that $U_+U_-$ need not be a subgroup of $G$;
this condition is satisfied exactly when $U$ is tidy above for $\phi$, and in this case the diagram is contained in the lattice of all subgroups of $G$.
\begin{equation}\label{carpet}
\xymatrix@[email protected]{
&&& & \ldots &\phi^{-2}(U)\ar@{-}[dd] & \phi^{-1}(U)\ar@{-}[d] & U\ar@{-}[dl]\ar@{-}[dr] & \phi(U) \ar@{-}[d]& \phi^2(U) \ar@{-}[dd]& \ldots & &&&& \\
U_{--}&&&&& & U_{-1}\ar@{-}[dl] & & U_1\ar@{-}[dr] & & &&&& U_{++} \\
&\ddots\ar@{-}[ul]&&& & U_{-2}\ar@{-}[dl] && && U_2\ar@{-}[dr] &&&& \Ddots\ar@{-}[ur]&\\
&&\phi^{-1}(U_-)\ar@{-}[ul] & &\Ddots\ar@{-}[dl] &&& U_+U_- &&& \ddots\ar@{-}[dr]&&\phi(U_+)\ar@{-}[ur]&&\\
&&&U_{-}\ar@{-}[ul]\ar@{-}[ddrrrr]\ar@{-}[urrrr] &&&&&&&& U_+\ar@{-}[ur] \ar@{-}[ddllll]\ar@{-}[ullll]&&&\\
&&&&&&& &&&&&&&\\
&&&&&&& U_-\cap U_+ &&&&&&&
}
\end{equation}
The motivation to introduce these subgroups is to measure the extent to which the subgroup $U$ is $\phi$-invariant or inversely $\phi$-invariant. Indeed, $U$ is $ \phi$-invariant if and only if $U_- = U$, while $U$ is inversely $\phi$-invariant if and only if
$U_+= U$.
\medskip
The subgroup $U_+$ is compact and it is the largest inversely $\phi$-invariant subgroup contained in $U$; moreover, we have an increasing
chain of subgroups
$$U_+\subseteq\phi(U_+)\subseteq\ldots\subseteq\phi^{n}(U_+)\subseteq\ldots\subseteq U_{++}=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}\phi^n(U_+),$$
where all indices $[\phi^{n+1}(U_+):\phi^{n}(U_+)]$ coincide with $[\phi(U_+):U_+]$ (so are finite, as noted above). Hence
$U_{++}$, which is the increasing union of this chain, is a subgroup of $G$ that contains $U_+$.
If $U$ is tidy below for $\phi$, that is $U_{++}$ is closed in $G$, then $U_{++}$ is locally compact with the subspace topology, hence a Baire space; so there exists an integer $n\geq0$ such that $\phi^n(U_+)$
is open in $U_{++}$; in this case $U_+$ is also open in $U_{++}$. The converse implication holds true as well, so we have the following lemma characterizing the subgroups tidy below for $\phi$.
\begin{lemma}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group, $\phi\colon G\to G$ a topological automorphism and $U\in\mathcal{B}(G)$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)]$U$ is tidy below for $\phi$;
\item[(b)]$U_{++}$ is locally compact;
\item[(c)]$U_+$ is open in $U_{++}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
The next Lemma \ref{taeq} was inspired by the proof of \cite[Lemma 1]{Willis} concerning the case of inner automorphisms; it provides characterizations of the tidy above subgroups. The following elementary fact from group theory is needed.
\begin{claim}\label{claimbase}
Let $G$ be a group and let $A$, $B$, $C$ be subgroups of $G$. If $C\subseteq B$ and $B\subseteq A\cdot C$, then $B=(A\cap B)C=C(A\cap B)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{lemma}\label{taeq}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group, $\phi\colon G\to G$ a topological automorphism and $U\in\mathcal{B}(G)$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $U$ is tidy above for $\phi$;
\item[(b)] $\phi (U)=\phi (U_+)(U\cap \phi (U))$;
\item[(c)] $\phi^n (U)=\phi^n (U_+)U_n$ for every integer $n\geq 0$;
\item[(d)] $U_+\cap uU_-\neq \emptyset$ for every $u\in U$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(a)$\Rightarrow$(b) Let $U\in\mathcal{B}(G)$ be tidy above for $\phi$. This means that $U=U_-U_+$ and so $\phi(U)=\phi(U_-)\phi(U_+)$. Moreover, $\phi(U_-)\subseteq U_-\subseteq U$ and then $\phi(U)\subseteq U\phi(U_+)$. Now Claim \ref{claimbase} applied to $U$, $\phi(U)$ and $\phi(U_+)$ yields $\phi (U)=\phi (U_+)(U\cap \phi (U))$.
(b)$\Rightarrow$(c) Let $n\geq 0$. The inclusion $U_n\subseteq U$ is always satisfied, so
$$\phi(U_n)\subseteq \phi (U)=\phi (U_+)(U\cap \phi (U))\subseteq \phi (U_+)U,$$
thus Claim \ref{claimbase} applied to $U$, $\phi(U_n)$ and $\phi(U_+)$ yields
\begin{equation}
\phi(U_n)=\phi (U_+)(U\cap \phi (U_n))=\phi (U_+)U_{n+1}.\label{equationUn}
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{equationUn} we prove by induction the condition in (c).
Indeed, the case $n=0$ is clear and the case $n=1$ is exactly the condition in (b). Now assume that $\phi^n (U)=\phi^n (U_+)U_n$. Therefore $\phi^{n+1}(U)=\phi^{n+1}(U_+)\phi(U_n)=\phi^{n+1}(U_+) U_{n+1}$, where the last equality follows from \eqref{equationUn} noting also that $\phi(U_+)\subseteq \phi^{n+1}(U_+)$.
(c)$\Rightarrow$(d) Let $u\in U$ and consider, for every integer $n\geq 0$, the subset $C_n(u)=U_+\cap u U_{-n}$. These subsets are compact and satisfy $C_{n+1}(u)\subseteq C_n(u)$. Moreover, since $\phi^n(U_{-n})=U_n$,
\begin{align*}
C_n(u)&=\{z\in U_+: z\in u U_{-n}\}\\
&=\{z\in U_+: u^{-1}\in z^{-1}U_{-n}\}\\
&=\{z\in U_+: \phi^n(u^{-1})\in \phi^n(z^{-1})U_n\}.
\end{align*}
Then $C_n(u)$ is non-empty in view of the condition in (c). By the compactness of $U_+$, the intersection $C=\bigcap_{n\in\mathbb N}C_n(u)$ is non-empty. Moreover, it coincides with $U_+\cap u U_-$; in fact, the inclusion $U_+\cap u U_-\subseteq C$ is clear. To verify the converse inclusion let $z\in C$, that exists since $C$ is non-empty; then $z\in U_+\cap u U_{-n}$ for every $n\geq 0$, in particular $z\in U_+$ and $u^{-1}z\in U_{-n}$ for every $n\geq 0$, that is $z\in U_+\cap uU_-$.
(d)$\Rightarrow$(a) For every $u\in U$ there exist $u_+\in U_+$ and $u_-\in U_-$ such that $u_+=uu_-$, that is $u=u_+(u_-)^{-1}$. This means that $U\subseteq U_+U_-$, that is $U$ is tidy above for $\phi$.
\end{proof}
This lemma has important consequences. In particular, the following corollary of Lemma \ref{taeq} and Theorem \ref{TP}, which is contained in Step 1 of the proof of \cite[Theorem 3.1]{Willis2}, is one of the two main ingredients to prove in the next section the inequality announced in \eqref{logs<htop}.
\begin{corollary}\label{s=min}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group, $\phi\colon G\to G$ a topological automorphism and $U\in\mathcal{B}(G)$. Then $s(\phi,U)\geq [\phi (U_+):U_+]$; equality holds exactly when $U$ is tidy above for $\phi$.
In particular, $$s(\phi)=\min\{[\phi(U_+):U_+]:U\in\mathcal B(G)\}.$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Since $\phi(U)\supseteq \phi(U_+)U_1$, where $U_1=U\cap \phi(U)$, we have
$$s(\phi,U)=[\phi(U):U_1]\geq [\phi(U_+)U_1:U_1].$$
Moreover,
$$[\phi(U_+)U_1:U_1]=[\phi(U_+):U_1\cap\phi(U_+)]=[\phi(U_+):U_+].$$
This proves that $s(\phi,U)\geq[\phi(U_+):U_+]$.
If $U$ is tidy above for $\phi$, then $\phi(U)=\phi(U_+)U_1$ by Lemma \ref{taeq}, and hence we have the equality $s(\phi,U)= [\phi (U_+):U_+]$.
From what we have just proved it follows that $s(\phi)\leq \min\{[\phi(U_+):U_+]:U\in\mathcal B(G)\}$. Equality holds, since Theorem \ref{TP} yields that $s(\phi)=s(\phi,V)=[\phi(V_+):V_+]$ for some $V\in\mathcal M(G,\phi)$.
\end{proof}
Another consequence of Lemma \ref{taeq} is the following result. It was proved in \cite[Lemma 1]{Willis} in the case of inner automorphisms.
\begin{corollary}\label{esiste n}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group, $\phi\colon G\to G$ a topological automorphism and $U\in\mathcal{B}(G)$.
There exists an integer $n\geq 0$ such that $U_n$ is tidy above for $\phi$. In particular, the subgroups tidy above for $\phi$ form a local base at $e_G$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Consider the subfamily $\{\phi(U_n)\}_{n\geq 0}$ of $\mathcal B(G)$, and note that $\phi(U_n)\supseteq \phi(U_{n+1})$ for every $n\geq0$, and $\phi(U_+)=\bigcap_{n\in\mathbb N}\phi(U_n)$. Consider the set $\phi(U_+)U$, which is a compact and open neighborhood of $\phi(U_+)$. There exists an integer $n\geq 0$ such that $\phi(U_n)\subseteq \phi(U_+)U$. Apply now Claim \ref{claimbase} to $U$, $\phi(U_n)$ and $\phi(U_+)$ to obtain
$$\phi(U_n)=\phi(U_+)(U\cap \phi(U_n))=\phi(U_+)U_{n+1}.$$
Since $U_+=(U_n)_+$ and $U_{n+1}=U_n\cap \phi(U_n)$ we have that
$$\phi(U_n)=\phi((U_n)_+)(U_n\cap \phi(U_n)).$$
In view of Lemma \ref{taeq} this means that $U_n$ is tidy above for $\phi$.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
In the second part of this section we recall the properties of the nub (that is the intersection of all tidy subgroups, see \eqref{DefNUB}), starting with the following useful characterization of this remarkable subgroup.
\begin{fact}\label{nub_erg}\emph{\cite[Corollary 4.7]{Willis4}}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism.
Then $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)$ is the largest $\phi$-stable compact subgroup of $G$ having no proper $\phi$-stable relatively open subgroups.
\end{fact}
This fact implies that when the nub is finite, then it is trivial. Indeed, if $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)$ is finite then $\{e_G\}$ is open in $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)$, consequently $\{e_G\}$ is a $\phi$-stable relatively open subgroup of $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)$, and thus $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\{e_G\}$ by Fact \ref{nub_erg}.
Moreover, it is worth to observe that always $s(\phi\restriction_{\mathrm{nub}(\phi)})=1$ as $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)$ is compact.
\medskip
We know that the family $\mathcal{B}(G)$ of compact open subgroups of $G$ is a local base at $e_G$ and that every $U\in\mathcal{B}(G)$ contains a compact open subgroup that is tidy above for $\phi$ by Corollary \ref{esiste n}. Moreover, \cite[Corollary 4.3]{Willis4} asserts that a subgroup $U\in\mathcal B(G)$ is tidy below for $\phi$ if and only if $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)\subseteq U$ (see also \cite[Lemma 3.31]{BW}). So we have the following result, where (b) can be deduced from (a) via Lemma \ref{invariantsubgroup}, and (a) is essentially contained in \cite[Theorem 3.32]{BW}, where several conditions equivalent to $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\{e_G\}$ are given.
\begin{corollary}\label{tidylocalbase}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism. Then:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\mathcal M(G,\phi)$ is a local base at $e_G$ if and only if $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\{e_G\}$;
\item[(b)] if $s(\phi)=1$, then $\mathrm{nub}(\phi) = \{e_G\}$ if and only if $G$ has a local base at $e_G$ consisting of $\phi$-invariant compact open subgroups.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
If $s(\phi)=1$, we have $U\in\mathcal M(G,\phi)$ precisely when $U$ is $\phi$-invariant by Lemma \ref{invariantsubgroup}, so in this case
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\bigcap\{U\in\mathcal{B}(G): U\text{ is }\phi\text{-invariant}\}. \label{dagdag}
\end{equation}
Now \eqref{dagdag} allows us to extend the definition of the nub also to arbitrary continuous endomorphisms of totally disconnected compact groups (note that $[\phi(U):U\cap \phi(U)]$ is finite for every $U\in\mathcal B(G)$).
\medskip
Let us see some examples of computation of the nub.
\begin{example}\label{June13}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism. If $\phi$ is periodic (i.e., $\phi^m=id_G$ for some integer $m>0$), then $G$ has a base of $\phi$-invariant compact open subgroups, so $\mathrm{nub}(\phi) = \{e_G\}$ as noted after Corollary \ref{tidylocalbase}.
\item[(b)] If $G= \prod_p N_p$, where $p$ is a prime and each $N_p$ is a finitely generated $\mathbb{J}_p$-module, then $G$ has a base of fully invariant compact open subgroups (namely, $\{mG:m\in \mathbb N_+\}$), so $\mathrm{nub}(\phi) = \{e_G\}$ for every continuous endomorphism of $G$.
\item[(c)] Let $G = F^\mathbb Z$, where $F$ is an arbitrary finite group. Then $\mathrm{nub}(\sigma)= G$, where $\sigma: G \to G$ is the left Bernoulli shift, (see Fact \ref{nub_erg}).
\item[(d)] Let $G$ be a totally disconnected compact (i.e., profinite) abelian group. Then for every continuous endomorphism
$\phi: G \to G$ one can completely describe $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)$ by using the dual endomorphism $\widehat{\phi}: \widehat{G} \to \widehat{G}$.
Indeed, $$\mathrm{nub}(\phi) = t_{\widehat{\phi}}(\widehat{G})^\bot,$$ where $ t_{\widehat{\phi}}(\widehat{G})$ is the sum of all finite
$\widehat{\phi}$-invariant subgroups of the discrete torsion abelian group $\widehat{G}$; in terms of \cite{DG}, $t_{\widehat{\phi}}(\widehat{G})$ is the Pinsker subgroup of $\widehat{\phi}$, defined as the largest $\widehat{\phi}$-invariant subgroup of $\widehat{G}$ where the restriction of $\widehat{\phi}$ has algebraic entropy zero.
According to \cite{DG}, $\mathrm{nub}(\phi) $ is the largest $\phi$-invariant closed subgroup of $G$ where the restriction of $\phi$ acts ergodically, or, equivalently, has strongly positive topological entropy; this means that the induced endomorphism $\overline \phi : G/\mathrm{nub}(\phi)\to G/ \mathrm{nub}(\phi)$ is the Pinsker factor of $\phi$, that is $h_{top}(\overline \phi)=0$ and this is the largest factor with this property (see \cite{DG} for more details).
\item[(e)] As noted in \cite{Willis4}, the dynamical property of the subgroup $ \mathrm{nub}(\phi)$ from item (d) remains true in the non-abelian case too. Namely, $\phi$ acts transitively on $ \mathrm{nub}(\phi)$, and $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)$ is the largest closed $\phi$-invariant subgroup of $G$ where $\phi$ acts ergodically.
\item[(f)] For any integer $n>0$ and every topological automorphism $\phi:\mathbb Q_p^n\to \mathbb Q_p^n$, $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)$ is trivial. Indeed, being a compact subgroup of $\mathbb Q_p^n$, $\mathrm{nub}(\phi) \cong \mathbb{J}_p^m$ for some $0 \leq m \leq n$. By (b) we can conclude that $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)$ has plenty of proper $\phi$-stable open subgroups. According to Fact \ref{nub_erg}, this implies $ m=0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{example}
\section{The scale function and the topological entropy}\label{comp}
It follows from Corollary \ref{s=min} that
$$\log s(\phi)=\min\{\log [\phi(U_+):U_+]:U\in\mathcal B(G)\}.$$
Furthermore, Theorem \ref{lf} yields
$$h_{top}(\phi)=\sup\{\log[\phi(U_+):U_+]:U\in\mathcal B(G)\}.$$
This gives the inequality announced in \eqref{logs<htop}:
\begin{theorem}\label{logs<htop-th}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism. Then
\begin{equation}\label{geq}
\log s(\phi)\leq h_{top}(\phi).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
We observe immediately that if $G$ is compact, then the inequality in Theorem \ref{logs<htop-th} can be strict in a trivial way.
Indeed, $G$ compact implies $\log s(\phi)=0$, while the topological entropy $h_{top}(\phi)$ can be positive, as in the next example.
\begin{example}\label{beta}
For a prime $p$ let $G=\mathbb Z(p)^\mathbb Z$ and $\sigma:G\to G$ the left Bernoulli shift. Then $h_{top}(\sigma)=\log p$ (see \cite{AKM,St}); on the other hand, we have seen that $s(\sigma)=1$ and $\mathrm{nub}(\sigma)=G$ in Example \ref{June13}(c).
\end{example}
The inequality in Theorem \ref{logs<htop-th} can be obtained also in different way based on an equivalent definition of the scale function, as explained in the next remark.
\begin{remark}
For $G$ a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism, it was proved in \cite[Theorem 7.7]{M} that, for any $U\in\mathcal B(G)$,
$$\log s(\phi)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log[\phi^n(U):U\cap \phi^n(U)]}{n}.$$
This gives immediately that $\log s(\phi)\leq h_{top}(\phi)$, because $[\phi^n(U):U\cap\phi^n(U)]=[U:\phi^{-n}(U)\cap U]$ as $\phi$ is an automorphism, and $[U:\phi^{-n}(U)\cap U]\leq [U:U_{-n}]$ as $U_{-n}\subseteq\phi^{-n}(U)\cap U$.
\end{remark}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi\colon G\to G$ a continuous endomorphism.
Since $H_{top}(\phi,-)$ is antimonotone, that is,
\begin{center}
if $U,V\in\mathcal B(G)$ and $U\subseteq V$, then $H_{top}(\phi,V)\leq H_{top}(\phi,U)$,
\end{center}
by the definition, it is clear that to compute the topological entropy $h_{top}(\phi)$ it suffices to take the supremum of $H_{top}(\phi,U)$ when $U$ ranges in a local base at $e_G$ of $G$:
\begin{claim}\label{basesuff}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group, $\phi:G\to G$ a continuous endomorphism and $\mathcal B\subseteq \mathcal B(G)$ a local base at $e_G$. Then $h_{top}(\phi)=\sup\{H_{top}(\phi,U):U\in\mathcal B\}$.
\end{claim}
Applying this claim on topological entropy, as well as Theorem \ref{TP} and Theorem \ref{lf}, in the following proposition we give a sufficient condition to have equality in \eqref{geq}.
\begin{proposition}\label{nubb}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism. If $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\{e_G\}$ then $\log s(\phi)=h_{top}(\phi)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\{e_G\}$, then for every $U\in\mathcal B(G)$ tidy for $\phi$ we have $\log s(\phi)=\log[\phi(U_+):U_+]$ by Theorem \ref{TP} and so $H_{top}(\phi,U)=\log s(\phi)$ by Theorem \ref{lf}.
We are assuming that $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\{e_G\}$, so the tidy subgroups form a local base at $e_G$ by Corollary \ref{tidylocalbase}. Hence Claim \ref{basesuff} permits to conclude that $\log s(\phi)=h_{top}(\phi)$.
\end{proof}
In particular, Proposition \ref{nubb} says that, if the inequality $\log s(\phi)\leq h_{top}(\phi)$ in \eqref{geq} is strict, then $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)\neq\{e_G\}$. As already mentioned, this is the case of topological automorphisms $\phi$ of totally disconnected compact groups with positive topological entropy; indeed, $\log s(\phi)=0$, while $h_{top}(\phi)>0$. So we have the following consequence of Proposition \ref{nubb} on topological entropy.
\begin{corollary}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism. If $h_{top}(\phi)>0$ then $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)\neq\{e_G\}$.
\end{corollary}
Another consequence of Proposition \ref{nubb} on topological entropy concerns its values. Indeed, the scale function assumes only finite values as noted above, while the topological entropy can be infinite, being defined as a supremum. We see now that when the nub is trivial, the topological entropy has only finite values.
\begin{corollary}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism. If $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\{e_G\}$, then $h_{top}(\phi)$ is finite.
Moreover, $h_{top}(\phi)=H_{top}(\phi,U)=\log[\phi(U_+):U_+]$ for every $U\in\mathcal B(G)$ tidy for $\phi$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{nubb} we have $h_{top}(\phi)=\log s(\phi)$. Then apply Theorems \ref{TP} and \ref{lf}.
\end{proof}
We give now two examples of non-compact totally disconnected locally compact groups $G$ and topological automorphisms $\phi:G\to G$ for which $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\{e_G\}$ and so $\log s(\phi)=h_{top}(\phi)$.
\begin{example}\label{esugpadica}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] For any integer $n>0$ and every topological automorphism $\phi\colon \mathbb Q_p^n\to\mathbb Q_p^n$ the equality $\log s(\phi)=h_{top}(\phi)$
holds true. Indeed, we know that $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)$ is trivial by Example \ref{June13}(f), so we can conclude using Proposition \ref{nubb}.
\item[(b)] Let $p$ be a prime, $G = \mathbb Z(p)^\mathbb Z$ and $\sigma: G \to G$ the left Bernoulli shift. Modify the usual compact product topology of $G$ taking $U = \mathbb Z(p)^{\mathbb N}$ to be an open subgroup (equipped with its compact product topology) of $G$ in this new topology. With respect to Example \ref{beta}, the value of the topological entropy remains $h_{top}(\sigma)=\log p$.
Since $\mathrm{nub}(\sigma)$ is trivial, Proposition \ref{nubb} applies to give $\log s(\sigma)=h_{top}(\sigma) = \log p >0$ in this case (compare with the particular case of coincidence of $\log s(\phi)$ and $h_{top}(\phi)$ considered in Corollary \ref{s=1} below).
\end{itemize}
\end{example}
We know that $s(\phi) = 1$ if and only if there exists a $\phi$-invariant $U \in \mathcal B(G)$ by Lemma \ref{invariantsubgroup}(d). Moreover, Corollary \ref{tidylocalbase}(b) implies that if $s(\phi)=1$ and $\mathrm{nub}(\phi) = \{e_G\}$ then $G$ has a local base at $e_G$ consisting of $\phi$-invariant compact open subgroups. We see in the next corollary that this condition is equivalent to $h_{top}(\phi)=0$.
\begin{corollary}\label{s=1}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $h_{top}(\phi)=0$;
\item[(b)] $G$ has a local base at $e_G$ formed by $\phi$-invariant $U \in \mathcal B(G)$;
\item[(c)] $G$ has a local base at $e_G$ formed by subgroups tidy for $\phi$ and $s(\phi)=1$;
\item[(d)] $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\{e_G\}$ and $s(\phi)=1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
(a)$\Rightarrow$(b) By the definition of topological entropy $h_{top}(\phi)=0$ implies $H_{top}(\phi,U)=0$ for every $U\in\mathcal B(G)$. The condition $H_{top}(\phi,U)=0$ implies that there exists an integer $n\geq0$ such that $U_{-n}=U_-$; this follows from \cite[Lemma 3.1]{DG-limitfree} in the compact case (see \cite{DG-htop} for the general case). Then $U_-\in\mathcal B(G)$, $U_-\subseteq U$ and it is $\phi$-invariant. This shows that $G$ has a local base at $e_G$ formed by $\phi$-invariant $U \in \mathcal B(G)$.
Now (b)$\Rightarrow$(c)$\Rightarrow$(d) are obvious, and (d)$\Rightarrow$(a) follows from Proposition \ref{nubb}.
\end{proof}
The hypothesis $s(\phi)=1$ of Corollary \ref{s=1}(c,d) is satisfied in obvious way when $G$ is compact. In contrast to Example \ref{beta}, now Example \ref{example} furnishes a totally disconnected locally compact group $G$ that is not compact, and a topological automorphism $\phi:G\to G$ such that $s(\phi)=1$ and $h_{top}(\phi)>0$. By Proposition \ref{nubb}, this yields that $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)$ is necessarily a non-trivial subgroup of $G$, and in this case $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)$ is also proper (compare with Examples \ref{beta} and \ref{esugpadica}(b)).
\begin{example}\label{example}
Let $p$ be a prime and $G=\mathbb Z(p^\infty)^{\mathbb Z}$. Imposing that $U=\mathbb Z(p)^\mathbb Z$ is open in $G$ (equipped with its compact product topology), then $G$ is given a totally disconnected locally compact (non-compact) topology. Consider $\sigma:G\to G$ the left Bernoulli shift;
clearly $\sigma(U)=U$, and then:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\mathrm{nub}(\sigma)=U$;
\item[(b)] $s(\sigma)=1$;
\item[(c)] $H_{top}(\sigma,U)=0$;
\item[(d)] $H_{top}(\sigma,V)=\log p$, where $V=\mathbb Z(p)^{-\mathbb N_+}\oplus\{0\}\oplus\mathbb Z(p)^{\mathbb N_+}$; in fact $[\sigma(V_+):V_+]=p$ and apply Theorem \ref{lf}.
Note that $V_+=\mathbb Z(p)^{\mathbb N_+}$ and $V_-=\mathbb Z(p)^{-\mathbb N_+}$, therefore $V$ is tidy above for $\sigma$. On the other hand, $V_{++}=\mathbb Z(p)^{(-\mathbb N)}\oplus\mathbb Z(p)^{\mathbb N_+}$, which is dense in $U$ and so it is not closed; in other words $V$ is not tidy below for $\sigma$.
\item[(e)] $h_{top}(\sigma)=\log p$, since $\{V_n:n\in\mathbb Z\}$ is a local base at $e_G$, $H_{top}(\sigma,V_n)=\log p$ as in item (d). Then apply Claim \ref{basesuff}.
\end{itemize}
\end{example}
Since the sufficiency was already proved in Proposition \ref{nubb}, it is enough to prove the necessity in order to complete the proof of Theorem \ref{nubbanale}.
\smallskip
\begin{proof}[\bf First proof of Theorem \ref{nubbanale}]
Suppose that $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)\neq\{e_G\}$; then there exists an element $e_G\neq g\in \mathrm{nub}(\phi)$. The family
$$\mathcal{B}_g=\{U\in\mathcal{B}(G): U \text{ is tidy above for }\phi,\, g\notin U \}$$
is a local base at $e_G$, so by Claim \ref{basesuff}
$$h_{top}(\phi)=\sup\{H_{top}(\phi,U):U\in\mathcal{B}_g\}.$$
As every subgroup tidy for $\phi$ contains $g$ by the choice of $g$, no subgroup $U$ in $\mathcal{B}_g$ is tidy for $\phi$.
By Theorem \ref{TP}, no $U\in\mathcal B_g$ is minimizing for $\phi$ and so, in view of Theorem \ref{lf} and Corollary \ref{s=min},
$$\log s(\phi)<\log s(\phi,U)=\log[\phi(U_+):U_+]=H_{top}(\phi,U).$$
Therefore, $\log s(\phi)<h_{top}(\phi)$.
\end{proof}
\smallskip
\begin{proof}[\bf Second proof of Theorem \ref{nubbanale}]
Suppose that $\log s(\phi)=h_{top}(\phi)$. Let $U\in \mathcal B(G)$ be tidy above for $\phi$.
Then $$s(\phi,U)=[\phi(U):U\cap \phi(U)]=[\phi(U_+):U_+]$$ by Corollary \ref{s=min}. By Theorem \ref{lf} and by our assumption we have
$$\log s(\phi,U)=\log[\phi(U_+):U_+]=H_{top}(\phi,U)\leq h_{top}(\phi)=\log s(\phi).$$ Therefore $s(\phi)=s(\phi,U)$ and so $U$ is minimizing for $\phi$, that is $U$ is tidy for $\phi$ by Theorem \ref{TP}. We have shown that every $U\in\mathcal B(G)$ that is tidy above for $\phi$ is also tidy for $\phi$. Then $\mathcal M(G,\phi)$ is a local base at $e_G$ by Corollary \ref{esiste n}, hence $\mathrm{nub}(\phi)=\{e_G\}$ by Corollary \ref{tidylocalbase}.
\end{proof}
\section{Basic ``entropic'' properties of the scale function}\label{ep}
In this section we give properties of the scale function similar to the basic properties satisfied by the topological entropy; so we start reminding the latter ones in the following result.
\begin{fact}\label{properties}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)]\emph{[Logarithmic Law]} For every integer $k\geq0$ we have $h_{top}(\phi^k) = k \cdot h_{top}(\phi)$.
\item[(b)]\emph{[Invariance under conjugation]} If $H$ is another totally disconnected locally compact group and $\xi:G\to H$ is a topological isomorphism, then $h_{top}(\phi) = h_{top}(\xi\phi\xi^{-1})$.
\item[(c)]\emph{[Monotonicity]} If $H$ is a $\phi$-stable closed subgroup of $G$, then $h_{top}(\phi)\geq h_{top}(\phi\restriction_H)$; if $H$ is normal and $\overline\phi:G/H\to G/H$ is the topological automorphism induced by $\phi$, then $h_{top}(\phi)\geq h_{top}(\overline{\phi})$.
\item[(d)]\emph{[Weak Addition Theorem]} If $G=G_1\times G_2$ and $\phi_i:G_i\to G_i$ is a topological automorphism for $i=1,2$, then $h_{top}(\phi_1\times\phi_2)=h_{top}(\phi_1)+h_{top}(\phi_2)$.
\item[(e)]\emph{[Continuity]} If $G$ is an inverse limit $G=\varprojlim G/N_i$ with $N_i$ a $\phi$-stable closed normal subgroup, then $h_{top}(\phi)=\sup_{i\in I}h_{top}(\overline\phi_i)$, where $\overline\phi_i:G/N_i\to G/N_i$ is the topological automorphism induced by $\phi$.
\end{itemize}
\end{fact}
The Logarithmic Law for the scale function is already known:
\begin{fact}[Logarithmic Law]\emph{\cite[Corollary 3]{Willis}}\label{loglaw}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group, $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism and $n\geq 0$ an integer. Then $s(\phi^n)=s(\phi)^n$.
\end{fact}
Invariance under conjugation is clear also for the scale function:
\begin{lemma}[Invariance under conjugation]\label{invariance}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism. Let $H$ be another totally disconnected locally compact group and $\xi:G\to H$ a topological isomorphism. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $U\in\mathcal B(G)$ if and only if $\xi(U)\in\mathcal B(H)$, therefore $\mathcal{B}(H)=\{\xi(U): U \in \mathcal{B}(G)\}$.
\item[(b)] If $U\in\mathcal B(G)$, then $U\in\mathcal M(G,\phi)$ if and only if $\xi(U)\in\mathcal M(H,\xi\phi\xi^{-1})$, and in particular,
$$\mathcal M(H,\xi\phi\xi^{-1})=\{\xi(U):U\in\mathcal M(G,\phi)\};$$
\item[(c)] $s(\phi)=s(\xi\phi\xi^{-1})$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(a) is clear, (b) follows from the fact that $s_G(\phi,U)=s_H\bigl(\xi\phi\xi^{-1},\xi(U)\bigr)$ for every $U\in\mathcal{B}(G)$, and (c) follows from (b).
\end{proof}
Consider the case $H=G$ in the above lemma. We see in Example \ref{minex} that, while $\mathcal M(G,\xi\phi\xi^{-1})=\{\xi(U):U\in\mathcal M(G,\phi)\}$ and also $s(\phi)=s(\xi\phi\xi^{-1})$ by Lemma \ref{invariance}(c), it may occur the case that $\mathcal M(G,\phi)$ do not coincide with $\mathcal M(G,\xi\phi\xi^{-1})$.
This stresses the fact that the correspondence between minimizing subgroups for $\phi$ and minimizing subgroups for $\xi\phi\xi^{-1}$ is given by $U\mapsto \xi(U)$.
\begin{example}\label{minex}
Let $\phi\colon \mathbb Q_p^2\to\mathbb Q_p^2$ the topological automorphism defined by the matrix $\begin{pmatrix}0&p\\p^{-1}&0\end{pmatrix}$.
Then $\phi^2=id$ and so $s(\phi)=1$ by Fact \ref{loglaw}.
Nevertheless,
$$s(\phi,\mathbb{J}_p^2)=\bigl[(p\mathbb{J}_p)\times(p^{-1}\mathbb{J}_p):(p\mathbb{J}_p)\times\mathbb{J}_p\bigr]=p$$
and hence $\mathbb{J}_p^2$ is not a minimizing subgroup for $\phi$, although it is a minimizing subgroup for the canonical Jordan form of
$\phi$. Indeed, let $\xi\colon \mathbb Q_p^2\to\mathbb Q_p^2$ be the topological automorphism defined by $\begin{pmatrix}p&-p\\1&1\end{pmatrix}$ and $\psi\colon \mathbb Q_p^2\to\mathbb Q_p^2$ the topological automorphism defined by $\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{pmatrix}$, then $\phi=\xi\psi\xi^{-1}$, i.e., $\psi$ is the canonical Jordan form of $\phi$.
It is obvious that $s(\psi,\mathbb{J}_p^2)=1$.
\end{example}
Monotonicity was proved in \cite{Willis2}, indeed the following more precise relation was given there.
\begin{fact}[Monotonicity]\emph{\cite[Proposition 4.7]{Willis2}}\label{closedsubgroups}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group, $\phi:G\to G$ a topological automorphism and $H$ a $\phi$-stable closed subgroup of $G$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $s(\phi)\geq s(\phi\restriction_H)$.
\end{itemize}
If $H$ is also normal and $\overline\phi:G/H\to G/H$ is the topological automorphism induced by $\phi$, then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(b)] $s(\phi\restriction_H)\cdot s(\overline\phi)$ divides $s(\phi)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{fact}
\begin{remark}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] We call the property in item (d) of Fact \ref{properties} Weak Addition Theorem. Indeed, the stronger so-called Addition Theorem holds for the topological entropy in the compact case (see \cite{B,St,Y}). More precisely, by Addition Theorem we mean the following property, imposed on all continuous endomorphisms $\phi:G\to G$ of compact groups $G$:
if $H$ is a closed $\phi$-invariant normal subgroup of $G$, then
$$
h_{top}(\phi)=h_{top}(\phi\restriction_H)+h_{top}(\overline\phi),
$$
where $\overline\phi:G/H\to G/H$ is the continuous endomorphism induced by $\phi$.
\item[(b)] It is not known whether the Addition Theorem for the topological entropy holds also in the general case of locally compact groups, even under the hypotheses that $G$ is totally disconnected (and abelian) and that $\phi:G\to G$ is a topological automorphism.
\item[(c)] The counterpart of the Addition Theorem for the scale function does not hold true in general, since \cite[Example 6.4]{Willis2} shows that the inequality $s(\phi)\geq s(\phi\restriction_H)\cdot s(\overline\phi)$ in Fact \ref{closedsubgroups}(b) can be strict.
On the other hand, we see in Theorem \ref{wATscala} below that the Weak Addition Theorem holds also for the scale function.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
Note that we call this kind of properties Addition Theorem also for the scale function, even if they have a multiplicative form in this case; just take the logarithm to have the additive form.
\begin{theorem}[Weak Addition Theorem]\label{wATscala}
Let $G$, $H$ be totally disconnected locally compact groups and $\phi:G\to G$, $\psi:H\to H$ topological automorphisms. Then $s(\phi\times\psi)=s(\phi)\cdot s(\psi)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $V\in \mathcal B(G)$ be tidy for $\phi$ and $W\in \mathcal B(H)$ be tidy for $\psi$. For the compact and open subgroup $V\times W\subseteq G\times H$, we have that
\begin{align*}
(V\times W)_+&=\bigcap_{k\geq 0}(\phi\times\psi)^k(V\times W)=\bigcap_{k\geq 0}\bigl(\phi^k(V)\times
\psi^k(W)\bigr)\\&=\Bigl(\bigcap_{k\geq 0}\phi^k(V)\Bigr)\times \Bigl(\bigcap_{k\geq 0}\psi^k(W)\Bigr)=V_+\times W_+,
\end{align*}
and in the same way one can prove that $(V\times W)_-=V_-\times W_-$. Since
$$
(V\times W)_+(V\times W)_-=(V_+V_-)\times (W_+W_-)=V\times W,
$$
we have that $V\times W$ is tidy above for $\phi\times \psi$. The subgroup $V\times W$ is also tidy below for $\phi\times \psi$ because
\begin{align*}
(V\times W)_{++}&=\bigcup_{k\geq 0}(\phi\times\psi)^k(V\times W)_+
=\bigcup_{k\geq 0}\Bigl(\phi^k(V_+)\times \psi^k(W_+)\Bigr)\\
&\stackrel{*}{=}\Bigl(\bigcup_{k\geq 0}\phi^k(V_+)\Bigr)\times \Bigl(\bigcup_{k\geq 0}\psi^k(W_+)\Bigr)=
V_{++}\times W_{++}
\end{align*}
is a closed subgroup of $G\times H$. The equality ($*$) holds because the families $\{\phi^k(V_+)\}_{k \geq 0}$ and $\{\psi^k(W_+)\}_{k\geq 0}$ are increasing families of subgroups of $G$ and $H$ respectively.
Therefore $V\times W$ is tidy for $\phi\times \psi$ and
$$
s(\phi\times \psi)=\bigl[(\phi\times \psi)(V\times W):\bigl((V\times W)\cap (\phi\times \psi)(V\times W)\bigr)\bigr].
$$
This index is equal to
$$
\bigl[\phi (V):V\cap \phi (V)\bigr]\cdot\bigl[\psi (W):W\cap \psi (W)\bigr]=s(\phi)\cdot s(\psi)
$$
and hence $s(\phi\times \psi)=s(\phi)\cdot s(\psi).$
\end{proof}
We conclude this section discussing the continuity of the scale function with respect to direct and inverse limits. The next proposition should be compared with \cite[Proposition 5.3]{Willis2}, where the scale function is considered for inner automorphisms on an increasing sequence of closed subgroups.
\begin{proposition}[Continuity for direct limits]\label{directlimits}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi\colon G\to G$ a topological automorphism. If $G\cong \varinjlim_{i\in I} H_i$, where $\{H_i\}_{i\in I}$ is a directed system of $\phi$-stable open subgroups of $G$, then there exists $j\in I$ such that
$$s(\phi)=s(\phi\restriction_{H_j})=\max_{i\in I}s(\phi\restriction_{H_i}).$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{closedsubgroups}(a) the inequalities
\begin{equation}\label{inequality1}
s(\phi)\geq s(\phi\restriction_{H_i})
\end{equation}
hold true for every $i\in I$. Then $s(\phi)\geq\max_{i\in I}s(\phi\restriction_{H_i})$.
Let $U\in\mathcal M(G,\phi)$. Then $\{H_i\cap U\}_{i\in I}$ is an open covering of $U$ and so it admits a finite open subcover, because $U$ is compact. This means that there exists a finite set $F\subseteq I$ such that $U\subseteq \bigcup_{i\in F}H_i.$
Moreover, there exists an index $j\in I$ such that $H_i\subseteq H_j$ for every $i\in F$ and so $U\subseteq H_j$.
In particular, $U\in \mathcal B(H_j)$. This implies that $U$ is tidy above also for $\phi\restriction_{H_j}$. Indeed, both automorphisms
$\phi$ and $\phi\restriction_{H_j}$ share the same subgroups $U_+$ and $U_-$. Moreover, $U$ is tidy below for $\phi\restriction_{H_j}$, because
$$
U_{\phi\restriction_{H_j}++}=U_{\phi++}=U_{\phi++}\cap H_j
$$
is a closed subgroup of $H_j$. This means that
$$
s(\phi)=s(\phi,U)=s(\phi\restriction_{H_j},U)= s(\phi\restriction_{H_j}).
$$
Hence, in view of \eqref{inequality1},
$$s(\phi)=s(\phi\restriction_{H_j})=\max_{i\in I}s(\phi\restriction_{H_i}),$$
and this concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} A counterpart of Proposition \ref{directlimits} regarding continuity for inverse limits holds true: if $G$ is a totally disconnected locally compact group, $\phi:G\to G$ is a topological automorphism and $G=\varprojlim G/N_i$ is an inverse limit where $\{N_i\}_{i\in I}$ is an inverse system of $\phi$-stable closed normal subgroups of $G$, then $s(\phi)=\max_{i\in I} s(\overline \phi_i)$, where $\overline \phi_i:G/N_i\to G/N_i$ is the topological automorphism induced by $\phi$ for every $i\in I$. A proof can be found in \cite{BDGT}, while the case of inner automorphisms is proved in \cite[Proposition 5.4]{Willis2}.
\end{remark}
Applying Proposition \ref{directlimits} one obtains the following corollary still concerning continuity of the scale function with respect to direct limits; the condition on the stable subgroups is relaxed from open to closed, while the set of indices is now supposed to be countable.
\begin{corollary}
Let $G$ be a totally disconnected locally compact group and $\phi\colon G\to G$ a topological automorphism. If $G\cong \varinjlim_{n\geq 0} H_n$, where $\{H_n\}_{n\geq 0}$ is a directed system of $\phi$-stable closed subgroups of $G$, then exists an integer $n\geq0$ such that
$$s(\phi)=s(\phi\restriction_{H_n})=\max_{n\in \mathbb N}s(\phi\restriction_{H_n}).$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} Apply the Baire Category Theorem to $G=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}H_n$ to conclude that for some $m\geq0$ the subgroup $H_m$ has non-empty interior. Therefore, $H_n$ is open for all $n \geq m$. Now apply Proposition \ref{directlimits} to the family of these open subgroups.
\end{proof}
\section{Scalar $p$-adic Yuzvinski Formula and Bridge Theorem}\label{yf-bt}
In the first part of this section, and more precisely in Theorem \ref{formulaQpN}, we compute directly the value of the scale function of any topological automorphism $\phi:\mathbb Q_p^n\to \mathbb Q_p^n$, where $n>0$; note that such an automorphism $\phi$ is a $\mathbb Q_p$-linear transformation and so it is given by an $n\times n$ matrix with coefficients in $\mathbb Q_p$.
\medskip
We start recalling some useful information about the $p$-adic numbers, giving reference to \cite{G} for more details. Let $\lvert -\rvert_p$ be the $p$-adic norm over $\mathbb Q_p$, that is, for $\xi\in\mathbb Q_p$
$$\lvert\xi\rvert_p=\begin{cases}
0&\text{if }\xi=0,\\
p^r&\text{if }\xi=p^{-r}\Bigl(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}a_ip^i\Bigr)\text{ with }a_0\in\{1,2, \ldots, p-1\}.
\end{cases}$$
Note that $\mathbb{J}_p=\{\xi\in\mathbb Q_p: \lvert\xi\rvert_p\leq 1\}$ is a local PID with maximal ideal $\{\xi\in\mathbb Q_p: \lvert\xi\rvert_p< 1\}$.
\smallskip
If $K$ is a finite extension of $\mathbb Q_p$ of degree $d=[K:\mathbb Q_p]$, then the $p$-adic norm $\lvert-\rvert_p$ over $\mathbb Q_p$ can be extended
to a norm over $K$, and this extension is unique. We indicate this extended norm with $\lvert-\rvert_p$ and we call it the $p$-adic
norm over $K$. Let $$\mathcal{O}=\{\xi\in K: \lvert\xi\rvert_p\leq 1\},$$ then $\mathcal{O}$ is a local PID with maximal ideal
$$
\mathfrak{m}=\{\xi\in K: \lvert\xi\rvert_p< 1\}.
$$
Consider now a generator $\pi'$ for $\mathfrak{m}$, then there exists an integer $e>0$ such that $p=u\pi'^e$, where $u$ is a unit in $\mathcal{O}$.
Denote by $\pi$ a generator of $\mathfrak{m}$ such that $p=\pi^e$. This number $e$ is independent of the choice of the generator of $\mathfrak{m}$, divides the degree $d$ of the extension and it is called the \emph{ramification index} of $K$ over $\mathbb Q_p$. One can prove that the residual field $\mathcal{O}/\mathfrak{m}$ has cardinality
\begin{equation}\label{residualfield}
\bigl\lvert\mathcal{O}/\mathfrak{m}\bigr\rvert=[\mathcal{O}:\mathfrak{m}]=p^f,
\end{equation}
where we let $f=d/e$.
\medskip
The following example is the basic case necessary to obtain in Theorem \ref{formulaQpN} an explicit formula for the scale function of topological automorphisms of $\mathbb Q_p^n$.
\begin{example}\label{exJordan}
Let $K$ be a finite extension of $\mathbb Q_p$ of degree $d$, let $\lambda\in K$ and consider the topological automorphism $\phi\colon K^n
\to K^n$ defined by the Jordan block
$$
J=\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda&1&0&\dots&0\\0&\lambda&1&\dots&0\\\vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots\\0&\dots&0&\lambda&1\\0&\dots&0&0&\lambda
\end{pmatrix}
\in GL_n(K).
$$
We see that $\mathcal{O}^n$ is minimizing for $\phi$ and that
\begin{equation}\label{detJ}
s_{K^n}(\phi)=\max\{1,\lvert\lambda\rvert_p^{nd}\}=\max\{1,\lvert\det J\rvert_p^d\}.
\end{equation}
Note that the nature of the automorphism $\phi$ is completely determined by $\lambda$. In fact if $\lambda\in\mathcal{O}$ then $\mathcal{O}^n$ is $\phi$-invariant and $s(\phi)=s(\phi,\mathcal{O}^n)=1$, otherwise it is inversely $\phi$-invariant. In both cases the subgroup is minimizing for $\phi$ by Lemma \ref{invariantsubgroup}(a,c).
Suppose that $\lambda\notin\mathcal{O}$, this means that
\begin{equation*}
s(\phi)=s(\phi,\mathcal{O}^n)=\bigl[\phi(\mathcal{O}^n):\mathcal{O}^n\cap\phi(\mathcal{O}^n)\bigr]=\bigl[(\lambda\mathcal{O})^n:\mathcal{O}^n
\bigr]=\bigl[\lambda\mathcal{O}:\mathcal{O}\bigr]^n.
\end{equation*}
Let $e$ be the ramification index of the extension $K$ over $\mathbb Q_p$, $\pi$ a generator for $\mathfrak{m}$ such that $p=\pi^e$ and $f=d/e$. Then $\lambda=\pi^{-l}\xi$, where $\xi\in \mathcal{O}\setminus \mathfrak{m}$, $l>0$ and
\begin{equation*}
\lvert\lambda\rvert_p=\lvert\pi^{-l}\rvert_p=\lvert p^{-l/e}\rvert_p=p^{l/e}.
\end{equation*}
This yields
$$
s(\phi)=\bigl[\lambda\mathcal{O}:\mathcal{O}\bigr]^n=\bigl[\pi^{-l}\mathcal{O}:\mathcal{O}\bigr]^n=[\pi^{-1}\mathcal{O}:\mathcal{O}
]^{ln}.
$$
By \eqref{residualfield}, $[\pi^{-1}\mathcal{O}:\mathcal{O}]=p^f$ and so
$$
s(\phi)=(p^f)^{ln}=(p^{l/e})^{efn}=\lvert\lambda\rvert_p^{dn}.
$$
This means exactly that
$$
s_{K^n}(\phi)=\max\{1,\lvert \lambda\rvert_p^{dn}\}.
$$
In conclusion note that $\lvert \lambda\rvert_p^n=\lvert\det J\rvert_p$, so this proves also the other equality in \eqref{detJ}.
\end{example}
By Example \ref{esugpadica}(a) we have that the equality $\log s(\phi)=h_{top}(\phi)$ holds true for all topological automorphism $\phi\colon \mathbb Q_p^n\to\mathbb Q_p^n$, so one could apply the $p$-adic Yuzvinski Formula for the topological entropy proved in \cite{LW} to obtain \eqref{Yuz}. Nevertheless, we give another direct proof of this formula for sake of completeness, but also because the computation of the scale function is simpler than that of the topological entropy; indeed, for the scale function it suffices to take into account only one compact open subgroup which is minimizing (i.e., tidy) for $\phi$, without any recourse to the Haar measure.
\begin{theorem}\label{formulaQpN}
Let $\phi\colon \mathbb Q_p^n\to\mathbb Q_p^n$ be a topological automorphism, for an integer $n>0$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{Yuz}
s_{\mathbb Q_p^n}(\phi)=\prod_{\lvert\lambda_i\rvert_p>1}\lvert\lambda_i\rvert_p,
\end{equation}
where $\{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n\}$ is the family of all eigenvalues of $\phi$ contained in a finite extension $K$ of $\mathbb Q_p$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume without loss of generality that $K=\mathbb Q_p[\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n]$, that is, $K$ is the splitting field of the minimal
polynomial of $\phi$ over $\mathbb Q_p$, and let $d=[K:\mathbb Q_p]$.
Let $\phi^K=\phi\otimes_{\mathbb Q_p} id_K\colon K^n\to K^n$, where $\otimes_{\mathbb Q_p}$ is the tensor product over $\mathbb Q_p$. The automorphisms
$\phi$ and $\phi^K$ are represented by the same matrix respectively over $\mathbb Q_p$ and $K$, hence they have the same eigenvalues.
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a base of $K$ over $\mathbb Q_p$, then every $\xi\in K$ has coordinates $[\xi]_{\mathcal{A}}=(\xi_{(1)},\dots,
\xi_{(d)})$. Moreover, $K^n\cong \mathbb Q_p^{dn}$ and this isomorphism $\alpha\colon K^n\to \mathbb Q_p^{dn}$ is given by
$$
\alpha(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n)=\Bigl([\xi_1]_{\mathcal{A}},\dots,[\xi_n]_{\mathcal{A}}\Bigr).
$$
Let
$$
\Phi=\underbrace{\phi\times\dots\times\phi}_{d\text{ times}}\colon \mathbb Q_p^{dn}\to \mathbb Q_p^{dn};
$$
then $\phi^K=\alpha^{-1}\Phi\alpha$. Lemma \ref{invariance}(c) and Fact \ref{loglaw} yield
\begin{equation}
s_{\mathbb Q_p^n}(\phi)^d=s_{\mathbb Q_p^{dn}}(\Phi)=s_{K^n}(\phi^K).\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
In $K^n$ there exists a base with respect to which the automorphism $\phi^K$ is in the canonical Jordan form, because $\phi^K$
splits over $K$. So, by Lemma \ref{invariance}(c), we can suppose that $\phi^K$ itself is represented by a matrix in the canonical
Jordan form. Let $J_1,\dots, J_r$ be the Jordan blocks of this matrix, where each $J_l\in GL_{n_l}(K)$ is associated to the eigenvalue
$\xi_l\in \{\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n\}$ of $\phi^K$.
Define $\phi_l\colon K^{n_l}\to K^{n_l}$ as the topological automorphism associated to $J_l$, for every $l=1,\dots, r$. Then by Example \ref{exJordan}
\begin{equation}
s_{K^{n_l}}(\phi_l)=\max\{1,\lvert\xi_l\rvert_p^{dn_l}\}=\max\{1,\lvert\det J_l\rvert_p^d\}.\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
Since $\phi^K = \phi_1\times \ldots \times \phi_r$, Theorem \ref{wATscala} entails
\begin{equation*}
s_{K^n}(\phi^K)=s_{K^{n_1}}(\phi_1)\cdot\ldots\cdot s_{K^{n_r}}(\phi_r).
\end{equation*}
Hence, from \eqref{eq1} and \eqref{eq2}, we obtain
$$s_{\mathbb Q_p^n}(\phi)^d=s_{K^n}(\phi^K)=\prod_{\substack{l=1\\\lvert\xi_l\rvert_p>1}}^r\lvert\xi_l\rvert_p^{dn_l}.$$
This means that
$$s_{\mathbb Q_p^n}(\phi)=\prod_{\substack{l=1\\\lvert\xi_l\rvert_p>1}}^r\lvert\xi_l\rvert_p^{n_l}=\prod_{\substack{i=1\\\lvert\lambda_i
\rvert_p>1}}^n\lvert\lambda_i\rvert_p=\prod_{\lvert\lambda_i\rvert_p>1}\lvert\lambda_i\rvert_p,$$
and this concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\medskip
In the second part of this section we provide a so-called Bridge Theorem for the scale function. To this end we first recall some properties of the Pontryagin duality.
\smallskip
We say that a locally compact group $G$ is \emph{compactly covered}, if every element of $G$ is contained in some compact subgroup of $G$. The following folklore fact can be easily deduced from the standard properties of locally compact abelian groups.
\begin{fact}\label{factCC} For a locally compact abelian group $G$, the following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $G$ is compactly covered;
\item[(b)] $G$ contains no copies of the discrete group $\mathbb Z$;
\item[(c)] there exist no continuous surjective homomorphisms $\widehat{G}\to \mathbb{T}$;
\item[(d)] $\widehat{G}$ is totally disconnected.
\end{itemize}
\end{fact}
Our interest in Fact \ref{factCC} stems from the necessity to describe the class of totally disconnected locally compact abelian groups $G$, such that their dual group $\widehat{G}$ is totally disconnected as well. According to the above fact, these are precisely the compactly covered totally disconnected locally compact abelian groups. Therefore, for such a group $G$ one can define the scale function on the dual group $\widehat{G}$, and we are interested in the relationship between $s_G(\phi)$ and $s_{\widehat{G}}(\widehat{\phi})$, where $\phi\colon G\to G$ is a topological automorphism of $G$.
\medskip
In the next fact we collect several known properties that apply in the proof of Theorem \ref{BTS}.
\begin{fact}\label{fattiduale}
Let $G$ be a locally compact abelian group, $\phi\colon G\to G$ a topological automorphism and $U$ a compact subgroup of $G$. Then:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $(U^\bot)^\bot=U$;
\item[(b)] $U^\bot\cong \widehat{G/U}$ and $\widehat{U}\cong\widehat{G}/U^\bot$;
\item[(c)] $\bigl(U+ \phi(U)\bigr)^\bot=U^\bot \cap\widehat{\phi}^{-1}(U^\bot)$;
\item[(d)] if $V$ is another compact subgroup of $G$ and $U\subseteq V$, then $\widehat{V/U}\cong U^\bot/V^\bot$.
\end{itemize}
\end{fact}
We are now in the conditions to prove the next Bridge Theorem, which asserts in particular that $s_{\widehat{G}}(\widehat{\phi})$ is equal to $s_G(\phi)$; note that according to Fact \ref{factCC}, the group $\widehat{G}$ is totally disconnected, so one can define the scale function on $\widehat{G}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{BTS}
Let $G$ be a compactly covered totally disconnected locally compact abelian group and $\phi \colon G \to G$ a topological automorphism.
Then:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $U\in\mathcal B(G)$ if and only if $U^\perp\in\mathcal B(\widehat G)$;
\item[(b)] $s(\phi,U)=s(\phi,U^\perp)$;
\item[(c)] $U\in \mathcal M(G,\phi)$ if and only if $U^\perp\in \mathcal M(\widehat G,\widehat\phi)$;
\item[(d)] $s_{\widehat{G}}(\widehat{\phi}) = s_G(\phi)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(a) Assume that $U\in\mathcal B(G)$. Then $G/U$ is discrete because $U$ is open in $G$, and so $\widehat{G/U}$ is a compact group. Since $U^\bot\cong \widehat{G/U}$ by Fact \ref{fattiduale}, so $U^\bot$ is a compact subgroup of $\widehat{G}$. Moreover, $U$ is compact in $G$ and so, since $\widehat G/U^\perp\cong \widehat U$ by Fact \ref{fattiduale}, $\widehat G/U^\perp$ is discrete; therefore, $U^\bot$ is open in $\widehat{G}$. Hence, we have proved that $U\in\mathcal B(G)$ implies $U^\perp\in\mathcal B(\widehat G)$.
To verify the converse implication it suffices to note that by Pontryagin duality $G$ is canonically isomorphic to $\widehat{\widehat{G}}$, so that we can identify $G$ and $\widehat{\widehat{G}}$; moreover, $(U^\perp)^\perp=U$ by Fact \ref{fattiduale}(a). Now apply the previous implication.
(b) It is clear that $U/\bigl(U\cap \phi(U)\bigr)\cong\bigl(U+\phi (U)\bigr)/U$ and so
\begin{equation}\label{scaladuale1}
s(\phi,U) = \Bigl\lvert \frac{U}{U\cap\phi(U)}\Bigr\rvert =\Bigl\lvert \frac{U+\phi(U)}{U}\Bigr\rvert.
\end{equation}
Moreover, let $F= \bigl(U+\phi(U)\bigr)/U$; then $F$ is a finite abelian group and so $F\cong\widehat F$. Therefore, by \eqref{scaladuale1} and Fact \ref{fattiduale}, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{scaladuale2}
s(\phi,U) = \lvert F\rvert =\lvert \widehat{F}\rvert=
\Bigl\lvert\frac{U^\bot}{(U+\phi (U))^\bot}\Bigr\rvert=\Bigl\lvert \frac{U^\bot}{U^\bot \cap
\widehat{\phi}^{-1}( U^\bot)} \Bigr\rvert.
\end{equation}
Finally, since $\widehat{\phi}$ is an automorphism,
\begin{equation}\label{scaladuale3}
\Bigl\lvert \frac{U^\bot}{U^\bot \cap \widehat{\phi}^{-1}( U^\bot)} \Bigr\rvert=\Bigl\lvert \frac{\widehat{\phi}(U^\bot)}{\widehat{\phi}(U^\bot )\cap U^\bot} \Bigr\rvert=s(\widehat{\phi},U^\bot).
\end{equation}
Now \eqref{scaladuale2} and \eqref{scaladuale3} give immediately the equality in (b).
(c) Let $U\in\mathcal M(G,\phi)$. If $V \in \mathcal B(\widehat{G})$, then $V^\bot \in \mathcal B({G})$ by item (a), and $s(\phi,V^\bot) = s(\widehat{\phi},V)$ by item (b). So, applying twice (b), we have
\begin{equation*}\label{equazionefinale}
s(\widehat{\phi},U^\bot) = s(\phi,U) \leq s(\phi,V^\bot) = s(\widehat{\phi},V).
\end{equation*}
Since this inequality holds true for all $V \in \mathcal B(\widehat{G})$, we can conclude that $U^\bot \in\mathcal M(\widehat G,\widehat{\phi})$.
To prove the converse implication apply Fact \ref{fattiduale}(a) and the previous implication.
(d) follows from (c).
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Throughout this paper $\Vbf$ is a $3$--dimensional vector space over
$F:=\GF3$ and $\Wbf$ denotes the symmetric tensor product $\Vbf\vee\Vbf$.
Occasionally, it will be convenient to use coordinates. We fix an ordered
basis $(\ebf_0,\ebf_1,\ebf_2)$ of $\Vbf$. It yields the ordered basis
\begin{displaymath}
(\ebf_0\vee\ebf_0, 2 \ebf_0\vee\ebf_1, 2 \ebf_0\vee\ebf_2,
\ebf_1\vee\ebf_1, 2 \ebf_1\vee\ebf_2, \ebf_2\vee\ebf_2)
\end{displaymath}
of $\Wbf$. All coordinate vectors are understood with respect to one of these
bases. The projective plane on $\Vbf$ is
$\PG23=(\Pcal(\Vbf),\Lcal(\Vbf),\in)$, where $\Pcal(\Vbf)$ and $\Lcal(\Vbf)$
denote the sets of points and lines, respectively. Likewise we have
$\PG53=(\Pcal(\Wbf),\Lcal(\Wbf),\in)$. The {\em Veronese mapping}\/ is given
by
\begin{displaymath}
\Abb{\varphi}{\Pcal(\Vbf)}{\Pcal(\Wbf)}{F\abf}{F(\abf\vee\abf)}
\end{displaymath}
or, in terms of coordinates, by
\begin{equation} \label{vero}
F(x_0,x_1,x_2)\mapsto F(x_0^2,x_0 x_1,x_0 x_2,x_1^2,x_1 x_2,x_2^2).
\end{equation}
The set $\im\varphi$ is the well--known
{\em Veronese surface}. See, among others, \cite[Chapter V]{bura61},
\cite{herz82}, \cite[Chapter 25]{hirs-thas91}. Recall three major properties
of the Veronese mapping:
Firstly, $\varphi$ is injective.
Secondly, the $\varphi$--image of each line
$l$ of $\PG23$ is a (non--degenerate) conic or, in other words, a planar
quadrangle in $\PG53$. The plane of this conic meets $\im\varphi$ in exactly
four points. Each conic of $\im\varphi$ arises in this way.
Thirdly, the pre--image under $\varphi$ of each hyperplane $\Hcal$ of $\PG53$
is a (possibly degenerate) quadric of $\PG23$. Each quadric of $\PG23$ arises
in this way.
If we are given a quadrangle $\Gamma$ in a projective plane of order $3$,
then its diagonal points form a triangle $\Delta$, say. On the other hand, if
$\Delta$ is a triangle in such a plane, then there are exactly four points
which are not on any side of $\Delta$. Those four points form a quadrangle,
say $\Gamma$, which in turn has $\Delta$ as its diagonal triangle
\cite[391--392]{hirs79}. This one--one correspondence between quadrangles and
triangles in a projective plane of order three is the backbone of this paper.
There is also another interpretation of this correspondence: We may consider
the quadrangle $\Gamma$ as a conic. It will be called the {\em associated
conic}\/ of the triangle $\Delta$.
The internal points of the conic $\Gamma$ comprise the triangle $\Delta$.
Moreover, $\Delta$ is a self polar triangle of $\Gamma$ \cite[Theorem
8.3.4.]{hirs79}. Finally, the sides of $\Delta$ are all the external lines of
$\Gamma$.
\section{Variations on $13-4+3=12$}
In the sequel an arbitrarily chosen line $l_\infty$ of \PG23 will be regarded
as {\em line at infinity}. Its Veronese image
$l_\infty^\varphi=:\Gamma_\infty$ is a planar quadrangle with diagonal
triangle $\Delta_\infty$, say. The plane spanned by $\Gamma_\infty$ is
denoted by $\Ecal_\infty$.
The following Theorem describes the essential construction:
\begin{theo}\label{theo-a}
Write $\Kcal$ for that set of points in\/ \PG53 which is obtained from the
Veronese surface\/ $\im\varphi$ by replacing the planar quadrangle\/
$\Gamma_\infty$,
i.e. the $\varphi$--image of the line at infinity, with its diagonal
triangle $\Delta_\infty$. Then the following hold true:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{condi}
&d_\Hcal:=\#(\Hcal\cap\Kcal)\in\{0,3,6\}
\mbox{ for all hyperplanes } \Hcal \mbox{ of\/ } \PG53.&\\
\label{condii}
&\#\Kcal=12.&
\end{eqnarray}
\end{theo}
\proof
The pre--image of $\Hcal$ under $\varphi$ is a quadric of \PG23, say $\Qcal$.
There are four cases \cite[140]{hirs79}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$\Ecal_\infty\subset \Hcal$: Hence $d_\Hcal=\#\Qcal-4+3$. As
$l_\infty\subset\Qcal$, we obtain that $\Qcal$ is the repeated line
$l_\infty$ or a cross of lines. Thus $d_\Hcal=4-4+3=3$ or
$d_\Hcal=7-4+3=6$.
\item
$\Ecal_\infty\cap \Hcal$ is an external line of $\Gamma_\infty$:
Hence $d_\Hcal=\#\Qcal-0+2$. As $\Qcal$ is either a single affine point
or a conic without points at infinity, we infer
$d_\Hcal=1-0+2=3$ or $d_\Hcal=4-0+2=6$.
\item
$\Ecal_\infty\cap \Hcal$ is a tangent of $\Gamma_\infty$:
A tangent carries no internal points so that $d_\Hcal=\#\Qcal-1+0$. The
quadric $\Qcal$ is a repeated line $l$ with $l\neq\l_\infty$, or a
cross of lines with double point at infinity, but each line other than
$l_\infty$, or a conic touching $l_\infty$. Thus
$d_\Hcal=4-1+0=3$ or $d_\Hcal=7-1+0=6$ or $d_\Hcal=4-1+0=3$.
\item
$\Ecal_\infty\cap \Hcal$ is a bisecant of $\Gamma_\infty$: A bisecant
carries exactly one internal point, whence $d_\Hcal=\#\Qcal-2+1$. Now
$\Qcal$ is a cross of lines with double point not at infinity, or a
conic with two distinct points at infinity. Hence $d_\Hcal=7-2+1=6$ or
$d_\Hcal=4-2+1=3$.
\end{enumerate}
Finally, $\im\varphi\cap\Ecal_\infty=\Gamma_\infty$ implies
$\#\Kcal=13-4+3=12$.
\qed
\begin{remark}
{\em
If $l_\infty$ is chosen to be the line $x_0=0$, then $\Delta_\infty$ can
easily be expressed in terms of coordinates as
\begin{equation}\label{delta}
\{ F(0,0,0,1,0,1),\;
F(0,0,0,2,1,1),\;
F(0,0,0,2,2,1)\}.
\end{equation}
Thus, by virtue of (\ref{vero}) and (\ref{delta}), one may describe
$\Kcal$ in terms of coordinates.
}
\end{remark}
Before we are going to reverse the construction of Theorem \ref{theo-a}, we
prove the following
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-a}
Let $\Kcal$ be a set of points in\/ \PG53. Then (\ref{condi})
and (\ref{condii}) together are equivalent to the conjunction of the
following three conditions:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{condv}
&\mbox{Any\/ $5$--subset of $\Kcal$ is independent.}&\\
\label{condvi}
&\mbox{$\#(\Hcal\cap\Kcal)\geq 5$ implies $\#(\Hcal\cap\Kcal)=6$ for
all hyperplanes $\Hcal$ of\/ \PG53.}&\\
\label{condvii}
&\#\Kcal\geq7.&
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\proof {\em (\ref{condi}) and (\ref{condii}) $\Longrightarrow$ (\ref{condv})
and (\ref{condvi}) and (\ref{condvii})}:
Choose any $5$--set $\Mcal\subset\Kcal$ and $P\in\Kcal\setminus\Mcal$. At
first we are going to show that
\begin{equation}\label{b-1}
\dim\spn(\Mcal\cup\{P\}))\geq 4;
\end{equation}
here ``$\dim$'' denotes the projective dimension. Assume to the contrary that
$\dim\spn(\Mcal\cup\{P\}) < 4$. Then each hyperplane of \PG53 passing through
$\Mcal\cup\{P\}$ meets $\Kcal$ in exactly six points, by (\ref{condi}). All
those hyperplanes are covering $\Kcal$, whence $\Kcal=\Mcal\cup\{P\}$, in
contradiction to (\ref{condii}).
We infer from (\ref{b-1}) that $\dim\spn\Mcal\geq 3$. This dimension cannot
equal three, since then $\Kcal$ would only have nine points, namely the five
points in $\Mcal$ plus one more point in each of the four hyperplanes through
$\Mcal$. Consequently, $\Mcal$ is independent. By (\ref{condi}) and
(\ref{condii}), conditions (\ref{condvi}) and (\ref{condvii}) follow
immediately.
{\em (\ref{condv}) and (\ref{condvi}) and (\ref{condvii}) $\Longrightarrow$
(\ref{condi}) and (\ref{condii})}:
By our assumptions, $\Kcal$ contains a basis $\Scal$ of \PG53. Each of the
six hyperplane faces of that basis contains exactly one more point of
$\Kcal$; it is in general position with respect to the remaining five. Thus
we have $\#\Kcal\geq 12$. On the other hand choose four points in $\Scal$.
Each of the four hyperplanes passing through them meets $\Kcal$ in at most
six points. Hence $\#\Kcal\leq 12$. Thus (\ref{condii}) holds true.
If we fix one $3$--set $\Delta\subset\Kcal$, then the number hyperplanes
through $\Delta$ is $13$, and the number of $2$--sets in
$\Kcal\setminus\Delta$ is $36$. By (\ref{condv}) and (\ref{condvi}), the
number of hyperplanes through $\Delta$, meeting $\Kcal$ in exactly six
points, is $36/3=12$. Hence there is a unique hyperplane $\Hcal_\Delta$, say,
with
\begin{equation}
\Delta=\Kcal\cap\Hcal_\Delta.
\end{equation}
Next fix one point $P\in\Kcal$. There are $330$ $4$--subsets of
$\Kcal\setminus\{P\}$. They give rise to the $330/5=66$ hyperplanes through
$P$ meeting $\Kcal$ in six points. Likewise one finds ${11\choose 2}=55$
triangles in $\Kcal$ containing $P$. Each of those triangles yields exactly
one hyperplane through $P$ meeting $\Kcal$ in three points only. There are,
however, only $121=66+55$ hyperplanes through $P$, whence (\ref{condi})
follows.
\qed
\abstand
\noindent
Theorem \ref{theo-a} can be reversed now as follows:
\begin{theo}\label{theo-c}
Let $\Kcal$ be a set of points in\/ \PG53 satisfying (\ref{condi}) and
(\ref{condii}). Suppose that $\Vcal$ is obtained from $\Kcal$ by replacing
one triangle $\Delta\subset\Kcal$ with its associated conic\/ $\Gamma$.
Then $\Vcal$ is projectively equivalent to the Veronese surface
$\im\varphi$.
\end{theo}
\proof By Lemma \ref{lemma-a}, there is a triangle $\Delta\subset \Kcal$. The
plane spanned by $\Delta$ is denoted by $\Ecal$. According to \cite[Theorem
25.3.14]{hirs-thas91} it is sufficient to verify the following conditions:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{condiii}
&c_\Hcal:=\#(\Hcal\cap\Vcal)\in\{1,4,7\}
\mbox{ for all hyperplanes } \Hcal \mbox{ of } \PG53.&\\
\label{condiv}
&c_{\Hcal_0}=7 \mbox{ for some hyperplane }\Hcal_0 \mbox{ of }\PG53.&
\end{eqnarray}
In order to establish (\ref{condiii}) choose a hyperplane $\Hcal$ and put
$d_\Hcal:=\#(\Hcal\cap\Kcal)$. There are four cases.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$\Ecal\subset \Hcal$: By (\ref{condi}),
$c_\Hcal=d_\Hcal-3+4\in\{1,4,7\}$.
\item
$\Ecal\cap \Hcal$ is an external line of $\Gamma$: Thus
$\#(\Hcal\cap\Delta)=2$ and $c_\Hcal=d_\Hcal-2+0\in\{1,4\}$.
\item
$\Ecal\cap \Hcal$ is a tangent of $\Gamma$: Thus
$\#(\Hcal\cap\Delta)=0$ and $c_\Hcal=d_\Hcal-0+1\in\{1,4,7\}$.
\item
$\Ecal\cap \Hcal$ is a bisecant of $\Gamma$: Thus
$\#(\Hcal\cap\Delta)=1$ and $c_\Hcal=d_\Hcal-1+2\in\{4,7\}$.
\end{enumerate}
Two points in $\Kcal\setminus\Delta$ together with $\Delta$ generate a
hyperplane $\Hcal_0$ meeting $\Kcal$ in six distinct points by
(\ref{condv}). According to case 1, $c_{\Hcal_0}=7$.
\qed
\abstand
\noindent
All properties of the Veronese surface that are used in the following proof
can be read off, e.g., from \cite[Section 25.1]{hirs-thas91}.
\begin{theo}\label{theo-d}
Suppose that $\Kcal$, $\Kcal'$ are sets of points in\/ \PG53 subject to
(\ref{condi}) and (\ref{condii}). Choose five distinct points
$P_0,\ldots,P_4$ in $\Kcal$ and five distinct points $P_0',\ldots,P_4'$ in
$\Kcal'$. Then there is a unique collineation $\kappa$ of\/ \PG53 with
$\Kcal^\kappa=\Kcal'$ and $P_i^\kappa=P_i'$ for $i=0,\ldots,4$.
\end{theo}
\proof
Put $\Delta:=\{P_0,P_1,P_2\}$. Define $\Gamma$ and $\Vcal$ according to
Theorem \ref{theo-c}. Write $\Ccal$ for the set of all conics
contained in $\Vcal$. Then $(\Vcal,\Ccal,\in)$ is a projective plane of
order 3. Moreover, the Veronese mapping $\varphi$ yields a collineation of
\PG23 onto that projective plane. There is a unique conic in $\Vcal$
joining $P_3$ with $P_4$. It meets $\Gamma$ in a single point, say $G_3$.
The line spanned by $G_3$ and $P_i$ ($i=0,1,2$) is a bisecant of
$\Gamma$, as it contains the internal point $P_i$; hence it meets
the conic $\Gamma$ residually in a point $G_i$, say. Thus
$\Gamma=\{G_0,\ldots,G_3\}$. The four points $\{P_3,P_4,G_0,G_1\}$ form a
``quadrangle'' of the projective plane $(\Vcal,\Ccal,\in)$, i.e. a set
of four points no three of which are on a common conic $\subset\Vcal$.
Repeat the previous construction with $\Kcal'$ to obtain $\Delta'$ etc.
By Theorem \ref{theo-c}, there exists a collineation $\mu$ of \PG53 with
$\Vcal^\mu=\Vcal'$. Thus $\{P_3^\mu,P_4^\mu,G_0^\mu,G_1^\mu\}$ is a
``quadrangle'' of the projective plane $(\Vcal',\Ccal',\in)$. There is a
projective collineation $\lambda'$ of $(\Vcal',\Ccal',\in)$ with
\begin{displaymath}
P_3^\mu\mapsto P_3', \, P_4^\mu\mapsto P_4',\,
G_0^\mu\mapsto G_0', \, G_1^\mu\mapsto G_1'.
\end{displaymath}
This $\lambda'$ extends to a projective collineation $\lambda$ of \PG53.
The product $\kappa:=\mu\lambda$ has the required properties, since
$G_3^\kappa=G_3'$ implies $G_2^\kappa=G_2'$, so that also
\begin{displaymath}
P_i^\kappa=P_i' \mbox{ for } i=0,1,2.
\end{displaymath}
If $\qu\kappa$ is a collineation subject to the conditions of the theorem,
then $\qu\kappa\kappa\inv$ restricts to a collineation of
$(\Vcal,\Ccal,\in)$ fixing each point of a ``quadrangle''. Now
$\Aut\GF3=\{\id\}$ forces $\qu\kappa\kappa\inv$ to fix $\Vcal$ pointwise,
whence $\qu\kappa=\kappa$.
\qed
\abstand
\noindent
In the sequel let $\Kcal$ be the subset of \PG53 described in Theorem
\ref{theo-a}.
\begin{remark}
{\em
By Theorem \ref{theo-d}, any set of points in \PG53 satisfying
(\ref{condi}) and (\ref{condii}) is projectively equivalent to $\Kcal$. We
infer from Lemma \ref{lemma-a} and Theorem \ref{theo-d} that the
$12$--sets of points discussed in \cite{coxe58} and \cite{pell74} are
essentially our $\Kcal$. By \cite[Teorema 4.3]{pell74}, conditions
(\ref{condii}) and (\ref{condv}) characterize $\Kcal$ to within projective
collineations. The set $\Kcal$ has a lot of fascinating geometric
properties \cite{coxe58}, \cite{pell74}, \cite{todd59}.
}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
{\em
Define a {\em block}\/ of $\Kcal$ as a hyperplane section of $\Kcal$
containing more than three points. If $\Bcal$ denotes the set of all such
blocks, then the incidence structure $(\Kcal,\Bcal,\in)$ is {\em Witt's\/
$5$--$(12,6,1)$ design} $W_{12}$; cf., e.g., \cite[Chapter
4]{beth-jung-lenz85}. According to Lemma \ref{lemma-a}, Theorem
\ref{theo-c}, and Theorem \ref{theo-d}, such a point model of $W_{12}$ in
\PG53 is projectively unique.
}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
{\em
The automorphism group of $W_{12}$ is the {\em Mathieu group} $M_{12}$, a
sporadic simple group acting sharply $5$--transitive on $\Kcal$; cf.,
e.g., \cite[Chapter 4]{beth-jung-lenz85}. Each automorphism of
$(\Kcal,\Bcal,\in)$ extends to a unique automorphic collineation of
$\Kcal$ \cite{coxe58}, \cite{pell74}. Theorem \ref{theo-d} includes a short
coordinate--free proof of that result.
}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
{\em
The successive derivations of $W_{12}$ are a $4$--(11,5,1) design, a
$3$--(10,4,1) design (the {\em M\"obius plane}\/ over the field extension
$\GF9/ \GF3$), and a $2$--(9,3,1) design (the {\em affine plane}\/ over
\GF3). One may obtain point models for them by suitable projections of
$\Kcal$. Projection through a point of $\Kcal$ yields an $11$--cap in a
hyperplane of \PG53. See \cite{hirs91}, \cite{pell73}, \cite{pell74},
\cite{tall61}. If the centre of projection is a bisecant of $\Kcal$, then
one gets an {\em elliptic quadric}\/ in a solid of \PG53. Finally, if the
centre of projection is spanned by a triangle of $\Kcal$, then an {\em
affine subplane}\/ of a projective plane of \PG53 arises. If the triangle
is chosen to be $\Delta_\infty$, then there exists an affinity of this
affine plane onto $\Pcal(\Vbf)\setminus l_\infty$. This is immediately
seen from (\ref{vero}) and (\ref{delta}) by projecting, e.g., onto the
plane with equations $x_{11}=x_{12}=x_{22}=0$.
}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
{\em
Let $F^{\Pcal(\Wbf)}$ be the $F$--vector space of all functions
$\Pcal(\Wbf)\rightarrow F$. Given $\Mcal\subset \Pcal(\Wbf)$ denote by
$\chi(\Mcal)\in F^{\Pcal(\Wbf)}$ its characteristic vector (function).
With the notations of Theorem \ref{theo-a} we obtain
\begin{displaymath}
\chi(\im\varphi) - \chi(\Gamma_\infty) + \chi(\Delta_\infty) =
\chi(\Kcal).
\end{displaymath}
The characteristic vectors of the hyperplanes $\Hcal\subset\Pcal(\Wbf)$
are spanning a linear $[364,22,121]$--code \cite[Theorem
5.7.1]{assm-key92}. By (\ref{condi}), $\chi(\Kcal)$ is a word of weight
$12$ in the orthogonal (dual) code, where orthogonality is understood with
respect to the standard dot product. According to (\ref{condiii}), the
Veronese variety yields a word of weight $13$ which has dot product $1\in
F$ with each hyperplane. Thus, in terms of characteristic vectors, $\Kcal$
arises from the Veronese variety by adding a word of weight $7$ which has
dot product $2\in F$ with each hyperplane.
Next let $\wbf_1,\ldots,\wbf_{12}\in\Wbf$ be vectors representing the
points of $\Kcal$. As $f$ ranges over the dual vector space $\Wbf^\ast$,
the words $(\wbf_1^f,\ldots,\wbf_{12}^f)\in F^{12}$
give the {\em extended ternary Golay code\/} $\Gbf_{12}$. Cf.\
\cite{assm-matt66}, where the dual point of view has been adopted.
If we start instead with vectors $\vbf_1\vee\vbf_1, \ldots,
\vbf_{13}\vee\vbf_{13}$ ($\vbf_i\in\Vbf$) representing the points of the
Veronese surface, then we obtain a ternary $[13,6,6]$--code $\Cbf$,
as follows from $\spn\im\varphi = \Pcal(\Wbf)$ and (\ref{condiii}).
Given $f\in\Wbf^\ast$ then $\Abb{q}{\Vbf}{F}{\abf}{(\abf\vee\abf)^f}$ is
a quadratic form. The mapping $f\mapsto q$ is a linear bijection of
$\Wbf^\ast$ onto the vector space of quadratic forms $\Vbf\rightarrow F$.
Thus, as $q$ ranges over all quadratic forms on $\Vbf$, the words
$(\vbf_1^q, \ldots, \vbf_{13}^q)$ too comprise the code $\Cbf$.
In order to identify the code $\Cbf$, let $\Cbf(p)$ ($p$ prime) be the
linear code over \GF{p} which is spanned by the characteristic vectors of
the lines of \PG2p. The dimension of $\Cbf(p)$ is $(p^2+p+2)/2$,
$\Cbf(p)^\perp\subset\Cbf(p)$, and $\Cbf(p)^\perp$ has codimension $1$ in
$\Cbf(p)$ \cite[49]{assm-key92}. Moreover, $\Cbf(p)^\perp$ coincides with
two other codes arising from \PG2p: One is the code $\Ebf(p)$ spanned by
the differences of characteristic vectors of lines \cite[Theorem
6.3.1]{assm-key92}, the other is the code $\Cbf'(p)$ spanned by the
characteristic vectors of the complements of lines, as follows easily from
$\Cbf'(p)\subset\Cbf(p)^\perp$ and $\dim\Cbf'(p) = \dim\Cbf(p)^\perp$
\cite[366]{brow-wilb95}.
If a quadratic form \abb{q}{\Vbf}{F} is applied to four vectors $\vbf_i$
which represent the points of a line, then one of the following
(unordered) quadruples arises: $(0,0,0,0)$, $\pm(1,1,1,0)$, $(1,2,0,0)$,
$(1,1,2,2)$. This is immediate from \cite[Lemma 5.2.1]{hirs79}. Hence
$\Cbf\subset\Cbf(3)^\perp$ and, by $\dim\Cbf = \dim\Cbf(3)^\perp$, the two
codes turn out to be the same.
So, the self--dual extended ternary Golay code $\Gbf_{12}=\Gbf_{12}^\perp$
is closely related to a self--orthogonal code
$\Cbf\subset\Cbf^\perp=\Cbf(3)$ which belongs to an infinite family of
codes obtained from \PG2p.
}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
{\em
We aim at representing the points of $\Delta_\infty$ on the line
$l_\infty$ by making use of the Veronese mapping $\varphi$: Each bijection
of $l_\infty$ is a projectivity. There are three {\em elliptic
involutions}\/ on $l_\infty$, each interchanging the points of $l_\infty$
in pairs. Transformation under $\varphi$ yields three elliptic involutions
on the conic $\Gamma_\infty$. Each of them extends uniquely to a harmonic
homology of the plane $\Ecal_\infty$ leaving $\Gamma_\infty$ fixed, as a
set \cite[2.4.4]{brau-I76}. The centres of the three homologies are three
distinct internal points of $\Gamma_\infty$, whence they comprise the set
$\Delta_\infty$. Thus the points of $\Delta_\infty$ are in one--one
correspondence with the three elliptic involutions on $l_\infty$.
Now it is natural to ask for a description of $W_{12}$ in terms of
the nine points in $\Pcal(\Vbf)\setminus l_\infty$ and the three elliptic
involutions on $\l_\infty$. It turns out that one obtains L\"uneburg's
description \cite[Chapter 7]{luen69}, although from a different point of
view. A block is precisely one of the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item An affine line plus all three elliptic involutions.
\item An ellipse together with those two elliptic involutions which are
{\em not}\/ the involution of conjugate points on $\l_\infty$ with
respect to the ellipse.
\item A union of two distinct parallel affine lines.
\item A cross of affine lines together with that elliptic involution
which interchanges the points at infinity of the two lines.
\end{enumerate}
Cf.\ the proof of Theorem \ref{theo-a}. Thus each block arises from an
affine quadric and certain elliptic involutions which are affine
invariants of the quadric. This observation was the starting point for the
present paper.
}
\end{remark}
|
\section{Introduction. }\label{sec:intro}
We recall that the {\em crossing number} $\operatorname{cr}(G)$ of a graph $G$ is
the minimum number of pairwise crossings of edges in a drawing of $G$
in the plane. A drawing of a graph is {\em good} if no adjacent edges
cross, and no two edges cross each other more than once. It is trivial
to show that every {\em optimal} (that is, crossing-minimal)
drawing of a graph is good.
One of the most tantalizingly open crossing number questions was
raised by Tur\'an in 1944: what is the crossing number
$\operatorname{cr}(K_{m,n})$ of the
complete bipartite graph $K_{m,n}$? Zarankiewicz~\cite{zar2} described how
to draw $K_{m,n}$ with exactly $Z(m,n)$ crossings, where
\[
Z(m,n):=\bigfloor{\frac{m}{2}} \bigfloor{\frac{m-1}{2}}
\bigfloor{\frac{n}{2}} \bigfloor{\frac{n-1}{2}}.
\]
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.7}{\input{kmn-01.pdf_t}}
\caption{Drawing of $K_{5,6}$ with $Z(5,6)=24$ crossings.}
\label{fig:kmnzar}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Zarankiewicz's construction is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:kmnzar}
for the case $m=5, n=6$. It is straightforward to generalize this
drawing to a drawing of $K_{m,n}$ with $Z(m,n)$ crossings, for all
positive integers $m$ and $n$, and so $\operatorname{cr}(K_{m,n})\le
Z(m,n)$. The drawings thus obtained are the {\em Zarankiewicz
drawings} of $K_{m,n}$.
In~\cite{zar2},
Zarankiewicz claimed to have proved that $\operatorname{cr}(K_{m,n})=Z(m,n)$ for
all positive integers $m,n$. However, Kainen and Ringel independently found a flaw in
Zarankiewicz's argument (see~\cite{decline}), and the statement
$\operatorname{cr}(K_{m,n}) = Z(m,n)$ has become known as {\em Zarankiewicz's
Conjecture}.
Very little of substance is known about $\operatorname{cr}(K_{m,n})$. An elegant
argument using $\operatorname{cr}(K_{3,3})=1$ plus purely combinatorial arguments
(namely, Tur\'an's theorem on the maximum
number of edges in a triangle-free graph) shows that $\operatorname{cr}(K_{3,n}) =
Z(3,n)$. An easy counting argument shows that
$\operatorname{cr}(K_{2s-1,n}) = Z(2s-1,n)$ (for any $s \ge 1$) implies
that $\operatorname{cr}(K_{2s,n}) = Z(2s,n)$. Thus it follows that $\operatorname{cr}(K_{4,n}) =
Z(4,n)$. Kleitman~\cite{kleitman} proved that
$\operatorname{cr}(K_{5,n})=Z(5,n)$. By our previous remark, this
implies that $\operatorname{cr}(K_{6,n}) = Z(6,n)$.
After Kleitman's theorem, most progress around
Zarankiewicz's Conjecture consists of computer-aided
results. Woodall~\cite{woodall} verified Zarankiewicz's Conjecture for $K_{7,7}$ and
$K_{7,9}$. De Klerk et al.~\cite{dmp}~used semidefinite programming techniques to
show that $\lim_{n\to\infty} \operatorname{cr}(K_{7,n})/Z(7,n) \ge 0.968$. Also
using semidefinite programming and deeper algebraic techniques, De Klerk
et al.~\cite{dps} proved that
$\lim_{n\to\infty} \operatorname{cr}(K_{9,n})/Z(9,n) \ge 0.966$. In a related result, De
Klerk and Pasechnik~\cite{ds} recently showed that the $2$-page crossing number
$\nu_2(K_{7,n})$ of $K_{7,n}$ satisfies $\lim_{n\to\infty}
\operatorname{cr}(K_{7,n})/Z(7,n) =1$.
We finally mention that recently Christian et al.~\cite{chri} proved that
deciding Zarankiewicz's Conjecture is a finite problem for each fixed $m$.
To give a brief description of our results,
let us color the $5$ degree-$n$ vertices of
$K_{5,n}$ {\em black}, and color the $n$ degree-$5$ vertices {\em
white}.
Two white vertices are {\em antipodal} in a drawing $D$ of
$K_{5,n}$ if the drawing of the $K_{5,2}$ they induce has no crossings. A drawing is
{\em antipodal-free} if it has no antipodal vertices.
Antipodal pairs are evident in Zarankiewicz's drawings (moreover, the
set of white vertices can be decomposed into two classes, such that
any two white vertices in distinct classes are antipodal). Antipodal
pairs are also crucial in the inductive step of Kleitman's proof,
which does not
concern itself with the different ways (if more than one) to achieve
$Z(5,n)$ crossings with a drawing of $K_{5,n}$.
Given their preeminence in Zarankiewicz's Conjecture, we set out to
investigate the role of antipodal pairs in the optimal drawings of
$K_{5,n}$. Our main result (Theorem~\ref{thm:main1}) characterizes
optimal drawings of $K_{5,n}$, for even $n$, as follows. First, if
{$n \equiv 2$ (mod $4$)}, then all optimal drawings of $K_{5,n}$ have
antipodal pairs. Second, if { $n \equiv 0$ (mod $4$)}, then every
antipodal-free optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$ is isomorphic (we review
vertex rotation isomorphism in Section~\ref{sec:rots}) to a drawing in
a two-parameter family $D_{r,s}$ of drawings we have fully
characterized. As a consequence of these facts, we show
(Theorem~\ref{thm:main2}) that if $n$ is even, then every optimal
drawing of $K_{5,n}$ can be obtained by starting with $D_{r,s}$, for
some nonnegative (possibly zero) integers $r$ and $s$, and then
superimposing Zarankiewicz drawings.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In
Section~\ref{sec:rots} we review the concept of vertex rotation, which
is central to the criterion to decide when two drawings are
isomorphic. In Section~\ref{sec:spdr} we describe the two-parameter
family of optimal, antipodal-free drawings $D_{r,s}$ (for integers
$r,s\ge 0$) of $K_{5,4(r+s)}$. In
Section~\ref{sec:main1} we state our main results.
Theorem~\ref{thm:main1} claims that (i) if {$n\equiv 2$ (mod $4$)}, then
every optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$ has antipodal vertices; and that
(ii) if {$n\equiv 0$ (mod $4$)}, then every antipodal-free optimal
drawing of $K_{5,n}$ is isomorphic to $D_{r,s}$ for some integers
$r,s$ such that $4(r+s)=n$. In Theorem~\ref{thm:main2}
we state the decomposition of optimal drawings of $K_{5,n}$, along the
lines of the previous paragraph. The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main2}
is also given in this section; the rest of the paper is devoted to the
proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main1}. In Section~\ref{sec:clean} we
introduce the concept of a {\em clean} drawing. Loosely speaking, a drawing
is clean if its white vertices can be naturally partitioned into
{\em bags}, so that vertices in the same bag have the same (crossing
number wise) properties. In Section~\ref{sec:keyscores} we introduce
{\em keys}, which are labelled graphs that capture the essential (crossing
number wise) information of a clean drawing. This abstraction (and the
related concept of {\em core}) will prove to be extremely useful for the
proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main1}. In Section~\ref{sec:someprco} we
investigate which labelled graphs can be the key of a
relevant (clean, optimal, antipodal-free) drawing. Cores are certain more
manageable subgraphs of keys, that retain all the (crossing number
wise) useful information of a key.
We devote Sections~\ref{sec:someprrk1},
\ref{sec:someprrk2}, \ref{sec:someprrk3}, and
\ref{sec:someprrk4} to the task of completely characterizing which
graphs can be the core of an antipodal-free optimal drawing. The
information in these sections is then put together in
Section~\ref{sec:thecores}, where we show that the core of every
optimal drawing is isomorphic either to the $4$-cycle or to the graph
${\overline{C}_6}$ obtained by adding to the $6$-cycle a diametral edge.
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main1},
given in Section~\ref{sec:proofmain}, is an easy consequence of this
full characterization of cores.
\section{Rotations and isomorphic drawings.}\label{sec:rots}
To help comprehension, throughout this paper we color the $5$ {degree-$n$} vertices in
$K_{5,n}$ {\em black}, and the $n$ {degree-$5$} vertices {\em white}. We label the
black vertices $0,1,2,3,4$. Unless otherwise stated, we label the
white vertices $a_0, a_1, \ldots, a_{n-1}$. {We adopt the notation}
{${[n]}:=\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$.}
Given vertices $a_i, a_j$ with $i,j\in {{[n]}}$, we let
$S(a_i)$ denote the {\em star} centered at $a_i$, that is, the
subgraph (isomorphic to $K_{5,1}$) induced by $a_i$ and the vertices
$0,1,2,3,4$. If $D$ is a drawing of $K_{5,n}$, we let
$\ucr{D}{a_i,a_j}$ denote the number of crossings in $D$ that involve
an edge of $S(a_i)$ and an edge of $S(a_j)$, and we let
$\ucr{D}{a_i}:=\sum_{k\in{{[n]}},k\neq i}
\ucr{D}{a_i,a_k}$.
Formalizing the definition from Section~\ref{sec:intro}, $a_i$ and $a_j$ are {\em antipodal} ({\em in} $D$) if
$\ucr{D}{a_i,a_j}=0$.
The {\em rotation} $\rot{D}{a_i}$ of a white
vertex $a_i$ in a drawing $D$ is the cyclic permutation that records
the (cyclic) counterclockwise order in which the
edges leave $a_i$.
We use the notation $01234$ for permutations, and
$(01234)$ for cyclic permutations. For instance, the rotation
$\rot{D}{a_3}$ of the vertex $a_3$ in the drawing $D$ in
Figure~\ref{fig:rot01} is $(02431)$:
following a counterclockwise
order, if we start with the edge leaving from $a_3$ to $0$, then we
encounter the edge leaving to $2$, then the edge leaving to $4$, then
the edge leaving to $3$, and then the edge leaving to $1$. We emphasize
that a rotation is a cyclic permutation; that is,
$(02431),(24310),(43102),(31024)$, and $(10243)$ denote (are) the same
rotation.
We let $\Pi$ denote the set of all cyclic permutations of
{$0,1,2,3,4$}. Clearly, $|\Pi|= 5!/5=4! = 24$.
The {\em rotation} $\rot{D}{i}$ of a black vertex $i$ is defined
analogously: for each {$i\in {{[5]}}$}, $\rot{D}{i}$ is a cyclic permutation of $a_0,
a_1, \ldots, a_{n-1}$.
The {\em rotation multiset $\MRot{D}$ of $D$} is the multiset (that is,
repetitions are allowed) containing the $n$ rotations $\rot{D}{a_i}$,
for $i=0,1,\ldots,n-1$. The {\em rotation set} $\Rot{D}$ of $D$ is the
underlying set (that is, no repetitions allowed) of $\MRot{D}$.
Thus, in the example of
Figure~\ref{fig:rot01}, {$\MRot{D} = [(04321),$ $ (04321), (01234), (02431)
]$} {(we use square brackets for multisets)}, and
{$\Rot{D} =
\{
(04321),(01234),$ $(02431)
\}$.}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.7}{\input{k45-01.pdf_t}}
\caption{\small{A drawing $D$ of $K_{5,4}$ with
$\rot{D}{a_0}=\rot{D}{a_1}=(04321),
\rot{D}{a_2}=(01234)$, and
$\rot{D}{a_3}=(02431)$. Thus the pair $a_0,a_2$
(as well as the pair $a_1, a_2$) is antipodal.}}
\label{fig:rot01}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Two multisets $M,M'$ of rotations are {\em equivalent} (we write
$M\cong M'$) if one of them can be obtained from the other by
a relabelling (formally, a self-bijection) of $0,1,2,3,4$.
Two drawings $D,D'$ of $K_{5,n}$ are {\em isomorphic} if
{$\MRot{D}\cong\MRot{D'}$}. Loosely speaking, two drawings $D,D'$ of
$K_{5,n}$ are isomorphic if $0,1,2,3,4$ and $a_0, a_1, \ldots,
a_{n-1}$ can be relabelled (say in $D'$), if necessary, so that
$\rot{D}{a_i} =\rot{D'}{a_i}$ for every $i\in [n]$.
Our ultimate interest lies in optimal drawings (of
$K_{5,n}$). It is not difficult to see (we will prove this later)
that if $D$ is an optimal drawing and $a_i,a_j,a_k,a_\ell$ are
vertices such that
$\rot{D}{a_i} = \rot{D}{a_j}$ and $\rot{D}{a_k} = \rot{D}{a_\ell}$,
then $\ucr{D}{a_i,a_k} = \ucr{D}{a_j,a_\ell}$.
Thus an optimal drawing
of $K_{5,n}$ is adequately described by choosing a representative
vertex of each rotation, and giving the information of how many
vertices there are for each rotation. This supports the pertinence of
focusing on the rotations as the criteria for isomorphism.
\section{An antipodal-free drawing of $K_{5,4(r+s)}$}\label{sec:spdr}
In this section we describe an antipodal-free drawing $D_{r,s}$ of $K_{5,4(r+s)}$,
for each pair $r,s$ of nonnegative integers.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{\input{k56_02.pdf_t}}
\caption{\small{This antipodal-free drawing $D^*$
of $K_{5,6}$ is the base of the construction of the
optimal antipodal-free drawing $D_{r,s}$ of $K_{5,4(r+s)}$ for all $r, s$. It is easily verified that
$\rot{D^*}{a_0}=(01234)$,
$\rot{D^*}{a_1}=(04231)$,
$\rot{D^*}{a_2}=(01342)$,
$\rot{D^*}{a_3}=(04312)$,
$\rot{D^*}{a_4}=(01432)$,
$\rot{D^*}{a_5}=(02314)$.
}}
\label{fig:k5601}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The construction is based on the drawing $D^*$ of $K_{5,6}$ in
Figure~\ref{fig:k5601}. As shown, the rotations in $D^*$ of the white
vertices are
$\rot{D^*}{a_0}$ $=(01234)$,
$\rot{D^*}{a_1}=(04231)$,
$\rot{D^*}{a_2}=(01342)$,
$\rot{D^*}{a_3}$ $=(04312)$,
$\rot{D^*}{a_4}=(01432)$,
$\rot{D^*}{a_5}=(02314)$.
It is immediately checked that $D^*$ is antipodal-free. Note that
$D^*$ itself is not optimal, as it has $25=Z(5,6)+1$ crossings.
Suppose first that both $r$ and $s$ are positive.
To obtain $D_{r,s}$, we add $4(r+s)-6$ white vertices to $D^*$. Now $r-1$
of these vertices are drawn very close to $a_1$, and $r-1$ are
drawn very close to $a_2$; $s-1$ vertices are drawn very close to
$a_4$, and $s-1$ are drawn very close to $a_5$; finally, $r+s-1$ vertices are drawn
very close to $a_0$, and $r+s-1$ are drawn very close to $a_3$. It is
intuitively clear what is meant by having $a_i$ drawn ``very close''
to $a_j$. Formally, we require that: (i)
$a_i$ and $a_j$ have the same rotation; (ii) $\ucr{D_{r,s}}{a_i,a_j}=4$; and (iii) for any other vertex $a_k$,
$\ucr{D_{r,s}}{a_i,a_k}=\ucr{D_{r,s}}{a_j,a_k}$. These properties are
easily satisfied by having the added vertex $a_i$ drawn sufficiently close
to $a_j$, so that the edges incident with $a_i$ follow very closely
the edges incident with $a_j$.
If one of $r$ or $s$ is $0$, then we make the obvious adjustments.
That is, (i) if $r=0$, then we remove $a_1$ and $a_2$, and for each $i=0,3,4,5$,
we draw $s-1$ new vertices very close to $a_i$; and (ii) if $s=0$, then we
remove $a_4$ and $a_5$, and for each $i=0,1,2,3$, we draw $r-1$ new
vertices very close to $a_i$. (In the extreme case $r=s=0$, we remove
all the white vertices from $D^*$, and are left with an obviously
optimal drawing of $K_{5,0}$).
For each $i=0,1,2,3,4,5$, the {\em bag} $[a_i]$ of $a_i$ is the set that
consists of the vertices drawn very close to $a_i$, plus
$a_i$ itself.
Note that each of $[a_0]$ and $[a_3]$ has $r+s$
vertices, each of $[a_1]$ and $[a_2]$ has $r$ vertices, and each of
$[a_4]$ and $[a_5]$ has $s$ vertices.
An illustration of the construction for $r=2$ and $s=1$ is given in
Figure~\ref{fig:rho}, where the gray vertices are the ones added to $D^*$.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{\input{k58_k54times2_04.pdf_t}}
\caption{\small{The antipodal-free drawing
$D_{2,1}$. To obtain this optimal drawing of
$K_{5,12}=K_{5,4(2+1)}$, we start with the drawing in
Figure~\ref{fig:k5601} and add two vertices very
close to $a_0$, two vertices very close to $a_3$,
one vertex very close to $a_1$, and one vertex
very close to $a_2$. Since $s-1=0$, no vertices are
added very close to either
$a_4$ or $a_5$. The added vertices are colored gray in this drawing.}}
\label{fig:rho}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Claim. }{\em
For every pair $r,s$ of nonnegative integers, $D_{r,s}$ is an antipodal-free optimal drawing of
$K_{5,4(r+s)}$.}
\medskip
\begin{proof}
First we note that since $D^*$ is antipodal-free, it follows immediately that $D_{r,s}$
is also antipodal-free. Thus we only need to prove optimality.
An elementary calculation gives the number of crossings in
$D_{r,s}$. For instance, take a vertex $u$ in $[a_0]$. Now $\operatorname{cr}_{D_{r,s}}(u,v)$ equals
(i) $4$ if $v \in [a_0], v\neq u$;
(ii) $1$ if $v\in [a_1]$;
(iii) $2$ if $v\in [a_2]$;
(iv) $1$ if $v\in [a_3]$;
(v) $1$ if $v\in [a_4]$; and
(vi) $2$ if $v\in [a_5]$.
Since $|[a_0]|= r+s$,
$|[a_1]|= r$,
$|[a_2]|= r$,
$|[a_3]|= r+s$,
$|[a_4]|= s$, and
$|[a_5]|= s$, it follows that $\ucr{D_{r,s}}{u}= 4(r+s-1) + r + 2r +
(r+s) + s + 2s =
4(2r+2s-1)$.
A totally analogous argument shows that, actually,
$\ucr{D_{r,s}}{w}=4(2r+2s-1)$ for {\em every} white vertex $w$.
Since there are $4(r+s)$ white vertices in total, it
follows that $\operatorname{cr}(D_{r,s}) = (1/2)\bigl(4(r+s)\bigr)\bigl(4(2r+2s-1)\bigr) = \bigl(4(r+s)\bigr)\bigl(4(r+s)-2\bigr) =
Z(5,4(r+s))$.
\end{proof}
\section{Main results: the optimal drawings of $K_{5,n}$, for $n$ even.}\label{sec:main1}
We now state our main results.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main1}
Let $n$ be a positive even integer.
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{it:ma1} If {$n\equiv 2$ \text{\rm (mod} $4$\text{\rm )}}, then all optimal drawings of $K_{5,n}$ have
antipodal vertices.
\item\label{it:ma2}
If {$n\equiv 0$ \text{\rm (mod} $4$\text{\rm )}}, then every
antipodal-free optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$ is isomorphic to
$D_{r,s}$ (described in Section~\ref{sec:spdr}) for some
integers $r,s$ such that $4(r+s)=n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{\input{k56pluzd03.pdf_t}}
\caption{\small{An optimal drawing of $K_{5,10}$ that
is neither a Zarankiewicz drawing nor the
superimposition of Zarankiewicz drawings. As
predicted by Theorem~\ref{thm:main2}, this is the
superimposition of a Zarankiewicz drawing (the $K_{5,2}$ induced by $a_8, a_9$ and the five
black vertices) plus a drawing $D_{r,s}$ (namely
with $r=s=1$).}}
\label{fig:anti}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Before moving on to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main1} (the rest of the
paper is devoted to this proof), we will show that it implies a decomposition of all the
optimal drawings of $K_{5,n}$, for $n$ even.
In Section~\ref{sec:intro} we defined, somewhat informally, a
Zarankiewicz drawing. Let us now formally define these drawings using
rotations (we focus on $K_{5,n}$, although the definition is obviously
extended to $K_{m,n}$ for any $m$).
For a nonnegative integer $n$, a drawing $D$ of $K_{5,n}$ is a {\em
Zarankiewicz drawing} if the white vertices can be partitioned into
two sets, of sizes $\floor{n/2}$ and $\ceil{n/2}$, so that vertices in different
sets are antipodal in $D$, and vertices $a_i, a_j$ in the same set
satisfy $\ucr{D}{a_i,a_j}=4$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:kmnzar} for a
Zarankiewicz drawing of $K_{5,6}$). A quick calculation shows
that every Zarankiewicz drawing of $K_{5,n}$ is an optimal drawing.
\begin{theorem}[Decomposition of optimal drawings of $K_{5,n}$, for
$n$ even]
\label{thm:main2}
Let $D$ be an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$, with $n$ even. Then
the set of $n$ white vertices can be
partitioned into two sets $A,B$ (one of which may be empty), with
$|A|=4t$ for some nonnegative integer $t$, such that:
(i) the vertices in $B$ can be decomposed into $|B|/2$
antipodal pairs; and
(ii) the drawing of $K_{5,4t}$ induced by $A$ is antipodal-free, and
it is isomorphic to the drawing $D_{r,s}$ described in
Section~\ref{sec:spdr}, for some integers $r,s$ such that $r+s=t$.
Equivalently, either $D$ is the superimposition of Zarankiewicz
drawings, or it can be obtained by superimposing Zarankiewicz
drawings to the drawing $D_{r,s}$ described in Section~\ref{sec:spdr}, for
some integers $r,s$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:anti}).
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We proceed by induction on $n$.
It is trivial to check that the two
white vertices of every
optimal drawing of $K_{5,2}$ are an antipodal pair, and so the
statement holds in the base case $n=2$. For the inductive step, we consider an even
integer $n$, and assume that the
statement is true for all $k < n$.
Let $D$ be an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$.
If $D$ has no antipodal pairs, then the statement follows
immediately from Theorem~\ref{thm:main1} (without even using the
induction hypothesis). Thus we may assume that $D$
has at least one antipodal pair $a_i, a_j$.
It suffices to show that the drawing $D'$ that results by removing
$a_i$ and $a_j$ from $D$
is an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n-2}$, as then
the result follows by the induction hypothesis. Clearly $\operatorname{cr}(D) =
\operatorname{cr}(D') + \sum_{k\in {\tred{[n]}}-\{i,j\}} (\ucr{D}{a_i,a_k}+\ucr{D}{a_j,a_k})
\ge \operatorname{cr}(D') + (n-2)Z(5,3) = \operatorname{cr}(D')+4n-8$. Thus $\operatorname{cr}(D') \le
\operatorname{cr}(D) - 4n+8 = Z(5,n) - 4n+8$. An elementary calculation shows that
$Z(5,n) -4n+8=Z(5,n-2)$, so we obtain $\operatorname{cr}(D') \le Z(5,n-2)$. Since
$\operatorname{cr}(K_{5,n-2}) = Z(5,n-2)$, it follows that $\operatorname{cr}(D') =Z(5,n-2)$,
that is, $D'$ is an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n-2}$.
\end{proof}
\section[Clean drawings]{Clean
drawings.}\label{sec:clean}
A good drawing of $K_{5,n}$ is {\em clean} if:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{pro:pfi} for all distinct white vertices $a_i,a_j$ such that
$\rot{D}{a_i} = \rot{D}{a_j}$, we have
$\ucr{D}{a_i,a_j} = 4$;
\item\label{pro:pfu} for all distinct white vertices
$a_i, a_j, a_k, a_\ell$ such that
$\rot{D}{a_i} = \rot{D}{a_j}$ and $\rot{D}{a_k} =
\rot{D}{a_\ell}$, we have $\ucr{D}{a_i,a_k} = \ucr{D}{a_j,a_\ell}$;
and
\item\label{pro:pfo} for any distinct white
vertices $a_i, a_k$,
$\ucr{D}{a_i,a_k} \le 4$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:same}
Let $D$ be an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$. Then
there is an optimal drawing $D'$, isomorphic to $D$, that is clean.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For each white vertex $a_i$, define $d_i:=\sum_{\{a_\ell\,|\, \rot{D}{a_\ell}\neq
\rot{D}{a_i}\}}
\ucr{D}{a_i,a_\ell}$.
Let $\pi\in\Rot{D}$. Take a white vertex
$a_i$ with $\rot{D}{a_i}=\pi$, such that for all
$j$ with \tred{$\rot{D}{a_j}= \pi$} we have $d_i \le d_j$. It is easy to see
that we can move
every vertex $a_j$ with \tred{$\rot{D}{a_j}= \pi$} very close to $a_i$, so that
$\ucr{D}{a_i,a_k} = \ucr{D}{a_j,a_k}$ for every white vertex
$a_k\notin\{a_i,a_j\}$, and so that $\ucr{D}{a_i,a_j}=4$. If we
perform this
procedure for every rotation in $\Rot{D}$, the result is an optimal drawing
$D'$, isomorphic to $D$, that satisfies (\ref{pro:pfi}) and \eqref{pro:pfu}.
Now to prove that $D'$ also satisfies (\ref{pro:pfo}) we suppose, by way of contradiction, that
there exist $a_i, a_k$ such that
$\ucr{D}{a_i,a_k} > 4$. Define $d_i, d_k$ as in the previous
paragraph. We may assume without loss of generality that
$d_i \le d_k$. Now let $D''$ be the
drawing that results from moving $a_k$ very close to $a_i$, making it
have the same rotation as $a_i$, and so that $\ucr{D''}{a_i,a_\ell} =
\ucr{D''}{a_k,a_\ell}$ for every $\ell\not\in\{i,k\}$, and $\ucr{D''}{a_i,a_k}
= 4$. It is readily checked that $D''$ has fewer crossings than $D'$,
contradicting the optimality of $D'$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:clean}
We are interested in classifying optimal drawings up to
isomorphism (Theorem~\ref{thm:main1}). In view of Proposition~\ref{pro:same}, we may assume
that all drawings of $K_{5,n}$ under
consideration are clean.
We will work under this assumption for the rest of the paper.
\end{remark}
\section[The key of a clean drawing]{The key of a clean drawing.}\label{sec:keyscores}
We now associate to every clean drawing of $K_{5,n}$ an edge-labeled
graph that (as we will see) captures all its relevant crossing number
information.
Let $D$ be a clean drawing of $K_{5,n}$. The {\em key} $\Key{D}$
of $D$ is the (edge-labeled) complete graph whose vertices are the
elements of $\Rot{D}$, and where each edge is labeled according to the
following rule: if $\pi,\pi'\in \Rot{D}$, with $\rot{D}{a_i}=\pi$ and
$\rot{D}{a_j}=\pi'$, then the label of the edge joining $\pi$ and
$\pi'$ is $\ucr{D}{a_i,a_j}$. It follows from the cleanness of $D$
that $\ucr{D}{a_i,a_j}$ does not depend on the
choice of $a_i$ and $a_j$, and so $\Key{D}$ is well-defined for every
clean drawing $D$. Moreover, it also follows that every edge label
in $\Key{D}$ is in $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$.
The {\em core} of $D$ is the subgraph
$\PKey{D}$ of $\Key{D}$ that consists of all the vertices of $\Key{D}$
and the edges of $\Key{D}$ with label $1$.
In Figure~\ref{fig:key} we give a (clean and optimal) drawing $D$ of $K_{5,3}$, and
illustrate its key and its core.
Our main interest is in
antipodal-free drawings, that is, those drawings in which every edge
label in $\Key{D}$ is in $\{1,2,3,4\}$.
A key is {\em $0$--free} (respectively, $4$-{\em free}) if none of
its edges has $0$ (respectively, $4$) as
a label. A key is {\em $\{0,4\}$-free} if it is both $0$- and
$4$-free.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.7}{\input{key02.pdf_t}}
\caption{\small{A drawing $D$ of
$K_{5,3}$. By letting $\rot{D}{a_0}=\pi_0, \rot{D}{a_1}=\pi_1$, and $\rot{D}{a_2}=\pi_2$,
we obtain the key $\Key{D}$ (right, above) and
the core $\PKey{D}$ (right, below) of $D$.}}
\label{fig:key}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The main step in our strategy to understand optimal drawings is to
characterize which labelled graphs are the key of some optimal
drawing. To this end, we introduce a system of linear equations
associated to each key, as follows.
\begin{definition}[The system of linear equations of a key]\label{def:linsys}
Let $D$ be an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$, with $n$ even. Let the
vertices of $\Key{D}$ (that is, the elements of $\Rot{D}$) be labelled $\pi_0, \pi_1, \ldots, \pi_{m-1}$, and
let $\lambda_{ij}$ denote the label of the edge $\pi_i \pi_j$,
for all $i \neq j$. For each $i\in {\tred{[m]}}$, the {\em linear equation
$E(\pi_i,\Key{D})$ for
$\pi_i$ in $\Key{D}$} is the linear equation on the variables $t_0,
t_1, \ldots, t_{m-1}$ given by
\[
E(\pi_i,\Key{D})\hbox{\hglue 0.3 cm} : \hbox{\hglue 0.3 cm}
2t_i + \sum_{j\in {\tred{[m]}},\,j\neq i} (\lambda_{ij} -2 ) t_j = 0.
\]
The set $\{E(\pi_i,\Key{D})\}_{i\in {\tred{[m]}}}$ is the {\em system of linear
equations associated to} $\Key{D}$, and is denoted ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$.
\end{definition}
The characterization of when a labelled graph is the key of an
optimal drawing is mainly based on the following crucial fact.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:tempev}
Let $D$ be an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$, with $n$ even. Then
the system of linear equations ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$ associated to $\Key{D}$
has a positive integral solution $(t_0,t_1,\ldots,t_{m-1})$ such that
$t_0 + t_1 + \cdots + t_{m-1} = n$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First we show that if $D$ is an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$ with $n$
even, then for every $i=0,1,\ldots,n-1$, we have $\ucr{D}{a_i} =
2n-4$. To this end, suppose that $\ucr{D}{a_i} > 2n-4$ for some
$i$. Since $D$ is optimal, $\operatorname{cr}(D) = Z(5,n) = n(n-2)$, and so the
drawing $D'$ of $K_{5,n-1}$ that results by removing $a_i$ from $D$
has fewer than $n(n-2) - (2n-4) = n^2 - 4n +4 = (n-2)^2 = Z(5,n-1)$
crossings, contradicting that $\operatorname{cr}(K_{5,n-1}) = Z(5,n-1)$. Thus
$\ucr{D}{a_i} \le 2n-4$ for every $i$. Now suppose that
$\ucr{D}{a_i}<2n-4$ for some $i$. Then $\operatorname{cr}(D) =
(1/2)\sum_{j\in {\tred{[n]}}} \ucr{D}{a_j} < (1/2)(2n-4)n =
n(n-2)$, contradicting that $\operatorname{cr}(K_{5,n}) = Z(5,n) = n(n-2)$. Thus
for every $i\in {\tred{[n]}}$ we have $\ucr{D}{a_i} = 2n-4$, as
claimed.
Now let $\pi_0,\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_{m-1}$ be the elements of $\Rot{D}$
(that is, the vertices of $\Key{D}$), and for each $i,j\in {\tred{[m]}}, i\neq
j$, let $\lambda_{ij}$ denote the label of the edge $\pi_i\pi_j$ in $\Key{D}$.
For each $i\in{\tred{[m]}}$, let $t_i$ be
the number of vertices with rotation $\pi_i$ in $D$. Then (using that
$D$ is clean) for
every $i\in {\tred{[m]}}$ and
every white vertex $a_k$ with $\rot{D}{a_k}=\pi_i$ we have $\ucr{D}{a_k}
= 4(t_i-1) + \sum_{j\in {\tred{[m]}},j\neq i}
\lambda_{ij} t_j$. Now from the previous paragraph for each
$a_k$ we have $\ucr{D}{a_k} = 2n-4$. Using that
$n=\sum_{j\in {\tred{[m]}}} t_j$, we obtain
$4(t_i-1) + \sum_{j\in {\tred{[m]}},j\neq i}
\lambda_{ij}t_j = 2\sum_{j\in {\tred{[m]}}} t_j -
4$. Equivalently,
$2t_i + \sum_{j\in {\tred{[m]}},j\neq i} (\lambda_{ij} -2 )
t_j = 0$, for every $i\in {\tred{[m]}}$. Thus $(t_0,t_1,\ldots,t_{m-1})$ is a positive integral
solution of ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$.
\end{proof}
\section{Properties of the key of a clean drawing.}\label{sec:someprco}
We start with an easy, yet crucial, observation.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:at4}
Let $D$ be an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$. Then, for any three
distinct white vertices $a_i,a_j,a_k$, $\ucr{D}{a_i,a_j} +\ucr{D}{a_j,a_k}
+\ucr{D}{a_i,a_k}$ is an even number greater than or equal to $4$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This follows since $\operatorname{cr}(K_{5,3}) = Z(5,3) = 4$ and (see for
instance~\cite{kleitman}) every good drawing of $K_{5,3}$ has an even
number of crossings.
\end{proof}
The following is an equivalent form of this statement, in the setting
of keys.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:forkeys}
Let $D$ be a clean drawing of $K_{5,n}$, and let $\pi_0, \pi_1, \pi_2$
be vertices of $\Key{D}$. Let $\lambda_{ij}$ be the label of the edge
$\pi_i \pi_j$, for $i,j\in\{0,1,2\}, i\neq j$. Then $\lambda_{01} +
\lambda_{12} + \lambda_{02}$ is an even number greater than or equal to
$4$.\hfill$\Box$
\end{proposition}
Let $\gamma, \kappa$ be cyclic permutations on the same set of symbols. A
{\em route} from $\gamma$ to $\kappa$ is a set of distinct
transpositions, which may be ordered into some sequence such that the
successive application of (all) the transpositions in this sequence takes
$\gamma$ to $\kappa$. For instance, if $\gamma=(abcd)$ and
$\kappa=(acdb)$, then $\{(bd),(bc)\}$ is a route from $\gamma$ to
$\kappa$: if we apply first $(bc)$ to $\gamma$, and then $(bd)$ to the
resulting cyclic permutation, we obtain $\kappa$.
The {\em size} $|P|$ of a route $P$ is its number of
transpositions. An
{\em antiroute} from $\gamma$ to $\kappa$ is a route from $\gamma$ to
the reverse cyclic permutation $\overline{\kappa}$ of $\kappa$.
Note that if $P$ is a route (respectively, antiroute) from $\gamma$ to $\kappa$, then
$P$ is also a route (respectively, antiroute) from $\kappa$ to $\gamma$. The {\em
antidistance} between two cyclic permutations is the smallest size of an
antiroute between them.
The following is an easy consequence of (the proof of) Theorem 5
in~\cite{woodall}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:wo}
Let $D$ be a good drawing of $K_{5,2}$, with white vertices $a_0,
a_1$. Then there is an antiroute
from $\rot{D}{a_0}$ to $\rot{D}{a_1}$ of size
$\ucr{D}{a_0,a_1}$.\hfill$\Box$
\end{lemma}
The following statement is implicitly proved in
the discussion after the proof of~\cite[Theorem 5]{woodall}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:woo}
Let $D$ be a clean drawing of $K_{5,r}$ with white vertices $a_0, a_1,
\ldots,$ $ a_{r-1}$, and let $\pi_i:=\rot{D}{a_i}$. Suppose that
$\pi_i\neq \pi_j$ whenever $i\neq j$, and for all $i\neq j$ let
$\lambda_{ij}:=\ucr{D}{a_i,a_j}$. For $k=0,1,2,3,4$, let
$\gamma_k:=\rot{D}{k}$. Then
there exist:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{it:w1} for all $i,j\in [r]$ with $i\neq j$, an antiroute
$P_{ij}$ from $\pi_i$ to $\pi_j$ of size $\lambda_{ij}$;
\item\label{it:w2} for all $k,\ell \in [5]$ with $k\neq
\ell$, an antiroute $Q_{k\ell}$ from $\gamma_k$ to $\gamma_\ell$;
\end{enumerate}
such that the transposition $(a_i\,a_j)$ is in $Q_{k\ell}$ if and only
if the transposition $(k\,\ell)$ is in $P_{ij}$.\hfill$\Box$
\end{lemma}
We now use these powerful statements to prove that certain graphs
cannot be the subgraphs of the key of a clean drawing.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:4claw}
The graph in Figure~\ref{fig:sk13} is not the key of any clean drawing
of $K_{5,n}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.7}{\input{cari04b.pdf_t}}
\end{center}
\caption{This cannot be the key of a clean drawing of $K_{5,n}$.}
\label{fig:sk13}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
Suppose by way of contradiction that the graph in
Figure~\ref{fig:sk13} is the key of some clean drawing of $K_{5,n}$.
This implies in particular that there exists a
drawing $D$ of $K_{5,4}$ with white vertices $a_0, a_1, a_2, a_3$ such
that $\rot{D}{a_i}=\pi_i$ for $i=0,1,2,3$, with $\pi_0=(01234),
\pi_1=(01432), \pi_2=(04312)$, and $\pi_3=(03421)$,
and $
\ucr{D}{a_0,a_1} =
\ucr{D}{a_0,a_2} =
\ucr{D}{a_0,a_3} = 1$, and
$\ucr{D}{a_1,a_2} =
\ucr{D}{a_1,a_3} =
\ucr{D}{a_2,a_3} = 2$.
The required contradiction is obtained by showing that there do not exist rotations
$\rot{D}{0},
\rot{D}{1},
\rot{D}{2},
\rot{D}{3},
\rot{D}{4}$, and antiroutes $P_{ij}, Q_{k\ell}$ that satisfy
Lemma~\ref{lem:woo} (with the given values of $\ucr{D}{a_i,a_j}$ for
$i,j\in\{0,1,2,3\},$ $ i\neq j$). We start by determining the possible antiroutes
$P_{ij}$ (these depend only on the information we already have). Then
we investigate the possible antiroutes $Q_{k\ell}$ consistent with
each choice of the antiroutes $P_{ij}$, and prove that, in all cases,
every possible choice of
$\rot{D}{0},
\rot{D}{1},
\rot{D}{2},$ $
\rot{D}{3}$ and
$\rot{D}{4}$ leads to an inconsistency.
The following facts are easily verified:
(i) the only antiroute from $\pi_0$ to $\pi_1$ of
size $1$ is
$\{(01)\}$; (ii) the only antiroute from $\pi_0$ to $\pi_2$ of size $1$ is
$\{(12)\}$; (iii) the only antiroute from $\pi_0$ to $\pi_3$ of size
$1$ is
$\{(34)\}$; (iv)
the only antiroute of size $2$ from $\pi_1$ to $\pi_2$ is
$\{(02),(34)\}$; (v)
there are two distinct antiroutes of size $2$ from $\pi_2$ to
$\pi_3$, namely $\{(01),(02)\}$ and $\{(03),(04)\}$; and (vi) there
are two
distinct antiroutes of size $2$ from $\pi_1$ to $\pi_3$, namely
$\{(02),(12)\}$ and $\{(23),(24)\}$.
Now for $i,j\in\{0,1,2,3\}, i\neq j$, let $P_{ij}$ be the antiroute
guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{lem:woo}. By the previous observations it
follows that necessarily
$P_{01}=\{(01)\}$, $P_{02}=\{(12)\}$,
$P_{03}=\{(34)\}$, and $P_{12} = \{(02),(34)\}$. Also by the previous
observations there are two choices for $P_{23}$, namely
$\{(01),(02)\}$ and $\{(03),(04)\}$; and there are two choices for
$P_{13}$, namely $\{(02),(12)\}$ and $\{(23),(24)\}$.
Thus $P_{01}, P_{02}, P_{03}, P_{12}$ are all determined:
\[P_{01}=\{(01)\}, P_{02}=\{(12)\},
P_{03}=\{(34)\}, P_{12} = \{(02),(34)\},
\]
\medskip
and there
are four possible combinations of $P_{13}$ and $P_{23}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $P_{23} = \{(01),(02)\}$ and $P_{13} = \{(02),(12)\}$.
\medskip
\noindent In this case, by Lemma~\ref{lem:woo}, we have
$
Q_{01}= \{(a_0a_1),(a_2a_3)\},
Q_{02}= \{(a_1a_2),(a_2a_3),(a_1a_3)\},
Q_{03}= \emptyset,
Q_{04}= \emptyset,
Q_{12}= \{(a_0a_2),(a_1a_3)\},$ $
Q_{13}= \emptyset,
Q_{14}= \emptyset,
Q_{23}= \emptyset,
Q_{24}= \emptyset$, and
$Q_{34} = \{(a_0a_3),(a_1a_2)\}$.
\medskip
\item[(b)] $P_{23} =\{(01),(02)\}$ and $P_{13} = \{(23),(24)\}$.
\medskip
\noindent In this case, by Lemma~\ref{lem:woo}, we have
$
Q_{01}= \{(a_0a_1),(a_2a_3)\},
Q_{02}= \{(a_1a_2),(a_2a_3)\},
Q_{03}= \emptyset,
Q_{04}= \emptyset,
Q_{12}= \{(a_0a_2)\},
Q_{13}= \emptyset,
Q_{14}= \emptyset,
Q_{23}= \{(a_1a_3)\},
Q_{24}= \{(a_1a_3)\}$, and
$Q_{34} = \{(a_0a_3),(a_1a_2)\}$.
\medskip
\item[(c)] $P_{23} = \{(03),(04)\}$ and $P_{13} = \{(02),(12)\}$.
\medskip
\noindent In this case, by Lemma~\ref{lem:woo}, we have
$
Q_{01}= \{(a_0a_1)\},
Q_{02}= \{(a_1a_2),$ $(a_1a_3)\},
Q_{03}= \{(a_2a_3)\},
Q_{04}= \{(a_2a_3)\},
Q_{12}= \{(a_0a_2),(a_1a_3)\},$ $
Q_{13}= \emptyset,
Q_{14}= \emptyset,
Q_{23}= \emptyset,
Q_{24}= \emptyset$, and
{$Q_{34} = \{(a_0a_3),(a_1a_2)\}$.}
\medskip
\item[(d)] $P_{23} = \{(03),(04)\}$ and $P_{13} = \{(23),(24)\}$.
\medskip
\noindent In this case, by Lemma~\ref{lem:woo}, we have
$
Q_{01}= \{(a_0a_1)\},
Q_{02}= \{(a_1a_2)\},$ $
Q_{03}= \{(a_2a_3)\},
Q_{04}= \{(a_2a_3)\},
Q_{12}= \{(a_0a_2)\},
Q_{13}= \emptyset,
Q_{14}= \emptyset,
Q_{23}= \{(a_1a_3)\},
Q_{24}= \{(a_1a_3)\}$, and
{$Q_{34} = \{(a_0a_3),(a_1a_2)\}$.}
\end{itemize}
\bigskip
We only analyze (that is, derive a contradiction from) (a). The cases
(b), (c), and (d) are handled in a totally analogous manner.
Since $Q_{13}=Q_{14}=\emptyset$, it follows
that $\rot{D}{3}$ and $\rot{D}{4}$ are both equal to the reverse of
$\rot{D}{1}$; in particular,
$\rot{D}{3} = \rot{D}{4}$.
Since $Q_{01}=\{(a_0a_1),(a_2a_3)\}$ and $Q_{12}=\{(a_0a_2),(a_1a_3)\}$, it follows
that in $\rot{D}{1}$: (i) $a_0$ and $a_1$ must be adjacent; (ii) $a_2$ and $a_3$
must be adjacent; (iii) $a_0$ and $a_2$ must be adjacent; and (iv) $a_1$ and $a_3$ must
be adjacent. It follows immediately that $\rot{D}{1}$ is either
$(a_0a_2a_3a_1)$ or $(a_0a_1a_3a_2)$. Since $\rot{D}{3}$ and $\rot{D}{4}$ are both the
reverse of $\rot{D}{1}$, then each of $\rot{D}{3}$ and
$\rot{D}{4}$ is either $(a_0a_1a_3a_2)$ or $(a_0a_2a_3a_1)$. However, since
$Q_{34}=\{(a_0a_3),(a_1a_2)\}$, then one must reach the reverse of $\rot{D}{4}$ from
$\rot{D}{3}$ by applying the transpositions $(a_0a_3)$ and $(a_1a_2)$ (in some
order). Since neither of these transpositions may be applied to $(a_0a_1a_3a_2)$
or $(a_0a_2a_3a_1)$, we obtain the required contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:chimuelo}
The graph in Figure~\ref{fig:chim} is not the key of any clean drawing
of $K_{5,n}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.7}{\input{cari06.pdf_t}}
\end{center}
\caption{This cannot be the key of a clean drawing of
$K_{5,n}$.}
\label{fig:chim}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
Suppose by way of contradiction that the graph in
Figure~\ref{fig:chim} is the key of some clean drawing of $K_{5,n}$.
Thus there exists a drawing $D$ of $K_{5,4}$ with white vertices
$a_0, a_1, a_2, a_3$ such
that $\rot{D}{a_i}=\pi_i$ for $i=0,1,2,3$, with $\pi_0=(01234),
\pi_1=(01432), \pi_2=(03241)$, and $\pi_3=(04231)$,
and $\ucr{D}{a_0,a_1} =
\ucr{D}{a_1,a_2} =
\ucr{D}{a_2,a_3} =
\ucr{D}{a_0,a_3}=1$, and
$\ucr{D}{a_0,a_2} =
\ucr{D}{a_1a_3} = 2$.
For $i,j\in \{0,1,2,3\},i\neq j$, let $P_{ij}$ be the antiroute
guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{lem:woo}. It is easy to verify that the only
antiroute of size $1$ from $\pi_0$ to $\pi_1$ is $\{(01)\}$, and so
necessarily $P_{01}=\{(01)\}$. Analogous arguments show that necessarily
$P_{23}=\{(01)\}$ and that $P_{12}=P_{03}=\{(23)\}$.
It is also readily checked that there are two
antiroutes of size $2$ from $\pi_0$ to $\pi_2$, namely
$\{(04),(14)\}$
and
$\{(24),(34)\}$ (moreover, these are also the two antiroutes of size
$2$ from $\pi_1$ to $\pi_3$). Thus
each of $P_{02}$ and $P_{13}$ is either
$\{(04),(14)\}$
or
$\{(24),(34)\}$.
Thus $P_{01},P_{03},P_{12}$, and $P_{23}$ are all determined:
\[
P_{01}=P_{23}=\{(01)\}, P_{03}=P_{12}=\{(23)\},
\]
and there are four possible combinations of $P_{02}$ and $P_{13}$:
\begin{itemize}
\medskip
\item[(a)]
$P_{02}=P_{13}=\{(04),(14)\}$.
\\
\noindent
In this case, by Lemma \ref{lem:woo},
$Q_{01}=\{(a_0a_1),(a_2a_3)\},
Q_{04}=\{(a_0a_2),$ $(a_1a_3)\},$ $
Q_{14}=\{(a_0a_2),(a_1a_3)\},
Q_{23}=\{(a_0a_3),(a_1a_2)\},$ and
$Q_{02}=Q_{03}=Q_{12}=Q_{13}=Q_{24}=Q_{34}=\emptyset$.
\medskip
\item[(b)]
$P_{02}=\{(04),(14)\}$ and
$P_{13}=\{(24),(34)\}$.\\
\noindent
In this case, by Lemma \ref{lem:woo},
$Q_{01}=\{(a_0a_1),(a_2a_3)\},
Q_{04}=Q_{14}=\{(a_0a_2)\},$ $
Q_{23}=\{(a_0a_3),(a_1a_2)\},
Q_{24}=Q_{34}=\{(a_1a_3)\}$, and
$Q_{02} = Q_{03} = Q_{12} = Q_{13} = \emptyset$.
\medskip
\item[(c)]
$P_{02}=\{(24),(34)\}$ and
$P_{13}=\{(04),(14)\}$.\\
\noindent
In this case, by Lemma~\ref{lem:woo},
$Q_{01}=\{(a_0a_1),(a_2a_3)\}$,
$Q_{04}=Q_{14}=\{(a_1a_3)\}$,
$Q_{23}=\{(a_0a_3),(a_1a_2)\}$,
$Q_{24}=Q_{34}=\{(a_0a_2)\}$,
and
$Q_{02}=Q_{03}=Q_{12}=Q_{13}=\emptyset$.
\medskip
\item[(d)]
$P_{02}=P_{13}=\{(24),(34)\}$.\\
\noindent
In this case, by Lemma \ref{lem:woo},
$Q_{01}=\{(a_0a_1),(a_2a_3)\},
Q_{23}=\{(a_0a_3),$ $(a_1a_2)\},
Q_{24}=Q_{34}=\{(a_0a_2), (a_1a_3)\}$, and
$Q_{02}=Q_{03}=Q_{04}=Q_{12}=Q_{13}=Q_{14}=\emptyset$.
\end{itemize}
\medskip
We only analyze (that is, derive a contradiction from) (a). The cases
(b), (c), and (d) are handled analogously.
Since $Q_{02}=Q_{03}=Q_{12}=Q_{13}=Q_{24}=Q_{34}=\emptyset$, it follows that $\rot{D}{2}$ and
$\rot{D}{3}$ are equal to each other, and equal to the reverse of
each of $\rot{D}{0}$, $\rot{D}{1}$, and
$\rot{D}{4}$. Thus
$\rot{D}{0}=\rot{D}{1}=\rot{D}{4}$. Since
$Q_{01}=\{(a_0a_1),(a_2a_3)\}$ and $Q_{04}=\{(a_0a_2),(a_1a_3)\}$,
it follows that in $\rot{D}{0}$: (i) $a_0$ and $a_1$ must be adjacent;
(ii) $a_2$ and $a_3$ must be adjacent; (iii) $a_0$ and $a_2$ must be
adjacent; and (iv)
$a_1$ and $a_3$ must be adjacent. Thus
$\rot{D}{0}$ is either $(a_0 a_2 a_3 a_1)$ or
$(a_0 a_1 a_3 a_2)$. Now since
$Q_{23}=\{(a_0a_3),(a_1a_2)\}$, it follows that
in $\rot{D}{2}$ (and hence in
its reverse $\rot{D}{0}$) we have that
$a_0$ is adjacent to $a_3$, and that $a_1$
is adjacent to $a_2$. But this is impossible, since in neither $(a_0 a_2 a_3
a_1)$ nor $(a_0 a_1 a_3 a_2)$ any of these
adjacencies occurs.
\end{proof}
\section{Properties of cores. I. Forbidden subgraphs.}\label{sec:someprrk1}
We recall that the {\em core} of a clean drawing $D$ of $K_{5,n}$ is the
subgraph
$\PKey{D}$ of $\Key{D}$ that consists of all the vertices of $\Key{D}$
and the edges of $\Key{D}$ with label $1$. Note that while $\Key{D}$
is obviously connected, $\PKey{D}$ may be disconnected.
As all edges of a
core are labelled $1$, we sometimes omit the reference to the edge
labels altogether when working with $\PKey{D}$.
Our first result on the structure of cores is a workhorse for the next
few sections.
\begin{claim}\label{cla:ch}
If $\pi_1, \pi_2$ and $\pi_3$ are distinct rotations for white vertices in a drawing of $K_{5,n}$, then there exists at
most one rotation $\pi_0$ such that there is an antiroute of size $1$
from $\pi_0$ to each of $\pi_1, \pi_2$, and $\pi_3$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
\tred{
By way of contradiction, suppose that there exist distinct vertices $\pi_0,
\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4$ and antiroutes of size $1$
from $\pi_i$ to $\pi_1,\pi_2$, and $\pi_3$, for $i=0$ and
$4$.
For $j=1,2,3$ the antiroutes from $\pi_0$ and $\pi_4$ to $\pi_j$ induce a
route $P_{04}(j)$ of size two from $\pi_0$ to $\pi_4$. Assume without loss of generality that $\pi_0=(01234)$.}
\tred{
Suppose that for some $j$, the transpositions in $P_{04}(j)$ involve (in total) four distinct elements in
$\{0,1,2,3,4\}$. It is immediately checked that this implies that
$P_{04}(j)$ is the only route of size $2$ from $\pi_0$ to $\pi_4$, and
that this in turn implies that at least two of $\pi_1, \pi_2$, and
$\pi_3$ are equal to each other, a contradiction. Thus each of $P_{04}(1),
P_{04}(2)$, and $P_{04}(3)$ involve fewer than four elements in
$\{0,1,2,3,4\}$. None of these routes can involve only two
elements (since they have size $2$, and $\pi_0\neq \pi_4$), and so we
conclude that each of $P_{04}(1), P_{04}(2)$, and $P_{04}(3)$ involve exactly three
elements in $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$. In particular, $P_{04}(1)$ must equal either $\{(k,k+1),(k,k+2)\}$
or $\{(k+1,k+2),$ $(k,k+2)\}$, for some
$j\in\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ (operations are modulo $5$; we note that we
deviate from the usual notation and separate the elements of a
transposition with a comma, for readability purposes). We derive a
contradiction assuming that the first possibility holds; the other
possibility is handled analogously.
Relabelling
$0,1,2,3$, and $4$, if needed, we may assume that
$P_{04}(1)=\{(01),(02)\}$. Thus $\pi_4$ is $(03412)$. It is readily verified that the only routes of size
$2$ from $\pi_0=(01234)$ to $\pi_4=(03412)$ are $P_{04}(1)=\{(01),(02)\}$ and $\{(03),(04)\}$. This in turn
immediately implies that the antiroutes of size $1$ from $\pi_0$ to $\pi_1$,
$\pi_2$, and $\pi_3$ are either $\{(01)\}$ or $\{(04)\}$, since the transpositions
$(02)$ and $(03)$ cannot be applied to $\pi_0$. But then we arrive from $\pi_0$
to two elements in $\{\overline{\pi_1},\overline{\pi_2},\overline{\pi_3}\}$ by applying the same transposition; that is,
$\pi_i=\pi_j$ for some $i,j\in\{1,2,3\}$, $i\neq j$, a contradiction. }
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:b}
Let $D$ be an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$.
Suppose that $\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$-free. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{it:c2} $\PKey{D}$ does not contain $K_{2,3}$ as a subgraph.
\item\label{it:c1} $\PKey{D}$ has maximum degree at most $3$.
\item\label{it:c3} $\PKey{D}$ does not contain as a subgraph the graph
obtained from $K_4$ by subdividing exactly once each of the edges in a
$3$-cycle (see Fig.~\ref{fig:k32}).
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3cm]{oca01.pdf}
\caption{The graph obtained by subdividing exactly once each of the
edges in a $3$-cycle of $K_4$.}
\label{fig:k32}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
We start by noting that (\ref{it:c2}) follows immediately by
Claim~\ref{cla:ch} and Lemma~\ref{lem:wo}.
Suppose now by way of contradiction that $\PKey{D}$ has a vertex $\pi_0$
of degree at least $4$. Thus $\PKey{D}$ has distinct vertices $\pi_1,
\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4$ such that the edge joining $\pi_0$ to $\pi_i$ has
label $1$, for $i=1,2,3,4$. Thus, for $i=1,2,3,4$, there exists an
antiroute from $\pi_0$ to $\pi_i$ of size $1$. \tred{Without loss of generality we may assume $\pi_0=(01234)$.}
The five cyclic rotations that have an antiroute of size
$1$ to $\pi_0$ are $(01432), (03214), (03421),(04312)$, and
$(04231)$. By performing a relabelling $j\to j+1$ on $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ for some
$j\in\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ (with operations modulo $5$) if needed (note that
the cyclic permutation $\pi_0=(01234)$ is left unchanged in such a relabelling),
we may assume without loss of generality that
\tred{$\{\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4\} = \{(01432), (03214),(03421),(04312)\}$.} By exchanging $\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4$ if needed, we may
assume that $\pi_1 =
(01432), \pi_2=(04312)$, and $\pi_3=(03421)$.
Since $\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$-free, it
follows by Proposition~\ref{pro:forkeys} that the edge joining $\pi_i$ to $\pi_j$ has label $2$, for
$i,j\in\{1,2,3\}, i\neq j$. Thus, for $i,j=1,2,3, i\neq j$, there exists an
antiroute from $\pi_i$ to $\pi_j$ of size $2$. Thus $\Key{D}$ contains as
a subgraph the graph in Figure~\ref{fig:sk13}, contradicting
Proposition~\ref{pro:4claw}. This proves (\ref{it:c1}).
We finally prove (\ref{it:c3}).
Suppose by way of contradiction that $\PKey{D}$ contains as a subgraph
the graph obtained from $K_4$ by subdividing once each of the edges in
a $3$-cycle (Fig.~\ref{fig:k32}). Let $\rho_0$ be the ``central
vertex'' in Fig.~\ref{fig:k32}, that is, the only vertex in $\PKey{D}$
adjacent to three degree-$3$ vertices, and let $\rho_1, \rho_3, \rho_4$
denote these three vertices.
An argument similar to the one in the second paragraph of this proof
shows the following: if $\rho_0=(01234)$ is a vertex adjacent to
vertices $\rho_1,\rho_3,\rho_4$ in $\PKey{D}$, then
we may assume (that is, perhaps after a relabelling of $0,1,2,3,4$),
that
$\rho_1= (01432), \rho_3=(04231)$, and $\rho_4=(04312)$.
Now let $\rho_2$ be the vertex adjacent to
$\rho_1$ and $\rho_3$ in $\PKey{D}$. Thus it follows that in $\Key{D}$,
the edges joining $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$, $\rho_0$
and $\rho_3$, $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$, and $\rho_2$ and $\rho_3$ are labelled
$1$.
By Proposition~\ref{pro:forkeys}, the edge joining $\rho_1$
and $\rho_3$, as well as the edge joining $\rho_0$ and $\rho_2$ have even labels, which must be $2$ since
$\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$-free.
Now it is easy to verify that the only cyclic permutation other than
$\rho_0$ which has antiroutes of size $1$ to both $\rho_1$ and $\rho_3$
is
$(03241)$. Thus $\rho_2$ must be $(03241)$.
But then the
subgraph of $\Key{D}$ induced by $\rho_0,\rho_1,\rho_2$, and $\rho_3$
is isomorphic to the graph in Figure~\ref{fig:chim}, contradicting
Proposition~\ref{pro:chimuelo}.
\end{proof}
\section{Properties of cores. II. Structural properties.}\label{sec:someprrk2}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:c}
Let $D$ be an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$, with $n$
even. Suppose that $\Key{D}$ is \tred{$\{0,4\}$-free}. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{it:c5} $\PKey{D}$ is bipartite.
\item\label{it:c4} $\PKey{D}$ is connected.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $C=(\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\ldots,\pi_{r-1},\pi_r,\pi_0)$ is an
odd cycle in
$\PKey{D}$.
It
follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:forkeys} that
\tred{$\pi_0\pi_{2}$} must have an even label in $\Key{D}$, since $\pi_0\pi_1$ and
$\pi_1\pi_2$ are both labelled $1$ in $\Key{D}$; now this even label
must be $2$, since $\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$-free. Similarly, since
$\pi_2\pi_3$ and $\pi_3\pi_4$ are also labelled $1$ in $\Key{D}$, then
$\pi_2\pi_4$ must also be labelled $2$ in $\Key{D}$. Now since both
$\pi_0 \pi_2$ and $\pi_2\pi_4$ have label $2$ in $\Key{D}$, it follows
that $\pi_0 \pi_4$ also has label $2$ in $\Key{D}$.
By repeating this
argument we find that $\pi_0\pi_j$ must have label $2$ in
$\Key{D}$ for every even $j$. In particular, $\pi_0 \pi_r$ must have
label $2$, contradicting that $\pi_0\pi_r$ is in $\PKey{D}$ (that is,
that the label of $\pi_0\pi_r$ in $\Key{D}$ is $1$). Thus $\PKey{D}$
cannot have an odd cycle. This proves (\ref{it:c5}).
To prove (\ref{it:c4}) we assume, by way of contradiction,
that $\PKey{D}$ is not connected.
We start by observing that $\Key{D}$ must have at least one edge
labelled $1$. Indeed, otherwise every edge $\Key{D}$ has label of at
least $2$, and so $\operatorname{cr}{(D)} \ge 2{n\choose 2}
= n(n-1) > Z(5,n)$, contradicting the optimality of $D$.
Thus there exists a component $H$ of $\PKey{D}$ with at least $2$
vertices. Let $U$ be the set of white vertices whose rotation is a
vertex in
$H$, and let $V$ be all the other white vertices.
Let $r:=|U|$ and $s:=|V|$.
Note that
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\operatorname{cr}{(D)} &=
\sum_{\stackrel{a_i,a_j\in U,}{a_i\neq a_j}} \ucr{D}{a_i,a_j}
+
\sum_{\stackrel{a_i,a_j\in V,}{a_i\neq a_j}} \ucr{D}{a_i,a_j}
+
\sum_{a_i\in U, a_j\in V} \ucr{D}{a_i,a_j}\\
\label{eq:some1}
&\ge Z(5,r) + Z(5,s) + 2rs,
\end{align}
since every vertex of $U$ is joined to every vertex of $V$ by an edge
with a label $2$ or greater.
We claim that, moreover, strict inequality must hold in
\eqref{eq:some1}. To see this, first we note that, since $H$ has at least $2$
vertices, it follows that there exist white vertices $a_k,a_\ell$
whose rotations are
in $H$ and such that $\ucr{D}{a_k,a_\ell} = 1$. Since by assumption
$\PKey{D}$ is not connected, there is a vertex $\pi$ in $\PKey{D}$ not in
$H$. Let $a_i$ be a white vertex such that $\rot{D}{a_i} = \pi$.
Now $\ucr{D}{a_k,a_i}$ and $\ucr{D}{a_\ell,a_i}$ are both at least
$2$. However,
we cannot have $\ucr{D}{a_k,a_i}$ and \tred{$\ucr{D}{a_\ell,a_i}$} both equal to
$2$, since then $\ucr{D}{a_k,a_\ell}=1$ would contradict
Proposition~\ref{pro:at4}.
Thus either $\ucr{D}{a_k,a_i}$ or $\ucr{D}{a_\ell,a_i}$ is at least
$3$. This proves that \tred{ Inequality \eqref{eq:some1}} must
be strict, that
is,
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{cr}{(D)} > Z(5,r) + Z(5,s) + 2rs.
\label{eq:some2}
\end{equation}
Suppose that $r$ (and consequently, also $s$) is even.
In this case,
since $Z(5,m)=m(m-2)$ for even $m$,
using \eqref{eq:some2} we obtain
$\operatorname{cr}{(D)} > r(r-2) + s(s-2) + 2rs = (r+s)(r+s-2)=Z(5,r+s)=Z(5,n)$,
contradicting the optimality of $D$.
Suppose finally that $r$ is odd (and so $s$
is odd, since $|U|+|V|=n$ is even).
Using that $r$ and $s$ are odd, and that
$Z(5,m)=(m-1)^2$ for odd $m$, with \eqref{eq:some2} we obtain $\operatorname{cr}{(D)}
> (r-1)^2 + (s-1)^2 + 2rs = (r+s)(r+s-2) + 2 = Z(5,r+s)+2 = Z(5,n)+2$,
again contradicting the optimality of $D$. This finishes the proof of
(\ref{it:c4}).
\end{proof}
\section{Properties of cores. III. Minimum degree.}\label{sec:someprrk3}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:horse}
Let $D$ be an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$, with $n$
even. Suppose that $\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$-free.
Let $\pi_0, \pi_1, \pi_2, \pi_3$ be a path in
$\PKey{D}$. Suppose that in \tred{$\PKey{D}$}, $\pi_1$ is the only vertex adjacent to both $\pi_0$ and
$\pi_2$, and $\pi_2$ is the only vertex adjacent to both $\pi_1$ and $\pi_3$.
Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{it:bigone} every vertex in $\PKey{D}$ is adjacent (in
$\PKey{D}$) to a vertex in
$\{\pi_0,\pi_1,$ $\pi_2,\pi_3\}$; and
\item\label{it:bigtwo} $\pi_0$ and $\pi_3$ are adjacent in \tred{$\PKey{D}$}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\pi_0, \pi_1, \ldots, \pi_{r-1}$ be the vertices of $\PKey{D}$
(and of $\Key{D}$ as well). For $i,j\in [r], i\neq j$, let
$\lambda_{ij}$ denote the label of the edge that joins $\pi_i$ to
$\pi_j$ in $\Key{D}$. Recall that $\PKey{D}$ is bipartite
(Proposition~\ref{pro:c}\eqref{it:c5}). Since
$\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3$ is a path in $\Key{D}$, it follows that
$\pi_0$ and $\pi_2$ are in the same chromatic class $A$, and $\pi_1$
and $\pi_3$ are in the same chromatic class $B$. Moreover, since
$\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$-free, it follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:forkeys}
that $\lambda_{ij}=2$ whenever
$\pi_i$ and $\pi_j$ belong to the same chromatic class.
Thus we have $\lambda_{02}=\lambda_{13}=2$ and (since
$\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3$ is a path in $\PKey{D}$)
$\lambda_{01}=\lambda_{12}=\lambda_{23}=1$. It follows that the
equations of ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$ corresponding to $\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2$, and
$\pi_3$ are:
\begin{align*}
\begin{matrix}
{\small
\begin{tabular}{c r c r c r c r c r c r}
$E_0$ : & $2t_0 $ & $-$ & $ t_1$ & & & $+$ &
$(\lambda_{03}-2)t_3$ & $+$ & $ \sum\limits_{j\in [r], j>3} (\lambda_{0j}-2) t_j$ & $=$ & $0$, \\
$E_1$ : & $-t_0 $ & $+$ & $2t_1$ & $-$ & $t_2$ & & &
$+$ & $ \sum\limits_{j\in[r], j>3} (\lambda_{1j}-2) t_j$ & $=$ & $0$, \\
$E_2$ : & & $-$ & $ t_1$ & $+$ &$2t_2$ & $-$ & $t_3$ & $+$ & $ \sum\limits_{j\in[r],j>3} (\lambda_{2j}-2) t_j$ & $=$ & $0$, \\
$E_3$ : & $ (\lambda_{03}-2)t_0 $ & & & $-$ & $t_2$ & $+$ &$2t_3$ & $+$ & $ \sum\limits_{j\in[r],j>3} (\lambda_{3j}-2) t_j$ & $=$ & $0$, \\
\end{tabular}
}
\end{matrix}
\end{align*}
\noindent where for simplicity we define $E_i:=E(\pi_i,\Key{D})$ for
$i\in \{0,1,2,3\}$.
Summing up these
four linear equations we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:l16}
(\lambda_{03}-1)t_0+ (\lambda_{03}-1)t_3+\sum_{j\in[r],j>3} (\lambda_{0j}+\lambda_{1j}+\lambda_{2j}+\lambda_{3j}-8) t_j=0
\end{equation}
We claim all the coefficients in \eqref{eq:l16} are nonnegative. First
we note that since $\lambda_{03} \ge 1$, then the coefficients of
$t_0$ and $t_3$ are indeed nonnegative. For the remaining coeficients,
consider any vertex $\pi_j$ in $\Key{D}$, with $j>3$. Since $\Key{D}$
is $\{0,4\}$-free, it follows that $\lambda_{ij}\ge 1$ for every $i\in
\{0,1,2,3\}$.
Since $\PKey{D}$ is bipartite, it follows that $\pi_j$ cannot be
adjacent (in $\PKey{D}$) to two elements in
$\{\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3\}$ whose indices have distinct parity. Now
it follows by hypothesis that $\pi_j$ cannot be adjacent to both
$\pi_0$ and $\pi_2$, or to $\pi_1$ and $\pi_3$. Thus $\pi_j$ is
adjacent to at most one of $\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2$ and $\pi_3$ in
$\PKey{D}$. Using this, and the fact that $\pi_j$ has the same chromatic class as exactly two of these
vertices, it follows that at least one element in
$\{\lambda_{0j},\lambda_{1j},\lambda_{2j},\lambda_{3j}\}$ is $3$, and
at least two elements are $2$. Thus it follows that
$(\lambda_{0j}+\lambda_{1j}+\lambda_{2j}+\lambda_{3j}-8)\geq 0.$
Therefore \eqref{eq:l16} implies that $(\lambda_{03}-1)t_0 +
(\lambda_{03}-1)t_3 \le 0$. Recall that $\lambda_{03}$ is either $1$
or $3$. If $\lambda_{03}=3$, then we have $2t_0 + 2t_3 \le 0$, which
contradicts (Proposition~\ref{pro:tempev}) that ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$ has a
positive integral solution. We conclude that $\lambda_{03}=1$, that
is, $\pi_0$ and $\pi_3$ are adjacent in $\PKey{D}$. This proves \eqref{it:bigtwo}.
We also note that since $\lambda_{03}=1$, \eqref{eq:l16} implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:l17}
\sum_{j\in[r],j>3} (\lambda_{0j}+\lambda_{1j}+\lambda_{2j}+\lambda_{3j}-8) t_j=0.
\end{equation}
\noindent
By way of contradiction suppose there is a
vertex $\pi_4$ adjacent to none of
$\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3$ in $\PKey{D}$.
Then each of $\lambda_{04},\lambda_{14},\lambda_{24},\lambda_{34}$ is
at least $2$.
Using Proposition~\ref{pro:forkeys} and that $\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$-free, it follows that two of these
$\lambda$s are
$2$, and the other two are $3$.
Therefore
$(\lambda_{04}+\lambda_{14}+\lambda_{24}+\lambda_{34}-8)=2$. Using
\eqref{eq:l17} we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:l18}
2t_4+\sum_{j\in[r],j>4} (\lambda_{0j}+\lambda_{1j}+\lambda_{2j}+\lambda_{3j}-8) t_j=0.
\end{equation}
We recall that $\lambda_{0j} +\lambda_{1j} + \lambda_{2j} +
\lambda_{3j} - 8 \ge 0$ for every $j > 3$.
Using this and \eqref{eq:l18}, it follows that $2t_4 \le 0$.
But this contradicts that ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$ \tred{ has a positive integral
solution.}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:leaf}
Let $D$ be an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$, with $n$
even. Suppose that $\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$-free. Then
$\PKey{D}$ has minimum degree at least $2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By way of contradiction, suppose that $\PKey{D}$ has a vertex of
degree $0$ or $1$.
Suppose first that
$\PKey{D}$ has a vertex of degree $0$. Then the
connectedness of $\PKey{D}$ implies that this is the only vertex in
$\PKey{D}$ (and, consequently, the only vertex in $\Key{D}$). Thus all vertices of $D$ have the same rotation. Since
if $a_i, a_j$ have the same rotation in a drawing $D'$ then $\ucr{D'}{a_i,a_j}=4$, it follows that $\operatorname{cr}(D) \ge 4{n\choose 2} =
2n(n-1)$. Since $Z(5,n) = n(n-2)$ and $D$ is optimal, we must have
$2n(n-1) \le n(n-2)$, but this inequality does not hold for any positive integer
$n$.
Thus we may assume that $\PKey{D}$ has a vertex of degree $1$.
Let
$\pi_0,\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_{m-1}$ denote the vertices of $\PKey{D}$.
Without any loss of generality we may assume that $\pi_0$ has degree
$1$ in
$\PKey{D}$.
For $i,j\in {\tred{[m]}}$, let $\lambda_{ij}$
denote the label of the edge $\pi_i\pi_j$.
We divide the rest of the proof into two cases.
\vglue 0.3 cm
\noindent{\sc Case 1. }{\em $\PKey{D}$ has a path with $4$ vertices starting at
$\pi_0$.}
\vglue 0.3 cm
Without loss of generality, let
$\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3$ be this path. Since $\pi_0$ is a leaf, it follows that
$\pi_1$ is the only vertex of $\PKey{D}$ adjacent to both $\pi_0$ and
$\pi_2$. We note that then there must be a vertex in $\PKey{D}$ (say $\pi_4$,
without loss of generality) adjacent to
both $\pi_1$ and $\pi_3$, as otherwise it would follow by
Proposition~\ref{pro:horse}(\ref{it:bigtwo}) that $\pi_0$ is adjacent
to $\pi_3$, contradicting that $\pi_0$ is a leaf. Thus
$(\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4,\pi_1)$ is a cycle.
For $i,j\in \tred{[5]}$, let $\lambda_{ij}$ denote the label of $\pi_i\pi_j$
in $\Key{D}$.
Since the edges $\pi_0\pi_1,\pi_1\pi_2,\pi_2\pi_3,\pi_3\pi_4$ and
$\pi_1\pi_4$ are all in $\PKey{D}$, it follows that
$\lambda_{01}=\lambda_{12}=\lambda_{23}=\lambda_{34}=\lambda_{14}=1$.
Now since $\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$-free, using
Proposition~\ref{pro:forkeys}
it follows that $\lambda_{02} = \tred{\lambda_{04}}
=\lambda_{24}=\lambda_{13}=2$ and (since $\pi_0\pi_3$ is
not in $\PKey{D}$) that
$\lambda_{03}=3$.
\vglue 0.2 cm
\noindent{\sc Subcase 1.1. }{\em $\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4$ are all the vertices in
$\PKey{D}$.}
\vglue 0.2 cm
In this case the linear system ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$ reads:
\begin{align*}
\begin{matrix}
\begin{tabular}{c c r c r c r c r c r c r}
$E_0$ & : & $2t_0 $ & $-$ & $ t_1$ & $ $ & $ $ & $+$ & $t_3 $ & $ $ & $ $ $=$ & $0$, \\
$E_1$ & : & $-t_0 $ & $+$ & $ 2t_1$ & $- $ & $t_2 $ & $ $ & $ $ & $-$ & $t_4 $ $=$ & $0$, \\
$E_2$ & : & $ $ & $-$ & $ t_1$ & $+$ & $2t_2 $ & $-$ & $t_3 $ & $$ & $ $ $=$ & $0$, \\
$E_3$ & : & $t_0 $ & $$ & $ $ & $ -$ & $t_2 $ & $+$ & $2t_3 $ & $-$ & $t_4$ $=$ & $0$, \\
$E_4$ & : & $ $ & $-$ & $ t_1$ & $ $ & $ $ & $-$ & $t_3 $ & $+$ & $2t_4 $ $=$ & $0$,
\end{tabular}
\end{matrix}
\end{align*}
\noindent where for brevity we let $E_i:= E(\pi_i,\Key{D})$ for $i\in [5]$.
\tred{Subtracting $E_4$ from $E_2$, we obtain that $t_2=t_4$. Adding
the equations $E_0,E_1,E_2$, and using $t_2=t_4$, we
obtain $t_0 = 0$.} Thus the system ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$ has no positive integral solution,
contradicting (by Proposition~\ref{pro:tempev}) the optimality of $D$.
\vglue 0.2 cm
\noindent{\sc Subcase 1.2. }{\em $\PKey{D}$ has a vertex $\pi_5 \notin
\{\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4\}$.}
\vglue 0.2 cm
The connectedness of $\PKey{D}$ implies that $\pi_5$ is
adjacent to $\pi_i$ for some $i\in \{0,1,2,3,4\}$. Since $\pi_0$ is a
leaf only adjacent to \tred{$\pi_1$}, then $i\neq 0$. Since $\pi_1$ already
has degree $3$ in $\PKey{D}$, it follows from
Proposition~\ref{pro:b}\eqref{it:c1} that $i\neq 1$. Thus $i$ is
either $2,3$ or $4$. Since the roles of $2$ and $4$ are symmetric, we may
conclude that $\pi_5$ is adjacent to either $\pi_2$ or to $\pi_3$.
Suppose first that $\pi_5$ is adjacent to $\pi_3$ in $\PKey{D}$.
In this case $\lambda_{35}=1$. Using Proposition~\ref{pro:forkeys},
that $\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$-free, \tred{that $\pi_0$ is only adjacent to $\pi_1$, and Claim~\ref{cla:ch}},
we obtain
$\lambda_{05}=\lambda_{25}=\lambda_{45}=2$ and that $\lambda_{15}=3$.
Thus in this case the $0$-th and the $5$-th equations of the system ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$ read:
\begin{align*}
\begin{matrix}
\begin{tabular}{c c r c r c r c r c r c r}
$E_0$ & : & $2t_0 $ & $-$ & $ t_1$ & $+$ & $t_3 $ & $ $ & $ $ & $+$ & $ \sum\limits_{j\in[m],j>5} (\lambda_{0j}-2) t_j$ & $=$ & $0$. \\
$E_5$ & : & $ $ & $+$ & $ t_1$ & $-$ & $t_3 $ & $+ $ & $2t_5 $ & $+ $ & $ \sum\limits_{j\in[m],j>5} (\lambda_{5j}-2) t_j$ & $=$ & $0$.
\end{tabular}
\end{matrix}
\end{align*}
\noindent where for brevity we let $E_i:= E(\pi_i,\Key{D})$ for $i=0$
and $5$.
Adding these equations, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:la}
2t_0 + 2t_5 + \sum\limits_{j\in[m],j>5} (\lambda_{0j} + \lambda_{5j} - 4 )t_j = 0.
\end{equation}
We now argue that $\lambda_{0j} + \lambda_{5j} - 4\ge0$
whenever $j > 5$. To see this, note that $\pi_0$ and $\pi_5$ are in
the same chromatic class. If $\pi_j$ is in the same chromatic class,
then, since $\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$-free, it follows that
$\lambda_{0j}$ and $\lambda_{5j}$ are both $2$, and so
$\lambda_{0j} + \lambda_{5j} - 4\ge0$, as claimed. If
$\pi_j$ is in the other chromatic class, then
both $\lambda_{0j}$ and $\lambda_{5j}$ are odd. Since
$\pi_0$ is a leaf whose only adjacent vertex is $\pi_1$, it follows
that $\lambda_{0j} = 3$. On the other hand,
$\lambda_{5j}$ is either $1$ or $3$. In particular,
$\lambda_{5j} \ge 1$,
and thus also in this case $\lambda_{0j} + \lambda_{5j}
- 4\ge0$, as claimed.
It follows from this observation and \eqref{eq:la} that
\begin{equation*}
2t_0 + 2t_5 \le 0,
\end{equation*}
\noindent and so the system ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$ has no positive integral solution,
contradicting Proposition~\ref{pro:tempev}.
Suppose finally that $\pi_5$ is adjacent to $\pi_2$ in
$\PKey{D}$.
Consider then the path $\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_5$. Since $\pi_0$ is a
leaf, it follows that $\pi_1$ is the only vertex adjacent to both
$\pi_0$ and $\pi_2$. Now note that $\pi_2$ is the only vertex adjacent
to both $\pi_1$ and $\pi_5$, since by Proposition~\ref{pro:b}\eqref{it:c1}
$\pi_1$ cannot be incident to any vertex other than $\pi_0,\pi_2$, and
$\pi_4$. Thus Proposition~\ref{pro:horse} applies, and so we must have
that $\pi_0$ and $\pi_5$ are adjacent in $\PKey{D}$. But this is
impossible, since the only vertex in $\PKey{D}$ adjacent to the leaf
$\pi_0$ is
$\pi_1$.
\vglue 0.3 cm
\noindent{\sc Case 2. }{\em
$\PKey{D}$ has no path with $4$ vertices starting at
$\pi_0$.
}
\vglue 0.3 cm
We recall that $\pi_0$ is a leaf in $\PKey{D}$. Let $\pi_1$ be the
vertex adjacent to $\pi_0$.
Suppose first that $\pi_0$ and $\pi_1$ are the only vertices in
$\PKey{D}$. Then ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$ consists of only two equations, namely
$2t_1-t_0=0$ and $2t_0-t_1=0$. This system obviously has no positive
integral solutions, contradicting Proposition~\ref{pro:tempev}.
We may then assume that there is an additional vertex $\pi_2$ in
$\PKey{D}$. By connectedness of $\PKey{D}$,
and since $\pi_0$ is a leaf, it follows that $\pi_2$
is adjacent to $\pi_1$.
If $\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2$ are the only vertices $\Key{D}$, then the
system ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$ consists of the three equations
$2t_0 - t_1=0$, $-t_0 + 2t_1 -t_2=0$, and
and
$ -t_1+ 2t_2=0$. Adding these equations we obtain $t_0 +
t_2=0$. Thus also in this case ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$ does not have a
positive integral solution, again contradicting
Proposition~\ref{pro:tempev}.
Thus there
must exist an additional vertex $\pi_3$ in $\PKey{D}$.
Since $\pi_0$
is a leaf, and by assumption (we are working in Case 2) there is no
path with $4$ vertices starting at $\pi_0$,
it follows that $\pi_3$ must be adjacent to $\pi_1$.
We already
know that $\lambda_{01}=\lambda_{12}=\lambda_{13}=1$.
Since $\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$ free, it follows from
Proposition~\ref{pro:forkeys} that
$\lambda_{02}=\lambda_{03}=\lambda_{23}=2$. Thus in this case
${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$ consists of the equations
$2t_0 - t_1=0$,
$ -t_0 + 2t_1 -t_2-t_3=0$,
$ -t_1+ 2t_2=0$, and
$-t_1+ 2t_3=0$.
It is an elementary exercise to show that these equations do not have
a simultaneous positive integral solution, and so in this case we also
obtain a contradiction to Proposition~\ref{pro:tempev}.
\end{proof}
\section{Properties of cores. IV. Girth and maximum size.}\label{sec:someprrk4}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:e}
Let $D$ be an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$, with $n$
even. Suppose that $\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$-free. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{it:g2} $\PKey{D}$ has girth $4$.
\item\label{it:g3} If $v$ is a degree-$2$ vertex in $\PKey{D}$, then $v$ is in a
$4$-cycle in $\PKey{D}$.
\item\label{it:g4} $\PKey{D}$ has at most $7$ vertices.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{pro:leaf}, the minimum degree of $\PKey{D}$ is at
least $2$. Since $\PKey{D}$ is \tred{simple and bipartite}, it immediately follows that the girth of
$\PKey{D}$ is a positive number greater than or equal to $4$. Let
$\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3$ be a path in $\PKey{D}$. If there is a
vertex other than $\pi_1$ adjacent to both $\pi_0$ and $\pi_2$, or a
vertex other than $\pi_2$ adjacent to both $\pi_1$ and $\pi_3$, then
$\PKey{D}$ clearly has a $4$-cycle, and we are done. Otherwise,
it follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:horse}\eqref{it:bigtwo} that $\pi_0$ is adjacent
to $\pi_3$, and so
$(\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_0)$ is a $4$-cycle. Thus (\ref{it:g2}) follows.
Now let $\pi_1$ be a degree-$2$ vertex in $\PKey{D}$. Since $\PKey{D}$ has
minimum degree at least $2$, using \eqref{it:g2} it obviously follows that there exists a
path $\pi_0, \pi_1, \pi_2, \pi_3$ in $\PKey{D}$. If there is a vertex
adjacent to both $\pi_0$ and $\pi_2$ other than $\pi_1$, then $\pi_1$
is obviously contained in a $4$-cycle. In such a case we are done, so
suppose that this is not the case. Since $\pi_1$ is only adjacent
to $\pi_0$ and $\pi_2$, using that the degree of $\pi_1$ is $2$ it follows
that no vertex other than
$\pi_2$ is adjacent to both $\pi_1$ and $\pi_3$. Thus it follows
from Proposition~\ref{pro:horse}(\ref{it:bigtwo}) that $\pi_0$ and $\pi_3$ are
adjacent in $\PKey{D}$. Thus $\pi_1$ is contained in the $4$-cycle $(\pi_0, \pi_1, \pi_2,
\pi_3, \pi_0)$, and (\ref{it:g3}) follows.
Let $C=(\pi_0, \pi_1, \pi_2, \pi_3,\pi_0)$ be a $4$-cycle in
$\PKey{D}$; the existence of $C$ is guaranteed from
(\ref{it:g2}). By Proposition~\ref{pro:b}\eqref{it:c2} $\PKey{D}$ contains no subgraph isomorphic to
$K_{2,3}$, and so, in $\PKey{D}$, no vertex other than \tred{$\pi_1$ or $\pi_3$} is adjacent to
both $\pi_0$ and $\pi_2$, and no vertex other than \tred{$\pi_2$ or $\pi_0$} is adjacent
to both $\pi_1$ and $\pi_3$. Thus Proposition~\ref{pro:horse}
applies. Using
Proposition~\ref{pro:b}(\ref{it:c1}) and Proposition~\ref{pro:horse}(\ref{it:bigone}),
we obtain that $\PKey{D}$ has at
most $4$ vertices other than $\pi_0,\pi_1, \pi_2$, and $\pi_3$; that
is, $\PKey{D}$ has at most $8$ vertices in total; moreover, if
$\PKey{D}$ has exactly $8$ vertices, then every vertex of $C$ has
degree $3$. Since $C$ was an arbitrary $4$-cycle, we have actually
proved that if $\PKey{D}$ has $8$ vertices, then every vertex
contained in a
$4$-cycle must have degree $3$. In view of \eqref{it:g3}, this implies
that if $\PKey{D}$ has $8$ vertices, then it must be cubic.
Now the unique (up to isomorphism) cubic connected bipartite graph on
$8$ vertices is the $3$-cube.
Since the $3$-cube contains as a subgraph the graph in
Figure~\ref{fig:k32}, it follows that $\PKey{D}$ cannot have exactly
$8$ vertices.
\end{proof}
\section{The possible cores of an antipodal-free optimal drawing.}\label{sec:thecores}
Our goal in this section is to establish Lemma~\ref{lem:j}, which
states that the core of every
antipodal-free optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$ is isomorphic to either a
$4$-cycle or to the graph ${\overline{C}_6}$ obtained from the $6$-cycle by adding
an edge joining two diametrically oposed vertices (see Figure~\ref{fig:bur}).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.4}{\input{burg03.pdf_t}}
\caption{{\small The graph ${\overline{C}_6}$.}}
\label{fig:bur}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We first show this for the particular case
in which $\Key{D}$ is not only antipodal-free (that is, $0$-free), but also $4$-free:
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:h}
Let $D$ be an optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$, with $n$
even. If $\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$-free, then $\PKey{D}$ is
isomorphic to the $4$-cycle or to ${\overline{C}_6}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By way of contradiction, suppose that $\PKey{D}$ is isomorphic to
neither a $4$-cycle nor to ${\overline{C}_6}$.
Recall that $\PKey{D}$ has minimum degree at least $2$ (Proposition~\ref{pro:leaf}). We divide the
proof into two cases, depending on whether or not $\PKey{D}$ has
degree-$2$ vertices.
\vglue 0.3 cm
\noindent{\sc Case 1. }{\em $\PKey{D}$ has at least one degree-$2$ vertex.}
\vglue 0.3 cm
By
Proposition~\ref{pro:e}(\ref{it:g4}), $\PKey{D}$ has at most $7$
vertices.
If all the vertices in $\PKey{D}$ have degree $2$, then (since
$\PKey{D}$ is simple and, by Proposition~\ref{pro:c}\eqref{it:c4},
connected)
$\PKey{D}$ is a cycle. By Proposition~\ref{pro:e}\eqref{it:g2}, in
this case $\PKey{D}$ is a $4$-cycle, contradicting our assumption at
the beginning of the proof.
Thus we may assume that $\PKey{D}$ has at least one
degree-$3$ vertex.
Let $H$ be the graph obtained by suppressing the degree-$2$
vertices from $\PKey{D}$. We call the vertices of $\PKey{D}$ that
correspond to the vertices in $H$ (that is, the degree-$3$ vertices of
$\PKey{D}$) the {\em nodes} of $\PKey{D}$.
It follows from elementary graph theory that $\PKey{D}$ has an even
number of nodes. Since $\PKey{D}$ has at most $7$ vertices, it follows
that $\PKey{D}$ has either $2, 4$, or $6$ nodes.
\vglue 0.2 cm
\noindent{\sc Subcase 1.1. }{\em $\PKey{D}$ has $6$ nodes.}
\vglue 0.2 cm
Up to isomorphism, there are only two cubic simple graphs on $6$
nodes, namely $K_{3,3}$ and the triangular prism $T_3$ (this is the
simple cubic graph with a matching whose removal leaves two disjoint
$3$-cycles).
Now $T_3$ has two vertex disjoint $3$-cycles, and so in
order to turn it into a bipartite graph, we must subdivide at least
$2$ edges, that is, add at least two vertices to $T_3$. Since
$\PKey{D}$ has at most $7$ vertices, it follows that $H$ cannot be
isomorphic to $T_3$.
Suppose finally that $H$ is isomorphic to $K_{3,3}$. Since no
bipartite graph on $7$ vertices is a subdivision of $K_{3,3}$, it
follows that $\PKey{D}$ must be itself isomorphic to $K_{3,3}$. Since
$K_{3,3}$ obviously contains $K_{2,3}$ as a subgraph, this contradicts
Proposition~\ref{pro:b}(\ref{it:c2}).
\vglue 0.2 cm
\noindent{\sc Subcase 1.2. }{\em $\PKey{D}$ has $4$ nodes.} \vglue
0.2 cm In this case $H$ must be isomorphic to $K_4$, the only
cubic graph on four vertices. It is readily seen that there are only
two ways to turn $K_4$ into a bipartite graph using at most three
edge subdivisions. One way is to subdivide once each of the edges
in a $3$-cycle of $K_4$, and the other way is to subdivide
(once) two nonadjacent edges (in the latter case, we obtain a graph that has a subgraph
isomorphic to $K_{2,3}$). By
Proposition~\ref{pro:b}, neither of these graphs can be
the core of $D$. \vglue 0.2 cm
\noindent{\sc Subcase 1.3. }{\em $\PKey{D}$ has $2$ nodes.}
\vglue 0.2 cm
In this case $H$ must consist of two vertices joined by three parallel
edges. Since $\PKey{D}$ is bipartite it follows that each of these
edges must be subdivided the same number of times modulo $2$
(subdividing an edge $0$ times being a possibility). Moreover, since
$\PKey{D}$ is simple at least two edges must be subdivided at least
once each.
Now no edge may be subdivided more than twice, as in this case the
result would be a graph with a degree-$2$ vertex belonging to no
$4$-cycle, contradicting Proposition~\ref{pro:e}(\ref{it:g3}).
Suppose now that some edge of $H$ is subdivided exactly twice. Then, since
$\PKey{D}$ has at most $7$ vertices, it follows that two edges of $H$
are subdivided exactly twice, and the other edge of $H$ is not
subdivided.
Thus it follows that in
this
case $\PKey{D}$ is isomorphic to ${\overline{C}_6}$, contradicting our initial assumption.
Suppose finally that no edge of $H$ is subdivided more than
once. Since $\PKey{D}$ is bipartite, it follows that every edge
of $H$ must be subdivided exactly once. Thus $\PKey{D}$ is isomorphic
to $K_{2,3}$, contradicting Proposition~\ref{pro:b}(\ref{it:c2}).
\vglue 0.3 cm
\noindent{\sc Case 2. }{\em $\PKey{D}$ has no degree-$2$ vertices.}
\vglue 0.3 cm
In this case, $\PKey{D}$ is cubic. By Proposition~\ref{pro:c},
$\PKey{D}$ is bipartite and connected. By
Proposition~\ref{pro:e}(\ref{it:g4}), $\PKey{D}$ has at most $7$
vertices. By elementary graph theory, since $\PKey{D}$ is cubic, then
it has an even number of vertices. Since $\PKey{D}$ is simple, it
follows that $\PKey{D}$ has either $4$ or
$6$ vertices.
Now there are no simple cubic bipartite graphs on $4$ vertices, so
$\PKey{D}$ must have $6$ vertices.
Up to isomorphism, the only cubic bipartite graph on $6$ vertices is
$K_{3,3}$. But $\PKey{D}$ cannot be isomorphic to $K_{3,3}$, since by
Proposition~\ref{pro:b}(\ref{it:c2}) $\PKey{D}$ does not contain a
subgraph isomorphic to $K_{2,3}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:r}
Let $D$ be an antipodal-free, optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$, with $n$
even. Then $\Key{D}$ is $4$-free.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By way of contradiction, suppose that $\Key{D}$ is not $4$-free. Then there exist distinct
rotations $\pi,\pi'$, and white vertices $a_i, a_j$ such that
$\rot{D}{a_i}=\pi$ and $\rot{D}{a_j}=\pi'$, and $\ucr{D}{a_i,a_j}=4$.
{Without loss of generality, suppose that $\ucr{D}{a_i} \le \ucr{D}{a_j}$.} We move, one by one, every vertex $a_j$ with rotation $\pi'$ very
close to $a_i$, so that in the resulting drawing $D'$ we have
$\ucr{D'}{a_j,a_k}=\ucr{D'}{a_i,a_k}$ for every vertex
$k\notin\{i,j\}$.
It is readily checked that the resulting
drawing $D'$ is also optimal, and $\Key{D'}$ has one fewer edge with
label $4$ than $\Key{D}$. By repeating this process as many times as
needed, we arrive to a drawing $D^o$ such that $\Key{D^o}$ has exactly
one edge with label $4$ (if $\Key{D}$ has exactly one edge with label
$4$ to begin with, then we let $D^o=D$). Denote by $\pi_0, \pi_1$ the vertices of
$\Key{D^o}$ whose joining edge has label $4$.
If we apply the described process one more time to $D^o$ with $\pi=\pi_0$ and
$\pi'=\pi_1$, we obtain a $\{0,4\}$-free optimal drawing $E$ of
$K_{5,n}$. By Proposition~\ref{pro:h}, $\PKey{E}$ contains a
$4$-cycle $(\pi_0,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4,\pi_0)$. Now if we apply the process to
$D^o$ with $\pi=\pi_1$ and $\pi'=\pi_0$, then we obtain another
$\{0,4\}$-free optimal drawing $F$ of $K_{5,n}$.
Note that $\pi_2, \pi_3, \pi_4$ are not affected in the
process, and so $(\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4,\pi_1)$ is a $4$-cycle in
$\PKey{F}$.
{Thus it follows that $\PKey{D^o}$ has
two degree-$3$ vertices $\pi_2$ and $\pi_4$,
plus the vertices $\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_3$, each of which is joined to both $\pi_2$ and $\pi_4$ with an edge labelled $1$. This contradicts Claim~\ref{cla:ch}.}
\ignore{
For rotations $\pi,\pi'$, we let $\od{\pi,\pi'}$ denote their
{antidistance} (this is, we recall, the size of the shortest antiroute
joining them). Our conclusion about the structure of $\PKey{D^o}$
implies that there exist distinct rotations
$\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4$ such that
(i) there are antiroutes of size $1$
from $\pi_2$ to $\pi_0,\pi_1$, and $\pi_3$; and
(ii) there are antiroutes of size $1$
from $\pi_4$ to $\pi_0, \pi_1$, and $\pi_3$.
}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:j}
Let $D$ be an antipodal-free,
optimal drawing of $K_{5,n}$, with $n$ even. Then $\PKey{D}$ is
isomorphic either to the $4$-cycle or to ${\overline{C}_6}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{pro:r}, $\Key{D}$ is $4$-free. By hypothesis
$\Key{D}$ is also $0$-free (since $D$ is antipodal-free), and so $\Key{D}$
is $\{0,4\}$-free. The lemma then follows by Proposition~\ref{pro:h}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main1}.}\label{sec:proofmain}
We need one final result before moving on to the proof of
Theorem~\ref{thm:main1}.
In the following statement and its proof, we sometimes use the notation
$(i,j,k,\ell,m)$ for cyclic permutations (that is, we separate the
elements with commas, as opposed to our usual practice in which for
such a cyclic permutation we would have written $(ijk\ell m)$).
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:he}
Let $D$ be a drawing of $K_{5,n}$. Suppose that $\Key{D}$ is $\{0,4\}$-free, and that $\PKey{D}$ is a $4$-cycle $(\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_0)$. Suppose that $\pi_0=( 0 1 2 3 4)$. Then there exists an $m\in \{0,1,2,3,4\}$ and a relabelling of $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ that leaves $\pi_0$ invariant, such that (operations are modulo $5$):
\begin{itemize}
\item $\pi_2=({m}, {m+1}, {m+3}, {m+4},$ $ {m+2})$; and
\item $\{\pi_1,\pi_3\} = \{(m,m+4,m+2,m+3,m+1),(m,{m+4},m+3,m+1,m+2)\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The reverse permutation $\overline{\pi_0}$ of $\pi_0$ is
$( 4 3 2 1 0)$. Since $\pi_0\pi_1$ and $\pi_0\pi_3$ have label
$1$ in $\Key{D}$, it follows that each of $\pi_1$ and $\pi_3$ is
obtained from $\overline{\pi_0}$ by performing one transposition.
Thus there exist distinct $k,m\in\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ such that $\{\pi_1,\pi_3\}=\{(k,k+4,k+2,k+3,k+1),({m} , {m+4}, {m+2}, m+3,m+1)\}$.
Suppose that $k=m+3$. Using a relabelling on $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ that leaves $(01234)$ invariant, we may assume that $m=2$ and $k=0$. Then $\{\pi_1,\pi_3\} = \{(04231),(03214)\}$. Now since the edge joining $\pi_2$ to each of $\pi_1$ and $\pi_3$ in $\Key{D}$ has label $1$, it follows that there are antiroutes of size $1$ from $\pi_2$ to each of $\pi_1$ and $\pi_3$. It is easy to check that the only such possibility is that $\pi_2=(04132)$. Using the relabelling $j\mapsto j-2$ on $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$, we get $\{\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3\}=\{(01234),(01432),(03241),(04231)\}$. But then $\Key{D}$ is the labelled graph in Fig.~\ref{fig:chim}, contradicting Proposition~\ref{pro:chimuelo}. An analogous contradiction is obtained under the assumption $k=m+2$. Thus $k=m+1$ or $k=m+4$.
Suppose that $k=m+1$. Thus $\{\pi_1,\pi_3\}=\{(m+1,m,m+3,m+4,m+2),(m,m+4,m+2,m+3,m+1)\}$. Using the relabelling $j\mapsto j-1$ on $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ (which obviously leaves $(01234)$ invariant), we obtain $\{\pi_1,\pi_3\}=\{(m,m+4,m+2,m+3,m+1),(m+4,m+3,m+1,m+2,m)\}=\{(m,m+4,m+2,m+3,m+1),(m,m+4,m+3,m+1,m+2)\}$, as required. Finally, since the edge joining $\pi_2$ to each of $\pi_1$ and $\pi_3$ in $\Key{D}$ has label $1$, it follows that $\pi_2=(m,m+1,m+3,m+4,m+2)$. The case $k=m+4$ is handled in a totally analogous manner.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:wasc}
Suppose that $D$ is a drawing of $K_{5,n}$. Suppose that $\Key{D}$ is
$\{0,4\}$-free, and that $\PKey{D}$ is isomorphic to ${\overline{C}_6}$. Let the
vertices of $\PKey{D}$ be labeled
$\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4,\pi_5$, so that
$(\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_0)$ and $(\pi_0,\pi_4,\pi_5,\pi_3,\pi_0)$ are $4$-cycles.
Suppose that $\pi_0=( 0 1 2 3 4)$. Then there exists
an $m\in \{0,1,2,3,$ $4\}$ and a relabelling of $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ that leaves $\pi_0$ invariant, such that (operations are modulo $5$):
\begin{itemize}
\item $\pi_3=({m}, {m+4}, {m+3},$ $ {m+1},m+2)$;
\item $\{(\pi_1,\pi_2),(\pi_4,\pi_5)\}=
\{((m,m+4,m+2,m+3,m+1), (m,m+1,m+3,m+4,m+2)),((m,m+1,m+4,m+3,m+2),(m,m+2,m+3,m+1,m+4))\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{pro:he}, there exists an $m\in\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ such
that $\pi_2=(m,m+1,m+3,m+4,m+2)$ and
$\{\pi_1,\pi_3\}=A:=\{(m,m+4,m+2,m+3,m+1),(m,m+4,m+3,m+1,m+2)\}$. By the
same proposition, there exists a $k\in\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ such that
$\pi_5=(k,k+1,k+3,k+4,k+2)$ and
$\{\pi_3,\pi_4\}=B:=\{(k,k+4,k+2,k+3,k+1),(k,k+4,k+3,k+1,k+2)\}$.
Since $\pi_2\neq\pi_5$, it follows that $m\neq k$. Thus $k$ is either $m+1,m+2,m+3$, or $m+4$. Note that if $k=m+2$ or $k=m+3$ then $A\cap B=\emptyset$, which contradicts that $\{\pi_3\}=A\cap B$. Thus $k$ is either $m+1$ or $m+4$.
We work out the details for the case $k=m+1$; the case $k=m+4$ is handled in a totally analogous manner. Since $\{\pi_3\}=A\cap B$, it follows that
$\pi_3=(m,m+4,m+2,m+3,m+1)=(m+1,m,m+4,m+2,m+3)$. Therefore
$\pi_1=(m,m+4,m+3,m+1,m+2)=(m+1,m+2,m,m+4,m+3)$,
$\pi_2=(m,m+1,m+3,m+4,m+2)=(m+1,m+3,m+4,m+2,m)$,
$\pi_4=(m+1,m,m+3,m+4,m+2)$, and
$\pi_5=(m+1,m+2,m+4,m,m+3)$. Using the relabelling $j\to j-1$ on $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ (which leaves $(01234)$ invariant), we obtain $\pi_1=(m,m+1,m+4,m+3,m+2)$, $\pi_2=(m,m+2,m+3,m+1,m+4)$, $\pi_3=(m,m+4,m+3,m+1,m+2)$ $\pi_4=(m,m+4,m+2,m+3,m+1)$, and $\pi_5=(m,m+1,m+3,m+4,m+2)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main1}]
Let $D$ be an antipodal-free drawing of $K_{5,n}$, with $n$ even. In
view of Proposition~\ref{pro:same} (see Remark~\ref{rem:clean}), we
may assume that $D$ is clean, so that $\Key{D}$ and $\PKey{D}$ are
well-defined.
In view of Lemma~\ref{lem:j}, $\PKey{D}$ is isomorphic either to the $4$-cycle or to ${\overline{C}_6}$.
\smallskip
\noindent{\sc Case 1.} {\em $\Key{D}$ is isomorphic to ${\overline{C}_6}$.}
\smallskip
In this case $\Key{D}$ has $6$ vertices, which we label $\pi_0, \pi_1,
\pi_2, \pi_3, \pi_4, \pi_5$, so that $(\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_0)$
and $(\pi_0,\pi_4,\pi_5,\pi_3,\pi_0)$ are $4$-cycles. For
$i,j\in\{0,1,2,3,4,5\}$, $i\neq j$, let $\lambda_{ij}$ be the label of
the edge $\pi_i\pi_j$. Since $(\pi_0,\pi_1,\pi_2,$ $\pi_3,\pi_0)$ and $(\pi_0,\pi_4,\pi_5,\pi_3,\pi_0)$ are $4$-cycles in $\PKey{D}$, it follows that all the edges in these $4$-cycles have label $1$ in $\Key{D}$; that is, $\lambda_{01}=\lambda_{12} = \lambda_{23} = \lambda_{03} =\lambda_{04}=\lambda_{45}=\lambda_{35}=1$.
By Proposition~\ref{pro:forkeys},
$\lambda_{02}$ is even. Since $\Key{D}$ is
antipodal-free, and (by Property (\ref{pro:pfu}) of a clean drawing)
$\lambda_{ij}\le 4$ for all $i,j$, it follows that $\lambda_{02}$ is either $2$ or $4$. By Proposition~\ref{pro:r} $\Key{D}$ is $4$-free, hence $\lambda_{02}=2$. The same argument shows that
$\lambda_{05}=\lambda_{13}=\lambda_{14}=\lambda_{25}=\lambda_{34}=2$. Since $\lambda_{35}=1$ and $\lambda_{13}=2$, by Proposition~\ref{pro:forkeys}, $\lambda_{15}$ is odd.
If $\lambda_{15}=1$, then $\{\pi_0, \pi_5\}\cup \{\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_4\}$ is a $K_{2,3}$ in $\PKey{D}$, contradicting Proposition~\ref{pro:forkeys}; thus $\lambda_{15}=3$. An analogous argument shows that $\lambda_{24}=3$.
The linear system ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$ associated to $\Key{D}$ (see
Definition~\ref{def:linsys}) is then:
\begin{align}
\begin{matrix}\label{sys:bur}
\begin{tabular}{c c r c r c r c r c r c r c r c r}
$E_0$ & : & $2t_0 $ & $-$ & $ t_1$ & & & $-$ & $t_3 $ & $-$ & $t_4$ & & & $=$ & $0$. \\
$E_1$ & : & $-t_0 $ & $+$ & $2 t_1$& $-$ & $t_2$ & & & & & $+$& $t_5$ & $=$ & $0$. \\
$E_2$ & : & & $-$ & $t_1$ & $+$ & $2t_2$ & $-$ & $t_3$ & $+$ & $t_4$ & & & $=$ & $0$. \\
$E_3$ & : & $-t_0$ & & & $-$ & $t_2$ & $+$ & $2t_3$ & & & $-$ & $t_5$ & $=$ & $0$.\\
$E_4$ & : & $-t_0$ & & & $+$ & $t_2$ & & & $+$ & $2t_4$ & $-$ & $t_5$ & $=$ & $0$. \\
$E_5$ & : & & $+$ & $t_1$ & & & $-$ & $t_3 $ & $-$ & $t_4$ & $+$ & $2t_5$ & $=$ & $0$.
\end{tabular}
\end{matrix}
\end{align}
It is straightforward to check that if $(t_0,t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4, t_5)$ is a positive solution to this system, then $t_1=t_2$, $t_4=t_5$ and $t_0 = t_3 = t_1+t_4$. By Proposition~\ref{pro:tempev}, this implies that $n\equiv 0$ $(\mdl{4})$. This proves \eqref{it:ma1}.
We have thus proved that the white vertices of $D$ are partitioned
into $6$ classes ${\mathcal C}_0,{\mathcal C}_1,{\mathcal C}_2,{\mathcal C}_3, {\mathcal C}_4, {\mathcal C}_5$, such that
$|{\mathcal C}_1|=|{\mathcal C}_2|$, $|{\mathcal C}_4|=|{\mathcal C}_5|$,
$|{\mathcal C}_0|=|{\mathcal C}_3|=|{\mathcal C}_1|+|{\mathcal C}_4|$, and such that for $i=0,1,2,3,4,5$,
each vertex in ${\mathcal C}_i$ has rotation $\pi_i$. Let $r:=|{\mathcal C}_1|$ and
$s:=|{\mathcal C}_4|$, so that $|{\mathcal C}_2|=r$, $|{\mathcal C}_5|=s$, and
$|{\mathcal C}_0|=|{\mathcal C}_3|=r+s$. Note that $4(r+s)=n$.
If necessary, relabel $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ so that $\pi_0=( 0 1 2 3 4)$. By Proposition~\ref{pro:wasc}, perhaps after a further relabelling of $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ (that leaves $\pi_0$ invariant), there exists an $m\in \{0,1,2,3,$ $4\}$ such that $\pi_3=({m}, {m+4}, {m+3},$ $ {m+1},m+2)$, and $\{(\pi_1,\pi_2),(\pi_4,\pi_5)\}=\{((m,m+4,m+2,m+3,m+1), (m,m+1,m+3,m+4,m+2)),((m,m+1,m+4,m+3,m+2),(m,m+2,m+3,m+1,m+4))\}$. Now perform the further relabelling $j\mapsto j-m$. After this relabelling (which again leaves $\pi_0$ invariant), we have $\pi_3=(04312)$ and $\{(\pi_1,\pi_2),(\pi_4,\pi_5)\}=\{((04231),(01342)),((01432),(02314))\}$.
We have thus proved that (perhaps after a relabelling of $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$) there exist integers $r,s$ such that $D$ has $r+s$ vertices with rotation $\pi_0=(01234)$, $r$ vertices with rotation $\pi_1=(04231)$, $r$ vertices with rotation $\pi_2=(01342)$, $r+s$ vertices with rotation $\pi_3=(04312)$, $s$ vertices with rotation $\pi_4=(01432)$, and $s$ vertices with rotation $\pi_5=(02314)$. That is, $D$ is isomorphic to the drawing $D_{r,s}$ from Section~\ref{sec:spdr}.
\medskip
\noindent{\sc Case 2.} {\em $\Key{D}$ is isomorphic to the $4$-cycle.}
\medskip
In this case $\Key{D}$ has $4$ vertices, which we label $\rho_0,\rho_1,\rho_2,\rho_3$, so that $(\rho_0,\rho_1,\rho_2,\rho_3,\rho_0)$ is a cycle. The linear system ${\mathcal L}(\Key{D})$ associated to $\Key{D}$ is the one that results by taking $t_4=t_ 5=0$ in the linear system \eqref{sys:bur}, and omitting the equations $E_4$ and $E_5$.
It is straightforward to check that if $(t_0,t_1,t_2,t_3)$ is a solution to this system, then $t_0=t_1=t_2=t_3$. By Proposition~\ref{pro:tempev}, this implies that $n\equiv 0$ (mod $4$). This proves \eqref{it:ma1}.
Thus the white vertices of $D$ are partitioned into $4$ classes ${\mathcal C}_0,{\mathcal C}_1,{\mathcal C}_2,{\mathcal C}_3$, each of size $n/4$, so that each vertex in class ${\mathcal C}_i$ has rotation $\rho_i$.
Label the vertices $0,1,2,3,4$ so that $\rho_0=( 0 1 2 3 4)$. Then, by Proposition~\ref{pro:he}, possibly after a relabelling of $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ that leaves $\rho_0$ invariant, there is an $m\in\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ such that $\rho_2=({m}, {m+1}, {m+3}, {m+4},$ $ {m+2})$, and $\{\rho_1,\rho_3\} = \{(m,m+4,m+2,m+3,m+1),( m, {m+4},m+3,m+1,m+2)\}$.
Now we perform the relabelling $j\mapsto j-m$ on $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ (which obviously leaves $\rho_0$ invariant), we obtain $\rho_2=(01342)$ and $\{\rho_1,\rho_3\}=\{(04231),(04312)\}$.
We have thus proved that $D$ has $r$ vertices with rotation $(01234)$, $r$ vertices with rotation $(01342)$, $r$ vertices with rotation $(04231)$, and $r$ vertices with rotation $(04312)$. That is, $D$ is isomorphic to the drawing $D_{r,0}$ from Section~\ref{sec:spdr}, with $r=n/4$.
\end{proof}
\ignore{
\section{Concluding remarks.}\label{sec:concludingremarks}
Can we put really something here? It's already a very long
paper. Perhaps a discussion of what makes it hard for $n$ odd?
}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec_intro}
In this paper we will focus on the nonlinear dynamics of one-dimensional (1D) partial differential
equations (PDEs), having the form~\cite{Politi:2006}
\begin{equation}
\partial_t u = {\cal N}[u] ,
\label{nle}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal N}$ is a general nonlinear operator, not depending explicitly on time $t$ and space $x$
and whose trivial solution $u\equiv 0$ has a linear stability spectrum
whose modes of sufficiently small wave vector are unstable. More precisely, setting
$u(x,t) = \bar u \exp(iqx + \omega t)$, and keeping only terms that are linear in
$\bar u$, one obtains a dispersion relation relating $\omega$ to $q$. Two well-known dispersion relations~\cite{Politi:2006} are,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
& \omega (q) = 1 - q^2 & & \mbox{nonconserved models}, &
\label{w_nc} \\[5pt]
& \omega (q) = q^2 - q^4 & & \mbox{conserved models}. &
\label{w_con}
\end{align}
\label{eq_omega}
\end{subequations}
In both cases $\omega (q)>0$ for $q<1$. In other words, the trivial solution $u=0$ is unstable for $q<1$.
This means that modes with arbitrary small wave numbers are unstable, and therefore, in principle, spatial structures
with large wavelength can develop, so that the notion of coarsening makes sense. This implies that we exclude situations
where there is a small $q$ cut-off, that is, when there is a minimal wave number below which the trivial solution is stable.
A typical example in this category is the Swift-Hohenberg equation \cite{Politi:2006},
for which the dispersion relation takes the form $\omega(q)=\alpha +(q-1)^2$, with $\alpha$ a real parameter. This dispersion relation means that if $\alpha<0$, then there is a minimal wave vector $q_{min}=1-\sqrt{\alpha}$ below which the trivial solution is stable. We do not expect in this case a structure with a wave number smaller than $q_{min}$ to take place (no perpetual coarsening is {\sl a priori} expected). While this statement complies with intuition, we must keep in
mind that the stability evoked above follows from a linear analysis. Therefore, since the equations of interest are nonlinear, exceptions are not excluded~\cite{note1}.
Having in mind the occurrence of some exceptions, we will focus on systems having a linear dispersion relation of the form
(\ref{eq_omega}). This holds for many nonlinear PDEs.
The most well-known equations are the Ginzburg-Landau (GL), the Cahn-Hilliard (CH), the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky
(KS), and their variants or generalizations~\cite{Politi:2006}. Equations of this class will be introduced and discussed in the
next section.
Note that having unstable modes for small $q$ as in (\ref{eq_omega}) is not a sufficient condition. A prominent example
is the KS equation, which shows
spatiotemporal chaos, with wavelengths of constant average size being continuously
destroyed and created.
This is not surprising: the analysis of the linear stability spectrum does not univocally determines
the nonlinear dynamics.
One important feature that we will discuss here is the determination of the branch of periodic steady-state solutions, which acquire a special status in our investigation of coarsening dynamics. This is {\sl a priori} not obvious, since coarsening is a time-dependent process,
but it has been shown before that stationary configurations of period $\lambda$, $u_0 (x)$,
play a major role in determining the type of nonlinear dynamics: for a certain class of nonlinear equations in one dimension, two of us
have proven~\cite{PRL} that coarsening is possible if and only if the wavelength $\lambda$ is an increasing
function of the amplitude $A$ of the solution $u_0(x)$, $\lambda'(A)>0$.
The presence of a maximum in the curve $\lambda(A)$ signals the phenomenon of
interrupted coarsening, while a decreasing $\lambda (A)$ signals no coarsening at all. Finally,
for some equations such as KS, $\lambda(A)$ is not a single-value function and the curve
displays a so-called turning point.
All these examples show that steady states contain important pieces of information. However,
how is it possible that dynamics depends on stationary properties only?
The answer to this question is contained in the concept of phase instability. For example, in one dimension, a steady-state periodic solution $u_0(x)$ has a wavelength (or wave number $q=2\pi/\lambda$) $\lambda$ such that $u_0(x+\lambda)=u_0(x)$. In this case the phase $\phi$ of the pattern is $\phi=qx$. However, a perturbation of the wavelength of the pattern (or equivalently a perturbation of the phase $\phi$) may reveal instability (called phase instability), meaning that the wavelength will evolve in time, and if this is the case for any $q$, one may expect coarsening. A global shift of a periodic pattern in the $x$ direction by a constant value $x_0$ is a also a solution, i.e., $u_0(x+x_0)=u_0(x)$, owing to translational invariance (also called a Goldstone mode). This constant shift corresponds to a phase perturbation of infinite wavelength, and since it is a stationary solution, it has an infinite relaxation time towards the original solution $u_0(x)$. In other words, a large wavelength perturbation of the pattern is expected to have a large time scale. This entails that the most dangerous perturbations are those of long wavelengths of the phase of the pattern. To make this notion explicit, we introduce a small parameter $\epsilon$ expressing the fact that the phase modes of interest have a small spatial gradient, on the scale of the wavelength of the pattern. An appropriate way to deal with this question is to introduce a multiscale analysis: the fast spatial scale $x$ (where the periodic profile of pattern varies on a scale of order unity) and a slow scale $X$ (expressing the long wavelength perturbation of the phase of the pattern). The slow spatial scale, implies also a slow time scale (which can also be inferred from the above discussion about large relaxation times) $T$. It turns out that (see later) $X=\epsilon x$ and $T=\epsilon ^2 t$.
If $\phi$ designates the actual phase of a pattern (not necessarily a periodic one, but some perturbed pattern), it will depend on space and time, e.g., because
$u_0(x)$ is perturbed, and acquires a slow spatial and time dependence (i.e., it depends on $X$ and $T$), which can be described
by a phase diffusion equation (see next section), having the form
\begin{equation}
\partial_T \psi = D(q) \partial_{XX} \psi ,
\end{equation}
where $\psi,X,T$ are suitably rescaled versions of $\phi,x,t$, and the phase diffusion
coefficient $D(q)$ only depends on properties of the steady-state solution of wavelength
$\lambda=2\pi/q$.
A negative $D(q)$ signals a phase instability, i.e., coarsening. Other scenarios are possible~\cite{note2}.
Even if for several nonlinear equations it is feasible to obtain the analytical form of
$D(q)$ in the limit of large $\lambda$, in the generic case
it is not possible
and we must determine it numerically, by computing the steady-state solution $u_0(x)$, from which we can state if the pattern is stable (no coarsening), or unstable (coarsening). We will then show how the coarsening exponent (in the temporal power law) can be extracted from these considerations (i.e. without any time integration of the equations).
In this paper we start by briefly describing the multiscale method and apply it to several 1D PDEs,
therefore extracting the quantities we need to determine $D(q)$ numerically. We will see that we need two
functions: (i)~$u_0(x)$, the stationary solution, which satisfies
the equation ${\cal N}[u_0]=0$, see Eq.~(\ref{nle}), and
(ii)~$v_0(x)$, solution of the equation ${\cal L}^\dag [v_0(x)]=0$, where
${\cal L}$ is the Frech\'et derivative of ${\cal N}$ and ${\cal L}^\dag$ is its adjoint operator.
We will show how it is possible to implement the numerical determination of such functions,
therefore the determination of $D(q)$ and, finally, how we can get the coarsening exponent $n$,
describing the time dependence of the typical scale, $L \approx t^n$, when coarsening is present.
Particular attention will be devoted to the conserved Kuramoto-Sivashinsky (cKS) equation, because
in such a case ${\cal L}$ is not self-adjoint and special care must be devoted to the determination
of $v_0(x)$.
\section{From the 1D nonlinear equation to the phase diffusion equation}
\label{sec_eqs}
In this section we introduce all nonlinear equations we are going to discuss, we give a very
brief sketch of the multiscale approach used to extract the phase diffusion equation, and we finally provide the expression of the phase
diffusion coefficient $D$. In some cases, we just report existing results,
but in the case of the cKS equation, we provide the original derivation of
$D$, which will be seen to deserve special attention.
\subsection{The models}
\label{sec_GL}
Let us start by listing all equations of interest, the nonconserved first:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq_nc}
\begin{align}
\label{GL_eq}
&\partial_t u = u - u^3 +\partial_x^2 u & & \mbox{GL~equation}, & \\[5pt]
\label{nonc_alpha_eq}
&\partial_t u = \dfrac{u}{\left(1+ u^2 \right)^\alpha} + \partial_x^2 u , & &\mbox{$\alpha$ models}.&
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
then their conservative counterparts:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq_con}
\begin{align}
\label{CH_eq}
&\hskip -10pt \partial_t u = -\partial_x^2\left[ u - u^3 +\partial_x^2 u\right] & & \mbox{CH equation,}& \\[5pt]
\label{c_alpha_eq}
&\hskip -10pt\partial_t u = -\partial_x^2\left[ \dfrac{u}{\left(1+ u^2 \right)^\alpha} + \partial_x^2 u\right] & &\mbox{c$\alpha$ models}.&
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and, finally, the conserved Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation
\begin{equation}
\label{cKS_eq}
\partial_t u = -\partial^2_x [ u - \tau \partial_x u + \partial_x^2 u -\left( \partial_x u\right)^2 ]\quad \mbox{cKS~equation}.
\end{equation}
GL and CH are classical equations~\cite{Bray} describing, e.g., phase separation processes for a
scalar order parameter, either conserved (CH) or nonconserved (GL).
The c$\alpha$ model for $\alpha=1$ first appeared in problems of crystal growth~\cite{PPJV}
and starting from that specific conserved model it has been natural to extend it~\cite{ATPP}
to $\alpha\ne 1$ and to the nonconserved case.
Finally, the cKS equation appeared in the study of sand-ripple dynamics~\cite{Csahok:2000},
then in step-bunching phenomena~\cite{Gillet}. For $\tau=0$ it also appears in the
study of wandering crystalline steps~\cite{FV,CKS}.
Equations~(\ref{eq_nc}) have the general form $\partial_t u = A(u) + \partial_x^2 u$
and their linear dispersion relation has the form (\ref{w_nc}).
All conservative equations, (\ref{eq_con}) and (\ref{cKS_eq}), have the form
$\partial_t u = -\partial_x^2\left(\cdots \right)$
and their linear dispersion relation is like (\ref{w_con}). For Eq.~(\protect\ref{cKS_eq}), that is true
for $\tau=0$ only. However, the $\tau$ term can be canceled out with a tilt transformation:
$u \to u +\tau x/2$. We keep it here for sake of generality.
All previous models, conserved and nonconserved,
display perpetual coarsening, because, as analyzed in the next subsection,
they have a branch $u_0(x)$ of steady states whose $\lambda(A)$ characteristic is an
increasing, diverging function.
\subsection{The multiscale method and the phase diffusion equation}
We are now going to discuss the multiscale method, with a focus on the cKS eq.
This step has two motivations. First, the cKS equation is a completely non trivial equation,
whose nonlinear dynamics has been studied only through direct numerical simulations or through
a simplified particle model. We are not aware of analytical nonlinear studies.
Second, its treatment with the multiscale approach is representative of the method, when
the Frech\'et derivative is not self-adjoint.
The basic idea is to perturb a periodic steady state
$u_0(x,\lambda)=u_0(x+\lambda,\lambda)$.
First, we rescale $x$ by introducing the phase $\phi=qx$, with $q=2\pi/\lambda$,
so that $u_0=u_0(\phi,q)$. Next, we
introduce slow space and time variables,
\begin{equation}
X= \epsilon x, \qquad T = \epsilon^2 t,
\label{slow}
\end{equation}
and perturb $u_0$ so that $q$ is now dependent on $X$ and $T$. While $x$ is
the fast space variable,
no fast time variable exists, since the base state $u_0(x)$ is a stationary state.
The final step is to perform a
multiple scale expansion method~\cite{multiscale}.
Identifying the slow phase $\psi(X,T)=\epsilon \phi(x,t)$,
we can finally rewrite the space and time derivatives,
\begin{subequations}
\label{derivatives}
\begin{align}
\partial_x &= q\partial_\phi +\epsilon \partial_X =q\partial_\phi +\epsilon\psi_{XX}\partial_q ,\\[5pt]
\partial_t &= \epsilon \psi_T \partial_\phi .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
This is enough, along with the $\epsilon$ expansion of the solution,
$u = u_0 + \epsilon u_1$, to perform a correct perturbative analysis of Eq. (\ref{nle}).
Using Eqs.~\eqref{slow}--\eqref{derivatives}, the general nonlinear equation (\ref{nle}) rewrites as
\begin{equation}
\label{ms_eq}
\begin{split}
\epsilon (\partial_\phi u_0) \partial_T \psi =&
( {\cal N}_0 + \epsilon {\cal N}_1 ) [u_0 + \epsilon u_1 ] \\[5pt]
=& {\cal N}_0 [u_0] + \epsilon {\cal L}_0 [u_1] + \epsilon {\cal N}_1 [u_0] ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal L}_0$ is the functional, Frech\'et derivative of ${\cal N}_0$.
Since ${\cal N}_0 [u_0]$ trivially vanishes, we are left with the first-order terms,
which can be rearranged, so that the function $u_0$ appears in the source term, $g$, of the linear
differential equation for $u_1$,
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_0 [u_1] = (\partial_\phi u_0) \partial_T \psi - {\cal N}_1 [u_0] \equiv g .
\end{equation}
According to the Fredholm alternative theorem~\cite{Fredholm}, $g$ must be orthogonal to the kernel
of the adjoint operator, ${\cal L}_0^\dag$. In conclusion, if
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_0^\dag [v_0] = 0 ,
\label{eq_v0}
\end{equation}
then
\begin{equation}
\langle v_0, (\partial_\phi u_0) \partial_T \psi - {\cal N}_1 [u_0] \rangle =0 .
\label{Fredholm}
\end{equation}
In the next subsection we are going to see that Eq.~(\ref{Fredholm}) can be recast in the form
of a phase diffusion equation,
\begin{equation}
\partial_T \psi = D(q) \; \partial_{XX} \psi ,
\label{phase_diffusion}
\end{equation}
where the phase diffusion coefficient, $D(q)$ is a nontrivial functional of $u_0$ and $v_0$
\cite{nota}.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{0.495\textwidth}
\includegraphics[height = 6cm,clip=]{residue_vs_time.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.495\textwidth}
\includegraphics[height = 6.05cm,clip=]{loglog_variable_dt.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{(a) Evolution of the residue $\rho_\infty$ of the Cahn-Hilliard equation
\eqref{CH_eq} as function of time for different values of $\Delta t$ (reported in the legend).
The initial condition is a sinusoid discretized by $N=512$ points
with $\lambda = 12.8$, corresponding to $q = 0.49087$.
Note that for a fixed $\Delta t$ the residue saturates at an asymptotic value, which depends on the magnitude
of the time steps.
(b) Evolution of $\rho_\infty$ as function of the iteration step $m$ for the same simulation condition of the left figure.
The black points are the value of $\rho_\infty$ for a numerical
integration of Eq.~\eqref{CH_eq} with a variable time stepping. Starting from $\Delta t = 0.025$, the magnitude of $\Delta t$
is reduced of a factor ten ($\delta t = 0.1$) every time the condition $\Delta \rho_\infty < 10^{-4}$ is verified.
The numerical integration stops for $\rho_\infty <10^{-9}$, value reached for $\Delta t = 2.5\times 10^{-6}$.
Note that the sudden improvements of the accuracy of the estimated solution $u_0$ are due to the
reduction of $\Delta t$.}
\label{fig_timestep}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{The phase diffusion coefficient}
The application of the multiscale method to Eqs. (\ref{eq_nc}) and (\ref{eq_con}) gives,
respectively
\begin{equation}
\label{Dred_GL}
D(q) = \frac{\partial_q\left\langle q \left( \partial_\phi u_0\right)^2\right\rangle}
{\left\langle \left(\partial_\phi u_0 \right)^2\right\rangle}
\qquad
\mbox{nonconserved Eqs. (\ref{eq_nc}),}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{Dred_CH}
D(q) =q^2 \dfrac{\partial_q\left\langle q \left( \partial_\phi u_0\right)^2\right\rangle}{\left\langle u_0^2\right\rangle}
\qquad
\mbox{conserved Eqs. (\ref{eq_con}).}
\end{equation}
For the cKS equation (\ref{cKS_eq}), we give here below a few details for the derivation of $D(q)$.
In that case, the operators appearing in Eqs.~(\ref{ms_eq}-\ref{Fredholm}) are
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
& \mathcal{N}_0 \left[u_0\right] = -q^2\partial_\phi^2\left[\left(1 -\tau q\partial_\phi + q^2\partial_\phi^2\right) u_0
-q^2 \left( \partial_\phi u_0 \right)^2\right],\label{N0} \\[5pt]
& \mathcal{L}_0\left[u_1\right] = -q^2\partial_\phi^2\left[1-\tau q\partial_\phi + q^2\partial_\phi^2
- 2 q^2 \left( \partial_\phi u_0 \right)\partial_\phi\right] u_1, \\[5pt]
& \mathcal{N}_1\left[u_0\right] = - \psi_{XX} \left\{
q^2 \partial_\phi^2 \left[\left(2q\partial_q +1\right)\partial_\phi u_0 -\tau \partial_q u_0 -
2 q\left(\partial_\phi u_0 \right) \partial_q u_0\right]\right\}, \\[5pt]
\label{eq_adjoint}
& \mathcal{L}_0^\dagger[v] = -q^2\left\{1 + \tau q\partial_\phi +q^2\partial_\phi^2
+2 q^2\left[\left(\partial_\phi^2 u_0 \right)+ \left(\partial_\phi u_0\right)
\partial_\phi\right]\right\}\partial_\phi^2 v.
\end{align}
Finally, from Eq.~(\ref{Fredholm}) we can determine the diffusion coefficient,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_D}
D(q) = -q^2 \langle \partial_\phi^2 v_0, \left(2q\partial_q +1\right)\partial_\phi u_0
-\nu \partial_q u_0 - 2 q \left( \partial_q u_0 \right) \partial_\phi u_0\rangle /
\langle v_0,\partial_\phi u_0 \rangle .
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
When ${\cal L}_0$ is self-adjoint, as for Eqs.~(\ref{eq_nc}), translational invariance immediately
provides the result $v_0 = \partial_\phi u_0$. For Eqs.~(\ref{eq_con}), ${\cal L}_0^\dag\ne{\cal L}_0$,
but Eq.~(\ref{eq_v0}) can be easily solved analytically and $v_0$ is still related to $u_0$
through some differential operator. In all these cases, covering Eqs.~\eqref{GL_eq}--\eqref{c_alpha_eq},
$D$ can be expressed as a function of $u_0$ and its derivatives only, see
Eqs.~\eqref{Dred_GL}--\eqref{Dred_CH}.
Finally, there are cases where ${\cal L}_0^\dag\ne{\cal L}_0$ and $v_0$ cannot be determined
analytically. The cKS equation is a typical example. In the next section we discuss the most
general implementation for a numerical determination of $u_0,v_0$ and $D$.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{0.495\textwidth}
\includegraphics[height = 6cm,clip=]{u_0_different_q.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.495\textwidth}
\includegraphics[height = 6cm,clip=]{v_different_q.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{(a)
Normalized stationary solutions $u_0$ of equation \eqref{cKS_phi_eq} with $\tau = 0$
for different values of $q$. The differential operators are discretized in an uniform grid with $\Delta \phi = 0.025$.
For visualization purposes we have chosen a normalization constant $A = \max |u(\phi)|$.
(b) Solutions of the adjoint problem $\mathcal{L}_0^\dagger[v_0]=0$, see Eq.~\eqref{eq_adjoint}, with $\tau = 0$.
As for the left figure, the spatial discretization is $\Delta \phi = 0.025$.}
\label{fig_u0_v}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Numerical Implementation}
\label{sec_num}
The numerical procedure we have developed
to find the value of $D$ for a given $\lambda$ can be split in
three parts: \mbox{(i) The} determination of the stationary solution $u_0$ by employing
a pseudospectral algorithm (see Appendix~\ref{ax_pseudo}) and,
only if required, a Newton-Raphson method to increase the accuracy of the output of our
pseudospectral code.
(ii) In the second step, the function $v_0$
is found by discretizing the adjoint ${\cal L}_0^\dag$ of the Frech\'et derivative of $\mathcal{N}_0$
with high order finite differences and finding the kernel of the
sparse matrix $M$ containing the coefficients of the discrete version of $\mathcal{L}^\dag_0$.
Clearly, we skip this step when we are able to obtain $v_0$ analytically.
(iii) Lastly, the value of $D(\lambda)$ is computed with a standard numerical integration after the evaluation of
the derivatives (in $\phi$ and $q$ space) of $u_0$ and, if necessary, $v_0$ (only for the cKS equation).
These three steps are iterated for each $\lambda$ and, finally, the coarsening exponent is estimated
using the relation $|D|\sim L^2 / t$.
\subsection{Determination of the stationary solutions}
The time-dependent problem \eqref{nle} can be integrated very efficiently by using a pseudospectral
algorithm.
These methods are widely used for the integration of nonlinear
PDEs because they combine the estimation of spatial derivatives in Fourier space with
the calculation of nonlinear terms in real space, hence avoiding the computational overhead of the convolution step
\cite{Trefethen_book,Boyd_book,Fornberg_book,Canuto_book}.
Pseudospectral methods mainly work in Fourier space and their strength resides in their high accuracy for smooth solutions.
It is convenient to restate the nonlinear problem \eqref{nle} in $\phi \in [0,2\pi]$ space, by replacing
the derivatives $\partial_x$ with $q\partial_\phi$. In this way, stationary solutions obtained at different
values of $q$ are mapped into the same interval so that they can be directly compared.
Every nonlinear PDE
such as Eq.~\eqref{nle} can be divided into a linear operator $\omega$, the dispersion relation, and a
nonlinear operator $\rm{N}$, such that in Fourier space Eq.~\eqref{nle} reads
\begin{equation}
\label{nleFourier}
\partial_t u_k(t) = \omega_k u_k(t) + {\rm{N}} \left[ u(t) \right]_k,
\end{equation}
where ${\rm{N}}[u]_k $ is the Fourier transform of the nonlinear part of the PDE, and the discrete wave vectors $k$
belong to the interval $[-N/2,N/2]$, with the same $\Delta k = 1$ for every $\lambda$ (here $N$ is the number of
points used to discretize the $\phi$ interval).
Equation~\eqref{nleFourier} is evaluated by using the {\sl integrating factor} technique \cite{Trefethen_book,Canuto_book}
and time stepped with a fourth-order Adams-Bashforth-Moulton predictor-corrector scheme
(IFABM4) \cite{numerical_recipes}
(see Appendix~\ref{ax_pseudo} for the details of the numerical implementation).
For a comparison between different pseudospectral algorithms see
Ref.~\cite{Kassam:2005} and references therein.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth,clip=]{Newton-Raphson_comparison.eps}
\caption{Left vertical axis:
Stationary solution $u_0$ (thick full line)
of Eq.~\eqref{nonc_alpha_eq} with $\alpha=2$ and $\lambda = 102.4$, corresponding
to $q =0.061359$. The parameters of the IFABM4 algorithm are $N=4096$, $\Delta t=0.1$, $\delta t = 0.1$,
$\Delta\rho_{min}=10^{-4}$, and a stopping condition $\rho_\infty < 5\times 10^{-9}$.
Right vertical axis: residue $\rho(\phi)$ before (blue, thin line)
and after (red, dashed line) the
Newton-Raphson minimization.}
\label{fig_Newton-Raphson}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
The IFABM4 method has been used in this paper to study the time evolution of Eq.~\eqref{nle}
and to characterize the coarsening exponent by measuring the mean wavelength of the emerging pattern, $L(t)$,
as a function of time $t$. In order to obtain a reliable estimate of $n$,
the function $L(t)$ must be averaged over several realizations, each one
with a different initial condition.
Stationary solutions of nonlinear PDEs are normally found with specialized approaches that
have better performances
compared to any numerical integration of the dynamics of Eq.~\eqref{nle}.
Although point collocation or multigrid methods~\cite{numerical_recipes} are less computationally expensive than
our IFABM4 code, we decided to rely on the same algorithm to highlight the advantages of a strategy based on the
the phase-diffusion equation.
Moreover, even if it is well established that the integrating factor technique
can lead to a wrong estimation of the fixed points of nonlinear ODEs \cite{Cox:2001} and more accurate
algorithms have been already developed for ODEs \cite{Cox:2001} and PDEs \cite{Kassam:2005}, such as Eq.~\eqref{nle},
a small modification of the IFABM4 algorithm allowed us to find the stationary solutions $u_0$
with a reasonable precision (enough for our purposes).
Starting from an initial guess function $u(x,0)$, the dynamics of Eq.~\eqref{nleFourier} leads to
the closest stationary solution. Obviously this can happen only when at least one $u_0$ exists for
the fixed value $\lambda$ and for the chosen parameters ($\alpha,\tau,\dots$)
considered during the integration of Eq.~\eqref{nleFourier}.
The error committed in the estimation of the stationary solution is easily quantified by inspecting the
residues
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lcl}
\rho(\phi) &=& \mathcal{F}^{-1}\left[\omega_k u_{k} \right]_\phi +{\rm N}\left[ u(\phi)\right], \\[5pt]
\rho_\infty & = & \max \left|\rho(\phi) \right|, \\[5pt]
\rho_2 & = & \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi \rho^2 ,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
during the numerical integration of the PDE.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_timestep}(a), for a fixed value of $\Delta t$ we observe that
$\rho_\infty$ saturates at an asymptotic value depending on
the magnitude of the time steps.
Even if starting the numerical integration of Eq.~\eqref{nleFourier} with a tiny $\Delta t$
ensures a small asymptotic residue, this will increase enormously the computational cost
required to find $u_0$, therefore impairing the applicability of this method to many practical cases.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{minipage}{0.495\textwidth}
\epsfig{file=lambda_vs_D-CH-GL-reduced.eps,height=6cm,clip=}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.495\textwidth}
\epsfig{file=logexp-CH-GL-reduced.eps,height=6cm,clip=}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ \label{fig_coarsening1}
(a) Phase diffusion coefficient $D$ estimated with reduced expressions \eqref{Dred_GL}
and \eqref{Dred_CH} for the Ginzburg-Landau equation \eqref{GL_eq} (blue circles)
and for the Cahn-Hilliard equation \eqref{CH_eq} (black rhombi), respectively.
Solid lines represent values of $D$ calculated from Eqs. \eqref{GL_A} and \eqref{CH_A}.
Note that for these two cases $D$ is negative until the sensibility of the algorithm (in this case
of order $10^{-7}$). The stationary solutions $u_0$
have been obtained with a mesh size $\Delta x = 0.025$,
a varying time step $\Delta t$ decreasing from $1$ to $10^{-6}$, and a maximum residue
$\rho_m = 10^{-8}$. The $q$ derivatives in \eqref{Dred_GL} and \eqref{Dred_CH}
are estimated by evaluating four equally spaced $u_0$ around $q = 2\pi/\lambda$
with a $\Delta q = 2.5 \times 10^{-3}$.
(b) Estimation of the coefficient $C$ [$\lambda = C^{-1}\ln(t)$]
for the Ginzburg-Landau equation
\eqref{GL_eq} (blue circles) and the Cahn-Hilliard equation \eqref{CH_eq} (black rhombi).
This coefficient is estimated through a linear regression of $\ln\big(|D|/\lambda^2\big)$
by applying a sliding window binning four consecutive values of $|D|$ from the left figure.
The wavelength $\lambda$ is the average of the different wavelengths
of the points binned together.
All units are arbitrary.}
\end{figure*}
A possibility to overcome this trade-off between accuracy and computational effort arises when we take into
account that here our goal is not to follow the real dynamics of Eq.~\eqref{nleFourier} but rather to obtain a reliable
estimate of its stationary solutions. The numerical convergence of $u(t)$ to $u_0$ can be increased
by reducing dynamically the value of $\Delta t$. Actually, by monitoring the residue and its variation
$\Delta \rho^m_\infty = |\rho^{m}_\infty - \rho^{m-m_c}_\infty|/\rho^{m}_\infty$ (here the superscript $m$ stands for
the discrete time)
every predefined number of iteration steps $m_c$, we are able to sense when the dynamics
of the PDE has reached the stationary state for a given $\Delta t$.
In fact, a drop of $\Delta \rho^m_\infty$ below a given threshold $\Delta \rho_{min}$ means that the
residual error cannot be diminished anymore, signaling that is the appropriate moment to reduce $\Delta t$
by multiplying its value for a factor $\delta_t < 1$. After every reduction of the time step,
the predictor-corrector scheme has to be warmed up by a method of equal accuracy, such as a fourth-order
Runge-Kutta (see Appendix~\ref{ax_pseudo} for its numerical implementation).
In general, the values of $\Delta \rho_{min}$ and $\delta_t$ have to be inferred empirically for
each problem: for our analysis, we have used $\Delta \rho_{min} = 10^{-4}$ and $\delta_t = 0.1$.
Additionally, $m_c$ must be a large number in order
to limit the computational overhead required for the estimation of the residue and its variation.
For one-dimensional problems a value of $m_c$ between $10^3$ and $10^4$ is a reasonable choice.
As an example, in Fig.~\ref{fig_timestep}(b) we report a comparison between the constant and the variable time stepping
in case of the Cahn-Hilliard equation \eqref{CH_eq}.
In some cases the solution found by the pseudospectral algorithm is not accurate enough to ensure
a good estimation of the coarsening law, through the evaluation
of $D(q)$. This usually happens for large system sizes,
so that the algorithm converges slowly,
or when the variations of the stationary solution are extremely localized and the resolution of the
numerical method is insufficient to resolve these jumps (spectral methods are not
suitable to handle discontinuities like shocks).
To improve the residue of $u_0$ we have employed a Newton-Raphson (NR) method applied to the
finite difference discretization (in $\phi$ space) of the equation $\mathcal{N}[u] = 0$.
To be more precise, in case of an operator $\mathcal{N}$
that can be written as a second-order derivative of another nonlinear operator $\mathcal{N}_r$
(that is $\mathcal{N}[u] = -\partial_x^2 \mathcal{N}_r[u]$)
we have found the solutions of equation $\mathcal{N}_r[u] = 0$ and then subtracted
to these functions their mean value $\langle u_0 \rangle$.
In fact, these type of nonlinear operators are conservative so that
the mean value of $u$ is preserved by the dynamics of the equation, and, additionally,
we can deal with an operator that is less stiff than the original one.
Besides, it is sufficient to find the
stationary solution of the GL equation \eqref{GL_eq} to compute the phase diffusion coefficient of the CH equation
\eqref{CH_eq} (the same for the $\alpha$ models).
In the following, as an example, we detail how we have implemented the Newton-Raphson method to find the
stationary solutions of the conserved Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation.
The dynamic evolution of the cKS equation presents several numerical difficulties,
which can be ascribed to the nature of its stationary solutions:
a sequence of arcs of parabola whose amplitude grows quadratically with $\lambda$, while
their joining regions have a diverging curvature and a vanishing size~\cite{CKS,Csahok:2000}.
This leads to the blow up of the integration scheme for large time
steps. More specifically, the numerical integration of a
system with $\Delta x = 0.1$ and $N = 2048$, i.e., $L = 204.8$,
must be performed with our IFABM4 code by choosing $\Delta t = 10^{-5}$ in order to prevent
the blow up at $t_{max}\sim 10^3$.
For this reason, the phase diffusion method is very suitable to estimate numerically the coarsening law
for the cKS equation. In this case, instead of performing a first estimation of the stationary solutions $u_0$
by means of the pseudospectral algorithm, we have solved directly the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{cKS_phi_eq}
\left(1-\tau q \partial_\phi + q^2 \partial_\phi ^2 \right) u - q^2 \left( \partial_\phi u\right)^2 = 0,
\end{equation}
by discretizing the differential operators with sixth-order centered finite differences. In this way
Eq.~\eqref{cKS_phi_eq} is transformed in a set of $N$ nonlinear equations in the space of the
variables $u_i$ (with $i=1,\dots,N$) that is solved by finding the zeros of the set of functions
\begin{equation}
F_i = u_i +q^2 B_i - q A_i\left(\tau +q A_i \right),
\end{equation}
where $A_i, B_i$ are given by
\begin{align}
\label{A_i}
\hskip -25pt A_i = \left(\partial_\phi u\right)_i &= \dfrac{1}{\Delta\phi}
\, \sum_{j=1}^3 a_j \left(u_{i+j} - u_{i-j} \right), \\
\label{B_i}
\hskip -25pt B_i = \left(\partial_\phi^2 u\right)_i &= \dfrac{1}{\Delta\phi^2}
\,\left[ b_0 u_i+ \sum_{j=1}^3 b_j \left(u_{i+j} + u_{i-j} \right)\right],
\end{align}
and the coefficients $a_j,b_j$
are listed in Table \ref{tab_coeff}. These vectors are built by taking into account the periodic
boundary conditions of $u_i$.
The Jacobian $J$ of this system of equation is needed in order to solve the problem. The elements
of this matrix are $J_{i,j} = \partial_{u_j} F_i $, which is a band matrix with
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lcl}
J_{i,i} &=& 1+\dfrac{q^2 b_0}{(\Delta\phi)^2}, \\[15pt]
J_{i,i\pm j} &=& (\Delta\phi)^{-2}\, \left[q^2 b_j \mp q a_j\left(\tau\Delta\phi + 2q A_i \right)\right],
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $j=1,2,3$. Through the Matlab\textsuperscript{\textregistered} function \verb+fsolve+,
the values of $u_i$ for which $F_i = 0$ are readily found by means of
the standard large-scale method implemented in the package, i.e.,
the \verb+trust-region-reflective+ algorithm (for details see Refs.~\cite{Coleman:1994,Coleman:1996}
and the Matlab\textsuperscript{\textregistered} documentation).
Some stationary solutions $u_0$ of the cKS equation for $\tau=0$
are reported in Fig.~\ref{fig_u0_v}(a).
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{minipage}{0.495\textwidth}
\epsfig{file=q_vs_D-GL_alpha_models-reduced.eps,height = 6cm,clip=}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.495\textwidth}
\epsfig{file=q_vs_D-CH_alpha_models-reduced.eps,height = 6cm,clip=}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ \label{fig_coarsening2}
(a) Modulus of the phase diffusion coefficient of the non-conserved $\alpha$ models \eqref{nonc_alpha_eq}
for different values of the parameter $\alpha$. The stationary solutions have been obtained through two steps:
(i) a first approximation of $u_0$ is obtained
by employing the IFABM4 algorithm up to a precision of about $\rho_m \sim 10^{-7}$,
(ii) the final value of the stationary solution is found by refining the result of the previous step through
the Newton-Raphson method.
We used a spatial discretization $\Delta \phi = 0.025$ and $\Delta q = 1.0\times 10^{-4}$ for $\alpha = 1,2$,
whereas $\Delta \phi = 0.05$ and two different $\Delta q = 1.0\times 10^{-4}, 2.5\times 10^{-5}$ ensuing a ratio
$\Delta q/q < 10^{-2}$ for the case $\alpha = 3$ (see right figure).
The coefficient $D$ has been estimated through Eq.~\eqref{Dred_GL}. According to
previous analytical calculations \cite{Politi:2006}
its asymptotic value saturates to a constant value, i.e., $|D|\sim 1$, when $\alpha \leq 2$.
The solid line is a fit $|D|=a_0/(a_1 + \ln(q))$, showing the logarithmic correction for $\alpha=2$.
(b) Estimation of $|D|$ by means of \eqref{Dred_CH} for the conserved $\alpha$ models \eqref{c_alpha_eq} with $\alpha=1,2,3$.
We used the same stationary solutions
found for the non-conserved $\alpha$ models. The expected power law for these conserved models is $|D|\sim q^2$ \cite{Politi:2006}.
The blue solid lines are guides to eyes with slope equal to two.
All units are arbitrary.}
\end{figure*}
To conclude this section we present one case in which the Newton-Raphson method has been used to decrease
the residue of the stationary solution found by our IFABM4 code. As working example we consider
the non-conserved $\alpha$ model \eqref{nonc_alpha_eq} with $\alpha=2$. In Fig. \ref{fig_Newton-Raphson}
we show the solution $u_0$ (black line)
and the residue $\rho(\phi)$ before (blue, thin line) and after
(red, dashed line) the NR
minimization.
The residues of the starting guess (blue line) had
\mbox{$\rho_\infty = 2.14\times 10^{-9}$} and \mbox{$\rho_2 = 1.35\times 10^{-10}$}, but, after the minimization step, these
residues reduced to \mbox{$\rho_\infty = 1.34 \times 10^{-9}$} and $\rho_2 = 1.12\times 10^{-11}$.
Note the drastic reduction of $\rho(\phi)$ in the regions characterized by small values of $\partial_\phi u_0$
leading to a $\rho_2$ that is one order of magnitude smaller than before the Newton-Raphson minimization.
\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{tabular}{|c|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
index $i$ & $0$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ \\
\hline
$a_i$ & - & $3/4$ & $-3/20$ & $1/60$ & - \\
\hline
$b_i$ & $-49/18$ & $3/2$ & $-3/20$ & $1/90$ & - \\
\hline
$c_i$ & - & $-61/30$ & $169/120$ & $-3/10$ & $7/240$ \\
\hline
$d_i$ & $91/8$ & $-122/15$ & $169/60$ & $-2/5$ & $7/240$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Coefficients of the sixth-order finite difference discretization of the differential operators used in
the Newton-Raphson minimization.}
\label{tab_coeff}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{minipage}{0.495\textwidth}
\epsfig{file=exp-CH_alpha_models-reduced.eps,height = 6cm,clip=}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.495\textwidth}
\epsfig{file=rel_error-CH_alpha_models-reduced.eps,height = 6cm,clip=}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ \label{fig_coarsening3}
(a) Estimation of the power-law behavior of the absolute value of the phase diffusion coefficient
of the conserved $\alpha$ models for different values of $\alpha$. The exponent $\gamma$ (that is $|D| \sim q^\gamma$) is
computed by a linear regression of three consecutive points of each curve of
Fig.~\ref{fig_coarsening2}(b).
The center of the sliding window $\bar{q}$ is the mean value of the abscissa of these points.
(b) Relative error of the estimated exponent $\gamma$
as function of the mean value of the window position $\bar{q}$. Note the different convergence rate for every $\alpha$.
All units are arbitrary.}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Solution of the adjoint operator and calculation of $D$}
The solution of the adjoint problem $\mathcal{L}_0^\dagger[v]=0$
is easily found through the finite difference discretization introduced in the previous
section. Again, let us consider the conserved Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation.
Taking into account that in Eq.~\eqref{eq_adjoint} we have derivatives up to fourth order,
first and second derivatives are discretized according to Eqs.~\eqref{A_i} and \eqref{B_i}, and
third and fourth derivatives are given by
\begin{align}
&\hskip -25pt \left(\partial_\phi^3 v\right)_i = (\Delta \phi)^{-3}\, \sum_{j=1}^{4} c_j\left( v_{i+j} - v_{i-j}\right), \\[5pt]
&\hskip -25pt \left(\partial_\phi^4 v\right)_i = (\Delta \phi)^{-4}\, \left[d_0 v_i
+ \sum_{j=1}^{4} d_j\left( v_{i+j} + v_{i-j}\right)\right],
\end{align}
where the coefficients $c_j$ and $d_j$ are listed in Table~\ref{tab_coeff}.
The derivatives $\partial_\phi^2 u_0$ and $\partial_\phi u_0$ are computed in Fourier space.
The elements of these vectors multiply the constant coefficient of the
finite difference discretization of
the differential operators of Eq.~\eqref{eq_adjoint}, thus forming
the sparse matrix $M$, which represent the discrete version of Eq.~\eqref{eq_adjoint}.
Then, by means of the Matlab\textsuperscript{\textregistered} function
\verb+eigs+ (that is based on the Fortran library \verb+ARPACK+), we search for
the eigenvalues of $M$, which are in modulus
closer to zero and
their associated eigenvectors.
The eigenvector $\hat{v}$ related to the smallest eigenvalue is finally normalized in order to have
a solution $v_0$ with zero mean and amplitude equal to one
\begin{equation}
v_0 = \dfrac{\hat{v} - \langle \hat{v}\rangle}{\max(|\hat{v}|)}.
\end{equation}
Some functions $v_0$ for the cKS equation for $\tau=0$
are reported in Fig.~\ref{fig_u0_v}(b).
The values of the phase diffusion coefficient $D$ are computed according to
Eqs.~\eqref{Dred_GL}, \eqref{Dred_CH}, and
\eqref{eq_D}. As for the solution of the adjoint operator, in these equations
$\phi$ derivatives are calculated through Fourier differentiation, whereas
$q$ derivatives are discretized by a fourth-order centered finite differences, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\partial_q u_0(q) = \dfrac{1}{12\Delta q}
\Big[& -u_0(q+2\Delta q)+8 u_0(q+\Delta q) \\
&\hskip 5pt - 8 u_0(q-\Delta q) + u_0(q-2\Delta q) \Big].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
These four additional stationary solutions, which are equally distributed around $u_0(\phi;q)$ and
separated by a factor $\Delta q$,
are found by keeping constant the
number of discretization points but changing the length of the system $\lambda$, that is $2\pi/q$. In this
manner we are able to directly compare the values of these four functions and
readily obtain the discrete representation of $\partial_q u_0(\phi;q)$.
The integrals involved in the calculation of $D$ are evaluated numerically by the extended
Simpson's rule \cite{numerical_recipes}.
The functional relation between the phase diffusion coefficient and the wavelength
is found by computing $D$ at discrete increasing system size (keeping constant
the spatial discretization in $\phi$ space).
After the estimation of $D$ for a given $q_1$, the stationary solution for $q_2 < q_1$
is computed by using the information provided by $u_0(q_1)$. The starting guess we used to
determine $u_0(q_2)$ was a vector of $N_2=2\pi/q_2\Delta \phi$ Fourier modes formed by
the Fourier transform of $u_0(q_1)$ for the first $N_1=2\pi/q_1\Delta \phi$ elements and zero
padded for the others $N_2-N_1$. Moreover, the amplitude of this initial guess has been
adjusted according to the previously observed solutions.
In fact, during the estimation of $u_0$ for decreasing values of $q$, we record the amplitude of these
solutions and we are able to forecast the amplitude of the successive stationary solution
(at least roughly). In this manner we are able to reduce the computational cost needed to
estimate the new value of $D$.
Finally, after the estimation of $D$ for a set of increasing wavelength,
the coarsening law follows by the inversion of relation \eqref{phase_diffusion},
which leads to $L(t)\sim \sqrt{|D(L)| t}$.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{0.495\textwidth}
\includegraphics[height = 6cm,clip=]{D_conservedKS.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.495\textwidth}
\includegraphics[height = 6cm,clip=]{dynamic_conservedKS.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{(a) Absolute value of the phase diffusion coefficient $D$ of the cKS equation \eqref{cKS_eq}
in the case of $\tau = 0$
for different values of $\lambda$. We have used a fixed mesh discretization $\Delta \phi = 0.025$
and a variable $q$ discretization $\Delta q = 1.0\times 10^{-3},2.5\times 10^{-4}, 1.0\times 10^{-4}$ ensuing a ratio
$\Delta q/q < 10^{-2}$ for the different values of $\lambda$.
(b) Dynamical evolution of Eq.~\eqref{cKS_eq} for $\tau = 0$ with simulation
parameters $N=2048$, $\Delta \phi = 0.1$, and $\Delta t = 10^{-5}$. The values of
$\lambda$ are averaged over $50$ different random initial conditions whose
elements are sampled from a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and unit variance.
The black solid line is a guide to eyes with slope $1/2$. All units are arbitrary.}
\label{fig_D_dyn_cKS}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
\label{sec_results}
We now report and discuss the results we obtained using
the numerical methods described in previous sections.
Let us start with the simplest and well known models: the
GL model (\ref{GL_eq}) and its conserved version, the
CH model (\ref{CH_eq}). They admit analytical solutions based on the Jacobi elliptic function
${\rm Sn}(x;p)$~\cite{Villain_Guillot:08},
allowing us to test our numerical procedure with a controlled result. This family of solution
is parametrized by the elliptic modulus $p \in [0,1]$ (for more details see Appendix~\ref{ax_GL})
and take the form
\begin{equation}
u_0(x) = A \, {\rm Sn}\left(\dfrac{4 K}{\lambda} x ; p\right).
\end{equation}
The dependence of the complete elliptic integral of the first kind $K$
and the amplitude $A$ on the elliptic modulus $p$ is reported
in Appendix~\ref{ax_GL}, Eqs.~(17) and (18), respectively.
It has already been shown that
for these two models the value of the phase-diffusion coefficient can be expressed
as a function of $\lambda$, the amplitude of $u_0$ and the integrals
$J = \int_0^\lambda (u_0')^2 \, dx$ for the GL model
or $I = \int_0^\lambda u_0^2 \, dx$ for its conserved counterpart~\cite{Politi:2006,PRL}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{GL_A}
D = - \dfrac{\lambda^2 ( A - A^3)}{J\, \partial_A \lambda} & \quad {\rm GL\ equation}, & \\
\label{CH_A}
D = - \dfrac{\lambda^2 ( A - A^3)}{I\, \partial_A \lambda} & \quad {\rm CH\ equation}. &
\end{eqnarray}
As depicted in Appendix~\ref{ax_GL},
we can compute all these functions and their derivatives with respect to $A$ through
complete elliptic integrals of first or second kind and Jacobi elliptic functions. Finally, the integrals $I$ and $J$ are
easily evaluated by means of adaptive quadrature so that the values of $D$ are obtained without solving any differential
equation.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{0.495\textwidth}
\includegraphics[height = 6cm,clip=]{logarithmic_case.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.495\textwidth}
\includegraphics[height = 6cm,clip=]{power_law_case.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Comparison between the phase diffusion method and the numerical integration of the time-dependent
PDE for three different models. (a) Case of logarithmic coarsening, the Cahn-Hilliard equation. The black line is
the estimation of $\lambda$ as function of $t$ from the data displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig_coarsening1}(a).
The red circles are the numerical integration of Eq.\ \eqref{CH_eq} by means of our IFABM4 code with
parameters $L = 102.4$, $\Delta x = 0.1$, $\Delta t = 0.05$, and averaged over $50$ different initial conditions
(generated from a normal distribution with zero mean and unit variance). (b) Case of power-law coarsening.
As for the left panel, lines stand for the estimation of $\lambda$ as function of $t$ from the values of $D(\lambda)$ while
the symbols are obtained from the numerical integration of time dependent equations.
The black solid line [from data in Fig.~\ref{fig_coarsening2}(b)] and the blue circles are data for the conserved
$\alpha$ model Eq.\ \eqref{c_alpha_eq} with $\alpha=2$ and parameters
$L=256$, $\Delta x = 0.25$, $\Delta t = 0.05$, and averaged over $50$ different initial conditions.
The red dashed line and the green rhombi correspond to the conserved Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation \eqref{cKS_eq}. These
data are computed (line) and reported (rhombi) from the left and the right panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig_D_dyn_cKS}, respectively.
All units are arbitrary.}
\label{fig_time_comparison}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
In the absence of noise, the Ginzburg-Landau and the Cahn-Hilliard model display
a logarithmic coarsening, $L(t) \simeq C^{-1} \ln t$, which corresponds,
in the formalism of phase diffusion equation, to a diffusion coefficient
which decreases exponentially with the wavelength of the stationary
solution, $D(\lambda) \simeq e^{-C\lambda}$.
Figure \ref{fig_coarsening1}(a) shows such exponential behavior on a lin-log
scale while Fig.~\ref{fig_coarsening1}(b) shows the convergence of the
constant $C$ to a value of order 0.75 for both models.
Note that in Fig.~\ref{fig_coarsening1}(a) the comparison between the values of $D$ estimated numerically
(symbols) and those obtained through Eqs. \eqref{GL_A} and \eqref{CH_A} (lines)
confirms the validity of our method in a well-controlled situation and its applicability to other non-trivial cases.
Next, we consider the nonconserved and conserved $\alpha$ models,
given by Eqs.~(\ref{nonc_alpha_eq}) and (\ref{c_alpha_eq}), respectively.
According to the analytic treatment of the phase diffusion
equation \cite{Politi:2006} and to numerics (taking care of
dangerous caveats \cite{alpha_sim}), we expect that the
coarsening exponent for the nonconserved models is
$n={1/ 2}$ for $1\le\alpha < 2$ and $n=\alpha/(3\alpha -2)$ for
$\alpha >2$. Case $\alpha=2$ has a logarithmic correction,
$L(t)\simeq \sqrt{t}/\ln t$. Conserved models, instead show a
constant coarsening exponent, $n={1/ 4}$, for all $\alpha$.
Figure \ref{fig_coarsening2}(a) considers cases $\alpha=1,2$ for
nonconserved models, therefore we expect a constant $D$ for
$\alpha=1$ and $D\approx 1/\ln q$ for $\alpha=2$. This is exactly what
our numerics shows.
In Fig.~\ref{fig_coarsening2}(b) we consider $\alpha=1,2,3$ for the
conserved models and, as expected, $|D| \simeq q^2$ for small $q$.
The conserved case is analyzed in more details in Figs.~\ref{fig_coarsening3}(a) and \ref{fig_coarsening3}(b).
On the left we plot the exponent
$\gamma$ defined by $|D| \simeq q^\gamma$, and on the right
we specialize on its convergence to the asymptotic value
$\gamma_\infty=2$. According to the results displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig_coarsening3}(b),
for a larger exponent $\alpha$ we observe a slower convergence to the asymptotic $\gamma_\infty$.
This effect is more pronounced for the case $\alpha=3$ where a crossover region
between two power laws has been already reported in Ref.~\cite{alpha_sim}. Taking into account that
this region is of the order $\lambda\sim 10^3$, i.e., $q\sim 0.006$, and for this wavelength
our algorithm estimates a $|D|$ smaller than $10^{-5}$, it is difficult to assess a clear
asymptotic value for $\gamma$ and the relative error $|\gamma - \gamma_\infty|/\gamma_\infty$
saturates to a value around 5\%.
In Figs.~\ref{fig_D_dyn_cKS}(a) and \ref{fig_D_dyn_cKS}(b) we consider the
cKS model (\ref{cKS_eq}). Some numerical and approximated analytical
estimations of the coarsening exponents gave $n=1/2$, i.e.,
a constant phase diffusion coefficient. This is shown on the left,
while the right shows a clear evaluation of the
coarsening exponent through the direct integration of the
dynamical equation. Our results are much cleaner than available results
in the literature.
Finally we compare the computational cost used to estimate the coarsening
exponent by means of the phase diffusion method with the cost of the standard
method used in the literature, that is, typically, the direct integration of
the time-dependent PDE. We consider three cases of conserved models that
are usually stiffer that their non-conserved counterparts due to high-order spatial
derivatives. Lines in Fig.\ \ref{fig_time_comparison} are found after the inversion
of the relation $\lambda^2/|D|\sim t$ that leads to the coarsening law $L(t)\sim t^n$.
In the same figure, symbols are data obtained from the numerical integration of
time-dependent PDEs averaged over several realizations of different initial conditions
(see captions for more details). As shown in the figure,
the phase diffusion method allows one to extract the coarsening law for times that
are orders of magnitude larger compared to the standard method. Moreover, the times
listed in Table~\ref{tab_time} demonstrate the remarkable performance of our implementation
of the phase diffusion method. Note that in the three cases we have not employed the same
strategy to find the stationary solutions of the different PDEs. As already explained in the previous sections, for the
Cahn-Hilliard model we have only used our IFABM4 code with variable time stepping,
for the conserved Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation we have solved directly Eq.\ \eqref{cKS_phi_eq} with
the Newton-Raphson method, and for the conserved $\alpha$ model we combined these
two methods. We have also verified that the solution of the adjoint problem \eqref{eq_adjoint} for the cKS model
is much less costly (roughly two orders of magnitude) than the determination of $u_0$.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& Phase diffusion & Integration & Integration & Ratio (long time) \\
& (long time) & (short time) & (long time) & Integration/Phase diffusion\\
\hline
CH & $8.32 \times 10^2$ & $8.54\times 10^4$ & $\sim 4.21 \times 10^9$ & $\sim 5 \times 10^6$ \\
c$\alpha$-model ($\alpha$=2) & $1.66\times 10^3$ & $3.95 \times 10^4$ & $\sim 7.41\times 10^9$ & $\sim 4 \times 10^6$ \\
cKS & $6.07\times 10^2$ & $1.46 \times 10^6$ & $\sim 1.47\times 10^9$ & $\sim 2 \times 10^6$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Actual computational time (in seconds)
required to measure the coarsening exponent $n$ with the phase diffusion method
(second column) and with the numerical integration of the time-dependent PDE (third column).
The fourth column is an estimation of the computational cost needed by the standard method to reach the same
time span of the phase diffusion method for the data reported in Fig.\ \ref{fig_time_comparison}.
The fifth column is the ratio between the estimated time for the standard method and the cost for the phase diffusion
method. The numerical experiments were carried out in a machine equipped with a
single-processor Intel\textsuperscript{\textregistered} Core{\texttrademark} 2 Duo with a clock frequency of $2.4$ Ghz.}
\label{tab_time}
\end{table*}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec_conc}
In this work we have demonstrated that the phase diffusion method can be a reliable and fast approach
to find the coarsening law of nonlinear 1D partial differential equations.
Its numerical implementation is straightforward and extends the applicability of the method beyond
the cases studied in Ref.~\cite{Politi:2006}.
In fact, all these cases allowed an analytical evaluation of $L(t)$, which is not always
possible (see the cKS equation).
Our algorithm permits us to evaluate the coarsening exponent with a negligible
computational cost compared to standard methods, such as the direct numerical solution of the
time-dependent PDE (see Table 2).
Furthermore, it does not suffer from spurious effects associated with the finite size of the system
or from errors arising in the time discretization
of the PDE, and the result does not need to be averaged over several initial conditions.
The main limitation of the method is the finite accuracy in the estimation of $D$, which
should be improved for larger times, when coarsening is slow (logarithmically slow or following
a power law with a small exponent $n$). However, in such cases the direct time integration
would require to attain extremely large times. Our discussion and in particular Table 2 shows that the
phase diffusion method is computationally much faster than time integration.
A separate comment should be made for PDEs whose steady solutions are determined by an ODE
of higher order than two. In these cases~\cite{Peletier}, which include the Swift-Hohenberg equation,
we expect more branches of stationary solutions, $\lambda_i(A)$, which makes our analysis
more complicated.
Finally, in this paper we confined our discussion to one-dimensional PDEs, but we have recently
shown~\cite{2D} that the phase diffusion method can be successfully applied to coarsening processes
in two dimensions as well. It will be interesting to extend our numerical approach to the bidimensional case,
especially for studying those equations that can hardly be attacked analytically.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
M.~N. and P.~P. acknowledge support from the Italian Ministry of Research (PRIN 2007JHLPEZ).
\mbox{M.~N.} also acknowledges partial support by MICINN (Spain) Grant No.\ FIS2009-12964-C05-01.
C.~M. acknowledges financial support from CNES (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales) and
thanks the Italian CNR for support from their International Exchange Program.
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent The instantaneous collapse of a two-particle quantum state vector has no covariant meaning, since the time-ordering of two different measurements depends on the reference frame for spatially separated events. In order to analyze this problem in a concrete situation, it is convenient to study entanglement from a relativistic point of view \cite{Peres}. This analysis is also important for the study of relativistic quantum infomation tasks \cite{Gingrich, Terno}. In this work, we analyze the entanglement change, after a Lorentz boost, of a system composed by two spin-one massive particles in an EPR-like situation \cite{EPR}. We compare our results with similar analyses done by Friis et al., and Jordan et al., for spin-$1/2$ particles \cite{Friis,Jordan}. As well as these authors, we consider the particle's momentum as a discrete two-level variable, and calculate the entanglement change, with respect to different decompositions of the Hilbert space, caused by a Lorentz boost in a fixed direction. We address the question of the dependence of the entanglement change on the initial spin entanglement and argue that, instead of the initial entanglement, quantum superposition plays the key role in the initial entanglement-final entanglement relation. We focus on initial spin states for which no entanglement change occurs at all, and show that, for the situation under study, such states form a complete basis of the two-particle spin Hilbert space. Within this basis, maximally entangled invariant states, interesting for quantum information purposes, are explicitly obtained. On the other hand, since there are elements of this basis that suffer a distinct global phase change under the boost, an arbitrary linear combination of them will {\it not} in general be Lorentz-invariant. We generalize our results to higher spins.
In Section \ref{two} we introduce, for the sake of competeness, the relativistic transformation of momentum and spin states, while Section \ref{three} gives a description of the problem under study. The results are presented and discussed in Section \ref{four}, where we also show the existence of a complete set of invariant states the two-particle spin space. Conclusions are presented in Section \ref{five}.
\section{Lorentz transformations and Wigner rotations}
\label{two}
\noindent In this section we present the relativistic transformation of a single-particle state with momentum and spin degrees of freedom. We use units such that $c=\hbar=1$.
The four-momentum of a particle in its own rest frame is given by
\begin{equation}
k = \begin{pmatrix}
m \\
\mathbf{0}
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $m$ is the rest mass of the particle. We label the four-vector components with the set of indices $\{0,1,2,3\}$, and use boldface letters to denote three-vectors. The quantum state of the particle in the rest frame is denoted by $\vert k \, \sigma\rangle$. This state has a well-defined linear four-momentum, $k$, and a well-defined spin projection along the $z$-axis, $\sigma$. In our case, $\sigma \in \{1,0,-1\}$. Let $L_p$ denote the standard Lorentz boost that takes the rest frame four-momentum $k$ to the four-momentum $p$. The four-momentum eigenstates are defined in terms of the rest-frame state and the standard boosts as follows \cite{Weinberg}:
\begin{equation}
\label{deffinition}
\vert p, \, \sigma \rangle = U(L_p) \vert k, \, \sigma \rangle,
\end{equation}
\noindent where $U$ is a unitary representation of the Poincar\'e group on the complete momentum-spin Hilbert space. These states form a complete set and satisfy
\begin{align}
P^\mu\, \vert p, \, \sigma \rangle = p^\mu\, \vert p, \, \sigma \rangle,
\end{align}
where $P^\mu$ is the $\mu$-th component of the four-momentum operator, and $p^\mu$ stands for the $\mu$-th component of $p$. \\
Now consider an arbitrary Lorentz transformation $\Lambda$. The action of $\Lambda$ on the four-momentum eigenstate $ \vert p \, \sigma\rangle$ is given by
\begin{align*}
U(\Lambda)\vert p,\,\sigma\rangle =& \, U(\Lambda)U(L_p) \vert k, \, \sigma \rangle\\
=&\, U(L_{\Lambda_p})U(L^{-1}_{\Lambda_p}\Lambda L_p)\vert k, \, \sigma \rangle\\
=&\, U(L_{\Lambda_p})U(W(\Lambda,p))\vert k, \, \sigma \rangle.\\
\end{align*}
Here we have defined the Wigner rotation as
\begin{equation}
\label{Wigner rotation}
W(\Lambda,p) = L^{-1}_{\Lambda_p}\Lambda L_p
\end{equation}
It is clear that $W(\Lambda,p)$ is a pure rotation, since it leaves the four-momentum $k$ invariant: $L^{-1}_{\Lambda_p}\Lambda L_p k = k$. The rotation angle $\Omega$, called the Wigner angle, is a function of the magnitudes of the rapidities $\mathbf{\eta}$ and $\mathbf{\omega}$ that define, respectively, the boosts $L_p $ and $\Lambda$, and under a suitable choice of setting (see below) may be written as \cite{Alsing}:
\begin{equation}
\label{Wigner angle}
\tan\Omega = \frac{\sinh \vert \mathbf{\eta}\vert \sinh\vert\mathbf{\omega}\vert}{\cosh\vert \mathbf{\eta}\vert+\cosh\vert \mathbf{\omega}\vert}.
\end{equation}
Thus, under an arbitrary Lorentz transformation $\Lambda$, the momentum is changed from $p$ to $\Lambda p$ and the spin part of the state transforms under the action of the rotation group, since, by the definition of the four-momentum eigenstates (Eq.(\ref{deffinition})), the spin label remains unchanged after the standard boost $L_{\Lambda_p}$. Hence, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{transformation}
U(\Lambda)\,\vert p\,\sigma\rangle=\sum_{\sigma^{\prime}}\,D^{(j)}_{\sigma^\prime\,\sigma}(W(\Lambda,\,p))\vert\Lambda p\,\sigma^{\prime}\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $D^{(j)}$ is a spin-$j$ representation of the rotation group. In our case, $j$ = 1.
\section{Description of the problem}
\label{three}
\noindent We consider an EPR-like situation
with two spin-1 particles propagating in opposite directions with respect to each other, and compare the entanglement of the system before and after a Lorentz boost on the state. We take the direction of propagation to be the $z$-axis. One of the particles is supposed to be under control of one observer, Alice, while the other is supposed to be under control of another spatially separated observer, Bob. The entanglement is calculated with respect to different partitions of the complete Hilbert space, which is a tensor product of Alice's and Bob's Hilbert spaces. Each of the single-particle spaces is composed by spin and momentum degrees of freedom, so that the complete Hilbert space can be written as a tensor product of four physically distinct subspaces:
\begin{equation}
H = H^{(A)}_p \otimes H^{(A)}_s \otimes H^{(B)}_p \otimes H^{(B)}_s.
\end{equation}
Here, the superscrips $(A)$ and $(B)$ denote Alice and Bob subsystems, while the subscripts $p$ and $s$ denote the momentum and spin degrees of freedom, respectively. Following \cite{Friis}, we calculate the entanglement change of the state, after a Lorentz boost, with respect to three different partitions of $H$: {\it i)} the $A$ vs. $B$ partition, that is, the partition formed by Alice's and Bob's subsystems; {\it ii)} the $p$ vs. $s$ partition, obtained by tracing over the momentum or spin degrees of freedom of the whole state in $H$; and {\it iii)} the entanglement change with respect to the partition formed by one given subspace opposed to the other three; we shall call this the $1$ vs. $3$ partition.
We choose the initial state $\vert \psi \rangle$ to be a pure and separable state in $p$ and $s$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\label{initial state}
\vert\psi\rangle=\vert p\rangle\otimes\vert s\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\vert p\rangle \in H^{(A)}_p \otimes H^{(B)}_p$ and $\vert s \rangle \in H^{(A)}_s \otimes H^{(B)}_s$. Furthemore, we consider only sharp-momentum distributions, i.e. states where the momentum of each particle is concentrated around a definite value that can be $p_+$, for propagation along the positive direction of the z-axis, and $p_-$, for propagation along the opposite direction. For a study of wave packets in the spin $1/2$ case, see \cite{Gingrich}, while a wave packet analysis for the photonic case may be found in \cite{Peres photons, Bradler}. The states in this work are considered to be normalized in the sense that $\langle p_i \vert p_j \rangle = \delta_{ij}$, where the subscripts $i$ and $j$ can stand for the momentum labels $+$ and $-$, and $\delta_{ij}$ is the usual Kronecker delta \cite{Jordan}.
If the Lorentz transformation $\Lambda$ of Eq.(\ref{transformation}) were a pure rotation, then the associated Wigner rotation would not depend on the momentum of the particles and would therefore have no effect on the entanglement of the states. Furthermore, since every Lorentz transformation can be decomposed into a pure rotation and a pure boost, and pure rotations have no effect on entanglement, we consider in what follows the transformations $\Lambda$ to be pure boosts. On the other hand, we see from Eq.(\ref{Wigner rotation}) that if the Lorentz boost $\Lambda$ is along the direction of propagation of the particles, which we take to be the $z$-axis, then the Wigner rotation becomes the identity transformation, and causes no change in entanglement. Therefore, without loss of generality, we can choose the boost $\Lambda$ to be along the $x$-axis, perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the particles. In this seting, the spin-one representation of the Wigner rotation takes the form
\begin{equation}
\label{spin 1 rotation}
D\left(W\left(\Lambda,p\right)\right)= \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{2}(1+\cos\Omega) & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sin\Omega & \frac{1}{2}(1-\cos\Omega) \\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sin\Omega & \cos\Omega & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sin\Omega\\
\frac{1}{2}(1-\cos\Omega) & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sin\Omega & \frac{1}{2}(1+\cos\Omega)
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $\Omega$ is given by Eq. (\ref{Wigner angle}).
Let $\vert \psi^\prime \rangle = U(\Lambda)\vert \psi \rangle$ denote the state obtained from the original state $\vert \psi \rangle$ after the Lorentz transformation $U(\Lambda)$, i.e., $\vert \psi^\prime \rangle$ is the state described by an observer that is transformed with $\Lambda^{-1}$ with respect to the observer that describes the state with $\vert \psi \rangle$. The initial entanglement calculated from $ \rho = \vert \psi \rangle \langle \psi \vert $ is to be compared with that obtained from $ \rho^\prime = \vert \psi^\prime \rangle \langle \psi^\prime \vert $. As an entanglement measure, we use the linear entropy, defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{linear entropy}
E=\sum_{i} \, 1-Tr\left(\rho_{i}^2\right),
\end{equation}
where the reduced density matrix $\rho_i$ is obtained from the original density matrix $\rho$ by tracing over all subsystems except the $i$-th. Note that the way a state transforms is independent of the entanglement measure chosen, and we shall see that weakly- or not-entangled states can transform into maximally entangled ones, so that if $E$ is not Lorentz-invariant nor will any other appropriate entanglement measure be. As $E$ is a simpler measure to calculate, we choose to work with this measure (for a whole family of entanglement measures the reader may see \cite{Bengtsson}).
For the initial state (\ref{initial state}) we choose a family of states $\vert p \rangle$ and $\vert s \rangle$ parametrized as follows (this reduces to the parametrization found in \cite{Friis} for the case of spin-$1/2$ particles):
\begin{equation}
\label{momentum state}
\vert p\rangle = \cos\alpha\,\vert p_{+},\, p_{-}\rangle + \sin\alpha \,\vert p_{-},\, p_{+}\rangle,
\end{equation}
\begin{subequations}
\label{spin state}
\begin{align}
\vert s_1\rangle=&\sin\theta\cos\phi\vert 1, 1\rangle+\sin\theta\sin\phi\vert 0,0\rangle+\cos\theta\vert -1,-1\rangle \label{parametrization 1}\\
\vert s_2\rangle=&\sin\theta\cos\phi\vert 1, 1\rangle+\sin\theta\sin\phi\vert 0,0\rangle+\cos\theta\vert -1,-1\rangle \label{parametrization 2}\\
\vert s_3
\rangle=&\sin\chi\sin\theta\cos\phi\vert 1, 0\rangle+\sin\chi\sin\theta\sin\phi\vert 0, 1\rangle+\sin\chi\cos\theta\vert 0,-1\rangle+\cos\chi\vert -1,0\rangle \label{parametrization 3}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The three spin parametrizations cover the eigenstates of the operator $J^2$ in the composite Hilbert space for definite values of the parameters $\theta$, $\phi$, and $\chi$.
\section{Results and discussion}
\label{four}
\noindent In this section we analize the entanglement change for each of the partitions of the complete Hilbert space.
\subsection{Partition A vs. B}
\noindent In agreement with \cite{Alsing}, entanglement is conserved for all states with respect to the $A$ vs. $B$ partition, due to the unitarity of the transformation induced in each of the subspaces $H^{(A)}$ and $H^{(B)}$. That is, since we have $U(\Lambda) = U^{(A)}(\Lambda)\otimes U^{(B)}(\Lambda)$, where $U^{(A)}(\Lambda)$ acts on the $A$ subsystem and $U^{(B)}(\Lambda)$ on the $B$ subsystem, then $\rho \longrightarrow U^{(A)}\left(\Lambda\right)\rho^{(A)} \, U^{\dagger(A)}\left(\Lambda\right)\otimes U^{(B)}\left(\Lambda\right)\rho^{(B)} \, U^{\dagger(B)}\left(\Lambda\right)$ and the linear entropy defined in Eq. (\ref{linear entropy}) remains unchanged when we trace out the $A$ or $B$ degrees of freedom.
Physically, the unitary character of the $U(\Lambda)$ transformation and the resulting conservation of entanglement is very important, since it is a necesary condition for the results of local measurements to depend, for \textit{every} reference frame, only on the information given by the partial states $\rho^{(A)}$ and $\rho^{(B)}$. If entanglement failed to be conserved in this case, there would exist different quantum correlations for different inertial observers, in contradiction with the principle of relativity. In this way, every physical process that involves quantum correlations, such as quantum telportation, is independent of the reference frame in which it is analyzed and the experimental results will be the same for every observer.
\subsection{Partition $p$ vs. $s$}
\noindent Entanglement with respect to the $p$ vs. $s$ partiton \textit{is not} conserved in the general case. This is because of the dependence of the Wigner rotation on the momentum of the particle. If we have an initial momentum superposition, then we have different transformations for the spin part of the system, one for each value of the momentum. Thus, the spin part of the system transforms according to a superposition of Wigner rotations, and the resulting transformed state is no longer a tensor product of spin and momentum states. On the other hand, if the initial momentum state is not a superposition, which means $\cos\alpha = 0$ or $\sin\alpha =0$ in Eq. (\ref{momentum state}), there is only one Wigner rotation for the state; therefore, in this case, the resulting transformed state differs from the original one only by a unitary transformation, which laves the entanglement of the system unchanged.
The change in linear entropy depends strongly on the Wigner angle, as can be seen from Fig. \ref{par1partspmax}. In this figure we plot the entanglement change $\Delta E$ as a function of $theta$ and $phi$ for different values of $\Omega$. We have chosen values of $\Omega$ that differ considerably to stress the effect that this parameter has on the shape of the surface. When both the speed of the particles and the speed of the boost $\Lambda$ approach the speed of light we have $\Omega = \pi/2$.
Interestingly, in the limit of the speed of light ($\Omega = \pi/2$), the entanglement change of the spin state given by Eq. (\ref{parametrization 1}) produces exactly the same function of $\theta$ and $\phi$ as that obtained by Friis et al in \cite{Friis} for the spin-$1/2$ composite state $\sin\theta\cos\phi\vert 0,0\rangle +\sin\theta\sin\phi\left(\frac{\vert0,0\rangle+\vert 1,1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}\right) +\cos\theta\vert 1,1\rangle$. In both parts of Fig. \ref{par1partspmax} there are minima that correspond to the maximally entangled state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\vert 1,1 \rangle-\vert 0,0 \rangle +\vert -1,-1 \rangle)$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\scalebox{0.660}{\includegraphics{1a_par1partspochicomax}} \quad
\scalebox{0.630}{\includegraphics{1b_par1partspograndemax}}
\caption{$\Delta E (\theta, \phi)$ for the spin state of Eq. (\ref{parametrization 1}) and partition $p$. vs. $s$. We take $\alpha = \frac{\pi}{4}$. \textbf{Left}: $\Omega = \frac{\pi}{8}$. \textbf{Right}: $\Omega = \frac{\pi}{2}$, corresponding to the limit of the speed of light. The function on the right coincides with that of the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ case.}
\label{par1partspmax}
\end{figure}
In all cases, the dependence of $\Delta E $ on the parameter $\alpha$ is merely a change of scale, which is zero for non-superposed momentum states and is maximal for the initial momentum state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\vert p_+, p_- \rangle +\vert p_-, p_+ \rangle)$. For this reason, in what follows we consider only the case $\alpha = \pi/4$ without loss of generality.
It is important to point out that the entanglement change is due to the linear superposition of initial momentum states and not due to the entnglement of the initial state $\vert p\rangle$. To see this, let us start with the separable state $\vert p \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\vert p_+\rangle\left(\vert p_+ \rangle + \vert p_-\rangle \right)$. This state is not of the form of Eq. (\ref{momentum state}) but we use it here for the sake of argument. With this choice of initial momentum superposition, any state of the form $\vert p \rangle \otimes \vert s \rangle$, with $\vert s \rangle$ being an arbitrary initial spin state, transforms into $ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\vert\Lambda p_+,\Lambda p_+\rangle U_s\left(p_+,p_+\right)\vert s \rangle + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\vert \Lambda p_+,\Lambda p_-\rangle U_s\left(p_+,p_-\right)\vert s \rangle$, where $U_s(p,q)$ is the transformation induced by the boost in the two-particle spin subspace when the first particle has momentum $p$ and the second has momentum $q$. This final state is entangled in the spin and momentum degrees of freedom since, in general, the transformations on spin space $U_s\left(p_+,p_+\right)$ and $U_s\left(p_+,p_-\right)$ are not equal.
We now return to our discussion of the $p$ vs. $s$ partition. Fig. \ref{par2partspograndemax} (left) shows the entanglement change for the spin initial state given by Eq. (\ref{parametrization 2}) and a Wigner angle $\Omega = \pi/4$. The minima of the surface correspond to the Bell-type state ${\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\vert 1,-1 \rangle-\vert -1,1 \rangle)}$, which undergoes no entropy change for this particular Wigner angle. When the parametrization given by Eq. (\ref{parametrization 3}) is used (Figure \ref{par2partspograndemax} (right)) it is possible to generate entanglement for a large number of states under a Lorentz transformation with the same Wigner angle of $\pi/4$. Here we have used $\chi=2\pi/3$. The invariant state (minima of plot) is $\vert s\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\,\left( \vert 1,0\rangle + \vert 0,1\rangle - \vert 0,-1\rangle - \vert -1,0\rangle \right)$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\scalebox{0.750}{\includegraphics{2a_par2partspograndemax}}
\scalebox{0.750}{\includegraphics{2b_par3partspchi2piterciosopicuartos}}
\caption{Left: $\Delta E(\theta,\phi)$ for the spin state of Eq. (\ref{parametrization 2}) and partition $p$ vs. $s$, with $\Omega = \frac{\pi}{2}$. The points in the center of the depressions correspond to the Bell-type state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\vert 1,-1 \rangle-\vert -1,1 \rangle)$. Right: Same, for parametrization (\ref{parametrization 3}) and $\chi=2\pi/3$; in this case the minima correspond to the state $\vert s\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\,\left( \vert 1,0\rangle + \vert 0,1\rangle - \vert 0,-1\rangle - \vert -1,0\rangle \right)$.}
\label{par2partspograndemax}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Partition $1$ vs. $3$}
\begin{figure}[h]
\scalebox{0.63}{\includegraphics{3a_par1part1ochicomax}} \quad
\scalebox{0.64}{\includegraphics{3b_par1part1ochicomin}} \\
\centering
\scalebox{0.63}{\includegraphics{3c_par1part1ograndemax}}
\caption{ $\Delta E(\theta,\phi)$ for the spin state of Eq. (\ref{parametrization 1}) and partition $1$ vs. $3$. \textbf{Above:} $\Omega = \frac{\pi}{8}$. In this case the maxima correspond to the state $\vert 0, 0 \rangle$ (\textbf{left}), and the minima to the states $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\vert 1, 1 \rangle \pm \vert 0, 0 \rangle)+\vert -1, -1 \rangle$. \textbf{Below:} $\Omega = \frac{\pi}{2}$. Maxima belong to the states $\vert 1, 1 \rangle$ and $\vert -1, -1 \rangle$.}
\label{par1part1}
\end{figure}
\noindent As in the previous case, entanglement is \textit{not} conserved for all states in this type of decomposition and the maxima and minima of $\Delta E$ vary significantly with the Wigner angle $\Omega$. To illustrate this point, we take the state given in Eq. (\ref{parametrization 1}). In Fig. \ref{par1part1} we show the entanglement change, as a function of $\theta$ and $\phi$, for the values values of $\Omega = \pi/8$ and $\Omega = \pi/2$. When the Wigner angle equals $\pi/8$, i.e.``small" velocities, the entanglement change is maximum for the state $\vert 0 0 \rangle$, while the states $\vert 1, 1 \rangle$ and $\vert -1, -1 \rangle$ correspond to local maxima. Above on the right of Fig. \ref{par1part1} is shown the same function as that on the left side but turned upside down, in order to look at the minima. Such minima correspond to the maximally entangled states $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\vert 1,1\rangle \pm \vert 0,0\rangle + \vert -1,-1\rangle)$. In spite that for this partition both of these states conserve entanglement for all values of the Wigner angle, only the state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\vert 1,1\rangle - \vert 0,0\rangle + \vert -1,-1\rangle)$ is invariant under transformations of the form $U^{(A)}_s\left(\Omega\right)\otimes U^{(B)}_s\left(-\Omega\right)$, that are, as we will show later, the kind of maps induced on the spin space by the Lorentz boost. In this notation, $U^{(i)}_s(\Omega)$ stands for the transformation given by Eq. (\ref{spin 1 rotation}) and acts on the $H^{(i)}_s$ subspace. This invariance appears more clearly when we consider the $p$ vs. $s$ partition, in which $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\vert 1,1\rangle - \vert 0,0\rangle + \vert -1,-1\rangle)$ has zero entanglement change for all values of $\Omega$, but $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\vert 1,1\rangle + \vert 0,0\rangle + \vert -1,-1\rangle)$ \textit{does} generate a change in entanglement for some values of the Wigner angle.
On the other hand, for $\Omega = \pi/2$ (Fig. \ref{par1part1}, below), the states $\vert 1,1\rangle$ and $\vert -1,-1\rangle$ have a maximal change in linear entropy, while the state $\vert 0,0 \rangle$ stays now at the bottom of the plot. We see, thus, how the velocity of the particles, as well as the rapidity of the Lorentz boost, play an important role in the entanglement change of the state.
\begin{figure}[h]
\scalebox{0.70}{\includegraphics{4a_par2part1opicuartosmax}} \quad
\scalebox{0.66}{\includegraphics{4b_par2part1opimediosmax}}
\caption{ $\Delta E(\theta,\phi)$ for the spin state of Eq. (\ref{parametrization 2}) and partition $1$ vs. $3$. \textbf{Left:} $\Omega = \frac{\pi}{4}$. Maxima correspond to the state $\vert 0,0 \rangle$. \textbf{Right:}$\Omega = \frac{\pi}{2}$. Maxima belong to the states $\vert 1, -1 \rangle$ and $\vert -1, 1 \rangle$. In both cases entanglement is conserved for the invariant state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\vert 1,-1\rangle + \vert 0,0\rangle + \vert -1, 1\rangle)$}
\label{par2part1max}
\end{figure}
For the second parametrization, given in Eq. (\ref{parametrization 2}), the linear entropy behaves in a similar way as in the first parametrization. As can be seen from Fig. \ref{par2part1max}, the states $\vert1,-1\rangle$ and $\vert -1,1 \rangle$, have a smaller entanglement change than the state $\vert 0,0 \rangle$ for a Wigner angle of $\Omega = \pi/4$. We know from the last case that $\vert 0,0 \rangle$ has a maximum entanglemet change for $\Omega = \pi/8$. As the Wigner angle approaches $\pi/2$, the change in linear entropy corresponding to the initial spin state $\vert 0,0 \rangle$ decreases, while that corresponding to $\vert 1,-1\rangle$ and $\vert -1, 1 \rangle$ increases continuously. Finally, in the limit of the speed of light, $\Omega = \pi /2$, the change in linear entropy corresponding to the state $\vert 0,0 \rangle$ vanishes (as we already know from the previous section), and the states $\vert 1,-1\rangle$ and $\vert -1, 1 \rangle$ (both with momentum part given by Eq. (\ref{momentum state}) with $\alpha = \pi/4$) become, after the Lorentz boost, maximally entangled states with respect to the $1$ vs. $3$ partition. It is interesting to note that the state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\vert 1-1\rangle + \vert 00 \rangle + \vert -11\rangle)$ is invariant under the maps induced by the Lorentz boost studied here, as is the case of the state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\vert 11\rangle + \vert 00 \rangle + \vert -1-1\rangle)$ studied in the last section. Both of these spin states are maximally entangled and, as they remain unchanged under the Lorentz transformations presented here, they are interesting for quantum information purposes in an EPR-like relativistic framework.
\subsection{Invariant states}
\noindent In the physical situation considered here the boost direction is kept fixed and the particles momenta are always opposite in relation to each other (and given by sharp distributions). These two facts imply the that there exists a complete set of states in the two-particle spin Hilbert space such that, for each state in this set, the action of the Lorentz boost is merely a multiplication by a global phase factor. To see this, first we note that the Wigner rotation for a single particle is restricted to be an element of $SO(2)$, the rotation group in the plane, since a fixed boost direction implies a fixed axis of rotation. Moreover, since the momenta of the particles are always opposite, by Eq. (\ref{Wigner angle}) the angle of rotation for one particle will be of the same magnitude but opposite sign as that of the other particle. Then, the transformation on the two-particle spin space induced by the Lorentz transformation will be of the form $U_s\left(\Omega\right) = U^{(A)}_s\left(\Omega\right)\otimes U^{(B)}_s\left(-\Omega\right)$.
Now we show that the set
\begin{equation}
\{U_s\left(\Omega\right) = U^{(A)}_s\left(\Omega\right)\otimes U^{(B)}_s\left(-\Omega\right) \ \vert \ 0\leq \Omega < 2\pi\}
\end{equation}
forms a representation of $SO(2)$. The product of two elements $(\Omega_1)$ and $(\Omega_2)$ $\in$ $SO(2)$ is given by the sum of the parameters that define these elements
\begin{equation}
\left(\Omega_1\right)\left(\Omega_2\right) = \left(\Omega_1+\Omega_2\right).
\end{equation}
Thus,
\begin{align*}
U_s\left(\left(\Omega_1\right)\left(\Omega_2\right)\right) = & \, U_s\left(\Omega_1+\Omega_2\right)\\
= & \, U^{(A)}_s\left(\Omega_1+\Omega_2\right)\otimes U^{(B)}_s\left(-\Omega_1-\Omega_2\right) \\
= & \, U^{(A)}_s\left(\Omega_1\right) U^{(A)}_s\left(\Omega_2\right)\otimes U^{(B)}_s\left(-\Omega_1\right) U^{(B)}_s\left(-\Omega_2\right) \\
= & \, \left(U^{(A)}_s\left(\Omega_1\right)\otimes U^{(B)}_s\left(-\Omega_1\right) \right)\left(U^{(A)}_s\left(\Omega_2\right)\otimes U^{(B)}_s\left(-\Omega_2\right)\right)\\
= & \, U_s\left(\Omega_1\right)U_s\left(\Omega_2\right),
\end{align*}
which proves our claim. Since the representations of $SO(2)$ are completely reducible we can, by means of a change of basis, reduce the transformation $U_s(\Omega)$, for any $\Omega$, in terms of the irreducible representations of $SO(2)$, which are of the form $e^{im\Omega}$, with $\Omega \in \mathbb{Z}$. For spin-one systems, the transformation $U_s(\Omega)$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
U_{s}\left(\Omega\right) \longrightarrow\begin{pmatrix}
e^{2i\Omega} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & e^{-2i\Omega}& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & e^{i\Omega} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & e^{-i\Omega} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & e^{i\Omega} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & e^{-i\Omega} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, each element of the basis which diagonalizes $U_s$ changes under a Lorentz boost only by a global phase factor. In this sense, such states may be called invariant under the kind of Lorentz boosts considered in this work (always perpendicular to the momenta of the particles).
Moreover, entanglement is conserved for every linear combination of states that transform under the same irreducible representation of $SO(2)$, and all the information about the entanglement change of an arbitrary state is kept in the relative phase factors $e^{im\Omega}$.
For particles with arbitrary spin, the transformation $U_s$ is also diagonal. The multiplicity $a_m$ of a given irreducible representation $D^{(m)}$, that is, the number of times this representation appears in the (reducible) representation element $U_s$, can be calculated as \cite{Tung}:
\begin{equation}
\label{multiplicity}
a_m = \frac{1}{\vert\mathcal{G}\vert}\sum_{g\in \mathcal{G}}\, \chi(g) \left(\chi^{(m)}(g)\right)^*,
\end{equation}
where $\vert\mathcal{G}\vert$ is the order of the group $\mathcal{G}$, $\chi(g)$ is the character of the element
$g \in \mathcal{G}$ for an arbitrary representation, and $\chi^{(m)}(g)$ is the character of the element
$g$ for the irreducible representation labeled by $m$. The sum is taken over all group elements and becomes an integral for the case of continous groups. For the group $SO(2)$, $\frac{1}{\vert\mathcal{G}\vert}\sum_{g\in \mathcal{G}}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}d\Omega$. For a two spin-$j$ paticle system
\begin{equation}
\label{tensor character}
\chi(\Omega) = \chi^{(A)}(\Omega)\chi^{(B)}(\Omega),
\end{equation}
where the characters for the single-particle space transformations, $\chi^{(A)}(\Omega)$ and $\chi^{(B)}(\Omega)$, are both given by \cite{Tung}:
\begin{equation}
\label{character}
\chi^{(A)}{\Omega} = \chi^{(B)}{\Omega} = \sum^j_{m=-j}\, e^{-im\Omega}.
\end{equation}
Putting together Eqs. (\ref{multiplicity}), (\ref{tensor character}) and (\ref{character}) yields, after a short calculation,
\begin{equation}
a_m = 2j+1-\vert m\vert,
\end{equation}
so that for an arbitrary spin $j$ we have
\begin{equation}
U_s(\Omega) \longrightarrow diag (\underbrace{e^{2ij\Omega}}_{a_{2j} \ times},\underbrace{e^{i(2j-1)\Omega}}_{a_{2j-1} \ times},\cdot\cdot\cdot, \underbrace{e^{-2ij\Omega}}_{a_{-2j} \ times}).
\end{equation}
Finally, and based on this last result, we note that the invariance of entanglement dos not depend, in general,
on the initial entanglement of the spin state, but on its transformation properties. For example, the state
\begin{align}
\vert s \rangle =& \, \frac{1}{2}\left(\vert 1, 1 \rangle + \vert 1, -1 \rangle + \vert -1, 1 \rangle + \vert -1,-1 \rangle \right) \nonumber \\
= & \, \frac{1}{2}\left(\vert 1 \rangle +\vert -1 \rangle \right)\otimes\left(\vert 1\rangle +\vert -1 \rangle \right)
\end{align}
is separable and also invariant under the $U_s$ transformations.
\section{conclusions}
\label{five}
\noindent The entanglement with respect to the $A$ vs. $B$ partition is invariant under a Lorentz transformation. This fact is a direct consequence of the unitarity of the transformation $U(\Lambda) = U^{(A)}(\Lambda)\otimes U^{(B)}(\Lambda)$. The conservation of this kind of entanglement is fundamental for the consistency between quantum-mechanical predictions and relativistic transformations.
On the other hand, entanglement is not conserved neither for the $p$ vs. $s$ partition nor for the $1$ vs. $3$ partition. This is due to the momentum-dependence of the Wigner rotation, which induces, for momentum-superposed initial states, different transformations for different particles. The entanglement change, for a given $\Omega$, reaches a maximum for a homogeneous momentum superposition ($\alpha = \pi/4$), while it vanishes for non-superposed momentum states.
The dependence of the linear entropy change with respect to the initial spin state and to the Wigner angle $\Omega$ is more interesting. Generally, the states for which the entanglement change is greater are separable spin states, while this quantity remains constant (normally) for states with maximal entanglement. However, the initial spin entanglement is not a crucial factor regarding the entanglement change after a Lorentz boost, since we can find separable spin states which conserve entanglement with respect to all partitions and all values of the Wigner angle. In the same way, there exist maximally entangled spin states
that do not conserve entanglement with respect to the $p$ vs. $s$ partition.
The transformation properties of the spin states is the crucial fact that determines the change in entanglement. More precisely, what matters is the way in which the spin states transform under operations of the form $U_s\left(\Omega\right) = U^{(A)}_s\left(\Omega\right)\otimes U^{(B)}_s\left(-\Omega\right)$, that are representations of the group $SO(2)$. In particular, the spin states that are invariant under this type of transformations conserve entanglement for every partition and all values of the Wigner angle, with no regard to the initial momentum state. Since the action of the group $SO(2)$ is reducible in the spin state space, we can find an orthonormal basis of this space such that each state in the basis transforms, under a Lorentz boost, only by multiplication of a factor of the form $e^{im\Omega}$. In this basis, the Wigner rotation takes a simple form and all the information about the entanglement change lies in the relative phases $e^{i(m-m^\prime)\Omega}$, for $m$, $m^\prime$ $\in \mathbb{Z}$. All linear combinations of states that transform under the same irreducible representation of $SO(2)$ are invariant under the kind of Lorentz boosts considered in this work and therefore conserve their entanglement. This result can be generalized to systems of arbitrary spin $j$ so that, in principle, invariant subspaces of an arbitrary dimension can be constructed, considering the adequate type of particles. This fact may be useful for quantum information processes in which relativistic considerations are relevant.
\section{Acknowledgments}
This work was partially supported by DGAPA-UNAM under project IN102811.
|
\section{Free Rota-Baxter algebra structure on the shuffle algebra $\calh\shf\lone\nonu$}
\mlabel{sec:sh1}
We start with a summary of the related background on Rota-Baxter algebra. We then prove the one generator freeness of the shuffle algebra $\calh\shf\lone\nonu$ that has arisen from the study of MZVs.
\subsection{Rota-Baxter algebras and shuffle products}
To provide the necessary
motivation and background for our study, we briefly review Rota-Baxter algebras and their free objects in the commutative case. For further
details, see the survey papers~\mcite{Gugn,Gwi,GPXZ} and the references therein.
All rings and algebras in this paper are assumed to be unitary unless otherwise specified. Let $\bfk$ be a commutative ring whose identity is denoted by $1$.
\subsubsection{Rota-Baxter algebras}
Rota-Baxter algebra is an abstraction of the algebra of
continuous functions acted by the integral operator. It
originated from the probability study of Glenn Baxter~\mcite{Ba} in 1960
and was developed further by Cartier and the school of Rota
in the 1960s and 1970s~\mcite{Ca,Ro}. Independently, this structure
appeared in the Lie algebra context as the operator form of
the classical Yang-Baxter equation in the 1980s~\mcite{STS,Bai}.
Since the late 1990s, Rota-Baxter algebra has found important
theoretical developments and applications in mathematical physics, operads, number theory and combinatorics~\mcite{Ag,BGN,CK,EG1,EGK,EGM,GK1,GZ}.
\begin{defn}
{\rm
Let $\lambda\in \bfk$ be fixed. A unitary (resp. nonunitary) {\bf Rota--Baxter
$\bfk$-algebra {(RBA)} of weight $\lambda$} is a pair $(R,P)$
consisting of unitary (resp. nonunitary) $\bfk$-algebra $R$ and a $\bfk$-linear map
$P: R \to R$ such that
\begin{equation}
P(x)P(y) = P(xP(y))+P(P(x)y)+ \lambda P(xy),\ \forall x,\ y\in R.
\mlabel{eq:Ba}
\end{equation}
Then $P$ is called a {\bf Rota-Baxter operator}.
}
\mlabel{de:rba}
\end{defn}
A Rota-Baxter algebra homomorphism $f:(R,P)\to (R',P')$ between Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebras $(R,P)$ and $(R',P')$ is a $\bfk$-algebra homomorphism $f:R\to R'$ such that $f\circ P = P'\circ f$.
The following Rota-Baxter operators have played important roles in the study of MZVs.
\begin{exam}{\rm
{\bf (The integration operator)}
Let $R$ be the $\RR$-algebra $C[0,\infty)$ of continuous functions $f(x)$ on $[0,\infty)$.
Then the integration operator
\begin{equation}
P:R\to R, \quad P(f)(x)=\int_0^x f(t)dt
\mlabel{eq:int}
\end{equation}
is a Rota-Baxter operator of weight $0$ by the integration by parts formula~\mcite {Ba}. A variation of this operator is the operator $J$ in Eq.~(\mref{eq:logint}).
} \mlabel{ex:int}
\end{exam}
\begin{exam} {\rm
{\bf (The summation operator)}
Consider the summation operator~\mcite{Zud}
$$P(f)(x):= \sum_{n\geq 1} f(x+n)$$
on functions with suitable convergency conditions, such as $f(x) = O(x^{-2})$. It is a Rota-Baxter operator of weight 1.
}
\mlabel{ex:sum}
\mlabel{ex:ps}
\end{exam}
\begin{exam} {\rm
{\bf (The pole part projector)}
Let $A=\bfk[\vep^{-1},\vep]]$ be the algebra of Laurent series. Define $\Pi:A\to A$ by
\begin{equation}
\Pi\big(\sum_{n} a_n \vep^n \big)=\sum_{n<0} a_n \vep^n.
\mlabel{eq:lau}
\end{equation}
Then $\Pi$ is a Rota-Baxter operator of weight $-1$. This operator arises in the renormalization of quantum field theory and multiple zeta values~\mcite{CK,GZ,MP2}.
}
\mlabel{ex:lau}
\end{exam}
\subsubsection{Shuffle products and free Rota-Baxter algebras} \mlabel{ss:msh}
We briefly recall the construction of shuffle and quasi-shuffle products in the framework of mixable shuffle algebras~\mcite{GK1,GK2}.
Let $\bfk$ be a commutative ring.
Let $A$ be a commutative $\bfk$-algebra {\em that is not necessarily unitary}. For a given $\lambda\in \bfk$, the {\bf mixable shuffle algebra of weight $\lambda$ generated by $A$} (with coefficients in $\bfk$) is $\sh(A)=\sh_{\bfk,\lambda}(A)$ whose underlying $\bfk$-module is that of the tensor algebra
\begin{equation}
T(A)= \bigoplus_{k\ge 0}
A^{\otimes k}
= \bfk \oplus A\oplus A^{\otimes 2}\oplus \cdots
\mlabel{eq:mshde}
\end{equation}
equipped with the {\bf
mixable shuffle product $\shprl$ of weight $\lambda$} defined as
follows.
For pure tensors
$\fraka=a_1\ot \ldots \ot a_k\in A^{\ot k}$ and $\frakb=b_1\ot
\ldots \ot b_\ell\in A^{\ot \ell}$, a {\bf shuffle} of $\fraka$ and
$\frakb$ is a tensor list of $a_i$ and $b_j$ without change the
natural orders of the $a_i$s and the $b_j$s. The {\bf shuffle product} $\fraka \ssha \frakb$ is the sum of all shuffles of $\fraka$ and $\frakb$. The product can also be defined recursively by
$$
\fraka \ssha \frakb:= a_1\ot \big((a_2\ot \cdots\ot a_k)\ssha \frakb\big) + b_1\ot \big(\fraka \ssha (b_2\ot \cdots \ot b_\ell)\big)
$$
with the convention that if $k=1$ (resp. $\ell=1$) then $a_2\ot \cdots\ot a_k$ (resp. $b_2\ot \cdots \ot b_\ell$) is the identity.
More generally, for a
fixed $\lambda\in \bfk$, a {\bf mixable shuffle} (of weight
$\lambda$) of $\fraka$ and $\frakb$ is a shuffle of $\fraka$ and
$\frakb$ in which some (or {\it none}) of the pairs $a_i\ot b_j$ are
merged into $\lambda\, a_i b_j$. Then the {\bf mixable shuffle product (of weight $\lambda$)} $\fraka \shprl \frakb$ is defined to be the sum of mixable shuffles of $\fraka$ and $\frakb$. When $\lambda=0$, we simply have the shuffle product which is also defined when $A$ is only a $\bfk$-module.
The product $\shprl$ can also be defined by the following
recursion~\mcite{EGsh,GZ2,Ho2,MP2}.
\begin{equation}
\fraka \shprl \frakb =
a_1\ot \big ((a_2\ot \cdots\ot a_k)\shprl
\frakb \big ) + b_1\ot \big (\fraka \shprl (b_2 \ot \cdots \ot b_\ell)\big) + \lambda(a_1 b_1) \big ( (a_2\ot \cdots\ot a_k) \shprl
(b_2\ot \cdots\ot b_\ell)\big )
\mlabel{eq:quasi}
\end{equation}
with the convention that if $k=1$ (resp. $\ell=1$) then $a_2\ot \cdots\ot a_k$ (resp. $b_2 \ot \cdots \ot b_\ell$) is the identity. Further, if $k=\ell=1$ then take $\lambda(a_1 b_1) \big ( (a_2\ot \cdots\ot a_k) \shprl
(b_2\ot \cdots\ot b_\ell)\big )=\lambda (a_1 b_1)$.
We have the following relationship between mixable shuffle product and free commutative Rota-Baxter algebras.
\begin{theorem} {\rm (}\mcite{GK1}{\rm )} The tensor product algebra $\sha(A):=\sha_{\bfk,\lambda}(A)= A\ot \sh_{\bfk,\lambda}(A)$, with the linear operator $P_A:\sha(A)\to \sha(A)$ sending $\fraka$ to $1\ot \fraka$, is the free commutative Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\lambda$ generated by A.
\mlabel{thm:freea}
\end{theorem}
Now let $A$ be a commutative nonunitary $\bfk$-algebra and let $\uni{A}=\bfk\oplus A$ be the unitarization of $A$. Define
\begin{equation}
\sha_\bfk(A)^0=\bigoplus_{n\geq 0} (\uni{A}^{\ot n}\ot A)
\mlabel{eq:freenrb}
\end{equation}
with the convention that $\uni{A}^{\ot 0}=\bfk$ and thus $\uni{A}^{\ot 0}\ot A=A$.
Then $\sha_\bfk(A)^0$ is the $\bfk$-submodule of $\sha_\bfk(\uni{A})$,
additively spanned by tensors of the form
\[ a_0 \otimes\ldots \otimes a_n,\quad
a_i\in \uni{A}, 0\leq i\leq n-1,\ a_n\in A.\]
Then $\sha_\bfk(A)^0$, with the restriction of $P_{\uni{A}}$,
denoted by $P_A$, is a subobject of $\sha_\bfk(\uni{A})$ in the category of commutative non-unitary Rota-Baxter algebras.
By Proposition 2.6 of~\mcite{GK2}, $(\sha_\bfk(A)^0,P_A)$ is the free commutative non-unitary Rota-Baxter algebra generated by $A$. In the rest of the paper, we will be most interested in the special case when $A=x\bfk[x]$ and thus $\uni{A}=\bfk[x]$ and when the weight $\lambda$ is 0.
We make the statement precise for the convenience of later references.
\begin{theorem} $($\cite[Proposition 2.6]{GK2}$)$ Denote
$$\sha(x\bfk[x])^0=\bigoplus_{u_i\geq 0, 1\leq i\leq k, u_k\ge1, k\geq 1} \bfk x^{u_1}\ot \cdots \ot x^{u_k}.$$
Then with the restriction of the product and the Rota-Baxter operator $P_x$ in $\sha(\bfk[x])=\sha_{\bfk,0}(\bfk[x])$, $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0$ is the free commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $0$ generated by $x$. More precisely, for any commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra of weight 0 $(R,P)$ and a given element $r\in R$, there is a unique homomorphism of non-unitary Rota-Baxter algebras of weight 0 $f:\sha(x\bfk[x])^0 \to R$ such that $f(x)=r$.
\mlabel{thm:free}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
{\rm
For the rest of the paper, we will only consider free commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebras of weight 0. So the term weight 0 will sometimes be suppressed for notational simplicity.
}
\mlabel{rk:weight}
\end{remark}
Let $G$ be a semigroup and let $\bfk\,G=\sum_{g\in G} \bfk\,g$ be the semigroup nonunitary $\bfk$-algebra. A canonical $\bfk$-basis of $(\bfk\,G)^{\ot k}, k\geq 0$, is the set $G^{\ot k}:=\{g_1\ot \cdots \ot g_k\ |\ g_i\in G, 1\leq i\leq k\}$.
Let $G$ be a graded semigroup $G=\coprod_{i\geq 0} G_i$, $G_iG_j\subseteq G_{i+j}$ such that $|G_i|<\infty$, $i\geq 0$.
Then the mixable shuffle product $\shpr_1$ of weight $1$ is identified with the {\bf quasi-shuffle product} $\ast$ defined by Hoffman~\mcite{Ho2,EGsh,GZ2}.
\begin{notation}
{\rm
\begin{enumerate}
\item
To simplify the notation and to be consistent with the conventions in the literature of MZVs, we will identify $g_1\ot \cdots \ot g_k$ with the concatenation $g_1\cdots g_k$ unless there is a danger of confusion.
We also denote the weight $1$ mixable shuffle product $\shpr_1$ by $\ast$ and denote the corresponding mixable algebra $\sh_{\bfk,1}(A)$ by $\calh_A^\ast$. Similarly, when $A$ is taken to be a $\bfk$-module, we denote the weight zero mixable shuffle algebra $\sh_{\bfk,0}(A)$ by $\calh_A^\shf$.
\item
Further, if our multiplicatively defined semigroup $(G,\cdot)$ comes from an additive semigroup $S$ in the sense that $G=G_S:=\{[s]\ |\ s\in S\}$ such that $[s]\cdot [s']=[s+s']$. We then let $[s_1,\cdots,s_k]$ denote $[s_1]\cdots[s_k]$ (which is abbreviated from $[s_1]\ot \cdots \ot [s_k]$ by the previous notation).
This applies in particular to the case when $G$ is taken to be
\begin{equation}
G_{\geq n}:=G_{\ZZ_{\geq n}} \text{ where }
\ZZ_{\geq n}=\{s\in \ZZ\ |\ s\geq n\}, \quad n=0,1.
\mlabel{eq:g01}
\end{equation}
We will use the notation
\begin{equation}
\calh_{\geq n}=\calh_{\ZZ G_{\geq n}}=\bigoplus_{s_i\geq n, 1\leq i\leq k, k\geq 0} \bfk [s_1,\cdots,s_k], \quad
\calh_{\geq n}\qnonu=\bigoplus_{s_i\geq n, 1\leq i\leq k, k\geq 1} \bfk [s_1,\cdots,s_k], \quad n=0,1.
\mlabel{eq:qsh01}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
}
\mlabel{no:mscase}
\end{notation}
\subsection{Rota-Baxter algebra freeness of shuffle algebras}
\mlabel{ss:free1}
In this section, we study the freeness of the shuffle algebra
$\calh\shf\lone$ for MZVs in the category of Rota-Baxter algebras.
Consider the set $X=\{x_0,x_1\}$. With the convention in
Notation~\mref{no:mscase}, we denote the shuffle algebra
$\calh\shf:=\calh\shf_{\hspace{-.2cm}\QQ\,X}$ whose underlying module is $\QQ\langle x_0,x_1\rangle$ (the noncommutative polynomial algebra) and which contains
the following nonunitary subalgebra
\begin{equation}
\calh\shf\lone\nonu:= \calh\shf x_1
=\QQ\langle x_0, x_1\rangle x_1
=\bigoplus_{u_i\geq 0, 1\leq i\leq k, k\geq 0} \QQ x_0^{u_1}x_1x_0^{u_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_k}x_1.
\mlabel{eq:h1}
\end{equation}
Its unitarization is $\calh\shf\lone:=\QQ \oplus \calh\shf x_1.$
We now prove our first theorem on free Rota-Baxter algebras.
\begin{theorem}
The nonunitary shuffle algebra $\calh\shf\lone\nonu$ in Eq.~(\mref{eq:h1}), together with the left multiplication operator $I_0(w)=x_0w$, is the free commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra of weight 0 generated by $x_1$.
\mlabel{thm:free1}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We first prove that $\calh\shf\lone\nonu$ is generated by $x_1$ as a nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra. Let $R'$ be the nonunitary Rota-Baxter subalgebra of $\calh\shf\lone\nonu$ generated by $x_1$. By Eq.~(\mref{eq:h1}) we only need to show that
$x_0^{u_1}x_1x_0^{u_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_k}x_1$ is in $R'$ for all $u_i\geq 0, 1\leq i\leq k, k\geq 1$. Since
$$ x_0^{u_1}x_1x_0^{u_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_k}x_1= I_0^{u_1}(x_1x_0^{u_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_k}x_1),$$
we only need to show
\begin{claim}
$w:=x_1x_0^{u_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_k}x_1$ is in $R'$ for all $u_i\geq 0, 2\leq i\leq k, k\geq 1$.
\mlabel{cl:ind1}
\end{claim}
For this purpose, we apply induction on $k$. When $k=1$, we have $w=x_1$ which is in $R'$ by assumption. Suppose that Claim~\mref{cl:ind1} has been proved for $k=a\geq 1$. It remains to prove
\begin{claim}
$w=x_1x_0^{u_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_{a+1}}x_1$ is in $R'$.
\mlabel{cl:ind2}
\end{claim}
We prove Claim~\mref{cl:ind2} by a second induction on $m:=u_2+\cdots+u_{a+1}\geq 0$. When $m=0$, we have $u_2=\cdots =u_{a+1}=0$ and so $w=x_1^{a+1}$ which equals $\frac{1}{(a+1)!}x_1^{\ssha (a+1)}$ which is in $R'$. Assume that Claim~\mref{cl:ind2} has been proved for $m=b\geq 0$. It remains to prove
\begin{claim}
Any $w=x_1x_0^{u_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_{a+1}}x_1$ with $m=b+1$ is in $R'$.
\mlabel{cl:ind3}
\end{claim}
We prove Claim~\mref{cl:ind3} by a third induction on $n\geq 2$ such that $u_2 =\cdots =u_{n-1}=0$ and $u_n>1$. When $n=2$, we have $u_2>1$. Then by the definition of the shuffle product, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
x_1 \ssha x_0^{u_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_{a+1}}x_1 &=&
x_1 (1 \ssha x_0^{u_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_{a+1}}x_1) + x_0(x_1 \ssha (x_0^{u_2-1}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_{a+1}}x_1) \notag \\
&=& x_1x_0^{u_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_{a+1}}x_1 + x_0 w_1+ \cdots +x_0 w_r, \mlabel{eq:ind3}
\end{eqnarray}
where $w_1,\cdots,w_r$ are of the form $x_0^{v_1}x_1x_0^{v_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{v_{a+1}}x_1$ with $v_1,\cdots,v_{a+1}\geq 0$ and $v_2+\cdots+v_{a+1}\leq b$. Hence by the induction hypothesis for the third induction, we have $x_1x_0^{v_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{v_{a+1}}x_1\in R'$ and hence
$x_0^{v_1}x_1x_0^{v_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{v_{a+1}}x_1=
I_0^{v_1}(x_1x_0^{v_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{v_{a+1}}x_1)\in R'$. Thus $v_i$ and hence $x_0v_i=I_0(v_i)$ are in $R'$ for $1\leq i\leq r$. Since $x_1$ is in $R'$ by the definition of $R'$ and $x_0^{u_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_{a+1}}x_1$ is in $R'$ by the induction hypothesis of the first induction, from Eq.~(\mref{eq:ind3}) we conclude that $x_1x_0^{u_2}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_{a+1}}x_1$ is in $R'$. This completes the third induction and proves Claim~\mref{cl:ind3}, which in turns completes the second induction and proves Claim~\mref{cl:ind2}, which in turn completes the first induction and proves Claim~\mref{cl:ind1}. Thus $\calh\shf\lone\nonu$ is a nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra generated by $x$.
\smallskip
By the universal property of the free commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0$ in Theorem~\mref{thm:free}, we have a homomorphism
$$ f: \sha(x\bfk[x])^0 \to \calh\shf\lone\nonu$$
of nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebras such that $f(x)=x_1$. Since we have shown that $\calh\shf\lone\nonu$ is a nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra generated by $x$, $f$ is surjective.
Thus to prove the theorem, it remains to show that $f$ is injective.
First note that, for $\frakx:=x^{n_1}\ot \cdots \ot x^{n_k}\in \sha(x\bfk[x])^0$ with $n_k\geq 1, n_i\geq 0, 1\leq i\leq k$, we have
\begin{equation}
\frakx=x^{n_1} \shpr P_x(x^{n_2}\shpr P_x(\cdots P_x(x^{n_k})\cdots )).
\mlabel{eq:map1}
\end{equation}
Thus
\begin{equation}
f(\frakx)= x_1^{\ssha n_1} \ssha (x_0f(x^{n_2}\ot \cdots \ot x^{n_k}))=
x_1^{\ssha n_1} \ssha (x_0(x^{\ssha n_2} \ssha (x_0 (\cdots \ssha (x_0(x_1^{\ssha n_k})))))).
\mlabel{eq:map2}
\end{equation}
We next define gradings on $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0$ and on $\calh\shf\lone\nonu$ that make them graded algebras. For $\frakx=x^{n_1}\ot \cdots \ot x^{n_k}$ with $n_1\geq 1, n_i\geq 0, 1\leq i\leq k$, define $$ \deg(\frakx)=n_1+\cdots+n_k+k-1.$$
This defines a grading on $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0$. Let $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0_m$ be the $m$-th homogeneous subspace of $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0$. A basis of $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0_m$ consists of the elements $\frakx:=x^{n_1}\ot \cdots \ot x^{n_k}$ of $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0_m$ with $n_1+\cdots+n_k+k-1=m$.
Such an element can be uniquely determined from a string of $m-1$ $x$'s by replacing $0\leq i\leq m-1$ of the $x$'s by the tensor symbol $\ot$ and then amending an $x$ factor to the end. Thus there are
$$ \binc{m-1}{0}+\cdots +\binc{m-1}{m-1} = 2^{m-1}$$
such elements and $\dim(\sha(x\bfk[x])^0_m)=2^{m-1}$.
Similarly, for $x_0^{u_1}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_k}x_1$ with $u_i\geq 0, 1\leq i\leq k, k\geq 1$, define
$$\deg(x_0^{u_1}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_k}x_1)=u_1+\cdots+u_k+k.$$
This defines a grading on $\calh\shf\lone\nonu$. Let $\calh_m$ be the $m$-th homogenous subspace of $\calh\shf\lone\nonu$. A basis of $\calh_m$ consists of elements of the form $x_0^{u_1}x_1\cdots x_0^{u_k}x_1$ with $u_1+\cdots+u_k + k=m$. Such an element is uniquely determined from a string of $m-1$ $x_0$'s by replacing $0\leq i\leq m-1$ of the $x_0$'s by $x_1$'s and then amending an $x_1$ to the end. Thus there are also $2^{m-1}$ such basis elements and $\dim (\calh_m)=2^{m-1}$.
We note that, for $\frakx$ in Eq.~(\mref{eq:map1}), $\deg(\frakx)$ is the total number of $x$ and $P_x$ on the right hand side of the equation. By Eq.~(\mref{eq:map2}), the map $f$ converts each $x$ to an $x_1$ and each $P_x$ to an $x_0$. Thus $f:\sha(x\bfk[x])^0\to \calh\shf\lone\nonu$ is a graded algebra homomorphism. Hence $f$ restricts to $f_m:\sha(x\bfk[x])^0_m \to \calh_m$, $m\geq 1$. Since $f$ and hence $f_m$ is surjective and the dimensions of $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0_m$ and $\calh_m$ are the same, the linear map $f_m$ must be bijective. Thus $f$ is bijective and the proof of the theorem is completed.
\end{proof}
\section{Free Rota-Baxter algebra structure on the shuffle algebra $\calh_{\geq 0}\qnonu$}
\mlabel{sec:sh0}
We next show that the free Rota-Baxter algebra structure on the shuffle algebra $(\calh\shf\lone\nonu,\ssha)$ in fact comes from (i.e., is the restriction of) a larger shuffle algebra $\calh_{\geq 0}\qnonu$ which is also a free Rota-Baxter algebra with one generator.
We first rephrase in Section~\mref{ss:shqsh} the free Rota-Baxter algebra structure on $\calh\shf\lone\nonu$ in terms of $\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu$, naturally a subset of $\calh_{\geq 0}\qnonu$. Then in Section~\mref{ss:sh0}, we extend this free Rota-Baxter algebra structure on $\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu$ to a Rota-Baxter algebra structure on $\calh_{\geq 0}\qnonu$, and show in Section~\mref{ss:free0} that this Rota-Baxter algebra on $\calh_{\geq 0}\qnonu$ is free.
\subsection{Free Rota-Baxter algebra on $\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu$}
\mlabel{ss:shqsh}
Recall the notations from Notation~\mref{no:mscase}:
$$
\calh_{\geq n}\qnonu=\bigoplus_{s_i\geq n, 1\leq i\leq k, k\geq 1} \bfk [s_1,\cdots,s_k], \quad n=0,1.
$$
The map
\begin{equation}
\eta: \calh\shf\lone\nonu \to \calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu, \quad x_0^{s_1-1}x_1\cdots x_0^{s_k-1}x_1 \mapsto [s_1,\cdots,s_k].
\mlabel{eq:shqsh}
\end{equation}
defines a bijection. By transporting of structures, from the Rota-Baxter algebra $(\calh\shf\lone\nonu,\ssha,I_0)$ in Theorem~\mref{thm:free1}, we obtain a Rota-Baxter algebra $(\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu, \qssha,I)$ where
\begin{eqnarray}
&&[\vec{s}]\qssha [\vec{t}]:= \eta(\eta^{-1}([\vec s])\ssha \eta^{-1}([\vec t])), \quad [\vec{s}],[\vec{t}]\in \calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu, \mlabel{eq:qssha}
\\
&& I:\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu\to \calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu, I([\vec{s}]):= [\vec{s}+\vec{e}_1], \quad [\vec{s}]\in \calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu,
\mlabel{eq:Iop}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vec{e}_1=(1,0,\cdots,0)$ is the first standard basis of $\ZZ^k$ if $k$ is the dimension of $\vec{s}$.
Then Theorem~\mref{thm:free1} can be rephrased as
\begin{theorem}
The Rota-Baxter algebra $(\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu, \qssha,I)$ is the free commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra of weight 0 generated by $\eta(x_1)=[1]$.
\mlabel{thm:free1q}
\end{theorem}
We will call $\qssha$ the {\bf shuffle product on $\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu$}. By the recursive definition of the shuffle product $\ssha$ on $\calh\shf\lone$, we obtain the recursive description of the shuffle product $\qssha$ on $\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu$. For $\vec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_m), \vec{t}=(t_1,\cdots,t_n)$, we have (see also~\cite[Proposition 4.3]{GX2})
\begin{equation}
[\vec{s}]\qssha [\vec{t}] = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
I([\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1]\qssha [\vec{t}]) + I([\vec{s}]\qssha [\vec{t}-\vec{e}_1]), & s_1,t_1>1, \\
{}[1, \vec{s}'\qssha \vec{t}]+ I([\vec{s}]\qssha [\vec{t}-\vec{e}_1]), & \vec{s}=[1,\vec{s}'], t_1>1, \\
I([\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1]\qssha [\vec{t}])+ [1,[\vec{s}]\qssha [\vec{t}']], & s_1>1, \vec{t}=[1,\vec{t}'],\\
{}[1,[\vec{s}']\qssha [\vec{t}]] + [1,[\vec{s}] \qssha [\vec{t}']], &\vec{s}=[1,\vec{s}'], \vec{t}=[1,\vec{t}'].
\end{array}
\right .
\mlabel{eq:shpr1}
\end{equation}
\subsection {Rota-Baxter algebra on $\calh_{\geq 0}\qnonu$}
\mlabel{ss:sh0}
The operator $I$ in Eq.~(\mref{eq:Iop}) extends to an operator
\begin{equation}
I: \calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu \to
\calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu,\quad [\vec s]\mapsto [\vec s +\vec e_1].
\mlabel{eq:e1shift}
\end{equation}
\begin {theorem} The shuffle product $\qssha$ on $\calh _{\geq 1}\qnonu$ has a unique extension to a commutative associative product on $\calh _{\ge 0}\qnonu$, still denoted by $\qssha$, such that $\nvec{0}\qsshab \nvec{s}=[0,\vec{s}]$ and such that $I$ is a Rota-Baxter operator on $\calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu$ of weight 0.
\mlabel{thm:shbax}
\end {theorem}
\begin{proof} We first prove the existence.
For $\nvec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_i)\in \ZZ_{\geq 0}^i$ and
$\nvec{t}=(t_1,\cdots,t_j)\in \ZZ_{\geq 0}^j$, we use induction on
$$c=s_1+\cdots+s_i+i+t_1+\cdots+t_j+j$$
to define $\nvec{s}\qsshab \nvec{t}$. Note that we have $c\geq 2$.
When $c=2$, then $i=j=1$ and $\nvec{s}=\nvec{t}=(0)$. Then define
$$ \nvec{s} \qsshab \nvec{t}= [0,0].$$
Suppose that $\nvec{s}\qsshab \nvec{t}$ have been defined for $c= n$.
Then for $\nvec{s}$ and $\nvec{t}$ with $c=n+1$, define
\begin{equation}
\nvec{s} \qsshab \nvec{t} = \left \{\begin{array}{ll} [0,\vec{s}'\qsshab
\vec{t}], & \nvec{s}=[0,\vec{s}'],
\\
{}[0,\vec{s}\qsshab \vec{t}'], & \nvec{t}=[0,\vec{t}'],\\
I([\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1]\qsshab \nvec{t}) +I( \nvec{s}\qsshab
[\vec{t}-\vec{e}_1]), & {\rm otherwise}.
\end{array} \right .
\mlabel{eq:extsh}
\end{equation}
Then the terms on the right hand side are well-defined by the
induction hypothesis. We note that if $\nvec{s}=[0,\vec{s}']$ and
$\nvec{t}=[0,\vec{t}']$, then we have
$\nvec{s}\qsshab\nvec{t}=[0,0,\vec{s}'\qsshab \vec{t}'].$ So there
is no ambiguity in the above definition. It follows from
Eq.~(\mref{eq:shpr1}) that the restriction of the new
product $\qssha$ to $\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu$ coincides with the product
$\qssha$ on $\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu$.
Clearly $\qsshab$ is commutative. It is also clear that
Eq.~(\mref{eq:extsh}) is the only possible way to define $\qsshab$
satisfying the conditions in the theorem.
We next verify the associativity: for $\nvec{s}=[s_1,\cdots,s_i],
\nvec{t}=[t_1,\cdots,t_j]$ and $\nvec{u}=[u_1,\cdots,u_k]$,
\begin{equation} (\nvec{s} \qsshab \nvec{t}) \qsshab \nvec{u}
=\nvec{s} \qsshab (\nvec{t}\qsshab \nvec{u}). \mlabel{eq:shass}
\end{equation}
For this we use induction on
$$ d =s_1+\cdots+s_i+i+t_1+\cdots+t_j+j+u_1+\cdots+u_k+k.$$
Then $d\geq 3$. If $d=3$, then $i=j=k=0$ and
$\nvec{s}=\nvec{t}=\nvec{u}=[0]$. So both sides of
Eq.~(\mref{eq:shass}) is $[0,0,0]$. Suppose Eq.~(\mref{eq:shass})
has been verified for $d=n$ and take $\nvec{s},\nvec{t},\nvec{u}$
with $d=n+1$. If $\nvec{s}=[0,\vec{s}']$, then Eq.~(\mref{eq:shass})
means $$ [0,\big(\vec{s}'\qsshab \vec{t}\big) \qsshab \vec{u}] =
[0,\vec{s}'\qsshab \big(\vec{t}\qsshab \vec{u}\big)]$$ which follows
from the induction hypothesis. Similar arguments works if the first
component of $\nvec{t}$ or $\nvec{u}$ is 0.
It remains to consider the case when the first components of
$\nvec{s}, \nvec{t}$ and $\nvec{u}$ are all non-zero. Then by
Eq.~(\mref{eq:extsh}),
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\nvec{s}\qsshab \nvec{t})\qsshab \nvec{u} &=&
\big( I((\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1)\qsshab \vec{t} )+I(\vec{s}\qsshab (\vec{t}-\vec{e}_1))\big) \qsshab \vec{u} \\
&=& I\big( ((\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1)\qsshab \vec{t} )\qsshab \vec{u} \big)
+ I\big( I((\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1)\qsshab\vec{t} )\qsshab (\vec{u}-\vec{e}_1)\big) \\
&&+ I\big( (\vec{s} \qsshab (\vec{t}-\vec{e}_1))\qsshab \vec{u}\big) + I
\big(I (\vec{s}\qsshab (\vec{t}-\vec{e}_1))\ssha(\vec{u}-\vec{e}) \big)
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying the induction hypothesis to the first term on the right
hand side and use Eq.~(\mref{eq:extsh}) again, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\nvec{s}\qsshab \nvec{t})\qsshab \nvec{u} &=& I\big(
(\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1)\qsshab I((\vec{t}-\vec{e}_1)\qsshab \vec{u} )\big)
+ I \big( (\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1)\qsshab I(\vec{t}\qsshab(\vec{u}-\vec{e}_1))\big) \\
&& + I\big( I((\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1)\qsshab\vec{t} )\qsshab
(\vec{u}-\vec{e}_1)\big)
+ I\big( (\vec{s} \qsshab (\vec{t}-\vec{e}_1))\qsshab \vec{u}\big) \\
&& + I \big(I (\vec{s}\qsshab
(\vec{t}-\vec{e}_1))\qsshab(\vec{u}-\vec{e}_1) \big).
\end{eqnarray*}
By the same argument, we find
\begin{eqnarray*}
\nvec{s} \qsshab (\nvec{t}\qsshab \nvec{u}) &=& I\big(
(\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1)\qsshab I((\vec{t}-\vec{e}_1)\qsshab \vec{u})\big)
+ I \big( \vec{s}\qsshab((\vec{t}-\vec{e}_1)\qsshab \vec{u})\big) \\
&& + I\big( (\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1)\qsshab I(
\vec{t}\qsshab(\vec{u}-\vec{e}_1) )\big) + I \big(
I((\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1)\qsshab \vec{t})\qsshab (\vec{u}-\vec{e}_1)\big)
\\ &&
+ I\big ( I (\vec{s}\qsshab (\vec{t}-\vec{e}_1))\qsshab
(\vec{u}-\vec{e}_1)\big).
\end{eqnarray*}
This agrees term-wise with the above sum for $(\nvec{s}\qsshab
\nvec{t})\qsshab \nvec{u}$ with another use of the induction
hypothesis.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Free Rota-Baxter algebra on $\calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu$}
\mlabel{ss:free0}
We now show that the Rota-Baxter algebra $\calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu$ obtained in Theorem~\mref{thm:shbax} is in fact free.
\begin{theorem}
The Rota-Baxter algebra $(\calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu,I)$ is the free commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra of weight 0 generated by $\lrb{0}$.
\mlabel{thm:hfree}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Instead of checking that the Rota-Baxter algebra $(\calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu,I)$ satisfies the desired universal property, we will show that this Rota-Baxter algebra is isomorphic to the free commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0$ in Theorem~\mref{thm:free}.
\begin{lemma}
The nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra $(\calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu,I)$ is generated by $\lrb{x}$.
\mlabel{lem:gen}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $R$ be the nonunitary Rota-Baxter sub-algebra of $\calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu$ generated by $\lrb{0}$. We just need to show that all the basis elements $\nvec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_k)\in \ZZ_{\geq 0}^k$ can be obtained by repeated applications of multiplication and the Rota-Baxter operator $I$ to $\lrb{0}$. But this follows since
$$ (s_1,\cdots,s_k)=I^{s_1}(\lrb{0}\qsshab I^{s_2}([0]\qsshab I^{s_3}\cdots I^{s_k}(\lrb{0})\cdots))$$
whose proof follows from a simple induction.
\end{proof}
Since $\sha (x\bfk[x])^0$ is the free commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra generated by $x$, by its universal property, there is a unique homomorphism of commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebras
$$ \phi: \sha(x\bfk[x])^0 \to \calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu$$
such that $\phi(x)=\lrb{0}.$ By Lemma~\mref{lem:gen}, $\phi$ is surjective. By an inductive argument, we see that
$$ \phi(x^n)=\lrb{\underbrace{0,\cdots,0}_{n{\rm -times}}}$$
and in general
$$ \phi(x^{n_0}\ot x^{n_1}\ot \cdots \ot x^{n_\ell})
= \lrb{\underbrace{0,\cdots,0}_{n_0{\rm -times}},1,
\underbrace{0,\cdots,0}_{(n_1-1){\rm -times}},1,\cdots,1,
\underbrace{0,\cdots,0}_{(n_\ell-1){\rm -times}}}
$$
with the convention that if $n_i=0$, then
$(1,\underbrace{0,\cdots,0}_{(n_i-1){\rm -times}},1)=2$,
and if $n_i=n_{i+1}=0$, then
$(1,\underbrace{0,\cdots,0}_{(n_i-1){\rm -times}},1,\underbrace{0,\cdots,0}_{(n_{i+1}-1){\rm -times}},1)=3$, {\em etc.} Note that $n_\ell\geq 1$ by definition.
Now it is clear that $\phi$ sends two distinct basis elements of $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0$ to distinct basis elements of $\calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu$.
Therefore $\phi$ is injective. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Extended shuffle relation and double shuffle relations from free Rota-Baxter
algebras} \mlabel{sec:app} We apply the freeness property of the
shuffle algebras $\calh\shf\lone\nonu$ and $\calh_{\geq 0}\qnonu$ as
nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebras to study multiple polylogarithms and
MZVs. We first generate the shuffle relation of multiple
polylogarithms in Section~\mref{ss:poly}. We then generate the
extended shuffle relation of MZVs in Section~\mref{ss:sh1}. In
Section~\mref{ss:dsh1}, we derive the extended double shuffle
relations of Ihara, Kaneko and Zagier~\mcite{IKZ}.
\subsection {Shuffle relations of multiple polylogarithms}
\mlabel{ss:poly} We first construct a Rota-Baxter algebra for the
study of multiple polylogarithms and MZVs.
Let $\CC\{\{\vep, \vep^{-1}\}$ be the algebra of convergent Laurent
series, regarded as a subalgebra of the algebra of (germs of)
complex valued functions meromorphic in a neighborhood of $\vep=0$.
We take $\ln (-\vep)$ to be component which is analytic on $\CC\backslash [0,\infty)$.
By \cite[Lemma 3.2]{GZ}, we have
\begin{lemma}
The function $\ln (-\vep) $ is transcendental over $\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}$ and hence over $\CC\{\{\vep\}\}$.
\mlabel{lem:vep}
\end{lemma}
\begin{defn}
{\
Let
$C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)$ denote the subset of $\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}[\ln(-\vep)]$ as functions on $(-\infty,0)$ consisting of $f$ such that, for every $n\in \NN$, we have $\lim\limits_{\vep\to -\infty} \vep ^nf(\vep)= 0$.
}
\mlabel{de:logc}
\end{defn}
\begin {lemma} The complex vector space $C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)$ is closed under function multiplication. The operator
\begin{equation}
J: C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0) \to C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0), \quad f\mapsto \int _{-\infty}^\vep f(t ) dt, f\in C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0),
\mlabel{eq:logint}
\end{equation}
is a Rota-Baxter operator of weight 0.
\mlabel{lem:jop}
\end {lemma}
\begin {proof}
Let $Y$ be the set of functions on $(-\infty,0)$ such that, for every $n\in \NN$, we have $\lim\limits_{\vep\to -\infty} \vep ^nf(\vep)= 0$. Then $C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)=\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}[\ln(-\vep)]\cap Y$. $Y$ is obviously closed under function multiplication. Since $\CC[\ln(-\vep)]\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}$ is also closed under function multiplication, so is $C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)$.
By Lemma~3.2 of~\mcite{GZ}, the set $\CC\{\{\vep,\vep^{-1}\}[\ln(-\vep)]$ is closed under indefinite integral. The
condition of a function $f(\vep)$ in $C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)$ at $-\infty$ ensures that an indefinite integral of $f$ can be evaluated at $-\infty$. Thus $\int_{-\infty}^\vep f(t)dt$ is well-defined and is still in $C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)$. The operator is a Rota-Baxter operator of weight 0 because of
the integration by parts formula of integration operators. See
Example~\mref{ex:int}.
\end {proof}
We consider a special element
\begin{equation}
\frac{e^{\vep}}{1-e^{\vep}}= -\frac{1}{\vep} +\sum_{i=0}^\infty \zeta(-i) \frac{\vep^i}{i!}.
\mlabel{eq:gen0}
\end{equation}
It is in $C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)$ since
$\lim\limits_{\vep\to -\infty}\vep^n e^{\vep}=0$ for $n\in \NN$.
Our interest in this element comes from the expansion
$$ \frac{e^{\vep}}{1-e^{\vep}} = \sum_{n=1}^\infty e^{n\vep}$$ which can be viewed as the regularization of the formal special value
$\zeta(0):=\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^0}$
of $\zeta(s)$ at $s=0$. See Section~\mref{sss:ren} for further details.
By Theorem \mref {thm:hfree} we have
\begin{prop} There is a unique nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra homomorphism
$$\phi : \calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu\to C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)$$
such that
$$\phi ([0])=\frac {e^ \vep }{1-e^\vep}.
$$
\end{prop}
In order to relate $\phi$ to multiple polylogarithms, we will need another property of Rota-Baxter algebras.
\begin{lemma}
Let $(\sha(x\bfk[x])^0,P_x)$ be the free commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra in Eq.~(\mref{eq:freenrb}). Let $(R,P)$ be a commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra. Let $f:\sha(x\bfk[x])^0\to R$ be a linear map such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$f(xy)=f(x)f(y), \forall y\in \sha(x\bfk[x])$;
\mlabel{it:mult}
\item
$f(P_x(y))=P(f(y)), \forall y\in \sha(x\bfk[x]).$
\mlabel{it:op}
\end{enumerate}
Then $f$ is a homomorphism of nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebras.
\mlabel{lem:indrb}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let the linear map $f:\sha(x\bfk[x])^0 \to R$ with the properties in the lemma be given. By the universal property of $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0$ as the free commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra generated by $x$, there is a unique nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra $g:\sha(x\bfk[x])^0 \to R$ such that $g(x)=f(x)$. We just need to show that $g=f$.
Since $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0$ is additively spanned by the pure tensors
$\calx:=x^{n_0}\ot x^{n_1}\ot \cdots \ot x^{n_k}, n_i\geq 0, 0\leq i\leq k, n_k\geq 1, k\geq 0$, we just need to show that $f$ and $g$ agree on these pure tensors. We prove this claim by induction on $k\geq 0$. When $k=0$, we have $\calx=x^{n_0}$. By condition~(\mref{it:mult}) and an induction on $n_0\geq 1$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
f(x^{n_0}y)=f(x)^{n_0}f(y), \quad \forall y\in \sha(x\bfk[x])^0.
\mlabel{eq:mult2}
\end{equation}
In particular we have $f(x^{n_0})=f(x)^{n_0}=g(x)^{n_0}$. Assume the claim has been proved for $k=r\geq 0$ and consider $x^{n_0}\ot x^{n_1}\ot \cdots \ot x^{n_{r+1}}$. Then by Eq.~(\mref{eq:mult2}) and the induction hypothesis, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(x^{n_0} \ot x^{n_1}\ot \cdots \ot x^{n_{r+1}})&=&
f(x^{n_0} P_x(x^{n_1}\ot \cdots \ot x^{n_{r+1}}))\\
&=& f(x)^{n_0} f(P_x(x^{n_1}\ot \cdots \ot x^{n_{r+1}})) \\
&=& f(x)^{n_0} P(f(x^{n_1}\ot \cdots \ot x^{n_{r+1}}))\\
&=& f(x)^{n_0} P(g(x^{n_1}\ot \cdots \ot x^{n_{r+1}})) \\
&=& g(x)^{n_0} g(P_x(x^{n_1}\ot \cdots \ot x^{n_{r+1}}))\\
&=& g(x^{n_0} \ot x^{n_1} \ot \cdots \ot x^{n_{r+1}}).
\end{eqnarray*}
This completes the induction.
\end{proof}
Now for $\vec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_k)\in \ZZ^k$, consider the {\bf polylogarithm}
\begin{equation}
Li_{\vec s}(z):= \sum_{n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1}
\frac{z^{n_1}}{n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}}, \mlabel{eq:polylog}
\end{equation}
which is convergent for $z\in \CC$ with $|z| <1$.
\begin{theorem}
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $\vec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_k)\in \ZZ_{\geq 0}^k$, the function $Li_{\vec{s}}(e^{\vep})$ is in $C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)$.
\mlabel{it:polylog}
\item
The linear map
\begin{equation}
\frakL: \calh_{\geq 0}\qnonu \la C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0),
\quad \vec{s}\mapsto Li_{\vec{s}}(e^{\vep})
\mlabel{eq:polydef}
\end{equation}
defines a Rota-Baxter algebra homomorphism.
\mlabel{it:poly}
\item
For any $\vec{s}\in \calh_{\geq 0}\qnonu$ we have
$Li_{\vec{s}}(e^{\vep}) = \phi([\vec{s}])(\vep).$
\mlabel{it:polyphi}
\end{enumerate}
\mlabel{thm:polyphi}
\end{theorem}
\begin {proof}
(\mref{it:polylog}).
We prove by induction on $k\geq 1$ with the help of the following two properties.
\begin{equation}
J(Li_{\vec{s}}(e^{\vep}))=\sum_{n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1}
\frac{\int _{-\infty}^\vep e^{n_1 t}d t}{n_1^{s_1}\cdots
n_k^{s_k}}= \sum_{n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1}
\frac{e^{n_1\vep}}{n_1^{s_1+1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}}=Li_{\vec{s}+\vec{e}_1}(e^{\vep}),
\mlabel{eq:polyJ}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
Li_{[0,\vec s]}(\vep)=\sum_{n_0>n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1}
\frac{e^{n_0 \vep}}{n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}} =\frac {e^ \vep
}{1-e^\vep}\sum_{n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1} \frac{e^{n_1
\vep}}{n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}}=
Li_{[0]}(e^{\vep}) Li_{\vec{s}}(e^{\vep}).
\mlabel{eq:poly1}
\end{equation}
When $k=1$, we have $Li_{(s_1)}(e^{\vep})=J^{s_1}(Li_{(0)}(e^{\vep}))$ which is in $C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)$ by $Li_{(0)}(e^{\vep})\in C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)$ and Eq.~(\mref{eq:polyJ}).
Suppose the statement has been proved for $k=r\geq 1$ and consider $\vec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_{r+1})$ in $\ZZ_{\geq 0}^{r+1}$. Then we have
$$Li_{\vec{s}}(e^{\vep}) =J^{s_1}\big(Li_{(0,s_2,\cdots,s_{r+1})}(e^{\vep})\big)
=J^{s_1}\big(Li_{[0]}(e^{\vep}) Li_{(s_2,\cdots,s_{r+1})}(e^{\vep})\big)$$
by Eq.~(\mref{eq:poly1}). This is in $C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)$ by Lemma~\mref{lem:jop}, the induction hypothesis and Eq.~(\mref{eq:polyJ}). This completes the induction.
\smallskip
\noindent
(\mref{it:poly}). Let $I$ be the operator $[\vec s]\mapsto [\vec s+\vec
e_1]$ on $\calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu$ defined in Eq.~(\mref{eq:e1shift}) and $J$ be the Rota-Baxter operator on $C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)$ defined in Eq.~(\mref{eq:logint}). Then we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\frakL\circ I)(\vec s)(\vep)&=&Li_{I(\vec s)}(\vep)\\
&=& \sum_{n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1}
\frac{e^{n_1\vep}}{n_1^{s_1+1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}} \\
&=&\sum_{n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1}
\frac{\int _{-\infty}^\vep e^{n_1\vep}d \vep}{n_1^{s_1}\cdots
n_k^{s_k}}\\
&=& J(\sum_{n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1}
\frac{e^{n_1\vep}}{n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}}) \\
&=&(J\circ \frakL)(\vec s)(\vep).
\end{eqnarray*}
So $\frakL$ commutes with Rota-Baxter operators.
Also by Eq.~(\mref{eq:poly1}), we have
$$Li_{[0]\qsshab \vec s}(e^{\vep})=Li_{(0,\vec{s})}(e^{\vep})=Li_{[0]}(e^{\vep})Li_{\vec s}(e^{\vep}), \quad \forall \vec{s}\in \calh_{\geq 0}\qnonu.
$$
So $\frakL([0]\qsshab\vec s)=\frakL([0])\frakL([\vec{s}])$. Therefore by Lemma~\mref{lem:indrb}, $\frakL$ is a
homomorphism of nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebras.
\smallskip
\noindent
(\mref{it:polyphi}). By the universal property of the free commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0$, the map $\frakL:\sha(x\bfk[x])^0\to C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)$ is in fact the unique Rota-Baxter algebra homomorphism from $\sha(x\bfk[x])^0$ such that
$\frakL([0])= \frac{e^{\vep}}{1-e^{\vep}}$. Since $\phi$ also satisfies this property, we have $\frakL= \phi$. This is what we need.
\end{proof}
So by viewing $\calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu$ as a free nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra
and choosing a suitable value for $[0]$, we obtained all the multiple polylogarithms as regularized MZVs with the shuffle product. By choosing other values for $[0]$, we can obtain other regularized MZVs with the shuffle product. In general, these regularized MZVs have
poles. For example $Li_0(\vep)=\frac {e^ \vep }{1-e^\vep}$ has an
order 1 pole at $\vep=0$. So in general, we can not take $\vep \to
0$.
\subsection{Extended shuffle relation}
\mlabel{ss:sh1} Having obtained regularized MZVs with shuffle product from the free Rota-Baxter algebra on $\calh_{\ge 0}\qnonu$, let us restrict our attention to $\calh_{\ge 1}\qnonu$.
The restriction of the Rota-Baxter algebra homomorphism $\phi:\calh_{\geq 0}\qnonu \to C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0)$ to $\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu$ gives a Rota-Baxter algebra homomorphism
\begin{equation}
\phi: \calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu \to C^{Log}_S(-\infty,0).
\mlabel{eq:phi1}
\end{equation}
Since $\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu$ is the free commutative nonunitary Rota-Baxter algebra generated by $[1]$ by Theorem~\mref{thm:free1q}, this $\phi$ is the unique Rota-Baxter algebra homomorphism such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi(x_1)&=&\phi(I([0]))\\
&=&J(\phi([0]))\\
&=& J(\frac{e^{\vep}}{1-e^{\vep}}) \\
&=&-\ln(-\vep)+\sum _{i\ge 1} \zeta(-i+1)\frac {\vep ^i}{i!}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\phi([1])$ is in $\CC\{\{\vep\}\}[\ln(-\vep)]$ which is closed under multiplication and taking antiderivatives, and $\phi(\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu)$ is a Rota-Baxter algebra generated by $\phi([1])$, it follows that $\phi(\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu)$ is contained in $\CC[[\vep]][\ln(-\vep)]$, the polynomial algebra over the formal Laurent series.
This can also be seen by viewing the images of $\phi=\frakL$ as multiple polylogarithms $Li_{\vec{s}}(e^{\vep})$.
Because $\ln
(-\vep) $ is transcendental over $\CC \{\{\vep\}\}$, we have the
embedding
$$ u: \CC\{\{\vep\}\}[\ln(-\vep)] \cong \CC\{\{\vep\}\}[T] \hookrightarrow \CC[[\vep]][T]\hookrightarrow \CC[T][[\vep]]$$
by sending $-\ln(-\vep)$ to $T$.
Pre-composing $\phi$ with $\eta: \calh\shf\lone\nonu\to \calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu$ in Eq.~(\mref{eq:shqsh}) and postcomposing $\phi$ with $u$ and then
the evaluation map $\vep\to 0$, we obtain an algebra homomorphism
\begin{equation}
Z^{RB}: \calh\shf\lone\nonu \ola{\eta} \calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu \ola{\phi} \CC\{\{\vep\}\}[\lne] \ola{u} \CC[T][[\vep]] \ola{\vep\mapsto 0} \CC[T]
\mlabel{eq:rbmap}
\end{equation}
which we can extend to $\calh\shf\lone$ by unitarization.
We next compare $Z^{RB}$ with the extended shuffle
relation of MZVs~\mcite{IKZ}. We first recall some more notations.
As is well-known, an MZV has an integral representation~\mcite{LM}
\begin{equation}
\zeta(s_1,\cdots,s_k)=
\int_0^1 \int_0^{t_1}\cdots \int_0^{t_{|\vec{s}|-1}} \frac{dt_1}{f_1(t_1)}
\cdots \frac{dt_{|\vec{s}|}}{f_{|\vec{s}|}(t_{|\vec{s}|})}
\mlabel{eq:intrep}
\end{equation}
Here $|\vec{s}|=s_1+\cdots +s_k$ and
$$f_j(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1-t_j, & j= s_1,s_1+s_2,\cdots, s_1+\cdots +s_k,\\
t_j, & \text{otherwise}. \end{array} \right .
$$
Since the integral operator is the Rota-Baxter operator of weight
zero in Example~\mref{ex:int}, it is expected that the
multiplication of two MZVs is given by the shuffle product that
defines the product in a free commutative Rota-Baxter algebra of
weight 0. This is indeed the case. Let
$$
\mzvalg\qnonu: = \QQ \{ \zeta(s_1,\cdots,s_k)\ |\ s_i\geq 1, s_1\geq 2\}
\subseteq \RR
$$
be the $\QQ$-subspace of $\RR$ spanned by MZVs and let $$\mzvalg=\QQ
+ \mzvalg\qnonu \subseteq \RR.$$ Then the shuffle product of MZVs is encoded by the algebra homomorphism~\mcite{Ho1,IKZ}
$$
\zeta\shf: \calh\shf\shzero \to \mzvalg,
\quad x_0^{ s_1-1} x_1 \cdots x_0^{s_k-1} x_1 \mapsto \zeta(s_1,\cdots,s_k), \quad 1\mapsto 1.
$$
Furthermore, note that
$\calh\shf\lone\cong \calh\shf\shzero[y]$ where $y$ is a polynomial
variable. A canonical choice of $y$ is $x_1$. Thus the algebraic
homomorphisms $\zeta^{\ssha}$ extends uniquely to an algebraic
homomorphism
\begin{equation}
Z^{\ssha}:\calh\shf\lone \to \mzvalg [T]
\mlabel{eq:zsh}
\end{equation}
sending $y$ to $T$~\mcite{IKZ}. This is the extended shuffle
relation.
\begin{theorem}
We have $Z^{RB}=Z^{\ssha}$. In particular, the
restriction of $Z^{RB}$ to $\calh\shf\lzero$ agrees with
$\zeta^{\ssha}$.
\mlabel{thm:rbmzv}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} For $\vec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_k)$ with
$s_1>1$ and $s_i\geq 1$, $1\leq i\leq k$, by Theorem~\mref{thm:polyphi}.(\mref{it:polyphi}) evaluated at $\vep=0$, we have
$Z^{RB}(\frakx_{\vec{s}})=\zeta^{\ssha}(\frakx_{\vec{s}})$. So
$Z^{RB}$ and $\zeta^{\ssha}$ agrees on $\calh\shf\lzero$. Then
the theorem follows since both $Z^{RB}$ and
$Z^{\ssha}$ are the unique extension of $\zeta^{\ssha}:
\calh\shf\lzero \to \CC$ by taking $z_1$ to $T$.
\end{proof}
\subsection {Extended double shuffle relations}
\mlabel{ss:dsh1} We have just derived the extended shuffle relation
$Z^{\ssha} $ of MZVs through the freeness of $\calh\shf\lone\nonu$.
In earlier papers~\mcite{GZ,GZ2,MP2} we have also studied the extended
stuffle (quasi-shuffle) relation $\zeta^*$ of MZVs by renormalization. By combing
these two together, we next derive the extended double shuffle
relations (EDS)~\mcite{IKZ}. To formulate the results, we first give
a summary of EDS and regularized MZVs.
\subsubsection{Extended double shuffle relations}
Since an MZV is defined as a nested sum in Eq.~(\mref{eq:mzv}) and the
summation operator is the Rota-Baxter operator of weight 1 in
Example~\mref{ex:sum}, the multiplication of two MZVs follow the quasi-shuffle product
(mixable shuffle product of weight 1) that defines the
multiplication in a free commutative Rota-Baxter algebra of weight 1.
More precisely, consider the semigroup
$$ G_{\geq 1}:=\{z_s:=[s]\ |\ s\in \ZZ_{\geq 1}\}$$
in Notation~\mref{no:mscase}. Then the usual quasi-shuffle algebra
for MZVs is $$\calh\qsh:=\calh\qsh_{\hspace{-.2cm}\QQ\, Z}=
\calh_{\geq 1}^\ast$$ which contains the subalgebra
$$
\calh\qsh\lzero:=\QQ \oplus \Big (\bigoplus_{s_i\geq 1, 1\leq i\leq k, s_1>1, k\geq 1} \QQ z_{s_1}
\cdots z_{s_k} \Big ).
$$
Then the stuffle (quasi-shuffle) product of MZVs is encoded by the algebra homomorphism~\mcite{Ho1,IKZ}
\begin{equation}
\zeta\qsh: \calh\qsh\lzero \to \mzvalg, \quad z_{s_1}\cdots z_{s_k}
\mapsto \zeta(s_1,\cdots,s_k), \quad 1\mapsto 1. \mlabel{eq:mzvst}
\end{equation}
The natural bijection of $\QQ$-vector spaces
$$
\shqs: \calh\shf\lone \to \calh\qsh, \quad x_0^{s_1-1} x_1 \cdots
x_0^{s_k-1} x_1
\leftrightarrow z_{s_1, \cdots, s_k}, \quad 1\leftrightarrow 1.
$$
restricts to a bijection of vector spaces $\shqs:
\calh\shf\shzero \to \calh\qsh\lzero. $ Then the fact that the product of two MZVs can be expressed in two ways is encoded by the commutative diagram
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{ \calh\qsh\lzero \ar_{\zeta\qsh}[rd]&&
\calh\shf\shzero \ar_{\shqs}[ll] \ar^{\zeta\shf}[ld] \\
& \mzvalg & } \mlabel{eq:diag1}
\end{equation}
Defining a product $\qssha$ on $\calh\qsh\lzero$ from $\ssha$ through $\eta$, the {\bf double shuffle relation} is the set
$$
\{ w_1\qssha w_2 - w_1 \ast w_2\ |\ w_1,w_2\in\calh\qsh\lzero\}.$$
Since
$\calh\qsh \cong \calh\qsh\lzero[y]$ where $y$ is a polynomial
variable, the algebraic homomorphism
$\zeta^\ast$ extends uniquely to an algebraic homomorphism~\mcite{IKZ}
\begin{equation}
Z^\ast: \calh\qsh \to \mzvalg[T]
\mlabel{eq:zqsh}
\end{equation}
sending $y$ to $T$. Define a
function $A(u)$ and its Taylor series expansion by
\begin{equation}
A(u)=\exp \big( \sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac{(-1)^n}{n} \zeta(n) u^n\big)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \gamma_k u^k, \gamma_k\in \RR
\mlabel{eq:A}
\end{equation}
and define a map $\rho:\RR[T] \to \RR[T]$ by
\begin{equation}
\rho(e^{Tu})=A(u)e^{Tu}.
\mlabel{eq:rho}
\end{equation}
Then the commutative diagram in Eq.~(\mref{eq:diag1}) extends to the
commutative diagram
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{ \calh\qsh \ar_{Z\qsh}[d]&&
\calh\shf\lone \ar_{\shqs[y]}[ll] \ar^{Z\shf}[d] \\
\mzvalg[T] & & \mzvalg[T] \ar_{\rho}[ll] } \mlabel{eq:diag2}
\end{equation}
where $\eta[y]$ is extended from $\eta$ by sending $y$ to $y$.
The {\bf extended double shuffle relation}~\mcite{IKZ,Ra,Zud} is
\begin{equation}
\{ w_1\qssha w_2 - w_1 \ast w_2,\ z_1 \qssha w_2 - z_1 \ast w_2\ |\
w_1,w_2\in\calh\qsh\lzero\}. \mlabel{eq:eds}
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem} {\bf (\mcite{Ho1,IKZ,Ra})}
Let $I_\edsalg$ be the ideal of $\calh\qsh\lzero$ generated by the
extended double shuffle relation in Eq.~(\mref{eq:eds}). Then
$I_\edsalg$ is in the kernel of $\zeta\qsh$. \mlabel{thm:eds}
\end{theorem}
It is conjectured that $I_\edsalg$ is in fact the kernel of
$\zeta\qsh$. A consequence of this conjecture is the irrationality
of $\zeta(2n+1), n\geq 1$~\mcite{An}.
\subsubsection{Renormalized MZVs}
\mlabel{sss:ren} To extend the double shuffle relations to MZVs with
non-positive arguments, we have to make sense of the divergent sums
defining these MZVs. We give a summary of the renormalization
approach and refer the reader to other
references~\mcite{Gugn,GPXZ,GZ,GZ2} for
details.
Consider the abelian semigroup
\begin{equation}
\frakM= \{{{\wvec{s}{r}}}\ \big|\ (s,r)\in \ZZ \times \RR_{>0}\}
\end{equation}
with the multiplication
$$ {\wvec{s}{r}}\cdot {\wvec{s'}{r'}}={\wvec{s+s'}{r+r'}}.$$
With the notation in Section~\mref{ss:msh}, we define the quasi-shuffle algebra
algebra
$$\calh_{\frakM}\qsh:=\sh_{\CC,1}(\CC \frakM)$$
with the quasi-shuffle product $*$. For $w_i=\wvec{s_i}{r_i}\in
\frakM,\ i=1,\cdots,k$, we use the notations
$$ \vec{w}=(w_1, \dots,w_k)
=\wvec{s_1, \dots,s_k}{r_1, \dots,r_k}=\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r},\ {\rm
where\ } \vec s=(s_1, \dots,s_k), \vec r=(r_1, \dots,r_k).$$
For $\vec{w}=\wvec{\vec s}{\vec r}\in \frakM^k$ and $\vep\in \CC$
with ${\rm Re}(\vep)<0$, define the {\bf directional regularized
MZV}:
\begin{equation}
Z(\wvec{\vs}{\vr};\vep)=\sum_{n_1>\cdots>n_k>0}
\frac{e^{n_1\,r_1\vep} \cdots
e^{n_k\,r_k\vep}}{n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}}.
\label{eq:reggmzv}
\end{equation}
It converges for any $\wvec{\vs}{\vr}$ and is regarded as the
regularization of the {\bf formal MZV}
\begin{equation}
\zeta (\vs)= \sum_{n_1>\cdots>n_k>0} \frac{1}{n_1^{s_1} \cdots
n_k^{s_k}}
\label{eq:formgmzv}
\end{equation}
which converges only when $s_i>0$ and $s_1>1$. Notice that
$$Z(\wvec{\vs}{\vec e_1};\vep)=Li_{\vec s}(e^\vep).
$$
This regularization defines an algebra homomorphism~\mcite{GZ}:
\begin{equation}
\uni {Z}: \calh_\frakM \to \CC[T][[\vep,\vep^{-1}]. \label{eq:zmap}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Double shuffle of regularized MZVs}
We now derive the extended double shuffle relation from regularized
MZVs. We start with some preparational lemmas.
For $\ell\geq 1$, denote $\{1\}^\ell = \underbrace{1,\cdots,1}_{\ell-\text{terms}}$.
\begin {lemma} For $\vec s\in \ZZ ^k_{>0}$ with $s_1>1$,
$$ Li_{(\{1\}^{\ell},\vec{s})}(e^\vep)=\sum_{m_1>m_2>\cdots >m_\ell>n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1} \frac{e^{m_1\vep}}{m_1\cdots m_\ell n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}} $$
is of order $(\lne )^\ell$, i.e. it is $a_\ell (\lne )^\ell+a_{\ell-1}(\lne
)^{\ell-1}+\cdots +a_0+o(\vep)$, where $a_i$'s are constants.
\mlabel{lem:order1}
\end{lemma}
\begin {proof} We prove this lemma by induction on $\ell$. When $\ell=0$ it is obvious because of the convergency of $\zeta (\vec s)$ which gives $Li_{\vec{s}}(e^\vep)=\zeta (\vec s)+o(\vep)$. Assume that the lemma has been proved for the case when $\ell=a\geq 0$. The shuffle relation in $\calh\shf\lone$
$$ x_1\ssha x_1^a\frakx_{\vec{s}} = (a+1)x_1^{a+1}\frakx_{\vec{s}} + x_1^ax_0(x_1\ssha \frakx_{\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1})$$
translates to the relation in $(\calh_{\geq 1}\qnonu,\qssha)$:
$$ [1]\qssha [\{1\}^a,\vec{s}] = (a+1)[\{1\}^{a+1},\vec{s}] + [\{1\}^a, ([1]\qssha (\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1))+\vec{e}_1].$$
Then we have
$$
Li_{[\{1\}^{a+1},\vec{s}]}(e^\vep)= \frac{1}{a+1} Li_{[1] \qssha
[\{1\}^a,\vec{s}]}(e^\vep) - \frac{1}{a+1} Li_{[\{1\}^a, ([1]\qssha (\vec{s}-\vec{e}_1))+\vec{e}_1]}(e^\vep).$$ For the first
term on the right hand side, we have
$$Li_{[1] \qssha
[\{1\}^a,\vec{s}]}(e^\vep)=Li_{[1]}(e^\vep) Li_{[\{1\}^a,\vec{s}]}(e^\vep)
$$
and
$$Li_{[1]}(e^\vep)=-\ln(-\vep)+\sum _{i\ge 1} \zeta(-i+1)\frac {\vep ^i}{i!}.
$$
Hence it is of order $(\ln(-\vep))^{a+1}$ by the induction
hypothesis. The second term on the right hand side is a linear
combination $\sum_{i=1}^r Li_{[\{1\}^a,\vec{s}'_i]}(e^\vep)$
where each $\vec{s}'_i$ has its first component greater than 1. Thus
by the induction hypothesis, the second term is of order
$(\ln(-\vep))^a$ or lower. This completes the induction.
\end{proof}
\begin {lemma} Let $\ell\geq 0, k\geq 1, \vec s\in \ZZ ^k_{>0}$ with $s_1>1$ and $\vec r \in \ZZ ^k_{\ge 0}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The nested sum
$$Z(\wvec{\{1\}^\ell,s_1,\cdots,s_k}{\{1\}^\ell,0,\cdots,0};\vep)
:=\sum_{m_1>m_2>\cdots >m_\ell>n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1} \frac{e^{m_1\vep}\cdots e^{m_\ell\vep}}{m_1\cdots m_\ell n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}} $$
is of order $(\lne )^\ell$.
\mlabel{it:zsum1}
\item
For $1\leq j\leq k$, the sum
$\sum\limits_{m_1>\cdots >m_\ell>n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1} \frac{e^{m_1\vep}\cdots e^{m_\ell\vep}n_j}{m_1\cdots m_\ell n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}}$
is of order at most $(\lne)^{\ell+k}$.
\mlabel{it:zsum2}
\item
We have the asymptomatic formula $$Z(\wvec{\{1\}^\ell,s_1,\cdots,s_k}{\{1\}^\ell,0,\cdots,0};\vep)
=Z(\wvec{\{1\}^\ell,s_1,\cdots,s_k}{\{1\}^\ell,s_1,\cdots,s_k}) +o(\vep).
$$
Hence $Z(\wvec{\{1\}^\ell,s_1,\cdots,s_k}{\{1\}^\ell,s_1,\cdots,s_k})$ is of order $(\lne)^\ell$.
\mlabel{it:zsum3}
\end{enumerate}
\mlabel{lem:zsum}
\end{lemma}
\begin {proof}
For $\ell=0$, all parts of the lemma are obvious because of the convergency of $\zeta (\vec s)$.
For $\ell\geq 1$, we prove the parts separately.
\noindent
(\mref{it:zsum1}). We prove by induction on $\ell\geq 1$.
The case when $\ell=1$ follows from Lemma~\mref{lem:order1}.
Assume that the case when $\ell=r\geq 1$ has been proved. Consider
$$Z\left(\wvec{1}{1}* \wvec{\{1\}^\ell, \vec s}{\{1\}^\ell, \vec
0};\vep\right)=Z\left(\wvec{1}{1};\vep\right)Z\left(\wvec{\{1\}^\ell, \vec s}{\{1\}^\ell, \vec 0};\vep\right).
$$
By the quasi-shuffle product, the left hand side is of the form
$$
(\ell+1)Z\left(\wvec{\{1\}^{\ell+1},\vec{s}}{\{1\}^{\ell+1},\vec{0}};\vep\right)
+ \sum_{i} Z\left(\wvec{\vec{\{1\}^{c_i},\vec{s}_i}}{\vec{\{1\}^{c_i},\vec{t}_j}};\vep\right)
$$
with $c_i\leq \ell$ and $\vec{s}_i$ having its first component
greater than $1$. Thus by the induction hypothesis, all the terms
except the first one are of order at most $(\lne )^{\ell}$.
Similarly, the right hand side is of order at most
$(\lne)^{\ell+1}$. Thus
$Z(\wvec{\{1\}^{\ell+1},\vec{s}}{\{1\}^{\ell+1},\vec{0}};\vep) $ is
order at most $(\lne)^{\ell+1}$. This proves the first part of the
lemma.
\smallskip
(\mref{it:zsum2}).
We prove by induction on $k\geq 1$. When $k=1$, we have $j=1$. Then by Item~(\mref{it:zsum1}), the sum
$$\sum_{m_1>\cdots>m_\ell>n_1\geq 1}\frac{e^{m_1\vep}\cdots e^{m_\ell\vep}n_1}{m_1\cdots m_\ell n_1^{s_1}}
=\sum_{m_1>\cdots>m_\ell>n_1\geq 1}\frac{e^{m_1\vep}\cdots e^{m_\ell\vep}}{m_1\cdots m_\ell n_1^{s_1-1}}$$
is of order at most $(\lne)^{\ell+1}$.
Assume the case of $k=r$ and consider
\begin{equation}
\sum_{m_1>\cdots>m_\ell>n_1>\cdots>n_{r+1}\geq 1} \frac{e^{m_1\vep}\cdots e^{m_\ell}n_j}{m_1 \cdots m_\ell
n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_k^{s_{r+1}}}=\sum_{m_1>\cdots >m_\ell>n_1>\cdots>n_{r+1}\geq 1} \frac{e^{m_1\vep}\cdots e^{m_\ell\vep}}{m_1\cdots m_\ell
n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_j^{s_j-1} \cdots n_k^{s_{r+1}}}, 1\leq j\leq r+1.
\mlabel{eq:order2}
\end{equation}
If $j=1$, then by Item~(\mref{it:zsum1}) again, the sum in Eq.~(\mref{eq:order2}) is of order at most $(\lne )^{r+k+1}$.
For $j>1$, we consider two cases. If $s_j>1$, then by Item~(\mref{it:zsum2}) again, the sum in Eq.~(\mref{eq:order2}) is of order $(\lne)^\ell$. If $s_j=1$, then $n_j$ does not appear in the summand, but still appears in the index set of the sum in Eq.~(\mref{eq:order2}).
Thus the sum is simplified to
$$
\sum_{m_1>\cdots>m_\ell>n_1>\cdots n_{j-1}>n_{j+1}\cdots >n_k\geq 1}
\frac{e^{m_1\vep}\cdots e^{m_\ell\vep}(n_{j-1}-n_{j+1}-1)}{m_1 \cdots m_\ell n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_{j-1}^{s_{j-1}}n_{j+1}^{s_{j+1}}
\cdots n_k^{s_{r+1}}}.
$$
Then by the induction hypothesis, the sum is of order at most $(\lne)^{r+k}$. This completes the induction.
\smallskip
\noindent
(\mref{it:zsum3}).
Note that, for any real number $x$,
$$e^x>1+x.$$
Thus in our case,
\begin{equation}
(n_1r_1+\cdots n_kr_k)(-\vep )>1-e^{(n_1r_1+\cdots n_kr_k)\vep }.
\mlabel{eq:ineq}
\end{equation}
Therefore
{\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
Z\left(\wvec{\{1\}^\ell,s_1,\cdots,s_k}{\{1\}^\ell,0,\cdots,0};\vep\right)
-\sum_{m_1>\cdots
>m_\ell>n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1} \frac{e^{m_1\vep}\cdots
e^{m_\ell\vep}e^{n_1r_1\vep} \cdots e^{n_kr_k\vep}}{m_1\cdots m_\ell
n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}}
}\\
&=&
\sum_{m_1>\cdots>m_\ell>n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1}
\frac{e^{m_1\vep}\cdots e^{m_\ell \vep}(1-e^{(n_1r_1+\cdots n_kr_k)\vep })}{m_1\cdots m_\ell
n_1^{s_1}\cdots n_k^{s_k}}\\
&<& \sum_{m_1>\cdots>m_\ell>n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1}
\frac{e^{m_1\vep}\cdots e^{m_\ell\vep}(n_1r_1+\cdots n_kr_k)(-\vep )}{m_1\cdots m_\ell n_1^{s_1}\cdots
n_k^{s_k}}\\
&=&
\sum_{i=1}^k r_i (-\vep) \left( \sum_{m_1>\cdots>m_\ell>n_1>\cdots>n_k\geq 1}
\frac{e^{m_1\vep}\cdots e^{m_\ell\vep}n_j}{m_1\cdots m_\ell n_1^{s_1}\cdots
n_k^{s_k}}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
}
Thus Item~(\mref{it:zsum3}) follows from Item~(\mref{it:zsum2}).
\end {proof}
\begin {lemma} Let $\ell, k\geq 1$ and $\vec{s}=(s_1,\cdots,s_k)\in \ZZ_{\geq 1}^{k}$ with $s_1>1$ be given.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
There are $a_{i,j_i}\in \ZZ$, $\vec s_{i,j_i}\in \ZZ ^{k_{i,j_i}}$ with the first
component of $\vec{s}_{i,j_i}$ greater than $1$, where $k_{i,j_i}\geq 1,1\leq j_i\leq m_i, m_i\geq 1, 1\leq i\leq \ell$, such that
\begin{equation}
[\{1\}^\ell, \vec s]=\sum_{1\leq j_i\leq m_i,0\leq i\leq\ell} a_{i,j_i}[\{1\}^i]*[\vec s_{i,j_i}].
\mlabel{eq:inda1}
\end{equation}
\mlabel{it:1inda}
\item
Let $a_{ij}\in \ZZ$ and $\vec s_{ij}\in \ZZ ^{k_{ij}}$ with $k_{ij}\geq 1$ be as given in Item~(\mref{it:1inda}).
Then for any $\vec{p}=(p_1,\cdots,p_\ell)\in \ZZ_{\geq 0}^\ell$ and $\vec{r}\in \ZZ_{\geq 0}^k$, there are $\vec{r}_{i,j_i}\in \ZZ_{\geq 0}^{k_{i,j_i}}, 1\leq j_i\leq m_i, m_i\geq 1, 1\leq i\leq \ell$, such that
\begin{equation}
\wvec{\{1\}^\ell, \vec s}{\vec{p},\vec{r}}=\sum_{1\leq j_i\leq m_i, 0\leq i\leq\ell} a_{i,j_i} \wvec{\{1\}^i}{p_1,\cdots,p_i}*\wvec{\vec s_{i,j_i}}{r_{i,j_i}}.
\mlabel{eq:indb1}
\end{equation}
\mlabel{it:1indb}
\end{enumerate}
\mlabel{lem:1ind}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We prove this lemma by induction. For $\ell =1$,
by the quasi-shuffle relation, we have
$$[1]*[\vec s]=[1,\vec s]+\sum_{1\leq j_1 \leq m_1} c_{1,j_1}[\vec s_{1,j_1}],
$$
where $c_{1,j_1}\in \{0,1\}$ and $\vec{s}_{1,j_1}\in \ZZ_{\geq 1}^{k_{1,j_1}}$ have the first component greater than $1$.
So
$$[1,\vec s]=[1]*[\vec s]-\sum_{1\leq j_1 \leq m_1}c_{1,j_1}[\vec s_{1,j_1}],
$$
giving us the coefficients $a_{0,1}=1, a_{1,i_1}=-c_{1,i_1}$ and proving Item~(\mref{it:1inda}) when $\ell=1$.
Further for any $\vec{p}=(p_1)\in \ZZ_{\geq 0}^1$ and $\vec{r}\in \ZZ_{\geq 0}^k$, note that the quasi-shuffle product in $\calh_\frakM$ has the same effect on the first row and the second row of the basis elements $\wvec{\vec{s}}{\vec{r}}$. Thus we have
$$\wvec{1}{p_1}*\wvec{\vec s}{\vec{r}}=\wvec{1,\vec s}{p_1,\vec{r}}+\sum_{1\leq j_1 \leq m_1}c_{1,j_1}\wvec{\vec s_{1,j_1}}{\vec{r}_{1,j_1}},
$$
for the same $c_{1,j_1}$ in the last part of the proof. Here $\vec{r}_{1,j_1}\in \ZZ_{\geq 0}^{k_{1,j_1}}$. Thus for the same coefficients $a_{i,j_i}, 0\leq i\leq 1,$ in the last part of the proof, we have
$$
\wvec{1,\vec s}{p_1,\vec{r}}= a_{0,1}\wvec{1}{p_1}*\wvec{\vec s}{\vec{r}}+\sum_{1\leq j_1 \leq m_1}a_{1,j_1}\wvec{\vec s_{1,j_1}}{\vec{r}_{1,j_1}},
$$
proving Item~(\mref{it:1indb}) when $\ell=1$.
Now assume that the lemma is proved for $1, \cdots, \ell$. Then by the quasi-shuffle product, we have
$$[\{1\}^{\ell +1}]*[\vec s]=[\{1\}^{\ell +1},\vec s]+\sum _{1\leq j_i\leq m_i, 0\leq i\leq \ell }c_{i,j_i}[\{1\}^i,\vec s_{i,j_i}],
$$
where $c_{i,j_i}\in \{0,1\}$ and $s_{i,j_i}\in \ZZ_{\geq 0}^{k_{i,j_i}}$.
Further for any $\vec{p}\in \ZZ_{\geq 0}^{\ell+1}$ and $\vec{r}\in \ZZ_{\geq 0}^k$, we also have
$$\wvec{\{1\}^{\ell +1}}{\ \vec{p}\ }*\wvec{\vec s}{\vec{r}}=\wvec{\{1\}^{\ell +1},\vec s}{\ \vec{p},\ \vec{r}}+\sum _{1\leq j_i\leq m_i, 0\leq i\leq \ell }c_{i,j_i}\wvec{\quad \{1\}^i,\quad \vec s_{i,j_i}}{p_1,\cdots,p_i,\vec{r}_{i,j_i}}
$$
for the same $c_{i,j_i}$ and some $\vec{r}_{i,j_i}\in\ZZ_{\geq 0}^{k_{i,j_i}}$.
Thus
\begin{equation}
[\{1\}^{\ell +1},\vec s]=[\{1\}^{\ell +1}]*[\vec s]-\sum _{0\leq i\leq \ell, j\geq 0}c_{i,j_i} [\{1\}^i,\vec s_{i,j_i}]
\mlabel{eq:inda2}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\wvec{\{1\}^{\ell +1},\vec s}{\vec{p},\vec{r}}=\wvec{\{1\}^{\ell +1}}{\vec{p}}*\wvec{\vec s}{\vec{r}}-\sum _{1\leq j_i\leq m_i, 0\leq i\leq \ell }c_{i,j_i}\wvec{\quad \{1\}^i,\quad \vec s_{i,j_i}}{p_1,\cdots,p_i,\vec{r}_{i,j_i}}.
\mlabel{eq:indb2}
\end{equation}
By the induction hypothesis, the lemma applies the terms in the sums of the last two equations and gives expressions in Eqs.~(\mref{eq:inda1}) and (\mref{eq:indb1}). In particular, for each term in the sum in Eq.~(\mref{eq:inda2}), the coefficients $a_{i,j_i}$ in Eq.~(\mref{eq:inda1}) are the same as the coefficients in Eq.~(\mref{eq:indb1}) for the corresponding term in the sum in Eq.~(\mref{eq:indb2}).
Thus the lemma is proved for $\ell+1$, completing the induction.
\end{proof}
By Lemma~\mref{lem:1ind}, we have, for $\ell\geq 1$,
$$\wvec{\{1\}^\ell,\vec s}{\vec{e}_1,
\vec 0}=\sum_{1\leq j_i\leq m_i, 0\leq i\leq\ell} a_{i,j_i} \wvec{\{1\}^i}{\vec{e}_1}*\wvec{\vec
s_{i,j_i}}{\vec r_{i,j_i}}
$$
where $\vec{e}_1$ on the left (resp. right) hand side is the first unit vector of dimension $\ell$ (resp. $i$), and
$$\wvec{\{1\}^\ell,\vec s}{\{1\}^\ell,
\vec s}=\sum_{1\leq j_i\leq m_i, 0\leq i\leq\ell} a_{i,j_i} \wvec{\{1\}^i}{\{1\}^i}*\wvec{\vec
s_{i,j_i}}{\vec r\,'_{i,j_i}}
$$
for the $a_{i,j_i}\in \ZZ$ in Lemma~\mref{lem:1ind} and some
$\vec r_{i,j_i}, \vec r\,'_{i,j_i}\in
\ZZ ^{k_{i,j_i}}_{\ge 0}$.
Therefore, we have
\begin {equation}
Z(\wvec{\{1\}^\ell,\vec s}{\vec{e}_1,
\vec 0};\vep)=\hspace{-.4cm}\sum_{1\leq j_i\leq m_i, 0\leq i\leq\ell} \hspace{-.4cm}a_{i,j_i} Z(\wvec{\{1\}^i}{\vec{e}_1}*\wvec{\vec s_{i,j_i}}{\vec r_{i,j_i}};\vep)
=\hspace{-.4cm}\sum_{1\leq j_i\leq m_i, 0\leq i\leq\ell} \hspace{-.4cm} a_{ij} Z(\wvec{\{1\}^i}{\vec{e}_1};\vep)Z(\wvec{\vec s_{i,j_i}}{\vec r_{i,j_i}};\vep) \mlabel
{eq:1expstu}
\end {equation}
and
\begin {equation}
Z(\wvec{\{1\}^\ell,\vec s}{\{1\}^\ell,
\vec s};\vep)=\hspace{-.4cm}\sum_{1\leq j_i\leq m_i, 0\leq i\leq\ell}\hspace{-.4cm} a_{i,j_i} Z(\wvec{\{1\}^i}{\{1\}^i}*\wvec{\vec s_{i,j_i}}{\vec r\,'_{i,j_i}};\vep) =\hspace{-.4cm}\sum_{1\leq j_i\leq m_i, 0\leq i\leq\ell} \hspace{-.4cm} a_{i,j_i} Z(\wvec{\{1\}^i}{\{1\}^i}) Z(\wvec{\vec s_{i,j_i}}{\vec r\,'_{i,j_i}};\vep). \mlabel{eq:1expshu}
\end{equation}
By Theorem~\mref{thm:polyphi}.(\mref{it:polyphi}), taking $\vep \to 0$ in Eq.~(\mref {eq:1expstu}) gives
\begin{equation}
Z^{RB}(x_1^\ell\frakx_{\vec s})=\sum_{1\leq j_i\leq m_i, 0\leq i\leq\ell} a_{i,j_i}Z^{RB}(x_1^i)\zeta (\vec s_{i,j_i}).
\mlabel{eq:1shf}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, by Lemma~\mref{lem:zsum}, the Laurent series expansions of the regularized MZVs $Z(\wvec{\vec{u}}{\vec{u}};\vep)$ in Eq.~(\mref{eq:1expshu}) are in $\CC[T]\{\{\vep\}\}$. Thus the corresponding renormalized values $\zeta(\wvec{\vec{u}}{\vec{u}})$ defined in~\cite[Definition 3.5]{GZ} are obtained by taking $\vep=0$ in $Z(\wvec{\vec{u}}{\vec{u}};\vep)$.
Thus we have
\begin{equation}
\zeta(\wvec{\{1\}^\ell,\vec s}{\{1\}^\ell,\vec s})=\sum_{1\leq j_i\leq m_i, 0\leq i\leq\ell} a_{i,j_i}\zeta(\wvec{\{1\}^i}{\{1\}^i})\zeta (\vec s_{i,j_i}).
\mlabel{eq:1qsh}
\end{equation}
Note that $x_1^\ell=x_1^{\ssha \ell}/\ell!$ in $\calh\shf\lone\nonu$. Thus with the assignment
\begin{equation}
\beta (\frac {T^\ell}{\ell!})=\beta (Z^{RB}(x_1^\ell):=\zeta (\wvec{\{1\}^\ell}{\{1\}^\ell}), \quad \ell\geq 1,
\mlabel{eq:beta}
\end{equation}
and $\CC$-linearity, from Eqs.~(\mref{eq:1shf}) and (\mref{eq:1qsh}) we have
\begin{equation}
\beta (Z^{RB}(x_1^\ell \frakx_{\vec s}))=\zeta(\wvec{\{1\}^\ell,\vec s}{\{1\}^\ell,\vec s}),
\mlabel{eq:beta2}
\end{equation}
giving a linear map
$$ \beta: \CC[T] \to \CC[T].$$
\begin {theorem}
We have $$\beta =\rho ^{-1}$$ for the $\rho$ in Eq.~(\mref{eq:rho})
from~\mcite{IKZ}. \mlabel{thm:ed2}
\end{theorem}
\begin {proof}
By Theorem~\mref{thm:rbmzv} we have $Z^{RB}=Z^{\ssha}$.
By Theorem 4.5 and Proposition 4.7 in~\mcite{GZ}, we have
$\zeta(\wvec{\vec{u}}{\vec{u}})=Z^*(\vec{u})$ for $\vec{u}\in \ZZ^k_{\geq 1}$. Thus by Eq.~(\mref{eq:beta2}) and Theorem 1 in \mcite{IKZ}, $\beta$ agrees with $\rho^{-1}$.
\end {proof}
We end our discussion with an application of Theorem~\mref{thm:ed2}.
{}From the property of $\rho$ in~(\mref{eq:rho}):
$$\rho (e^{Tu})=A(u)e^{Tu}
$$
and Theorem~\mref{thm:ed2}, we have
$$\frac 1{A(u)}e^{Tu}=\beta (e^{Tu}).
$$
But by the definition of $A(u)$ in Eq.~(\mref{eq:A}) and the identification of $T$ with $Z^*(1)$, we have
$$\frac 1{A(u)}e^{Tu}=\exp(\sum _{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n-1}Z ^*(n)\frac {u^n}n).
$$
By Eq.~(\mref{eq:beta}), we have
$$\beta (e^{Tu})=1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty Z^*(\{1\}^n)u^n.
$$
Therefore we have
\begin{coro}
$$\exp(\sum _{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n-1}Z^*(n)\frac {u^n}n)=1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty Z^*(\{1\}^n)u^n.
$$
\mlabel{co:zetaone}
\end{coro}
This is an extension of the well-known formula~\mcite{IKZ}
$$
\exp(\sum _{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n-1}\zeta ^*(nk)\frac {u^n}n)=1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty \zeta
^*(\{k\}^n)u^n, \quad k\geq 2.
$$
and can also be derived from~\cite[(5.8)]{IKZ}.
|
\section*{}
\section{Introduction}
During the last years strong evidences for an accelerated expansion of the Universe has been found through several independent cosmological tests \citep{rie,per,wmap}. On the other hand, dynamical estimations of the amount of matter in the Universe seem to indicate the picture provided by the standard cold dark matter (CDM) scenario \citep{ost}. The combination of these evidences leads to the so called dark sector of the Universe, whose essential nature is still unknown. Actually there is a great number of cosmological models that try to account the dark sector of the Universe. The most known are: $\Lambda$CDM \citep{arm}, quintessence cosmological model \citep{cal}, Chaplygin gas model \citep{kam}, viscous fluid cosmological model \citep{vis01,vis02,kre}, holographic dark energy model \citep{cam}, etc. Each one solves some problems but creates other questions. A possible way to improve these models and to shed light on these questions is to test them against the available observational cosmological data. The confrontation between theoretical models and observational data enable us to constraint the cosmological parameters, which is the greatest goal of the modern cosmology. There are some tools that can be used for in this aim: the distance measurements of type Ia supernovae \citep{mg}; the power spectrum fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation \citep{ber, ben}, nucleosynthesis constraints \citep{tur} and so on.
\par
The gravitational lens can be other important tool for determining the cosmological parameters of our Universe. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity predicts that a massive object curves space-time in its vicinity. As a consequence of this curvature, the light emitted from a background source is deflected and its image is distorted when the light passes near massive objects, such as galaxies and galaxy clusters. The lens effect can distort and magnify the image of the source. Thus, the gravitational lensing effect provides a method for probing the mass distribution of the Universe, without any dependence on luminous tracers or physical assumptions such as hydrostatic equilibrium and virialisation. If in the early years \citep{ein01, edi01, zwi01} the discussion was essentially theoretical, in the recent years the great quantity of observed gravitational lenses changed this situation. Moreover, it was found that this phenomenon can provide precise information about the geometry of the universe and the present accelerated expansion process.
\par
In general the methods using the gravitational lensing can be classified in three cases \citep{silvia}. In the first case the time differences for images and the subsequent lens mapping of the paths followed by the light is made using the Fermat`s principle. The expression for the geometric time delay is
\begin{equation}
c\Delta t = (1 + z_l)\frac{D_{ol}~D_{os}}{2D_{ls}}(\theta - \beta)^2\quad,
\end{equation}
where, $c$ is the speed of light, $z_l$ is the cosmological redshift of the lens, $D_{ol}$ is the angular distance between the observer and the lens, $D_{os}$ is the angular distance between the observer and the source, $D_{ls}$ is the angular distance between the lens and the source, $\theta$ is the unobserved angular position of the source and $\beta$ is the observed position of the source image. In a background metric with $k = 0$, as considered here, we have $D_{os} = D_{ol} + D_{ls}$. The second case studied in gravitational lensing are the one related with the deflection suffered by light rays passing close to a massive body, considered here as a point-like deflector. This method is called the bending angle or the deflection angle wich is defined as the difference between the initial and final light ray direction and is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{alp1}
\alpha = \frac{4GM}{r_m~c^2}\quad,
\end{equation}
where $G$ is Newton's gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the spherical body and $r_m$ is the minimal distance between the light ray and the body of mass $M$. The more recent studies of gravitational lenses are related to statistical gravitational lensing. The general motivation for the statistical treatment of the gravitational lenses is to obtain a detailed knowledge about the matter content of the Universe. On the other side, a statistical study about gravitational lenses can provide the probability that a given background source have a multiple images under some special conditions given the expected number of lenses within an angular distance of the line of sight, which is called the optical depth.
\par
The purpose of the present work is to verify the behavior of some cosmological models from the point of view of the optical depth employing the framework developed by \cite{turner01} and \cite{tur01}. The goal here is to show a qualitative analysis of this phenomenon by comparing some cosmological models for the dark Universe. The outline of the paper is as follows: We describe the mathematical structure of statistics of gravitational lenses used in this study in terms of optical depth (probability of a lensing event occurs) in Section 2; section 3 deals with cosmological models for the dark sector and for this we chose the CDM model, the $\Lambda$CDM model, the Bose-Einstein condensate dark matter model, the Chaplygin gas model, the viscous fluid cosmological model and the holographic dark energy model. Finally we discuss the results obtained in section 4.
\section{The statistics of gravitational lenses}
We need a cosmological scenario to develop a statistical study of gravitational lenses. In this work our description is made with the line element
\begin{equation}
\label{metric}
ds^2 = dt^2 - a^2 (t)\biggl[d\chi^2 + f^2(\chi)(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta~d\phi^2)\biggr]\quad,
\end{equation}
where $t$ is the proper time coordinate, $a(t)$ is the scale factor of the Universe, $\chi$, $\theta$ and $\phi$ are the comoving angular coordinates and $f(\chi)$ is a trigonometric, linear, or hyperbolic function of $\chi$, depending on whether the curvature $k$ is positive, zero or negative, that is the condition required by the homogeneity of the space-time. From now on we shall use natural units with $c = 1$.
\par
In this work, two kind of distances will be fundamental for the description of the relation of the cosmological models with the optical depth
\begin{enumerate}
\item the angular diameter distance $D_{ang}$, defined as the ratio between the proper diameter of an object at $z_2$ and the observed angular diameter of the source $D_{ang}\equiv\frac{D}{\theta} = a(z_1)~r_s$,
\item the luminosity distance $D_{lum}(z_1,z_2)$, defined by the relation in flat spacetime between the luminosity $\mathcal{L}$ of an object at $z_2$ and the flux $\mathcal{S}$ received by an observer at $z_1$, $D_{lum}\equiv\mathcal{L}/4\pi\mathcal{S} $. For a source emitting lights at time $t_1$ located in $r = r_1$ and a detector at $r= 0$ detecting the light at $t= t_0$ we have
\begin{equation}
D_{lum} = \biggl(\frac{a(z_1)}{a(z_2)}\biggr)^2 D_{ang}(z_1, z_2)\quad.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\par
An important result obtained through the study of the statistical lensing is the information about the cosmological parameters and its constraints. Suppose that the galactic lensing can be represented by a simple model known as the singular isothermal sphere (SIS). This model is, in general, consistent with the various data of the gravitational lensing, galactic dynamics and the X-ray emissions of the elliptical galaxies \citep{ofek00, ofek01, fabian01, rix01, rix02, treu01, koop02, koop00, koop01, auger00} and it reproduces very well the flat rotation curves of galaxies. More accurate and detailed values of parameters of halo density profiles related with the several dark matter models are obtained, for example, by using standard NFW profile \citep{NFW00, NFW01} whose three-dimensional density is
\begin{equation}
\rho(r) = \frac{\rho_0}{(r/r_s)(1 + r/r_s)^2} \quad,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_0$ is a constant normalization and $r_s$ is the scale radius. Another way is to use N-body simulations. We point out that both studies are not the goal of this paper. The fact is that the discussion about what is the best fit for the halos of dark matter is still open \citep{treu02, treu03} and we intend to make the comparative studies about these models in future work.
\par
In relation to the SIS model we know that the constant bend angle, equation (\ref{alp1}), which deflects the light ray due to a source as a galaxy in its own rest frame, is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{alp}
\alpha = 4\pi\biggl(\frac{\sigma_v}{c}\biggr)^2\quad,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_v = v_c/\sqrt 2$ is the velocity dispersion associated with the circular velocity $v_c$ of the galaxy. The velocity dispersion is the statistical dispersion of the velocities about the mean velocity for a group of objects, such as an open cluster, globular cluster, galaxy, galaxy cluster, or supercluster. By measuring the radial velocities of its members, the velocity dispersion of a cluster can be estimated and used to derive the cluster's mass from the virial theorem. The empirical correlation between the intrinsic luminosity (proportional to the stellar mass) of a spiral galaxy and how fast they are rotating is called the Tully-Fisher relation \citep{TF}. Specifically the relation is $L\propto v^4$. The Faber-Jackson relation \citep{FJ} is an early empirical power-law relation between the luminosity and the central stellar velocity dispersion of elliptical galaxies, $L\propto\sigma_v^{\gamma}$, where $\gamma$ depends on the range of galaxy luminosities that is fitted.
\par
In addition to the relationship between luminosity and velocity dispersion there are other features of interest in the study of gravitational lenses. The distribution of the luminosity of galaxies is well approximated by the Schechter luminosity function \citep{sche76}
\begin{equation}
\phi(L) dL = \phi_*\biggl(\frac{L}{L_*}\biggr)^{\alpha} e^{-L/L_*} d\biggl(\frac{L}{L_*}\biggr)\quad
\end{equation}
where $L_*$ corresponds to an absolute $B$ magnitude of $-20.8~\mbox{mag}$, the index $\alpha = -1.25$ and the normalization constant $\phi_*$ is fixed in such a way that the mean luminosity-density of all galaxies is ${\mathcal{L}} =2\times 10^8~L_{\odot}/\mbox{Mpc}^3$ in the same band, with $L_{\odot}$ being the solar luminosity. The mass of dark matter halos considered in the general study of large-scale structures, as well as gravitational lensing as done here, is called the mass function $n(M)$, defined by $dN = n(M)dM$, where $dN$ is the number of structures per unit volume with mass between $M$ and $M + dM$. The Press-Schechter formalism \citep{sche74} predicts that the number of objects with mass between $M$ and $M + dM$ is
\begin{equation}
n(M)dM = -\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\frac{d\sigma_M}{dM}\frac{\rho_0\delta_c}{M\sigma^2_M}\mbox{exp}\biggl(-\frac{\delta_c^2}{2\sigma^2_M}\biggr)dM\quad,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_M$ is the variance of the density field filtered on a scale $R$ enclosing a mass $M$, $\rho_0$ is the uniform background density and $\delta(\vec x)$ is the density fluctuation field. This mass function, with $\delta_c = 1.686$, gives us the number density of collapsed objects per unit mass. So, with the Press-Schechter mass function we can modelling the lenses as a population of dark matter halos. Here we assume the
mass density function as constant, $n(M) = n_0$, without limiting the generality of the study done.
\par
When $\alpha$, equation (\ref{alp}), is constant, the Einstein angle of a beam passing at any radius through the SIS is
\begin{equation}
\theta_{E} = 4\pi\biggl(\frac{\sigma_v}{c}\biggr)^2\frac{D_{ls}}{D_{os}} \quad.
\end{equation}
\par
The expected number of lenses within an angle $\theta_E$ of the line of sight, with $d\tau$ representing the differential probability that a given background source have multiple images \citep{turner01}, is given by
\begin{equation}
d\tau = n_0\pi\alpha^2 a_0^3\biggl(\frac{f(\chi_l)[f(\chi_s) - f(\chi_l)]}{f(\chi_s)}\biggr)^2~df(\chi_l)\quad,
\end{equation}
where the comoving galaxy density measured today $n_0 = n(z = 0)$ considered here is a constant, $a_0 = a(t_0)$ is the scale factor of the Universe at the present epoch, $f(\chi)$ is, as the line element (\ref{metric}), a trigonometric, linear, or hyperbolic function of $\chi$, depending on whether the curvature $k$ is positive, zero or negative and $l$ and $s$ correspond to the lenses and the sources, respectively.
\par
The recent results from the measurements of CMB spectrum provide $100\Omega_k = -4.2^{+4.3}_{-4.8}$ (95\%; Planck $+$ WMAP polarization low-multipole likelihood $+$ high-resolution CMB data) \citep{planck}. Hence, we can fix $k = 0$ without an oversimplification of our cosmological models. Moreover, an inflationary phase in the primordial Universe predicts (except for very special cases) $k = 0$. Since for the photon we have $ds^2 = 0 = dt^2 - a^2(t)~dr^2$ and also as we work in a flat Universe where $f(\chi) = r_s$, the comoving coordinate distance is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{r1}
r_s = \int_{0}^{r_s}~dr = \int_{t_{em}}^{t_{obs}}~\frac{dt}{a(t)}\quad.
\end{equation}
So, using the SIS model and considering $k = 0$ it is straightforward to verify that the total optical depth is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{tau}
\tau = \frac{{\cal F}}{30}r_s^3\quad,
\end{equation}
where ${\cal F}$ is a dimensionless parameter given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}\equiv 16\pi^3 n_0 a_0^3\biggl(\frac{\sigma_v}{c}\biggr)^4\quad.
\end{equation}
\par
The equation (\ref{tau}) gives the probability to occur the lensing phenomenon and the information about the cosmological model appears in the $r_s$ comoving distance to the source. We shall see below how to obtain the expression for $r_s$ in some cosmological models.
\section{Description of the cosmological models}
Using the metric (\ref{metric}) and the Einstein's field equations
\begin{equation}
R^{\mu}_{\nu} - \frac{1}{2}Rg^{\mu}_{\nu} = 8\pi GT^{\mu}_{\nu}\quad,
\end{equation}
we obtain the Friedmann equation
\begin{equation}
\label{hubble}
H^2 = \frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho_{tot} = \frac{8\pi G}{3}\sum_i\rho_{i}\quad,
\end{equation}
where $H\equiv \dot a/a$ is the Hubble parameter and $\rho_{tot} = \sum_i\rho_{i}$ is the total matter density of the Universe.
\par
The Friedmann equation (\ref{hubble}) can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
h^2(t) = \frac{H^2 (t)}{H_0^{2}} = \Omega_{tot} = \sum_i\Omega_{i}\quad,
\end{equation}
where $h(t)$ is the normalized Hubble parameter, $H_0$ is the Hubble parameter today (we adopt $H_0 = 70 \textrm{km}/\textrm{s}/\textrm{Mpc}$), $\Omega_i = \rho_i/\rho_{cr}$, with $\rho_i$ denoting a matter component of the Universe, $\rho_{cr} = 3H_o^2/8\pi G$ is the critical density and the scale factor today was normalized to unity, $a(t_0) = 1$. In this way, the expression above has become a dimensionless equation. So, in terms of the redshift $z$, we have the definitions
\begin{eqnarray}
z &=& \frac{1}{a(t)} - 1\nonumber\quad,\\
H = \frac{\dot a}{a} &=& - \frac{1}{1 + z}\frac{dz}{dt}\quad,
\end{eqnarray}
and the equation (\ref{r1}) for the comoving distance is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{erre}
r_s(z_{em}, z_{obs}) = H_0^{-1}\int^{z_{em}}_{z_{obs}}~\frac{1}{h(z)}~dz\quad,
\end{equation}
where $h(z)$ is different to every cosmological model used here, as we shall see below.
\subsection{Cold Dark Matter Model}
By using accurate measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background fluctuations, WMAP determined that the Universe is flat \citep{wmap}. It follows that the mean energy density in the Universe is equal to the critical density $\rho_c$. From this total density, we now know that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\sim 5\%$ is made up of atoms, but this amount of baryonic mass do not explain the rotational curves of spiral galaxies and the structure formation on large scales that is observed today;
\item $\sim 23\%$ is composed of one or more species of particles that interact very weakly with ordinary matter and are modeled as pressureless and non-relativistic particles, called cold cark matter (CDM).
\item $\sim 72\%$ is made up of something that we called dark energy (DE), which has a repulsive gravitational effect and has the needed amount to explain both the flatness of the universe and the current observed accelerated expansion.
\end{enumerate}
\par
The simplest model of the Universe, which will be called CDM model, is not realistic from the observation point of view but it is an interesting toy model. It is composed only of pressureless matter, with an equation of state given by $p=0$, and radiation, with $p = \rho/3$. In this case the probability of one event of gravitational lensing occur is obtained by direct integration of equation (\ref{tau}), with help of the expression (\ref{erre}) and with the normalized Hubble parameter given by
\begin{equation}
h(z) = [\Omega_m~(z + 1)^3 + \Omega_r~(z + 1)^4]^{1/2}\quad,
\end{equation}
where $\Omega_m$ is the dark matter density parameter (baryonic and non-baryonic) and $\Omega_r$ is the radiation density parameter.
\par
The curve for this model can be viewed in Figure \ref{fig_cdm1} with some values of the density parameter of the pressureless matter $\Omega_m$ and with the value of the radiation $\Omega_r$ fixed. For the estimation of the radiative contribution, neutrino and photon components are taken into account. For the pressureless fluid, baryonic and weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPS), which can be components of the cold dark matter, are considered.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes1}
\caption{Optical depth behavior as a function of the source redshift $z_S$ in the CDM model for different values of $\Omega_m$ and with $\Omega_r = 10^{-4}$.}
\label{fig_cdm1}
\end{figure}
\par
In Figure \ref{fig_cdm1} we see that for $\Omega_m = 0.045$ the optical depth is substantially larger as compared with the observational estimation, $\Omega_m = 0.3$, and when the dark matter dominates the mass content of the Universe, $\Omega_m = 1$.
\subsection{$\Lambda$CDM}
A cosmological model with a positive cosmological constant ($\Lambda > 0$), formed by an exotic form of energy with an equation of state $p = -\rho$ (the same equation of state for the vacuum) is called $\Lambda$CDM model. The cosmological constant fluid has a density parameter of about $\Omega_{\Lambda}\equiv\Lambda/3H^2\approx 0.7$ and the pressureless non-baryonic dark matter, which does not couple with radiation, have a density of about $\Omega_m\approx 0.3$. This cosmological model, also called concordance model, in general solve the problems of the accelerated expansion of the Universe and the rotation curves of spiral galaxies. To a flat universe ($\Omega_{k}=0$) described by this model, the normalized Hubble parameter is given by
\begin{equation}
h(z) = [\Omega_m~(z + 1)^3 + \Omega_{\Lambda}]^{1/2}\quad.
\end{equation}
\par
The optical depth for this model is represented in Figure \ref{fig_lcdm1} where it can be observed almost no differences among the cases $(\Omega_m = 0.3 ,~ \Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.3)$, $(\Omega_m = 0.3 ,~ \Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7)$ and $(\Omega_m = 0.3 ,~ \Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.9)$. When there is only the cosmological constant, the optical depth $\tau$ become larger than the other cases. As the concordance model is more acceptable from the standpoint of cosmological observations, in the case of statistical lensing this model cannot be confirmed yet by the current observational data.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes2}
\caption{Optical depth behavior as a function of the source redshift $z_S$ in the $\Lambda$CDM model for different values of $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$.}
\label{fig_lcdm1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bose-Einstein Condensate Dark Matter Model}
The fundamental nature of dark matter is still unknown. The existence of dark matter particles, such as WIMPs, is one of the possible hypotheses considered in order to describe the observable behavior of the CDM. If these particles are spin-$0$ bosons a Bose-Einstein condensation \citep{bose01} can take place during the history of the Universe once the temperature of the dark matter gas is smaller than the critical temperature. In this model dark matter is described as a non-relativistic gravitational condensate with a polytropic equation of state \citep{bose02, bose03}.
\par
After the condensation process all dark matter is in the form of Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) and the equation of state is
\begin{eqnarray}
P = \omega_{\textrm{BEC}} \rho^2 \quad, \\
\omega_{\textrm{BEC}} = \frac{2 \pi \hbar^2 l_a}{m^3} \quad,
\end{eqnarray}
where $l_a$ is the scattering length and $m$ is the mass of the dark matter particles. Using the energy-density conservation equation we find that
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\textrm{BEC}}=\frac{\rho_0\left(1+z\right)^3}{\left(1+\omega_{\textrm{BEC}}\rho_0\right)-\omega_{\textrm{BEC}}\rho_0\left(1+z\right)^3}\quad,
\end{equation}
and the reduced Hubble parameter for a Universe filled with baryonic matter, BEC and cosmological constant is
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
&&h(z) = \biggl[\Omega_{\Lambda} + \biggl(\Omega_m + \\
&& \frac{\Omega_{\textrm{BEC}}}{\left(1+\omega_{\textrm{BEC}}\rho_0\right)-\omega_{\textrm{BEC}}\rho_0\left(1+z\right)^3}
\biggr)(1 + z)^3\biggr]^{1/2}\quad, \end{eqnarray}
where $\rho_{\textrm{crt}}$ is the critical density of the Universe today. Here we will assume the typical values $l_a = 10^{-12}~\textrm{m}$ and $m=10^{-36}~\textrm{Kg}$ such as $\omega_{\textrm{BEC}} \approx 10^3$ and $\rho_{\textrm{crt}}=10^{-32}~\textrm{Kg}/\textrm{m}^3$. In Figure \ref{fig_bec1} we show the curve of optical depth for the BEC dark matter model with different values of $\omega_{BEC}$ with and without cosmological constant. When the cosmological constant is absent, {\it i.e.}, the total quantity of matter is made of the condensate dark matter (upper figure), the optical depth is insensitive to the chosen values of the parameter $\omega_{BEC}$. This is more clear in the middle figure where the same values of the cosmological parameters of the above figure are used. The overlap of the curves remains indicating that this result is a consequence of the little influence of the variation of the parameters in the calculation of the optical depth. However, when the cosmological constant is included (lower figure) we see that for low values of $\omega_{BEC}$ this cosmological model produces $\tau$ with a lower probability of finding gravitational lenses, while for large values of the parameter $\omega_{BEC}$ no difference is found. The Figure \ref{fig_bec2} shows the comparison of the BEC dark matter model for a fixed value of $\omega_{BEC}$ with baryons, dark matter and cosmological constant (solid black line) and only baryons and dark matter (dashed line). We can see that the case with cosmological constant produces a larger probability of finding gravitational lenses compared with the case without cosmological constant.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes3}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{zoom32}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes4}
\caption{Optical depth behavior as a function of the source redshift $z_S$ in the Bose-Einstein condensate dark matter model for different values of $\omega_\textrm{BEC}$ without (upper figure) and with cosmological constant (lower figure). To allow a closer inspection, the middle figure we draw the same figure above, but on a reduced scale. The overlap of the curves remain.}
\label{fig_bec1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes5}
\caption{Comparing the optical depth as a function of the source redshift $z_S$ in the BEC model for a fixed value of $\omega_\textrm{BEC}$ in Universes filled by baryons, BEC dark matter and cosmological constant and only by baryons and BEC dark matter. The critical density is $\rho_{crt} = 10^{-27}$ Kg/m$^3$.}
\label{fig_bec2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Generalized Chaplygin Gas Model}
The cosmological data indicate that there are two basic dark matter-energy components in the Universe and we still do not know their nature. But, by definition, we can assume that the dark matter and the dark energy are two forms of a one single fluid. This scenario is called Unified Dark Matter Energy (UDME) or quartessence, \textit{i.e.}, models in which these two dark components are seen as different manifestations of a single fluid \citep{cha01}. Among the theoretical proposals of this scenarios, an interesting attempt of unification is called generalized Chaplygin gas model (GCG) \citep{cha02}. This exotic fluid has an equation of state given by $p = -A\rho^{-\alpha}$ where $A$ is a positive constant, $\alpha$ is a constant in the range $0 < \alpha \leq 1$ with $\alpha = 1$ being the ordinary Chaplygin gas (CG). For this situation the solution of the continuity equation and the normalized Hubble parameter are written as
\begin{eqnarray}
&\rho_{Ch}& = \rho_0 \times\nonumber\\
&&\biggl(A_{Ch} + (1-A_{Ch})(1 + z)^{3(1 + \alpha)}\biggr)^{\frac{1}{1 + \alpha}},\\
\label{hcgm}
&h(z)& = \nonumber\\
&&\left[\Omega_{Ch}\left(A_{Ch} + (1-A_{Ch})\right)(1+z)^{3(1 + \alpha)} \right]^{\frac{1}{2(1 + \alpha)}}\quad .
\end{eqnarray}
where $A_{Ch} = A/\rho_{0}^{1 + \alpha}$ is a quantity related to the sound speed of the Chaplygin fluid today, with $v_s^2 = \alpha A_{Ch}$. Using the expression (\ref{hcgm}) in the equations (\ref{erre}) and (\ref{tau}) we obtain the optical depth for this model. Currently the CG model has been adopted as a candidate for the DE only \citep{FA02.1}.
\par
If we include a contribution from dark matter and pressureless matter, since this is not accounted by the generalized equation of state of the Chaplygin gas, we will have a new ensemble of models whose normalized Hubble parameter is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
h(z)&=& \biggl[ \Omega_{Ch}\left(A_{Ch}+(1-A_{Ch})\right)(1+z)^{3(1 + \alpha)}+\nonumber\\
& &\Omega_{m}(1+z)^3\biggr]^{\frac{1}{2(1 + \alpha)}}\quad.
\end{eqnarray}
In Figure \ref{Cgm1} we can observe the models CG and GCG together for different values of the theoretical parameters. The upper figure, Chaplygin gas model, shows that the large values of the parameter $A_{CH}$ and $\Omega_{CH}$ produce large probability of finding gravitational lenses. The case where $A_{Ch} = 0.5$ is insensitive to the quantity of Chaplygin gas density $\Omega_{Ch}$. The models $(\Omega_m = 0.045,~\Omega_{Ch} = 0.955)$ and $(\Omega_m = 0.3,~\Omega_{Ch} = 0.7)$ are almost indistinguishable. On the other hand, in the generalized Chaplygin gas model all cases are almost indistinguishable, irrespective of the values of the parameters $\Omega_m$, $\Omega_{Ch}$ and $\alpha$.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes6}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes7}
\caption{Optical depth as a function of the source redshift $z_S$ in the Chaplygin gas model, $\alpha = 1$, (upper figure) and in the generalized Chaplygin gas model (lower figure), with $A_{Ch} = 0.6$.}
\label{Cgm1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Viscous Cosmological Model}
Other possibility to describe the dark sector is by using a viscous fluid. The equation of state in this case is \citep{vis02}
\begin{equation}
p =\beta \rho- \xi(\rho) u^\mu_{;\mu} \quad,
\end{equation}
where $p_\beta = \beta \rho$ is the perfect fluid component and $p_{visc} = - \xi(\rho) u^\mu_{;\mu}$ is a bulk viscosity component. We consider that the bulk viscous component has a power law dependence in the energy density according to $\xi(\rho_v)=\xi_0 \rho_v^\nu$ where $\xi_0$ is a constant. Once that $u^\mu_{;\mu} = 3 H$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{vp}
p =\beta \rho- 3 H \xi_0 \rho^\nu \quad,
\end{equation}
and the continuity equation with the equation of state (\ref{vp}), leads to
\begin{equation}
\rho = \rho_{v0}\left[ A_{visc} + (1-A_{visc}) (1+z)^{-r}\right]^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{2}-\nu}},
\end{equation}
with a normalized Hubble parameter given by
\begin{equation}
\label{hvm}
h(z)=\Omega_{visc}^{1/2}\left[ A_{visc} + (1-A_{visc}) (1+z)^{-r}\right]^{\frac{1}{1-2\nu}}\quad,
\end{equation}
where the parameters are
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{visc} &=& 3\xi_0 \left(\frac{8\pi G}{3} \right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{1+\beta}\frac{1}{\rho_{vis,0}^{1/2-\nu}}\quad,\nonumber\\
r &=& 3(1+\beta)\biggl(\nu-\frac{1}{2}\biggr)\quad.
\end{eqnarray}
\par
With the equation (\ref{hvm}) we can obtain the optical depth $\tau$ whose behavior is shown in Figure \ref{figvisc}. Here the behavior of the optical depth appears to be grouped by the value of the parameter $\beta$, associated with the barotropic fluid of the equation of state (\ref{vp}). It is insensitive to the value of the parameter $\nu$.
\par
The cosmological model obtained by a viscous fluid is more general than the Chaplygin gas model at background level. This is verified when we analyse the normalized Hubble parameter, equation (\ref{hvm}). If we consider the values $\beta = 0$, $\nu = -3/2$ and $\Omega_m = 0$ the result has a similar behavior to the cosmological scenario of the Chaplygin gas model, equation (\ref{hcgm}). This result can be observed in Figure \ref{figvisc1} to the particular case where $A_{visc} = 0.5$. When $A_{visc} = 1.0$ the similar behavior between viscous model and Chaplygin gas model is lost and the probability of finding gravitational lenses is larger.
\par
A Universe whose matter content is a mixture of dark matter and viscous fluid is shown in Figure \ref{figvisc2}. In this case the upper figure is similar at the upper figure of Figure \ref{figvisc1} where there is only the viscous fluid. The lower figure shows the same behavior of the model that has the parameters $(A_{visc} = 0.6, \beta = 1)$ and $(A_{visc} = 1.0, \beta = 1)$.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes8}
\caption{Optical depth as a function of the source redshift $z_S$ in the viscous fluid model, with $\Omega_{visc} = 1.0$ and $A_{visc} = 0.6$.}
\label{figvisc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes9}
\caption{Comparison of the optical depth as a function of the source redshift $z_S$ between the viscous fluid model, with $\Omega_{visc} = 1.0$, $\beta = 0$, and $\nu = -3/2$, and the Chaplygin gas model, with $\Omega_{Ch}=1.0$ and $A_{Ch}=0.5$.}
\label{figvisc1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes10}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes11}
\caption{Optical depth as a function of the source redshift $z_S$ in the Universe where there is a mixture of viscous fluid and the cold dark matter. In the upper figure $A_{visc} = 0.6$, $\beta = 1.0$ and $\nu = -1.0$ while in the lower figure $\Omega_m = 0.3$, $\Omega_{visc} = 0.7$ and $\nu = - 3/2$.}
\label{figvisc2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Holographic Dark Energy Model}
The so called holographic dark energy model \citep{LI04.1,cam,HM02.1,CK99.1} represents other prototype of a unified cosmological model. In this model is established a theoretical relation between a short distance (ultraviolet cutoff) and a long distance (infrared cutoff), according to the holographic principle, where the number of degrees of freedom in a bounded system should be finite and related to the area of its boundary. Different values of the cutoffs provide different holographic dark energy models. When $L$, the volume of any space part, is identified with the Hubble radius $H^{-1}$, the resulting dark-energy density will have the value close to the observed value for the cosmological constant. For a special class of this model we can allow interaction with dark mater, doing a more realistic model. In this model, the Friedmann equations for the spatially flat case are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
H^2 &=& \frac{8 \pi G}{3} (\rho_m + \rho_{hol})\quad,\\
\label{2F}
\dot H &=& -4\pi G(\rho_m + \rho_{hol} + p_{hol})\nonumber\\
&=& -\frac{3}{2}H^2\biggl(1 + \frac{\omega}{1 + r}\biggr)\quad,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho_m$ is the energy density of the pressureless matter component, $\rho_{hol}$ is the holographic dark energy component, $p_{hol}$ is the pressure associated with the holographic component, $w = p_{hol}/\rho_{hol}$ is the equation-of-state parameter and $r = \rho_m/\rho_{hol}$ is the ratio of the energies of both components. The total energy density $\rho_t = \rho_m + \rho_{hol}$ is conserved and we can suppose that both components interact according to
\begin{equation}
\dot{\rho}_m + 3H\rho_m = Q \quad,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\dot{\rho}_{hol} + 3H(1+w)\rho_{hol} = -Q\quad.
\label{cont_rhoH}
\end{equation}
\par
According to \citep{LI04.1} the holographic dark energy density is
\begin{equation}
\label{ded}
\rho_{hol} = \frac{3 c^2 M_p^2}{L^2}
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the infrared (IR) cutoff scale and $M_p = 1/\sqrt{8\pi G}$ is the reduced Planck mass. The numerical constant $c^2$ determines the degree of saturation of the condition $L^3 \rho_{hol} \leq M_p^2 L$, which means that the holographic dark energy density in the box of size $L$ cannot exceed the energy of a black hole of the same size.
\par
In the following we show two different choices of the cutoff scale $L$ that lead to two different holographic dark energy models and the $h(z)$ values used in the optical depth calculus.
\subsubsection{Hubble-scale cutoff}
In this particular choice of the cutoff we have $L = H^{-1}$ and the equation (\ref{ded}) becomes
\begin{equation}
\rho_{hol} = 3 c^2 M_p^2 H^2\quad.
\end{equation}
Differentiating the above equation, applying the equation (\ref{2F}) and using the ratio between the energies $r$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\dot{\rho}_{hol} + 3 H (1+\omega)\rho_{hol} = \frac{3H\omega\rho_m}{1 + r}\quad.
\end{equation}
Comparing this result with the equation (\ref{cont_rhoH}) we see that the value of the interaction term $Q$ to this particular case is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
Q = -\frac{3H\omega\rho_m}{1 + r} \quad.
\end{eqnarray}
\par
We can define a new parameter, $\Gamma$ as
\begin{equation}
\Gamma \equiv \frac{Q}{\rho_{hol}} = -\frac{3H\omega}{1 + r} r\quad,
\end{equation}
which denotes the ratio of change of $\rho_{hol}$ produced by the interaction. The expression $\Gamma/r$ is a freedom parameter and can be used to establish a viable cosmological model. Here, we assume that the interaction rate $\Gamma$ is proportional to a power of Hubble rate
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Gamma}{3Hr} = \mu \left( \frac{H}{H_0}\right)^{-n}\quad .
\end{equation}
The parameter $n$ allows us to write different interactions while the quantity $\mu$ is an interaction constant and is related to the present value of the deceleration parameter $q_0$ as
\begin{equation}
\mu = \frac{1}{3} (1-2q_0) \quad.
\end{equation}
So we can write the continuity equation as
\begin{equation}
\label{cont}
\dot{\rho} + 3 H \left[ 1- \mu \left( \frac{H}{H_0}\right)^{-n}\right]\rho = 0\quad ,
\end{equation}
where $\rho = \rho_m + \rho_{hol}$ corresponds to a total density in the spatially flat background.
The solution of equation (\ref{cont}) is equivalent to that of the generalized Chaplygin gas \citep{FA02.1} for $n \not= 0$,
\begin{equation}
\rho = \rho_0 \left[ \mu + (1-\mu)a^{\frac{-3n}{2}}\right]^{\frac{2}{n}}
\end{equation}
so the normalized Hubble parameter, in terms of $q_0$, is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{hub}
h(z) = \sqrt{\Omega_0}\left[\frac{1-2q_0+2(1+ q_0)(1+z)^{\frac{3n}{2}}}{3}\right]^{\frac{1}{n}}\quad .
\end{equation}
From the above expression we obtain the curves of the optical depth, for this particular case, shown in Figures \ref{fighol} and \ref{figholcdm1}. The behavior is the same in the upper and lower pictures in Figure \ref{fighol} where $\Omega_{hol} = 1.0$. On the other hand, in Figure \ref{figholcdm1}, where CDM is included, we see total similarity between the models despite variation of parameters $q_0$ and $n$.
\par
For the special case $n=2$, the expression (\ref{hub}) is similar to that for the $\Lambda$CDM model and this comparison is shown in Figure \ref{fighollcdm}. We see that the similarity occurs only when dark matter and holographic dark energy are present in the proportion of $30\%$ and $70\%$, respectively.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes12}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes13}
\caption{Optical depth as a function of the source redshift $z_S$ in the holographic dark energy model with Hubble cutoff, $L = H^{-1}$, with the variation of the parameters $n$ and $q_0$ and $\Omega_{hol} = 1.0$.}
\label{fighol}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes14}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes15}
\caption{Optical depth as a function of the source redshift $z_S$ in the holographic dark energy model in the Hubble cutoff, $L = H^{-1}$, with the variation of the parameters $n$ and $q_0$ and $\Omega_{hol} = 0.7, \Omega_m = 0.3$.}
\label{figholcdm1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes16}
\caption{Optical depth as a function of the source redshift $z_S$ in the holographic dark energy and pressureless matter with Hubble cutoff, $L = H^{-1}$, versus $\Lambda$CDM model. The deceleration parameter is fixed in $q_0 = - 0.5$. We see the curves overlap for $\Lambda$CDM (solid black line) and the holographic dark energy model (dashed line) with the parameters values $\Omega_m = 0.3$, $\Omega_{hol} = 0.7$ and $n = 2$.}
\label{fighollcdm}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Future event horizon cutoff}
Other possible cutoff can be obtained considering $L = R_E$, where
\begin{equation}
R_E(t) = a\int^{\infty}_a \frac{da'}{H(a')~a'^2}\quad.
\end{equation}
\par
So, the expression (\ref{ded}) of the holographic dark energy density can be written as
\begin{equation}
\rho_{hol} = \frac{3c^2 M^2_p}{R^2_E}\quad.
\end{equation}
Differentiating the above equation we have
\begin{equation}
\dot\rho_{hol} = -2\frac{\dot R_E}{R_E}\rho_{hol}\quad,
\end{equation}
that leading to expression of the conservation of density energy and the interaction factor $Q$
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot\rho_{hol} &+& 3H(1 + \omega)\rho_{hol} = \biggl[(1 + 3\omega)H + \frac{2}{R_E}\biggr]\rho_{hol}\quad,\nonumber\\
Q &=& - \biggl[(1 + 3\omega)H + \frac{2}{R_E}\biggr]\rho_{hol}\quad.
\end{eqnarray}
\par
Assuming a particular solution in terms of power law function for the energy density ratio as $r = \rho_m/\rho_{hol} = r_0 a^{-\epsilon}$ we can write the interaction rate parameter $\Gamma$ as
\begin{equation}
\Gamma = Hr\biggl[1 - \epsilon + \frac{2}{c}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + r}}\biggr]\quad,
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon < 3$ makes the coincidence problem (the fractional densities of dark matter and dark energy are about the same: $\Omega_{dm}\sim\Omega_{\Lambda}$) less severe than in the $\Lambda$CDM model, where $\epsilon = 3$. Below, the Hubble parameter is shown in general case.
\begin{eqnarray}
h(z, \epsilon) &=& (1 + z)^2\frac{\sqrt{r_0 + (1 + z)^{-\epsilon}}}{\sqrt{r_0 + 1}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\biggl[\frac{\sqrt{r_0 + (1 + z)^{-\epsilon}} + \sqrt{(1 + z)^{-\epsilon}}}{\sqrt{r_0 + 1} + 1}\biggr]^{\frac{2}{\epsilon c}}\quad,
\end{eqnarray}
\par
With the above result, where $\epsilon = 1, 2, 3$, we can calculate the optical depth in this particular cutoff. They are shown in Figure \ref{figholcdm2}. Here we can see that the probability of finding gravitational lenses is basically the same when we change the model parameters, and it is difficult to distinguish the curves.
\par
The situation where the holographic dark energy model is similar to $\Lambda$CDM model is shown in Figure \ref{figholcdm3} and also in this case the superposition of the probability curves is very large but now this situation is indicative of the theoretical similarity of the holographic dark energy model with $L = R_E$ and $\epsilon = 3$ and the $\Lambda$CDM model.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes17}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes18}
\caption{Optical depth as a function of the source redshift $z_S$ in the holographic dark energy model with future event horizon cutoff, $L = R_E$, and pressureless matter model. In the upper figure we have $r_0 = 0.43$ and $c^2 = 0.9$ while the parameter $\epsilon$ varies. In the lower figure we have the variation of the three parameters, $r_0$, $\epsilon$ and $c^2$. In both panels curves overlap, regardless of the values of the parameters used.}
\label{figholcdm2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lentes19}
\caption{Optical depth comparison as a function of the source redshift $z_S$ between the holographic dark energy model, with future event horizon cutoff (solid grey line), $L = R_E$ and $\epsilon = 3$, and the $\Lambda$CDM model (solid black line).}
\label{figholcdm3}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
We studied here the qualitative behavior of the optical depth $\tau$ in terms of some cosmological models.
\par
We can see that, in general, the gravitational lens effects is dependent on the values of the cosmological parameters. This dependence is well illustrated in Figure \ref{figcomp}, although there a small superposition among the models $\Lambda$CDM, BEC, viscous fluid and holographic dark energy ($ H = L ^ {-1} $) for particular choices of parameters and it is impossible to distinguish them with the simple analysis carried out here.
\par
As we are dealing with cosmological models quite different, it is impossible to make a joint analysis of their behavior regarding the relationship between their free parameters and how their variations can infuencethe optical depth in the study of gravitational lensing. Next, we discuss each cosmological model separately and when there is a similarity between the models, we will make a joint analysis.
\par
In the CDM model (Figure \ref{fig_cdm1}) the statistical probability obtained shows that the optical depth $\tau$ decreases with the increasing density parameter and is greater in a Universe with low density. The situation is different in the $\Lambda$CDM model, Figure \ref{fig_lcdm1}. The statistical probability of finding gravitational lenses increases when we increase the amount of the cosmological constant in this model. It is higher when there is no dark matter as part of the material content of the Universe. The BEC model is indifferent to the equation of state when the density parameter $\Omega_{BEC}$ is almost the whole of the material content of the Universe (top figure in Figure \ref{fig_bec1}). This result is confirmed in the middle figure that shows the overlap of the curves in this model on a reduced scale. When the cosmological constant is introduced (figure below in Figure \ref{fig_bec1}), we see that the probability $\tau$ decreases for lower values of the equation of state parameter $\omega_{BEC}$. Furthermore, we can see in Figure \ref{fig_bec2} that the presence of the cosmological constant with the Bose-Einstein condensate dark matter increase the values of the statistical probability of finding gravitational lenses.
\par
For the Chaplygin gas model the statistical probability is very sensitive to changes in model parameters: Large values of $\Omega_{Ch}$ and $A_{Ch}$ along with a small value of $\Omega_{m}$ results in a high value of the optical depth (top figure in Figure \ref{Cgm1}). Another combination of parameters produces a different optical depth curve showing how this model is dependent on the parameters used. In the case of the generalized Chaplygin gas model this dependency is reduced and the differences between the various curves are very small (the lower figure of Fig \ref{Cgm1}).
\par
In general, the viscous fluid model is also very dependent on the values of the parameters used (Figure \ref{figvisc}, Figure \ref{figvisc1} and lower figure in Figure \ref{figvisc2}). However, in the upper figure in Figure \ref{figvisc2} we see a superposition of curves when changing parameters of density, with a small predominance of the values ($ \Omega_m = 0.045, \Omega = 0.7) $ over other .
\par
The holographic dark energy model follows the same dependence-model, both for the case of the Hubble-scale cutoff as in the case of future event horizon cutoff, that was analyzed in the previously cosmological models (see Figures \ref{fighol} - \ref{figholcdm3}). When the density parameters are changed in cutting Hubble scale (lower figure in Figure \ref{fighollcdm}) we observed that the higher probability is found when the matter content of the universe is composed of holographic dark energy $\Omega_ {hol}$ with pressureless matter.
\par
There are cosmological models where the increasing of the amount of dark matter (baryonic and non-baryonic) results in a lower optical depth, namely the CDM model, the GCG model and the viscous cosmological model (see Figure \ref{fig_cdm1}, Figure \ref{Cgm1} and Figure \ref{figvisc2}, upper figure). The situation occurs when the Universe is younger because the optical depth is almost the same for $z\approx 0$. This may seem strange at first given that in a Universe with only dark matter the opposite should happen. There is here, from our point of view, the combination of two situations. In the CDM model the production of gravitational lenses decreases in a situation where there are more baryonic and non-baryonic matter in a less volume that corresponds to a younger universe. On the other hand, in models in which the dark energy is a component of the material content of the Universe, the interaction between dark matter and dark energy changes the cosmological scenario producing the results found by us (see \citep{silvia}, pg 80 for a similar situation). Anyway this kind of behavior should be tested at some point with the observational data to confirm its validity.
\par
The phenomenological approach developed here should of course be complemented by lens models more realistic than provided by SIS model like the Navarro, Frenk and White density profile \citep{NFW00, NFW01}, lens models which are embedded in an external shear field, which is created by matter in the neighbourhood or models obtained by adding two more parameters: the ellipticity and the position angle describing the orientation of the lens. With this, we can make a qualitative analysis and calculate the expected number of gravitational lenses produced by cosmological models studied here and then compare these results with the observed gravitational lenses \citep{tur01, tur02, fuku}. A more detailed comparison between the theoretical predictions for gravitational lensing and observational data should be made in order to restrict more strongly these cosmological models. We will explore these possibilities in future works.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,height=12cm]{lentes20}
\caption{Comparing the optical depth as a function of the source redshift $z_S$ in six different models: $\Lambda$CDM ($\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$), generalized Chaplygin gas ($\Omega_b=0.05$, $\Omega_{Ch}=0.95$, $A_{Ch}=0.7$, $\alpha=0.3$), Bose-Einstein condensate dark matter ($\Omega_b=0.045$, $\Omega_{BEC}=0.255$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, $\omega_{\textrm{BEC}}=10^{3}$), viscous fluid ($\Omega_{m}=0.3$, $\Omega_{vis}=0.7$, $A_{vis}=0.6$, $\beta=0$, $\nu=-3/2$), holographic dark energy with Hubble cutoff ($\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_{Hol}=0.7$, $q_{0}=-0.5$, $n=1/2$) and future event cutoff ($\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_{Hol}=0.7$, $\epsilon=2$, $c^2=0.9$). Here we see more clearly the difficulty in distinguishing between various models with respect to depth optics. We can visualize a difference for large values of $z_S$ in cases of GCG model (solid gray line) and the viscous model (dashed black line). The other four cosmological models overlap. The figure also suggests that the similarities between the cosmological models are very strong for small values of $z_S$.}
\label{figcomp}
\end{figure*}
\acknowledgments
We would like to express our gratitude to C.P. Constantidinis, J.L. Gonzales and C.G.F. Silva for the helpful suggestions and for a careful reading of the manuscript. We are grateful to the referee for his useful comments. This work has received partial financial supporting from CNPq (Brazil), CAPES (Brazil) and FAPES (Brazil).
|
\section{Section I}
Successful runnings of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN open a new era of high energy physics.
It culminated in a discovery of a new boson consistent with the Standard Model (SM) Higgs particle recently,
and a TeV scale regime is probed for the first time.
One of the most fascinating events that might be witnessed at the LHC is the production of mini black holes.
Mini black holes can be produced at the LHC if there exist extra dimensions \cite{XD}.
This is because the fundamental energy scale for strong gravitation $M_*$ in $D=(4+n)$-spacetime dimensions
is much smaller than the Planck mass.
For a mass scale of $M_*\sim 1$ TeV, the LHC is expected to produce $D$-dimensional mini black holes \cite{BH}.
Typically the size of the Schwarzschild radius of mini black holes is $\sim{\cal O}(10^{-4})$ fm.
Mini black holes also evaporate through Hawking radiation just as ordinary black holes,
and the lifetime is $\sim 10^{-26}~\sec$.
Thus once a black hole is produced at the LHC, its creation could be detected by Hawking radiation.
It is also possible that rotating or charged black holes could be produced at the LHC.
Some of the interesting features of rotating black holes are studied in \cite{jplee0}.
For recent searches for mini black holes at the LHC, see \cite{CMS,ATLAS}.
\par
If there exists scale invariance at some high energy scale, its effect is described by unparticles.
Tensor unparticles can produce the so called ungravity.
In a strong ungravity region, black holes induced by ungravity can be formed.
Unparticle black holes look much like higher dimensional black holes,
but with fractional number of dimensions.
One can distinguish ungravity black holes from ordinary ones by investigating their quasi-normal modes \cite{jplee1}.
\par
However, all these black holes are classical in the sense that they show singular behavior at the origin.
For example, the Hawking temperature is inversely proportional to the black hole mass so the temperature becomes
infinitely large at the final stage of evaporation via Hawking radiation.
It is widely believed that some kind of quantum rules would work out for taming the singular behavior of black holes.
One of the most promising candidate for describing quantum nature of spacetime is noncommutative(NC) geometry \cite{Witten, Seiberg}.
Black hole physics in the background of the NC geometry has already been studied comprehensively so far
\cite{Nicolini05,Nicolini06,Myung06, Ansoldi06,Mukherjee,Banerjee08,Banerjee082,Arraut09,Mukherjee2,Banerjee09,Smailagic10, Mureika11}.
Higher dimensional NC black holes are also investigated in \cite{Rizzo06,Nicolini08,Nicolini11}.
\par
For ordinary Schwarzschild geometry the source mass is considered to be distributed as a delta function.
But in a NC geometry the mass density is distributed in a Gaussian form with a dispersion of order $\sim\theta$
which measures the noncommutativity of spacetime \cite{Smailagic, Smailagic2}:
\begin{equation}
\rho_{cont} (r)=\frac{M}{(4\pi\theta)^{3/2}}\exp (-r^2/4\theta)~,
\label{rhocont}
\end{equation}
where $M$ is the black hole mass parameter.
In a NC geometry there is a fundamental uncertainty in a small region of order $\sim\sqrt{\theta}$,
below which we cannot probe or specify precise location.
This is the reason why mass density is fuzzy in the form of Eq.\ (\ref{rhocont}), not as a delta function.
One of the most important results of this setup is that there is a minimum or threshold mass
(and consequently minimum horizon radius).
Below the threshold, the event horizon does not exist.
At the minimum horizon radius the Hawking temperature vanishes and no singular behavior occurs.
\par
In a recent work the author provided with the quantization rule for the NC black holes \cite{jplee2}.
The work was based on the assumption that the NC spacetime geometry inside
every black hole is quantized in such a way that the surface area is quantized in units of the
minimum area given by the minimum black hole radius.
This is a kind of holographic principle where all the relevant information about the black hole is {\em ``pixelated''} on its surface.
In short the black hole surface area is assumed to be quantized as
\begin{equation}
A_n=4\pi r_h^2=4\pi r_0^2 n~,
\label{An4}
\end{equation}
where $r_h$ is the horizon radius, $r_0\sim ({\rm a~few})\times\sqrt{\theta}$ is the minimum horizon radius,
and $n=1, 2, \cdots$.
Ref. \cite{Spallucci} adopts a similar quantization.
The quantization rule for $r_h$ is then
\begin{equation}
r_h=r_0\sqrt{n}~.
\label{rn4}
\end{equation}
Note that these quantizations are for $D=4$ dimensions.
\par
In this work we generalize the idea of quantization of NC black holes into that of $D$-dimensional ones.
In $D$ dimensions the quantization of Eq.\ (\ref{An4}) becomes
\begin{equation}
A_n=\frac{2\pi^{(D-1)/2}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{D-1}{2}\right)}r_h^{D-2}
=\frac{2\pi^{(D-1)/2}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{D-1}{2}\right)}r_0^{D-2}\cdot n~,
\label{An}
\end{equation}
and thus
\begin{equation}
r_h=\left(n^\frac{1}{D-2}\right)r_0~.
\label{rn}
\end{equation}
Using the $D$-dimensional quantization of Eqs.\ (\ref{An}) and (\ref{rn}), we derive the quantization rules
for $D$-dimensional NC black holes in what follows.
As for the quantization of ordinary $D$-dimensional mini black holes, see \cite{Dvali}.
\par
In discretized spacetime, the mass density of Eq.\ (\ref{rhocont}) now becomes
\begin{equation}
\rho(r)=\frac{M}{N_0}e^{-r^2/4\theta}~.
\label{rho}
\end{equation}
Here the normalization $N_0$ is
\begin{equation}
N_0=\frac{2\pi^{(D-1)/2}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{D-1}{2}\right)}r_0^{D-1}
\cdot\sum_{n=1}^\infty n\cdot\exp\left[-\alpha\cdot n^{2/(D-2)}\right]~,
\label{N0}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha\equiv r_0^2/(4\theta)$.
In continuous spacetime the metric function is
\begin{equation}
h_{cont}(r)
=1-\frac{1}{r^{D-3}}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}M_*}\right)^{D-3}
\frac{8\Gamma\left(\frac{D-1}{2}\right)}{D-2}\frac{m_{cont}(r)}{M_*}~,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{cont}(r)
&=&
\int_0^r\rho_{cont}(r)
\frac{2\pi^{\frac{D-1}{2}}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{D-1}{2}\right)}~r^{D-2}dr\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{M}{\Gamma\left(\frac{D-1}{2}\right)}
\gamma\left(\frac{D-1}{2},\frac{r^2}{4\theta}\right)~.
\end{eqnarray}
But for discrete spacetime, one should follow the quantization rule of Eq.\ (\ref{rn})
and $m_{cont}(r)$ must be replaced by
\begin{equation}
m(N)=\sum_{n=1}^N\rho(r)
\left[\frac{2\pi^{\frac{D-1}{2}}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{D-1}{2}\right)}\right]
r^{D-2}\cdot\Delta r~,
\label{mN1}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta r=r_0$ and $r=r_0 n^{1/(D-2)}$.
Using $\rho(r)$ of Eq.\ (\ref{rho}), one has
\begin{equation}
m(N)=\frac{M}{{\cal N}_0}\sum_{n=1}^N n\cdot\exp\left[-\alpha n^{2/(D-2)}\right]~,
\label{mN2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\cal N}_0\equiv\sum_{n=1}^\infty n\cdot\exp\left[-\alpha n^{2/(D-2)}\right]~.
\end{equation}
Now the metric function for the discrete case is
\begin{equation}
h(N)
=1-\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}M_* r_0}\right)^{D-3}
\frac{8\Gamma\left(\frac{D-1}{2}\right)}{D-2}\frac{M}{M_*}
\frac{1} {{\cal N}_0 N^{\frac{D-3}{D-2}}}
\sum_{n=1}^N n\exp\left[-\alpha n^{2/(D-2)}\right]~.
\label{hN}
\end{equation}
To find the minimum horizon radius $r_0$, it is required that
$h(N=1)=h'(N=1)=0$.
Since obtaining the analytic form of $h'(N)$ is very hard, we require that
$h(N=1)=0$ be the global minimum.
Numerical results for $r_0$ and the minimum value of $M$, $M_{min}$,and $m(N=1)$ is summarized
in Table \ref{T1}.
In this analysis we fix $M_*=1/\sqrt{\theta}=1$ TeV.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc}\hline
$D$ & $5$ & $6$ & $7$ & $8$ & $9$ & $10$ & $11$ \\\hline
$r_0$ & $2.89$ & $3.22$ & $3.53$ & $3.80$ & $4.06$ & $4.30$ & $4.53$ \\
$M_{min}$ & $~~22.4~~$ & $~~2.20\times 10^2~~$ & $~~2.01\times 10^3~~$ & $~~1.75\times 10^4~~$ &
$~~1.47\times 10^5~~$ & $~~1.21\times 10^6~~$ & $~~9.73\times 10^6$ \\
$m(N=1)$ & $9.83$ & $70.2$ & $4.76\times 10^2$ & $3.14\times 10^3$ & $2.02\times 10^4$ & $1.28\times 10^5$ &
$~~8.07\times 10^5$ \\
${\cal N}_0$ & $0.282$ & $0.233$ & $0.188$ & $0.150$ & $ 0.118$ & $0.0923$ & $0.0716$
\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of $r_0$, $M_{min}$, $m(N=1)$ in units of $\sqrt{\theta}$, $M_*$, and $M_*$
respectively, and ${\cal N}_0$.}
\label{T1}
\end{table}
One can also find the values of ${\cal N}_0$ approximately by investigating the
converging values for sufficiently large summation number.
The result is also shown in Table \ref{T1}.
Note that the effective black hole mass is $m(N)$, which is in general smaller than $M_N$.
In $D=5$ dimensions $M_{min}=22.4$ (TeV) is quite out of reach of the LHC energy,
while $m(N=1)=9.83$ (TeV) is much smaller than $M_{min}$, but it is still beyond the current LHC energy.
This might be the reason why the LHC has not seen any clues of mini black holes so far \cite{CMS,ATLAS}.
Even the full energy (14TeV) running could cover only $m(N=1)$ of 5 dimensions.
It was pointed out in \cite{Gingrich} that for some other values of $M_*$ for continuous case,
the LHC can directly probe the NC black hole regime.
But the present analysis shows that the failure of current black hole searches at the LHC does not mean that
higher dimensional black holes are not possible.
Much more comprehensive studies on the issue would appear elsewhere.
\par
The fact that much heavier mass is required to form a NC black hole is a very stringent point compared to the ordinary black holes.
The reason is that in the small length region $r\ll\sqrt{\theta}$ there exits radial pressure coming from the vacuum fluctuation \cite{Banerjee082}.
It acts against the inward gravitational collapse of matter to prevent the curvature singularity at the origin.
Another point that should be noticed is that $r_0$ gets larger for higher dimensions.
It is closely related to the qunatization of Eq.\ (\ref{rn}).
Roughly speaking, one needs larger value of $r_0$ for larger $D$ to make the same order of $r$.
This feature is quite contrary to the continuous case \cite{Nicolini11}.
\par
Now the mass parameter $M$ is also quantized by the equation $h(N)=0$ with given
values of $r_0$ and ${\cal N}_0$.
Explicitly,
\begin{equation}
\frac{M}{M_*}=\frac{(D-2){\cal N}_0 (\sqrt{\pi}M_*r_0)^{D-3}N^{(D-3)/(D-2)}}{8\Gamma(\frac{D-1}{2})
\sum^N n\cdot\exp\left[-\alpha n^{2/(D-2)}\right]}~,
\label{MN}
\end{equation}
from which one arrives at
\begin{equation}
\frac{M_*}{M_N}N^\frac{D-3}{D-2}-\frac{M_*}{M_{N-1}}(N-1)^\frac{D-3}{D-2}
=\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}M_* r_0}\right)^{D-3}\frac{8\Gamma\left(\frac{D-1}{2}\right)}{D-2}\frac{N}{{\cal N}_0}
\exp\left(-\alpha\cdot N^\frac{2}{D-2}\right)~.
\label{Mrec}
\end{equation}
The mass spectrum $M_N$ is plotted in Fig.\ \ref{massdist}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{mass-dist-2.eps}
\caption{Mass distributions (red dots) for different spacetime dimensions in units of $M_*$
($D=5,6,\cdots,11,$ from bottom to top).
Solid lines represent continuous mass functions.}
\label{massdist}
\end{figure}
\par
In this figure, dotted plots are obtained from Eq.\ (\ref{MN}) for different $D$,
while solid lines are drawn from $h_{cont}(r)$.
In both dotted and solid plots, $r_0$'s are fixed by the requirement that $h(N=1)=0$ is the global minimum.
Note that two kinds of plots agree with each other very well for sufficiently large $N$,
which implies that the numerical results for the discrete mass spectrum are quite reliable.
However at low $N$, the mass spectra are very different (especially in higher dimensions) from the continuous ones.
In general in this region masses in discrete spectra are much heavier than those in continuous ones.
This is because for discrete spectra not all the masses are added up continuously, for example, in Eq.\ (\ref{mN1}).
Thus the discrete masses should be heavier to compensate for the sparse summation to form a black hole.
But for higher $N$ the difference between the two spectra becomes negligible
since even in the discrete spectra many levels of masses are already added.
In this sense, heavier masses at low $N$ are good test bed to distinguish discrete spectra from continuous ones.
\par
The quantization rule for the effective mass $m(N)$ is rather simple.
According to Eq.\ (\ref{mN2}),
\begin{equation}
\frac{m(N)}{M_*}=\left[\frac{(D-2) (\sqrt{\pi}M_*r_0)^{D-3}}{8\Gamma(\frac{D-1}{2})}\right]N^{(D-3)/(D-2)}~.
\label{mN3}
\end{equation}
This result is consistent with \cite{Dvali} where the black hole mass $M_{BH}$ is
$M_{BH}/M_*\sim N^{(D-3)/(D-2)}$.
\par
In conclusion, we provided with the quantization rules for $D$-dimensional NC black holes based on the holographic principle.
NC geometry requires that there must be a minimum mass (and minimum horizon radius) to form a black hole,
and it is assumed that spacetime is quantized such that $D$-dimensional surface is divided by fundamental area defined by the
minimum horizon radius.
Consequently the discrete mass spectra are obtained and they show different features from continuous ones at lower levels
while they are consistent with other results for higher levels.
The minimum mass scale for NC black hole formation is rather high and gets higher for discrete spectra,
and this might be the reason why the LHC could not see any clue of mini black holes up to now.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The author thanks Yeong Gyun Kim for his hospitality and helpful discussions during the author's staying in GNUE
where this work was finalized.
This work was supported by NRF grant funded by MEST(No. 2011-0029758).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section*{Abstract}
Predictability of undesired events is a question of great interest in many scientific disciplines including
seismology, economy, and epidemiology. Here, we focus on the predictability of invasion of a broad
class of epidemics caused by diseases that lead to permanent immunity of infected hosts after recovery
or death. We approach the problem from the perspective of the science of complexity by proposing
and testing several strategies for the estimation of important characteristics of epidemics, such as the
probability of invasion. Our results suggest that parsimonious approximate methodologies may lead
to the most reliable and robust predictions. The proposed methodologies are first applied to analysis of
experimentally observed epidemics: invasion of the fungal plant pathogen \emph{Rhizoctonia solani} in replicated
host microcosms. We then consider numerical experiments of the SIR (susceptible-infected-removed)
model to investigate the performance of the proposed methods in further detail. The suggested framework
can be used as a valuable tool for quick assessment of epidemic threat at the stage when epidemics
only start developing. Moreover, our work amplifies the significance of the small-scale and finite-time
microcosm realizations of epidemics revealing their predictive power.
\section{Introduction}
Predictability of catastrophic events such as earthquakes, epidemics, fracture or financial crashes~\cite{Sornette2000,Sornette_PNAS2002,Sornette_StockCrash2003} is a topic of increasing interdisciplinary interest. The predictability of these events is inextricably linked to the inherent complexity of the phenomena under consideration \cite{Sornette2000,Sornette_PNAS2002}. Here, we focus on epidemiology.
Within this context, many studies have been devoted to prediction of the
temporal incidence of epidemics (i.e. the evolution of the number of infected
hosts in the course of an epidemic)
\cite{Medley_Science2001,Valleron_Science2001_vCJDPrediction,HuillardAignaux_Science2001,Morton_JRoySocC2005,Kleczkowski_JRSocInterf2007}.
Recently, an increasing number of papers have also considered the prediction of the
spatio-temporal evolution of epidemics \cite{Keeling_Science2001,Ferguson_Science2001_FootMouthPred,Hufnagel_PNAS2004,Riley_Science2007}.
Both the temporal and the spatio-temporal incidence depend on complex
factors related to the transmission of infection and the properties
of the hosts.
For instance, the hosts are not identical in susceptibility
and transmissibility of infection due to difference in age, size, genotype and
neighbourhood. \cite{Keeling_Science2001,Ferguson_Science2001_FootMouthPred,Valleron_Science2001_vCJDPrediction,PerezReche_JRSInterface2010}.
The transmission of infection is stochastic, meaning that a healthy host
is infected by contact with inoculum from an infected host with a certain
probability only. Many epidemics, notably those involving transmission by invertebrate vectors, or by wind and rain for many plant pathogens, are subject to variability in weather. This environmental stochasticity can also influence the
evolution of epidemics in such heterogeneous systems
\cite{Truscott_PNAS2003}.
All these factors make prediction of
disease incidence an extremely challenging and sometimes controversial
task~\cite{Medley_Science2001,Dye_Science2003_Perspective,May_Science2004}.
In Ref.~\cite{Medley_Science2001},
it was suggested that, although obtaining precise quantitative predictions for
the incidence would be obviously desirable, qualitative predictions
may be more valuable.
This is very much along the
lines of ideas from the science of complexity claiming that, despite the fact
that giving accurate predictions for the detailed evolution of complex systems
might be an illusory task,
certain qualitative features of the evolution,
such as occurrence or absence of a catastrophic event,
could be more amenable for
prediction~\cite{Sornette_PNAS2002,Pearce_IntJEpidemiol2006_ComplexEpidemics,Goldenfel_Science1999_Complexity}.
Here, we address the question of predictability of epidemics using a
methodological framework inspired by the science of complexity. The
main aim is to estimate the probability that an emerging epidemic will
invade a significant fraction of the population in the future. This
quantity can be viewed as a qualitative feature of the complete
spatio-temporal evolution of epidemics.
We propose several methods for approaching the problem that offer different levels of precision. Our results suggest that the most precise methods do not necessarily lead to more reliable predictions. Instead, parsimony seems to be the key ingredient for prediction based on inherently limited observations.
The framework presented below deals with epidemics caused by a broad class of pathogens leading to
permanent immunity of infected hosts after
recovery (or death).
There are numerous examples of such
diseases affecting populations of
humans\cite{AndersonMay_Book1991,Murray_02:book},
animals\cite{Davis_Nature2008} and
plants\cite{Otten_Ecology2003_rates}.
The advantage in analysis of such epidemics
is that they are
characterised by a well-defined final state consisting of only hosts
that were never infected and hosts that were infected and became
immune.
In particular, we focus on the estimation of the probability that an
epidemic is invasive in the final state.
The proposed methods are first applied to prediction of invasion of a pathogen in an experimental model system in which the fungal plant pathogen, \emph{Rhizoctonia solani}, spreads through a population of hosts represented by discrete nutrient sites. The properties of the sites, e.g. nutrient concentration, can be varied for different realisations of epidemics. Such a system is convenient for generation and observation of rapid, highly replicated and repeatable epidemics and it is used as a benchmark for description of our methodologies and analyses.
The epidemic prediction analysis for experimental system is followed by a
test of our methods in
numerical experiments for epidemics spreading on networks of hosts arranged on a regular lattice. The advantage of investigating such epidemics is that their properties are known beforehand and this allows us to provide a precise analysis of the performance of prediction methods by comparing with the expected behaviour.
\section{Methods}
\label{Sec:Methods}
The methods follow four steps that are basic for any scientifically
meaningful prediction of the behaviour of a complex system:
(i) Observation of the initial evolution of the process over a certain
period of time, $t_{\text{obs}}$.
(ii) Construction of a model for
description of the observed behaviour.
(iii) Fitting the model to
the data obtained from observations.
(iv) Extrapolation of the behaviour to the future
by using the model with the fitted parameters.
These steps are
interconnected and we argue that they should be kept at a similar level of
complexity in order to make their interplay as consistent as
possible.
In this paper, we investigate whether or not
such consistency is important for obtaining
reliable predictions by exploring several combinations of strategies for steps (i)-(iii) (see summary in Table \ref{Table_1}).
For concreteness, we illustrate our prediction methods for the particular case of fungal colony invasion in microcosms comprising populations of nutrient sites (agar dots) \cite{Bailey2000}. In these experiments, the central agar dot in ensembles with the
geometry shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1} was inoculated by
the soil-borne fungal plant pathogen \emph{R. solani} and the spread of the fungal colony is scored in discrete time steps (e.g. daily).
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table
\begin{flushleft}
\begin{tabular}[t]{c|c|c|c|l|c}
\hline
Methodology & Step (i): data & Step (ii): model & Step (iii): fitting & Parameters & $d^2$ \\
\hline
A & \multirow{2}{*}{Mean field (MF), $C(t)$} & RF & MD & (ii) $T,\widehat{\tau}_{\text{exp}}$ & \multirow{2}{*}{$d_c^2 = \sum_{t} [c_{\text{sim}}(t)-c_{\text{obs}}(t)]^2$}\\
B & & RF & ABC & (ii) $T,\widehat{\tau}_{\text{exp}}$. (iii) $\epsilon$ & \\
\hline
C & \multirow{3}{*}{Shell, $F(l,t)$} & RF & MD & (ii) $T,\widehat{\tau}_{\text{exp}}$ & \\
D & & RF & \multirow{2}{*}{ABC} & (ii) $T,\widehat{\tau}_{\text{exp}}$. (iii) $\epsilon$ & \multirow{2}{*}{$d_f^2 = \sum_{l,t} [F_{\text{sim}}(l,t)-F_{\text{obs}}(l,t)]^2$}\\
E & & CT & & (ii) $T, \tau_0, k$. (iii) $\epsilon$ \\
\hline
F & Site, $\{t_i\}$ & CT & DA-MCMC & (i) $\{t_i\}$. (ii) $T, \tau_0, k$ & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{flushleft}
\caption{\label{Table_1} {\bf Overview of methods for prediction.} Combination of possible data sets considered in step (i) and methods used for addressing steps (ii) and (iii) in the prediction process. The first column introduces a label for each set of methods, which are ordered according to their overall expected precision. The second column gives the format of the data obtained from observations in step (i). The smallest precision of the data corresponds to methods A and B in which only the incidence, $C(t)$, is used. Methods C-E use a limited spatio-temporal knowledge of the evolution of the infection given by the shell-evolution function $F(l,t)$. Method F uses the time of infection of each host, $\{t_i\}$, which is typically unknown from observations but can be inferred in step (iii). In step (ii), RF and CT are abbreviations for the Reed-Frost and continuous-time model, respectively. In step (iii), we have used several methods for fitting: Minimum Distance (MD), Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC), and data-augmented Markov Chain Monte Carlo (DA-MCMC). Column five lists the parameters involved in each step for prediction of the fungal invasion in the agar-dot experiment.
Methods based on the RF dynamics are parametrised by the transmissibility, $T$, and a time scale $\widehat{\tau}_\text{exp}$. The CT dynamics used in methods E and F is parametrised by $T$, a characteristic time $\tau_0$, and a shape parameter for the time-dependence of the transmission of infection, $k$. The RF dynamics corresponds to the limit $k\rightarrow\infty$ of the CT dynamics.
The MD method for fitting consists in minimising the parameter $d^2$ (last column) which measures the difference between observations and numerical simulations. The ABC fitting procedure assumes that a simulated invasion fits well the observed epidemic if $d^2<\epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is a free parameter.
As shown in the last column, the definition of $d^2$ depends on the descriptors for observations used in step (i). For methods A and B, $d^2$ is defined in terms of the observed and simulated incidences, $c_\text{obs}(t)=C_\text{obs}(t)/N$ and $c_\text{sim}(t)=C_\text{sim}(t)/N$, normalised to the number of hosts in the population, $N$. In methods C-E, $d^2$ is defined in terms of the shell-evolution function for observations and simulations.
Sections I and II of \emph{SI Appendix} give more details on the definition of models used in step (ii) and fitting methods used in step (iii).}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{figure*}
{\includegraphics[clip=true,width=17.5cm]{Fig_1_Steps_Scheme.eps}}
\caption{ \label{fig:1} Steps for prediction used in methodology C (Table~\ref{Table_1}). (a-left) Discrete spatio-temporal observations of evolution (spatio-temporal map)
of a hypothetical
epidemic spreading from the central host in a population of hosts
(circles) arranged on a triangular lattice with lattice spacing $a$
and $L$ hosts per side of the hexagonal boundaries of the system. The arrangement of nutrient sites in the fungal invasion experiment analysed below is of this type.
Numbers inside the circles denote the times, $t=0,1, \ldots$, of infection of hosts by
the observation time $t_{\text{obs}}=2$. Empty circles correspond
to healthy (susceptible) hosts by the same time. The hexagons with
dotted lines indicate the shells of hosts at a given chemical
distance, $l$, to the centre of the system. (a-right) The
spatio-temporal evolution of the epidemic is described by the
shell-evolution function $F(l,t)$ giving the relative number of
hosts in layer $l$ infected by time $t$. For instance, $F(2,2)=3/12$
for the epidemic shown in the (a-left) panel. (b) In step (ii),
the epidemic is described in terms of an SIR model. An infected
host, \textcircled{I}, remains infectious during the infectious period
$\tau$ which, for simplicity, is taken as being constant over the
whole population and set as a unit of time, $\tau =1$. After the
infectious period $\tau$, the host is removed, \textcircled{R}.
During the time $\tau$, \textcircled{I} can transmit the infection
to a neighbouring susceptible host, \textcircled{S}, with
probability $T$ (transmissibility). Alternatively, \textcircled{I}
can be removed without passing the infection to \textcircled{S} with
probability $1-T$. In the discrete time Reed-Frost (RF) dynamics
used in our approach, the infection is passed instantaneously from
\textcircled{I} to \textcircled{S} at $t=\tau$. (c) In step (iii),
the fitting procedure consists in finding the probability density
function (p.d.f.) $\rho(\widehat{T})$
for transmissibilities $\widehat{T}$ (c-left) such that a RF process with
$\widehat{T}$ and shell-evolution function
$F_{\text{sim}}(l,t)$ give a good description of the observed
shell-evolution function, $F_{\text{sim}}(l,t)$ (c-right). For
visualization clarity in c-right, an example of $F_{\text{sim}}(l,t)$ represented by the blue-grid surface does not fit well the observed shell-evolution
function, $F_{\text{obs}}(l,t)$ (the shaded surface). The
p.d.f. $\rho(\widehat{T})$ is obtained by running many RF epidemics
with random transmissibility and minimising the parameter $d$ that
quantifies the difference between the observed and the RF
shell-evolution functions. (d) Once $\rho(\widehat{T})$ has been
obtained (continuous curves in c-left and d-left), the probability
of an invasive epidemic, $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$, can be calculated by
Eq.~\eqref{eq.1} which involves the conditional probability of
invasion $P_{\text{inv}}(\widehat{T};L)$ for any given $\widehat{T}$
(dashed line in d-left).
The value of $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$
is represented graphically in d-right by the area under the curve
(shaded region) for the function $P_{\text{inv}}(\widehat{T};L)\rho(\widehat{T})$.
}
\end{figure*}
In the following, we give a general description of the steps for prediction of epidemic invasion with particular assumptions suitable for the analysis of the fungal invasion experiment. The main details of all the methodologies are summarised in Table \ref{Table_1}. The methodology C is mainly used for illustration of our concepts.
Details of other explored methodologies are given in \emph{SI Appendix}. The motivation for choosing methodology C is twofold: (i) it keeps all the steps for prediction of the behaviour at a similar level of complexity, as illustrated by analysis of the fungal colony invasion in the agar-dot experiment; (ii) it is a parsimonious methodology that leads to predictions that are, at least, as robust as (or, arguably, even more robust than) those based on more sophisticated approaches (Table \ref{Table_1}).
{\bf Step (i).} The information that can be extracted
from observation of the time evolution of epidemics is usually limited.
In many cases, the only
available information is the incidence, $C(t)$ (the number of infected hosts), at subsequent
observations, and occasionally
the spatial location of infected hosts is also known, e.g. for
epidemics in populations of plants \cite{Otten_Ecology2003_rates,Kleczkowski_JRSocInterf2007,Gibson_PNAS2004,Gibson2006}.
These limitations have a dramatic
influence on subsequent steps in the
prediction process and
it is crucial to identify which quantities are sufficient for
prediction of the catastrophic event (i.e. the probability of an invasive epidemic in our case).
As shown in Table~\ref{Table_1}, we consider three
types of observations. The first consists of discrete temporal observations of $C(t)$ (Methods A and B in Table~\ref{Table_1}). The second possibility (Methods C-E) considers discrete
spatio-temporal observations giving the evolution of infection at discrete times, $t$, in shells at a `chemical distance' $l$ from the initially inoculated host. As explained in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a), such observations can be properly described in terms of a shell-evolution function $F(l,t)$. As a third possibility (Method F), we use a method for data augmentation in step (iii) that infers the unobserved time of infection for each host, $\{ t_i\}$ \cite{Gibson_PNAS2004,Gibson2006,Kleczkowski_JRSocInterf2007}.
{\bf Step (ii).} We describe the evolution of the epidemic in terms of
a spatial SIR (susceptible-infected-removed) epidemiological model
where the hosts can be either susceptible (S), infected (I) or removed (R)
\cite{grassberger1983,AndersonMay_Book1991,Davis_Nature2008,Otten_Ecology2003_rates}.
This is a prototype model for a wide class of epidemics where disease leads to permanent immunity of hosts after recovery or death. In particular, this paradigm has been shown to be appropriate for description of fungal invasion \cite{Bailey2000,Otten2004,Neri_PLoSCBio2011}.
In principle, a continuous-time dynamic model is necessary to provide a precise description of epidemic evolution characterised by stochasticity in times of infection and removal/recovery of hosts. Following this idea, it would be natural to use a model with continuous-time (CT) dynamics (described in \emph{SI Appendix}). The drawback of this approach is that it requires knowledge of the precise times of infection of hosts, $\{t_i\}$, which are typically not available from discrete spatio-temporal observations in step (i).
In order to match an appropriate model with the level of detail of observations, we consider the discrete-time dynamics model which
reduces the SIR framework to the so-called Reed-Frost (RF) model
\cite{Daley_BookEpidemicModelling}.
This simplified description is
not expected to capture the dynamical details of the evolution of the
epidemic but reproduces well its final state~\cite{Ludwig_MBiosc1975,Pellis_MBiosc2008}.
This is a very
important consequence of the fact that, no matter how complicated the
evolution of the epidemic is, the final state of an epidemic with death of infected individuals or
permanent acquired immunity after recovery depends only on
the probability $T$, called transmissibility,
that the infection has ever been passed between each pair of
connected hosts (as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(b)).
Although the transmissibility is expected to exhibit a certain degree of
spatial heterogeneity in real epidemics, we make the minimal
assumption that the trend of the epidemic can be well
approximated by a RF process with a homogeneous effective
transmissibility $T$.
{\bf Step (iii).} The goal of this step is to estimate the values of the parameters of the model used in step (ii) that give a good description of the
observations. Consider, for definiteness, methodology C in Table~\ref{Table_1}.
Due to
factors such as stochasticity and heterogeneity in transmission, a given
observed spatio-temporal map for infection can occur for different
values of the estimated transmissibility, $\widehat{T}$.
However, some of these values for $\widehat{T}$ are more likely to
produce the observed spatio-temporal pattern than others.
To account for this,
we introduce the probability density function (p.d.f.),
$\rho(\widehat{T})$, which quantifies the probability that the
observed spatio-temporal pattern is reproduced by a certain
value of $\widehat{T}$.
As shown schematically in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(c),
$\rho(\widehat{T})$ is calculated by generating a large number of stochastic
realizations of the RF epidemic with
transmissibilities $T$ sampled
uniformly from the interval $[0,1]$ and comparing their
shell-evolution functions,
$F_{\text{sim}}(l,t)$ (see caption to Fig.~\ref{fig:1} for definition), with the observed one, $F_{\text{obs}}(l,t)$.
Ideally, the distribution $\rho(\widehat{T})$ would
correspond to the histogram of values for $\widehat{T}$ producing
shell-evolution functions $F_{\text{sim}}(l,t)$ identical to
$F_{\text{obs}}(l,t)$ but obtaining an exact match is computationally very demanding.
Moreover, reproducing $F_{\text{obs}}(l,t)$ by a RF model is in
general impossible in realistic epidemics for which time is not
discrete.
Therefore, we use a minimum distance (MD) algorithm to calculate $\rho(\widehat{T})$ approximately as the histogram
of values of $\widehat{T}$ minimising the quantity
$d^2_f$ defined in Table~\ref{Table_1} that measures the distance between $F_{\text{sim}}(l,t)$ and $F_{\text{obs}}(l,t)$.
In
this way, the sampled values of $\widehat{T}$ reproduce
$F_{\text{obs}}(l,t)$ approximately rather than necessarily with distance
$d^2_f=0$.
This approach is similar to the Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) method that determines $\rho(\widehat{T})$ as the histogram of values of $\widehat{T}$ for which $d^2_f \le \epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is a parameter used in the method \cite{Marjoram_2003:ApproxMCMC}. Both ABC and MD algorithms give similar results despite the fact that MD does not require the use of an additional parameter $\epsilon$.
In addition to these approximate methods, we have fitted the spatio-temporal evolution of the CT model proposed in step (ii) for comparison by means of a more standard Bayesian procedure using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method with data augmentation (method F in Table~\ref{Table_1}).
{\bf Step (iv).} In the final stage of the prediction process, given $\rho(\widehat{T})$, we
evaluate the probability $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$ that the observed
epidemic will ever invade a system of size $L$.
The epidemic is
defined as being invasive if the final cluster of removed hosts has
reached at least one node on each of the six
edges of the system.
Otherwise, the epidemic is classified as being
non-invasive.
The conditional probability of invasion $P_{\text{inv}}(\widehat{T};L)$
in a system of size $L$ by an SIR process with \emph{a given
transmissibility}, $\widehat{T}$,
can be calculated numerically by running many stochastic
realisations of the epidemic and counting the
fraction of invading events.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(d),
$P_{\text{inv}}(\widehat{T};L)$ exhibits a sigmoidal dependence on $\widehat{T}$
which indicates a non-invasive (invasive) regime of epidemics for
relatively small (large) values of $\widehat{T}$.
Once
$P_{\text{inv}}(\widehat{T};L)$ and $\rho(\widehat{T})$ are known, the
estimated probability of invasion can be calculated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.1}
\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}} (L)= \int_0^1 P_{\text{inv}} (\widehat{T};L) \rho(\widehat{T})
\text{d}\widehat{T}~.
\end{equation}
This formula defines the probability that the invasion occurs
given our knowledge about the effective transmissibility encoded by
$\rho(\widehat{T})$ (see a simple graphical
interpretation in terms of the shaded area in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(d)).
Importantly, Eq.~\eqref{eq.1}
gives an extrapolation of the behaviour of the epidemic to
its final state without necessarily providing a
detailed description of the actual evolution leading to such a state.
\section{Application to fungal invasion}
\label{sec:results_fungal}
In the fungal invasion experiments, the
spatio-temporal maps of infected agar dots were scored daily over 21 days (see two typical patches of
colonisation after $21$~days in Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(a)).
The transmissibility in this experiment corresponds to the probability of
fungal colonisation between two adjacent agar dots and it was
controlled by variable lattice spacing,
$a=8,10,12,14,16,18~\text{mm}$.
Clearly, the experimental setup is restricted both in space and time.
Our aim
is to use these limited observations to estimate the
probability of invasive epidemics in larger systems and for longer times.
The analysis is performed for each individual realisation of the
experiment (6 replicates per value of $a$).
\begin{figure
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[clip=true,width=14cm]{Fig_3_Fungal_Main_2panels_AllMethods.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{fig:4} Fungal invasion in the system of agar
dots placed on a triangular lattice.
(a) The observed
mean probability of invasion $P_{\text{exp}}$ obtained by counting the
relative number of
invasive epidemics after 21~days is shown by the
continuous line. The
probability of invasion after 21~days was estimated for each replicate by
observing the initial evolution of colonisation during $t_{\text{obs}}=10$~days. The corresponding mean over replicates with the same value of $a$ is shown with a different symbol type (the same as in Figs.~\ref{fig:rhoT_Average_SD_tobs21}-\ref{fig:Distances_tobs21days}) for each method for prediction.
The inserts show the invasive (left) and non-invasive (right)
state of the epidemic after 21~days for two
representative replicates with lattice spacings $a=10$~mm and
$a=14$~mm, as marked by arrows. Solid (open) circles in the inserts represent
colonised (not colonized) dots.
(b) Prediction of $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ with different methodologies for individual
replicates of the epidemic in a large system of
size $L=51$ obtained from observations during
$t_{\text{obs}}=21$~days of the smaller experimental system ($L<8$). The mean of $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ over replicates for
each value of $a$ is shown by different symbol types corresponding to different methodologies.
The
mean probability of invasion $P_{\text{exp}}$ obtained by counting the
relative number of
invasive epidemics after 21~days is shown by the
continuous line.
}
\end{figure}
In order to make a proper comparison between the experimental observations with the RF model used in methods A-D,
it is necessary to rescale the time step of
the RF dynamics with dimensionless $\tau=1$ to $\widehat{\tau}_{\text{exp}}$ measured in
days.
The value of $\widehat{\tau}_{\text{exp}}$ is not known and it is treated at the same
level as the transmissibility.
More explicitly, we deal with a bi-variate
probability density function, $\rho_2(\widehat{T},\widehat{\tau}_{\text{exp}})$,
which can be determined for each epidemic with a simple extension of
the methods explained in Sec.~\ref{Sec:Methods} (step (iii)) for obtaining $\rho(\widehat{T})$.
The estimated $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ is obtained from Eq.~\eqref{eq.1} by defining
$\rho(\widehat{T})$ as the marginal
p.d.f., $\rho(\widehat{T})=\int_0^{\infty}
\rho_2(\widehat{T},\widehat{\tau}_{\text{exp}})
\text{d}\widehat{\tau}_{\text{exp}}$.
As explained in more detail in Sec. I of \emph{SI Appendix} and summarised in Table~\ref{Table_1}, the continuous-time SIR model used in methods E and F involves three parameters: $T$,$\tau_0$, and $k$. The fitting of the data results in a p.d.f. $\rho_3(T,\tau_0,k)$ from which we obtain $\rho(\widehat{T})=\int_0^{\infty}
\rho_3(\widehat{T},\tau_0,k) \text{d}\tau_0 \text{d} k$. The probability of invasion is then calculated from Eq.~\eqref{eq.1} in the same way as for methods A-D.
\subsection{Uncertainty of the estimated transmissibility}
\label{subsec:uncertainty_T}
The functions $\rho(\widehat{T})$ obtained for the fungal invasion experiments typically exhibit a pronounced peak (see the results for one replicate in Fig.~\ref{fig:rhoT_a10mm_rep1_tobs21} and similar results for more replicates in Fig. S1 of \emph{SI Appendix}). The peaked shape of $\rho(\widehat{T})$ suggests that $\widehat{T}$ can be suitably described in terms of its mean value $\langle \widehat{T} \rangle$ and standard deviation $\sigma_T = (\langle \widehat{T}^2 \rangle - \langle \widehat{T} \rangle^2)^{1/2}$.
For each methodology, Fig.~\ref{fig:rhoT_Average_SD_tobs21} shows the average over replicates of $\langle \widehat{T} \rangle$ and $\sigma_T$ as a function of the lattice spacing. These estimates correspond to observations of the evolution of infection during $t_\text{obs}=21$~days. All the methods give similar values for $\langle \widehat{T} \rangle$ which have a clear and expected tendency to decrease with increasing $a$. The uncertainty in $\widehat{T}$, quantified by $\sigma_T$, exhibits greater variations between methodologies but it takes values that are smaller than $\langle \widehat{T} \rangle$ for all the methods and lattice spacings (Fig.~\ref{fig:rhoT_Average_SD_tobs21}(b)).
This means that $\langle \widehat{T} \rangle$ is a good measure of the typical value of the transmissibility.
However, the value of $\langle \widehat{T} \rangle$ on its own does not necessarily provide a good approximation for $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ because the width of $\rho(\widehat{T})$ can bring a significant contribution to the integral in Eq.~\eqref{eq.1}. This is explicitly shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:results_numerical}.
\begin{figure
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[clip=true,width=6cm,angle=-90]{rhoT_a10mm_rep1_tobs21.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:rhoT_a10mm_rep1_tobs21} Estimates of the transmissibility for fungal invasion in the system of agar dots. The p.d.f.'s $\rho(\widehat{T})$ obtained with different fitting methodologies are plotted for the fungal colony invasion in a population of agar dots with lattice spacing $a=10$~mm. Estimates correspond to observation of the fungal spread during $t_\text{obs}=21$~days. Different symbol types correspond to different fitting methodologies, as marked in the legend. Fig.~S1 in \emph{SI Appendix} shows similar plots for six replicates of the system.}
\end{figure}
Comparison of $\langle \widehat{T} \rangle$, $\sigma_T$, and $\rho(\widehat{T})$ for different methods leads to the following conclusions:
\begin{description}
\item{(1)} Given a level of description (step (i)) and a model (step (ii)), the estimates of the transmissibility obtained with ABC and MD methods are, in general, in good agreement (cf. method A with method B, and method C with method D in Figs.~\ref{fig:rhoT_a10mm_rep1_tobs21} and \ref{fig:rhoT_Average_SD_tobs21}).
\item{(2)} Given a level of description (step (i)) and an estimation method (step (iii)), the posteriors obtained using discrete- and continuous-time models are in reasonable agreement (cf. method D with method E in Figs.~\ref{fig:rhoT_a10mm_rep1_tobs21} and \ref{fig:rhoT_Average_SD_tobs21}).
The only difference is a trend for $\rho(\widehat{T})$ corresponding to CT dynamics to have a ``heavy tail'' for large values of $\widehat{T}$ (see the replicate 4 in Fig.~S1, \emph{SI Appendix}).
Large values of $\widehat{T}$ are correlated with large values of the time scale $\tau_0$ (i.e., slower processes with high $\widehat{T}$) and small values of the shape parameter $k$, that are ruled out by the RF model. This effect becomes more important for larger values of the lattice spacing, as indicated by the large values of $\langle T \rangle$ and $\sigma_T$ corresponding to method E (asterisks in Fig.~\ref{fig:rhoT_Average_SD_tobs21}).
\begin{figure
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[clip=true,width=12cm]{rhoT_Average_SD_tobs21.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:rhoT_Average_SD_tobs21} Statistical characteristics of the estimates of the transmissibility for fungal invasion in the system of agar dots. Dependence on the lattice spacing of (a) the mean value $\langle \widehat{T} \rangle$, and (b) standard deviation $\sigma_T$ of the transmissibility calculated from the p.d.f. $\rho(\widehat{T})$ corresponding to observations during $t_\text{obs} = 21$~days. For clarity, each symbol gives the average of (a) $\langle \widehat{T} \rangle$ and (b) $\sigma_T$ over 6 replicates of the experiments for each lattice spacing, $a$. As marked in the legend, different symbol types correspond to different methods for addressing the steps (i)-(iii) summarised in Table~\ref{Table_1}.}
\end{figure}
\item{(3)} The estimates from augmented-data MCMC (methodology F) are in general different from those obtained by other methods.
Moreover, the p.d.f.'s $\rho(\widehat{T})$ obtained with MCMC show no systematic trend with respect to the other methods.
With respect to, e.g., the $\rho(\widehat{T})$ obtained with MD, they can be located at slightly higher (replicates 5 and 6 in Fig.~S1) or lower (replicates 2 and 3) values of $\widehat{T}$, or approximately at the same value (replicates 1 and 4).
Moreover, the variation in the peak position of $\rho(\widehat{T})$ between different replicates is larger than for the other methods. This suggests that the MCMC method is more sensitive to fine details of the evolution of the epidemic.
A possible explanation is that augmented-data MCMC involves the inference of the unobserved colonisation times and thus is intrinsically individual-based, in contrast to shell-based (or mean-field) methods, which try to match the colonisation times in an approximate manner only.
\end{description}
\subsection{Comparison of fitted models with experimental data}
\label{subsec:comparison_fit_data}
In order to assess the quality of the assumptions used for estimation, we compare the fitted models with the available experimental data. For methods A-D, we compare
the incidence and shell-evolution function obtained numerically (RF dynamics) with values
for $\widehat{T}$ and $\widehat{\tau}_{\text{exp}}$ sampled from
$\rho_2(\widehat{T},\widehat{\tau}_{\text{exp}})$ estimated by means of the spatio-temporal maps at maximum
observation time $t_{\text{obs}}=21~$days
with the actual incidence and shell-evolution function for each epidemic.
Similarly, the fits from methods E and F are compared with experimental observations by running numerical epidemics with parameters for the CT dynamics sampled from the p.d.f. $\rho_3(\widehat{T},\tau_0,k)$.
We make a quantitative comparison based on squared distances $d_c^2$ and $d_f^2$ (cf. Table \ref{Table_1}) between simulated epidemics and experimental fungal invasions. More explicitly, we define the root mean square (rms) distances,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Dc}
\Delta c &= \left( \frac{d_c^2}{\Delta t} \right)^{1/2}~,
\\
\Delta F &= \left( \frac{d_f^2}{\Delta t \; l_{\max}} \right)^{1/2}~,
\label{eq:DF}
\end{align}
where $\Delta t=21$~days is the time interval used for calculations of $d_c^2$ or $d_f^2$. The quantity $l_{\max}$ is the maximum chemical distance to the centre of the system of agar dots. Its value decreases with the lattice spacing and ranges from $l_{\max}=2$ for $a=16$~mm to $l_{\max}=8$ for $a=8$~mm \cite{Bailey2000}. From the definition of $d_c^2$ given in Table~\ref{Table_1}, it is easy to see that $\Delta c$ gives the typical deviation of the simulated incidence per unit host at a given time, $c_\text{sim}(t)$, from the observed incidence per host at the same time, $c_\text{obs}(t)$. Similarly, $\Delta F$ gives the typical deviation of the simulated shell-evolution function, $F_\text{sim}$, evaluated at any spatio-temporal coordinates $(l,t)$ from the observed value at the same coordinates.
Fig.~\ref{fig:Distances_tobs21days} shows the mean of the rms distances obtained by averaging over stochastic simulations and over replicates with given lattice spacing. The low values of the rms distances ($\Delta c \lesssim 0.2$ and $\Delta F \lesssim 0.3$) indicate that the observed $C(t)$ and $F(l,t)$ are statistically well described by the fitted models.
For any given method and lattice spacing, we obtained $\Delta c < \Delta F$, which is expected because reproducing the spatio-temporal evolution represented by $F(l,t)$ is more demanding than capturing the temporal evolution of the colonisation given by $c(t)$.
Both $\Delta c$ and $\Delta F$ tend to be larger for $a$ around 10-12~mm which, as shown below, corresponds to cases that are close to the invasion threshold (i.e. where $P_\text{inv}$ decreases from 1 to 0 on increasing $a$, as shown by the continuous line in Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(a)). Variability between replicates of epidemics with given $T$ is larger around the invasion threshold, which is associated with a critical phase transition and characterised by large fluctuations~\cite{grassberger1983,PerezReche_JRSInterface2010,Neri_PLoSCBio2011,Bailey2000,Otten2004,Davis_Nature2008}. As a consequence, the quality of fits is lower in the vicinity of the invasion threshold and this leads to larger values of $\Delta c$ and $\Delta F$.
\begin{figure
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[clip=true,width=6cm,angle=-90]{Distances_Ct_Flt_TwoPanels_Normalised.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{fig:Distances_tobs21days} Comparison of fitted models with experimental data. Mean rms distances (a) $\Delta c$ and (b) $\Delta F$ between observed and simulated fungal invasions in populations of agar dots. The mean value of rms distances is obtained by averaging over $10^4$ stochastic realisations of simulations and over 6 replicates for each lattice spacing, $a$. Simulations are based on fits to observations over $t_{\text{obs}} = 21$~days. Different symbols correspond to different methodologies summarised in Table~\ref{Table_1}, as marked in the legend.}
\end{figure}
Methodology C gives a good balance between performance and number of parameters involved. Methods C-E based on an approximate spatio-temporal description of epidemics given by $F(l,t)$ result in more accurate predictions than methods A (squares in Fig.~\ref{fig:Distances_tobs21days}) and B (diamonds) that neglect spatial features of invasion.
Moreover, the approximate methods C-E also perform better than even methodology F (triangles in Fig.~\ref{fig:Distances_tobs21days}) despite the fact that the latter aims for a more precise spatio-temporal description. A more qualitative and visual comparison of estimated and observed $C(t)$ reveals similar differences between all the methodologies (see details in Sec. III of \emph{SI Appendix}).
\subsection{Two applications for prediction methods}
As a first application of the proposed methods, we have studied the predictive power of
the estimates of the probability of invasion and the incidence by
calculating $\rho(\widehat{T})$ from the early stages of the actual
epidemic, i.e. for $t_{\text{obs}} < 21$~days. In particular, based on the
estimated $\rho(\widehat{T})$ for $t_{\text{obs}} = 10$~days, we have obtained estimates for the
probability of invasion at time $t=21$~days (squares and dashed line
in Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(a)) and compared them with the probability $P_{\text{exp}}$
of invasion at $t=21$~days obtained directly from the experimental data. The observed probability of invasion, $P_{\text{exp}}$, is estimated by counting (for each $a$) the fraction of
replicates in which the fungus has reached the six outer edges of the
experimental system by $21$~days.
The mean of $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ averaged over replicates
with the same value of $a$ (symbols in Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(a)) gives a reasonable
estimate for the observed mean of $P_{\text{exp}}$ (solid curve in
Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(a)) after $t=21$~days for most of the methods. Overall, the best predictions for $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ are obtained with methodology C (solid circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(a)).
As expected, $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ decreases with increasing $a$ for all methodologies,
illustrating the existence of the threshold for epidemics around
$a\simeq 12~$mm~\cite{Bailey2000}.
Similarly, the experimentally observed incidence and shell-evolution function are statistically well
captured by the numerical extrapolation for their simulated counterparts up to time
$t=21$~days obtained from observations over times $t_{\text{obs}} < 21$~days. A visual illustration of the agreement between the observed and predicted incidence is given in Sec.~III of \emph{Appendix SI}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:Distances_tobs10days} shows the rms distances between the observed and predicted evolutions from day 11 to day 21. The time interval used to calculate $\Delta c$ and $\Delta F$ from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:Dc} and \eqref{eq:DF} is $\Delta t=11$~days. The relative trends of $\Delta c$ and $\Delta F$ between methods and lattice spacings are similar to those reported in Fig.~\ref{fig:Distances_tobs21days} for the comparison between observations and numerical simulations with $t_\text{obs}$. The main difference is that the values of the rms distances corresponding to predictions of the evolution of colonisation (Fig.~\ref{fig:Distances_tobs10days}) are systematically larger than those obtained by simply comparing observed evolutions with their respective fittings (Fig.~\ref{fig:Distances_tobs21days}). This is in agreement with the intuitive idea that predicting the \emph{a priori} unknown evolution of a system is more challenging than reproducing a fitted evolution.
\begin{figure
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[clip=true,width=6cm,angle=-90]{Distances_Ct_Flt_TwoPanels_tmax_10_Normalised.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{fig:Distances_tobs10days} Comparison of the predicted and observed evolution of fungal invasion in the system of agar dots. Predictions of the fungal spread in the period of time between days 10 and 21 are made from observation of the initial spread during $t_\text{obs} = 10$~days. The vertical axes show the mean over replicates of the rms distances (a) $\Delta c$ and (b) $\Delta F$ between observed and predicted fungal evolution during the time interval $11-21$~days. The mean value of rms distances is obtained by averaging over stochastic realisations of simulations and over 6 replicates for each lattice spacing, $a$. Simulations are based on fittings to observations over $t_{\text{obs}} = 10$~days. Different symbols correspond to different methodologies summarised in Table~\ref{Table_1}, as marked in the legend.}
\end{figure}
As a second application of our methodology, we have calculated $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ at the end of the epidemic as a function of the
lattice spacing in systems of size $L=51$, i.e., larger than the
experimental samples of sizes $L=2,...,8$ which decrease with increasing lattice
spacing (see the two populations for different value of $a$ shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(a)). Such predictions are based on estimates for the transmissibility obtained from observations up to day $t_\text{obs}$.
As expected, $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ decreases with increasing $a$,
illustrating the existence of the threshold for epidemics around
$a\simeq 12~$mm~\cite{Bailey2000}.
The results of applying each of the prediction methods are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(b) for the mean probability averaged over replicates for each value of $a$.
All the methods except E give similar predictions for $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$. The large values of $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ predicted by method E are a consequence of the ``heavy tail'' of the p.d.f. $\rho(\widehat{T})$ which gives a significant weigh to the high values of $P_\text{inv}$ for large $\widehat{T}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq.1}.
The dependence of $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ on
$a$ differs from the observed probability of invasion, $P_{\text{exp}}$ (continuous curve in
Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(b)).
The difference can be qualitatively understood by
recalling that $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ gives an extrapolation both in space and time.
Indeed, $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}} \geq P_{\text{exp}}$ because some
epidemics that are non-invasive after $21$~days have a certain
probability to invade a system of size $L=51$ for $t>21$~days.
In addition, both infectivity and susceptibility are
expected to be subject to heterogeneity in the agar-dot system due to, e.g.,
inherent variability. Based on the results presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:results_numerical} for numerical experiments
with heterogeneity in transmission, we expect the estimated $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$
to give an upper bound to the actual probability of invasion. This can
also contribute to the difference between $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ and $P_{\text{exp}}$ for large
values of $a$.
\section{Numerical experiment}
\label{sec:results_numerical}
The quality of the predictions presented in the previous section is influenced by the quality of the observations in step (i), the suitability of the model chosen in step (ii) for description of the data, and the fitting procedure used in step (iii). In principle, the effect of these factors on predictions could be minimised by optimising the procedures used in each step for prediction. Stochasticity associated with the transmission of infection also influences the ability of making reliable predictions. In contrast to the previous factors, stochasticity is inherent to the nature of the system and its negative effect on predictions cannot be minimised without modifying the system. In this section, we present a sensitivity analysis of our methods by applying them to prediction of invasion for numerically-simulated epidemics where the main factor compromising predictability is the intrinsic stochasticity in transmission of infection. The advantage in this case with respect to more realistic situations is that both the transmissibility, $T$, and the probability of invasion, $P_{\text{inv}}(T;L)$, are known and it is then possible to investigate the performance of the estimates
for $\rho(\widehat{T})$ and $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$ by comparing with the known quantities.
We first consider the simplest situation when the observed
epidemics follow the RF dynamics with homogeneous transmission (i.e. $T$
is the same for all pairs of nearest neighbours in the population).
The idea is to run numerical experiments with known $T$, observe
the evolution of the epidemic over an initial interval of time,
$t_{\text{obs}}$, and then apply the methods described above to
calculate $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$ assuming that $T$ is unknown (as
it occurs for real epidemics).
For concreteness, we consider the arrangement shown in Fig.\ref{fig:1}(a) and use methodology C for steps (i)-(iii).
RF epidemics are observed during $t_{\text{obs}}=7\tau$ with the aim of
estimating the probability that they will invade a system of size $L=51$.
Note that over the time interval $t \le t_{\text{obs}}=7$ the epidemic at most invades a
hexagon of size $L=15$.
Then, the behaviour of
the epidemic is extrapolated both in space and time.
We proceed by, first, calculating the p.d.f. $\rho(\widehat{T})$ for
the estimated transmissibilities $\widehat{T}$ compatible with observation (spatio-temporal map).
Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(c) shows an example of $\rho(\widehat{T})$ obtained from
the analysis of the evolution of an epidemic with $T=0.4$.
In general, the most
probable estimate for the transmissibility, $\widehat{T}_*$, corresponding to the
maximum of $\rho(\widehat{T})$ for a single epidemic, differs from $T$ but not
significantly.
In many cases, $T$ lies within the $68\%$ confidence interval
for $\rho(\widehat{T})$ around its maximum (see a more detailed discussion in
\emph{SI Appendix}).
The distribution $\rho(\widehat{T})$ allows the probability of invasion $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$ in the system of size $L=51$ to be estimated using Eq.~\eqref{eq.1}.
We have applied this prediction method to many ($\sim 10^4$)
spatio-temporal maps created with known transmissibility
$T$ spanning the interval $[0,1]$. For each value of estimated
$\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$, the distribution $\rho(\widehat{T})$ is represented by a
horizontal slice of the shaded area in Fig.~\ref{fig:2} (see
e.g. the slice along the dashed blue line corresponding to
$\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)=0.2$ with darker colour corresponding to higher
probability relative to the maximum of $\rho(\widehat{T})$). The black ridge in the shaded area corresponds to the
most probable transmissibility, $\widehat{T}_{\star}$, for each value of $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$.
\begin{figure
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[clip=true,width=8.5cm]{Fig_2.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:2} {\bf Numerical experiments of SIR epidemics with homogeneous
transmissibility.} Hosts are placed on the nodes of a triangular
lattice of size $L=51$ (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a)). The
evolution of epidemics starting from the central host is observed
over time $t \le t_{\text{obs}} = 7\tau$. The line marked by circles shows the
dependence of the conditional probability of
invasion, $P_{\text{inv}}(T;L)$, on
transmissibility obtained by the simulations
in the system of size $L=51$.
The shaded region shows the levels of confidence in
percentage of the p.d.f $\rho(\widehat{T})$ around the most
probable transmissibility, $\widehat{T}_{\star}$ (continuous black line)
corresponding to each
value of $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$.
The horizontal dashed line illustrates the case of estimations giving
$\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)=0.2$.
If the observed epidemic has a value of the transmissibility
such as $\widehat{T}_{\text{l}}$ that is to the left of the curve for
$P_{\text{inv}}$ (line with circles), the estimated
$\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$ overestimates $P_{\text{inv}}$. In
contrast, for values of the transmissibility that are to the right of
the curve for $P_{\text{inv}}$ (e.g. $\widehat{T}_{\text{h}}$), the probability $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$
underestimates $P_{\text{inv}}$.}
\end{figure}
To test the quality of the predictions, the estimate of the
probability of invasion $P_{\text{inv}}(\widehat{T};L)$ is compared
with the probability $P_{\text{inv}}(T;L)$ that would be obtained if
the exact value of $T$ was known \emph{a priori} (see line marked by
circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}). Making such a comparison we can see
that for epidemics with low transmissibility where invasion is
possible but not highly probable, $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$ overestimates
$P_{\text{inv}}(T;L)$ for most of the possible values of $\widehat{T}$
contributing to $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$ (the shaded area including the ridge
region corresponding to the typical values of $\widehat{T}$ is mainly above
the line marked by circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}). This means that
the estimations are biased upwards and the most likely is that
the actual probability of invasion will be smaller than predicted. In other words, such predictions will typically give a safe bound for the probability of invasion.
Obviously, there is a non-zero probability that the
observed epidemic has a large value of the transmissibility (such as
$\widehat{T}_{\text{h}}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}). In this case, $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$
would underestimate the actual probability $P_{\text{inv}}$. For more invasive
epidemics (i.e. epidemics with $P_{\text{inv}} \gtrsim 0.5$), the shaded area
is mainly below the line marked by the circles in
Fig.~\ref{fig:2} meaning that the predicted probability of
invasion $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ underestimates $P_{\text{inv}}$ for most of the possible
values for $\widehat{T}$, including the most probable, $\widehat{T}_{\star}$.
In these situations however, both $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}$ and $P_{\text{inv}}$ are large and
the predictions allow for a reasonable assessment for invasion to be
done. In Sec.~VI of \emph{SI Appendix} we show mathematically that differences between $\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$ and $P_{\text{inv}}$ evaluated
at the most probable transmissibility $\widehat{T}_{\star}$ are mainly
dictated by the curvature of $P_{\text{inv}}$ around $\widehat{T}_{\star}$ and
is intrinsically linked to the non-zero width of the
p.d.f. $\rho(\widehat{T})$.
This general result implies that the biases in the probability of invasion at low and high transmissibility are independent of the fitting method (Table \ref{Table_1}) because all methods lead to a p.d.f. $\rho(\widehat{T})$ with non-zero width.
The results presented above correspond to RF epidemics with
homogeneous transmission. A similar approach has been used to deal
with more realistic epidemics where the transmission of
infection is heterogeneous due to variability in the infectivity and
the susceptibility of hosts. As already mentioned in the previous section, the estimated
$\widehat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$ for such epidemics usually gives a bound to the actual probability of
invasion that is even safer than that obtained for cases with
homogeneous transmissibility (see \emph{SI Appendix} for more detail).
\section{Discussion}
The methodology introduced here focuses on the prediction of relatively
simple but important features of epidemics.
This is in contrast to much previous
work dealing with the prediction of quantitative properties of
epidemics such as the detailed spatio-temporal evolution of the
incidence.
The advantage in dealing with simple characteristics of
epidemics is that they can be more easily predicted in terms of
simplified description of the spatio-temporal evolution.
Our results demonstrate that, under quite general assumptions, it is possible
to give reliable prediction of the final
state of an epidemic with permanent immunisation from the early stage of
its evolution.
Such a prediction is possible even for a single
realisation of an epidemic and thus the framework is relevant to
inherently unique real-world epidemics.
In fact, our approach can be
applied for prediction of epidemics in real systems characterised by a
wide range of space and time scales (e.g. crops) based on micro- or meso-cosm
experiments of finite size and over finite time.
The results obtained for experimental fungal invasion by using approximate methods (C-E in Table~\ref{Table_1}) are more robust than those based on supposedly more precise methodology F.
This might be a consequence of the interplay between the high
fitting precision for MCMC methods involving data augmentation with a poor description of the actual
dynamics given by the continuous-time model fitted to the
observations.
A model capturing dynamical
details at a level consistent with that offered by the fitting
procedure might exhibit more predictive power than that presented here.
This is an illustration of the importance of keeping all the steps
involved in prediction at a similar
level of complexity in order to give reliable predictions.
For practical applications, the particular method to be used for obtaining the most reliable prediction depends on the problem in hand. The general rule that seems to emerge from our analysis is that a reasonable method should use as much informations as available from observations, and avoid inferring data that is not directly available unless this is strictly required by the problem. This is the case for methods C-E in our particular study of fungal colony invasion in the population of agar-dots. Methods A and B use less information than available from observations (i.e. they use $C(t)$ instead of $F(l,t)$) while method F infers information that is not available from observations.
The proposed methods assume that epidemics can be approximately
described by an effective transmissibility that is constant over
time and homogeneous in space. However, their applicability goes beyond epidemics with constant
transmissibility. In particular, we have shown that the method gives
reliable predictions in the presence of spatial heterogeneity in the
transmission of infection. We expect that the methododology can also be
successfully applied to cases where the transmissibility changes over time
but it remains within the bounds for the effective transmissibility
estimated from the early stage.
We have characterised the final state of epidemics by the probability
of invasion. This quantity is suitable for systems with well-defined
boundaries such as, e.g. the population of agar-dots analysed
above.
In cases where hosts are placed on the nodes of more complex
networks, the boundaries of the
system are not necessarily well-defined~\cite{Barrat_08:book} and it is more
convenient to characterise the final state of epidemics in terms of the mean number
of removed (i.e. ever infected) hosts, $N_{\text{R}}$.
Our approach
also applies to such complex networks.
The formula given by Eq.~\eqref{eq.1} provides an estimated size,
$\widehat{N}_{\text{R}}(L)$, if $P_{\text{inv}}(\widehat{T};L)$ is replaced by the
function $N_{\text{R}}(\widehat{T};L)$ giving the size of SIR epidemics with
given transmissibility, $\widehat{T}$.
Our methods have been applied under the assumption that the network of contacts between hosts remains unchanged during the course of epidemics. Such an approximation has been widely used in the past~\cite{Barrat_08:book} and it is reasonable for cases in which the rate of change of the configuration of contacts is much smaller than the removal rate of hosts (i.e. $\sim \tau^{-1}$ in our notation). This condition is clearly satisfied for the fungal colony invasion of the population of agar-dots considered here and also for many other epidemics associated with pathogens spreading in, e.g., networks of plants~\cite{Otten_Ecology2003_rates}, farms~\cite{Keeling_Science2001}, or airports~\cite{Hufnagel_PNAS2004}. This paradigm is also applicable to the spread of many infections in human populations (for instance, measles or SARS that have recovery periods of the order of few days). In contrast, the dynamics of contacts between humans plays an important role for other infectious diseases such as syphilis with a recovery period of $~100$~days~\cite{Volz_ProcRoySocB2007}. A possible strategy to make predictions in this kind of networks would involve inferring the mixing parameter for contacts (as defined, for instance, in \cite{Volz_ProcRoySocB2007}) based on observations (step (i)) in a similar way as we estimated the parameters of the SIR model in step (iii).
Another interesting task would be to extend the ideas presented here to
deal with epidemics with persistence where immunity after recovery is not permanent
(i.e. recovered hosts can be re-infected). In this case, the simplest
model for description of observations is the SIS model
(susceptible-infected-susceptible)~\cite{Marro_99:book} and a
possible
quantity to be predicted would be the stationary prevalence
of infection (i.e. the density of infected hosts in the stationary state
reached after a transient~\cite{Marro_99:book}).
Due to stochasticity in transmission of infection, it is not possible to determine the parameters of a model describing an epidemic with absolute certainty even if the epidemic is observed during a long time $t_\text{obs}$ before attempting inference. Furthermore, if it were possible to determine the exact value of the parameters, it would still be impossible to make arbitrarily precise predictions of the evolution of the epidemic in the future or predict with absolute certainty if the epidemic is going to be invasive or not (instead, one has to deal with the probability of invasion). The uncertainty in the prediction of the evolution of epidemics grows monotonically with the look-ahead time (see, e.g. the forecast of the incidence in Sec. IV of \emph{SI Appendix}). There exists a prediction horizon beyond which the uncertainty of predictions of the evolution of the epidemic is too large for predictions to be useful. The location of the horizon is epidemic-dependent and also depends on how precise we want our predictions to be. In contrast, for a pure SIR epidemic, there is no prediction horizon for quantities such as $P_\text{inv}$ or $N_\text{R}$ that only depend on the transmissibility. In other words, different replicates of epidemics with given $T$ will follow different evolutions that have a prediction horizon but will lead to the same $P_\text{inv}$ or $N_\text{R}$ \cite{Ludwig_MBiosc1975,grassberger1983,Pellis_MBiosc2008}. More complex nonlinear dynamics for transmission associated with, for instance, a seasonal component in the transmission rate may lead to chaotic behaviour~\cite{Olsen_Science1990}. Predictability of catastrophic events in systems exhibiting chaotic behaviour is a non-trivial question that has been widely studied in the past~\cite{Abarbanel_RMP1993} and still receives considerable attention at present~\cite{Wang_PRL2011}. Even in the absence of stochasticity, the prediction horizon in these systems is intrinsically limited due to the high sensitivity of chaotic processes to the initial conditions and the values of the parameters. In addition, the accuracy of predictions does not necessarily increase monotonically with the observation time, $t_\text{obs}$, before prediction~\cite{Parunak_PredictionHorizon2008}. In such situation, it would be necessary to estimate the value of $t_{\text{obs}}$ leading to the most reliable prediction. Due to all these factors, the methods proposed in this paper may not work when applied for prediction of catastrophic events in nonlinear dynamical systems. However, the ideas presented here together with approaches proposed for prediction in nonlinear dynamical systems may help in devising strategies for prediction in stochastic non-linear systems.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors acknowledge helpful discussions with G.J. Gibson and
funding from BBSRC (Grant
No. BB/E017312/1). CAG acknowledges support of a BBSRC Professorial
Fellowship.
\section{Continuous-time epidemiological model for step (ii)}
In this section, we present the three-parameter continuous-time (CT) model used in methods E and F (Table 1, main text) to address step (ii) for prediction.
In principle, this model is more realistic than the Reed-Frost (RF) model used in methods A-D and allows the existence of possible effects caused by the discrete-time character of the RF description to be explored.
We use the fungal invasion experiment as a benchmark for the comparison between different models.
In the CT, the spread (transmission) of the fungal colony between
two neighbouring dots is treated as a time-inhomogeneous Poisson
process \cite{cox1980}.
The waiting time distribution $f(t)$ for each
transmission event can be modelled by a Weibull
distribution multiplied by the transmissibility $T$:
\begin{equation}
f(t)=T\frac{t^{k-1}}{\tau_0^k}~e^{-\left(\frac{t}{\tau_0}\right)^k}\, ,
\tag{S.1}
\end{equation}
where $\tau_0$ is the characteristic time scale of the process, and
$k$ is a shape parameter of the distribution.
Given the cumulative probability function $P(t)=\int_{u=0}^{t}{f(u)\text{d}u}$,
the survival function $S(t)$ (giving the probability that transmission did not occur by time $t$) obeys the following relation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:survival}
S(t)=1-P(t)=1-T\left(1-e^{-\left(\frac{t}{\tau_0}\right)^k}\right)\, ,
\tag{S.2}
\end{equation}
The rate of the transmission process,
$\phi(t)$, is a function of the time since colonisation of the donor dot and is given by the expression:
\[
\phi(t)=\frac{f(t)}{S(t)}=-\,\frac{\text{d} \ln\left(S(t)\right)}{\text{d}\,t}~.
\]
In the limit $k\rightarrow\infty$, the CT model reduces to the RF model, with the same value of $T$ and infectious period $\tau=\tau_0$. Indeed, for $k\rightarrow\infty$, the survival probability given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:survival} becomes a step function,
\begin{equation}
S(t)=\begin{cases}
1,& t<\tau_0\\
1-T,& t>\tau_0,
\end{cases}
\nonumber
\end{equation}
which corresponds to a RF model, in which infection can be transmitted from an infected host to a susceptible neighbour with probability $T$ only once the infectious period $\tau_0$ has passed.
\section{Methods for fitting models to data in step (iii)}
The aim of this section is to give a detailed description of the different methods used for fitting models ${\cal M}$ to data ${\cal D}$ described in step (iii) of the methods for prediction proposed in the main text.
The ideas presented in the main text can be framed within a Bayesian approach which assumes that the parameters $\vtheta$ describing ${\cal M}$ are random variables. The aim of step (iii) is to evaluate $\pi(\vtheta|\D)$, the probability density that ${\cal M}$ with parameters $\vtheta$ describes the data. According to Bayes' rule:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bayes}
\pi{(\vtheta|\D})\propto~\bP(\D|\vtheta)\pi(\vtheta),
\tag{S.3}
\end{equation}
where $\pi(\vtheta)$ is the prior distribution of the parameters, reflecting our initial belief in their values, and $\bP(\D|\vtheta)$ is the likelihood (the probability of the data given the parameters).
Several challenges arise when using this Bayesian approach in the analysis of epidemic spread.
The first difficulty is associated with inherent limitations in the observations.
A complete spatio-temporal data set would contain the precise time of colonisation $t_j$ of each host $j$ in the population, i.e. $\D=\{t_j\}$.
Unfortunately, it is often the case that observations do not provide such detailed information.
In the particular experimental data set considered in the main text, the status of each dot is only recorded at discrete (1-day) time intervals.
Hence, the actual dataset is $\D=\{d_j\}$, where $d_j$ is the day when dot $j$ was first observed as colonised.
We have explored two possible ways to deal with the lack of precise information.
The option used in methods A-E (Table 1, main text) involves identifying descriptors for the evolution of the epidemic that are suitable for the prediction of the catastrophic event.
The lower-dimensional descriptors used in this work are the cumulative incidence, $C(t)$, and the shell-evolution function, $F(l,t)$.
Another option is to use data augmentation \cite{Gibson1998} that treats the unobserved colonisation times as parameters to be estimated.
This is the procedure followed in method F.
Another source of difficulties is due to the fact that the analytical calculation of the posterior $\pi{(\vtheta|\D})$ is, in general, impossible~\cite{Marjoram_2003:ApproxMCMC}.
Therefore, it is common to resort to numerical methods to sample from $\pi(\vtheta|\D)$.
In order to do this, we propose a new approximate method (denoted as MD), which is based on the calculation of the minimal distance between two datasets and does not require knowledge of the likelihood $\bP(\D|\vtheta)$.
In addition, we have used two known methods:
\begin{itemize}
\item a method belonging to the class of Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) \cite{Marjoram2003}, which calculates an \emph{approximate} posterior, and which shares several basic features with the MD method.
\item Markov-chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) with data augmentation~\cite{Gibson1998, Gelman2004}, which relies on the exact analytical form of $\bP(\D|\vtheta)$ to sample from the exact posterior $\pi{(\vtheta|\D})$.
\end{itemize}
The ABC method was used with multiple purposes:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] to test the new MD method (involving the \emph{minimisation} of a given distance between observed and simulated data) against an already-known method (ABC, which involves a \emph{cutoff} on the same distance).
\item[(b)] to test different choices in step (ii), by comparing estimations obtained using the RF model with estimations obtained by means of the CT model.
\end{itemize}
The MCMC method was employed to test the new MD method against a widely-used technique that uses both a different level of description (site-level vs. shell or MF level) \emph{and} a different model ${\cal M}$ (CT dynamics instead of RF dynamics).
\subsection{Minimum distance (MD) method}
Let $\D_\text{obs}$ be the observed data, $\vtheta$ a set of candidate parameters, and $\D_\text{sim}$ a simulated dataset generated using $\vtheta$. Then, if $\D_{\text{obs}}=\D_{\text{sim}}$, the vector of parameters, $\vtheta$, is drawn from $\pi{(\vtheta|\D_\text{obs}})$. In practice, obtaining an exact match between observed and simulated dataset is often computationally unfeasible, and one has to resort to an approximate match.
To this end, we define a metric $d^2(\D_1,\D_2)$ that measures the distance between two datasets $\D_1$ and $\D_2$.
The aim of the MD method is to calculate the distribution of parameters $\vtheta$ that minimise $d^2(\D_1,\D_2)$ and gives an approximate posterior. The choice of the metric $d^2\left(\D_{\text{sim}},\,\D_{\text{obs}}\right)$ is problem-specific and, in general, not unique.
We have tested two different metrics, corresponding to different descriptors of the data (cf. step (i) of the main text):
\begin{enumerate}
\item For the shell-based description, we used $d_f^2=\sum_{l,\,t}\left(F_{\text{sim}}(l,\,t)-F_{\text{obs}}(l,\,t)\right)^2$, where $l$ enumerates the shells, $t$ is the discretised time (observation times in days), and $F$ is the shell-evolution function.
\item Another option is to ignore any spatial information from the data (mean-field (MF) description) and consider only the total fraction of colonised sites at time $t$, $c(t)=C(t)/N$.
In this case, we chose the distance function $d_c^2=\sum_{t}\left(c_{\text{sim}}(t)-c_{\text{obs}}(t)\right)^2$, where $t$ is again the discretised time.
\end{enumerate}
The algorithm to implement the MD method considers two indexes, $n$, counting the parameter vectors resulting from the minimisation procedure, and $r$, counting the iterations. The values of $n$ and $r$ are in the range $n,r \in \mathbb{N}$ with maximum values $n_{\text{max}}$ and $R$, respectively, and proceeds as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[MD.1] Set $n=0$
\item[MD.2] Set $r=0$
\item[MD.3] Chose a value $\vtheta_n^{(r)}$ for the parameter vector sampled from the prior $\pi(\vtheta)$.
\item[MD.4] Generate a data set $\D_{\text{sim}}^{(r)}$ from the model ${\cal M}$ with parameters $\vtheta_n^{(r)}$.
\item[MD.5] Calculate $d^2(\D_{\text{obs}},\,\D_{\text{sim}}^{(r)})$ and
\begin{itemize}
\item If $r<R$, set $r=r+1$ and return to MD.3 or
\item If $r=R$, go to MD.6
\end{itemize}
\item[MD.6] Among all the parameters $\{\vtheta_n^{(r)};\, r=0,1,\dots,R\}$, chose the set of parameters $\vtheta_{n}\in \{\vtheta_n^{(r)}\} $ giving the closest simulated data, $\D_{\text{sim}}$ to observations, i.e. $d^2(\D_{\text{obs}},\,\D_{\text{sim}})=\min_{r=0,\dots, R}\{d^2(\D_{\text{obs}},\,\D_{\text{sim}}^{(r)})\}$.
\item[MD.7] Set $n=n+1$ and return to MD.2 until $n=n_{\text{max}}$.
\end{itemize}
The result of this algorithm is a set of parameter vectors $\{\vtheta_{n};\, n=0,1,\dots,n_{\text{max}}\}$ that give simulated data with minimum distance to observations.
The normalised histogram for the obtained parameter vectors $\{\vtheta_{n}\}$ defines a p.d.f. $\rho(\vtheta)$ that approximates the posterior $\pi{(\vtheta|\D})$.
For all the results presented in the paper and obtained with the MD algorithm, we set $R=5000$.
For some fungal epidemics, we have checked that larger values of $R$ do not lead to smaller values of $d^2(\D_{\text{obs}},\,\D_{\text{sim}})$ in step [MD.6].
\subsection{Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC)}
In common with the MD method, the ABC approximate Bayesian method we have used also relies on the definition of a metric, $d^2$.
If the distance between observed and simulated datasets is less than a given tolerance parameter, $\epsilon$, i.e. $d^2(\D_{obs},\,\D_{sim})\leq\epsilon$, then $\btheta$ is drawn from the \textit{approximate} posterior $\pi\left(\btheta|d^2(\D_{obs},\,\D_{sim})\leq\epsilon\right)$. The accuracy of the approximation increases as $\epsilon\rightarrow~0$.
For our estimations, we used a Markov-chain Monte Carlo algorithm that can be summarised as follows:
\setlength{\leftmargini}{3.6em}
\begin{itemize}
\item[ABC.1] Set $n=0$ and choose the initial value $\vtheta_0$ of the parameter vector.
\item[ABC.2] Generate a candidate vector, $\vtheta'$, from a proposal distribution $q(\vtheta'|\vtheta_n)$.
\item[ABC.3] Generate a data set $\D_{\text{sim}}$ from the model ${\cal M}$ with parameters $\vtheta'$.
\item[ABC.4] Calculate $d^2(\D_{\text{obs}},\,\D_{\text{sim}})$ and
\begin{itemize}
\item if $d^2(\D_{\text{obs}},\,\D_{\text{sim}})\leq\epsilon$, go to ABC.5;
\item if $d^2(\D_{\text{obs}},\,\D_{\text{sim}})>\epsilon$, set $\vtheta_{n+1}=\vtheta_n$ and go to ABC.7.
\end{itemize}
\item[ABC.5] Calculate the probability of acceptance:
\begin{equation}
p_\text{acc}=\text{min}\left(1,\frac{\pi({\vtheta'})q(\vtheta_n|\vtheta')}{\pi(\vtheta_n)q(\vtheta'|\vtheta_n)}\right),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
\item[ABC.6] Set $\vtheta_{n+1}=\vtheta'$ with probability $p_\text{acc}$, or $\vtheta_{n+1}=\vtheta_n$ with probability $1-p_\text{acc}$.
\item[ABC.7] Set $n=n+1$ and return to ABC.2 until the chain has converged and the required number of samples has been collected.
\end{itemize}
In our estimations,
either a uniform distribution with the same support as the prior (see below) or normal distribution, ${\cal N}(0,\,\sigma^2)$ were used for
the proposal distribution $q(.)$ (cf. steps ABC.2 and ABC.5).
The criterion for the choice between these two distributions was to minimize the average number of simulations needed to generate a dataset with $d^2(\D_{\text{obs}},\,\D_{\text{sim}})\leq\epsilon$ in step [ABC.4].
The value of $\sigma$ for the normal distribution was chosen according to the same criterion, and was typically a fraction between $0.05$ and $0.1$ of the support of the prior distribution.
Every chain was run for $5\times 10^4$ steps, discarding an initial burn-in period of $5\times 10^3$ steps. Since very small values of the tolerance $\epsilon$ imply very low acceptance rates, the final choice of $\epsilon$ was the result of a tradeoff between the accuracy of the approximation and CPU time available. The values of $\epsilon$ that were finally used in our analyses are shown in Table~S\ref{tab:epsilon}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c |}
\hline
Rep. & D & B & E \\ \hline
$1$ & $0.03$ & $1.5$ & $0.5$ \\
$2$ & $0.03$ & $1.5$ & $0.7$ \\
$3$ & $0.03$ & $1.5$ & $1.5$ \\
$4$ & $0.03$ & $1.5$ & $0.5$ \\
$5$ & $0.03$ & $1.5$ & $1$ \\
$6$ & $0.03$ & $1.5$ & $1$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of $\epsilon$ used for methods B, D, and E (Table 1, main text) using the ABC inference method in step (iii) for prediction.}
\label{tab:epsilon}
\end{table}
For both MD and ABC approaches, we assumed independent priors for all the parameters: $\pi(\vtheta)=\pi(T)\pi(\tau_{\text{exp}})$ (RF model) and $\pi(\vtheta)=\pi(T)\pi(\tau_0)\pi(k)$ (CT model). For the RF model, all the priors were uniform: $\pi(T)=U(0,\,1)$ and $\pi(\tau_\text{exp})=U(\tau_\text{min},\,\tau_\text{max})$, where $\tau_\text{min}=1\text{d}$ and $\tau_\text{max}$ was changed between treatments (increasing with the lattice spacing, from $\tau_\text{max}=6\text{d}$ for the lattice with $a=8$mm spacing to $\tau_\text{max}=12\text{d}$ for the lattice with $a=16$mm spacing). For the CT model, we used two sets of priors: (i) noninformative uniform priors for all the parameters ($\pi(T)=U(0,\,1)$, $\pi(\tau_0)=U(0,\,20)$, $\pi(k)=U(0,\,20)$) and (ii) noninformative prior for the transmissibility ($\pi(T)=U(0,\,1)$) and exponential priors for the other two parameters ($\pi(\tau_0)=\text{Exp}(1)$, $\pi(k)=\text{Exp}(1)$ as for the augmented-data MCMC estimations). Only results for noninformative priors from set (i) are presented below, and compared with results from the RF model. The different choice for the priors from set (ii) has an effect on the posterior distributions, but does not affect significantly the predicted incidence curves (see Section~3) and, for the sake of brevity, results from set (ii) are not presented.
The ABC and MD methods share several common features. Both of them rely on the simulation of epidemics using the current parameters, and on the calculation of a distance between simulated epidemics and the observed data.
However, the ABC method considers any distance below the cutoff $\epsilon$, while the MD method seeks to minimise the distance over a given number of simulations $R$. The iterative procedure used in MD method allows the use of an additional parameter analogous to $\epsilon$ in ABC method to be avoided. In both cases, the exact posterior is recovered in the proper limit ($\epsilon\rightarrow~0$ and $R\rightarrow\infty$, respectively).
\subsection{Markov Chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) method with data augmentation}
In order to implement the data-augmented MCMC method, it is necessary to calculate the explicit form of the likelihood $\bP(\D|\vtheta)$ (with $\vtheta=(T,\,\tau_0,\,k)$).
We sketch here the main steps of the calculation.
Let $\I$ be the set of the dots that are colonised before the end of the experiment (at time $\tend=21$~days), and $\U$ be the set of those that are still uncolonised at $t=\tend$.
Assume first that we know the times of colonisation $t_j$ of each dot $j\in\I$.
The data then consist of the vector $\mathbf{t}$ of colonisation times, plus the set of uncolonised dots, i.e. $\D=(\mathbf{t},\,\U)$.
The nearest neighbours of dot $j$ form the set $\N_j$, and the potential donors of $j$ form the subset $\S_j \subseteq \N_j$.
If $j\in\U$, then $\S_j$ contains the colonised neighbouring dots, i.e. $\S_j=\{i:\,i\in\N_j\cap\I\}$.
If in contrast $j\in\I$, $\S_j$ contains the neighbouring dots that are colonised before $j$, i.e. $\S_j=\{i:\,i\in\N_j\cap\I,\,t_i<t_j,\}$.
Given these definitions, the likelihood function can be written as the product of the contributions from individual dots $j$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:likelihood_all}
\bP(\D|\vtheta)=\prod_{j\in\I}{f^\I_j(t_j)}\prod_{j\in\U}{\P^{\,\U}_j(\tend)},
\tag{S.4}
\end{equation}
where $f^\I_j(t_j)$, is the p.d.f. for the colonisation times $t_j$, and $\P^{\,\U}_j(\tend)$ is the probability for dot $j$ to be uncolonised by the end of the experiment.
These contributions can be calculated explicitly as follows.
The probability that a dot $j\in\I$ has not been colonised by a given neighbour $i\in\S_j$ by time $t_j$ is given by the survival function $S(t_j-t_i)$ (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:survival})).
Hence, the probability $\P^\I_j(t_j)$ that dot $j$ is still uncolonised at time $t_j$ is given by the product over all $i\in\S_j$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:survival_I}
\P^\I_j(t_j)=\prod\limits_{i\in~S_j}{S(t_j-t_i)}=\prod\limits_{i\in~S_j}{\text{exp}\left({-\int_{0}^{t_j-t_i}\phi(t)\,\text{d}t}\right)}
=\text{exp}\left(-\sum\limits_{i\in~S_j}{\int_{0}^{t_j-t_i}\phi(t)\,
\text{d}t}\right),
\tag{S.5}
\end{equation}
where we used the relation $S(t)=\text{exp}(-\int_0^t\phi(u)\text{d}u)$.
The p.d.f. for $t_j$ is then given by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:likelihood_I}
f^\I_j(t_j)=-\frac{d\P^\I_j(t_j)}{dt_j}=\left(\sum\limits_{i\in~S_j}{\phi(t_j-t_i)}\right)
\text{exp}\left(-\sum\limits_{i\in~S_j}{\int_{0}^{t_j-t_i}\phi(t)\,\text{d}t}\right),
\tag{S.6}
\end{equation}
Likewise, a dot $j\in\U$ is still uncolonised by time $\tend$ when transmission did not occur from any of its neighbours $i\in\S_j$, yielding the probability:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:likelihood_U}
P^{\,\U}_j(\tend)= \begin{cases}
\prod\limits_{i\in~\S_j}{S(\tend-t_i)}~, &~~~~\text{if}~~~~ \S_j \ne \emptyset~, \\
1~, &~~~~\text{if}~~~~ \S_j = \emptyset~.
\end{cases}
\tag{S.7}
\end{equation}
In general, we are interested in obtaining the marginal distribution of a single parameter (in particular, $T$) from Eq.~(\ref{eq:bayes}), and thus all other parameters entering the expression for $\bP(\D|\vtheta)$ have to be integrated out.
This is, in general, unfeasible analytically.
In the fungal invasion experiment, the calculation is further complicated by \emph{censoring}, i.e., by the fact that experimental observations are made at discrete (1-day) time intervals.
As a consequence, if $d_j$ is the day when dot $j$ was first recorded as colonised, then the colonisation time $t_j$ is constrained to lie in the interval $t_j\in(d_j-1,\,d_j)$, but its exact value is unknown.
The actual dataset is hence $\D=(\mathbf{d},\,\U)$, and the likelihood has to be calculated from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:likelihood_all}-\ref{eq:likelihood_U}) by integrating out the unobserved colonisation times,
\[
\bP(\mathbf{d},\,\U|\vtheta)=\int_{\mathbf{T}{(\mathbf{d})}} \bP(\mathbf{t},\,\U|\vtheta)\text{d}\mathbf{t}~,
\]
where the integral is performed over the (high-dimensional and, in general, very complex) space $\mathbf{T}(\mathbf{d})$ compatible with the observed data.
Since the high-dimensional integrals introduced above are analytically intractable, numerical techniques are commonly used to sample values from the posterior distribution $\pi{(\vtheta|\D})$.
The MCMC method consists in implementing a Markov chain for $\vtheta$ that has $\pi{(\vtheta|\D})$ as stationary distribution. A large literature exists on this subject (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{Gelman2004}), to which the reader is referred for details.
In our case, a Metropolis-Hastings algorithm has been used to build the Markov chain.
The algorithm can be summarised as follows:
\setlength{\leftmargini}{4.6em}
\begin{itemize}
\item[MCMC.1] Set $n=0$ and choose the initial value $\vtheta_0$ of the parameter vector.
\item[MCMC.2] Generate a candidate value of the vector $\vtheta'$ from a proposal distribution $q(\vtheta'|\vtheta_n)$.
\item[MCMC.3] Calculate the probability of acceptance:
\begin{equation}
p_\text{acc}=\text{min}\left(1,\,\frac{\pi{(\vtheta'|\D})}{\pi{(\vtheta_n|\D})}\right)=\text{min}\left(1,\frac{\bP(\D|\vtheta') \pi{(\vtheta'})q(\vtheta_n|\vtheta')}{\bP(\D|\vtheta_n)\pi(\vtheta_n)q(\vtheta'|\vtheta_n)}\right),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
\item[MCMC.4] Set $\vtheta_{n+1}=\vtheta'$ with probability $p_\text{acc}$, or $\vtheta_{n+1}=\vtheta_n$ with probability $1-p_\text{acc}$.
\item[MCMC.5] Set $n=n+1$ and return to MCMC.2 until the chain has converged and the required number of samples has been collected.
\end{itemize}
In order to deal with the unobserved colonisation times $\mathbf{t}$, we used data augmentation \cite{Gibson1998}. Their values were treated as parameters to estimate, i.e. the original parameter vector $\vtheta$ was expanded (augmented) to $(\vtheta,\,\mathbf{t})$.
New colonisation times were then proposed and accepted/rejected within the same Metropolis-Hastings algorithm.
Additional care had to be taken in this case, since at each step a pathway of transmission must exist between the dot inoculated at time $t=0$ and all the other colonised dots in the system (see the discussion in \cite{Gibson1998} and \cite{Gibson2006}).
Independent priors were used for all the parameters, so that $\pi(\vtheta)=\pi(T)\pi(\tau_0)\pi(k)$.
A noninformative uniform prior was used for the transmissibility, i.e. $\pi(T)=U(0,\,1)$.
For the other two parameters, exponentially distributed priors were used, i.e. $\pi(\tau_0)=\text{Exp}(1)$, $\pi(k)=\text{Exp}(1)$.
Such choice was made in order to exploit our prior knowledge, i.e., respectively, that the typical time scale of the fungal spread in our system is of the order of days, and that the waiting-time distribution is not step-like (i.e., $k$ is not too large; note that such assumption is opposite to that of the RF model).
We checked that the posterior distribution was not too sensitive to changes up to a factor 2 in the parameters of the exponential priors.
A uniform prior was used for each augmented colonisation time.
Every chain was run for $10^5$ MCMC steps discarding an initial burn-in period of $10^3$ steps.
We checked that the final posterior distribution was robust with respect to the choice of the inital point $\vtheta_0$.
\subsection{Distribution for the estimated transmissibility, $\rho(\hat{T})$}
This section complements the results presented in the main text (Figs. 2 and 3) for the p.d.f. $\rho(\hat{T})$ obtained with different methods for parameter estimation in the fungal invasion experiment.
Within the Bayesian framework, the analogous of the distribution $\rho(\hat{T})$ introduced in the main text for the MD method is the marginal p.d.f of the posterior $\pi{(\vtheta|\D})$ integrated over the variable $\tau_\text{exp}$ for the RF model and over the variables $\tau_0$ and $k$ for the CT model.
Fig.~S\ref{fig:rho_10mm} shows the comparison of the probability density functions $\rho(\hat{T})$ obtained for the agar dot experiment by all the methods summarised in Table 1 of the main text.
The posteriors are shown for experiments in populations with lattice spacing $a= 10$mm.
This particular set of results was chosen because it summarised well all the main effects of the methodologies used.
All the estimations correspond to observations over the complete duration of the experiment, i.e. $t \leq t_{\text{obs}}=21$~days.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,angle=0]{rho_10mm_new.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:rho_10mm} Comparison of marginal posterior distributions $\rho(\hat{T})$ obtained with methods listed in Table 1 of the main text. Different symbols and lines correspond to different methods, as indicated by the legend. All the replicates correspond to invasion in populations with lattice spacing $a=10$~mm.}
\end{figure}
\section{Additional comparisons of fitted models with experimental data}
\label{sec:comparison_model_experiment}
In the main text, we presented a test of the goodness of fit of models to data based on the mean squared distances $d_c^2$ and $d_f^2$. The purpose of this section is to give a more visual comparison between fitted models and observations based on the cumulative incidence.
For every model used, we obtain the statistics for the incidence corresponding to fitted models by sampling the parameters $\vtheta$ from the joint (exact or approximate) posterior, $\pi{(\vtheta|\D})$.
This procedure gives a p.d.f. $\rho(C|t)$ for the incidence $C$ at any given time $t$.
The dispersion of $\rho(C|t)$ is associated both with the stochasticity in the simulated model for each value of the parameters, $\vtheta$, and the dispersion for the values of these parameters given by $\pi{(\vtheta|\D})$.
Strictly speaking, the comparison of the experimental incidence with that obtained by methods A-D based on the RF model makes sense only when the stochastic nature of the process is taken into account.
Indeed, the fine details of the two types of processes are different: while the experimental curve $C(t)$ corresponds to a discrete sampling of a \emph{continuous-time process} (discrete set of observations), $\rho(C|t)$ gives the statistics of effective \emph{discrete-time processes} with random values of transmissibility corresponding to $\vtheta$ being drawn from $\pi{(\vtheta|\D})$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,angle=0]{dpc_10pc_10mm_1.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:DPC_10mm_1}
Incidence (line with circles) for fungal invasion of a set of agar dots arranged on a triangular lattice with spacing $a=10$~mm \cite{Bailey2000}.
Replicates 1-3 are shown.
For each replicate, four panels are shown, with the p.d.f. $\rho(C|t)$ for the incidence $C$ at any time $t$ obtained by means of methods B, C, E, and F (as described in Table~1 of the main text).
In all the panels, the ridge (bold solid line) corresponds to the median of $\rho(C|t)$.
The grey-scale shaded areas are the $20\%$ (darker), $40\%$, $60\%$, and $80\%$ (lighter) percentiles around the median.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,angle=0]{dpc_10pc_10mm_2.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:DPC_10mm_2}
Same as in Fig.~S\ref{fig:DPC_10mm_1}, for replicates 4-6.}
\end{figure}
Figs.~S\ref{fig:DPC_10mm_1} and \ref{fig:DPC_10mm_2} show the comparison of the experimental incidence for systems with lattice spacing $a=10$~mm with the estimations $\rho(C|t)$ obtained from observations during time $t\leq t_{\text{obs}}=21$~days. Comparisons are presented for methodologies B, C, E, and F.
Results for methodology A (based on the MD method in step (iii) for prediction) are comparable to those obtained by methodology B (based on the ABC method) and have not been plotted in Figs.~S\ref{fig:DPC_10mm_1} and \ref{fig:DPC_10mm_2} for clarity. Similarly, the comparison for methodology D (based on the ABC inference method) is similar to that plotted for methodology C (based on the MD method) (not shown in Figs.~S\ref{fig:DPC_10mm_1} and \ref{fig:DPC_10mm_2}). These results imply that, given a level of description of data (step (i)) and model in step (ii), results are quite independent of whether MD or ABC approaches are used to address step (iii).
As can be seen from the figures, the p.d.f $\rho(C|t)$ obtained by methods C, D, and E give a better description of the observed data for most of the replicates.
On the other hand, the p.d.f. obtained by methodology F are often not able to capture the global trend of the incidence (see, e.g., replicate 3).
This suggests that the focus of methodology F on finer details of the evolution may prevent the predictability of the invasive properties of the system.
As discussed in the main text, this might be due to the negative interplay between the simplicity of the CT model and the individual-based description of the data-augmented MCMC method for inference.
\section{Forecast of the incidence}
\label{sec:incidence_forecast}
In the main text, we quantified the differences between predictions and observations for all methods and fungal invasion experiments in terms of the quantities $\Delta c$ and $\Delta F$ (cf. Fig.~6 of the main text). In this section, we give a more visual comparison between observations and predictions based on the temporal incidence, $C(t)$.
Figs.~S\ref{fig:Fore_10mm_tobs_10} and S\ref{fig:Fore_12mm_tobs_10} show the comparison for the six
replicates available in the experiments with $a=10$~mm and $a=12$~mm,
respectively. Predictions of the incidence between days 11 and 21 are based on estimates of the transmission parameters made during the first 10 days with methodology C. As can be seen, the estimated incidence provides a
reasonable statistical description for the observed incidence for all
the replicates. The quantity $\Delta c$ quantifies the rms distance between the observed incidence and the predicted incidence obeying the p.d.f $\rho(C|t)$ (given by the grey-scale shaded area in Figs.~S\ref{fig:Fore_10mm_tobs_10} and S\ref{fig:Fore_12mm_tobs_10}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{pspicture}(0,0)(16,10)
\rput(8,5){\includegraphics[clip=true,width=16cm]{SI_010pc_10mm_tmax_10_multiplot.eps}}
\psline[arrowsize=6pt]{->}(3.1,8.2)(3.1,7.5)
\psline[arrowsize=6pt]{->}(7.88,8.2)(7.88,7.5)
\psline[arrowsize=6pt]{->}(12.65,8.3)(12.65,7.6)
\psline[arrowsize=6pt]{->}(3.1,3.1)(3.1,2.4)
\psline[arrowsize=6pt]{->}(7.88,3.1)(7.88,2.4)
\psline[arrowsize=6pt]{->}(12.65,3.1)(12.65,2.4)
\end{pspicture}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{fig:Fore_10mm_tobs_10} Forecast of the incidence for
fungal invasion in a lattice of agar dots with $a=10$~mm. Each panel
corresponds to a different experimental replicate of the
epidemic.
The grey-scaled shaded
area shows the p.d.f. $\rho(C|t)$ for the numerically
extrapolated incidence based on observations
over time $t \leq t_{\text{obs}}=10$~days, as marked by arrows. The
grey-scale shaded areas are the $20\%$ (darker), $40\%$, $60\%$, and $80\%$
(lighter) percentiles around the median (bold solid line).}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{pspicture}(0,0)(16,10)
\rput(8,5){\includegraphics[clip=true,width=16cm]{SI_010pc_12mm_tmax_10_multiplot.eps}}
\psline[arrowsize=6pt]{->}(3.1,7.7)(3.1,7.0)
\psline[arrowsize=6pt]{->}(7.88,7.7)(7.88,7.0)
\psline[arrowsize=6pt]{->}(12.65,7.7)(12.65,7.0)
\psline[arrowsize=6pt]{->}(3.1,2.7)(3.1,2.0)
\psline[arrowsize=6pt]{->}(7.88,2.7)(7.88,2.0)
\psline[arrowsize=6pt]{->}(12.65,2.7)(12.65,2.0)
\end{pspicture}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{fig:Fore_12mm_tobs_10} Similar representation as in
Fig.~S\ref{fig:Fore_10mm_tobs_10} for fungal epidemics in
populations of agar dots with lattice spacing $a=12$~mm.}
\end{figure}
\section{Additional results for the numerical experiments}
\subsection{Homogeneous transmission of infection}
\label{sec:Homogeneous}
Here, we give numerical support to the claim made in the main text
that the most probable estimate for transmissibility, $\hT_{\star}$,
corresponding to the maximum of the probability density function
(p.d.f.) $\rho(\hT)$, does not differ significantly from the actual
transmissibility, $T$.
This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hatTvsT} where
the estimate for the transmissibility, $\hT$,
is plotted as a function
of the transmissibility $T$.
The estimates have been obtained for many different SIR numerical
epidemics ($\sim 10^4$) with $T \in [0,1]$.
The analysis has been restricted to epidemics
with final size $N_{\text{R}}$ (i.e. the number of removed hosts) greater
than a certain cut-off, $N_0$, in order to avoid estimates for small
epidemics giving a poor estimator for transmissibility.
Excluding
small epidemics from the analysis also makes sense from a practical
point of view because they are not a threat in terms of invasion.
We
have checked that the statistics for $\hT$ do not depend
significantly on $N_0$ for $N_0 \gtrsim
5$.
For each epidemic $i$ with given $T$, we obtain the
p.d.f. $\rho_i(\hT|T)$ for the effective transmissibility, $\hT$, from
observations of the initial stage (for $t
\le \tobs = 7\tau$, where $\tau$ is the infectious period for infected hosts which is taken as the unit of time, $\tau=1$).
Then, the mean p.d.f.,
$\langle \rho(\hT|T) \rangle_{\text{e}}$, is calculated by averaging $\rho_i(\hT|T)$ over
$N_{\text{e}}(T)$ different stochastic realisations of epidemics with
given value of $T$:
\[
\langle \rho(\hT|T) \rangle_{\text{e}}=\frac{1}{N_{\text{e}}(T)}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{e}}(T)} \rho_i(\hT|T)~.
\]
The first moment of $\langle \rho(\hT|T) \rangle_{\text{e}}$ gives an
estimate for the mean
$\langle \hT_{\star} \rangle_{\text{e}}$ averaged over stochastic realisations. The dependence
of $\langle \hT_{\star} \rangle_{\text{e}}$ on $T$ is shown by the continuous line in
Fig.~S\ref{fig:hatTvsT}. The dispersion of $\langle \rho(\hT|T) \rangle_{\text{e}}$, shown by
the shaded region in Fig.~S\ref{fig:hatTvsT} as a function of $T$,
contains contributions from both the width of each individual
distribution, $\rho_i(\hT|T)$, and dispersion of the maxima for
different replicates. In particular, the standard deviation, $\sigma(T)$,
of $\langle \rho(\hT|T) \rangle_{\text{e}}$ is given by
\[
\sigma(T)=\left[\langle \sigma_i^2 \rangle_{\text{e}}+\sigma_{\star}^2 \right]^{1/2}~,
\]
where
\[
\langle \sigma_i^2 \rangle_{\text{e}}=\frac{1}{N_{\text{e}}(T)} \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{e}}(T)}
\left[ \int_0^1 \hT^2 \rho_i(\hT|T) \text{d}\hT - \left( \int_0^1
\hT \rho_i(\hT|T) \text{d}\hT \right)^2\right]
\]
is the average over stochastic realisations of the variance $\sigma_i^2$ of
$\rho_i(\hT|T)$. The quantity $\sigma_{\star}^2$ is the variance of
$\hT_{\star,i}$ over stochastic realisations, calculated as
\[
\sigma_{\star}^2 = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{e}}(T)} \hT_{\star,i}^2}{N_{\text{e}}(T)}
-\left( \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{e}}(T)}
\hT_{\star,i}}{N_{\text{e}}(T)} \right)^2~.
\]
As can be seen from Fig.~S\ref{fig:hatTvsT} the actual value for the
transmissibility is statistically well described by the distribution
$\langle \rho(\hT|T) \rangle_{\text{e}}$. The mean for the most probable estimate for the transmissibility,
$\langle \hT_{\star} \rangle_{\text{e}}$, is in good agreement with the actual
transmissibility. In particular, $\langle \hT_{\star} \rangle_{\text{e}}$ provides an excellent
estimate for $T$ in the most interesting situations with $T \gtrsim
0.3$ where invasion is more likely. The deviations of $\langle
\hT_{\star} \rangle_{\text{e}}$ from $T$ are larger for
small values of $T$ because epidemics are typically small and the deviations are large.
However, it is important to note that
$\langle \hT_{\star} \rangle_{\text{e}}$ overestimates $T$ in these
situations and thus provides a safe bound for
invasion.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[clip=true,width=12cm]{Fig_meanT_Arithmetic_vs_T.eps}}
\end{center}
\vskip-10pt
\caption{
\label{fig:hatTvsT}
Estimates of the transmissibility for numerical SIR epidemics with
homogeneous transmissibility. The shaded yellow-brown region shows the
levels of confidence as percentage of the
p.d.f. $\langle \rho(\hT|T) \rangle_{\text{e}}$ around the most probable
mean transmissibility, $\langle \hT_{\star} \rangle_{\text{e}}$ (continuous line), corresponding
to each value of $T$. The dashed line representing the ideal situation (i.e. exact prediction)
with $\hat{T}=T$
is given for comparison with the actual prediction shown by the
continuous line.
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Heterogeneous transmission of infection}
\label{sec:Heterogeneous}
In the main text, we have analysed the epidemics in model systems with
homogeneous transmissibility for all pairs of connected hosts.
Realistic populations of hosts exhibit inherent heterogeneity in
transmissibility and it is crucial to understand its effect on the prediction method introduced in the main
text.
In order to study the predictability of invasion for epidemics with heterogeneity in transmission of infection, we consider a simple but generic situation in which
transmission is heterogeneous due to variability in the infectivity,
$\I$, and susceptibility, $\S$, of hosts.
As a first approximation,
the rate of infection from an infected donor host with infectivity
$\I_{\text{d}}$ to a susceptible recipient host with susceptibility $\S_{\text{r}}$
is defined as $\beta_{\text{d-r}}=\I_{\text{d}}\S_{\text{r}}$
\cite{Miller_JApplProbab2008}.
We assume that $\I_{\text{d}}$ and $\S_{\text{r}}$ are independent random variables
distributed according to truncated normal distributions, ${\cal
N}(\barI,\sigma_I^2)$ and ${\cal N}(\barS,\sigma_S^2)$, respectively,
which are the same for each host\footnote{The support of the normal
distributions has been restricted to $[0,\infty)$ to ensure that
both $\I_i$ and $\S_i$ are positive.}.
The mean values, $\barI$ and $\barS$, provide an effective measure of
the mean strength of the transmissibility while the standard
deviations, $\sigmaI$ and $\sigmaS$, characterize the degree of
heterogeneity.
The multiplicative form of the infection transmission rate
$\beta_{\text{d-r}}=\I_{\text{d}}\S_{\text{r}}$ brings correlations in
transmissibilities, $T_{\text{d-r}}=1-e^{\tau
\beta_{\text{d-r}}}$~\cite{grassberger1983}.
Indeed, all the transmissibilities from a donor
are affected by the value of $\I_{\text{d}}$ and thus they are not
independent.
Similarly, all the transmissibilities to a recipient are
influenced by its susceptibility $\S_{\text{r}}$ and thus also
correlated.
Such correlations make the invasion probability for
heterogeneous system to be dependent on the whole set of
transmissibilities $\{T_{\text{d-r}}\}$.
In spite of that, the method
based on a single effective transmissibility, $T$,
and Eq.~[1] in the main text
is still applicable and useful.
In realistic situations, the
transmissibility is often assumed to be homogeneous because the precise
degree of heterogeneity in transmission of infection is unknown and
difficult to infer in detail.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[clip=true,width=12cm]{Fig_meanT_Arithmetic_vs_T_Heterogeneous.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{fig:hatTvsT_Het} Estimates for the effective transmissibility
in numerical SIR epidemics with heterogeneous transmissibility
introduced by Gaussian randomness in infectivity $\I$ and
susceptibility $\S$ (with $\sigmaI=\sigmaS=0.2$, mean infectivity
set to $\barI=0.4$, and variable mean susceptibility $0.1 \le \barS
\le 3.5$). The shaded yellow-brown region shows the
levels of confidence as percentage of the
p.d.f. $\langle \rho(\hT|\langle T \rangle) \rangle_{\text{e}}$ around the most probable
mean transmissibility, $\langle \hT_{\star} \rangle_{\text{e}}$ (continuous line).
The dashed line representing the ideal situation (i.e. exact
prediction)
with $ \hT=\langle T \rangle$
is given for comparison with actual prediction shown by the
continuous line.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[clip=true,width=10cm]{Fig_Pinv_Het_SI.eps}}
\end{center}
\caption{ \label{fig:PinvHet} Numerical experiments of SIR
epidemics with heterogeneous transmissibility induced by Gaussian
randomness in infectivity $\I$ and susceptibility $\S$ (with
$\sigmaI=\sigmaS=0.2$, mean infectivity set to $\barI=0.4$, and
variable mean susceptibility $0.1 \le \barS \le 3.5$). The lines
marked by circles and squares correspond to the probabilities of
invasion $\Phom$ and $\Phet$ plotted \emph{vs} $\langle T
\rangle$ for homogeneous and heterogeneous
systems of size $L=51$, respectively,.
Estimates for the probability of invasion, $\hPinv(L)$, have been
evaluated for each epidemic (out of $\sim 10^4$) using the
p.d.f. $\rho(\hT)$ obtained by observing the initial evolution
during time $t \leq t_{\text{obs}}=7 \tau$ and then fitting the
observed spatio-temporal map by the shell-evolution function.
Horizontal slices of the yellow-brown
shaded area corresponding to a fixed value of $\hPinv(L)$
represent the distribution $\rho(\hT)$ averaged over realisations
of epidemics with the same value of $\hPinv(L)$.
The points on the ridge (black solid curve) of the shaded area
correspond to the
most probable transmissibility, $\hT_*$, averaged over epidemics with a
certain value of $\hPinv(L)$. }
\end{figure}
In order to test our methodology in heterogeneous systems with different
strengths of transmissibility, we perform numerical experiments
for epidemics with $\sigmaS =
\sigmaI = 0.2$, mean infectivity set to $\barI=0.4$ and variable
$\barS$.
Again, observations are made over an
initial interval of time
$t \le t_{\text{obs}} = 7 \tau$
for estimation of the effective transmissibility, $\hT$.
Similarly to the analysis given in the previous section for
epidemics with homogeneous transmission, Fig.~S\ref{fig:hatTvsT_Het} shows a comparison between the
p.d.f. $\langle \rho(\hT|\langle T \rangle) \rangle_{\text{e}}$
averaged over stochastic realisations of epidemics (shaded region)
with the ideal situation giving exact prediction of the
spatially averaged
transmissibility used in the simulations, i.e. $\hat{T}=\langle T
\rangle$ (dashed line).
As can be seen, the estimates are statistically
consistent with $\langle T \rangle$. In fact, the mean of the most
probable transmissibility, $\langle \hT_{\star} \rangle_{\text{e}}$,
gives a good description for $\langle T \rangle$ (compare the
continuous and dashed lines in Fig.~S\ref{fig:hatTvsT_Het}).
We proceed further
as in the case with homogeneous transmission
by calculating $\hPinv(L)$ for each of the numerical epidemics
in a system of size $L=51$
(see Fig.~2(a) in the main text) by using Eq.~[1] in the main text, the
estimated $\rho(\hT)$, and the probability of invasion $\Phom(\hT;L)$ for
systems with homogeneous transmissibility equal to $\hT$.
Note that here $\Phom(\hT;L)$
corresponds to the function denoted as $\Pinv(\hT;L)$ in the main
text.
The notations have been changed in order to distinguish between the probability
of invasion in homogeneous systems and the probability of invasion in
the presence of heterogeneity, denoted as $\Phet(\hT;L)$.
The results of our estimations are shown in
Fig.~S\ref{fig:PinvHet}.
The relation between $\hPinv(L)$ and
$\Phom(\hT;L)$ is very similar to the relation reported in the main
text for epidemics with homogeneous transmission.
Indeed, for
epidemics with low transmissibility, $\hPinv(L)$ typically
overestimates $\Pinv$.
In contrast, for more invasive epidemics,
$\hPinv(L)$ underestimates $\Pinv$ for most of the possible effective
transmissibilities.
Although this comparison has some interest, in the current
situation it makes more sense to compare the estimated probability of
invasion with the actual
probability of invasion in heterogeneous system, $\Phet(\hT;L)$, that can be calculated
numerically and shown by the line with squares in
Fig.~S\ref{fig:PinvHet}.
The comparison of this line with the shaded
region reveals that the estimated $\hPinv(L)$ overestimates the actual
probability of invasion in most of the situations both for cases with
low and high transmissibility.
Therefore, the estimates of $\hPinv$ typically provide
safe bounds for the probability of invasion.
In fact, the
larger the heterogeneity in susceptibility and/or infectivity, the
safer the bound is.
This is a consequence of the inequality
$\Pinv(\langle T \rangle) \ge \Phet(\langle T \rangle)$ that holds for
any given value of $\langle T \rangle$ under quite general conditions
due to the existence of correlations in transmission induced by
heterogeneity in the transmission rates
\cite{Cox1988,Miller_JApplProbab2008}.
Indeed, Fig.~S\ref{fig:PinvHet}
shows that the inequality
holds for the numerical experiments considered here with $\langle T \rangle=\hT$
(i.e. the line corresponding to the heterogeneous case marked by the
squares is below the line marked by the circles for homogeneous
system).
These results are
particularly encouraging for analysis of realistic epidemics in which
a certain degree of heterogeneity in susceptibility and infectivity of
hosts is expected to be ubiquitous.
\section{Differences between $P_{\text{inv}}$ and $\hat{P}_{\text{inv}}$}
\label{sec:Pinv}
In this section, we discuss the origin of the difference between the estimated probability of
invasion, $\hat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$, evaluated at the most probable
transmissibility, $\hT_{\star}$, and the actual probability of
invasion $\Pinv(\hT;L)$ one would obtain if the transmissibility of
the epidemic was known exactly.
To start with, recall that the relation between
$\hat{P}_{\text{inv}}(L)$ and $\Pinv(\hT;L)$ is given by Eq.~[1] in
the main text.
As we have
seen, $\rho(\hT)$ is a peak-shaped function approximately
symmetric about the peak position at $\hT_{\star}$.
Therefore, the peak region will mainly
contribute to the integral in Eq.~[1] of the main text.
If $\hT_{\star}$ is not too close to the inflection
point of $\Pinv(\hT;L)$,
the Taylor series expansion of $\Pinv(\hT;L)$ in $(\hT
-\hT_{\star})$ to second order, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:PinvExpansion}
\Pinv(\hT;L) = \Pinv(\hT_{\star};L)+ \Pinv^{\prime}(\hT_{\star};L) (\hT-\hT_{\star}) +
\frac{1}{2} \Pinv^{\prime \prime}(\hT_{\star};L) (\hT-\hT_{\star})^2,
\tag{S.10}
\end{equation}
is sufficient to estimate the deviation of $\hPinv$ from $\Pinv$.
Indeed, substitution of Eq.~\eqref{eq:PinvExpansion} into Eq.~[1] of the main text gives:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hPinvExpansion}
\hPinv(L)=\Pinv(\hT_{\star};L)+ \Pinv^{\prime}(\hT_{\star};L) \int_0^1 \rho(\hT)(\hT-\hT_{\star}) \text{d}\hT +
\frac{1}{2} \Pinv^{\prime \prime}(\hT_{\star};L) \int_0^1 \rho(\hT)
(\hT-\hT_{\star})^2 \text{d}\hT
\tag{S.11}
\end{equation}
The distribution of $\hT$ is approximately symmetric around the
maximum, i.e. $\rho(\hT-\hT_{\star})\simeq \rho(\hT_{\star}-\hT)$
(see Fig.~2(b) in the main text), and thus the term containing
$\Pinv^{\prime}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:hPinvExpansion} is negligible
in comparison with other terms in the sum.
This means that
\begin{align}
\hPinv(L)>\Pinv(\hT_{\star};L) \text{ if } \Pinv^{\prime
\prime}(\hT_{\star};L)>0
\nonumber
\\
\hPinv(L) \leq \Pinv(\hT_{\star};L) \text{ if } \Pinv^{\prime
\prime}(\hT_{\star};L) \leq 0~,
\tag{S.12}
\end{align}
where we have taken into account that the last integral in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:hPinvExpansion} is positive.
The above inequalities demonstrate that the value and sign of
$\hPinv(L)- \Pinv(\hT_{\star};L)$ depends on the curvature of
$\Pinv(\hT;L)$ around $\hT=\hT_{\star}$ which is given by $\Pinv^{\prime \prime}$.
|
\section{Introduction}
The origin of unconventional superconductivity in ferropnictide
compounds, their phase diagram and symmetry of the underlying order
parameter are topics that attract considerable interest in recent
years, see
Refs.~\onlinecite{Mazin-Review,Paglione-Review,Chubukov-Review} for
reviews. Superconductivity in pnictides emerges in close proximity
to an antiferromagnetically ordered state, and the critical
temperature $T_c$ has a dome-shaped dependence on
doping~\cite{PD-Exp-1,PD-Exp-2} similar to that in cuprates. Due to
their multiband electronic structure with multiple Fermi surfaces
and delicate interplay of interactions in different channels a
number of possibilities for electron ordering are
possible.~\cite{Chubukov-PRB08,Voronstsov-PRB10,Fernandes-PRB10}
Structural transition, competing or coexisting magnetic
spin-density-wave (SDW) and superconducting (SC) orders are being
examples. The latter may be in the form of the conventional
$s^{++}$-wave state that has $s$-wave symmetry in the Brillouin zone
and gaps of the same sign on electron and holes Fermi surfaces.
Alternatively, SC order may appear in the form of an extended
$s^{+-}$ state that looks as $s$-wave from a symmetry point of view
but has opposite signs of the gaps on different sheets of the Fermi
surfaces.~\cite{s-pm-1,s-pm-2,s-pm-3} There may be scenarios of
several SC states with the nodes in the SC gap, of both $s$-wave and
$d$-wave symmetries.~\cite{s-d-1,s-d-2,s-d-3}
Experimentally, the most convincing support in favor of
unconventional symmetry of pnictides is given so far by the observed
spin resonance below $T_c$ in inelastic neutron scattering
measurements on K-doped BaFeAs.~\cite{Christianson-N08} In all the
materials studied, the resonance occurs at the antiferromagnetic
wave vector $Q$ of the parent compound. It is thought to be a
triplet excitation of the singlet Cooper pairs, implying a
superconducting order parameter that satisfies
$\Delta(k+Q)=-\Delta(k)$, which indicates either $s^{+-}$ or
$d$-wave cases. Fabricated $c$-axis Josephson junctions of this
material and ordinary superconductor are suggestive of an $s$-wave
state, but not providing unambiguous evidence for the $s^{+-}$ state
itself.~\cite{Zhang-PRL09} In addition, $ab$-corner-junction
experiments with Co-doped BaFeAs seems to eliminate the option of
$d$-wave pairing.~\cite{Zhou-ArXiv08} Other notable experiments
providing substantial but still indirect support of $s^{+-}$ state
include quasiparticle interference in magnetic field probed by
scanning tunneling microscopy~\cite{Hanaguri-Science10} and
observation of half-integer flux-quantum jumps through the loop
formed by niobium and polycrystalline iron-pnictide
sample.~\cite{Chen-NP10} Finally, there is a growing number of
low-temperatures studies addressing thermodynamics and transport
properties of pnictides, however it is usually hard to deduce
underlying symmetry of a superconductor from such data. For fully
gapped $s$-wave state, one expects to see exponentially suppressed
quasiparticle response and power-law in temperature for the $d$-wave
state with the nodes. The possible ambiguity in interpretation of
data stems from the fact that accidental nodes on the Fermi surface
or impurity-induced subgap states may easily alter low-temperature
behavior of, for example, heat capacity or London penetration depth.
It is widely agreed that a decisive experiment should involve a
phase sensitive probe such as the Josephson effect. Although
original proposals~\cite{Mazin-PRL09,Wu-PRB09} followed mostly
immediately after the $s^{+-}$ candidate symmetry was introduced, no
such direct measurements of the current-phase relationship have been
performed so far for pnictide-based Josephson junctions.
Nevertheless, this inspired a lot of theoretical efforts in finding
simpler geometries or alternative signatures of $s^{+-}$ pairing
state in proximity circuits with pnictides and conventional
superconductors.~\cite{Nagaosa-EPL09,Linder-PRB09,Tsai-PRB09,Chen-PRL09,Ota-PRB10,
Yerin,Berg-PRL11,Koshelev-EPL11,Lin-PRB12,Vakaryuk} A particularly
interesting recent conclusion~\cite{Tsai-PRB09,Koshelev-EPL11} is
that tunneling spectra of weakly coupled $s$-$s^{+-}$ bi-layers
exhibit distinct features characteristic only to sign-changing
symmetry of the gap. Physically, the effect comes from the
frustration in the junction since the gap of an ordinary
superconductor tends to align with one of the gaps of $s^{+-}$
superconductor, and thus becomes in the conflict with the other band
experiencing the anti-proximity effect.
\section{Theoretical framework}
In this work, we consider plethora of effects in
superconductor-metal-superconductor junctions where one or both
superconductors are assumed to have $s^{+-}$ symmetry. The metal is
either normal or ferromagnetic diffusive wire. In the context of the
Josephson effect, in such structures, we find various current-phase
relationships whose shapes depend on the relation between the wire
length and superconducting coherence length, and boundary
transparency. The generic feature is non-analytical behavior of the
current near phase $\pi$, which corresponds to the closing of the
proximity-induced gap in the wire, and robust $0$-$\pi$ oscillations
even without ferromagnets. In the context of the proximity-induced
density of states (DOS) in the wire, we identify fingerprints of the
$s^{+-}$ symmetry, which is thus not only unique to frustrated
$s$-$s^{+-}$ bi-layers.
We build our calculations based on the Usadel
equations~\cite{Usadel} and accompanying Kupriyanov-Lukichev
boundary conditions~\cite{KL} modified for a multiband
case.~\cite{BGK} This quasiclassical theory captures all the
essential features and full complexity of the proximity effect.
Adopting angular parametrization for the normal and anomalous
quasiclassical Green's functions~\cite{Belzig} as
$G=\cos\theta(\omega,x)$ and
$F=\sin\theta(\omega,x)e^{i\chi(\omega,x)}$, Usadel equations take
the form
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}\label{Usadel-Eq1}
\partial^2_x\theta-(2\omega/\varepsilon_{Th})\sin\theta=
(\partial_x\chi)^2\sin\theta\cos\theta,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Usadel-Eq2}
\partial_x(\sin^2\theta\partial_x\chi)=0,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
where $\omega=(2n+1)\pi T$ is Matsubara frequency,
$\varepsilon_{Th}=D/L^2$ is the Thouless energy for the wire of
length $L$, and $D$ is the diffusion coefficient. Spatial
derivatives are taken with respect to the dimensionless coordinate
$x\to x/L$ and we assume quasi-one-dimensional geometry. At the
interface, we have two boundary conditions:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}\label{Boundary-Cond1}
J_\omega=2\sum_{\lambda=1,2}(\delta_\lambda/\gamma_{\lambda})
\sin\theta_B\sin\theta_{s\lambda}\sin\psi,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Boundary-Cond2}
\partial_x\theta_B\!=2\!\!\sum_{\lambda=1,2}\!\!
\frac{\cos\theta_{s\lambda}\sin\theta_B}{\gamma_\lambda}\!
\left[\delta_\lambda\tan\theta_{s\lambda}\cot\theta_B\cos\psi
-1\right].
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Here, $J_\omega$ denotes the first integral of
Eq.~\eqref{Usadel-Eq2}, index $\lambda$ labels different bands,
$\psi=(\phi-2\chi_B)/2$ and $\phi$ stands for the global
superconducting phase difference across the junction, while factors
$\delta_\lambda=\pm1$ account for the relative shifts of phases
between the bands, and finally parameters $\gamma_\lambda$ represent
dimensionless interface resistances. We also used notations
$\theta_B=\theta(\omega,\pm1/2)$ and similar for $\chi_B$, and
introduced Green's functions of a superconductor in the bulk:
$\sin\theta_{s\lambda}=|\Delta_\lambda|/\sqrt{|\Delta_\lambda|^2+\omega^2}$
and
$\cos\theta_{s\lambda}=\omega/\sqrt{|\Delta_\lambda|^2+\omega^2}$,
with $\Delta_{\lambda}$ being corresponding gaps. Having solved
Usadel equations, one can find a density of states
\begin{equation}\label{N-def}
N(\varepsilon,x)/N_0=\mathrm{Re}[\cos(\omega,x)]_{\omega\to
i\varepsilon}
\end{equation}
upon analytical continuation to real energies, and a Josephson
current-phase relationship
\begin{equation}\label{I-def}
eI(\phi)R_N=2\pi
T\sum_{\omega}J_\omega=\int\tanh\frac{\varepsilon}{2T}\mathrm{Im}J_\varepsilon
d\varepsilon
\end{equation}
upon summation over Matsubara frequencies, where $N_0$
is bare density of states in a metal and $R_N=L/e^2DN_0S$ is normal
state wire resistance of cross-section area $S$.
\section{Density of states}
Consider a symmetric $s|n|s$ junction. In the absence of
superconducting phase difference between the leads we have $\chi=0$
and the whole system of equations simplifies to one:
\begin{equation}
\partial^2_x\theta-(2\omega/\varepsilon_{Th})\sin\theta=0,
\end{equation}
which has to be solved for $x\in[-1/2,1/2]$. Since this is the same
equation as for the nonlinear pendulum it can be integrated exactly
in terms of the Jacobi elliptic functions. Indeed, the above
equation has a simple first integral:
\begin{equation}
(\partial_x\theta)^2=(4\omega/\varepsilon_{Th})[\cos\theta_0-\cos\theta],
\end{equation}
where integration constant $\theta_0=\theta(\omega,0)$ was chosen to
be at the middle of the wire due to obvious symmetry reasons. To
perform a subsequent second integration, we change variables as
\begin{equation}\label{m}
\cos\theta=\frac{2m\cos^2\phi}{1-m\sin^2\phi}-1,\quad
m=\cos^2(\theta_0/2),
\end{equation}
and find
\begin{equation}
x\sqrt{\frac{2\omega}{\varepsilon_{Th}}}=\int^{\phi}_{0}\frac{d\phi}{\sqrt{1-m\sin^2\phi}},
\end{equation}
which is a tabulated integral. Finally, using the Jacobi elliptic
functions $\mathop{\rm cn}\nolimits$ and $\mathop{\rm dn}\nolimits$, the solution appears in the form
\begin{equation}\label{theta-dos}
\cos[\theta(\omega,x)/2]=\cos(\theta_0/2)\frac{\mathop{\rm cn}\nolimits(u,m)}{\mathop{\rm dn}\nolimits(u,m)},\quad
u=x\sqrt{\frac{2\omega}{\varepsilon_{Th}}}.
\end{equation}
It is important to keep in mind that the modulus of the Jacobi
functions is actually an energy-dependent function $m(\omega)$, see
Eq.~\eqref{m}. By using now Eq.~\eqref{theta-dos} in the boundary
condition Eq.~\eqref{Boundary-Cond2}, one finds a closed algebraic
equation for the unknown integration coefficient in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
u_B\sqrt{1+m}\frac{\mathop{\rm sn}\nolimits(u_B,m)}{\mathop{\rm dn}\nolimits(u_B,m)}+
\mathcal{F}\frac{\mathop{\rm cn}\nolimits(u_B,m)}{\mathop{\rm dn}\nolimits^2(u_B,m)}\nonumber\\=
\frac{\mathcal{G}}{\sqrt{m(1-m)}}
\left[\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1-m}{\mathop{\rm dn}\nolimits^2(u_B,m)}\right]\label{Boundary-Cond-u}
\end{eqnarray}
where $u_B=\sqrt{\omega/2\varepsilon_{Th}}$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{G}(\omega)=\sum_{\lambda}\cos\theta_{s\lambda}/\gamma_\lambda=
\sum_\lambda\frac{\omega}{\gamma_\lambda\sqrt{|\Delta_\lambda|^2+\omega^2}},\label{G}\\
\mathcal{F}(\omega)=\sum_{\lambda}\delta_\lambda\sin\theta_{s\lambda}/\gamma_\lambda=
\sum_\lambda\frac{\delta_\lambda|\Delta_\lambda|}{\gamma_\lambda\sqrt{|\Delta_\lambda|^2+\omega^2}}.\label{F}
\end{eqnarray}
Equation~\eqref{Boundary-Cond-u} defines $m$ and thus $\theta_0$ as
a function of energy $\omega$ and together with Eqs.~\eqref{N-def}
and \eqref{theta-dos} it provides a complete analytical solution for
the Green's function in the wire.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig-DOS1.pdf}\vspace{-.25cm}\\
\caption{Representative density of states spectrum in the normal wire as
induced by the proximity effect between two $s^{++}$ two-band superconductors. Inset shows
parameters, and bulk gaps were normalized to the Thouless energy
$\tilde{\Delta}_\lambda=\Delta_\lambda/\varepsilon_{Th}$.}\label{Fig-DOS1}
\end{figure}
In particular, we can find density of states in the middle of the
wire as $N(\varepsilon)/N_0=\mathrm{Re}[2m(i\varepsilon)-1]$, which
exhibits very rich structure. Indeed, Fig.~\ref{Fig-DOS1} shows
representative profiles of $N(\varepsilon)$ in $s^{++}|n|s^{++}$
junction for different choice of parameters. One finds a
proximity-induced energy gap $\varepsilon_g$ in the spectrum of a
wire, which scales with the Thouless energy
$\varepsilon_g\sim\varepsilon_{Th}$. Asymptotic analysis near the
gap, $\varepsilon-\varepsilon_g\ll\varepsilon_g$, shows that DOS has
a square-root singularity
$N(\varepsilon)\propto\sqrt{\varepsilon/\varepsilon_g-1}$, similar
to that in a single-band $s|n|s$ junctions.~\cite{AL-DOS}
$N(\varepsilon)$ then rapidly grows, passes through the maximum and
has two additional peak-like features at higher energies near the
superconductive band gaps $\Delta_{\lambda}$. This picture has to be
contrasted to the DOS profile in $s^{+-}|n|s^{+-}$ junctions shown
in Fig.~\ref{Fig-DOS2}. The low-energy behavior is similar but the
energy gap is reduced due to anti-proximity effect induced by the
$\pi$-shifted band. The conceptual difference appears near the band
gaps $\Delta_{\lambda}$ where instead of peaks one finds Fano-like
antisymmetric features. This important detail is specific for the
$s^{+-}$ symmetry case and can be looked for in the tunneling
experiments.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig-DOS2.pdf}\vspace{-.25cm}\\
\caption{Representative density of states spectrum in the normal wire as
induced by the proximity effect between two $s^{+-}$ two-band superconductors.
The anti-symmetric Fano-like features near the gap edges
$\tilde{\Delta}_\lambda=\Delta_\lambda/\varepsilon_{Th}$ may provide a definite fingerprint
of $s^{+-}$-superconductivity.}\label{Fig-DOS2}
\end{figure}
\section{Josephson current}
Phase-sensitive measurements are clearly more challenging.
Nevertheless, we develop a theory for the Josephson effect in
mesoscopic $s|n|s^{+-}$ circuits with the idea that some limits
considered here will be useful for the future experiments.
In the presence of a superconducting phase gradient in the wire
finding an analytical solution of Usadel equations represents a
difficult technical problem. In the limit of the long junctions
however $L\gg\sqrt{D/T}$ calculation of the Josephson current
simplifies considerably. In this case, it is possible to neglect the
mutual role of superconducting leads and introduce an ansatz for the
anomalous Green's function
$F=e^{i\phi/2}\sin\theta^R+e^{-i\phi/2}\sin\theta^L$, where the
functions $\theta^{R(L)}$ satisfy the same sin-Gordon equation as in
the case of DOS calculations. Solving it separately near right
(left) boundary for $\theta^{R(L)}$ respectively we
find~\cite{Zaikin}
\begin{equation}
\tan[\theta^{R(L)}(x,\omega)/4]=\mathcal{B}_{R(L)}(\omega)
\exp[\pm(x\mp 1/2)L/\xi_\omega]
\end{equation}
where we introduced coherence length $\xi_\omega=\sqrt{D/2\omega}$.
This approximation conserves the current in the normal layer with
the exception of the narrow region of the order $\xi_{\omega=T}$
near the boundaries. The two integration coefficients
$\mathcal{B}_{R(L)}$ are to be found from the boundary conditions
Eq.~\eqref{Boundary-Cond2} at both interfaces, which can be reduced
to the algebraic equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
4\mathcal{G}_\alpha(\mathcal{B}_\alpha-\mathcal{B}^3_\alpha)-
\mathcal{F}_\alpha(1-6\mathcal{B}^2_\alpha+\mathcal{B}^4_\alpha)\nonumber\\
=\pm2(L/\xi_\omega)(\mathcal{B}_\alpha+\mathcal{B}^3_\alpha),\quad
\alpha=R,L
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{F}$-functions were defined earlier
in Eqs.~\eqref{G} and \eqref{F}. With this at hand, we find
Josephson current in the form
\begin{equation}\label{I-sns-long}
eI(\phi)R_N=128\pi T\sin\phi \sum_{\omega>0}\frac{L}{\xi_\omega}
\mathcal{B}_{R}(\omega)\mathcal{B}_{L}(\omega)e^{-L/\xi_\omega}
\end{equation}
which is applicable in the broad range of temperatures
$\varepsilon_{Th}\ll T\lesssim|\Delta_\lambda|$. At lowest
temperatures $T\ll\varepsilon_{Th}$, the current-phase relationship
in Eq.~\eqref{I-sns-long} deviates from being simply sinusoidal
because a separable approximation for $F$-function fails to account
properly for the proximity-induced Thouless gap. Unfortunately,
analytical calculation of $I(\phi)$ is not possible in this limit,
however one may easily estimate the magnitude of the critical
current as $eI_cR_N\sim\varepsilon_{Th}$. Furthermore, it is
expected that $I(\phi)$ will be nonanalytical function near
$\phi=\pi$ since the proximity gap closes at that point while the
current is proportional to its derivative
$I(\phi)\propto\partial_\phi\varepsilon_g(\phi)$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig-SFS.pdf}\vspace{-.25cm}\\
\caption{(Top) Critical current for $s|n|s^{+-}$ junction vs
boundary resistance mismatch $r_\gamma$. In the inset, $\Delta_s$ labels the gap of
an ordinary superconductor, while $\Delta_{1,2}$ are the two gaps of an $s^{+-}$
superconductor. The other parameters are $T=0.5\Delta_s$,
$\gamma_1=\gamma_s=5$, and $L/\xi_{\pi T}=2$.
(Bottom) Critical current for $s|f|s^{+-}$ junction vs
boundary resistance mismatch $r_\gamma$ for $T=0.3\Delta_s$, $\Delta_1=0.5\Delta_s$,
$\Delta_2=1.5\Delta_s$, and $h=3\Delta_s$.}\label{Fig-I-SFS}
\end{figure}
We plot in Fig.~\ref{Fig-I-SFS} the critical current from
Eq.~\eqref{I-sns-long} as a function of the ratio between the
interface barriers for each band $r_\gamma=\gamma_1/\gamma_2$. It is
well known that for the conventional superconductors, $I_c$ decays
monotonously with $r_\gamma$, however, for $s|n|s^{+-}$ junction
critical current displays clear $0-\pi$
switching.~\cite{Chen-PRL09,Linder-PRB09,Berg-PRL11,Vakaryuk} This
effect is magnified in the presence of ferromagnetic layer.
Including the exchange field $h$ in Eq.~\eqref{Usadel-Eq1} as
$\omega\to\omega+ih\mathop{\rm sign}\nolimits(\omega)$, but ignoring spin-flip and
spin-orbital scattering, we find from the linearized Usadel
equations the current in $s|f|s^{+-}$ junction $I(\phi)=I_c\sin\phi$
with
\begin{equation}\label{I-sfs-long}
eI_cR_N=4\pi T\!\!\sum^{\infty}_{\omega=-\infty}\!\!
\frac{(L/\xi_{|\omega|})(\mathcal{F}_R\mathcal{F}_L/\mathcal{G}_R\mathcal{G}_L)/\cosh(L/\xi_{|\omega|})}
{(1+\Gamma^2_\omega)\tanh(L/\xi_{|\omega|})+\Gamma_\omega\mu_\omega}
\end{equation}
where
$\Gamma_\omega=L/2\xi_{|\omega|}\sqrt{\mathcal{G}_R\mathcal{G}_L}$
and
$\mu_\omega=(\mathcal{G}_R+\mathcal{G}_L)/\sqrt{\mathcal{G}_R\mathcal{G}_L}$.
Equation~\eqref{I-sfs-long} is the generalization of the Buzdin
formula~\cite{Buzdin-PRB03} for the multi-band case. Lower panel of
Fig.~\ref{Fig-I-SFS} shows enhanced $0$-$\pi$ oscillations of the
critical current as a function of $r_\gamma$, which displays two
zero points. Such a peculiar feature is due to the combination of a
ferromagnet and $s^{+-}$ superconductor.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig-I-ph.pdf}\vspace{-.25cm}\\
\caption{Josephson current-phase relationship for short $s|n|s^{+-}$ junction for
gaps $\Delta_1= 0.5\Delta_s$, $\Delta_2=1.5\Delta_s$, and
interface parameters $\gamma_s=2$, $\gamma_1=2.4$, $\gamma_2=1.8$.}\label{Fig-I-ph}
\end{figure}
In the Josephson junction with extremely low barrier transparency
when $\gamma_\lambda\gg1$, one can circumvent the need of solving
Usadel equation in the wire since current is largely determined by
the interface. Superconductive phase $\phi$ changes discontinuously
at the barriers and stays nearly zero within the interior of the
wire while Green's function phase $\theta$ is approximately
constant. Since $J_\omega\propto\gamma^{-1}\ll1$, then to the
leading order, one can set $\chi_B=0$ in Eq.~\eqref{Boundary-Cond1}
and $\partial_x\theta=0$ in Eq.~\eqref{Boundary-Cond2}. These
approximations allow to find the spectral current,
\begin{equation}
J_\omega=\mathcal{F}^2\sin\phi
\left[\mathcal{G}^2+\mathcal{F}^2\cos^2\frac{\phi}{2}\right]^{-1/2},
\end{equation}
where we assumed $s^{+-}|n|s^{+-}$ geometry. For the equal gaps case
$\Delta_1=\Delta_2\equiv\Delta_s$, above the spectral current
$J_\omega$ leads to the Josephson current-phase relationship from
Eq.~\eqref{I-def}:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&eI(\phi)R_N=\frac{\mu^2(1+r_\gamma)}{2\gamma_1}\Delta_s\sin
\phi\nonumber\\
&&\times\int^{\Delta_s}_{\mu\Delta_s\cos\frac{\phi}{2}}
\frac{\tanh(\varepsilon/2T)d\varepsilon}{\sqrt{\Delta^2_s-\varepsilon^2}
\sqrt{\varepsilon^2-\mu^2\Delta^2_s\cos^2\frac{\phi}{2}}}
\end{eqnarray}
where $r_\gamma=\gamma_1/\gamma_2$ and
$\mu=(1-r_\gamma)/(1+r_\gamma)$. Interestingly, in the
zero-temperature limit, even the remaining energy integral can be
completed in the closed form, such that we find a Josephson current
\begin{equation}
eI(\phi)R_N=\frac{(\gamma_2-\gamma_1)^2\Delta_s\sin\phi}{\gamma_1\gamma_2(\gamma_1+\gamma_2)}
K\!\left[1-\left(\frac{\gamma_2-\gamma_1}{\gamma_2+\gamma_1}\right)^2\!\!
\cos^2\frac{\phi}{2}\right],
\end{equation}
where $K(x)$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind. In
the completely symmetric case (with equal transparencies for both
bands), the Josephson current vanishes, since the $\pi$-shifted
bands drive it in the opposite directions. However, including
interband scattering effects may result in additional nonvanishing
contributions.~\cite{Yerin}
Analytical results are also possible for arbitrary transparencies
but for the short junctions when $L\ll\xi_{\omega=\Delta_\lambda}$.
In this case, Usadel equations are dominated by the gradient terms.
Despite the fact that they remain coupled and nonlinear, all
integrations can be completed in the closed form.~\cite{AL-I} By
using the first integral of Eq.~\eqref{Usadel-Eq2},
$J_\omega=\sin^2\theta\partial_x\chi$ and excluding $\partial_x\chi$
from Eq.~\eqref{Usadel-Eq1}, one finds
\begin{equation}
\partial^2_x\theta=\frac{J^2_\omega\sin(2\theta)}{2\sin^4\theta}.
\end{equation}
This nonlinear differential equation is solved by
\begin{equation}
\cos[\theta(x,\omega)]=\cos\theta_0\cos[J_\omega(x-x_0)/\sin\theta_0].
\end{equation}
Knowing $\theta(x,\omega)$, one can now calculate the second
integral of Eq.~\eqref{Usadel-Eq2},
\begin{equation}
\chi-\chi_0=J_\omega\int^{x}_{x_0}\frac{dx}{\sin^2\theta},
\end{equation}
which reads
\begin{equation}
\sin\theta_0\tan[\chi(x,\omega)-\chi_0]=\tan[J_\omega(x-x_0)/\sin\theta_0].
\end{equation}
Having found explicit solutions for the Green's functions, the
boundary problem for the integration coefficients can be reduced to
solving three algebraic equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
J_\omega=\mathcal{F}_L\sin\theta_B\sin(\chi_B+\phi/2),\\
J_\omega=\mathcal{F}_R\sin\theta_B\sin(\phi/2-\chi_B),\\
\mathcal{F}_L\cos\theta_B\cos(\chi_B+\phi/2)-\mathcal{G}_L\sin\theta_B\nonumber\\
=\mathcal{F}_R\cos\theta_B\cos(\chi_B-\phi/2)-\mathcal{G}_R\sin\theta_B.
\end{eqnarray}
These expressions finally lead us to the Josephson current-phase
relationship in the form
\begin{equation}\label{I-sns-short}
eI(\phi)R_N=8\pi
T\!\!\sum_\omega\!\frac{\mathcal{A}(\phi)\sin\phi}{\mathcal{F}^{-1}_R+\mathcal{F}^{-1}_L}\!
\left[\mathcal{A}^2(\phi)+\frac{(\mathcal{G}_R-\mathcal{G}_L)^2}
{(\mathcal{F}_R-\mathcal{F}_L)^2}\right]^{-\frac{1}{2}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}(\phi)=\left[\cos^2\frac{\phi}{2}+
\frac{(\mathcal{F}_R-\mathcal{F}_L)^2}
{(\mathcal{F}_R+\mathcal{F}_L)^2}\sin^2\frac{\phi}{2}\right]^{-1/2}.
\end{equation}
A representative feature of Eq.~\eqref{I-sns-short} is that
$I(\phi)$ switches its sign in between $\phi=0$ and $\phi=\pi$ as
shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig-I-ph}. This implies that the free energy of
$s|n|s^{+-}$ junction has two minima and such junction may be used
as the phase inverted in superconducting digital circuits. Such
feature, however, is not unique for $s^{+-}$ superconductors and can
be realized in other complex hybrid circuits with ordinary
materials.~\cite{Golubov-RMP04}
In summary, we have studied the density of states and Josephson
current in mesoscopic circuits with unconventional $s^{+-}$
superconductors. We find that tunneling spectra have distinct
fingerprints of the sign changing symmetry of the underlying
superconductive order parameter induced by the proximity effect.
Furthermore, the critical current exhibits a robust $\pi$ junction
even in the absence of the ferromagnetic layer. The Josephson
current-phase relationship itself is not indicative of $s^{+-}$
symmetry due to the sensitivity to parameters defining the junction.
We would like to thank Maxim Vavilov for useful discussions,
Valentin Stanev for correspondence regarding
Ref.~\onlinecite{Koshelev-EPL11}, and Norman Birge for reading and
commenting on the paper. This work was supported by Michigan State
University.
|
\section{Introduction}
In this work we consider a broadcasting problem in ad-hoc wireless networks under the
Signal-to-Interference-and-Noise-Ratio model (SINR).
Wireless network consists of $n$ stations, also called nodes, with unique integer IDs in the range $\{1,\ldots,N\}$
and uniform transmission powers, deployed in the two-dimensional space with Euclidean metric.
Each station initially knows only its own ID and location, parameters $n$ and $N$.
A communication (or reachability) graph of the network is the graph defined on network nodes
and containing links $(v,w)$ such that if $v$ is the only transmitter in the network then $w$ receives
the message transmitted by $v$.
We consider two settings: one with local knowledge, in which each station knows also its neighbors
(i.e., stations reachable by a direct transmission), and the other when no extra knowledge is assumed.
In the broadcasting problem, there is one designated node, called the source, which has a piece
of information (called a source message or a broadcast message)
that must be delivered to all other accessible nodes by using wireless communication.
In the beginning, only the source is active from perspective of the broadcast task,
and other nodes join the execution after receiving the broadcast message for the first time.
The goal is to minimize the worst-case time for accomplishing the broadcasting task.
\subsection{Previous and Related Results}
Recent development of deterministic protocols for wireless communication, e.g.,
CDMA-based technologies, and rapidly growing scale of ad hoc wireless networks,
poses new challenges for design of efficient deterministic distributed protocols.
In this work, we study
the problem of {\em distributed deterministic broadcasting} in ad hoc wireless networks,
which, to the best of our knowledge,
has not been theoretically studied under the SINR model, from perspective of worst-case complexity.
SINR model is currently considered the most adequate
among the models of wireless networks.
Furthermore,
no other communication task involving multi-hop message propagation has been theoretically studied
from perspective of distributed deterministic solutions in the SINR setting.
In what follows, we list most relevant results in the SINR model, and
the state of the art obtained in the older Radio Network model.
\paragraph{SINR model.}
In the
SINR model in ad hoc setting,
deterministic {\em local} broadcasting, in which nodes have to inform
only their neighbors in the corresponding reachability graph,
was studied in \cite{YuWHL11}.
The considered setting allowed power control by algorithms,
in which, in order to avoid collisions,
stations could transmit with any power smaller than the
maximal one.
Randomized solutions for contention resolution~\cite{KV10}
and local broadcasting~\cite{GoussevskaiaMW08} were also obtained.
There is a vast amount of work on centralized algorithms under the SINR model.
The most studied problems include connectivity, capacity maximization,
link scheduling types of problems (e.g.,\ \cite{FanghanelKRV09,Kesselheim11,AvinLPP09}).
For recent results and references we refer the reader to the survey~\cite{WatSurv}.
Multiple Access Channel properties were also recently studied
under the SINR model, c.f.,~\cite{RichaSSZ}.
\remove
\item
z prac o connectivity w SINR, podaje cos co traktuje o uniform power:
\cite{AvinLPP09} (stala liczba kolorow, ale stacje tylko w wezlach gridu);
\cite{AvinLP09} (o tym, ze uniform niewiele gorsze od nonuniform);
\item
w surveyu Wattenhoffera i in. jest cala kolekcja wynikow na temat one-slot scheduling
i multi-slot scheduling offline (\textbf{scentralizowany}) dla modelu uniform: NP-zupelnosc, algorytmy
aproksymacyjne... a z algorytmow rozproszonych wymieniaja glownie:
\cite{GoussevskaiaMW08} o local broadcasting zrandomizowanym (``each node performs a successful local
broadcasting in time proportional to the number of neighbors
in its physical proximity''); \cite{LebharL09} traktuje o uniform (udg): nie doczytalem dokladnie,
ale chodzi o zrandomizowana symulacje collision-free (?) UDG w modelu SINR przy jednostajnym rozkladzie
wierzcholkow w ustalonym kwadracie...
\end{itemize}
}
\paragraph{Radio network model.}
There are several papers analyzing deterministic broadcasting in the radio model of wireless networks,
under which a message is successfully heard if there are no other simultaneous transmissions
from the {\em neighbors} of the receiver in the communication graph.
This model does not take into account the real strength of the received signals, and also the signals
from outside of some close proximity.
In the geometric ad hoc setting, Dessmark and Pelc~\cite{DessmarkP07} were the first who studied
this problem. They analyzed the impact of local knowledge, defined as a range within which
stations can discover the nearby stations.
Unlike most research on broadcasting problem and the assumptions of this paper,
Dessmark et\ al. \cite{DessmarkP07} assume spontaneous wake-up of stations. That is,
stations are allowed to do some pre-processing
(including sending/receiving messages) prior receiving
the broadcast message for the first time.
Moreover it is assumed in \cite{DessmarkP07} that IDs are from $\{1,\ldots,n\}$,
which makes the setting even
less comparable with the one considered in this work.
Emek et al.~\cite{EmekGKPPS09} designed a broadcast algorithm
working in time $O(Dg)$
in UDG radio networks with eccentricity $D$ and granularity $g$, where
eccentricity was defined as the minimum number of hops to propagate the broadcast message throughout
the whole network and
granularity was defined as
the
inverse of the minimum distance between any two stations.
Later, Emek et al.~\cite{EmekKP08} developed a matching lower bound $\Omega(Dg)$.
There were several works analyzing deterministic broadcasting in geometric graphs in the centralized radio setting,
c.f.,~\cite{GasieniecKKPS08,GasieniecKLW08,SenH96}.
The problem of broadcasting is well-studied in the setting of graph radio model, in which stations
are not necessarily deployed in a metric space;
here we restrict to only the most relevant results.
In deterministic ad hoc setting with no local knowledge, the fastest $O(n\log(n/D))$-time algorithm in symmetric networks was developed by Kowalski~\cite{Kow-PODC-05}, and almost matching lower
bound was given by Kowalski and Pelc~\cite{KP-DC-05}.
For recent results and references in less related settings we refer the reader
to~\cite{DeMarco-SICOMP-10, KP-DC-07, CzumajRytter-FOCS-03,Censor-HillelGKLN11,GalcikGL09}
There is vast literature on randomized algorithms for broadcasting in graph radio model.
Since they are quite efficient, there are very few studies of the problem restricted to
geometric setting. However, when mobility of stations is assumed, location and movement
of stations on the plane is natural. Such settings were studied e.g.,\ in
\cite{Farach-ColtonAMMZ11,Farach-ColtonM07}.
\subsection{Our Results}
In this paper we present the first study on deterministic broadcasting in wireless connected networks
deployed in two dimensional Euclidean space under the SINR model.
We distinguish between the two settings:
with and without local knowledge about neighbors in the communication graph.
In the former model, we developed a broadcasting
algorithm with time complexity $O(n\log N)$, which matches the lower bound \tj{(Section~\ref{s:anonymous})}.
\tj{Then, an algorithm finishing broadcasting in time $O(D\Delta\log^2N)$ is presented, where $\Delta$ is the
largest degree of a vertex in the reachability graph (Section~\ref{s:algdeg}).
This algorithm is close to the lower bound $\Omega(D\Delta)$ -- see Section~\ref{s:lower}.}
Our solution for networks with local knowledge works in time
$O(D\log^2 n)$, which provides $O(\log^2 n)$ overhead over the straightforward $\Omega(D)$ lower bound,
and is faster than the algorithms for anonymous networks in every network with eccentricity
$D=o(n/\log N)$ \tj{or maximal degree $\Delta=\omega(1)$.
It also implies that the cost of
learning
neighborhoods by stations in wireless network is
much higher, by factor around $n/D$ \tj{or $\Delta$}, than the cost of broadcast itself (performed when such neighborhoods
are provided).
Importantly, the algorithm for networks with local knowledge works for any path loss parameter
$\alpha\geq 2$ (though additional multiplicative $\log^2 N$ factor
appears in complexities of algorithms for $\alpha=2$), while the algorithms without local knowledge are applicable only when $\alpha>2$.
}
Our results rely on novel techniques which simultaneously
exploit specific properties of conflict resolution in the
SINR model (see e.g. \cite{AvinEKLPR09}) and algorithmic
techniques developed for radio networks model. In particular,
in the model with local knowledge, we show how to efficiently combine a novel
SINR-based leader election technique, ensuring several parallel communications
inside range area of one station (which is unfeasible to achieve in
radio networks model), with the approach simulating collision
detection in radio networks (c.f.\ \cite{KP04}).
As a result,
we develop a general transformation of algorithms relying on the knowledge
of network granularity \tj{(Section~\ref{s:granularity-unknown})into algorithm of asymptotically
similar performance
that do not require such knowledge.}
\tj{In the model without local knowledge, we
take advantage
of the fact that efficient deterministic distributed communication is possible (in the SINR model)
between stations which are very close, despite large amount
of interferences caused by other transmitters.
This feature somehow compensates inconveniences caused by distant
interferences and makes possible to achieve broadcasting algorithm with
efficiency similar to that obtained for UDG radio networks. However,
unlike in the UDG radio networks model, the (lower) bounds apply also
for randomized solutions. In other words, randomization
does not substantially help in ad hoc distributed broadcasting in a large class of
networks.
}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\section{Model, Notation and Technical Preliminaries}
Throughout the paper, ${\mathbb N}$ denotes the set of natural numbers,
${\mathbb N}_+$ denotes the set ${\mathbb N}\setminus\{0\}$, and ${\mathbb Z}$
denotes the set of integers.
For $i,j\in{\mathbb Z}$, we use the notation $[i,j]=\{k\in{\mathbb N}\,|\,i\leq k\leq j\}$
and $[i]=[1,i]$.
We consider a wireless network consisting of $n$ {\em stations}, also called {\em nodes},
deployed into a two dimensional
Euclidean space and communicating by a wireless medium.
All stations have unique integer IDs in set $[N]$.
Stations of a network are denoted by letters $u, v, w$, which simultaneously
denote their IDs.
Stations are located on the plane with {\em Euclidean metric} $\text{dist}(\cdot,\cdot)$,
and each station knows its coordinates.
Each station $v$ has its {\em transmission power} $P_v$, which is a positive real number.
There are three fixed model parameters: path loss
\tj{$\alpha\geq 2$,}
threshold $\beta\ge 1$, and ambient noise ${\mathcal N}\ge 1$.
The $SINR(v,u,{\mathcal T})$ ratio, for given stations $u,v$ and a set of (transmitting) stations ${\mathcal T}$,
is defined as follows:
\vspace*{-1ex}
\begin{equation}\label{e:sinr}
SINR(v,u,{\mathcal T})
=
\frac{P_v\text{dist}(v,u)^{-\alpha}}{{\mathcal N}+\sum_{w\in{\mathcal T}\setminus\{v\}}P_w\text{dist}(w,u)^{-\alpha}}
\end{equation}
In the {\em Signal-to-Interference-and-Noise-Ratio model} (SINR) considered in this work,
station $u$ successfully receives a message from station $v$ in a round if
$v\in {\mathcal T}$, $u\notin {\mathcal T}$, and:
\begin{itemize}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item
$SINR(v,u,{\mathcal T})\ge\beta$, where ${\mathcal T}$ is the set of stations transmitting at that time, and
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item
$P_v\text{dist}^{-\alpha}(v,u)\geq (1+\varepsilon)\beta{\mathcal N}$,
\end{itemize}
\vspace*{-1ex}
where $\varepsilon>0$ is a fixed {\em sensitivity parameter} of the model.
\tj{
The above definition is common in the literature, c.f.,~\cite{KV10}.\footnote{%
The first condition is a straightforward application of the SINR ratio,
comparing strength of one of the received signals with the remainder.
The second condition enforces the signal to be sufficiently strong in order to be
distinguished from the background noise, and thus to be decoded.
\tj{Moreover, this condition ensures that all transmission powers are high enough so that some interference can be tolerated.}
}
}
\remove{
As the first of the above
conditions is a standard formula defining SINR model in the literature, the second condition
is less obvious. Informally, it states that reception of a message at a station $v$ is possible
only if the power received by $u$ is at least $(1+\varepsilon)$ times larger than the minimum power
needed to deal with ambient noise. This assumption is quite common in the literature
(c.f.,\ \cite{KV10}), for two reasons.
First, it captures the case when the ambient noise, which in practice is of random nature,
may vary by factor $\varepsilon$ from its mean value ${\mathcal N}$ (which holds with some meaningful
probability).
Second, the lack of this assumption trivializes many communication tasks; for example,
in case of the broadcasting problem, the lack of this assumption implies
a trivial lower bound $\Omega(n)$ on time complexity, even for shallow network
topologies of eccentricity
$O(\sqrt{n})$ (i.e., of $O(\sqrt{n})$ hops) and for centralized and randomized algorithms.\footnote{%
Indeed, assume that we have a network whose all vertices
form a grid
$\sqrt{n}\times \sqrt{n}$ such that $P_v=1$ for each station $v$ and
distances between consecutive elements of the grid
are $(\beta\cdot{\mathcal N})^{-1/\alpha}$; that is, the power of the signal received by each
station is at most equal to the ambient noise.
If the constraint
$P_v\text{dist}^{-\alpha}(v,u)\geq (1+\varepsilon)\beta{\mathcal N}$ is not required for reception
of the message, the source message can still be sent to each station of the network. However,
if more than one station is sending a message simultaneously, no station in the
network receives a message.
}
}
In the paper, we assume for the sake of
clarity of presentation that $\beta=1$ and
${\mathcal N}=1$.
These assumptions can be dropped without harming the asymptotic performances of
the presented algorithms and lower bounds formulas.
\paragraph{Ranges and uniformity.}
The {\em communication range} $r_v$ of a station $v$ is the radius of the circle in which a message transmitted
by the station is heard, provided no other station transmits at the same time.
A network
is
{\em uniform}, when ranges (and thus transmission powers) of all stations are equal,
or {\em nonuniform} otherwise.
In this paper, only uniform networks are considered.
For clarity of presentation
we make the assumption that all powers are equal to $1$, i.e., $P_v=1$ for each $v$.
The assumption that the values of $P_v$ are $1$ can be dropped without changing
asymptotic formulas for presented algorithms and lower bounds.
Under these assumptions, $r_v=r=(1+\varepsilon)^{-1/\alpha}$
for each station $v$.
The {\em range area} of a station with range $r$
located at the point $(x,y)$ is defined as the circle with radius $r$.
\paragraph{Communication graph and graph notation.}
The {\em communication graph} $G(V,E)$, also called the {\em reachability graph}, of a given network
consists of all network nodes and edges $(v,u)$ such that $u$ is in the range area of $v$.
Note that the communication graph is symmetric for uniform networks, which are considered
in this paper.
By a {\em neighborhood} of a node $u$ we mean the set (and positions) of all
neighbors of $u$, i.e., the set $\{w\,|\, (w,u)\in E\}$ in the communication graph $G(V,E)$
of the underlying network.
The {\em graph distance} from $v$ to $w$ is equal to the length of a shortest path from $v$ to $w$
in the communication graph, where the length of a path is equal to the number of its edges.
The {\em eccentricity} of a node
is the maximum graph
distance from this node to all other nodes
(note that the eccentricity is of the order of the diameter if the communication
graph is symmetric --- this is also the case in this work).
We say that a station $v$ transmits {\em $c$-successfully} in a round
$t$ if $v$ transmits a message in round $t$ and this message is heard by
each station $u$ in distance smaller or equal to $c$ from $v$. We say that a station
$v$ transmits {\em successfully} in round $t$ if it transmits $r$-successfully, i.e.,
each of its neighbors in the communication graph can hear its message.
Finally, $v$ transmits {\em successfully} to $u$ in round $t$ if $v$ transmits
a message in round $t$ and $u$ receives this message.
\paragraph{Synchronization.}
It is assumed that algorithms work synchronously in rounds, each station can
either act as a sender or as a receiver during a round.
We do not assume global clock ticking -- as it can be coordinated by updating
round counter and passing it along the network with messages.
\paragraph{Collision detection.}
We consider the model without {\em collision detection}, that is,
if a station $u$ does not receive a message in a round $t$, it has no information
whether any other station was transmitting
in that round
and about the value of $SINR(v,u,\mathcal{T})$, for any station $u$, where $\mathcal{T}$ is the set
of transmitting stations in round $t$.
\paragraph{Broadcasting problem and complexity parameters.}
In the broadcasting problem studied in this work, there is one distinguished node, called the {\em source},
which initially holds a piece of information (also called a source message or a broadcast message).
The goal is to disseminate this message to all other nodes by sending messages along the network.
The complexity measure is the worst-case time to accomplish the broadcast task,
taken over all connected networks with specified parameters.
Time, also called the {\em round complexity}, denotes here the number of communication rounds in
the execution of a protocol: from the round when the source is activated
with its broadcast message till the broadcast task is accomplished (and each station is aware of this fact).
For the sake of complexity formulas, we consider the following parameters:
$n$, $N$, $D$, and $g$, where:
$n$ is the number of nodes,
$[N]$ is the range of IDs,
$D$ is the eccentricity of the source,
and $g$ is the granularity of the network, defined as $r$ times the
inverse of the minimum distance between any two stations (c.f.,~\cite{EmekGKPPS09})
divided by $r$.
\paragraph{Messages and initialization of stations other than source.}
We assume that a single message sent in the execution of any algorithm
can carry the broadcast message and at most polynomial, in the
size of the network, number of control bits in the size of the network.
For simplicity of analysis, we assume that every message sent during the execution
of our broadcast protocols contains the broadcast message; in practice, further optimization
of a message content could be done in order to reduce the total number of transmitted bits in real executions.
A station other than the source starts executing the broadcasting protocol
after the first successful receipt of the broadcast message; we call it
a {\em non-spontaneous wake-up model}, to distinguish from other possible settings,
not considered in this work,
where stations could be allowed to do some pre-processing
(including sending/receiving messages) prior receiving
the broadcast message for the first time.
We say that a station that received the broadcast message is {\em informed}.
\paragraph{Knowledge of stations.}
Each station knows its own ID, location, and parameters $n$, $N$.
Some subroutines use the granularity $g$ as a parameter, though
our main algorithms can use these subroutines without being aware
of the actual granularity of the input network.
We distinguish between {\em ad hoc} networks, where stations do not know anything
about the topology of the network at the beginning of the execution of an algorithm,
and networks with {\em local knowledge},
in which each station knows locations and IDs of its neighbors in the communication graph.
\remove
depending on the algorithm, other general network parameters such as:
diameter $D$ of the imposed communication graph,
or granularity of the network $g$, defined as the inverse of the smallest
distance between any pair of stations.\footnote{%
In many cases, the assumption about the knowledge of $D,g$ can be dropped,
by running parallel threads for different ranges of values of these parameters and implementing an additional coordination mechanism between the threads.}
\subsection{Grids and Schedules}
Given a parameter $c>0$, we define
a partition of the $2$-dimensional space
into square boxes of size $c\times c$ by the grid $G_c$, in such a way that:
all boxes are aligned with the coordinate axes,
point $(0,0)$ is a grid point,
each box includes its left side without the top
endpoint and its bottom side without the right endpoint and
does not include its right and top sides.
We say that $(i,j)$ are the coordinates
of the box with its bottom left corner located at $(c\cdot i, c\cdot j)$,
for $i,j\in {\mathbb Z}$. A box with coordinates
$(i,j)\in{\mathbb Z}^2$ is denoted $C(i,j)$.
As observed in \cite{DessmarkP07,EmekGKPPS09}, the {\em grid} $G_{r/\sqrt{2}}$
is very useful in design of algorithms for geometric radio networks, provided
$r$ is equal to the range of each station.
This follows from the
fact that $r/\sqrt{2}$ is the largest parameter of a grid such that each
station in a box is
in the range of every other station in that box.
In the following, we fix $\gamma=r/\sqrt{2}$, where $r=(1+\varepsilon)^{-1/\alpha}$, and call $G_{\gamma}$
the {\em pivotal grid}. If not stated otherwise, our considerations will
refer to (boxes of) $G_{\gamma}$.
Two boxes $C,C'$ are {\em neighbors} in a network if there are
stations $v\in C$ and $v'\in C'$ such that edge $(v,v')$ belongs to the
communication graph of the network. Boxes $C(i,j)$ and $C'(i',j')$ are {\em adjacent} if
$|i-i'|\leq 1$ and $|j-j'|\leq 1$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:adjacent}).
For a station $v$ located in position $(x,y)$ on the plane we define its {\em grid
coordinates} with respect to the grid $G_c$ as the pair of integers $(i,j)$ such that the point $(x,y)$ is located
in the box $C(i,j)$ of the grid $G_c$ (i.e., $ic\leq x< (i+1)c$ and
$jc\leq y<(j+1)c$).
If not stated otherwise, we will refer to grid coordinates with respect
to the pivotal grid.
A (general) {\em broadcast schedule} $\mathcal{S}$ of length $T$
wrt $N\in{\mathbb N}$ is a mapping
from $[N]$ to binary sequences of length $T$.
A station
with identifier $v\in[N]$ {\em follows}
the schedule $\mathcal{S}$ of length $T$ in a fixed period of time consisting of $T$ rounds,
when
$v$ transmits a message in round $t$ of that period iff
the
position $t\mod T$ of
$\mathcal{S}(v)$ is equal to $1$.
A {\em geometric broadcast schedule} $\mathcal{S}$ of length $T$
with parameters $N,\delta\in{\mathbb N}$, $(N,\delta)$-gbs for short, is a mapping
from $[N]\times [0,\delta-1]^2$ to binary sequences of length $T$.
Let $v\in[N]$ be a station whose grid coordinates
with respect to
the grid $G_c$ are equal to $(i,j)$.
We say that $v$ {\em follows}
$(N,\delta)$-gbs $\mathcal{S}$
for the grid $G_c$
in a fixed period of time,
when $v$ transmits a message in round $t$ of that period iff
the $t$th position of
$\mathcal{S}(v,i\mod \delta,j\mod\delta)$ is equal to $1$.
A set of stations $A$ on the plane is {\em $\delta$-diluted} wrt $G_c$, for $\delta\in{\mathbb N}\setminus\{0\}$, if
for any two stations $v_1,v_2\in A$ with grid coordinates $(i_1,j_1)$ and $(i_2,j_2)$, respectively,
the relationships $(|i_1-i_2|\mod \delta)=0$ and $(|j_1-j_2|\mod \delta)=0$ hold.
Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a general broadcast schedule wrt $N$ of length $T$,
let $c>0$ and $\delta>0$, $\delta\in{\mathbb N}$.
A $\delta$-dilution of a $\mathcal{S}$
is defined as a $(N,\delta)$-gbs $\mathcal{S}'$ such that the bit $(t-1)\delta^2+a\delta+b$
of $\mathcal{S}'(v,a,b)$ is equal to $1$ iff the bit $t$ of $\mathcal{S}(v)$
is equal to $1$. That is, each round $t$ of $\mathcal{S}$ is
partitioned
into $\delta^2$ rounds
of $\mathcal{S}'$, indexed by pairs $(a,b)\in [0,\delta-1]^2$, such that a station
with grid coordinates $(i,j)$ in $G_c$ is
allowed to send messages only in rounds with index $(i\mod\delta,j\mod\delta)$,
provided schedule $\mathcal{S}$ admits a transmission in its (original) round $t$.
Since we will usually apply dilution to the pivotal grid, it is assumed that all references
to a dilution concern that grid, unless stated otherwise.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=adjacent.eps, scale=0.8}
\end{center}
\caption{If $v,w,z$ are in the range are of $u$, then boxes
containing $v,w,$ and $z$ are neighbors of $C$. The first figure
contains all $20$ boxes which can be neighbors of $C$.
The boxes
$C_1,\ldots,C_8$ are adjacent to $C$.}
\label{fig:adjacent}
\end{figure}%
Observe that, since ranges of stations are equal to the length
of diagonal of boxes of the pivotal grid, a box $C(i,j)$ can have at most
$20$ neighbors (see Figure~\ref{fig:adjacent}).
We define the set $\text{DIR}\subset[-2,2]^2$ such that $(d_1,d_2)\in\text{DIR}$ iff
it is possible that boxes with coordinates $(i,j)$ and $(i+d_1,j+d_2)$
can be neighbors.
Given $(i,j)\in{\mathbb Z}^2$ and $(d_1,d_2)\in\text{DIR}$, we say that the box $C(i+d_1,j+d_2)$
is {\em located in direction} $(d_1,d_2)$ from the box $C(i,j)$.
\section{Algorithms for Networks with Local Knowledge}
\labell{s:local}
In this section we describe our broadcasting algorithms
for networks with local knowledge, i.e., under the assumption
that each stations knows (IDs and locations) of all stations
in its range area. Recall that we also assume that stations
know $n$, the size of the network and $N$, the range of identifiers.
We start with presenting a generic algorithmic scheme and tools for analysis.
Next, we describe an algorithm for networks with additionally known granularity
bound $g$, i.e., parameters $n,N$ and $g$ are known to the stations in the beginning
of the execution. Complexity of this algorithm is expressed in terms of $D$ and $g$;
note however that stations do not need any information about $D$ in order to execute
our algorithms.
Finally, using this algorithm as a subroutine, we provide a
solution for the general setting when only $n$ and $N$ are known.
\subsection{Generic Algorithmic Scheme}
\labell{s:generic}
\tj{In the first step of each broadcasting algorithm, the source sends the broadcast message.
Then, our broadcasting algorithms repeat several times the procedure
{Inter-Box-Broadcast}, whose $i$th repetition is aimed to transmit
the broadcast message from boxes of the pivotal grid containing
at least one station that has
received the broadcast message in the previous execution of {Inter-Box-Broadcast} (or from the source)
to boxes which are their neighbors.}
Each station $v$ of the network is in state $s(v)$, which may be equal to
one of the following three values: asleep, active, or idle.
At the beginning of execution of each of our broadcasting algorithms, the source
sends the broadcast message and all stations in its box of the pivotal
grid set their states to active, while all the remaining stations are in the {asleep} state.
The states of stations change only at the end of {Inter-Box-Broadcast},
according to the following rules:
\begin{itemize}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item
All stations in state {active} change their state to {idle}.
\item
A station $u$ changes its state from {asleep} to {active} if it has received
the broadcast message from a station $v$ in the current
execution of {Inter-Box-Broadcast}
such that either $v$ was in state {active} (at the beginning of the current
execution of Inter-Box-Broadcast) or $v$ belongs to the same box of the pivotal grid
as $u$. \tj{That is, let $C$ be a box of the pivotal grid,
let $u\in C$ be in state {asleep} at the beginning of {Inter-Box-Broadcast}.
The only possibility that $u$ receives a message and it does not
change its state from {asleep} to {active} at the end of {Inter-Box-Broadcast} is that
each message received by $u$ is sent by a station $v$ which is in state {asleep}
when it sends the message and $v\not\in C$.}
\end{itemize}
Our goal is to preserve the following invariant during the execution of our algorithms:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(I)]\labell{i:I}
For each box $C$ of the pivotal grid, states of all stations located inside $C$
are equal.
\end{enumerate}
The intended property of an execution of {Inter-Box-Broadcast} is:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(P)]\labell{i:P}
The broadcast
message is (successfully)
sent from each box $C$ containing stations in state $active$ to all stations located
in boxes which are neighbors of $C$.
(Recall that a box $C'$ is a neighbor of a box $C$ if there are
stations $v\in C$ and $v'\in C'$ such that edge $(v,v')$ belongs to the
communication graph.)
\end{enumerate}
Note that, since stations move to the state $active$ only after receiving the
broadcast message, the following fact holds.
\begin{proposition}\labell{prop:invariants}
If (I) and (P) are satisfied, the source message is transmitted
to the whole network in time $O(D\cdot T(n))$, where $T(n)$ is time complexity
of one execution of {Inter-Box-Broadcast}.
\end{proposition}
In what follows, we give a specification of {Inter-Box-Broadcast} first under the
assumption of known granularity $g$, and later we remove that assumption.
\vspace*{-1ex}
\subsection{A Granularity-Dependent Algorithm}
\labell{s:granularity-unknown}
In this section we describe a broadcasting algorithm
whose complexity depends on granularity. We assume that
granularity $g$ is known to all stations of the network.
First, we present a general leader election algorithm,
which, given a set of stations $V$ with granularity $g$, elects a leader
in each box of the pivotal grid containing at least one
element of $V$, in time $O(\log g)$. Then, using this algorithm, we describe
how to implement {Inter-Box-Broadcast} in time $O(\log g)$ in such a way that (I) and (P) are
preserved.
\subsubsection{Leader Election}
Let $I_1=[i_1,j_1)$, $I_2=[i_2,j_2)$ be segments on a
line, whose endpoints belong to the grid
$G_x$.
\tj{The {\em box-distance} between $I_1$ and $I_2$ with respect to $G_x$ is zero when $I_1\cap I_2\neq\emptyset$,
and it is equal to $\min(|i_1-j_2|/x, |i_2-j_1|/x)$ otherwise. Given two rectangles
$R_1$, $R_2$, whose vertices belong to $G_x$, the box-distance $\text{distM}(R_1,R_2)$ between $R_1$
and $R_2$ is equal to the maximum of the box-distances between projections
of $R_1$ and $R_2$ on the axes defining the first and the second dimension in the Euclidean
space.}
We say that a function $d_{\alpha}:{\mathbb N}\to{\mathbb N}$ is {\em flat} for $\alpha\geq 2$ if
\begin{equation}
d_{\alpha}(n)=\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
O(1) & \mbox{ for } & \alpha>2\\
O(\log n) & \mbox{ for } & \alpha=2
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\labell{lm:leaderGranularity}
Given a set of stations $V$ with granularity $g$, one can choose the leader in each
box of the pivotal grid containing at least one element of $V$ in $O(d_{\alpha}^2(n)\log g)$ rounds,
where $d_{\alpha}(n)$ is a flat function.
Moreover, if polynomial size of messages is allowed, each station can learn
positions of all (active) stations located in its box in $O(\log g)$ rounds.
\end{lemma}
The remaining part of this section is devoted to the proof of Lemma~\ref{lm:leaderGranularity}.
\begin{proposition}\labell{prop:lead1}
\tj{For each $\alpha\geq 2$
and $\varepsilon>0$,
there exists a flat function $d_{\alpha}(n)$
such that
the following properties hold.}
Assume that a set of $n$ stations $A$ is $d$-diluted wrt the grid $G_x$, where $x=\gamma/c$, $c\in{\mathbb N}$, $c>1$
and $d\geq d_{\alpha}(n)$.
Moreover, at most one station from $A$ is located in each box of $G_x$. Then,
if all stations from $A$ transmit simultaneously, each of them
is $\frac{2r}{c}$-successful. Thus, in particular, each station from
a box $C$ of $G_x$ can transmit its message
to all its neighbors located in $C$ and in boxes $C'$ of $G_x$ which are adjacent to $C$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $r=(1+\varepsilon)^{-1/\alpha}$ and $\gamma=r/\sqrt{2}$.
First, assume that $\alpha>2$.
Consider any station $u$ in distance smaller or equal to $\frac{2r}{c}\leq 2\sqrt{2}x<3x$ to a station $v\in A$.
Then, the signal from $v$ received by $u$ is at least
$$\frac1{\left(\frac{2r}{c}\right)^{\alpha}}=\left(\frac{c}{2r}\right)^{\alpha}.$$
Now, we would like to derive an upper bound on interferences caused by stations in $A\setminus\{v\}$
at $u$.
Let $C$ be a box of $G_x$ which contains $v$.
The fact that $A$ is $d$-diluted
wrt $G_x$ implies that the number of boxes containing elements of $A$
which are in box-distance
$id$ from $C$ is at most $8(i+1)$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:gran}).
Moreover, no box in distance $j$ from $C$ such
that ($j\mod d\neq 0$) contains elements of $A$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=dist0.eps, scale=0.8}
\end{center}
\caption{Boxes in distance $id$ from $C$ form a frame partitioned into four
rectangles of size $x\times (2id+2)x$. Each of these rectangles contain at most $i+1$
boxes such that any two of them are in box-distance at least $d$.}
\label{fig:gran}
\end{figure}%
Finally, for a station $v\in C$ and a station $w\in C'$ such that $\text{distM}(C,C')=j$,
the inequality $\text{dist}(v,u)\geq jx$ is satisfied.
Note that our goal is {\em not} to evaluate interferences at $v\in C$, but at any station
$u$ such that $\text{dist}(u,v)\leq \frac{2r}c<3x$. Therefore, $u\in C'$ such that $\text{distM}(C,C')<3$, where
$C'$ is a box of $G_x$.
For a fixed $d>3$, the total noise and interferences $I$ caused by
all elements of $A\setminus\{v\}$ at $u$ is at most
$${\mathcal N}+\sum_{i=1}^{n}8(i+1)\cdot\frac{1}{(i\bar{d}x)^{\alpha}}$$
where $d\geq\bar{d}\geq d-3$,
since there are at most $8(i+1)$ nonempty boxes in box-distance $i\cdot d$
from the box $C$
in $d$-diluted instance and the box-distance between $C$ and the box $C'$ containing $u$
is at most $2$. Furthermore,
$$I\leq 1+ 8\cdot\left(\frac{1}{\bar{d}x}\right)^{\alpha}\cdot\sum_{i=0}^{n}(i+1)^{1-\alpha}\leq 1+8\left(\frac{c\sqrt{2}}{r \bar{d}}\right)^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^{n}i^{1-\alpha}=1+8d_{\alpha}(n)\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}c}{r\bar{d}}\right)^{\alpha}$$
where $d_{\alpha}(n)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}i^{1-\alpha}=1+\zeta(\alpha-1)$, $\zeta$ is the Riemann zeta function and ${\mathcal N}=1$.
So,
the signal from $v$ is received at $u$ if the following
inequality is satisfied
\begin{equation}\label{eq:signal}
1+8d_{\alpha}(n)\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}c}{r\bar{d}}\right)^{\alpha}\leq \left(\frac{c}{2r}\right)^{\alpha}
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to
$$\bar{d}\geq 2\sqrt{2}\left(\frac{8d_{\alpha}(n)}{1-(2r/c)^{\alpha}}\right)^{1/\alpha}.$$
Assuming that $c\geq 2$, we have $1-(\frac{2r}{c})^{\alpha}\geq 1-r^{\alpha}$
and therefore (\ref{eq:signal}) is satisfied for each
$\bar{d}\geq 2\sqrt{2}\left(\frac{8}{1-r^{\alpha}}\right)^{1/\alpha}d_{\alpha}(n)$
or $d\geq 3+2\sqrt{2}\left(\frac{8}{1-r^{\alpha}}\right)^{1/\alpha}d_{\alpha}(n)$.
\paragraph{Note on dependence on $\varepsilon$:}
by substituting $r:=(1+\varepsilon)^{-1/\alpha}$, one can check that $d=O((1/\varepsilon)^{1/\alpha})$ for $\alpha>2$.
\end{proof}
The following corollary is a straightforward application of Proposition~\ref{prop:lead1} for $c=2$.
\begin{corollary}\labell{cor:dilsuc}
For each $\alpha\geq2$
there exists
a flat function $d_{\alpha}:{\mathbb N}\to{\mathbb N}$
such that the following
property is satisfied: \\
Let $A$ be a set of $O(n)$ stations on the plane which is
$\delta$-diluted wrt the pivotal grid $G_{\gamma}$,
where $\delta\geq d_{\alpha}(n)$ and each box
contains at most one element of $A$. Then, if all elements of $A$ transmit
messages simultaneously in the same round $t$ and no other station is transmitting
a message in $t$, each of them transmits successfully.\\
\end{corollary}
We say that a box $C$ of the grid $G_x$ has the {\em leader} from set $A$ if there is one station
$v\in A$ located in $C$
with status {\em leader} and all stations from $A$ located in $C$ know which station it is.
\begin{proposition}\labell{prop:lead2}
Assume that $A$ is a set of leaders in some boxes of the grid $G_x$, $x\leq\frac{\gamma}{2}$, and
each station knows whether it belongs to $A$. Then,
it is possible to choose the leader of each box of $G_{2x}$ containing at least one element of $A$
in $O(d_{\alpha}(n))$ rounds.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Note that each cell of $G_{2x}$ consists of four boxes of $G_x$. Let us fix some labeling of this four
boxes by the numbers $\{1,2,3,4\}$, the same in each box of $G_{2x}$.
Now, assign to each
station from $A$
the label $l\in[1,4]$ corresponding
to its position it the box of $G_{2x}$ containing it. We ``elect'' leaders in $G_{2x}$ in four phases
$F_1,\ldots,F_4$. Phase $F_i$ is just the application of Proposition~\ref{prop:lead1} for $A$ equal to the
set of leaders with label $i$.
\tj{That is, we first have a general broadcast schedule $S$ of length $4$ such that
position $i$ of $S(v)$ is equal to $1$ iff label of $v$ is $1$. Then, $S$ is
$d$-diluted wrt $(N,x)$, where $d\gets d_{\alpha}(n)$ and $d_{\alpha}$ is the
constant from Proposition~\ref{prop:lead1}.}
Therefore, each leader from $A$ can hear messages of all other (at most)
three leaders located in the same box of $G_{2x}$. Then, for a box $C$ of $G_{2x}$, the leader with the
smallest label (if any) among leaders of the four sub-boxes of $C$ becomes the leader of $C$.
\end{proof}
Assume that granularity of a network is
equal to $g$. Let $h=\min_{i\in{\mathbb N}}({2^i\,|\, 2^i\geq g})$.
Since $h\geq g$, each box of $G_{\gamma/h}$ is occupied by at most one station -- its leader. We choose the leader
of each box of the pivotal grid by the algorithm GranLeaderElection (Algorithm~\ref{alg:gran}), which starts from assuming that all (active) stations are leaders
of respective boxes of $G_{\gamma/h}$ (note that there is at most one station in each box of this grid). Then,
it repeatedly applies the technique from Proposition~\ref{prop:lead2} in order to gradually obtain
leaders of larger boxes.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{GranLeaderElection($V,g$)}
\label{alg:gran}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State $h\gets\min_{i\in{\mathbb N}}({2^i\,|\, 2^i\geq g})$
\State $x\gets r/h$;
\State Each station $v\in V$ gets status leader of the appropriate box of $G_x$.
\For{$i=1,2,\ldots,\log h$}
\State Choose leaders of boxes of $G_{2x}$ from
leaders of $G_x$, using Proposition~\ref{prop:lead2}.
\State $x\leftarrow 2\cdot x$
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Finally, we summarize properties of Algorithm GranLeaderElection in the following
proposition.
\begin{proposition}\labell{prop:leader}
Algorithm GranLeaderElection chooses the leader in each box of the pivotal
grid containing at least one element of $V$ in time
$O(\log g d_{\alpha}^2(n))$, where $d_{\alpha}$ is a flat function, provided granularity
of $V$ is not larger than $g$.
\end{proposition}
\subsubsection{Broadcasting Algorithm}
Given the algorithm electing the leaders in boxes of the pivotal grid,
we describe implementation of procedure {Inter-Box-Broadcast}, called here Gran-{Inter-Box-Broadcast}. In this way we obtain
algorithms {{\sc GranUBr}}, which repeats Gran-{Inter-Box-Broadcast} several times.
We say that a station $v$ is {\em $(d_1,d_2)$-connected}, for
$(d_1,d_2)\in\text{DIR}$ iff
$v\in C(i,j)$ for a box $C(i,j)$ of the pivotal grid and $v$
has a neighbor in the box $C(i+d_1,j+d_2)$ of the pivotal grid. Below, we formally
describe {Inter-Box-Broadcast} procedure, which applies the leader election procedure
in order to transmit a message from each box containing stations in state
$active$ to its neighbors. More precisely, for each direction $(d_1,d_2)\in\text{DIR}$,
the application
of leader election chooses one station $v$ in $C$ which has a neighbor in the box $C'$ located
in the direction $(d_1,d_2)$ from $C$ (if there is such a station in $C$)
and that station transmits successfully.
\tj{Then, the neighbor $u\in C'$ of $v$ with the smallest ID is chosen to broadcast
the message to all stations from $C$.}
In order to formalize this idea, assume that
$u,v$ are such stations that $u\in C'$ for a box $C'$ of the pivotal grid
and $u$ is in the range area of $v$. We say that $u$ {\em dominates box} $C'$ with respect to $v$
if $u=\min\{w\,|\, w\in C'\mbox{ and } w\mbox{ is in the range area of }v\}$.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Gran-Inter-Box-Broadcast$(g)$}
\label{alg:grantrans}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\For{$(d_1,d_2)\in\text{DIR}$}
\State $V_{(d_1,d_2)}\gets\{v\,|\, s(v)=active\mbox{ and }v\mbox{ is } (d_1,d_2)\mbox{-connected}\}$
\State GranLeaderElection$(V_{(d_1,d_2)},g)$ \Comment{\tj{leader of $(d_1,d_2)$-connected stations}}
\State $d\gets d_{\alpha}(n)$, \Comment{$d_{\alpha}$ is a flat function from Corollary~\ref{cor:dilsuc}}
\For{$(j,k)\in[0,d-1]^2$}
\State \textbf{Round $1$}: a station $v$ transmits if it is elected
the leader
of its box (of the pivotal grid)
\State in step 3
during GranLeaderElection$(V_{(d_1,d_2)},g)$ and $v\in C(j',k')$
such that
\State $(j'\mod d,k'\mod d)=(j,k)$.
\State \textbf{Round $2$:} station $u$ transmits if: $s(u)=asleep$,
$u$ could hear $v$ in Round~$1$, $u\in C(j',k')$
\State such that
$((j'-d_1)\mod d,(k'-d_2)\mod d)=(j,k)$,
\State and $u$ dominates its box wrt $v$.
\EndFor
\EndFor
\State For each $v\in V$ such that $s(v)=active$: $s(v)\gets idle$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{proposition}\labell{prop:gtrans}
Algorithm {Gran-Inter-Box-Broadcast} works in time $O(d_{\alpha}^2(n)\log g)$ for a flat function
$d_{\alpha}:{\mathbb N}\to{\mathbb N}$ and it preserves properties (I) and (P).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Time complexity bound follows directly from Proposition~\ref{prop:leader} and
Corollary~\ref{cor:dilsuc}.
In order to prove (I), it is sufficient to show that in each box $C$ of the pivotal
grid and each execution of {Gran-Inter-Box-Broadcast}, either all stations in $C$ move from the state
{asleep} to {active}, or none station in $C$ changes its state from {asleep} to {active} during
that execution of {Gran-Inter-Box-Broadcast}.
Here we benefit from the fact that stations know their neighborhood. If a station $u$
from a box $C$ and in state $asleep$ receives a message from a station $v$ in state {idle},
and $u$ knows that $v$ transmits successfully,
then $u$ is also able to determine which other stations
in box $C$ receive the same message in the current round
(since it knows positions of these stations and $v$ sends its position inside a message).
In this way, the unique station $u$ (with smallest ID) among stations from box $C$ that have received the message from $v$ can be determined,
and this station transmits a message.
This
message is successfully heard by
all other stations in $C$ in the appropriate Round~2 (see line 9 of the algorithm),
since the set of stations sending messages
in Round~2 is $d$-diluted.
Assuming that all stations located in $C$ are in the state {asleep} at
the beginning of {Inter-Box-Broadcast}, they change their states to {active} at the end
of this execution of {Inter-Box-Broadcast}.
As for (P), we make use of the fact that (I) is satisfied at the beginning
of each {Inter-Box-Broadcast}. Thus, either all stations in a box $C$ are in state
{active} at the beginning of {Inter-Box-Broadcast} or none is.
In the former case, the
correctness of GranLeaderElection (see Proposition~\ref{prop:leader})
guarantees that if $C'$ is a neighbor of $C$ in direction $(d_1,d_2)$,
then a unique station $v$ from $C$ is chosen in line $3$,
which has a neighbor in $C'$
and then $v$
transmits
successfully in line $6$ (i.e., in Round~1, see Corollary~\ref{cor:dilsuc} for justification).
\end{proof}
Finally, we obtain the following result.
\begin{theorem}
Algorithm {{\sc GranUBr}} performs broadcasting in a $n$-node network of diameter
$D$ with granularity $g$ in time $O(Dd_{\alpha}^2(n)\log g)$, where $d_{\alpha}$ is
a flat function.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{General Algorithm}
\labell{s:diam-gen}
In order to deal with networks with unlimited granularity, we propose a method
of ``decreasing'' granularity to the level of $2^{O(\log^2n)}$ in
time $O(\log^2 n)$. When granularity is decreased, we apply protocols
designed for networks with bounded granularity.
Our method of decreasing granularity applies a technique of simulating collision
detection in radio networks without collision detection, called Echo, c.f.,~\cite{KP04}.
Using a modified Echo procedure, we can choose ``representatives'' of dense areas
of a (box of a) network, which will work ``on behalf'' of whole such areas.
In this way we decrease granularity of the network. Importantly, this procedure
does not harm connectivity of the network nor changes its eccentricity more than by
a constant multiplicative factor. We describe this technique in Section~\ref{sub:echo}.
The above mentioned method of choosing representatives (of ``dense'' areas) works correctly when applied
to one set of stations such that each of them is in the range area of each other.
However, when one tries to apply it simultaneously to several remote groups of stations,
interferences incurred in the SINR model can disrupt these executions.
Therefore,
before applying the above method of decreasing granularity,
we first design an offline procedure --- based on the local views of stations ---
that partitions the set of stations
in a box of the pivotal grid into $\log n$ families of sets. (Note that each station
knows all elements of its box of the pivotal grid, since these stations are in its
range area.) The key property of this partition is that the sets in one family
$F$ (called {\em color}) are located
in such a way that one can execute the leader election procedure (i.e.,
the choice of representatives) based on Echo simultaneously on all sets from $F$.
Since each set in each family covers a square with side's length at least
$r/2^{O(\log^2 n)}$,
the leaders (representatives) elected in separated sets form
subnetworks with granularity $2^{O(\log^2 n)}$. This
local pre-processing
procedure is described in Section~\ref{sub:dilution}.
Finally, in Section~\ref{sub:genalg}, we provide algorithm {{\sc DiamUBr}}.
This algorithm follows the generic scheme described in Section~\ref{s:generic},
with additional local pre-processing (c.f., Section~\ref{sub:dilution})
and with specific implementations of {Election} and {Inter-Box-Broadcast}
based on the method of decreasing granularity described in Section~\ref{sub:echo}.
\subsubsection{Partition into collision avoiding families}
\labell{sub:dilution}
In the following, a {\em square} in the grid $G_a$ is a square
whose vertices belong to $G_a$ (thus the length of the side of each such
square is a multiplicity of $a$).
We associate such squares with stations of a network located in them in the following way:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)]\labell{item:a}
a square (box) $R$ of size $a\times a$ is associated with all stations located in it;
\item[(b)]\labell{item:b}
any larger square $R$ contains some subset of stations of the network located inside $R$; however,
for each square $R'$ of size $a\times a$ included in $R$, either $R$ contains all stations
of $R'$ or none of them.
\end{itemize}
Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a set of squares in a grid $G_a$, each $R\in\mathcal{S}$ has associated
a set of stations $V_R$ located inside $R$.
We say that $\mathcal{S}$ is {\em collision
avoiding} if for each $R\in\mathcal{S}$ and each $v\in V_R$, the following condition
is satisfied:
\begin{quote}
if the set of transmitting stations in a round is equal to
$\{v\}\cup\bigcup_{R'\in\mathcal{S}\setminus \{R\}}V_{R'}$ \\
then the message of $v$
is received by each station from
$V_R\setminus\{v\}$.
\end{quote}
In other words, transmissions in squares different from $R$ cannot disrupt
communication in $R$ (even if all elements of other squares are transmitting
simultaneously), provided exactly one station from $R$ is transmitting.
Assume that
there are given
an upper bound $d\cdot a$ on the length of the side of a square
and
an upper bound $y$ on the number of stations associated with a square.
As we show in the following proposition, in order a set $\mathcal{S}$ of squares
satisfying these bounds be collisions avoiding, it is sufficient that the
box-distance
between each two elements of $\mathcal{S}$ is at least $d_{\alpha}(n)dy$, where
$d_{\alpha}$ is a flat function.
\begin{proposition}
\labell{prop:avoid}
For each $\alpha\geq 2$, there exists a
flat function $d_{\alpha}$
satisfying the following property.
Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a set of squares in a grid $G_a$, where $a=\gamma/c$ for some $c\in{\mathbb N}$,
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item
each square $R\in\mathcal{S}$ has associated at most $y$ stations located inside $R$,
\item
the length of the side of each $R\in\mathcal{S}$ is at most $d\cdot a$,
\item
for each $R_1,R_2\in\mathcal{S}$, the box-distance between
$R_1$ and $R_2$ is not smaller than $x\cdot a$,
\item
the number of stations associated to all squares is equal to $n$,
\end{itemize}
for some $y,d,x\in{\mathbb N}_+$ such that $c>2d$.
If $x\geq d_{\alpha}(n)dy$ then
$\mathcal{S}$ is collision avoiding.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $c\in{\mathbb N}$, $d,x,y\in{\mathbb N}_+$ be such that $c>2d$ and $x\geq d$
\tj{(note that the proposition concerns $x\geq d_{\alpha}(n)dy$ only)}.
Recall that $r=(1+\varepsilon)^{-1/\alpha}$, $\gamma=r/\sqrt{2}$, $a=\gamma/c$.
Let $R\in\mathcal{S}$ and $v\in R$. Since the side of $R$ is at most
$da=d\gamma/c$,
the distance from $v$ to any other station $w\in R$
is at most $\sqrt{2}\gamma/c=dr/c$. Therefore the power of signal from $v$ received
by $w$ is at least
$$\frac1{(dr/c)^{\alpha}}=\left(\frac{c}{rd}\right)^{\alpha}.$$
On the other hand, $I$,
the total noise plu interference received by $w$ and caused by all elements of
$\bigcup_{R'\in\mathcal{S}}V_{R'} \setminus V_R$
is at most
$${\mathcal N}+\sum_{j=1}^{n}4\cdot 5j\cdot\frac{y}{(j\cdot xa)^{\alpha}}\leq
1+d'_{\alpha}(n)\cdot\frac{y}{x^{\alpha}}\cdot\left(\frac{c}{r}\right)^{\alpha},$$
where $c'_{\alpha}=\max(1,20\cdot 2^{\alpha/2}\cdot \zeta(\alpha-1))$, $\zeta$
is the Riemann zeta function
and ${\mathcal N}=1$.
The above formula follows from the fact that there are at most
$20j$ squares such that the box-distance of each of them to
$R$ is in the interval $[j\cdot xa,(j+1)\cdot xa)$ and the
box-distance between each two of them is not smaller than $x\cdot a$
(see Figure~\ref{fig:election}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=dist.eps, scale=0.8}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration to the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:avoid}. Each square whose
distance to $R$ is in $[j\cdot xa,(j+1)\cdot xa)$ has a nonempty intersection with
the gray frame. Moreover, the box-distance between any two such squares is at
least $xa$, the ``width'' of the frame.}
\label{fig:election}
\end{figure}%
Therefore,
$$\left(\frac{c}{rd}\right)^{\alpha}\geq 1+c'_{\alpha}\frac{y}{x^{\alpha}}\cdot\left(\frac{c}{r}\right)^{\alpha},$$
then the message from $v$ is received by $w$ if
This implies that the constraint
\begin{equation}\label{eq:xalpha}
x^{\alpha}\geq\frac{d'_{\alpha}(n)\cdot y}{\frac{1}{d^{\alpha}}-\left(\frac{r}{c}\right)^{\alpha}}
\
\end{equation}
gurantees that $w$ receives a message from $v$.
By the assumption
$c>2d$ and $r<1$, we see that
$$
{\frac{1}{d^{\alpha}}-\left(\frac{r}{c}\right)^{\alpha}}
>
\frac{2^{\alpha}-r^{\alpha}}{2^{\alpha}d^{\alpha}}
>
\frac{1}{2^{\alpha}d^{\alpha}}
\ ,
$$
and therefore
$$
\frac{d'_{\alpha}(n)\cdot y}{\frac{1}{d^{\alpha}}-\left(\frac{r}{c}\right)^{\alpha}}
<
d'_{\alpha}(n)\cdot 2^{\alpha}\cdot d^{\alpha}\cdot y
\ .
$$
Thus, if $x\geq d_{\alpha}(n)dy$ where $d_{\alpha}(n)=2\cdot (d'_{\alpha}(n))^{1/\alpha}$, then
the condition~(\ref{eq:xalpha}) for collision avoidance
is satisfied.
\end{proof}
Below, we present algorithm {\textsc{NoGran}} which splits a set of stations in $O(\log n)$
collision avoiding families of squares. More precisely, for each box $C$ of the pivotal
grid, the algorithm builds $\log n$ collision avoiding families of squares in $C$,
such that each station from $C$ belongs to some square in those families.
Let $C$ be a box of the pivotal grid.
We start with the set of squares of size $a\times a$
of the grid $G_a$ included in $C$ and containing at least one station, for some sufficiently small $a$
(line 2).
The goal is to build such a set of squares in each box of the pivotal grid
that subset of squares with similar ---
up to the multiplicative factor $2$ --- number of associated stations
is collision avoiding. In stages $i\in[0,\log n]$, we consider squares
with the number of associated stations in the interval $(2^{i-1},2^i]$
(see line 6)
and we keep an upper bound $d_i a$ on the length of the side of (so far unconsidered)
squares.
In each stage, we choose greedily as large as possible subsets of squares such
that each two squares of a subset are in large distance (to avoid interferences),
see lines 8-10
(c.f., Proposition~\ref{prop:avoid}).
These squares form the $i$th family of squares (color $i$).
The remaining squares are combined into larger
squares containing more than $2^i$ elements each
(see lines 7, and 11-13).
As we show, it is possible
to ensure that the upper bound on the lengths of the side of a square increases sufficiently
slow to guarantee that eventually each station belongs to some square and
the set of squares is split into $\log n$ collision avoiding families,
assuming $a=\gamma/2^{O(\log^2n)}$ (or $c=O(\log^n)$).
The key issue is that our ultimate goal is to guarantee that the set of squares with a fixed color
in all boxes (not only in one fixed box) are collision
avoiding, since the algorithm has to perform further computation in various
boxes simultaneously.
(By the way, if we restrict to one box of the pivotal grid, it is
sufficient to associate the same color to all stations.
On the other hand, {\textsc{NoGran}} is executed locally (in one box) since stations
should be able to perform this procedure without communication, on the basis of their
knowledge about neighborhood. One cannot exclude
that squares $R_1,R_2$ with the same color which belong to two adjacent boxes of the pivotal grid
are very close to each other.
Therefore, we refine our coloring in order to avoid the situation
that two squares from adjacent boxes have the same color (line 9).
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{\textsc{NoGran}($C(j,k),c$)}
\label{alg:nogran}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State $a\gets \gamma/c\ \ (=r/(\sqrt{2}c))$
\State $\mathcal{S}\gets$ all nonempty boxes of $G_a$ inside the box $C$ of the pivotal grid
\State for each $R\in \mathcal{S}$: $V_R\gets $ all stations located in $R$;
\State $d_{0}\gets 1$
\For{$i=0,1,\ldots,\log n$}
\Comment{Iteration of phases}
\State $x_i\gets c_{\alpha}d_{i}2^i$
\State $W_i\gets\{R\in\mathcal{S}\,|\,\, 2^{i-1}<|V_R|\leq 2^i\}$
\State $E_i\gets\{(R_1,R_2)\,|\, R_1,R_2\in W_i, \text{distM}(R_1,R_2)\leq x_i\cdot a\}$
\For{each separated vertex $R$ of the graph $G_i(W_i,E_i)$}
\State $\text{color}(R)\gets (i,j\mod 2,k\mod 2)$
\State delete $R$ from $W_i$
\EndFor
\For{each connected component $W'\subseteq W_i$}
\State Form a smallest square $R'$ containing all elements of $W'$, and add $R'$ to $\mathcal{S}$
\State Remove all elements of $W'$ from $\mathcal{S}$
\EndFor
\State $d_{i+1}\gets 4(x_i+d_{i})$
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Now, we formally analyze algorithm {\textsc{NoGran}}.
Let {\em phase $i$} denote the execution of the body of the main loop, i.e., lines 5-14,
of the algorithm {\textsc{NoGran}} for the corresponding $i$.
Let $\text{side}(R)$, for a square $R$, denote the length of the side of $R$.
We will show that the following invariants are satisfied at the beginning of the phase $i$, for every $i\geq 0$:
\begin{description}
\item[(A1)]
Each square $R\in\mathcal{S}$ has more than $2^{i-1}$ stations (i.e., $|V_R|> 2^{i-1}$);
\item[(A2)]
For each $R\in\mathcal{S}$, the length of the side of $R$ is not larger than
$\frac{|V_R|d_{i}}{2^i}\cdot a$.
\end{description}
\begin{proposition}
The algorithm {\textsc{NoGran}} satisfies the invariants (A1) and (A2) at the beginning of
each phase.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof goes by induction. One can easily verify that the invariants are satisfied
at the beginning of phase $0$.
Next, assuming that the invariants are satisfied at the beginning of phase $i$, we show
that they are satisfied at the beginning of phase $i+1$ as well.
As for the invariant (A1), observe that each square having at most $2^i$ elements
is removed from $\mathcal{S}$ during phase $i$ (in line 10 or 13). Moreover, each new square added to $\mathcal{S}$
during phase $i$ contains stations of at least two removed squares
(see line 12 and the fact that each separated vertex/square $R$ is deleted in line 10).
Since (A1) is satisfied
at the beginning of phase $i$, the number of station in such a new square is larger than
$2^{i-1}+2^{i-1}=2^i$.
Concerning (A2), observe that a square that is in $\mathcal{S}$ at the beginning of phase $i$
and is {\em not} removed from $\mathcal{S}$ during phase $i$ satisfies the condition
$$
\text{side}(R)\leq\frac{|V_R|d_{i}}{2^i}
\leq
\frac{|V_R|d_{i+1}}{2^{i+1}}
$$
at the
beginning of phase $i+1$, because
$d_{i}<d_{i+1}/2$ (line 14.).
Now, consider a square $R'$ added to $\mathcal{S}$
during phase $i$.
Let $W'$ be the connected component of $W_i$ whose elements form $R'$.
Let $x_1,x_2$ ($y_1,y_2$, respectively) be the smallest and largest values
of the first (second, respectively) coordinate of vertices of squares from $W_i$.
W.l.o.g. assume that $x_2-x_1\geq y_2-y_1$. Thus, $\text{side}(R')=x_2-x_1$. Then,
there exists a path $(R_1,\ldots,R_p)$ in $W'$ such that $x_1$ is the first
coordinate of some vertex of $R_1$, $x_2$ is the first coordinate of some vertex
of $R_p$. Our inductive assumptions imply that:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$2^i\geq|V_{R_j}|>2^{i-1}$ for each $j\in[p]$;
\item
$\text{side}(R_j)\leq\frac{|V_{R_j}|d_{i}}{2^i}\cdot a\leq d_{i}\cdot a$
for each $i\in[p]$;
\item
$\text{distM}(R_j,R_{j+1})\leq x_j\cdot a$ for each $j\in[p-1]$;
\item
$\sum_{j=1}^p\text{side}(R_j)+\sum_{j=1}^{p-1}\text{distM}(R_j,R_{j+1})\geq x_2-x_1=\text{side}(R')$.
\end{itemize}
Thus,
$$
\text{side}(R')\leq \left(pd_{i}+(p-1)x_i\right)\cdot a
\leq
p(x_i+d_{i})a
=
pd_{i+1}a/4
$$
and
$$|V_{R'}|>p\cdot 2^{i-1}.$$
Therefore,
$\text{side}(R')\leq pd_{i+1}a/4
<
\frac{|V_{R'}|}{2^{i-1}}\cdot\frac{d_{i+1}}4\cdot a
=
\frac{|V_{R'}|d_{i+1}}{2^{i+1}}\cdot a$,
which confirms that the invariant (A2) is satisfied at the beginning of phase $i+1$.
\end{proof}
\remove
\begin{proposition}\labell{prop:simgram}
There exists a constant $c$ which depends only on $\alpha$ such that, if $c\geq 2^{c_1\log^2n}$
then the set of squares which have assigned color $(i,j,k)$ by {\textsc{NoGran}} is collision avoiding for
each $(i,j,k)\in[\log n]\times[0,1]^2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}
\labell{prop:simgram}
There exists a constant $c_1$, which depends only on $\alpha$, such that:
if $c\geq 2^{c_1\log^2n}$
then the set of stations with assigned color $i$ by \textsc{NoGran}($\cdot,c$) is collision avoiding, for each $i\in[\log n]$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First, assume that all stations are located in one box of the pivotal grid.
The choice of $x_i$ in Algorithm {\textsc{NoGran}} (line 5) guarantees that the set of squares
with color $(i,j,k)$ is collision avoiding due to Proposition~\ref{prop:avoid}, provided
$c>2d_i$. Since
$d_{0}=1$, $d_{i+1}=4(x_i+d_i)$ and $x_i=c_{\alpha}d_i2^i$, the relationship
$$
d_{i+1}
=
4(d_{i}+x_i)
=
4d_{i}(1+c_{\alpha}2^i)
\leq
8c_{\alpha}2^i\cdot d_{i}
$$
holds for $i\geq 0$, where the last inequality follows from the fact that
$c_{\alpha}\geq 1$ (see Proposition~\ref{prop:avoid}).
Thus,
$$d_{i+1}
\leq
(8c_{\alpha})^{i+1}\prod_{j=0}^i2^j
=
2^{i(i+1)/2+(i+1)\log(8c_{\alpha})}
\ .
$$
Therefore $d_{\log n}=2^{O(\log^2 n)}$ and the appropriate choice of $c_1$ guarantees
that $d_{\log n}<2^{c_1\log^2n}/2$.
So, the proposition holds for $c=2^{c_1\log^2 n}$,
since $c>2d_i$ for each $i\in[\log n]$ and squares with each color are
collision avoiding by Proposition~\ref{prop:gtrans}.
Now, consider the case when stations are located in various boxes of the pivotal grid.
The choice of colors guarantees that $\text{distM}(R_1,R_2)\geq r$ for any two squares
$R_1,R_2$ with color $(i,j,k)$ such that $R_1\in C$, $R_2\not\in C$, where $C$
is a box of the pivotal grid (the method of assigning $j,k$ guarantees that
$R_1$ and $R_2$ are not in adjacent boxes). In order to guarantee the correctness
of the proposition, it is sufficient that $\text{distM}(R_1,R_2)\geq c_{\alpha}d_{\log n}2^{\log n}$
(see Proposition~\ref{prop:avoid}).
Since
$\text{distM}(R_1,R_2)\geq r=(1+\varepsilon)^{-1/\alpha}$,
it is enough to assure that $c_{\alpha}d_{\log n}2^{\log n}<r$,
which can also be guaranteed for $c=2^{O(\log^2n)}$.
\end{proof}
\tj{
Finally, we can state the key property of the algorithm {\textsc{NoGran}}.
\begin{lemma}\labell{l:nogran}
Algorithm {\textsc{NoGran}} forms the set of $O(\log n)$ collision avoiding
families of squares such that each station belongs to (exactly) one
square in these families.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since there are $n$ stations overall, $|V_R|\leq n$ and therefore each station
is assigned to a square. Proposition~\ref{prop:simgram} implies that
those families are collision avoiding. Finally, it follows directly from the
algorithm that each station belongs to exactly one square from those families.
\end{proof}
}
\subsubsection{Election by Echo}
\labell{sub:echo}
Before we specify exactly how our application of the procedure Echo \cite{KP04} works,
let us explain what is the task we would like to solve by using this technique. During {Inter-Box-Broadcast},
if stations in a box $C$ of the pivotal grid are in state {active}, the goal is to send a message
to at least one station
in each box $C'$ of $C$ which is a neighbor of $C$. To inform a station in $C'$,
it is sufficient that exactly
one station from $C$ that has a neighbor in $C'$ is transmitting in some step successfully.
We are going to assure this property by guaranteeing that exactly one station
is transmitting among stations having neighbors in $C'$.
However, although each station
from $C$ knows whether it has a neighbor in $C'$, it does not necessarily know which
other stations from $C$ have also neighbors in $C'$.
The goal of the algorithm {{\sc ChooseRepByEcho}} is as follows. We are given a set $V_1$ of stations
such that $(v,w)$ is an edge in the communication graph, for each $v,w\in V_1$ and the set
$V_1$ is known to each $v\in V_1$. Moreover, $V_2\subseteq V_1$ is defined such that each
$v\in V_1$ knows whether
it belongs to $V_2$ (i.e., whether $v\in V_2$),
but
it may not have a knowledge
which of the remiaining elements
of $V_1$ belong to $V_2$. As a result, a unique {\em representative} $w$ of $V_2$ should be chosen
and all elements of $V_1$ should be aware of $w$;
in case of
$V_2=\emptyset$, all elements of $V_1$
should be aware of that fact.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{{\sc ChooseRepByEcho}($V_1, V_2$)}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State $\psi\gets\min_{v\in V_1}(v)$
\State $\psi$ transmits a message with information whether $\psi\in V_2$
\If{$\psi\in V_2$} return $\psi$ and finish \EndIf
\State Let $\varphi\in V_1$ be $\min_{w\in V_1\setminus\{\psi\}}\{w\,|\,\text{dist}(\psi,v)\leq\text{dist}(\psi,w)\}
every $v\in V_1$
\State $\varphi$ transmits a message with information whether $\varphi\in V_2$
\If{$\varphi\in V_2$} return $\varphi$ and finish \EndIf
\State Assign unique temporary IDs (TIDs) in $[|V_1|]$ to all elements of $V_1$:
TID$(v)\gets |\{u\in V_1\,|\,u\leq v\}|$
\State $bot\gets 1$; $top\gets |V_1|$
\While{$bot\leq top$}
\State $mid\gets \lfloor (bot+top)/2\rfloor$
\State $T\gets\{v\in V_2\,|\, bot\leq\text{TID}(v)\leq mid\}$
\State {\bf Round $R_1$:} each $v\in T$ transmits the message $m_v$ encoding $v$
\State {\bf Round $R_2$:} each $v\in T\cup\{\varphi\}$ transmits the message $m_v$ encoding $v$
\State {\bf Round $R_3$:}
\State\hspace{\algorithmicindent} \textbf{if} $\psi$ can hear $m_v$ in $R_1$ for $v\in V_1$ \textbf{then}
$\psi$ transmits $m_v$
\State\hspace{\algorithmicindent} \textbf{else} \textbf{if} {$\psi$ can hear $m_{\varphi}$ in $R_2$}
\textbf{ then } $\psi$ transmits $m_{\varphi}$
\State\textbf{if} {$m_{v}$ is heard in $R_3$ for $v\in V_1\setminus\{\varphi\}$}\textbf{ then }
return $v$ and finish the algorithm's execution
\State\textbf{if} {$m_{\varphi}$ is heard in $R_3$}\textbf{ then }
$bot\gets mid+1$
\State\textbf{else} {$top\gets mid$}
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Just for further consideration we would like to point out that $\text{dist}(\psi,\varphi)$ is the
largest among distances between between elements of $V_1$. This implies that $\psi$ can hear
$\varphi$ only when no other $x\in V_1$ is transmitting a message.
\begin{proposition}\labell{prop:chooserepr}
Assume that the algorithm {{\sc ChooseRepByEcho}} is executed in parallel on a family of collision avoiding squares.
Then, each execution of {\sc ChooseRepByEcho}($V_1,V_2$)
finishes in $O(\log n)$ rounds and it
gives the following result:
\begin{itemize}
\item
if $V_2=\emptyset$: each station of $V_1$ knows that $V_2$ is empty;
\item
otherwise, each $v\in V_1$ knows a fixed station $w\in V_2$ called
a {\em representative} of $V_2$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
As for time complexity, note that $top-bot$ becomes roughly twice smaller in each execution
of the loop 9-19 (see lines 18-19).
The assumption that the algorithm is executed on collision avoiding squares
implies that we can assume that each execution of {\sc ChooseRepByEcho}($V_1,V_2$)
satisfies the following condition: if exactly one element of $V_1$ (different from
$\varphi$) transmits
a message in a round, then this message is received by all elements of $V_1$.
Moreover, since $\text{dist}(\psi,\varphi)\geq\text{dist}(\psi,v)$ for each $v\in V_1$,
$\psi$ cannot receive a message from $\varphi$ if any element of $V_1\setminus\{\varphi\}$ transmits
a message at the same round. These observations imply that, after round $R_3$,
all stations from $V_1$ can determine whether the subset of $V_2$, which consists
of stations with TIDs in the range $[bot,mid]$, contains $0$, $1$, or more than one
element. Thanks to this fact, an execution of lines 10-19 gives each element
of $V_1$ information whether $X=V_2\cap\{v\,|\, TID(v)\in[bot,mid]\}$
is empty.
Using this property, the while-loop 9-19 applies
binary search in order to choose
a representative of $V_2$, if $V_2\neq\emptyset$.
More precisely, if $m_{\varphi}$ is heard in $R_3$ then $X$ is empty
(and searching is restricted to the range $[mid+1,top]$), and it is
not empty otherwise.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Broadcasting Algorithm}
\labell{sub:genalg}
Finally, we define a broadcasting algorithm {{\sc DiamUBr}}, which repeats several times
the algorithm {Gen-Inter-Box-Broadcast} given below. Algorithm {Gen-Inter-Box-Broadcast} resembles the algorithm
{Gran-Inter-Box-Broadcast} from Section~\ref{s:granularity-unknown}.
However {Gen-Inter-Box-Broadcast}, first applies the technique of ``decreasing'' granularity
introduced in Sections~\ref{sub:dilution} and~\ref{sub:echo}.
Recall the following definitions.
A station $v$ is {\em $(d_1,d_2)$-connected} for $d_1,d_2\in\{0,1,2\}$ iff
$v\in C(i,j)$ for a box $C(i,j)$ of the pivotal grid and $v$
has a neighbor in the box $C'(i+d_1,j+d_2)$ of the pivotal grid.
Let $u,v$ be such stations that $u\in C$, for a box $C$ of the pivotal grid,
and $u$ is in the range area of $v$. We say that $u$ dominates $C$ with respect to $v$
if $u=\min\{w\,|\, w\in C\mbox{ and } w\mbox{ is in the range area of }v\}$.
We also set $g_{\alpha}=2^{c_1\log^2 n}$, where $c_1$ is the constant
from Proposition~\ref{prop:simgram}.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Gen-Inter-Box-Broadcast}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Each station $v$ in state {active} executes
\textsc{NoGran}($C, c_{\alpha}$), where $C$ is the box of the pivotal grid
\tj{containing $v$, $c_{\alpha}\gets d_{\alpha}(n)$ and $d_{\alpha}$ is a
flat function satisfying properties stated in Proposition~\ref{prop:avoid}}
\For{each $(d_1,d_2)\in\text{DIR}$}
\For{$(i,j,k)\in[\log n]\times\{0,1\}\times\{0,1\}$}
\For{each square $R$ of color $(i,j,k)$ {\bf in-parallel}}
\State {\sc ChooseRepByEcho}($V_R, V_R\cap \{v\,|\, v\mbox{ is }(d_1,d_2)\mbox{-connected}\}$)
\EndFor
\EndFor
\State GranLeaderElection($\{v\,|\, v\mbox{ is a representative chosen in line 5}\}, g_{\alpha}$)
\State
$d\gets$ parameter from Corollary~\ref{cor:dilsuc} applied for the set of leaders of boxes of $G_{\gamma}$.
\For{$(j,k)\in[0,d-1]^2$}
\State \textbf{Round $1$}: A station $v$ transmits if:
\State $v$ is elected
the leader
of its box of the pivotal grid
in line 6
during GranLeaderElection,
\State and $v\in C(j',k')$
such that
$(j'\mod d,k'\mod d)=(j,k)$
\State \textbf{Round $2$:} A station $u$ transmits if:
\State $s(u)=asleep$,
\State $u$ heard $v$ in Round $1$,
\State $u\in C(j',k')$ such that
$((j'-d_1)\mod d,(k'-d_2)\mod d)=(j,k)$,
\State and $u$ dominates its box wrt $v$
\EndFor
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{proposition}\labell{prop:gentrans}
Algorithm {Gen-Inter-Box-Broadcast} works in time $O(d_{\alpha}^2(n)\log^2 n)$ for a flat function $d_{\alpha}$
and it preserves the properties
(I) and (P) from page~\pageref{i:P}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
As for time complexity, the execution of ChooseReprByEcho in line 5 requires $O(\log n)$ rounds,
and the execution of GranLeaderElection in line 6 requires $O(\log^2n)$ rounds. Since
$d$ and the size od $\text{DIR}$ are constant, {Gen-Inter-Box-Broadcast} works in time $O(\log^2 n)$.
As algorithm {Gen-Inter-Box-Broadcast} follows the structure of {Gran-Inter-Box-Broadcast},
the fact that it preserves
(I) and (P) can be proved similarly \tj{as Proposition~\ref{prop:gtrans}}.
In fact, it is sufficient to prove that if
there is $v\in C$ in state active for a box $C$ which is $(d_1,d_2)$-connected,
then $C$ has the leader after step 6. This claim is a consequence of the
following facts:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\textsc{NoGran}(C,g_{\alpha})$ in line 1 guarantees that each active station
which is $(d_1,d_2)$-connected is associated with some square which
has assigned a color in $[\log n]\times\{0,1\}^2$; moreover, squares
with the same color are collision avoiding (Proposition~\ref{prop:simgram});
\item
{{\sc ChooseRepByEcho}} (line 5) chooses a representative of
$V_R\cap \{v\,|\, v\mbox{ is }(d_1,d_2)\mbox{-connected}\}$ for each square
$R$, provided $V_R\cap \{v\,|\, v\mbox{ is }(d_1,d_2)\mbox{-connected}\}\neq\emptyset$
thanks to the fact that squares with a fixed color are collision avoiding
(Proposition~\ref{prop:chooserepr});
\item
Granularity of the set of representatives in line 6 of the algorithm is at most
$g_{\alpha}$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:chooserepr} and item (b) on page~\pageref{item:b}
defining restrictions on associations of squares with stations. Therefore,
GranLeaderElection in line 6 chooses the leader in the box $C$, if
the set of station from $\{v\,|\, v\mbox{ is a representative chosen in line 5}\}$
located in $C$ is nonempty (Proposition~\ref{prop:leader}).
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
Below, we state a theorem which follows directly
from the specification of Algorithm {{\sc DiamUBr}} (i.e., repeating algorithm {Gen-Inter-Box-Broadcast})
and from Proposition~\ref{prop:gentrans}.
\begin{theorem}\labell{t:brodcast:known:gen}
Algorithm {{\sc DiamUBr}} performs broadcasting in a $n$-node network of diameter
$D$ in time $O(Dd_{\alpha}^2(n)\log^2 n)$, where $d_{\alpha}$ is a flat function.
\end{theorem}
\section{Size Dependent Algorithm for Anonymous Networks}
\labell{s:anonymous}
In this section we consider fully anonymous ad hoc networks in which, at the
beginning of a protocol, execution each station knows only $n$, $N$, its
own ID and its position in the Euclidean space (i.e., its
coordinates). We develop a deterministic broadcasting algorithm
{{\sc SizeUBr}}, which matches the lower bound $\Omega(n\log N)$ (see Theorem~\ref{t:lower:log}).
\subsection{High-Level Idea of Algorithm {{\sc SizeUBr}}}
Our algorithm executes repeatedly two threads.
The first thread keeps
combining stations into groups in such a way that eventually, for any box $C$ of
the pivotal grid, all stations located in $C$ form one group.
Moreover, each group should have the leader, and each station should be aware of
(i) which group it belongs to, (ii) which station is the leader of that group, and
(iii) which stations belong to that group (i.e., a station should know the set of IDs
and positions\footnote{\tj{It is sufficient that $O(\log^2n)$ bits of coordinates
of stations are stored.}} of all stations in the group).
These properties are achieved as follows.
Upon waking up, each station forms a group with a single element (itself),
and then the groups increase gradually by merging.
The merging process builds upon the following observation.
Let $\sigma$ be the smallest distance between two
stations taking part in the first thread, and let $u,v$ be two closest
stations. Thus, there is at most one transmitting
station in each box of the grid $G_{\sigma/\sqrt{2}}$.
Then, if $u$ ($v$, resp.) transmits a message
and no other station in distance $d\cdot \sigma$, for some constant $d$,
transmits at the same time,
then $v$ ($u$, resp.) can hear that message (see Proposition~\ref{prop:avoid}).
Using combinatorial structure called {\em strongly-selective family} (ssf) as
a broadcast schedule, one can assure that a round satisfying
these properties occurs in $O(\log n)$ rounds. If $u$ can hear $v$
and $v$ can hear $u$ during such a schedule, the groups of $u$ and $v$
can be merged into one larger group.
The second thread, on the other hand, is supposed to guarantee that in each round $t$
of the algorithm and for each group of stations $H$, exactly one station
from $H$ is transmitting a message in round $t$. This property will be satisfied
provided each station knows its group, so it can determine its temporary
ID (TID) as the rank of its ID in the sequence of IDs of stations from
the group, taken in a nondecreasing order. Using these TIDs, the stations of the group
apply round-robin strategy. Thus, if each group
corresponds to all stations in the appropriate box, transmissions in
the second thread are successful (see Corollary~\ref{cor:dilsuc}, Proposition~\ref{prop:avoid}
for $y=1$, $a=1$ and $d=1$),
and therefore they guarantee that all neighbors of the box will have
informed stations, provided
the second thread is executed for sufficiently long time.
In order to apply the above described ideas for global broadcasting, it is
necessary to repeat Threads~1 and 2 several times.
The main problem with implementation
and its analysis is
that there is no simple way to determine whether group(s) already
covers the whole box of the pivotal grid. Moreover, as long as there are many groups inside
a box, transmissions in the second thread may cause unwanted interferences.
Another problem is that the set of stations attending the protocol changes gradually,
when new stations become informed and can
join
the execution of the protocol.
Therefore we modify the above described ideas in the following way:
\begin{itemize}
\item
The two threads --- one forming groups and the other transmitting in a round-robin fashion ---
are interleaved such that one round of the former is followed by one
round of the latter. This will be conceptually implemented in a form of two parallel threads.
\item
In order to tackle the lack of knowledge about the progress in computation,
each station participates in the protocol for $T(n)$ rounds, where $T(n)$
is the upper bound on the round complexity of accomplishing our broadcasting
algorithm derived in the analysis.
\item
Finally, our proof of complexity bound is based on measuring the progress of computation at round $t$
by using amortized analysis, in a way reflecting the advancement of the process
of merging groups and receiving the broadcast message by consecutive
stations.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Formal Implementation of Algorithm {{\sc SizeUBr}}}
Each station $v$ keeps in its local memory a boolean variable $L(v)$ indicating
whether $v$ has the status of the {\em leader} of its group, and local variables
$M(v)\in V$ and $G(v)\subseteq V$. Let us think of a directed graph defined by edges
$(v,M(v))$.
Our goal is to preserve the invariant that
the graph is a forest $F$ and each edge $(v,M(v))$ is directed \tj{from a child to its parent
in the appropriate tree of $F$}.
Provided this invariant is preserved, we define $master(v)$ as the
transitive closure of $M(v)$, i.e., $master(v)=v$ if $M(v)=v$ and $master(v)=master(M(v))$ otherwise.
Moreover, $group(v)=G(master(v))$.
The fact that pointers $M(v)$ define a forest gives a partition of the set of stations in the following way:
\begin{itemize}
\item
each tree of this graph forms one group;
\item
each group has the leader which is equal to the root of the appropriate tree; that is, the leader
of the group to which $v$ belongs is equal to $master(v)$.
\end{itemize}
We say that a station $v$ is {\em consistent} if $M(v)=master(v)$ and $G(v)=group(v)$.
Initial values of the local variables of stations are as follows:
$L(v)\gets true$, $M(v)\gets v$, $G(v)\gets \{v\}$. Thus, all
stations are consistent at the beginning.
A {\em leader} is each station $v$ such that $L(v)=$true.
We say that a network satisfies {\em integrity at time $t$} iff
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)]
groups $G(v)$ known by leaders
at the end of round $t$ form a partition of the set of all stations $V$ (i.e., $V=\bigcup_{\{v\,|\,L(v)\}}G(v)$
and $G(v)\cap G(u)=\emptyset$ for each $v\neq u$ such that $L(v)=L(u)=true$);
\item[(b)]
$G(v)\subseteq G(M(v))$ for each station $v$;
\item[(c)]
$M(v)\in\text{box}(v)$ and $G(v)$ contains only stations located in $\text{box}(v)$.
\end{enumerate}
One of invariants which we are going
to \tj{be preserved along executions} of {{\sc SizeUBr}} is that all leaders are consistent, and the network
satisfies integrity.
Ideally, we would also like to achieve consistency of stations which are not leaders ---
unfortunately this property will not be guaranteed by our solution,
however our algorithm will be able to achieve it at some crucial stages of the broadcasting task.
The algorithm proceeds in two parallel threads:
Thread~1 and Thread 2. We assume
that Thread~1 is executed in odd rounds (i.e., in rounds $t$ such that $t\mod 2=0$) and Thread
2 in even rounds. In order to simplify presentation, we assume that rounds of Thread~1/Thread~2
have consecutive numbers $1,2,3,\ldots$ Below, we describe both threads in more detail.
\paragraph{Thread 1.}
The main goal of Thread~1 is to merge groups such that \tj{consistency of leaders
and integrity of network} are preserved. The following technical proposition is the key for guaranteeing
process of merging groups is fast enough.
\begin{proposition}
\labell{prop:for:sel}
For each $\alpha>2$, there exists a constant $d$, which depends
only on the parameters $\varepsilon,\beta$ and $\alpha$ of the model,
satisfying the following property.
Let $W$ be a set of stations such that there
is at most one station from $W$ in each box
of the grid $G_x$, for some $x\leq \gamma$, and
$\min_{u,v\in W}\{\text{dist}(u,v)\}=x\cdot\sqrt{2}\}$.
If station $u\in C$ for a box $C$ of $G_x$ is transmitting in a round $t$ and no other station
in any box $C'$ of $G_x$ in the box-distance at most $d$ from $C$ is transmitting at that round,
then $v$ can hear the message from $u$ at round $t$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $u,v$ satisfy properties stated in the proposition.
If $u$ is transmitting in round $t$ then the power of the signal of $u$ arriving
at $v$ is
\begin{equation}\label{e:tr}
\frac{1}{(\sqrt{2}x)^{\alpha}}
\geq
(1+\varepsilon){\mathcal N}
\ ,
\end{equation}
where the inequality follows from the fact that $\sqrt{2}x\leq r=(1+\varepsilon)^{-1/\alpha}$
(recall that we assume $\beta=1$).
Observe that, under the assumptions of the proposition,
the number of stations whose distance to $v$ is in the interval $[ix,(i+1)x)$ is
not larger than the number of boxes of $G_x$ in box-distance $i$ from the box
containing $v$, which in turn is equal to $8(i+1)$.
Assuming that no station
in any box $C'$ in the box-distance at most $d$ from $C$ is transmitting,
the amount of interference and noise at $v$ is smaller than
$$
{\mathcal N}+\sum_{i=d}^{\infty}8(i+1)\cdot\frac{1}{(ix)^{\alpha}}
=
{\mathcal N}+\frac{8}{x^{\alpha}}\cdot c_d
\ ,
$$
where $c_d=\sum_{i=d+1}^{\infty}i^{1-\alpha}$.
Thus, by (\ref{e:tr}) it is sufficient to show that
there exists $d$ which guarantees that
$${\mathcal N}+\frac{8}{x^{\alpha}}c_d\leq(1+\varepsilon){\mathcal N}\mbox{ or } {\mathcal N}+\frac{8}{x^{\alpha}}c_d\leq\frac{1}{2^{\alpha/2}x^{\alpha}}$$
for each $x>0$, which is equivalent to:
\begin{equation}\label{e:cases}
c_d\leq \frac{1-{\mathcal N}(\sqrt{2}x)^{\alpha}}{8\cdot 2^{\alpha/2}}\mbox{ or } c_d\leq \frac{\varepsilon{\mathcal N} x^{\alpha}}{8}.
\end{equation}
Consider two cases:
\noindent Case A: ${\mathcal N}(\sqrt{2}x)^{\alpha}\leq \frac12$
This case reduces the first inequality of (\ref{e:cases}) to $c_d\leq \frac{1}{16\cdot 2^{\alpha/2}}$ which
is satisfied for sufficiently large $d$, due to convergence of $\sum_{i} i^{1-\alpha}$.
\noindent Case B: ${\mathcal N}(\sqrt{2}x)^{\alpha}> \frac12$
In this case, the second inequality of (\ref{e:cases}) reduces to
$c_d\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{16\cdot 2^{\alpha/2}}$ which
is also satisfied for sufficiently large $d$, due to convergence of $\sum_{i} i^{1-\alpha}$.
\comment{
$$
{\mathcal N}+\frac{8}{x^{\alpha}}\cdot c_d
<
(1+\varepsilon){\mathcal N}
\ ,\mbox{ or }
$$
then $v$ receives the message from $u$. Since $x\leq \sqrt{2}r<\sqrt{2}$, the above
inequality is satisfied if $c_d<\frac{\varepsilon\cN2^{\alpha/2}}{8}$, which in turn
is satisfied for sufficiently large $d$ depending on $\alpha$
because $\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}i^{1-\alpha}=\zeta(\alpha-1)$
is bounded by a constant, for $\alpha>2$.
}
\end{proof}
A family $S=(S_0,\ldots,S_{s-1})$ of subsets of $[N]$ is a {\em $(N,k)$-ssf (strongly-selective family)} of length $s$
if, for every non empty subset $Z$ of $[N]$ such that
$|Z|\leq k$ and for every element $z\in Z$, there is a set $S_i$ in $S$ such that
$S_i\cap Z=\{z\}$.
It is known that there exists $(N,k)$-ssf of size $O(k^2\log N)$ for every $k\leq N$,
c.f.,~\cite{ClementiMS01}.
Let $k=(2d+1)^2$, let $S$ be a $(N,k)$-ssf,
and let $s=|S|=O(\log N)$.
The sets $S_0,\ldots,S_{s-1}$ of the family $S$ define a broadcast schedule in such a way
that station $v$ transmits in round $t$ iff $v\in S_{t\mod s}$ (formally, the bit $t$
of $S(v)$ is equal to 1 iff $v\in S_t$).
\begin{corollary}\labell{cor:selector}
For each $\alpha>2$, there exists a constant $d$, which depends
only on the parameters $\varepsilon,\beta$ and $\alpha$ of the model,
satisfying the following property.
Let $W$ be a set of stations such that
$\min_{u,v\in W, \text{box}(u)=\text{box}(v)}\{\text{dist}(u,v)\}=x$ and let $\text{dist}(u,v)=x$
for some $u,v\in W$ such that $\text{box}(u)=\text{box}(v)$ and $W$ is \tj{$d$-diluted for
$d\geq 2$.}
Then, $v$ can hear the message from $u$ during an execution of a $(N,k)$-ssf on $W$.
\end{corollary}
\tj{Now, we are ready to describe Thread 1 in detail. Given a $(N,k)$-ssf $S$ of length $s$,}
Thread 1 consists of blocks of $2s$ rounds, each block split in two
stages of length $s$. Importantly, a station which becomes informed
during a block, starts participating in the execution of the protocol
in the next block of Thread 1. Algorithm~\ref{alg:un:n:ini} describes behavior
of a station $v$ in step $t$. Note that the initial value of $X_v$ is equal to the
empty set for each $v$ at the beginning of a block \tj{(see Algorithm~\ref{alg:un:n:mod})}
and then, it is equal to the set of station
which transmitted successfully to $v$ during the block.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Thread1($v,t$)}
\label{alg:un:n:ini}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State $t'\gets t\mod 2s$
\If{$v$ informed before step $t-t'$}\Comment{$v$ informed before the current block}
\If{$t'<t$ } \Comment{(Stage 1 of a block)}
\If{$L(v)$ and $v\in S_{t\mod s}$}
\State $v$ transmits a message including $v$ and $G(v)$
\Else
\If{$L(v)$}
\If{$v$ can hear $u$} $X_v\gets X_v\cup \{u\}$
\EndIf
\Else
\If{$v$ can hear $u$ such that $G(v)\subset G(u)$} $M(v)\gets u$; $G(v)\gets G(u)$
\EndIf
\EndIf
\EndIf
\Else \Comment{(Stage 2 of a block)}
\If{$L(v)$ and $v\in S_{t\mod s}$}
\State $v$ transmits a message including $v$ and $X_v$
\EndIf
\EndIf
\State Modify($v,t$)
\EndIf
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
In a single block of Thread~1, the $(N,k)$-ssf $S$ is executed twice: once in Stage~1
and once in Stage~2. At the end of the block, the procedure Modify is executed, whose
goal is to merge groups using information gathered in Stages~1 and 2 of the current
block.
In Stage~1, each station $v$ determines $X_v$, the set of stations $u$ such that $v$ can hear $u$ during
the execution of $S$ (on the set of stations active at the beginning of Stage~1 of the block).
In Stage~2, each station $v$ sends $X_v$, and in this way, at the end of Stage~2, it also collects information about $X_u$ for each $u\in X_v$.
For a fixed block of computation, let $G'(V,E')$ be a symmetric graph
which consists of such edges $(u,v)$ that \tj{$u$ and $v$ have the status of leaders,}
$u$ can hear $v$ and
$v$ can hear $u$ during the block of computation. Note that $(u,v)\in E'$ iff
$v\in X_u$ and $u\in X_v$. Thus, each station can determine its
neighbors in $G'$ at the end of each block (since $v$ knows $X_v$
after Stage~1,
and it learns $X_u$, for each $u\in X_v$, during Stage~2).
At the end of each block of Thread~1, each station modifies
its local variables appropriately, by executing procedure Modify, c.f., the pseudo-code
of Algorithm~\ref{alg:un:n:ini}.
The goal is to make
at least one merge of two groups. In order to achieve this goal,
we implement an algorithm which builds
(in distributed way) a matching in $G'$ such that the matching
is nonempty iff the set of edges of $G'$ is nonempty as well.
\tj{(Actually, our algorithm builds such a matching that each station $v$ satisfying the following
properties chooses its ``partner'' in the matching: $v$ can
hear another station during a block and $v$ is smaller than IDs of stations which transmitted
successfully a message to $v$ in the block.)}
Then,
the groups of the pairs of stations in the matching are merged.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Modify($v,t$)}
\label{alg:un:n:mod}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\If{$t\mod 2s=0$} \Comment{Execute at the end of round $t$ such that $t\mod 2s=0$}
\State $match(v)\gets nil$
\If{$L(v)$ and $X_v\neq\emptyset$}
\State $u\gets\min(X_v)$
\If{$v=\min(X_u)$}
\State $match(v)\gets u$
\If{$v>u$}
\State $M(v)\gets u$; $L(v)\gets false$
\EndIf
\State $G(v)\gets G(v)\cup G(u)$
\EndIf
\EndIf
\State $X_v\gets\emptyset$
\EndIf
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\paragraph{Thread 2.}
In Thread~2, each station applies round-robin algorithm inside its group.
This is done successfully provided the stations possess up to date information about their groups ---
which is the goal of the previously described Thread 1.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Thread2($v,t$)}
\label{alg:un:n:th2}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State $\Delta\gets |G(v)|$
\State $TID(v)\gets |\{u\,|\,u\in G(v)\mbox{ and }u< v\}|$
\State if $t\mod\Delta=TID(v)$: $v$ transmits a message.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Analysis}
Recall that we make a simplifying assumption that, if at most one station
from each box of the pivotal grid transmits in a round $t$, then
each such transmission is successful.
Due to Corollary~\ref{cor:dilsuc}, one can achieve this property
using dilution with constant parameter $d$ (provided $\alpha>2$),
which does not change the asymptotic complexity
of our algorithm.
First, we prove some basic properties of Thread~1.
\begin{proposition}
\labell{prop:cons}
Thread~1 preserves consistency of leaders and integrity of network at any round.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume that consistency of leaders and integrity of network are satisfied
at the beginning of a block of Thread 1.
Since variables determining integrity of the network and consistency
of stations change only at the end of blocks (i.e., during the execution of algorithm
Modify), let us
consider round $t$ at the end of a block.
Note that $u=match(v)$ iff
$v=match(u)$ at the end of $Modify(v,t)$. Moreover, if $u=match(v)$ and
$v=match(u)$, then exactly one of $u,v$ becomes non-leader and one of
them remains the leader. Thus, as a result, the groups $G(v), G(u)$
are replaced by $G(v)\cup G(u)$ after step $t$, which proves integrity. Since the
group of the station $v$ changes only in case $u=match(v)$,
$v=match(u)$ and $L(v)=L(u)=true$ for some $u$,
it preserves consistency thanks to the fact that
such $u$ and $v$ exchange messages with $u$ during the analyzed block of
Thread~1.
\end{proof}
We say that {\em station $u$ joins the group of station $v$} during the block of Thread 1
if $L(u)=L(v)=true$ at the beginning of the block, while
$L(u)=false$, $L(v)=true$, and $M(u)=v$ at the end of that block.
\begin{lemma}
\labell{l:merge}
Assume that the set $W$ of leaders at the beginning of a block of
Thread~1 contains at least two elements,
which are located in the same box of the pivotal grid. Then, there
exist $u,v\in W$ such that $u$ joins the group of $v$ during the
block.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\tj{Let $y$ be equal to the smallest distance between a pair of stations
$u,v\in W$ such that $u$ and $v$ belong to the same box of the pivotal grid.
Let $u,v$ be the elements of $W$ such that $\text{dist}(u,v)=y$ and $\text{box}(u)=\text{box}(v)$.
Let $x=y/\sqrt{2}$.}
Let $u\in C$ for a box $C$ of the grid $G_x$ and let
$A$ be the set of elements of $W$ located in boxes of $G_x$ which are in
box-distance at most $d$ from $C$, where $d$ is the constant from
Proposition~\ref{prop:for:sel}.
The set $A$ contains at most $(2d+1)^2$ elements, since each box of $G_x$ contains
at most one element of $W$.
Therefore, there
exists a round
$t\le s$
in the ssf $S$ such that $v$ is transmitting
a message at round $t$ and no other element of $A$ is transmitting at that round.
Proposition~\ref{prop:for:sel}
implies that $u$ can hear $v$ in such a round. Similarly, $v$ can
hear $u$ during an execution of $S$. Therefore, there exists at least
one pair $(u,v)$ such that $u\in X_v$ and $v\in X_u$ at round
$2s$
of the block, which is equivalent to the fact that
$E'=\{(u,v)\,|\,u\in X_v \mbox{ and } v\in X_u\}$, the set
of edges of a graph $G'(V,E')$, is nonempty.
Now, let $u$ be the smallest ID of a
node
whose degree in $G'$ is larger than zero.
Let $v$ be its neighbor in $G'$ with the smallest ID.
It is clear from the construction that $v$ joins the group of $u$ in such case
(see algorithm Modify$(v,t^*)$, for $t^*$ being the last round of the block).
\end{proof}
In general, it might happen that a station which is not a leader
is not consistent.
Such a situation occurs, for example, when $u$ joins the group of $v$
and then $v$ joins the group of $w$. Simultaneously, while $v$ can hear $w$
when it joins the group of $w$, it is possible that $u$ cannot
hear $w$.
The following lemma states that eventually, when there
is at most one leader in each box at the beginning of a block of Thread~1,
then for each leader, all stations in its box correctly update the information
about their masters and groups
during the considered block and become consistent.
\begin{lemma}
\labell{l:masters}
Assume that there is
\tj{at most} one leader in each box of the pivotal grid containing active stations,
at the beginning of a block of Thread~1. Then,
for each box $C$ containing a leader and each $v\in C$ that is informed at the beginning
of the block, $v$ is consistent at the end of the block.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $v\in C$ be informed and let $u\in C$ be
the only leader in $C$ at the beginning of a block.
Integrity of the network and consistency of leaders
\tj{(Proposition~\ref{prop:cons})}
guarantee that $u=master(v)$.
The station $v$ can hear $u$ during the block,
which follows from the fact that each leader broadcasts successfully during the
block (due to our simplifying assumption concerning situation that at most one
station in each box of the pivotal grid is transmitting).
Thus, since $v$ receives a message from $u=master(v)$, it updates its
local variables in line 10 of
pseudo-code of Thread~1 and becomes consistent.
\end{proof}
We say that a block $j$ of Thread~2 is {\em partially stable} if the following
conditions are satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item
each box of the pivotal grid contains at most one leader;
\item
at least one informed station is not consistent;
\end{itemize}
at the beginning of the block $j$.
Formally, we define progress of algorithm {{\sc SizeUBr}} at
the end of block $j$
as $\pi(j)$, equal
to the sum of the following four components:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)]
the number of informed stations;
\item[(b)]
$n$ minus the number of groups;
\item[(c)]
the number of tuples $(v,d_1,d_2)$
such that $v$ is an informed station, $d_1,d_2\in\text{DIR}$,
$v$ belongs to $C(i,l)$ for some $i,l\in{\mathbb Z}$,
and there is an informed station in the box $C'=C(i+d_1,l+d_2)$,
where $C,C'$ are boxes of the pivotal grid;
\item[(d)]
\tj{the number of partially stable blocks
of Thread~1 up to round $t$.}
\end{itemize}
It is clear that the \tj{expressions} described in the above items (a)--(c) have
always values in $O(n)$. We show that (d) is also in $O(n)$, which directly implies
that $\pi(j)=O(n)$ for every $j$.
\begin{proposition}
For each network with $n$ stations, the number of \tj{partially stable} blocks of
Thread 1
\comment{
satisfying the following conditions
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]
each box contains at most one leader at the beginning of the block;
\item[(ii)]
at least one informed station is not consistent at the beginning of the block;
\end{enumerate}
}
is smaller than $n$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider two consecutive blocks $j_1<j_2$ of
Thread 1
satisfying (i) and (ii).
Lemma~\ref{l:masters} implies that all stations informed at the beginning of
block $j_1$ are consistent at the end of this block. \tj{Note that} an informed station
located in a box $C$ of the pivotal grid with one leader may
loose its
consistency only in the case
when a new station from box $C$ becomes informed. Since there is an informed station
that is not consistent at the beginning of block $j_2$ (c.f., (ii)), the number
of informed stations at the beginning of block $j_2$ is larger than the number
of informed stations at the beginning of block $j_1$. Therefore the number
of blocks of
Thread~1
satisfying (i) and (ii) is smaller than $n$.
\end{proof}
Now, we show that
the amortized increase of cost $\pi$ during each {\em block of Thread~1} ---
defined as the time period including block of Thread~1 and rounds of Thread~2 interleaved with
the block of Thread~1 --- is at least one.
In the following, we analyze progress of computation during blocks of Thread~1, however
we take into account also rounds of Thread~2 occurring during the time span of the analyzed
block of Thread~1 (recall that the executions of the two threads are interleaved).
\begin{lemma}
\labell{l:progress}
Assume that some stations are not yet informed at the beginning of some
block $j$ of Thread~1. Then, there exists a block $k\geq j$
such that the total increase
of progress function in blocks $j,j+1,\ldots,k$ is at least $k-j+1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If there are two informed stations $u,v\in C$, for a box $C$ of the pivotal grid,
such that $L(u)=L(v)=true$
(i.e., $u,v$ are leaders)
at the beginning of block $j$,
progress increase is guaranteed in block $j$
by Lemma~\ref{l:merge},
since at least one merge of two groups takes place.
If there is at most one leader in each box at the beginning of block $j$,
then we consider two cases:
\begin{description}
\item[Case 1.]
All informed stations are consistent at the beginning of block $j$.\\
In this case all transmissions in both Threads are successful, as long as the
number of informed stations does not change.
Therefore, each informed station can transmit successfully. And, since not all stations
in the network
are informed and the network is connected, a new station becomes informed eventually.
Let $k\geq j$ be the
smallest number of a block
in which a new station $v$ becomes informed.
If this station $v$ belongs
to a box which has an informed leader at the beginning of block $j$, then
$v$ becomes informed in block $j$ and the progress increase is $1$ in round $j$, which
certifies the claimed result for $k=j$.
If the box $C'$ containing station $v$ does not have an informed leader at the beginning
of block $j$, then $C'$ does not have any informed station at the beginning of block $j$
either (due to integrity of the network).
Let $u\in C$ be a station that informed $v$ and $k\geq j$ be
the number of the block in which $v$ becomes informed. Since each transmission
of Thread~2 is successful in this case, and Thread 2 applies a round-robin protocol
on stations from $C$,
$u$ does not transmit in blocks $j,j+1,\ldots,k-1$ implies that
the number of stations in box $C$ is at least $(k-j)+1$ (since at
least one station from box $C$ transmits during the time span of one block in Thread~2).
\tj{Moreover, there are $k-j$ various stations in $C$ such that each of them
transmits successfully in blocks $j,\ldots,k-1$. Let $C=C(i,j)$, $C'=C(i+d_1,j+d_2)$.
}
Therefore, the
number of tuples
$(v,d_1,d_2)$
such that $v$ is an informed station and belongs to $C(i,j)$ for some $i,j\in{\mathbb Z}$,
$d_1,d_2\in\text{DIR}$
and there is an informed station in the box $C'(i+d_1,j+d_2)$,
increases by at least
$k-j+1$
throughout blocks $j,\ldots,k$. Therefore, the progress $\pi$ increases by at least $k-j+1$.
\item[Case 2.]
There is a station which is {\em not} consistent at the beginning of block $j$.\\
Then, the part (d) of the potential function $\pi$ increases until the end
of block $j$, according to Lemma~\ref{l:masters}.
\end{description}
\end{proof}
Finally, we obtain the following theorem as a direct consequence of Lemma~\ref{l:progress}.
\begin{theorem}
Algorithm {{\sc SizeUBr}} performs broadcasting in each $n$-node network in time $O(n\log N)$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Degree Dependent Algorithm for Anonymous Networks}\labell{s:algdeg}
In this section we present a broadcasting algorithm which achieves complexity $O(D\Delta\log^2N)$
in anonymous networks, i.e., when neighborhood is not known.
The core of the algorithm is a leader election procedure which, given a set of stations $V$,
chooses exactly one station (the leader) in each box $C$ of the pivotal grid which contains
at least one element of $V$. This procedure works in $O(\log n\cdot \log N)$ rounds \tj{and it is
executed several times}.
The set of stations attending a particular leader election execution consists of all stations
which received the broadcast message and have not bo chosen leaders of their boxes in previous
executions of the leader election procedure.
Moreover, at the end of each execution of the leader election procedure, each leader chosen
in that execution transmits a message successfully (see Corollary~\ref{cor:dilsuc}). In this way, each station receives
the broadcast message after $O(D\Delta\log^2 N)$ rounds.
\subsection{Leader Election}
In the following, we describe the leader election algorithm. We are given a set of stations $V$
of size at most $n$. The set $V$ is not known to stations, each station knows merely whether it
belongs to $V$ or it does not belong to $V$. In the algorithm, we use $(N,d)$-ssf $S$ of size
$s=O(\log N)$, where $d$ is the constant from Proposition~\ref{prop:for:sel}. As before, $X_v$ for a given
execution of $S$ is defined as the set of stations which belong to $\text{box}(v)$ and
$v$ can hear them during that execution. The key observation for our construction is in fact
a consequence of Corollary~\ref{cor:selector}.
\begin{proposition}\labell{prop:closer}
For each $\alpha>2$, there exists a constant $k$, which depends
only on the parameters $\varepsilon,\beta$ and $\alpha$ of the model,
satisfying the following property.
Let $W$ be a $3$-diluted (wrt the pivotal grid) set of stations and let
$C$ be a box of the pivotal grid. If
$\min_{u,v\in C\cap W}
=x\leq 1/n$ and $\text{dist}(u,v)=x$
for some $u,v\in W$ such that $\text{box}(u)=\text{box}(v)=C$,
then $v$ can hear the message from $u$ during an execution of a $(N,k)$-ssf on $W$.
\comment{
For each $\alpha>2$, there exists a constant $k$, which depends
only on the parameters $\varepsilon,\beta$ and $\alpha$ of the model,
satisfying the following property.
Let $W$ be a $3$-diluted (wrt the pivotal grid) set of stations and let
$C$ be a box of the pivotal grid. If
$\min_{u,v\in W, \text{box}(u)=\text{box}(v)=C}\{\text{dist}(u,v)\}=x\geq 1/n$ and $\text{dist}(u,v)=x$
for some $u,v\in W$ such that $\text{box}(u)=\text{box}(v)=C$,
then $v$ can hear the message from $u$ during an execution of a $(N,k)$-ssf on $W$.
}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $u,v$ and $x$ be as specified in the proposition and let $C=\text{box}(u)=\text{box}(v)$.
Let $S$ be a $(N,k)$-ssf.
If all stations
from $W$ are located in $C$, then the claim follows directly from Corollary~\ref{cor:selector}.
So, let $W'$ be the set of all elements of $W$ which are {\em not} located in $C$.
Let us (conceptually) ``move'' all stations from $W'$ to boxes adjacent to $C$,
preserving the invariant that $\min_{u,v\in W, \text{box}(u)=\text{box}(v)=C}\{\text{dist}(u,v)\}=x$. Note that such
a movement is possible, since there are at most $n$ stations in $W'$ and the side of a box of the
pivotal grid is larger
than $1/2$. Since $W$ is $3$-diluted, the distance from $w\in C$ to any station $w'\in W'$ before
movement of $w'$ is larger than the distance from $w$ to $w'$ after movement.
Let $W''$ define $W$ with new locations of stations (after movements).
Therefore, if $u$ can
hear $v$ in the execution of $S$ on $W''$ (i.e., after movements of stations), it can hear $v$
in the execution of $S$ on $W$ (i.e., with original placements of stations).
However, the fact that $u$ can hear $v$ on $W''$ follows directly from the fact that
$\min_{u,v\in W''}\{\text{dist}(u,v)\}=x$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:selector}.
\end{proof}
\comment{
The leader selection algorithm consists of two stages. The first stage gradually eliminates
the set of candidates for the leader in consecutive executions of a selector $S$ in the first
for loop. Therefore, we call this stage {\em Elimination}.
Let {\em block} $l$ of Elimination stage denote the executions of $S$ for $i=l$.
Each ``eliminated'' station $v$ has
assigned the value $ph(v)$ which is equal to the number of the block in which it is eliminated.
Let $V(l)=\{v\,|\, ph(v)>l\}$ and $V_C(l)=\{v\,|\, ph(v)>l\mbox{ and } \text{box}(v)=C\}$ for $l\in{\mathbb N}$
and $C$ which is a box of the pivotal grid. The key property of sets $V_C(l)$
is that $|V_C(l+1)|\leq |V_C(l)|/2$ and the granularity of $V_C(l_C^{\star})$ is smaller than $n$
for each box $C$ and $l\in{\mathbb N}$, where $l_C^{\star}$ is the largest $l\in{\mathbb N}$ such that $V_C(l)$
is not empty (see Lemma~\ref{l:lead:empty} below).
Thus, in particular, $V_C(l)=\emptyset$ for each $l\geq \log n$.
Therefore, we can try to choose the leader of
each box $C$ applying (simultaneously in each box) the granularity dependent leader election algorithm
on $V_C(\log n)$, $V_C(\log n-1)$, $V_C(\log n-2)$ and so on, until the leader of $C$ is chosen. This
idea is implemented in the second part of the algorithm, called {\em Selection}. Now, we provide the
pseudo-code of the leader election algorithm and then its correctness and complexity are formally
analyzed.
}
The leader election algorithm consists of two stages. The first stage gradually eliminates
elements from the set of candidates for the leader in consecutive executions of a selector $S$ in the first
for loop. Therefore, we call this stage {\em Elimination}.
Let {\em block} $l$ of Elimination stage denote the executions of $S$ for $i=l$.
Each station $v$ ``eliminated'' in block $l$ has
assigned the value $ph(v)=l$.
Let $V(l)=\{v\,|\, ph(v)>l\}$ and $V_C(l)=\{v\,|\, ph(v)>l\mbox{ and } \text{box}(v)=C\}$ for $l\in{\mathbb N}$
and $C$ which is a box of the pivotal grid. The key property of sets $V_C(l)$
is that $|V_C(l+1)|\leq |V_C(l)|/2$ and the granularity of $V_C(l_C^{\star})$ is smaller than $n$
for each box $C$ and $l\in{\mathbb N}$, where $l_C^{\star}$ is the largest $l\in{\mathbb N}$ such that $V_C(l)$
is not empty.
Therefore, we can choose the leader of
each box $C$ applying (simultaneously in each box) the granularity dependent leader election algorithm
on $V_C(l_C^{\star})$.
It is done by the second stage, which applies the granularity dependent leader election
on $V_C(\log n)$, $V_C(\log n-1)$, $V_C(\log n-2)$ and so on, until the leader of $C$ is chosen.
After it is done all stations in $C$ become silent.
This
idea is implemented in the second part of the algorithm, called {\em Selection}.
Now, we provide the
pseudo-code of the leader election algorithm and then its correctness and complexity are formally
analyzed.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{LeaderElection($V,n$)}
\label{alg:leader}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State For each $v\in V$: $cand(v)\gets true$;
\For{$i=1,\ldots,\log n+1$}\Comment{Elimination}
\For{$j,k\in[0,2]$}
\State Execute $S$ twice on the set:
\State $\{w\in V\,|\,cand(w)=true \mbox{ and }w\in C(j',k')$ \mbox{ such that } $(j'\mod 2,k'\mod 2)=(j,k)\}$;
\State Each $w\in V$ determines and stores $X_w$ during the first execution of $S$ and
\State $X_v$ for
each $v\in X_w$ during the second execution of $S$,
\For{each $v\in V$}
\State $u\gets \min(X_v)$
\If{$X_v=\emptyset$ or $v>\min(X_u\cup\{u\})$}
\State $cand(v)\gets false$; $ph(v)\gets i$
\EndIf
\EndFor
\EndFor
\EndFor
\State For each $v\in V$: $state(v)\gets active$ \Comment{Selection}
\For{$i=\log n,(\log n)-1,\ldots,2,1$}
\State $V_i\gets$ GranLeaderElection($\{v\in V\,|\, ph(v)=i, state(v)=active\},1/n$)\Comment{$V_i$ -- leaders}
\State Each element $v\in V_i$ sets $state(v)\gets leader$ and transmits successfully
\State \tj{using constant dilution (see Corollary~\ref{cor:dilsuc})}
\State Simultaneously, for each $v\in V$ which can hear $u\in\text{box}(v)$: $state(v)\gets passive$
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{lemma}\labell{l:lead:empty}
Let $C$ be a box of the pivotal grid and $l\in{\mathbb N}$.
Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$|V_C(l+1)|\leq |V_C(l)|/2$;
\item
If $V_C(l+1)$ is empty, then the smallest distance between elements of $V_C(l)$ is at least $1/n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Similarly as in Section~\ref{s:anonymous}, our algorithm implicitly builds matchings
in the graphs whose vertices are $V_C(l)$ and an edge connects such $u$ and $v$ that
$u$ can hear $v$ and $v$ can hear $u$ during an execution of $S$.
Note that the station $v\in V_C(l)$ belongs to $V_C(l+1)$ only if
the following conditions are satisfied:
\tj{
\begin{itemize}
\item
$v=\min(X_u)$;
\item
$u=\min(X_v)$;
$v<u$
\end{itemize}
for some $u\in V_C(l)$. That is, only elements of the matching belong to
$V_C(l+1)$ and exactly one element from each matched pair belongs to $V_C(l+1)$.}
Therefore, the inequality $|V_C(l+1)|\leq |V_C(l)|$ holds. This gives
item 1 of the lemma.
\tj{As for item 2, assume that $V_C(l)$ is not empty. Observe that $V_C(l+1)$ is
not empty if there exist $v,u\in V_C(l)$ such that $v$ can hear $u$
and $u$ can hear $v$. (Indeed, $v\in V_C(l+1)$ for the smallest $v\in V_C(l)$ such that $v$ can hear $u$
and $u$ can hear $v$ for some $u\in V_C(l)$.) However, such $v$ and $u$ exist if the smallest
distance between elements of $V_C(l)$ is at least $\frac1{n}$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:closer}.
}
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\labell{t:leader:general}
Algorithm LeaderElection chooses the leader in each box of the pivotal grid containing
at least one element of $V$ in $O(\log n\log N)=O(\log^2 N)$ rounds, provided $\alpha>2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Time complexity $O(\log^2n)$ follows immediately from the bounds on the size of selectors
and complexity of GranLeaderElection.
Lemma~\ref{l:lead:empty}.1 implies that $V_C(l)=\emptyset$ for each box $C$ and $l>\log n$.
(In other words, $ph(v)\leq\log n$ for each $v\in V$.)
Moreover, by Lemma~\ref{l:lead:empty}.2, the smallest distance between stations of $V_C(l_0)$ is at least $1/n$,
where $l_0=\max_l\{V_C(l)\neq\emptyset\}$. In other words the smallest distance between stations of
$\{v\in V\,|\, ph(v)=l_0, state(v)=active\}$ is $\geq 1/n$, where $l_0$ is the largest
number $l$ such that $ph(v)=l$ for some $v\in V$.
Let us focus on a box $C$ which contains at least one station from $V$.
Selection stage (the for-loop in lines 13-16) tries to choose the leader of $C$ among
$V_C(\log n), V_C(\log n-1), \ldots$. Moreover, when the leader is elected, all stations
from $C$ are switched off (i.e., their state is set to passive which implies that they
do not attend further GranLeaderElection executions).
Since $l_0=\max_l(V_C(l)\neq\emptyset)\leq\log n$
and the smallest distance between elements of $V_C(l_0)$ is $\geq 1/n$, each execution of GranLeaderElection
is applied on a set of stations with the smallest distance between stations $\geq 1/n$, and therefore the leader
in each box $C$ containing (at least one) element of $V$ is chosen by LeaderElection.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Broadcasting Protocol}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:broadcast:general} implements our broadcasting algorithm which repeats leader
election procedure several times and each station is ``switched off'' after it is elected a leader of its box
(assuring that each leader $v$ transmits the broadcast message successfully to all station
accessible from $v$).
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{GeneralBroadcast($V,n$)}
\label{alg:broadcast:general}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State The source transmits the broadcast message
\State $V_1\gets \{v\in V\,|\, v\mbox{ received the broadcast message}\}$
\For{$i=1,2,\ldots,D\Delta$}
\State LeaderElection($V_{i},n$)
\State $V_{i+1}\gets\{v\in V\,|\, state(v)\neq leader, v\mbox{ received the broadcast message}\}$
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{theorem}\labell{t:broadcast:general}
Algorithm GeneralBroadcast finishes broadcasting in $O(D\Delta\log^2 N)$ rounds in ad hoc networks, provided that
$\alpha>2$ and each station knows $N,D$ and $\Delta$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $P$ be a shortest path in the network graph from the source to a station $v$. Then, the length
of $P$ is at most $D$. Theorem~\ref{t:leader:general} guarantees that each station $v$
is elected a leader of its box $C$ after at most $\Delta$ executions of LeaderElection
following the execution in which $v$ receives the broadcast message. Moreover, a station elected
the leader of its box successfully sends the broadcast message to all its neighbors in the
network graph. Therefore, the broadcast message arrives to the last vertex of $P$ in
$O(D\Delta\log^2N)$ rounds.
\end{proof}
In order to implement Algorithm GeneralBroadcast, the knowledge of $n$, $D$ and $\Delta$ is required.
However, if $n$ is not known, one can implement LeaderElection in $O(\log^2N)$ rounds using the
bound $n\leq N$. Moreover, each station $v$ which is elected a leader of its box in GeneralBroadcast,
does not attend the protocol after the execution of LeaderElection
in which it is chosen a leader.
And, each station is eventually elected a leader.
Therefore, instead of the for-loop repeated $D\Delta$ times, it is sufficient that each station
participates in the protocol until its state changes to the value $leader$. This observation leads
to the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\labell{c:broadcast:general}
One can build a protcol which finishes broadcasting in $O(D\Delta\log^2 N)$ rounds in ad hoc networks, provided that
$\alpha>2$ and each station knows merely $N$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Lower Bounds} \labell{s:lower}
\tj{
In this section we provide lower bounds which are close
to the the upper bounds provided so far. (In fact, they
leave the gap $O(\log N)$ in most cases.)
}
For a network with distinguished source station $s$, $L_i$ denotes the set
of nodes in distance $i$ from $s$ in the communication graph (thus, in particular, $L_0=\{s\}$
and $L_1$ is equal to the set of neighbors of $s$).
\begin{theorem}\labell{t:lower:log}
There exists an infinite family of networks requiring
$\Omega(n\log N)$ rounds in order to accomplish deterministic
ad hoc broadcasting in the SINR model without local knowledge.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First, we describe a family of networks $\mathcal{F}$ such that
broadcasting in SINR requires time $\Omega(D\log N)$.
Each element of $\mathcal{F}$ is formed as a sequential composition
of $D$ networks $V_1,\ldots,V_D$ of eccentricity $3$ each, such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item
the source $s$ is connected with two nodes $v_1,v_2$ in $L_1$ with arbitrary
IDs;
\item
$v_1,v_2$ are connected with $w$, the only element of $L_2$, and satisfy
the condition:
\begin{equation}\label{e:dist}
P\cdot\text{dist}(v_1,w)^{-\alpha}=P\cdot\text{dist}(v_2,w)^{-\alpha}-{\mathcal N}/2.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
Moreover, we assume that $\beta=1$. Finally, sequential composition of networks
$V_1,\ldots,V_D$ stands for identifying \tj{the element $w$} of network component $V_i$
with the source $s$ of network component $V_{i+1}$.
Note that if $v_1$ and $v_2$ transmit simultaneously in a network component $V_i$, the
message is {\em not} received
by $w$. Using simple counting argument, one can force
such choice of IDs of $v_1$ and $v_2$ that $\Omega(\log N)$ rounds are
necessary until a round in which exactly one of $v_1,v_2$ transmits
a message under the SINR model.
Since $D=\Theta(n)$ in the above construction,
the bound $\Omega(n\log N)$ holds.
\end{proof}
\remove
For the purpose of lower bounds, we assume no background noise;
this allows us to simplify the presentation by using ranges instead of the whole SINR expressions.
Note however that the same results can be proved
using the analogous arguments (with additional constant scaling to overcome the impact of fixed
background noise) for any fixed value of background noise.
\begin{theorem}\labell{th:lower}
For any deterministic broadcasting algorithm ${\mathcal A}$
and for every $D\geq 3$ and $\Delta\ge 4$, there exists a network of at most $D\Delta$ nodes with eccentricity
$D$ and maximal degree $\Delta$ on which algorithm ${\mathcal A}$ completes broadcasting in $\Omega(D\Delta)$
rounds.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\gamma=1/\sqrt{2}$.
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a family of networks $F_j$, for $1\le j\le\Delta$,
of eccentricity $3$ which consist of three layers:
\begin{itemize}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item
the source $s$,
located in the origin point $(0,0)$,
is the only element of $L_1$;
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item
$L_2$ consists of $\Delta$ nodes $v_0,\ldots,v_{\Delta-1}$, where the position of $v_i$
is $(\gamma\cdot \frac{i}{\Delta}, \gamma)$ for $0\le i\le\Delta-1$;
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item
$L_3$ contains only one node $w_j$ with coordinates
$(\gamma\cdot\frac{j}{\Delta},\gamma+1)$.
\end{itemize}
Thus, the family $\mathcal{F}$ consists of $\Delta$ elements, each network $F_j\in \mathcal{F}$ is
uniquely determined by the
value $j$ fixing the position of node $w_j\in L_3$.
In what follows, we assume that the ranges of $s$ and $v_0,\ldots,v_{\Delta-1}$ are
equal to $1$.
Then,
\begin{itemize}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item
$v_0,\ldots,v_{\Delta-1}$ are in the range area of $s$;
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item
$w_j$ is in the range of $v_j$ and it is not in the range of any other station from $L_1\cup L_2$;
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item
if more than $2^{\alpha/2}$ stations from $L_2$ transmit in a round, node $w_j$ cannot hear a message.
\end{itemize}
\vspace*{-1ex}
The first two bullets follow directly from the location of points and the value of range.
The last bullet holds because the minimum (maximum) of the distances between $v_i$ and $w_j$ is larger
than or equal to $1$ (smaller than $\sqrt{2}$), which guarantees that
$SIR(v_i,w_j,\mathcal{T})$
is smaller than $1$ for each of the transmitting stations $v_i$
if $|\mathcal{T}\cap L_2|\geq 3$, where $\mathcal{T}$ is the set of transmitting stations.
Consider any broadcasting algorithm ${\mathcal A}$.
We specify an adversary
who simultaneously, round after round, decides
what is heard by stations in $L_1\cup L_2$ in consecutive rounds of ${\mathcal A}$
and restricts the family of considered networks $\mathcal{F}$ to the networks on which
such answers are valid.
The goal of the adversary is to
prevent the arrival of a message to $w_j$ as long as possible.
Assume that the source sends the broadcast message to all nodes in $L_1$ in round $0$.
The adversary determines the family $\mathcal{F}_t$, for every $t\leq \lfloor\Delta/2\rfloor-1$, in the following
way:
\begin{enumerate}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item $\mathcal{F}_0\leftarrow \mathcal{F}$
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item $c\gets \lceil 2^{\alpha/2}\rceil$
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item For $t=1,2,\ldots, \lfloor \Delta/c\rfloor -1$ do:
\begin{enumerate}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item
if $v_{i_1}, \ldots, v_{i_{c'}}$ are the only stations from $L_1$ that transmit
a message in the $t$-th round of ${\mathcal A}$
on the networks from $\mathcal{F}_{t-1}$, and $c'\leq c$ \\
then
$\mathcal{F}_t\leftarrow \mathcal{F}_{t-1}\setminus\{F_{i_1},\ldots,F_{i_c}\}$;
\vspace*{-.5ex}
\item
otherwise, $\mathcal{F}_t\leftarrow \mathcal{F}_{t-1}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\vspace*{-1ex}
One can easily verify that, for each $t\leq \lfloor \Delta/c\rfloor -1$,
the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item
$\mathcal{F}_t$ is not empty;
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item
the history of communication
(i.e., messages/noise heard by all stations in consecutive rounds)
is the same in each network from $\mathcal{F}_t$ up to the round $t$;
\vspace*{-1ex}
\item
$w_j$ does not
receive the broadcast message by round $t$ in the execution of ${\mathcal A}$ on any network in~$\mathcal{F}_t$.
\end{itemize}
\vspace*{-1ex}
This provides the claimed lower bound for constant eccentricity $D$.
In order to generalize this bound for arbitrary $D$, one can
consider a family of networks which consists of $(D-1)/2$ networks
from $\mathcal{F}$
shifted
such that the source of the $i$th
network is equal to the only element in layer
$L_3$
in the $(i-1)$st
network,
for $2\le i\le (D-1)/2$.
The above strategy of the adversary
can be applied sequentially to every subsequently shifted network from $\mathcal{F}$, to gain
the multiplicative factor $D$.
Note also that the size of the obtained network is $\frac{D-1}{2}\cdot (\Delta+1)+1\le D\Delta$,
its maximum degree is $\Delta$ and its eccentricity is $\frac{D-1}{2}\cdot 2 +1=D$.
\remove
Now, consider the nonuniform known model~(b). First, let us concentrate
on the networks from $\mathcal{F}$. If the range of
\dk{$w_j\in L_3$}
is smaller than
$1$ then the position of $w_j$ is unknown to the nodes of $L_1\cup L_2$
\dk{in network $F_j$, for any $1\le j\le \Delta$,}
and the above lower bound $\Omega(\Delta)$ applies for the family $\mathcal{F}$.
Note that the largest distance between $s$ and any element
\dk{in $L_2$}
is $d=d(s, v_{\Delta-1})<1$. Therefore, if the range of $w_j$ in network $F_j$
from $\mathcal{F}$ is equal to $d$, we can combine $D$ networks from $\mathcal{F}$ as
above for model~(a) and obtain the same bound $\Omega(D\Delta)$.
Finally, for model~(c), it is sufficient to increase the range of each node $w_j$
in the last shifted copy of the network in $\mathcal{F}$ in such a way that $s$ is in its range area.
\end{proof}
As we argue next,
the complexity of broadcasting depends also on granularity of the network.
\begin{corollary}\labell{cor:lowerGranularity}
For any deterministic broadcasting algorithm ${\mathcal A}$ in
unknown uniform model,
and for any each $D\geq 3$ and $g\ge 4$, there exists a network with eccentricity
$D$ and granularity $g$ on which algorithm ${\mathcal A}$ completes broadcasting in $\Omega(D g)$
rounds.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Note that granularity of the family of networks considered in the proof of
Theorem~\ref{th:lower} is $\Omega(\Delta)$, which immediately gives the claimed
result.
\end{proof}
\tj
Finally, we make an observation that one can transform lower bounds from
Theorems~\ref{t:lower:log} and \ref{th:lower} to the case of randomized algorithms.
We sketch an idea of these transformations by considering networks from the family $\mathcal{F}$
described in Theorem~\ref{th:lower}. Recall that each element of the layer $L_2$ should
transmit as the only element of $L_2$ in order to guarantee that the only element of $L_3$
is informed, regardless of its location. However, by simple counting arguments, the expectation
of the number of steps after which some of elements of $L_2$ transmit as the only ones is
$\Omega(\Delta)$.
}
\section{Conclusions}
In this work we provided several novel algorithmic techniques for broadcasting in ad hoc wireless
networks with uniform power,
supported by theoretical analysis. We also discovered that the lack of knowledge
about stations on close proximity results in substantially higher performance cost
for majority of network parameters $D,\Delta$, and even randomization does not help much.
The main open problem is to extend this study to networks with non-uniform power
and to other fundamental communication problems.
|
\section{Introduction}
Multiscale methods for modelling and simulation of microscopic features in crystalline materials have been very attractive to researchers of material sciences and applied mathematics in past two decades.
In these modelling methods it is assumed that there is an underlying atomistic model which is the ``exact" description of a material associated with certain lattice structure.
Direct atomistic simulations using the ``exact" model may not be feasible because of its huge number of degree of freedoms.
The quasicontinuum (QC) approximation is a popular method to dramatically reduce the degrees of freedom of the underlying atomistic model. It was put forward in \cite{TadmorPhillipsOrtiz1996} for a simple lattice system and in \cite{TadmorSmithBernsteinEtAl1999} for a complex lattice system.
Besides extensive application of the QC approximation in practical material simulations, there have been growing interest in rigorously analyzing the convergence of the QC approximation or the error between the ``correct" and the ``approximate'' solutions, see, e.g., \cite{
DobsonLuskin2009a,
DobsonOrtnerShapeev2012,
EMing2007,
GunzburgerZhang2010,
Lin2003,
Lin2007,
MakridakisSuli,
MingYang2009,
OrtnerShapeev2011,
OrtnerTheil,
OrtnerZhang2011,
VanKotenLiLuskinEtAl2012,
VankotenOrtner2012},
as well as a number of works attemping to design more accurate coarse-grained algorithms, see, e.g., \cite{LiLuskinOrtner2011, LuskinOrtnerVankoten2011, OrtnerZhang2011, Shapeev2011, Shapeev2012}.
However, most of the works, with the exception of \cite{EMing2007} and \cite{VankotenOrtner2012}, are for crystalline materials with a simple lattice structure.
In this paper we consider a problem of equilibrium of an atomistic crystalline material with a complex lattice structure. The essential step in reducing the degrees of freedom is to coarse-grain the problem. The QC is one of the most efficient methods of coarse-graining the atomistic statics. The idea behind the QC is to introduce a piecewise affine constraints for the atoms in regions with smooth deformation and use the Cauchy-Born rule to define the energy of the corresponding groups of atoms. To formulate the QC method for crystals with complex lattice (for short, complex crystals) one must account for relative shifts of simple lattices which the complex lattice is comprised of \cite{TadmorSmithBernsteinEtAl1999}.
Our approach to model complex lattices is the framework of discrete homogenization, developed in our earlier paper \cite{AbdulleLinShapeev2010}.
We note that the idea of applying homogenization to atomistic media has appeared in the literature \cite{BaumanOdenPrudhomme2009, ChenFish2006, Chung2004, ChungNamburu2003, FishChenLi2007}.
We also note that the method considered in this paper is essentially equivalent to the QC for complex crystals, being put in the framework of numerical homogenization \cite{AbdulleLinShapeev2012}.
However, the rigorous discrete homogenization procedure and related numerical method allow us to derive error estimates for the homogenized QC method, when compared to the
solution of discretely homogenized atomistic equations.
It also allows, by a reconstruction procedure, to approximate the original full atomistic solution. To the best of our knowledge,
such error estimates are new. As in many numerical homogenization
techniques for PDEs, there is no need for our numerical approximation to derive
homogenized potential before-hand, since the effective potential is computed
on the fly (see, e.g., \cite{AEE12, EEL2007}). In addition, we note that the $H^1$ error estimates in our earlier unpublished paper \cite{AbdulleLinShapeev2010} are derived in one dimension for linear nearest neighbour interactions. In this paper we consider fully nonlinear multi-neighbour interactions which are technically much more difficult. Further, we will derive $W^{1,\infty}$ error estimates, which are more suitable for nonlinear interaction and are technically harder than those in the $H^1$ norm, and are rarely obtained even in the simple lattice case (the only estimates in $W^{1,\infty}$ norm that we know of are \cite{Lin2003,OrtnerSuli2008}).
Also, we remark that we establish an equivalence of the coarse-grained homogenized model and the atomistic homogenized model (Lemma \ref{lem:magic}), which significantly simplifies the $W^{1,\infty}$ error analysis of the QC method.
Finally, we derive both a priori and a posteriori error estimates.
The regularity results of this paper are similar to those in \cite{EMing2007}.
The main difference is that our results do not require a very high regularity of the external forces that was assumed in \cite{EMing2007} (where, essentially, the highly smooth external forces were necessary for using inverse inequalities to get a $W^{1,\infty}$ convergence from an $H^1$-stability).
Another related homogenization approach is the $\Gamma$ convergence (see, e.g., \cite{AlicandroCicalese2004, AlicandroCicaleseGloria2011}) which is an excellent technique of finding the effective macroscopic energy from the microscopic interaction law, but does not yield the rates of convergence of the minimizers of the microscopic model and the homogenized model.
The paper is organized as follows.
In Section \ref{sec:method_formulation} we formulate the multiscale method for multilattices and state our main assumptions.
In Section \ref{sec:inf-sup-conditions-and-regularity} we prove the inf-sup condition and regularity for the atomistic and the homogenized
equations.
In Section \ref{sec:analysis_hqc} we prove convergence of the approximate solutions to the exact ones.
Finally, in Section \ref{sec:numeric} we present numerical results that support our analysis.
\section{Method Formulation and Main Results} \label{sec:method_formulation}
In this section after introducing the principal notations used throughout the paper, we recall the
equations for the equilibria of multilattices and describe our multiscale numerical method.
We then state our main convergence results.
\subsection{Atomistic Displacement and Function Spaces}
We consider an (undeformed) lattice of $N$ atoms, ${\mathcal L}=\{{\epsilon}, 2{\epsilon}, \ldots, N{\epsilon}\}$, repeated periodically to occupy the entire ${\epsilon}{\mathbb Z}$.
The positions of an atom $x\in{\mathcal L}$ in the deformed configuration is $x+u(x)$, where $u=u(x)$ is the displacement.
We will consider only ${\epsilon} N$-periodic displacements, i.e., such that $u(x+{\epsilon} N) = u(x)$, thus effectively reducing the system to a finite number of degrees of freedom.
For convenience we choose ${\epsilon} = \smfrac1N$.
The space of ${\epsilon} N$-periodic functions is denoted as
\[
{\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})= \big\{u: {\epsilon}{\mathbb Z}\to{\mathbb R}: \ u(x) = u(x+{\epsilon} N)~\forall x\in {\epsilon}{\mathbb Z} \big\}.
\]
and its subspace of functions with zero average as
\[
{\mathcal U}_{\#}({\mathcal L})= \big\{u\in {\mathcal U}({\mathcal L}):~\<u\>_{\mathcal L}=0\big\},
\]
where the discrete integration (averaging) operator $\<\bullet\>_{\mathcal L}$ is defined for $u\in {\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$
by
\[
\<u\>_{\mathcal L} := \frac{1}{N}\sum_{x\in{\mathcal L}} u(x).
\]
We sometimes also use the notation $\<u(x)\>_{x\in{\mathcal L}}$ for $\<u\>_{\mathcal L}$.
Also, for $u,v\in {\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$ we define the pointwise product, $uv$, by
\[
uv(x) = u(x) v(x)
\quad \forall x\in {\epsilon}{\mathbb Z},
\]
and the scalar product
\[
\<u,v\>_{\mathcal L} := \<u v\>_{\mathcal L} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{x\in{\mathcal L}} u(x)\, v(x).
\]
We will only consider displacements $u\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L})$ since for more general displacements
$
u(x) = F x + \hat{u}(x),
$
with $F\in{\mathbb R}$ and $\hat{u}\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L})$,
we can adsorb $F x$ into the reference positions as $u(x) = (x + F x) + \hat{u}(x)$ and rescale the spatial coordinate as $\hat{x} = x + Fx$.
For $u=u(x)\in {\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$ we introduce the $r$-step discrete derivative ($r\in{\mathbb Z},r\neq 0$),
\[
D_{x,r} u(x) := \frac{u(x+r{\epsilon})-u(x)}{r{\epsilon}}.
\]
For $r=1$ the forward discrete derivative $D_{x,1} u$ we will sometimes simply be written as $D_x u$.
In addition to differentiation operators,
we also define for $u\in {\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$, the translation operator
$T_x u\in {\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$,
\[
T_x u(x) := u(x+{\epsilon}).
\]
Then the $r$-step translation ($r\in{\mathbb Z}$) can be expressed as a power of $T_x$,
$
T_x^r u(x) = u(x+r{\epsilon}).
$
Finally, introduce an averaging operator,
\[
A_{x,r} := \frac1r \sum_{k=0}^{r-1} T_x^k,
\quad(r\in{\mathbb Z},~r>0)
\]
so that we can write $D_{x,r} = A_{x,r} D_x$ ($r>0$).
On the function space ${\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$ we define the family of norms
\[
\|u\|_q := \big(\<|u|^q\>_{\mathcal L}\big)^{1/q}
\quad(1\leq q<\infty),
\qquad\text{and}\quad
\|u\|_\infty := \max_{x\in{\mathcal L}} |u(x)|,
\]
and seminorms
\[
|u|_{m,q} := \|D^m u\|_q
\quad(1\leq q\leq \infty, ~m\in{\mathbb Z},~m\geq 0).
\]
The seminorms $|u|_{m,q}$ are extended for negative $m$ as
\begin{align*}
|u|_{m,q} :=~&
\sup \big\{\<u,v\>_{\mathcal L} \,:~ v\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L}), |v|_{-m,q'}=1 \big\}
\\~& \quad (1\leq q\leq \infty,~ (q')^2+q^2=1,~ m\in{\mathbb Z},~ m<0).
\end{align*}
Note that $|u|_{m,q}$ are proper norms in ${\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L})$ for all $m\in{\mathbb Z}$.
Hence we denote spaces ${\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$ and ${\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L})$, equipped with the respective norms, as ${\mathcal U}^{0,q}({\mathcal L})$ and ${\mathcal U}^{m,q}_\#({\mathcal L})$.
We will also work with the lattice ${\mathcal P}=\{1,2,\ldots,p\}$.
For lattice functions $\eta=\eta(y)\in{\mathcal U}({\mathcal P})$ we define the operators ($D_y$, $D_{y,r}$, $T_y$, and $A_{y,r}$) and the norms similarly to functions in ${\mathcal U}({\mathcal P})$, noting that the lattice spacing of ${\mathcal P}$ is $1$ whereas the lattice spacing of ${\mathcal L}$ is ${\epsilon}$.
For functions of two variables, $v=v(x,y)\in {\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})\otimes{\mathcal U}({\mathcal P})$, we will denote the full derivatives, translation, and averaging, by
$T := T_x T_y$, $D_r := \smfrac1{r {\epsilon}} (T^r-I)$, $D := D_1$, $A_r := \frac1r \sum_{k=0}^{r-1} T^k$.
Notice that the variables $x$ and $y$ are not symmetric in the definition of derivatives.
If a function does not depend on $y$ then the full derivatives coincide with the derivatives in $x$ (likewise for translation and averaging).
Hence, for functions of $x$ only, we will often omit the subscript $x$ in the operators $D_x$, $T_x$, $A_{x,r}$.
The following lemma, whose proof is straightforward and will be omitted, collect the useful facts about the above operators
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:operator-facts}
(a)
For any $v\in{\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$, $r\in{\mathbb Z}$, $r>0$
the following estimates hold:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:D_r_estimate}
\|D_r v\|_q = \|A_r D v\|_q \leq~& \|D v\|_q
,
\\ \label{eq:Dr-D_estimate}
\|D_r v - D v\|_q = \frac{{\epsilon}}r \bigg\|\sum_{k=1}^{r-1} k D_k D v\bigg\|_q \leq~& \smfrac12 {\epsilon} (r-1)\, \|D^2 v\|_q
.
\end{align}
(b) For any $v\in{\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})\otimes{\mathcal U}({\mathcal P})$, $r\in{\mathbb Z}$, $r>0$ the following estimate holds:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Ar_Ayr_estimate}
\|A_r v - A_{y,r} v\|_q
=
\frac{{\epsilon}}r \bigg\|
\sum_{k=1}^{r-1} k D_{x,k} T_y^k v
\bigg\|
\leq \smfrac12 {\epsilon} (r-1)\, \|D_x v\|_q
.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Atomistic Interaction and Equilibrium}
The energy of interaction of two atoms, $x\in{\mathcal L}$ and $x+{\epsilon} r\in{\mathcal L}$ depends on three variables: the distance $u(x+r {\epsilon})-u(x)$ between atoms $x$ and $x+{\epsilon} r$, and their positions in the reference configuration that are needed to account for different species of atoms.
We denote such energy using a family of functions $\Phi^{\epsilon}_r(D_{x,r} u(x); x)$, where, for a fixed $r\in{\mathbb Z}^+$, $\Phi^{\epsilon}_r$ is defined on (a subset of) ${\mathbb R}\times{\mathcal L}$.
The total interaction energy of the atomistic system is thus
\begin{equation}\label{eq:E_def}
E(u)
=
\bigg\<\sum_{r=1}^R \Phi^{\epsilon}_r(D_r u)\bigg\>_{\mathcal L}
\quad=~
\bigg\<\sum_{r=1}^R \Phi^{\epsilon}_r(D_{x,r} u(x); x)\bigg\>_{x\in{\mathcal L}}
,
\end{equation}
where $R$ is effectively the interaction radius (measured in the reference configuration).
The equations of equilibrium are thus
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:equilibrium}
\text{find $u\in{\mathcal U}_\#$ s.t.:}\qquad
\<\delta\hspace{-1pt} E(u), v\>_{\mathcal L} := \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d} t} E(u+tv)\big|_{t=0} = \<f, v\>_{\mathcal L}
\quad \forall v\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L})
,
\end{equation}
where $f\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L})$ is an external force.
Here $\delta\hspace{-1pt} E:{\mathcal U}({\mathcal L}) \to {\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$ is the Gateaux derivative of $E:{\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})\to{\mathbb R}$.
\subsection{Multilattice and Homogenization}
The atoms ${\mathcal L}$ are assumed to be of $p$ different species located periodically on ${\mathcal L}$, and we assume that $N\in p{\mathbb Z}$.
We index the atom species with ${\mathcal P}=\{1,2,\ldots, p\}$.
Note that a lattice functions $\eta=\eta(y)\in{\mathcal U}({\mathcal P})$ can be related to a lattice function $\eta^{\epsilon}=\eta(x/{\epsilon}) \in {\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$.
We define $\Phi_r$ on an open subset of ${\mathbb R}\times{\mathcal P}$ as $\Phi_r\big(\bullet; y\big) := \Phi^{\epsilon}_r\big(\bullet; {\epsilon} y\big)$ for a fixed $r$.
Due to periodicity of the microstructure, the dependence of $\Phi_r$ on $y$ is assumed to be $p$-periodic, i.e. $\Phi_r(z; \bullet)\in{\mathcal U}({\mathcal P})$ for all $z$.
For convenience of notations (e.g., in \eqref{eq:E_def} or \eqref{eq:Phi0}), we further identify, for a fixed $r$, the family of $p$ scalar functions $\Phi_r(\bullet; y)$, $y\in{\mathcal P}$, with the function $\Phi_r : {\mathcal U}({\mathcal P})\supset U\to{\mathcal U}({\mathcal P})$ by identifying $\Phi_r(w(y), y)$ with $[\Phi_r(w)](y)$. (Here ${\mathcal U}({\mathcal P})\supset U\to{\mathcal U}({\mathcal P})$ denotes a function from an open subset $U$ of ${\mathcal U}({\mathcal P})$ with values in ${\mathcal U}({\mathcal P})$.)
We apply a homogenization to the atomistic energy to average out the microstructure; more precisely, to average out the dependence on $y\in{\mathcal P}$.
The homogenized interaction (see \cite{AbdulleLinShapeev2010} for the details) is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Phi0}
\Phi^0(z)
:=
\sum_{r=1}^R \<\Phi_r(z+ D_{y,r} \chi(z; y); y)\>_{y\in{\mathcal P}}
\quad=~
\sum_{r=1}^R \<\Phi_r(z+ D_{y,r} \chi(z))\>_{\mathcal P}
,
\end{equation}
where for a fixed $z\in{\mathbb R}$, $\chi(z)\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal P})$ solves the micro problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:chi}
\sum_{r=1}^R \<\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z+D_{y,r} \chi(z)), D_{y,r} \eta\>_{\mathcal P} =0
\quad \forall \eta\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal P}),
\end{equation}
and $\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z;y) = \smfrac{\rm d}{{\rm d} z}\Phi_r(z;y)$.
The homogenized interaction energy is $\int_{0}^1 \Phi^0(\smfrac{\rm d}\dd x u^0) {\rm d} x$, whose discretized version is
$
E^0(u^0) := \< \Phi^0(D_x u^0) \>_{{\mathcal L}}.
$
This leads to the homogenized equilibrium equations of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:homogenized}
\text{find $u^0\in{\mathcal U}_\#$ s.t.:}\qquad
\<\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(D_x u^0), D_x v\>_{\mathcal L} = \<f, v\>_{\mathcal L}
\quad \forall v\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L})
,
\end{equation}
or, written in a strong form,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:homogenized_strong}
\text{find $u^0\in{\mathcal U}_\#$ s.t.:}\qquad
-D_x[\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(D_x u^0)]=T_x f,
\end{equation}
where $D_x := D_{x,1}$.
To derive \eqref{eq:homogenized_strong} we should use $D_x^{\!\top} = -T_x^{-1} D_x$.
To extract the microstructure from the homogenized solution $u^0$, define the corrector
\begin{align}\label{eq:corr}
u^\c(x) :=~& {\mathcal I}_\# \big(u^0(x) + {\epsilon} \chi^{\epsilon}(D_x u^0(x); x)\big),
\quad \text{where}
\\
\label{eq:Ih_def}
{\mathcal I}_\# u :=~& u - \<u\>_{\mathcal L}
\end{align}
and
$
\chi^{\epsilon}(z; x) := \chi\big(z; \smfrac x{\epsilon}\big).
$
Application of ${\mathcal I}_\#$ in the definition of $u^\c(x)$ is done for convenience so that $u^\c\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L})$.
\subsection{HQC Formulation}
Define a triangulation of the region $(0,1]$ by introducing the nodes of triangulation ${\mathcal N}_h\subset{\mathcal L}$ and the elements ${\mathcal T}_h$.
Each element $T\in{\mathcal T}_h$ is defined by two nodes $\xi,\eta\in{\mathcal N}_h$ as $T={\mathcal L}\cap[\xi,\eta)$, its {\it interior} is defined as ${\rm int}(T) = {\mathcal L}\cap(\xi,\eta)$, and its size as $h_T = \eta-\xi$.
We also define the element size function, $h\in{\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$, so that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:h_def}
h(x) = h_T
\quad \forall x\in T.
\end{equation}
We consider the coarse-grained spaces ${\mathcal U}_h({\mathcal L}) \subset {\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$ and ${\mathcal U}_{h,\#}({\mathcal L}) \subset {\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L})$ of piecewise affine functions.
The space ${\mathcal U}_h({\mathcal L})$ can be characterized by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Uh_characterization}
u\in{\mathcal U}_h({\mathcal L})
\qquad\Longleftrightarrow\qquad
D u(\xi-{\epsilon})=D u(\xi) \quad\forall \xi\in{\mathcal L}\setminus{\mathcal N}_h
\end{equation}
We denote the nodal basis function of ${\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$ associated with $\xi\in{\mathcal L}$ as $w_\xi$, $w_\xi(x) := \delta_{x-\xi}$, where $\delta$ is the Kronecker delta.
The nodal basis function of ${\mathcal U}_h({\mathcal L})$ associated with $\xi\in{\mathcal N}_h$ is denoted as $w^h_\xi(x)$.
The functions $w_\xi$, $\xi\in{\mathcal L}\setminus{\mathcal N}_h$, together with $w^h_\xi$, $\xi\in{\mathcal N}_h$, form a basis of ${\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$. Denote the nodal interpolant ${\mathcal I}_h:{\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})\to {\mathcal U}_h({\mathcal L})$.
The HQC approximation to the exact atomistic problem \eqref{eq:equilibrium} is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:coarse_equation}
\text{find $u^0_h\in{\mathcal U}_{h,\#}$ s.t.:}\qquad
\<\delta\hspace{-1pt} E^0(u^0_h), v_h\>_{\mathcal L} = \<F^{h}, v_h\>_h
\quad \forall v_h \in{\mathcal U}_{h,\#}^{1,1}({\mathcal L}),
\end{equation}
where $\<\bullet, \bullet\>_h$ denotes the duality pairing of $({\mathcal U}_{h,\#}^{1,1}({\mathcal L}))^*$ and ${\mathcal U}_{h,\#}^{1,1}$, and $F^h \in \big({\mathcal U}_{h,\#}^{1,1}({\mathcal L})\big)^*$ is a numerical approximation to $f\in{\mathcal U}_\#^{-1,\infty}({\mathcal L})$.
For convenience we extend $F^{h}$ on $\big({\mathcal U}_h^{1,1}({\mathcal L})\big)^*$ by requiring $\<F^{h}, 1\>_h=0$, so that $\<F^{h}, {\mathcal I}_\# v_h\>_h = \<F^{h}, v_h\>_h$ for all $v_h\in{\mathcal U}_h$ (refer to \eqref{eq:Ih_def} for the definition of ${\mathcal I}_\#$). A numerical corrector similar to \eqref{eq:corr} can be introduced as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:corr_num}
u^\c_h := {\mathcal I}_\# \big(u^0_h + {\epsilon}\chi^{\epsilon}(D u^0_h)\big).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Main results}\label{Main}
Before stating the main results, we introduce some additional notations.
For a Banach space $X$ denote $B_x(x_0,\rho) = \{x\in X \,:~ \|x-x_0\|<\rho\}$---a ball centered at $x_0$ with the radius $\rho$---and call it the neighborhood of $x_0$ with radius $\rho$.
For a mapping $f:U\to Z$ from an open subset $U\subset X$, $\delta\hspace{-1pt}_x f(x_0)$ is its variational derivative at a point $x_0$.
When it causes no confusion, we may just write $\delta\hspace{-1pt} f(x_0)$.
If $f:X\to {\mathbb R}$ with $X$ being a Hilbert space with the scalar product $\<\bullet, \bullet\>_X$, we identify $\delta\hspace{-1pt} f(x_0)$ with an element of $X$ and write $\delta\hspace{-1pt} f(x_0)x = \<\delta\hspace{-1pt} f(x_0), x\>_X$; likewise the second derivative $\delta^2\hspace{-1pt} f(x_0)$ will be identified with a linear mapping $X\to X$: $(\delta^2\hspace{-1pt} f(x_0)x)x' = \<\delta^2\hspace{-1pt} f(x_0)x, x'\>_X$.
The space of continuous mappings $f:U\to Z$, $U$ being bounded, will be denoted as ${\rm C}(U; Z)$ with the norm $\|f\|_{\rm C}:=\sup_{x\in U} \|f(x)\|$.
The space of functions whose $k$-th derivative is continuous will be denoted as ${\rm C}^k(U; Z)$ with a seminorm $|f|_{{\rm C}^k} := \|\delta^k f\|_{\rm C}$.
A space of mappings whose $k$-th derivative ($k\geq 0$) is Lipschitz continuous will be denoted as ${\rm C}^{k,1}(U; Z)$ and the smallest Lipschitz constant of the $k$-th derivative will be denoted as $|\bullet|_{{\rm C}^{k,1}}$.
In our analysis we will often use the fact that if $f\in{\rm C}^{k+1}$ then $|f|_{{\rm C}^{k,1}}=|f|_{{\rm C}^{k+1}}$.
In what follows we will express the statement ``The quantity $f$ is bounded by a constant that may depend on
$f_1, \ldots, f_k$'' as $f\leq {\rm Const}\big(f_1, \ldots, f_k\big)$.
We make the following assumptions that will allow us to apply the framework of the implicit function theorem (refer to Appendix \ref{sec:appendix} for its precise statement).
\subsubsection*{Assumptions}
We assume that there exists a microstructure $\chi_*=\chi_*(y)\,\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal P})$ and $\rho_\Phi$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\bf 0.}]
The micro-deformation $y + \chi_*(y)$ is a strictly increasing function of $y\in{\mathbb Z}$.
This simply expresses the fact that the atoms in the reference configuration are sorted by increasing position ${\epsilon} (y + \chi_*(y))$.
\item[{\bf 1.}]
For each $r\in{\mathcal R}$ and $y\in{\mathcal P}$, the interaction potential $\Phi_r(\bullet,y)$ is defined in a neighborhood $U(y)\subset{\mathbb R}$ of $D_{y,r} \chi_*(y)$ of radius $\rho_\Phi$ and $\Phi_r(\bullet,y)\in {\rm C}^{2,1}(U(y); {\mathbb R})$.
\item[{\bf 2.}]
$\chi_*$ satisfies
\[
\sum_{r=1}^R \<\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(D_{y,r} \chi_*), D_{y,r} \eta\>_{\mathcal P} =0
\quad \forall \eta\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal P}).
\]
This assumption ensures that ${\epsilon} \chi_*(\smfrac{x}{{\epsilon}})$ is a solution to \eqref{eq:equilibrium} with $f=0$.
\item[{\bf 3.}]
Nearest neighbor interaction dominate:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:nn_dominance}
\smfrac12 \min_y \delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_1(D_{y,1} \chi_*(y); y)-\sum_{r=2}^R \max_y |\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(D_{y,r} \chi_*(y); y)| > 0.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\begin{remark}[An alternative formulation of Assumption 1]
It is useful to note the following equivalent formulation of Assumption 1 (the equivalence can be established by a straightforward calculation):
for each $r\in{\mathcal R}$ the function $\Phi_r: {\mathcal U}^{0,\infty}({\mathcal P})\supset U \to {\mathcal U}^{0,\infty}({\mathcal P})$ is defined in a neighborhood $U$ of $\chi_*\in{\mathcal U}^{0,\infty}({\mathcal P}))$ with radius $\rho_\Phi$, and $\Phi_r\in {\rm C}^{2,1}(U; {\mathcal U}^{0,\infty}({\mathcal P}))$.
\end{remark}
We next state our main results.
We start with the a posteriori result.
\begin{theorem}[a posteriori estimate]\label{th:aposteriori}
Assume that the Assumptions 0,1,2,3 hold.
For all $F^h\in B_{({\mathcal U}_{h,\#}^{1,1})^*}(0,\rho_f)$, the solution $u_h^0$ to \eqref{eq:coarse_equation} exists and is unique in $B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{1,\infty}}(\chi^{\epsilon}_*,\rho_u)$.
Moreover, the following a posteriori estimate holds:
\begin{align} \notag
|u^\c_h-u|_{1,\infty}
\leq~& \label{eq:posteriori}
{\rm Const}\big(c_0^{-1} C_\Phi^{(1,1)}\big) \max_{x\in{\mathcal N}_h} |D u^0_h(x)-D u^0_h(x-{\epsilon})|
\\~&+
c_0^{-1} \|(h-{\epsilon}) f\|_{\infty}
+ \max_{ \substack{v_h\in{\mathcal U}_{h,\#}({\mathcal L}), \\ |v_h|_{1,1}=1}} |\<F^h, v_h\>_h - \<f, v_h\>_{\mathcal L}|
.
\end{align}
Here $C_\Phi^{(1,1)}
:=
\max_{y\in{\mathcal P}} \sum_{r\in{\mathcal R}} |r \delta \Phi_r(\bullet, y)|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}$.
\end{theorem}
Note that the a posteriori error estimate has a form similar to the standard FEM estimates: there is a term based on the jumps of the solution across boundaries of elements, a term consisting of summation of the external force in the interior of elements, and a term accounting for an approximate summation of the external force.
It is worthwhile to note that for the fully refined mesh (i.e., where $h={\epsilon}$), the term $ \|(h-{\epsilon}) f\|_{\infty}$ vanishes.
The following a priori error estimate will also be shown.
\begin{theorem}[a priori estimate]\label{th:apriori}
In addition to the Assumptions 0,1,2,3, assume that
exact summation of the external force, i.e., that $\<F^h,v_h\>_h = \<f, v_h\>_{\mathcal L}$.
Then, for all $f\in B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{-1,\infty}}(0,\rho_f)$,
the solution $u_h^0$ to \eqref{eq:coarse_equation} with the exact summation of the external force $\<F^h,v_h\>_h := \<f, v\>_{\mathcal L}$ exists and is unique in $B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{1,\infty}}(\chi^{\epsilon}_*,\rho_u)$.
Moreover, the following a priori estimate holds:
\begin{align*}
|u^\c_h-u|_{1,\infty}
\leq~&
{\rm Const}\big(c_0, C_\Phi^{(1,1)}\big) \|h f\|_{\infty}
.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\section{Inf-sup conditions and regularity of for the atomistic and the homogenized equations}\label{sec:inf-sup-conditions-and-regularity}
In this section we start by showing that the Assumption 3 of Section \ref{Main}
implies the inf-sup conditions needed for the subsequent analysis.
We then establish regularity results for the atomistic solution
\eqref{eq:equilibrium}, for the
micro problem \eqref{eq:chi},
and for the homogenized solution \eqref{eq:homogenized}. These regularity results are essential
to derive the a priori and a posteriori error estimates.
\subsection{Inf-sup Conditions}
\begin{lemma}\label{thm:assumption_3a_3b}
Assumption 3 implies the following assertions:
there exists a {\it coercivity constant} $c_0>0$ such that the following inf-sup conditions hold
\begin{align}
\label{eq:micro_stability}
\inf_{ \substack{\eta\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal P}), \\ |\eta|_{1,\infty}=1}}
\sup_{ \substack{\zeta\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal P}), \\ |\zeta|_{1,1}=1}}
\sum_{r=1}^R \Big<\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(D_{y,r} \chi_*(y); y) D_{y,r}\eta, D_{y,r}\zeta\Big>_{\mathcal P}
\geq~& 2 c_0
\\
\label{eq:infsup_exact}
\inf_{ \substack{w\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L}), \\ |w|_{1,\infty}=1}}
\sup_{ \substack{v\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L}), \\ |v|_{1,1}=1}}
\sum_{r=1}^R \<\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r^{\epsilon}(D_r \chi^{\epsilon}_*) D_r w, D_r v \>_{\mathcal L}
\geq~& 2 c_0,
\\
\label{eq:infsup_homogenized}
\inf_{ \substack{w\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L}), \\ |w|_{1,\infty}=1}}
\sup_{ \substack{v\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L}), \\ |v|_{1,1}=1}}
\<\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(0) D w, D v \>_{\mathcal L} = \delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(0)
\geq~& 2 c_0,
\end{align}
where $\chi^{\epsilon}_*(x) := \chi_*\big(\smfrac x{\epsilon}\big)$ and $\Phi^0(0)$ is defined by \eqref{eq:Phi0} with $\chi(0; y) = \chi_*(y)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We start with the inf-sup condition \eqref{eq:infsup_exact}.
We use the following estimate
\begin{align}
|\<\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r^{\epsilon}(D_r \chi^{\epsilon}_*) D_r w, D_r v \>_{\mathcal L}|
\leq~& \notag
\max_x |\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r^{\epsilon}(D_r \chi^{\epsilon}_*; x)| \, \|D_r w\|_{\infty} \, \|D_r v\|_{1}
\\ \leq~& \label{eq:assumption_3a_3b:r_geq_2}
\max_x |\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r^{\epsilon}(D_r \chi^{\epsilon}_*; x)| \, \|D w\|_{\infty} \, \|D v\|_{1},
\end{align}
for all $r>1$.
For $r=1$ we use Lemma \ref{lem:sup_norm} and estimate
\begin{align} \notag
&
\inf_{ |w|_{1,\infty}=1}
\sup_{ |v|_{1,1}=1}
\<\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_1^{\epsilon}(D_r \chi^{\epsilon}_*) D w, D v \>_{\mathcal L}
\\ \geq~& \notag
\smfrac12
\inf_{ |w|_{1,\infty}=1}
\|\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_1^{\epsilon}(D_r \chi^{\epsilon}_*) D w\|_{\infty}
\\ \geq~& \label{eq:assumption_3a_3b:r_1}
\smfrac12 \min_x |\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_1^{\epsilon}(D_r \chi^{\epsilon}_*; x)|.
\end{align}
Thus, notice that \eqref{eq:infsup_exact} follows from \eqref{eq:assumption_3a_3b:r_geq_2}, \eqref{eq:assumption_3a_3b:r_1}, the assumption \eqref{eq:nn_dominance}, and the definition $\Phi_r^{\epsilon}(\bullet; x) = \Phi_r(\bullet; \smfrac x{\epsilon})$.
Proving condition \eqref{eq:micro_stability} is in all ways similar to proving \eqref{eq:infsup_exact}, with an obvious change of spaces ${\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L})$ to ${\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal P})$.
Finally, notice that \eqref{eq:infsup_homogenized} follows directly from estimating
\[
\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(0) = \sum_{r=1}^R \< \delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(D_r \chi_*(y);y) \>_{y\in{\mathcal P}} \geq 2 c_0
\]
using \eqref{eq:nn_dominance}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The condition \eqref{eq:micro_stability} is the same as requiring that the Hessian of $\sum_{r=1}^R \delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(D_{y,r} \chi_*)$ is positive definite, due to equivalence of the norms on finite-dimensional spaces.
\end{remark}
The following Lemma has been used in the proof above.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sup_norm}
For $u\in{\mathcal U}_\#$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sup_norm}
\sup_{ \substack{v\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal L}), \\ |v|_{1,1}=1}} \<u, Dv\>_{\mathcal L} \geq \smfrac12 \|u\|_{\infty}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $x_1 := {\rm argmax}|u|$.
We will assume that $u(x_1)>0$ without loss of generality (since both parts of \eqref{eq:sup_norm} are invariant w.r.t.\ \relax changing $u$ to $-u$).
Choose $x_2$ such that $u(x_2)\leq 0$ (such $x_2$ always exists for a function with zero mean) and define $v_*$ so that
\[
Dv_*(x) = \begin{cases}
\smfrac12 & x=x_1 \\
-\smfrac12 & x=x_2 \\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
We obviously have $ |v_*|_{1,1}=1$ and
\[
\<u, Dv_*\>_{\mathcal L} = \smfrac12 u(x_1) - \smfrac12 u(x_2) \geq \smfrac12 u(x_1) = \smfrac12 \|u\|_{\infty}
.
\]
\end{proof}
In the rest of the paper we will use \eqref{eq:micro_stability}--\eqref{eq:infsup_homogenized} instead of using Assumption 3 directly. Therefore, the regularity and convergence results of this paper would hold if the ${\mathcal U}^{1,\infty}$ stability result \eqref{eq:micro_stability}--\eqref{eq:infsup_homogenized} is proved using assumptions other than Assumption 3.
Note, however, that the Assumption 3 is rather standard in the case of simple lattices (i.e., no dependence on $y$)
and in the presence of only nearest neighbor interaction it can also be shown to be sharp.
\subsection{Regularity results}\label{sec:analysis_atm}
In this section we prove our main regularity results for the atomistic and homogenized solutions.
Instrumental for these results is a version of the Implicit Function Theorem (IFT) that we summarize in
the Appendix (see Theorem \ref{thm:IFT}) for the convenience of the readers.
For future use, we define
\begin{align*}
C_\Phi
:=~& \phantom{\displaystyle \max\mathstrut}
\max_{y\in{\mathcal P}} \sum_{r\in{\mathcal R}} |\Phi_r(\bullet, y)|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}
,
\\
C_\Phi^{(1)}
:=~& \phantom{\displaystyle \max_{\ell=1,2}\mathstrut}
\max_{y\in{\mathcal P}} \sum_{r\in{\mathcal R}} |\delta\Phi_r(\bullet, y)|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}
,
\\
C_\Phi^{(2)}
:=~&
\max_{\ell=1,2}
\max_{y\in{\mathcal P}} \sum_{r\in{\mathcal R}} |\delta^\ell \Phi_r(\bullet, y)|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}
, \text{ and recall}
\\
C_\Phi^{(1,1)}
=~& \phantom{\displaystyle \max\mathstrut}
\max_{y\in{\mathcal P}} \sum_{r\in{\mathcal R}} |r \delta \Phi_r(\bullet, y)|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}.
\end{align*}
\subsubsection*{Regularity of the Micro-problem}
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:microproblem}
There exist $\rho_z>0$ and $\rho_\chi>0$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)]
For all $ |z|<\rho_z$, $\chi=\chi(z)$ satisfying \eqref{eq:chi} exists in ${\rm C}^{1,1}\big((-\rho_z,\rho_z); U\big)$, is unique within the ball $U=\{\|\chi(z)-\chi_*|_{1,\infty}<\rho_\chi\}$, and
\begin{align} \label{eq:chi_estimate}
|\chi|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}
\leq~&
c_0^{-1} C_\Phi^{(1)}
\\ \label{eq:chi_der_estimate}
|\chi|_{{\rm C}^{1,1}}
\leq~&
{\rm Const}\big(c_0^{-1} C_\Phi^{(2)}\big)
.
\end{align}
\item[(b)]
The homogenized energy density $\Phi^0=\Phi^0(z)$ is well-defined by \eqref{eq:Phi0}, $\Phi^0\in{\rm C}^{2,1}\big((-\rho_z,\rho_z)\big)$, and
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Phi_0_est}
|\Phi^0|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}
\leq~&
C_\Phi
\\ \label{eq:Phi_1_est}
|\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}
\leq~&
C_\Phi^{(1)} {\rm Const}\big( c_0^{-1} C_\Phi^{(1)} \big)
\\ \label{eq:Phi_2_est}
|\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}
\leq~&
C_\Phi^{(2)} {\rm Const}\big( c_0^{-1} C_\Phi^{(2)} \big)
\\ \label{eq:infsup_homogenized_extended}
c_0 \leq~&
\inf_{|z|<\rho_z}
\inf_{ |w|_{1,\infty}=1}
\sup_{ |v|_{1,1}=1}
\<\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(z) D_r w, D_r v \>_{\mathcal L}
.
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
{\it Proof of (a)}
We will apply the IFT to the mapping
\[
F:{\mathbb R}\times {\mathcal U}^{1,\infty}_\#({\mathcal P})\to{\mathcal U}^{-1,\infty}_\#({\mathcal P})
,\quad
F(z,\chi) = -\sum_{r\in{\mathcal R}} D_{y,-r} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z+D_{y,r} \chi)
.
\]
Note that \eqref{eq:micro_stability} is exactly condition (ii) of the IFT.
Thus, to apply the IFT, we only need to establish that $F\in{\rm C}^{1,1}$.
Indeed, the following shows that $|\delta_\chi F|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}} \leq C_\Phi^{(2)}$:
\begin{align}
\notag
& |\delta_\chi F(z', \chi')-\delta_\chi F(z'', \chi'')|_{-1,\infty}
\\ =~& \notag
\sup_{ |\eta|_{1,\infty}=1}
\Big | \sum_{r\in{\mathcal R}} D_{y,-r} [\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z'+D_{y,r} \chi') -\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z''+D_{y,r} \chi'')] D_{y,r}\eta \Big|_{-1,\infty}
\\ \leq~& \notag
\sup_{ |\eta|_{1,\infty}=1}
\Big \| \sum_{r\in{\mathcal R}} [\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z'+D_{y,r} \chi') -\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z''+D_{y,r} \chi'')] D_{y,r}\eta \Big\|_{\infty}
\\ \leq~& \notag
\Big \| \sum_{r\in{\mathcal R}} \delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z'+D_{y,r} \chi')-\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z''+D_{y,r} \chi'') \Big\|_{\infty}
\\ =~& \notag
\max_{y\in{\mathcal P}} \Big|\sum_{r\in{\mathcal R}} \delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z'+D_{y,r} \chi'(y); y)-\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z''+D_{y,r} \chi''(y); y) \Big|
\\ \leq~& \notag
\max_{y\in{\mathcal P}} \sum_{r\in{\mathcal R}} |\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(\bullet, y)|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}} \big|(z'-z'')+D_{y,r} (\chi' - \chi'')\big|
\\ \leq~& \notag
\Big(\max_{y\in{\mathcal P}} \sum_{r\in{\mathcal R}} |\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(\bullet, y)|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}\Big) \big(|z'-z''|+|\chi' - \chi''|_{1,\infty}\big)
,
\end{align}
where we used \eqref{eq:D_r_estimate} (and its consequence $ |D_r u|_{-1,\infty} \leq \|u\|_{\infty}$ $\forall u\in{\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$).
The bound on $|\delta_z F|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}$ is obtained in the same manner.
We hence get existence, uniqueness, and \eqref{eq:chi_der_estimate}.
Finally, \eqref{eq:chi_estimate} is obtained from $|F|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}} \leq C_\Phi^{(1)}$ which can be proved by calculations similar to the above.
{\it Proof of (b)}
Compute the first derivative:
\[
\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(z)
=
\sum_{r=1}^R \<\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z+ D_{y,r} \chi(z)), 1+D_{y,r}\delta\hspace{-1pt}\chi(z)\>_{\mathcal P}
=
\sum_{r=1}^R \<\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z+ D_{y,r} \chi(z)), 1\>_{\mathcal P},
\]
the last step being due to \eqref{eq:chi}.
From here we get \eqref{eq:Phi_0_est} by taking maximum over $z$ and recalling that with the assumed regularity of $\Phi^0$, we have that $|\Phi^0|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}} = \|\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0\|_{{\rm C}}$.
The second derivative is
\[
\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(z) =
\sum_{r=1}^R \<\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z+ D_{y,r} \chi(z)),1+ D_{y,r} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\chi(z)\>_{\mathcal P}
.
\]
By taking ${\rm C}$- and ${\rm C}^{0,1}$-norms of this expression we get \eqref{eq:Phi_1_est} and \eqref{eq:Phi_2_est}, respectively.
The coercivity in a neighborhood of $z=0$, \eqref{eq:infsup_homogenized_extended}, is a consequence of \eqref{eq:infsup_homogenized} and continuity of $\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(z)$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection*{Regularity of the atomistic and the homogenized problems}
Define $\chi^{\epsilon}(z;x) := \chi(z;x/{\epsilon})$ and $\chi^{\epsilon}_*(x) := \chi_*(x/{\epsilon})$.
We fix $\rho_z$ and $\rho_\chi$ as given by the Theorem \ref{th:microproblem} and moreover assume that $\rho_\chi$ is chosen such that $\rho_\chi \leq {\rm Const}(1)$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:macroproblem}
There exist $\rho_f>0$ and $\rho_u>0$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] For all $f\in B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{-1,\infty}}(0,\rho_f)$, the solution $u$ of \eqref{eq:equilibrium} exists and is unique in $B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{1,\infty}}(\chi^{\epsilon}_*,\rho_u)$.
Moreover, $u=u(f) \in {\rm C}^{1,1}(B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{-1,\infty}}(0,\rho_f); B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{1,\infty}}(\chi^{\epsilon}_*,\rho_u))$,
\begin{align*}
\|\delta\hspace{-1pt}_f u\|_{\rm C}
\leq~&
c_0^{-1}
,\qquad\text{and}
\\
|\delta\hspace{-1pt}_f u|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}
\leq~&
{\rm Const}\big(c_0, C_\Phi^{(2)}\big)
.
\end{align*}
\item[(b)] For all $f\in B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{-1,\infty}}(0,\rho_f)$, the solution $u^0$ of \eqref{eq:homogenized} exists and is unique in $B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{1,\infty}}(0,\rho_u)$.
Moreover, $u^0=u^0(f) \in {\rm C}^{1,1}(B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{-1,\infty}}(0,\rho_f); B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{1,\infty}}(0,\rho_u))$ and
\begin{align} \notag
\|\delta\hspace{-1pt}_f u\|_{\rm C}
\leq~&
c_0^{-1}
,
\\ \notag
|\delta\hspace{-1pt}_f u^0|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}
\leq~&
{\rm Const}\big(c_0, C_\Phi^{(2)}\big)
,\qquad\text{and}
\\
\label{eq:D2u0_estimate}
|u^0(f)|_{2,\infty}
\leq~&
c_0^{-1}\, \|f\|_{\infty}
\quad \forall f\in B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{-1,\infty}}(0,\rho_f)
.
\end{align}
In addition, the corrected solution $u^\c = {\mathcal I}_\# (u^0 + {\epsilon} \chi^{\epsilon}(Du^0))$ is within $B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{1,\infty}}(\chi^{\epsilon}_*,\rho_u)$.
\item[(c)] The following estimates hold:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ucu_estimate}
2 \|u^\c-u\|_{\infty}
\leq~& |u^\c-u|_{1,\infty}
\leq {\epsilon} \,{\rm Const}\big(c_0^{-1} C_\Phi^{(1,1)}\big)\, |u^0|_{2,\infty}.
\\
\label{eq:u0u_estimate}
\|u^0-u\| \leq~& {\epsilon} \,{\rm Const}\big(c_0^{-1} C_\Phi^{(1,1)}\big)\, |u^0|_{2,\infty} + {\epsilon}\,{\rm Const}(p).
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
{\it Proof of (a)} consists in a direct application of the IFT to $(f,u)\mapsto \delta\hspace{-1pt} E(u)-f$.
Assumption \eqref{eq:infsup_exact} guarantees the condition (ii) of the IFT; and by doing a straightforward calculation, similar to those in part (a) of Theorem \ref{th:microproblem}, one can show the necessary regularity of this map.
Finally, one should notice that $(0, \chi^{\epsilon}_*)\mapsto 0$.
{\it Proof of (b)}. It is a standard result (cf., e.g., \cite{OrtnerSuli2008}). The proof of all the statements except \eqref{eq:D2u0_estimate} again consists in a direct application of the IFT to $(f,u^0)\mapsto \delta\hspace{-1pt} E^0(u^0)-f$ and in all way similar to the proof of (a).
To prove \eqref{eq:D2u0_estimate}, we use coercivity of the homogenized problem, \eqref{eq:infsup_homogenized_extended}.
For a fixed $x\in{\mathcal L}$ choose $\theta\in{\rm conv}\{Du^0(x), Du^0(x+{\epsilon})\}$ such that
$\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(Du^0(x+{\epsilon}))-\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(Du^0(x)) = \delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(\theta) (Du^0(x+{\epsilon})-Du^0(x))$.
By construction $\rho_u\leq \rho_z$, hence $\delta^2\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(\theta)\geq c_0>0$, therefore
\[
c_0\, |D^2 u^0(x)|
\leq
D \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(Du^0(x); x)
= -T f(x),
\]
where we used \eqref{eq:homogenized_strong},
which upon taking maximum over $x$ immediately yields \eqref{eq:D2u0_estimate}.
The possibility of choosing $\rho_u$ such that $u^\c \in B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{1,\infty}}(\chi^{\epsilon}_*,\rho_u)$ follows from $ |\chi(z)-\chi_*|_{1,\infty}<\rho_\chi$ for all $|z|<\rho_z$ which is guaranteed by Theorem \ref{th:microproblem}.
{\it Proof of \eqref{eq:ucu_estimate}.}
The first estimate in \eqref{eq:ucu_estimate} is the Poincar\'e inequality (see, e.g., \cite[Appendix A]{OrtnerSuli2008}), so we only need to prove the second estimate.
We start with using coercivity of $\delta\hspace{-1pt} E$ and the fact that $u$ and $u^0$ are solutions to \eqref{eq:equilibrium} and \eqref{eq:homogenized}:
\[
c_0 |u^\c-u|_{1,\infty}
\leq
|\delta^2\hspace{-1pt} E(\theta) (u^\c-u)|_{-1,\infty}
=
|\delta\hspace{-1pt} E(u^\c)-\delta\hspace{-1pt} E(u)|_{-1,\infty}
=
|\delta\hspace{-1pt} E(u^\c)-\delta\hspace{-1pt} E^0(u^0)|_{-1,\infty}
,
\]
with some $\theta\in{\rm conv}\{u^\c, u\}\subset B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{1,\infty}}(\chi^{\epsilon}_*,\rho_u)$.
Thus we reduced the problem to estimating the consistency error, $ |\delta\hspace{-1pt} E(u^\c)-\delta\hspace{-1pt} E^0(u^0)|_{-1,\infty}$.
Compute $\delta\hspace{-1pt} E(u^\c)$:
\begin{align}
\<\delta\hspace{-1pt} E(u^\c), v\>_{\mathcal L}
=~& \notag
\sum_{r=1}^R \<\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^{\epsilon}_r(D_r u^\c), D_r v\>_{\mathcal L}
\\ =~& \notag
\sum_{r=1}^R \big\<\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^{\epsilon}_r\big(D_r u^0 + {\epsilon} D_{r}\chi^{\epsilon}(Du^0)\big), D_r v\big\>_{\mathcal L}
\\ =~& \notag
\sum_{r=1}^R \Big\<A_r^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D_r u^0(x) + D_{y,r}\chi(Du^0(x); y)
\\ ~& \phantom{\displaystyle \sum_{r=1}^R \Big\<}
+ {\epsilon} D_{x,r}T_{y,r}\chi(Du^0(x); y) \,;\,y \big)\big|_{y=x/{\epsilon}}, D v(x)\Big\>_{x\in{\mathcal L}}
\label{eq:Euc}
\end{align}
and $\delta\hspace{-1pt} E^0(u^0)$:
\begin{align}
\<\delta\hspace{-1pt} E^0(u^0), v\>_{\mathcal L}
=~& \label{eq:E0u0}
\Big\<\Big\<\sum_{r=1}^R \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D u^0(x) + D_{y,r}\chi(D u^0(x); y)\,;\,y\big)\Big\>_{y\in{\mathcal P}}, D v(x)\Big\>_{x\in{\mathcal L}}.
\end{align}
Notice that $\chi(z)$ satisfies the equation $D_y^{\!\top}\big[\sum_{r=1}^R A_{y,r}^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z + D_{y,r}\chi(z))\big]=0$, hence $\sum_{r=1}^R A_{y,r}^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z + D_{y,r}\chi(z))$ is constant w.r.t.\ \relax $y$, hence
\begin{align}
\sum_{r=1}^R A_{y,r}^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z + D_{y,r}\chi(z; y); y)\big|_{y=x/{\epsilon}}
=~& \notag
\Big\<\sum_{r=1}^R A_{y,r}^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z + D_{y,r}\chi(z))\Big\>_{\mathcal P}
\\ =~& \label{eq:E0u0_aux}
\Big\<\sum_{r=1}^R \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(z + D_{y,r}\chi(z))\Big\>_{\mathcal P}.
\end{align}
Thus, combining \eqref{eq:Euc}, \eqref{eq:E0u0}, and \eqref{eq:E0u0_aux} yields
\begin{align*}
~& \<\delta\hspace{-1pt} E(u^\c) - \delta\hspace{-1pt} E^0(u^0), v\>_{\mathcal L}
\\ =~&
\Big\<\sum_{r=1}^R \big[
A_r^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D_r u^0(x) + D_{y,r}\chi\big(Du^0(x)\big) + {\epsilon} D_{x,r}T_{y,r}\chi\big(Du^0(x)\big) \big)
\\ ~& \phantom{\displaystyle \Big\|\sum_{r=1}^R \big[}
- A_{y,r}^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D u^0(x) + D_{y,r}\chi\big(D u^0(x); y\big) \,;\, y\big)
\big]_{y=x/{\epsilon}}, Dv(x)\Big\>_{x\in{\mathcal L}}
\\ =:~&
\Big\<\sum_{r=1}^R {\mathcal E}_r, Dv\Big\>_{\mathcal L},
\end{align*}
and hence $ |\delta\hspace{-1pt} E(u^\c) - \delta\hspace{-1pt} E^0(u^0)|_{-1,\infty} = \big \|\sum_{r=1}^R {\mathcal E}_r\big\|_{\infty}$.
In what follows we omit the arguments of $Du^0=Du^0(x)$, $\chi(Du^0) = \chi(Du^0(x); y)$, and $\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(\bullet) = \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r(\bullet; y)$, and likewise we omit assigning $y=\smfrac x{\epsilon}$ before taking the ${\mathcal U}^{0,\infty}({\mathcal L})$--norm.
We thus estimate:
\begin{align*}
\|{\mathcal E}_r\|_{\infty}
=~&\big\|
A_r^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D_r u^0 + D_{y,r}\chi\big(Du^0\big) + {\epsilon} D_{x,r}T_{y,r}\chi\big(Du^0\big) \big)
\\~& \phantom{\displaystyle \big\|}
- A_{y,r}^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D u^0 + D_{y,r}\chi\big(D u^0\big)\big)
\big\|_{\infty}
\\ \leq~&\big\|
A_r^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D_r u^0 + D_{y,r}\chi\big(Du^0\big) + {\epsilon} D_{x,r}T_{y,r}\chi\big(Du^0\big) \big)
\\~& \phantom{\displaystyle \big\|}
-
A_r^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D u^0 + D_{y,r}\chi\big(D u^0\big)\big)
\big\|_{\infty}
\\ ~&+\big\|
A_r^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D u^0 + D_{y,r}\chi\big(D u^0\big)\big)
-
A_{y,r}^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D u^0 + D_{y,r}\chi\big(D u^0\big)\big)
\big\|_{\infty}
\\ =:~& \|{\mathcal E}_r^{(1)}\|_{\infty} + \|{\mathcal E}_r^{(2)}\|_{\infty},
\end{align*}
The first term is estimated as:
\begin{align*}
\|{\mathcal E}_r^{(1)}\|_{\infty}
=~&\big\|
A_r^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D_r u^0 + D_{y,r}\chi\big(Du^0\big) + {\epsilon} D_{x,r}T_{y,r}\chi\big(Du^0\big) \big)
\\~& \phantom{\displaystyle \big\|}
-
A_r^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D u^0 + D_{y,r}\chi\big(D u^0\big)\big)
\big\|_{\infty}
\\ \leq~&\big\|
\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D_r u^0 + D_{y,r}\chi\big(Du^0\big) + {\epsilon} D_{x,r}T_{y,r}\chi\big(Du^0\big) \big)
\\~& \phantom{\displaystyle \big\|}
-
\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D u^0 + D_{y,r}\chi\big(D u^0\big)\big)
\big\|_{\infty}
\\ \leq~& |\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}\, \big\|
D_r u^0 - D u^0 + {\epsilon} D_{x,r}T_{y,r}\chi\big(Du^0\big)
\big\|_{\infty}
\\ \leq~& |\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}\, \big(
\smfrac12 {\epsilon}(r-1) |u^0|_{2,\infty} + {\epsilon} |\chi|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}} |u^0|_{2,\infty}
\big)
\\ \leq~& {\epsilon} r |\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}\, {\rm Const}\big(c_0^{-1} C_\Phi^{(1)}\big) |u^0|_{2,\infty}
,
\end{align*}
where in the second last step we used \eqref{eq:Dr-D_estimate} and $\|T_{y,r}\|_\infty \leq 1$.
To estimate the term with ${\mathcal E}_r^{(2)}$ we use \eqref{eq:Ar_Ayr_estimate}:
\begin{align*}
\|{\mathcal E}_r^{(2)}\|_{\infty}
=~&\big\|
A_r^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D u^0 + D_{y,r}\chi\big(D u^0\big)\big)
-
A_{y,r}^{\!\top} \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D u^0 + D_{y,r}\chi\big(D u^0\big)\big)
\big\|_{\infty}
\\ \leq ~&
\smfrac12{\epsilon}(r-1) \big\|D_x \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r\big(D u^0 + D_{y,r}\chi\big(D u^0\big)\big)
\big\|_{\infty}
\\ \leq ~& \smfrac12{\epsilon}(r-1)|\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}\, \big\|
D_x ( D u^0 + D_{y,r}\chi(D u^0))
\big\|_{\infty}
\\ \leq ~& \smfrac12{\epsilon}(r-1) |\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}\, \big(|u^0|_{2,\infty}+\big\|
D_x D_{y,r}\chi(D u^0)
\big\|_{\infty} \big)
\\ \leq ~& \smfrac12{\epsilon}(r-1) |\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}\, \big(|u^0|_{2,\infty}+
2 |\chi|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}} |u^0|_{2,\infty}
\big)
\\ \leq~& {\epsilon} r |\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi_r|_{{\rm C}^{0,1}}\, {\rm Const}\big(c_0^{-1} C_\Phi^{(1)}\big) |u^0|_{2,\infty}
.
\end{align*}
Summing the estimates for ${\mathcal E}_r^{(1)}$ and ${\mathcal E}_r^{(2)}$ will yield the stated result; it only remains to notice that $C_\Phi^{(1)} \leq C_\Phi^{(1,1)}$ which implies that $C_\Phi^{(1)}$ can be absorbed into $C_\Phi^{(1,1)}$.
{\it Proof of \eqref{eq:u0u_estimate}} reduces to showing $ \|\chi^{\epsilon}(Du^0)\|_{\infty}\leq{\rm Const}(p)$, since $u^0-u = (u^\c-u) - {\epsilon}\chi^{\epsilon}(Du^0)$ and $ \|u^\c-u\|_{\infty}$ has been estimated in \eqref{eq:ucu_estimate}.
We have
\[
\|\chi^{\epsilon}(z)\|_{\infty}
=
\|\chi(z)\|_{\infty}
\leq
\|\chi(z)-\chi_*\|_{\infty}
+
\|\chi_*\|_{\infty}
,
\]
where the first term can be estimated with the help of the Poincar\'e inequality
and Theorem \ref{th:microproblem}:
$ \|\chi-\chi_*\|_{\infty}
\leq \smfrac p2
|\chi-\chi_*|_{1,\infty}
<\smfrac p2 \rho_\chi$.
To estimate the second term, recall that due to Assumption 0, $y+\chi_*(y)$ is strictly increasing, hence $D \chi_*(y)\geq -1$ for all $y\in{\mathbb Z}$, hence using Lemma \ref{eq:chi_star_bound} we estimate $ \|\chi_*\|_{\infty} \leq \smfrac{p-1}2$.
The estimate \eqref{eq:u0u_estimate} is thus proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{eq:chi_star_bound}
Let $w\in{\mathcal U}_\#({\mathcal P})$ be such that $D w(y) \geq -1$ for all $y\in{\mathbb Z}$.
Then $ \|w\|_{\infty} \leq \smfrac{p-1}2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We use the following representation of $w$:
\[
w(y) = \sum_{k=1}^p \big(c-\smfrac{k}{p}\big)\, D w(y-k)
,
\]
which is valid for all $c\in{\mathbb R}$.
Choose $c=1$ and estimate
\[
w(y) \geq \sum_{k=1}^p \big(1-\smfrac{k}{p}\big)\, (-1) = -\smfrac{p-1}{2}.
\]
Likewise choose $c=\smfrac1p$ and obtain the upper bound $w(y) \leq \smfrac{p-1}2$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of the main results}\label{sec:analysis_hqc}
In this section we prove the a posteriori and a priori error estimates.
\subsection{A Posteriori Analysis}
In order to apply our regularity results to the coarse-grained equations, we will make use of the following conjugate operator ${\mathcal I}_h^*:{\mathcal U}\to{\mathcal U}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Istar}
\<{\mathcal I}_h^* w, v\>_{\mathcal L} := \<w, {\mathcal I}_h v\>_h
\quad\forall v,w\in{\mathcal U}.
\end{equation}
Note that ${\mathcal I}_h^* w$ is supported on the nodes of the triangulation ${\mathcal N}_h$ for all $w\in{\mathcal U}$, and the action of ${\mathcal I}_h^*$ on $w\in{\mathcal U}$ can be described as distributing values of $w$ from the interior of the intervals $T\in{\mathcal T}_h$ to their endpoints.
\begin{lemma}[The formulation equivalent to coarse-graining] \label{lem:magic}
The coarse-grained problem \eqref{eq:coarse_equation} is equivalent to the following (fully atomistic) problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:coarse_equiv_equation}
\text{find $u\in{\mathcal U}_\#$ s.t.:}\qquad
\<\delta\hspace{-1pt} E^0(u), v\>_{\mathcal L} = \<{\mathcal I}_h^* F^h, v\>_{\mathcal L}
\quad \forall v\in{\mathcal U}_\#^{1,1}({\mathcal L})
.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using the fact that the functions $w_\xi$ for $\xi\in{\mathcal L}\setminus{\mathcal N}_h$, together with $w^h_\xi$ for $\xi\in{\mathcal N}_h$, form a basis of ${\mathcal U}({\mathcal L})$, rewrite \eqref{eq:coarse_equation} and \eqref{eq:coarse_equiv_equation} as, respectively,
\begin{subeqnarray}\label{eq:coarse_equation_alt}
\text{find $u\in{\mathcal U}$ s.t.:}\quad & &
u\in{\mathcal U}_h
\slabel{eq:coarse_equation_alt_one}
\\
& &
\<\delta\hspace{-1pt} E^0(u), w^h_\xi\>_{\mathcal L} = \<F^{h}, w^h_\xi\>_h
\quad \forall \xi\in{\mathcal N}_h
\slabel{eq:coarse_equation_alt_two}
\\
& &
\<u\>_{\mathcal L}=0
,
\slabel{eq:coarse_equation_alt_three}
\end{subeqnarray}
and
\begin{subeqnarray}\label{eq:coarse_equiv_equation_alt}
\text{find $u\in{\mathcal U}$ s.t.:}\quad & &
\<\delta\hspace{-1pt} E^0(u), w_\xi\>_{\mathcal L} = \<{\mathcal I}_h^* F^h, w_\xi\>_{\mathcal L}
\quad \forall \xi\in{\mathcal L}\setminus{\mathcal N}_h
\slabel{eq:coarse_equiv_equation_alt_one}
\\
& &
\<\delta\hspace{-1pt} E^0(u), w^h_\xi\>_{\mathcal L} = \<{\mathcal I}_h^* F^h, w^h_\xi\>_{\mathcal L}
\quad \forall \xi\in{\mathcal N}_h
\slabel{eq:coarse_equiv_equation_alt_two}
\\
& &
\<u\>_{\mathcal L}=0
.
\slabel{eq:coarse_equiv_equation_alt_three}
\end{subeqnarray}
The equations \eqref{eq:coarse_equation_alt_three} and \eqref{eq:coarse_equiv_equation_alt_three} are identical. The equations \eqref{eq:coarse_equation_alt_two} and \eqref{eq:coarse_equiv_equation_alt_two} are also equivalent since $\<{\mathcal I}_h^* F^h, w^h_\xi\>_{\mathcal L} = \<F^{h}, {\mathcal I}_h w^h_\xi\>_h = \<F^{h}, w^h_\xi\>_h$.
It thus remains to prove equivalence of \eqref{eq:coarse_equation_alt_one} and \eqref{eq:coarse_equiv_equation_alt_one}.
Fix $\xi\in{\mathcal L}\setminus{\mathcal N}_h$.
The right-hand side of \eqref{eq:coarse_equiv_equation_alt_one} is zero, since ${\mathcal I}_h w_\xi = 0$ and hence
\[
\<{\mathcal I}_h^* F^h, w_\xi\>_{\mathcal L} = \<F^h, {\mathcal I}_h w_\xi\>_h = 0.
\]
Evaluate the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:coarse_equiv_equation_alt_one}:
\[
0 =
\<\delta\hspace{-1pt} E^0(u), w_\xi\>_{\mathcal L}
=
\<\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0(D u), D w_\xi\>_{\mathcal L}
,
\]
which in coordinate notation reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq:magic_lemma_Dtildeu}
\delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0\big(D u(\xi-{\epsilon})\big) = \delta\hspace{-1pt}\Phi^0\big(D u(\xi)\big)
.
\end{equation}
Since $\Phi^0$ is convex (cf.\ \eqref{eq:infsup_homogenized}), \eqref{eq:magic_lemma_Dtildeu} is equivalent to $D u(\xi-{\epsilon})=D u(\xi)$.
Since $\xi\in{\mathcal L}\setminus{\mathcal N}_h$ was arbitrary, it is further equivalent to $u\in{\mathcal U}_h$ (cf.\ \eqref{eq:Uh_characterization}).
\end{proof}
Lemma \ref{lem:magic} motivates us to introduce the following auxiliary problem
\begin{equation} \label{eq:aux_equation}
\text{find $u^{\rm aux}\in{\mathcal U}_\#$ s.t.:}\qquad
\<\delta\hspace{-1pt} E(u^{\rm aux}), v\>_{\mathcal L} = \<{\mathcal I}_h^* F^h, v\>_{\mathcal L}
\quad \forall v\in{\mathcal U}_\#^{1,1}({\mathcal L}).
\end{equation}
We can then apply Theorem \ref{th:macroproblem} to \eqref{eq:coarse_equation} and \eqref{eq:aux_equation} and immediately obtain the following intermediate result:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:HQC_intermediate}
For all ${\mathcal I}_h^* F^h\in B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{-1,\infty}}(0,\rho_f)$, the solution $u^{\rm aux}$ to \eqref{eq:aux_equation} and the solution $u_h^0$ to \eqref{eq:coarse_equation} both exist and are unique in $B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{1,\infty}}(\chi^{\epsilon}_*,\rho_u)$ and $B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{1,\infty}}(0,\rho_u)$, respectively.
Moreover, the respective Lipschitz bounds $u^{\rm aux}=u^{\rm aux}({\mathcal I}_h^* F^h)\in{\rm C}^{1,1}$ and $u_h^0=u_h^0({\mathcal I}_h^* F^h)\in{\rm C}^{1,1}$, and the estimates
\begin{align}
\label{eq:u_aux_estimate}
|u^{\rm aux}-u|_{1,\infty}
\leq~&
c_0^{-1} |{\mathcal I}_h^* F^h-f|_{-1,\infty},
\\ \label{eq:u_0_h_estimate}
|u^0_h|_{2,\infty}
\leq~&
c_0^{-1} \|{\mathcal I}_h^* F^h\|_{\infty},
\\ \label{eq:uhc_u_aux_estimate}
|u^\c_h-u^{\rm aux}|_{1,\infty}
\leq~&
{\epsilon}\,{\rm Const}\big(c_0^{-1} C_\Phi^{(1,1)}\big) |u^0_h|_{2,\infty},
\end{align}
hold where $u^\c_h$ is defined in \eqref{eq:corr_num}.
\end{proposition}
It remains to further estimate the respective quantities in Proposition \ref{prop:HQC_intermediate}.
First, we notice that ${\epsilon} |u^0_h|_{2,\infty}$ is nothing but the standard error indicator with jumps over elements.
Indeed, for an arbitrary $u_h\in{\mathcal U}_{h,\#}$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:aposteriori-u2}
|u_h|_{2,\infty}
=
\max_{x\in{\mathcal L}} |D^2 u_h(x)|
=
\max_{x\in{\mathcal N}_h} |D^2 u_h(x-{\epsilon})|
=
\smfrac1{\epsilon} \max_{x\in{\mathcal N}_h} |D u_h(x)-D u_h(x-{\epsilon})|
.
\end{equation}
Second, we split
\begin{align} \notag
|{\mathcal I}_h^* F^h-f|_{-1,\infty}
\leq~&
|{\mathcal I}_h^* F^h-{\mathcal I}_h^* f^h|_{-1,\infty} + |{\mathcal I}_h^* f^h-f|_{-1,\infty}
\\ \label{eq:aposteriori-fall}
=~&
\max_{ |v_h|_{1,1}=1} |\<F^h, v_h\>_h - \<f, v_h\>_{\mathcal L}|
+ |{\mathcal I}_h^* f^h-f|_{-1,\infty}
.
\end{align}
Here the first term indicates how well $F^h$ approximates the action of exact force $f$ on the finite element space ${\mathcal U}_{h,\#}$. We estimate the second term using Lemma \ref{lem:f_v_Ihv_estimate}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:aposteriori-f2}
\<{\mathcal I}_h^* f,v\>_{\mathcal L}-\<f,v\>_{\mathcal L}
=
\<f,{\mathcal I}_h v\>_{\mathcal L}-\<f,v\>_{\mathcal L}
=
\<f,{\mathcal I}_h v - v\>_{\mathcal L}
\leq
\|(h-{\epsilon}) f\|_{\infty} |v|_{1,\infty}
.
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:f_v_Ihv_estimate}
\[
\<f, v-{\mathcal I}_h v\>_{\mathcal L} \leq \|(h-{\epsilon}) f\|_{\infty} |v|_{1,\infty}
\qquad \forall f\in{\mathcal U}_\#,~\forall v\in{\mathcal U}.
\]
where $h=h(x)$ is defined by \eqref{eq:h_def}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{align*}
\<f, v-{\mathcal I}_h v\>_{\mathcal L}
=~&
{\epsilon} \sum_{T\in{\mathcal T}_h} \sum_{x\in T} f(x) [v-{\mathcal I}_h v](x)
\\ \leq~&
{\epsilon} \sum_{T\in{\mathcal T}_h} \max_{x\in T} |f(x)| \sum_{x\in T} \big|[v-{\mathcal I}_h v](x)\big|.
\end{align*}
Fix $T\in{\mathcal T}_h$, let $\xi$ and $\eta$ ($\xi<\eta$) be the two endpoints of $T$, and estimate, for $\xi<x<\eta$,
\begin{align*}
\big| [v-{\mathcal I}_h v](x) \big|
=~&
\big| v(x) - \smfrac{\eta-x}{\eta-\xi} v(\xi) - \smfrac{x-\xi}{\eta-\xi} v(\eta) \big|
\\ =~&
\big| \smfrac{\eta-x}{\eta-\xi} (v(x) - v(\xi)) - \smfrac{x-\xi}{\eta-\xi} (v(\eta)-v(x)) \big|
\\ \leq~&
|v(x) - v(\xi)| + |v(\eta)-v(x)|
\\ \leq~&
\sum_{x'\in{\mathcal L}\cap[\xi,x)} |{\epsilon} Dv(x')|
+
\sum_{x'\in{\mathcal L}\cap[x,\eta)} |{\epsilon} Dv(x')|
= {\epsilon} \sum_{x'\in T} |Dv(x')|
.
\end{align*}
If $x=\xi$ then obviously $[v-{\mathcal I}_h v](x)=0$.
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\<f, v-{\mathcal I}_h v\>_{\mathcal L}
\leq~&
{\epsilon} \sum_{T\in{\mathcal T}_h} \max_{x\in T} |f(x)|
\sum_{x\in {\rm int}(T)} {\epsilon} \sum_{x'\in T} |Dv(x')|
\\=~&
{\epsilon} \sum_{T\in{\mathcal T}_h} \max_{x\in T} |f(x)|
(h_T-{\epsilon}) \sum_{x'\in T} |Dv(x')|
\\ \leq ~&
\|(h-{\epsilon}) f\|_{\infty} \, {\epsilon} \sum_{T\in{\mathcal T}_h} \sum_{x'\in T} |Dv(x')|
.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{th:aposteriori}]
Using \eqref{eq:uhc_u_aux_estimate} and \eqref{eq:u_aux_estimate} we can estimate
\begin{align*}
|u^\c_h-u|_{1,\infty}
\leq~&
|u^\c_h-u^{\rm aux}|_{1,\infty}
+
|u^{\rm aux}-u|_{1,\infty}
\\ \leq~&
c_0^{-1} |{\mathcal I}_h^* F^h-f|_{-1,\infty}
+
{\epsilon}\,{\rm Const}\big(c_0^{-1} C_\Phi^{(1,1)}\big) |u^0_h|_{2,\infty}
.
\end{align*}
The proof is then completed using relations \eqref{eq:aposteriori-u2}, \eqref{eq:aposteriori-fall}, \eqref{eq:aposteriori-f2}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A Priori Estimate}
Recall that for the a priori error estimate we assume
the exact summation of the external force, i.e., that $\<F^h,v_h\>_h = \<f, v_h\>_{\mathcal L}$.
The a priori error estimate can essentially be obtained from the a posteriori estimate \eqref{eq:posteriori} using \eqref{eq:aposteriori-u2} and \eqref{eq:u_0_h_estimate}.
We only need to estimate $ |{\mathcal I}_h^* f^h|_{-1,\infty}$ and $ \|{\mathcal I}_h^* f^h\|_{\infty}$ (the former is needed to quantify the condition ${\mathcal I}_h^* f^h\in B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{-1,\infty}}(0,\rho_f)$) in terms of $f$.
This is done in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:apriori}
\begin{align*}
|{\mathcal I}_h^* f^h|_{-1,\infty}
\leq~&
|f|_{-1,\infty}.
\\
\|{\mathcal I}_h^* f^h\|_{\infty}
\leq~&
\smfrac1{\epsilon} \|h f\|_{\infty}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To prove the first estimate, we need to prove the ${\mathcal U}^{1,1}$ stability of ${\mathcal I}_h$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:interpolant-W11-stability}
|{\mathcal I}_h v|_{1,1} \leq |v|_{1,1}.
\end{equation}
To prove it, start with expressing
\[
|{\mathcal I}_h v|_{1,1}
=
{\epsilon} \sum_{T\in{\mathcal T}_h} \sum_{x\in T} |D {\mathcal I}_h v(x)|
.
\]
Then fix $T\in{\mathcal T}_h$, let $\xi$ and $\eta$ ($\xi<\eta$) be the two endpoints of $T$, and estimate
\[
\sum_{x\in T} |D {\mathcal I}_h v(x)|
=
\sum_{x\in T} \frac{|v(\eta)-v(\xi)|}{\eta-\xi}
=
|v(\eta)-v(\xi)|
=
\bigg|
\sum_{x\in T} Dv(x)
\bigg|
\leq
\sum_{x\in T} |Dv(x)|
.
\]
Hence \eqref{eq:interpolant-W11-stability} follows.
Now we can easily estimate $ |{\mathcal I}_h^* f^h|_{-1,\infty}$:
\[
\<{\mathcal I}_h^* f^h, v\>_{\mathcal L}
=
\<f, {\mathcal I}_h v\>_{\mathcal L}
\leq |f|_{-1,\infty} |{\mathcal I}_h v|_{1,1}
\leq |f|_{-1,\infty} |v|_{1,1},
\]
hence $ |{\mathcal I}_h^* f^h|_{-1,\infty} \leq |f|_{-1,\infty}$.
To derive the second estimate, we test ${\mathcal I}_h^* f^h$ with an arbitrary $v\in{\mathcal U}$:
\[
\<{\mathcal I}_h^* f^h, v\>_{\mathcal L}
=
\<f, {\mathcal I}_h v\>_{\mathcal L}
=
{\epsilon} \sum_{T\in{\mathcal T}_h} \sum_{x\in T} f(x) [{\mathcal I}_h v](x)
\leq
{\epsilon} \sum_{T\in{\mathcal T}_h} \max_{x\in T} |f(x)| \sum_{x\in T} |{\mathcal I}_h v|(x)
\]
Fix $T\in{\mathcal T}_h$, let $\xi$ and $\eta$ ($\xi<\eta$) be the two endpoints of $T$, and estimate
\[
{\epsilon} \sum_{x\in T} |{\mathcal I}_h v|(x)
\leq
{\epsilon} \sum_{x\in T} \big(\smfrac{\eta-x}{\eta-\xi} |v(\xi)| + \smfrac{x-\xi}{\eta-\xi} |v(\eta)|\big)
\leq
h_T \big(\smfrac12|v(\xi)| + \smfrac12 |v(\eta)|\big).
\]
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\<{\mathcal I}_h^* f^h, v\>_{\mathcal L}
\leq~&
\sum_{T\in{\mathcal T}_h} \max_{x\in T} |f(x)| h_T \big(\smfrac12|f(\xi)| + \smfrac12 |v(\eta)|\big)
\\ \leq~&
\|h f\|_{\infty} \sum_{T\in{\mathcal T}_h} \big(\smfrac12|f(\xi)| + \smfrac12 |v(\eta)|\big)
\\ =~&
\|h f\|_{\infty} \sum_{x\in{\mathcal N}_h} |v(x)|
\leq
\|h f\|_{\infty} \sum_{x\in{\mathcal L}} |v(x)|
=
\smfrac1{\epsilon} \|h f\|_{\infty} \|v\|_{1}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
The first estimate of the above lemma means that $f\in B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{-1,\infty}}(0,\rho_f)$ implies ${\mathcal I}_h^* f^h\in B_{{\mathcal U}_\#^{-1,\infty}}(0,\rho_f)$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{th:apriori}]
Follows from \eqref{eq:posteriori} using \eqref{eq:aposteriori-u2}, \eqref{eq:u_0_h_estimate}, and Lemma \ref{lem:apriori}.
\end{proof}
\section{Numerical Examples}\label{sec:numeric}
We solve numerically several model problems to illustrate the performance of HQC.
We consider a nonlinear one-dimensional model problem (Section \ref{sec:numeric:1d}), followed by a two-dimensional linear problem (Section \ref{sec:numeric:2d}).
The aim of the numerical experiments is twofold.
First, we verify numerically the sharpness of the obtained error for the 1D case.
Second, we confirm that the HQC convergence result obtained for 1D is valid in higher dimensions.
\subsection{1D}\label{sec:numeric:1d}
In the first numerical example we solve the problem \eqref{eq:equilibrium} with the period of spatial oscillation $p=2$ and number of interacting neighbors $R=3$.
The interaction potential is chosen as the Lennard-Jones potential
\[
\Phi^{\epsilon}_r(z; x)
= -2 \big(\smfrac{z}{l_{x/{\epsilon}}}\big)^{-6} + \big(\smfrac{z}{l_{x/{\epsilon}}}\big)^{-12}
\quad (1\le r\le R)
\]
with the varying equilibrium distance
\[
l_{y} = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
1 & & \textnormal{$y$ is even} \\
9/8 & & \textnormal{$y$ is odd.}
\end{array}
\right.
\]
The number of atoms is $N=2^{14}=16384$, and the external force is taken as
\[
f(x) = 50 \sin\left(1+2\pi x\right).
\]
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hfill
\includegraphics[scale=1]{fig/solution-macro.pdf}
\hfill\hfill
\includegraphics[scale=1]{fig/solution-micro.pdf}
\hfill $\mathstrut$
\end{center}
\caption{Strain $D u(x)$ of the solution of the 1D linear problem: the schematically shown complete solution (left) and the closeup of the micro-structure for 31 atoms (right).}
\label{fig:solution-linear}
\end{figure}
The (microscopic) strain $D u(x)$ for such problem is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:solution-linear}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{fig/error1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Results for the 1D problem: error of the post-processed HQC solution $u_h^\c$.
The error behaves in accordance with Theorem \ref{th:apriori}.}
\label{fig:error1}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:error1} is aimed to illustrate that the estimate in Theorem \ref{th:apriori} is sharp.
Indeed, it can be seen that the corrected homogenized HQC solution $u_h^\c$ converges to the exact solution with the first order in $h$.
\subsection{2D}\label{sec:numeric:2d}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{fig/2d-springs.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of a 2D model problem with heterogeneous interaction.}
\label{fig:2d-springs}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To illustrate the 2D discrete homogenization, we apply it to the following model problem.
The atomistic lattice is ${\mathcal L}=(0,1]^2\cap{\epsilon}{\mathbb Z}^2$ with ${\epsilon}=1/N$, the atomistic energy is
\[
E(u) = {\epsilon}^2 \sum_{x\in{\mathcal L}} \sum_{r\in{\mathcal R}} \psi_{r,\frac{x}{{\epsilon}}} \smfrac12 \big(\smfrac{u(x+{\epsilon} r)-u(x)}{{\epsilon}}\big)^2,
\]
where the set of neighbors is defined by ${\mathcal R} = \left\{(1,0), (1,1), (0,1), (-1,1)\right\}$ (we omit the neighbors that can be obtained by reflection around $(0,0)$) and the interaction coefficients as
\[
\psi_{(1,1),y} = \psi_{(1,-1),y} = k_3
,\quad
\psi_{(1,0),y} = \psi_{(0,1),y} = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
k_1 & & y_1 + y_2 \textnormal{ is even} \\
k_2 & & y_1 + y_2 \textnormal{ is odd.}
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Such material is illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:2d-springs}.
This example was motivated by the study of Friesecke and Theil \cite{FrieseckeTheil2002}, where a similar model was considered.
Friesecke and Theil considered the model with springs similar to the one illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:2d-springs}, which however was nonlinear due to nonzero equilibrium distances of the springs (so that the energy of the spring between masses $x_1$ and $x_2$ is proportional to $|x_1-x_2|^2-l_0^2$, where $l_0$ is the equilibrium distance).
They found that with certain values of parameters the lattice looses stability to non-Cauchy-Born disturbances and the lattice period doubles (thus the lattice ceases to be a Bravais lattice).
The results, given with no details of actual derivation, are the following:
The period of spatial oscillations in this case is $(2,2)$.
The function $\chi$ has the form $\chi = \chi(Y_j) = (-1)^{j_1+j_2} \frac{k_1-k_2}{4 (k_1+k_2)} I$
(here $I$ is the $2\times 2$ identity matrix).
We set the values of parameters $\epsilon=2^{-11}$, $N_1=N_2=2^{11}$, $k_1=1$, $k_2=2$, $k_3=0.25$, and the external force
\[
f(x) = 10 e^{-\cos(\pi x_1)^2-\cos(\pi x_2)^2} \left(\begin{array}{c} \sin(2\pi x_1) \\ \sin(2\pi x_2) \end{array}\right)\
-\bar{f},
\]
where $\bar{f}$ is determined so that the average of $f(x)$ is zero.
The total number of degrees of freedom of such system is approximately $8\cdot 10^{6}$.
The solution for such test case is shown in fig.\ \ref{fig:2d-solution} (the illustration is for $N_1=N_2=64$).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hfill
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{fig/2d-solution-at-large.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{fig/2d-solution-at-small.pdf}
\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Atomic equilibrium configuration for $N_1=N_2=64$ for the 2D test case.
Deformation of the whole material (left) and a close-up (right).}
\label{fig:2d-solution}
\end{figure}
The atomistic domain is triangulated using $t^2$ nodes and $K = 2 t^2$ triangles ($t=2,4,\ldots,2^{10}$).
In each triangle $S_k$ a sampling domain ${\mathcal I}_k$ is chosen, each sampling domain contains four atoms (see illustration in fig.\ \ref{fig:2d-triangulation}).
The number of degrees of freedom of the discretized problem is $2 t^2$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{fig/2d-triangulation.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of a 2D triangulation.
}
\label{fig:2d-triangulation}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{fig/2d-testcase1-error.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Results for the 2D test case: error depending on the mesh size $h$.
The error behaves in accordance with the 1D analysis (Theorem \ref{th:apriori}).}
\label{fig:2d-testcase1-error}
\end{figure}
The error of the solution for different mesh size $h$ ($h=0.5,0.25,\ldots,2^{-10}$) is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:2d-testcase1-error}.
The results are essentially the same as in 1D case: the method convergences with the first order of mesh size in the ${\mathcal U}^{1,\infty}$-norm.
\bigskip\\
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements.} The work of A. Abdulle and A. V. Shapeev was supported in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation under Grant 200021 134716/1.
The work of P. Lin was partially supported by the Leverhulme Trust Research Fellowship (No RF/9/RFG/2009/0507).
|
\section{Introduction}
Quantum key distribution~\cite{BB84,Eke91} together with its proof of security~\cite{Mayers01,SP00} appeared to have achieved the holy
grail of cryptography --- unconditional security, or a scheme whose security was based solely on the laws of physics. However,
practical implementations of QKD protocols necessarily involve imperfect devices~\cite{Bennett92,Muller97}, and it was soon realized that these imperfections could be exploited by a malicious eavesdropper to break the ``unconditional'' security of QKD (see e.g.~\cite{SK09} for a review).
Mayers and Yao~\cite{MY98} put forth a vision for restoring unconditional security in the presence of imperfect or even
maliciously designed devices, by subjecting them to tests that they fail unless they behave consistently with ``honest'' devices. The fundamental challenge they introduced was of
\emph{device-independent quantum key distribution} (DIQKD): establishing the security of a QKD protocol
based only on the validity of quantum mechanics, the physical isolation of the devices and the passing of
certain statistical tests. The germ of the idea for device-independence may already be seen in Ekert's original entanglement-based protocol for QKD~\cite{Eke91}, and was made more explicit by Barrett, Hardy, and Kent~\cite{BHK05}, who showed how to generate a single random bit secure against any non-signalling eavesdropper. A long line of research on DIQKD seeks to make the qualitative argument from~\cite{BHK05} quantitative, devising protocols that extract an amount of key that is linear in the number of uses of the devices, and is secure against increasingly general eavesdropping strategies. Initial works~\cite{AGM06,AMP06,Scarani06} give efficient and noise-tolerant protocols that are secure against individual attacks by non-signalling eavesdroppers. Subsequent work~\cite{MRCW09,Masanes09} and~\cite{HRW10} also proved security against collective attacks. Other works~\cite{ABGM07,PAB09,MRCW09,HR10,MPA11} obtain better key rates under the stronger assumption that the eavesdropper is bound by the laws of quantum mechanics. All these results, however, could only be established under restrictive \emph{independence} assumptions on the devices, e.g.
in recent work~\cite{HR10,MPA11} a proof of security based on collected statistics requires that
the $n$ uses of each device are causally independent: measurements performed at successive steps of the protocol
commute with each other.
Very recently two papers~\cite{Barrett12,RUV12} announced proofs of security of DIQKD without requiring any
independence assumption between the different uses of the devices.
Unfortunately, although the approaches in~\cite{Barrett12,RUV12} are very different both implied protocols are polynomially inefficient and unable to tolerate noisy devices. The protocol used in~\cite{Barrett12} is very similar to the one originally introduced in~\cite{BHK05}, and requires a large number of uses of a pair of noise-free devices in order to generate a single bit of key. In the case of~\cite{RUV12}, DIQKD is obtained as a corollary of very strong testing that allows the shared quantum state and operators of the two untrusted devices to be completely characterized. It is an open question whether such strong testing can be achieved in a manner that is robust to noise.
A major issue in QKD is dealing with the noise inherent in even the best devices.
Indeed, a good DIQKD protocol should differentiate devices that
are ``honest but noisy" from devices that may attempt to take advantage of the protocol's necessary
noise tolerance in order to leak information to an eavesdropper by introducing correlations in their ``errors''~\cite{BCK12}. The protocols in~\cite{Barrett12,RUV12} do not achieve this, since they cannot tolerate any constant noise rate.
This raises the question: is device-independent QKD even \emph{possible} without independence assumptions in a realistic, noise-tolerant scenario?
\subsection{Results}
We answer this question in the affirmative by giving the first complete device-independent proof of security of quantum key distribution that tolerates a constant noise rate and guarantees the generation of a linear amount of key. Our only assumption on the devices is that they can be modeled by the laws of quantum mechanics, and that they are spatially isolated from each other and from any adversary's laboratory. In particular, we emphasize that the devices may have quantum memory. While the proof of security is quite non-trivial (it builds upon ideas from the work on certifiable randomness generation mentioned below), the actual protocol whose device independence properties we establish is quite simple. It is a small variant of Ekert's entanglement-based protocol~\cite{Eke91}.
In the protocol, the users Alice and Bob make $m$ successive uses of their respective devices. At each step, Alice (resp. Bob) privately chooses a random input $x_i\in\{0,1,2\}$ (resp. $y_i\in\{0,1\}$) for her device, collecting an output bit $a_i$ (resp. $b_i$). If the devices were honestly implemented they would share Bell states
$\ket{\psi} = 1/\sqrt{2} \ket{00} + 1/\sqrt{2} \ket{11}$, and measure their qubits according to the following strategy: if $x_i = 0$ measure in the computational basis, if $x_i = 1$ measure in
the Hadamard basis and if $x_i = 2$ measure in the $3\pi/8$-rotated basis. If $y_i = 0$ measure in the $\pi/8$-rotated basis and if $y_i = 1$ measure in the $3\pi/8$-rotated basis.
To test the devices, after the $m$ steps have been completed, the users select a random subset $\mathbf{B}\subseteq \{1,\ldots,m\}$ of size $|\mathbf{B}|=\gamma m$, where $\gamma>0$ is a small constant, and publicly announce their inputs and outputs in $\mathbf{B}$. Rounds in $\mathbf{B}$ will be called ``Bell rounds''. Let $z_i = 1$ if and only if $a_i\neq 2$ and $a_i\oplus b_i \neq x_i\wedge y_i$, or $(a_i,b_i)=(2,1)$ and $a_i\neq b_i$. The users jointly compute the noise rate $\eta := (1/|\mathbf{B}|)\sum_{i\in \mathbf{B}} z_i-(1-\texttt{opt})$, where $\texttt{opt} = (2\cos^2\pi/8+1)/3$.\footnote{This corresponds to estimating the average amount by which the devices' outputs in $\mathbf{B}$ differ from a maximal violation of a Bell inequality based on the CHSH inequality~\cite{Clauser:69a,BraunsteinC90}: see Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries} for details.} If $\eta \geq 0.5\%$, say, they abort. If not, they announce their remaining input choices. Let $\mathbf{C}\subseteq\{1,\ldots,m\}$ be the steps in which $(a_i,b_i)=(2,1)$. We will call the rounds in $\mathbf{C}$ the ``check rounds''; outputs from the rounds $\mathbf{C} - \mathbf{B}$ constitute the raw key. The users conclude by performing standard information reconciliation and privacy amplification steps, extracting a key of length $\kappa m$ for some $\kappa = \kappa(\eta,\varepsilon)$, where $\varepsilon$ is the desired security parameter. (We refer to Figures~\ref{fig:qkda} and~\ref{fig:qkdb} for a more detailed description of the protocol.)
\begin{theorem}[Informal]\label{thm:main-inf}
Let $m$ be a large enough integer and $\varepsilon = 2^{-c_0 m}$, where $c_0>0$ is a small constant.
Given any pair of spatially isolated quantum devices $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$, the protocol described above generates a shared key $K$ of length $\kappa m$, where $\kappa \approx 1.4\%$, that is $\varepsilon$-secure: the probability that the users Alice and Bob do not abort and that the adversary can obtain information about the key is at most $\varepsilon$.
\end{theorem}
This informal statement hides a tradeoff between the parameters $\varepsilon$, $\eta$, and $\kappa$: the larger the security parameter $\varepsilon$ and the smaller the noise rate $\eta$, the higher the key rate $\kappa$. As $\eta\to 0$ (provided $\varepsilon$ is chosen large enough) our proof guarantees a secure key rate $\kappa \approx 2.5\%$, which with our setting of parameters corresponds to about $15\%$ of the raw key. Conversely, the maximum noise rate for which we may extract a key of positive length is $\eta_{max}\approx 1.2\%$. This is worse than the optimal key rates obtained under the causal independence assumption~\cite{MPA11}, but still quite reasonable.
\subsection{Proof overview and techniques}\label{sec:intro-tech}
We start with the observation that the randomness in the shared secret key must necessarily be generated by the two devices.
Indeed, even though the users have the ability to generate perfect random bits privately, such bits cannot be used directly for the shared key, since any information transmitted about them is also available to the adversary. It follows that a necessary condition for DIQKD is that the users should be able to use their untrusted devices to generate \emph{certified} randomness --- randomness they can guarantee was not pre-encoded in the devices by the adversary, nor obtained as some function of the users' inputs to the devices.
Luckily, the possibility of generating certified randomness has already been investigated. Building on an observation made in~\cite{Colbeck09}, Pironio et al.~\cite{Pironio} devised a protocol in which the generation of randomness could be certified solely by testing for a sufficiently large Bell inequality violation. In~\cite{FGS11,PM11} it was further shown that the randomness generated was secure against an arbitrary classical adversary. Concurrently, in~\cite{VV12} we gave a protocol that was secure even against a quantum adversary. This last protocol provides us with a solid starting point for DIQKD, since our goal is to prove that the quantum adversary, who may have fabricated the two devices, has no information about the shared random key. Nevertheless, extending this to DIQKD presents us with some serious new challenges.
\begin{enumerate}
\item First, QKD is a task that involves two distant parties Alice and Bob. Any classical communication between Alice and Bob must take place in the clear and is therefore accessible to the adversary, thus giving her additional power.
\item Second, in order to achieve QKD it is not sufficient just to generate randomness --- the point of QKD is that Alice and Bob share the same random key. In our protocol this is accomplished by distinguishing two different types of rounds: Bell rounds, in which the violation of the CHSH inequality by the devices is estimated, and check rounds, in which the devices are supposed to produce identical outputs from which the key will be generated. Unfortunately Alice and Bob must exchange information about which rounds are which, and since the adversary has access to all communicated classical information, this appears to render the Bell rounds pointless, since the adversary can ignore the Bell rounds and attack only those rounds which are used to generate the key (the check rounds).
\item Finally, to be practical the protocol should tolerate noisy devices. As a result, the users can only expect a non-maximal amount of correlation, both in the Bell and check rounds. The randomness-certification protocol from~\cite{VV12} did not tolerate any noise --- in fact, the absence of noise played a crucial role in the proof. As we already explained in the introduction, dealing with the presence of noise is one of the major conceptual and technical hurdles of the proof.
\end{enumerate}
We now explain how our proof technique addresses these challenges. The proof proceeds in two steps. As a first step, we argue that the following three conditions cannot hold simultaneously in any single round of the protocol: (i) the devices violate the CHSH inequality, whenever the round was selected as a Bell round (ii) the adversary can predict Bob's output, whenever the round was selected as a check round, and (iii) the no-signalling condition is satisfied between all three parties (Alice, Bob and the adversary).
To derive a contradiction from (i)--(iii) we use a simple conceptual tool called the ``guessing game'', which was introduced in~\cite{VV12}. The main idea is that conditions (i) and (ii) imply that the adversary and Alice will be able to team up to predict Bob's output from their sole respective input/output behavior, violating the no-signalling condition (iii).
\medskip
The second step is more challenging. All previous works on the subject reduced the general setting to a single-round scenario similar to the one outlined above by requiring some form of independence assumption on the devices or on the adversary's attack. We do not use any such assumption, and the main challenge is to deal with correlations between all rounds and the adversary in order to perform the reduction.
Our starting point is the existence of a pair of devices that pass the protocol with non-negligible probability, but such that the adversary may gain non-negligible information about the secret key generated at the end of the protocol. Our goal is to show the existence of a round $i_0$ of the protocol in which conditions (i)--(iii) above are satisfied, thus deriving a contradiction.
Our argument has two main ingredients. The first ingredient is the so-called ``quantum reconstruction paradigm'', a technique that was introduced in~\cite{DV09} and further developed in~\cite{DVPR11,VV12}. What this achieves is the following: any adversary able to obtain non-negligible information about the generated key can be transformed into a seemingly much stronger adversary: she can \emph{predict} the entire string of outputs of Bob's device on the check rounds (the rounds used to generate the key). Furthermore, the success probability of this ``guessing measurement'' is of the same order as the original distinguishing probability but does not depend on the length of the key --- a fact that will be crucial to obtaining good parameters. In order to achieve this, the new adversary requires access to the same public information as the original one, together with a small number of additional ``advice bits'' taken from Bob's string of outputs.
This stronger form of the adversary guarantees that condition (ii) above holds in all rounds with small but non-negligible probability. Furthermore, the checking performed as part of the protocol ensures that (i) also holds on average over all rounds, with probability of the same order.
The natural idea in order to identify a round $i_0$ in which conditions (i) and (ii) hold simultaneously with high probability is to perform conditioning: there must exist many rounds $i$ such that, provided both conditions hold in rounds $1$ to $i-1$, they must hold in round $i$ with high probability.
Such conditioning, however, presents a new difficulty: it may introduce such correlations that condition (iii) is no longer satisfied. Indeed, recall that one of the main difficulties in analyzing the QKD protocol is that the adversary has considerable power, due to the large amount of public information that is leaked by the protocol --- including the users' complete choice of inputs. Hence conditioning on a low probability event involving the outcome of a measurement performed by the adversary on her system introduces correlations between inputs in all rounds. For instance, this conditioning could very well force the inputs in round $i_0$ to be a particular pair, say $(0,0)$, making the guarantees (i) and (ii) all but useless.
The difficulty is reminiscent of one encountered in the analysis of parallel repetition, where conditioning on success in a subset of the parallel repeated games may introduce correlations among the players in the remaining games. Here, the situation is further complicated by the fact that it involves three parties involved in a relatively complex interaction. In particular, the conditioning is performed jointly on an event involving Alice and Bob (the CHSH violation observed in previous rounds being sufficiently large) on the one hand, and Bob and Eve (Eve's guess being correct) on the other.
The final step in our proof consists in bounding the amount of correlation introduced by the conditioning. For this we use tools from information theory, including the chain rule for mutual information and the quantum Pinsker's inequality, which had not previously been applied to this setting. (Similar tools were already used by Holenstein in his derivation of a parallel repetition theorem for the case of two-player games with no-signalling players~\cite{Hol09}.)
\subsection{Perspective}
We have not attempted to optimize the relationship between the parameters $\kappa,\eta$ and $\varepsilon$ describing the key rate, the noise rate and the security parameter respectively, and it is likely that the explicit dependency stated in Theorem~\ref{thm:main-tech} can be improved by tightening our arguments. It is an interesting question to find out whether our approach can lead to a trade-off as good as the one that has been shown to be achievable under additional assumptions on the devices~\cite{MPA11}. One possibility for improvement would be to bias the users' input distribution towards the pair of inputs $(2,1)$ from which the raw key is extracted, as was done in e.g.~\cite{AMP06}: indeed, only a very small fraction of the rounds are eventually required to estimate the violation of the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition.
Our proof crucially makes use of quantum mechanics to model the devices and the adversary. Can one obtain a fully device-independent proof of security of QKD against adversaries that are only restricted by the no-signalling principle? Barrett et al.~\cite{Barrett12} recently showed that such security is achievable in principle; however their protocol is highly inefficient and does not tolerate noisy devices.
\paragraph{Organization of the paper.} We start with some preliminaries in Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries}, introducing our notation, the information-theoretic quantities that will be used. We also summarize the main parameters of our protocol, which is described in Figures~\ref{fig:qkda} and~\ref{fig:qkdb}. In Section~\ref{sec:analysis} we formally state our result and outline the security proof. The two main ingredients are the analysis of Protocol~B, which is given in Section~\ref{sec:chain}, and the ``quantum reconstruction paradigm'' introduced in Section~\ref{sec:adv}. Finally, Section~\ref{sec:additional} contains probabilistic and information-theoretic lemmas used in some of the proofs.
\paragraph{Acknowledgments.} We thank Anthony Leverrier for many useful comments on a preliminary version of this manuscript.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:preliminaries}
We assume familiarity with basic concepts and standard notation in quantum information, including density matrices and distance measures such as the trace distance and the fidelity. We refer the reader to the books~\cite{NC00,Wilde11} for detailed introductions.
\paragraph{Notation.} We use roman capitals $A,B,\ldots,X$ both to refer to random variables and the registers, classical or quantum, that contain them. Calligraphic letters $\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B},\ldots,\mathcal{X}$ are used to refer to the underlying Hilbert space. $\density{\mathcal{X}}$ denotes the set of density operators (non-negative matrices with trace $1$) on $\mathcal{X}$. For an arbitrary matrix $A$ on $\mathcal{X}$ we let $\|A\|_1 = \mbox{\rm Tr}\sqrt{AA^\dagger}$ denote its Schatten $1$-norm. $\ln$ denotes the natural logarithm and $\log$ the logarithm in base $2$. For $x\in [0,1]$, $H(x)=-x\log x-(1-x)\log(1-x)$ is the binary entropy function.
\paragraph{Information theoretic quantities.}
Given a density matrix $\rho\in\density{\mathcal{A}}$, its von Neuman entropy is $H(\rho) := -\mbox{\rm Tr}(\rho\ln\rho)$. For a classical-quantum state $\rho_{XA} = \sum_x p_x\ket{x}\bra{x} \otimes \rho_x\in\density{\mathcal{X}\otimes\mathcal{A}}$, where for every $x$, $\rho_x\in\density{\mathcal{A}}$, the conditional entropy is defined as $H(A|X)_\rho:= \sum_x p_x H(\rho_x)$. Given a state $\rho_{ABX}$, where $X$ is classical, the conditional mutual information is
$$ I(A:B|X)_\rho \,:=\, H(A|X)_\rho+H(B|X)_\rho-H(AB|X)_\rho.$$
We will use the following quantum analogue of the classical Pinsker's inequality (see e.g. Theorem~11.9.1 in~\cite{Wilde11} for a proof): for any $\rho_{AB}\in\density{\mathcal{AB}}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pinsker}
\big\|\rho_{A B} - \rho_{A} \otimes \rho_{B} \big\|_1^2 \,\leq\, (2\ln 2)\, I(A:B)_{\rho}.
\end{equation}
The most important information measure in our context is the quantum conditional min-entropy, first introduced in~\cite{Ren05}, and defined as follows.
\begin{definition} \label{def:min-entropy}
Let $\rho_{A B}$ be a bipartite density matrix. The
\emph{min-entropy} of $A$ conditioned on $B$ is defined as
\begin{align*}
\textsc{H}_{min}(A|B)_\rho \,:=\, \max \{\lambda
\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}} : \exists \sigma_B \in \density{\mathcal{B}}
\,\mathrm{s.t.}\,\, 2^{-\lambda} \ensuremath{\mathop{\rm Id}\nolimits}_A \otimes \sigma_B \geq \rho_{AB}\}.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
We will often drop the subscript $\rho$ when there is no doubt about
the underlying state. The smooth min-entropy is defined as follows.
\begin{definition} \label{def:smooth-min-entropy}
Let $\varepsilon \geq 0$ and $\rho_{AB}$ a bipartite density matrix. The
\emph{$\varepsilon$-smooth min-entropy} of $A$ conditioned on $B$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\textsc{H}_{min}^\varepsilon(A|B)_\rho \,:=\, \max_{\tilde{\rho}_{AB}
\in B(\rho_{AB},\varepsilon)} \textsc{H}_{min}(A|B)_{\tilde{\rho}},
\end{equation*}
where $B(\rho_{AB},\varepsilon)$ is a ball of
radius $\varepsilon$ around
$\rho_{AB}$.\footnote{Theoretically any distance measure could be
used to define an $\varepsilon$-ball. As has become customary, we use the \emph{purified
distance}, $P(\rho,\sigma) := \sqrt{1 -
F(\rho,\sigma)^2}$, where $F(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the fidelity. }
\end{definition}
\paragraph{The ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition.}
The security of our DIQKD protocol is based on the statistical verification that the pair of devices used have an input/output behavior consistent with certain pre-determined correlations, which are those expected of a ``honest'' quantum-mechanical pair of devices performing the measurements described below.
Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ designate two spatially isolated devices. In the protocol, there are three possible choices of inputs $x\in\{0,1,2\}$ to $\mathcal{A}$, and two possible inputs $y\in\{0,1\}$ to $\mathcal{B}$. Each of the $6$ possible pairs of inputs is chosen with uniform probability $1/6$. The devices are required to produce outputs $a,b\in\{0,1\}$ respectively.
The users select a random subset of the rounds of the protocol in which to evaluate the frequency with which the following constraints are satisfied. In case both inputs were in $\{0,1\}$, the constraint on the outputs is the CHSH parity constraint $a\oplus b = x\wedge y$~\cite{Clauser:69a}. If the inputs are $(2,1)$ the constraint is that the outputs $(a,b)$ should satisfy $a\oplus b=0$. Finally, for the remaining pair of inputs $(2,0)$ all pairs of outputs are valid. We will refer to this set of constraints collectively as ``the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition''. We note that the underlying Bell inequality is similar to the so-called ``chained inequality'' for two inputs~\cite{BraunsteinC90}.
Let $\texttt{opt}$ be the maximum probability with which any two isolated devices, obeying the laws of quantum mechanics, may produce outputs satisfying the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition. It is not hard to show that $\texttt{opt} = (2/3)\cos^2\pi/8 + (1/3)$, which is achieved using the following strategy. The devices are initialized in a single EPR pair $\ket{\Psi}=(\ket{00}+\ket{11})/\sqrt{2}$, each device holding one qubit. On input $0$, $\mathcal{A}$ performs a measurement in the computational basis, and on input $1$ it measures in the Hadamard basis. On input $0$, $\mathcal{B}$ measures in the computational basis rotated by $\pi/8$. If $\mathcal{A}$ gets input $2$, or if $\mathcal{B}$ gets input $1$, they measure in the computational basis rotated by $3\pi/8$. The devices may be used repeatedly, and honest devices perform measurements on a fresh EPR pair at each use.
\paragraph{Parameters.}
For convenience, we summarize here the main parameters of the key distribution protocol described in Figures~\ref{fig:qkda} and~\ref{fig:qkdb}.
\begin{itemize}
\item $m$ is the total number of rounds in the protocol (in each round, an input to each of $\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}$ is chosen, and an output is collected).
\item $\mathbf{B}$ are the ``Bell rounds'', selected to perform parameter estimation. They are chosen uniformly at random under the constraint that $|\mathbf{B}|=\gamma m$, for some $\gamma>0$ specified in the protocol.
\item $\eta$ is the tolerated error rate: the protocol aborts as soon as the fraction of rounds in $\mathbf{B}$ satisfying the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition is lower than $\texttt{opt}-\eta$.
\item $\mathbf{C}\subseteq [m]$ are the ``check rounds''. Those are rounds in which the inputs to $(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B})$ are $(2,1)$. Since the inputs are chosen uniformly at random, the number of check rounds $|\mathbf{C}|$ is highly concentrated around $m/6$.
\item The target min-entropy rate $\kappa$. This is the rate of min-entropy that the users Alice and Bob expect to be present in the check rounds, provided the protocol did not abort. Once information reconciliation and privacy amplification have been performed, a secret key of length roughly $(\kappa - H(2\eta))|\mathbf{C}|$ will be produced.
\item $\varepsilon$ is the security parameter: the statistical distance from uniform of the extracted key (conditioned on the eavesdropper's side information). Precisely, if $K$ denotes the system containing the extracted key, we will obtain that $\|\rho_{K\mathcal{E}'} - \rho_{U_{K}}\otimes \rho_{\mathcal{E}'} \|_1 \leq \varepsilon$, where $\mathcal{E}'$ is a register containing all the side information available to an arbitrary quantum eavesdropper in the protocol, and $\rho_{U_{K}}$ is the totally mixed state on as qubits as the key length.
\end{itemize}
\section{Analysis of the key distribution protocol}\label{sec:analysis}
\begin{figure}
\begin{protocol*}{Protocol~A}
\begin{step}
\item Let $m$ and $\varepsilon,\eta>0$ be parameters given as input. Let $C_\gamma$ be the constant from Theorem~\ref{thm:main-tech}, and set $\gamma = (C_\gamma/\eta^2)\ln(1/\varepsilon)/m$.
\item\label{step:protb} Alice and Bob run Protocol~B for $m$ steps, choosing inputs $x \in \{0,1,2\}^m$ (resp. $y\in\{0,1\}^m$) and obtaining outcomes $a\in\{0,1\}^m$ (resp. $b\in\{0,1\}^m$). Let $\mathbf{B}$ be the set of rounds that were chosen to perform parameter estimation.
\item Alice and Bob publicly reveal their choices of inputs. Let $\mathbf{C}$ be the set of rounds $i$ in which $(x_i,y_i)=(2,1)$. If $||\mathbf{C}|- m/6|>10\sqrt{m}$ they abort the protocol.
\item\label{step:ir} Alice and Bob perform information reconciliation on their outputs in $\mathbf{C}-\mathbf{B}$, which constitute the raw key. For this, Bob sends a message of $\ell \leq H(2\eta)|\mathbf{C}| + \log(2/\varepsilon)$ bits to Alice.
\item\label{step:pa} Let $\kappa=\kappa(\eta)$ be as specified in Theorem~\ref{thm:main-tech}. Alice and Bob perform privacy amplification using e.g. two-universal hashing, extracting a shared key of length $(\kappa-H(2\eta)-O(\log(1/\varepsilon)/m)) |\mathbf{C}|$ from the common $(|\mathbf{C}|-|\mathbf{B}|)$-bit string they obtained at the end of the previous step.
\end{step}
\end{protocol*}
\caption{The device-independent key distribution protocol, Protocol~A}
\label{fig:qkda}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{protocol*}{Protocol~B}
\begin{step}
\item Let $m,\gamma$ and $\eta$ be parameters given as input.
\item Repeat, for $i=1,\ldots,m$:
\begin{step}
\item Alice picks $x_i\in\{0,1,2\}$, and Bob picks $y_i \in \{0,1\}$, uniformly at random. They input $x_i,y_i$ into their respective device, obtaining outputs $a_i,b_i\in\{0,1\}$ respectively.
\end{step}
\item\label{step:check} Alice chooses a random subset $\mathbf{B}\subseteq [m]$ of size $\gamma m$ and shares it publicly with Bob. Alice and Bob announce their input/output pairs in $\mathbf{B}$, and compute the fraction of pairs satisfying the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition. Let $(\texttt{opt}-\eta')$ be this fraction. If $\eta'>\eta$ they abort the protocol.
\end{step}
\end{protocol*}
\caption{Theorem~\ref{thm:main-tech} shows that, at the end of protocol~B, the bits $B_\mathbf{C}$ generated by Bob's device in the check rounds $\mathbf{C}$ both have high smooth min-entropy, conditioned on the adversary's arbitrary quantum side information.}
\label{fig:qkdb}
\end{figure}
The analysis of Protocol~A, and the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main-inf}, is performed in two steps. The first, main step consists in proving a lower bound on the quantum smooth conditional min-entropy $H_{min}^\varepsilon(B_{\mathbf{C}}|XYA_\mathbf{B} B_\mathbf{B}\mathcal{E})$ of the outputs obtained by Bob in the check rounds $\mathbf{C}$ (conditioned on the protocol not aborting). This lower bound will depend on the maximal error rate $\eta$ that is tolerated by the users in the sub-protocol~B (see Figures~\ref{fig:qkda} and~\ref{fig:qkdb} for a description of protocols~A and~B respectively). Here the lower bound is taken conditioned on the state of an arbitrary quantum adversary (whom we will call Eve and refer to indiscriminately as ``the adversary'' or ``the eavesdropper'') in the protocol, who has access to the information $X,Y,A_\mathbf{B},B_\mathbf{B}$ revealed publicly in the course of the protocol, as well as to a quantum system $\mathcal{E}$ which may be correlated with the systems $\mathcal{A}$, $\mathcal{B}$ of the devices. Such an estimate is stated in Theorem~\ref{thm:main-tech} in Section~\ref{sec:main-proof} below.
The second step consists in showing that there exists appropriate protocols for the information reconciliation and privacy amplification steps, Steps~\ref{step:ir} and~\ref{step:pa} in Protocol~A respectively, such that the lower bound on the conditional min-entropy from the first step guarantees the security (distance from uniform from the point of view of the adversary) and correctness (Alice and Bob should obtain the same key) of the key that is extracted. This step is standard, and all the ingredients required already appear in the literature. We summarize the result as Lemma~\ref{lem:prota} in Section~\ref{sec:irpa} below.
Theorem~\ref{thm:main-inf} follows immediately by combining Theorem~\ref{thm:main-tech} and Lemma~\ref{lem:prota}.
\subsection{Probability space}\label{sec:probspace}
Before stating and proving formally our results, we formally define the random variables and events that will be used in their proof.
\paragraph{Modeling the devices.}
Fix a pair of spatially isolated devices $(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B})$. Device $\mathcal{A}$ takes inputs in $\{0,1,2\}$, and device $\mathcal{B}$ takes inputs in $\{0,1\}$. Whenever provided an input, each device produces an output in $\{0,1\}$. The devices may be used repeatedly. We will assume that the pair $(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B})$ can be described by quantum mechanics: the devices are modeled by a pair of quantum registers; when provided an input each device performs a measurement on the state contained in the corresponding subsystem.
We assume that user Alice holds $\mathcal{A}$, and Bob is given $\mathcal{B}$. In addition, there is an adversary Eve who holds an additional quantum register $\mathcal{E}$, initialized in a state arbitrarily correlated with that of $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$. Let $\rho_{A_1B_1\mathcal{E}}$ be the density matrix describing the joint state of all three registers at the start of the protocol.
We define the following random variables and events. $X \in \{0,1,2\}^m$ and $Y\in\{0,1\}^m$ are two uniformly distributed random variables, used to represent the inputs to $\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}$ respectively, as chosen in the protocol. $A,B\in\{0,1\}^m$ are random variables denoting the outputs produced by the devices, when sequentially provided their respective inputs $X,Y$. We will always use $\mathbf{C}\subseteq [m]$ to denote the set of ``check'' rounds, in which $(X_i,Y_i)=(2,1)$, and $\mathbf{B}\subseteq [m]$ the set of ``Bell'' rounds chosen by Alice and Bob to perform parameter estimation.
Let $\rho_{\mathcal{A}_i\mathcal{B}_i}$ denote the reduced state of devices $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ in the $i$-th round of the protocol (before they have been provided their $i$-th input). Formally,
$$ \rho_{\mathcal{A}_i\mathcal{B}_i} \,\propto\, \Big( \prod_{j<i} M_{X_j}^{A_j} \otimes N_{Y_j}^{B_j} \Big)\,\rho_{\mathcal{A}_1\mathcal{B}_1}\,\Big( \prod_{j<i} \big(M_{X_j}^{A_j}\big)^\dagger \otimes \big(N_{Y_j}^{B_j}\big)^\dagger \Big),$$
where $\{M_{X_j}^{A_j}\}$ and $\{N_{Y_j}^{B_j}\}$ are the Kraus operators corresponding to the measurement performed by devices $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ in round $j$ respectively, and $\rho_{\mathcal{A}_i\mathcal{B}_i}$ is normalized. Here $\rho_{\mathcal{A}_1\mathcal{B}_1} = \mbox{\rm Tr}_\mathcal{E}(\rho_{\mathcal{A}_1\mathcal{B}_1\mathcal{E}})$ is the reduced state of the devices at the start of the protocol. It is important to note that for any $i$ the state $\rho_{\mathcal{A}_i\mathcal{B}_i}$ may depend on a measurement that is performed on system $\mathcal{E}$ as soon as a particular outcome of that measurement is fixed.
\paragraph{Measuring the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition.}
Given a set $S\subseteq [m]$ and $\delta>0$, ${\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(S,\delta)$ is the event that the tuple $(X,Y,A,B)$ satisfies the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition (as described in Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries}) in a fraction at least $\texttt{opt}-\delta$ of the rounds indicated by $S$. If $S$ is omitted, ${\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(\delta) = {\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}([m],\delta)$.
Letting $Z \in \{0,1\}^m$ be the indicator random variable of the CHSH condition \emph{not} being satisfied in any given round, we can write
$${\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(S,\delta) \,\equiv\, \Big\{\frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{i\in S} Z_i \leq (1-\texttt{opt})+\delta\Big\}.$$
We also define $\textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(i)$, where $i\in [m]$, to express the expected amount by which the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition in round $i$ is satisfied:
$$\textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(i)\,=\, \textrm{E}[\,Z_i\,] - (1-\texttt{opt}),$$
where here the expectation is taken over the choice of inputs $(X_i,Y_i)$ in round $i$, and over the randomness in the devices' own measurements in round $i$. Note that $\textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(i)$ implicitly depends on the specific state of the devices in round $i$, which may be affected by previous input and outputs obtained in the protocol as well as on other events that may be conditioned on. Hence the expression $\Pr( \textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(i) < \delta | E)$, for some event $E$, indicates the average probability, over all possible $e\in E$, that the devices satisfy the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition in round $i$ with probability at least $\texttt{opt}-\delta$, provided their inputs are distributed according to the conditional distribution $(X_i,Y_i)|E=e$, and when performed on the post-measurement state of $\mathcal{A}\otimes \mathcal{B}$ in round $i$ conditioned on $E=e$.
For any $\delta>0$ we let $\textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(\delta)$ be the event that $(1/m)\sum_i \textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(i) \leq \delta$.
\paragraph{The adversary.}
We introduce additional random variables that depend on the adversary Eve, holding the quantum register $\mathcal{E}$. The adversary is described in Lemma~\ref{lem:strong-adv} below; to understand the events below it may be useful to read that lemma's statement first.
Let $E \in \{0,1\}^{|\mathbf{C}|}$ be the random variable that describes the outcome of the measurement on $\mathcal{E}$ described in Lemma~\ref{lem:strong-adv}. Note that this outcome depends on the ``advice'' that is given to the adversary. We use $\hat{X},\hat{Y}$ to denote the inputs that are given to the adversary, and $\hat{\textsc{Adv}} \in\{0,1\}^{\alpha m}$ to denote the additional advice bits. These random variables need not equal the actual values $X,Y,\textsc{Adv}$: in general, the adversary's measurement is well-defined for any given advice bits, and $E$ is used to denote its outcome irrespective of whether the advice given was ``correct'' or not.
For any $i\in [m]$, define $\textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}}(i)\in\{0,1\}$ to be $1$ if and only if, either $i\in \mathbf{C}$ and $E_i = B_i$, or $i\notin \mathbf{C}$, and let $\textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}} = \wedge_i \textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}}(i)$.
\subsection{Information reconciliation and privacy amplification}\label{sec:irpa}
For convenience, we let $\mathcal{E}' := XYA_\mathbf{B} B_\mathbf{B} \mathcal{E}$ denote the side information available to the eavesdropper. We show the following lemma, whose proof follows from standard arguments in the analysis of QKD protocols (see e.g.~\cite{Ren05}). We provide the relevant details below.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:prota}
Let $\gamma,\varepsilon>0$. Let $\varepsilon' = 2e^{-\gamma|\mathbf{C}|/400}$. Suppose that, after Step~\ref{step:protb} of Protocol~A, the condition $\textsc{H}_{min}^\varepsilon(B_\mathbf{C}|\mathcal{E}') \geq \kappa |\mathbf{C}|$ is satisfied. Then with probability at least $1-\varepsilon'$, at the end of the protocol Alice and Bob have a common shared key that is $2\varepsilon$-close to uniform and has length $\textsc{H}_{min}^\varepsilon(B_\mathbf{C}|\mathcal{E}') - H(1.1\eta)|\mathbf{C}| - 4\log(1/\varepsilon)$.
\end{lemma}
\paragraph{Information reconciliation.}
We first analyze the information reconciliation step. The following lemma states the conditions that are required for there to exist a satisfactory information reconciliation procedure.
\begin{lemma}[Lemma~6.3.4 in~\cite{Ren05}]\label{lem:ir}
Let $A,B\in \{0,1\}^k$ be two random variables, and $\varepsilon>0$. Suppose Alice holds $A$, and Bob holds $B$. There is an information reconciliation protocol in which Bob communicates $\ell \leq H_{max}^\varepsilon(B|A) + \log(2/\varepsilon)$ bits of information about $B$ to Alice and is such that with probability at least $1-\varepsilon$ Alice and Bob both know $B$ at the end of the protocol.
\end{lemma}
To apply Lemma~\ref{lem:ir} it suffices to prove an upper bound on the conditional max-entropy $H_{max}^\varepsilon(B_{\mathbf{C}}|A_{\mathbf{C}})$. By definition of the rounds $\mathbf{C}$, the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition in those rounds imposes that $A_i = B_i$ for all $i\in \mathbf{C}$. Hence, were it not for errors, we would have $H_{\max}^\varepsilon(B|A) = 0$. The following claim shows that the bound on the error rate that results from the estimation performed in the rounds $\mathbf{B}$ in Step~\ref{step:check} of Protocol~B is enough to guarantee a good upper bound on the conditional max-entropy.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:irbound} Suppose Alice and Bob do not abort after Step~\ref{step:check} in Protocol~B. Let $\mathbf{C}$ be the set of check rounds, as designated in Step~\ref{step:ir} of Protocol~A. Then
$H_{max}^{\varepsilon'}(B_\mathbf{C}|C_\mathbf{C}) \,\leq\, H(1.1\eta)|\mathbf{C}|$, where $\varepsilon' = 2e^{-\gamma|\mathbf{C}|/400}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Fix the set $\mathbf{C}$. The set $\mathbf{B}$ chosen by Alice and Bob to perform parameter estimation contains a fraction at least $\gamma/2$ of the rounds in $\mathbf{C}$, except with probability at most $e^{-\gamma|\mathbf{C}|/8}$. The protocol is aborted as soon as more than an $\eta$ fraction of those rounds are such that $a_i\neq b_i$. Hence with probability at least $1-e^{-\gamma |\mathbf{C}|/200}$ the total fraction of errors in $\mathbf{C}$ is at most $1.1\eta$. In particular, with probability at least $1-e^{-\gamma|\mathbf{C}|/400}$ over $A_{\mathbf{C}}$, with probability at least $1-e^{-\gamma|\mathbf{C}|/400}$, $B_{\mathbf{C}}$ will take on at most $2^{H(1.1\eta)|\mathbf{C}|}$ values.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Privacy amplification.}
The following lemma states the existence of a good protocol for privacy amplification.
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 6.4.1 in~\cite{Ren05}]\label{lem:pa}
Suppose the information reconciliation protocol requires at most $\ell$ bits of communication. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$ there is a privacy amplification protocol based on two-universal hashing which extracts $\textsc{H}_{min}^\varepsilon(B_{\mathbf{C}}|\mathcal{E}') - \ell - 2\log(1/\varepsilon)$ bits of key.
\end{lemma}
Lemma~\ref{lem:prota} now follows directly by combining Claim~\ref{claim:irbound} with Lemma~\ref{lem:pa} and the assumption on the conditional min-entropy placed in the lemma.
\subsection{A lower bound on the conditional min-entropy}\label{sec:main-proof}
The main result of this section is a lower bound on the conditional smooth min-entropy $\textsc{H}_{min}^\varepsilon(B_{\mathbf{C}}|XYA_\mathbf{B} B_\mathbf{B} \mathcal{E})$ of the raw key.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main-tech}
Let $\eta >0$ be given. There exists positive constants $C_\varepsilon,C_\gamma$ (possibly depending on $\eta$) such that the following hold. Let $m$ be an integer and $\varepsilon\geq e^{-C_\varepsilon m}$ be given. Let $\gamma = (C_\gamma/\eta^2) \ln(1/\varepsilon)/m$ be as specified in Protocol~A (Figure~\ref{fig:qkda}). Let $\kappa$ be any constant such that $\kappa< (\sqrt{2}-1)/(4\ln(2)) - (4/\ln(2))\eta$.
Suppose that the devices $\mathcal{A}$, $\mathcal{B}$ are such that with probability at least $\varepsilon$ the protocol does not abort. Let $\mathcal{E}$ be an auxiliary system held by an eavesdropper, who may also learn $(X,Y)$ and $(A_\mathbf{B},B_\mathbf{B})$. Then, conditioned on the protocol not aborting, it holds that
$$\textsc{H}_{min}^\varepsilon(B_{\mathbf{C}}|XYA_\mathbf{B} B_\mathbf{B} \mathcal{E}) \geq \kappa |\mathbf{C}| - O\big(\ln(1/\varepsilon)\big).$$
\end{theorem}
We note that the precise relation between the parameters $\kappa$ and $\eta$ stated in the theorem is the one that we obtain from our proof; however we have not attempted to optimize it fully and it is likely that one may be able to derive a better dependency. It is also clear from the proof that one may trade off the different constants between each other, depending on whether one is interested in the maximum possible key rate in the presence of very small noise, or to the opposite if one wishes to tolerate as much noise as possible.
\medskip
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main-tech} is based on three lemmas. We state the lemmas first, and derive the theorem from them below.
\subsubsection{The reconstruction lemma}
Our first lemma states that, if the min-entropy condition in the conclusion of the theorem is not satisfied, then there must exist a measurement on the system $\mathcal{E}$, depending on $X,Y,A_\mathbf{B}$ and $B_\mathbf{B}$, together with some additional ``advice'' bits of information about $B_\mathbf{C}$, whose outcome $E\in\{0,1\}^{|\mathbf{C}|}$ agrees with $B_\mathbf{C}$ with non-negligible probability.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:strong-adv}
Let $\kappa>0$ and suppose that $\textsc{H}_{min}^\varepsilon(B_{\mathbf{C}}|XYA_\mathbf{B} B_\mathbf{B} \mathcal{E}) < \kappa |\mathbf{C}|$. Then there exists an $\alpha = \kappa |\mathbf{C}|/m +2\gamma + O(\log (m/\varepsilon)/m)$ and a function $f:\{0,1\}^{|\mathbf{C}|}\to\{0,1\}^{(\alpha-2\gamma) m}$ such that, given the bits $\textsc{Adv}=f_\textsc{Adv}(B_\mathbf{C})A_\mathbf{B} B_\mathbf{B}\in\{0,1\}^{\alpha m}$ together with the inputs $X,Y$, there exists a measurement on $\mathcal{E}$ that outputs a string $e\in\{0,1\}^{|\mathbf{C}|}$ such that with probability (over the randomness in $B$ and in the measurement) at least $C_E(\varepsilon/m)^6$, where $C_E$ is a universal constant, the equality $e= b_\mathbf{C}$ holds.
\end{lemma}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:strong-adv} is based on a ``reconstruction''-type argument from~\cite{DVPR11}. A very similar argument was already used to establish an analogous lemma in~\cite{VV12}. We give the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:strong-adv} in Section~\ref{sec:adv}.
\subsubsection{Existence of a good round}
Our second lemma states the existence of a ``good'' round $i_0\in [m]$ in which both the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition is satisfied, and the outcome $E_{i_0}$ of the measurement described in Lemma~\ref{lem:strong-adv} agrees with $B_{i_0}$, with good probability. Note also the additional condition~\eqref{eq:chain-0} in the lemma, which states that systems $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are each close to being independent from the random variables $X_{i_0},Y_{i_0}$ describing the choice of inputs in round $i_0$. This condition is necessary for condition~\eqref{eq:chain-1}, on the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ violation, to be of any use: indeed, without~\eqref{eq:chain-0} it could in principle be that the conditioning on specific outcomes in previous rounds, including the adversary's outcomes, completely fixes the choice of inputs in the $i_0$-th round. Conditions~\eqref{eq:chain-0}--\eqref{eq:chain-2} in the lemma correspond to conditions~(i)--(iii) discussed in Section~\ref{sec:intro-tech}.
Eq.~\eqref{eq:chain-0} implies that the distribution that arises from the devices' measurements on the states $\rho_{\mathcal{A}_{i_0}\mathcal{B}_{i_0}}$ is, while not necessarily quantum, still no-signalling, and this is all that is required for the application of the guessing lemma, Lemma~\ref{lem:guessing} below. As explained in the introduction, proving this condition is an important point of departure of our proof from previous approaches, which used an assumption of independence between the devices or a limitation of the adversary in order to automatically obtain that (an even stronger form of) the condition held in all rounds without requiring any conditioning.
We refer to Section~\ref{sec:probspace} for a description of the events ${\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}$ and $\textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}$ appearing in the statement of the lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:chain-rule}
Let $\hat{\textsc{Adv}}$ be uniformly distributed in $\{0,1\}^{\alpha m}$, and $\eta,\varepsilon>0$ be such that the following holds:
$$\Pr\big( {\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(\eta) \wedge \textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}} | \textsc{Adv} = \hat{\textsc{Adv}} \big) \,\geq\, \varepsilon,$$
and let $\alpha = |\textsc{Adv}|/ m$.
Then there exists a universal constant $C_\nu>0$, a $\nu \leq C_\nu\sqrt{\log(1/\varepsilon)/m}$, an $i_0 \in [m]$ and a set $G_{i_0}\subseteq (\{0,1,2\}\times\{0,1\}\times \{0,1\}^3)^{i_0-1}$ such that for every $(x,y,a,b,e)\in G_{i_0}$, there is a choice of $\hat{x}_{> i_0},\hat{y}_{> i_0}$ and an $\hat{\textsc{Adv}}$ consistent with $((x,\hat{x}_{> i_0}),(y,\hat{y}_{> i_0}),a,b)$ such that
the following hold:
\begin{align}
&\max\Big\{ \Big\| \rho_{\mathcal{A}_{i_0} X_{i_0}Y_{i_0}} - \rho_{\mathcal{A}_{i_0}}\otimes \Big(\frac{1}{6}\sum_{x,y} \ket{x,y}\bra{x,y}\Big) \Big\|_1\ ,\notag\\
&\qquad\quad \Big\| \rho_{\mathcal{B}_{i_0} X_{i_0}Y_{i_0}} - \rho_{\mathcal{B}_{i_0}}\otimes \Big(\frac{1}{6}\sum_{x,y} \ket{x,y}\bra{x,y}\Big) \Big\|_1\Big\} \leq \nu, \label{eq:chain-0}\\
&\textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(i_0) \,\leq\, 3\eta+\nu,\label{eq:chain-1}\\
&\Pr(\textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}}(i_0))\geq 1-12\ln(2)\alpha - \nu,\label{eq:chain-2}
\end{align}
where in~\eqref{eq:chain-0} the state $\rho_{\mathcal{A}_{i_0}\mathcal{B}_{i_0} X_{i_0}Y_{i_0}}$ is the (normalized) state of the corresponding systems in round $i_0$, conditioned on $(x,y,a,b,e)$, and similarly in~\eqref{eq:chain-1} and~\eqref{eq:chain-2} the violation is estimated conditioned on previous input/outputs to the devices being $(x,y,a,b)$, and on Eve making her measurement based on the inputs $(x,2,\hat{x}_{> i_0})$ and $(y,1,\hat{y}_{> i_0})$ and advice string $\hat{\textsc{Adv}}$, and obtaining outcomes $e$ as her prediction in rounds $\mathbf{C}\cap \{1,\ldots,i_0-1\}$.
\end{lemma}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:chain-rule} in given in Section~\ref{sec:chain}.
\subsubsection{The guessing lemma}
We state the last lemma required for the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main-tech}. A similar lemma already appeared in~\cite{VV12}. Here we give a slightly more general version of the lemma stated in a form that can be directly used in the proof of the theorem.
\begin{lemma}[Guessing lemma]\label{lem:guessing}
Let $\delta,\nu,\eta>0$. Suppose given six bipartite states $\rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}^{xy}$, where $x\in\{0,1,2\}$, $y\in\{0,1\}$, such that the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\rho_\mathcal{A} = (1/6)\sum_{xy}\mbox{\rm Tr}_\mathcal{B}(\rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}^{xy})$ and $\rho_\mathcal{B} = (1/6)\sum_{xy}\mbox{\rm Tr}_\mathcal{A}(\rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}^{xy})$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:guess-0}
\frac{1}{6}\sum_{x,y}\big\| \rho_\mathcal{A} - \rho_\mathcal{A}^{xy} \big\|_1\leq \nu\qquad\text{and}\qquad\frac{1}{6}\sum_{x,y}\big\| \rho_\mathcal{B} - \rho_\mathcal{B}^{xy} \big\|_1\leq \nu,
\end{equation}
\item There exists observables $A_x = A_x^0-A_x^1$, $B_y=B_y^0-B_y^1$ on $\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}$ respectively that satisfy
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{4}&\Big(\mbox{\rm Tr}\big( (A_0 \otimes B_0) \rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}^{00}\big) + \mbox{\rm Tr}\big( (A_0 \otimes B_1) \rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}^{01}\big) \\
&\qquad+ \mbox{\rm Tr}\big( (A_1 \otimes B_0) \rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}^{10}\big) - \mbox{\rm Tr}\big( (A_1 \otimes B_1) \rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}^{11}\big) \Big)\geq \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} - \eta,
\end{align*}
\item Bob's measurement $B_1$ produces outcome $b_1\in\{0,1\}$ with probability $1-\delta$, when performed on his share of $\rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}^{21}$:
$$\mbox{\rm Tr}( (\ensuremath{\mathop{\rm Id}\nolimits}\otimes B_1^{b_1}) \rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}^{21} ) \geq 1-\delta.$$
\end{enumerate}
Then the condition
$$\delta \, \geq \, \Big(\frac{\sqrt{2}-1}{2}- \eta\Big) - 75\nu$$
must hold.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For every $(a,b,x,y)\in\{0,1\}^2 \times \{0,1,2\}\times\{0,1\}$ let $p(a,b|x,y):= \mbox{\rm Tr}( (A_x^a\otimes B_y^b) \rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}^{xy})$. Condition~\eqref{eq:guess-0} implies that the distribution $p$ is approximately no-signalling, in the following sense: on average over the choice of a uniformly random pair $(x,y)$, the statistical distance
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{6}\sum_{x,y}\,\sum_{a}\,\Big| \sum_b \,p(a,b|x,y) - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{y'}\Big(\sum_b\, p(a,b|x,y') \Big)\Big| &\leq \frac{1}{6}\sum_{x,y}\,\sum_a \,\big| \mbox{\rm Tr}\big( (A_x^a \otimes \ensuremath{\mathop{\rm Id}\nolimits})(\rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}^{xy} - \rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}^{x})\big)\big|\\
&\leq \frac{1}{6}\sum_{x,y}\,\big\|\rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}^{xy} - \rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}^{x}\big\|_1\\
&\leq 2\nu,
\end{align*}
and a similar bound holds for the marginals on $\mathcal{B}$. Lemma~9.5 in~\cite{Hol09} implies that there exists a distribution $q(a,b|x,y)$ such that $q$ is (perfectly) no-signalling, and moreover, on average over $(x,y)$ the statistical distance $\|p(\cdot,\cdot|x,y)-q(\cdot,\cdot|x,y)\|_1\leq 10\nu$. In particular, the second assumption in the lemma implies that the distribution $q$ must violate the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ inequality by at least $\sqrt{2}/2-\eta-15\nu$, and the third assumption implies that $\sum_a q(a,1|2,1) \geq 1-\delta - 60\nu$. Applying the bound~(A.11) derived in the supplementary information to~\cite{Pironio} with $I/4 = \sqrt{2}/2 - \eta-15\nu$ we obtain the inequality claimed in the lemma.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main-tech}}
We give the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main-tech}, assuming the lemmas stated in the three previous subsections.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main-tech}]
Let $(X,Y,A,B)$ be random variables describing Alice and Bob's choice of inputs to $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ respectively, and the outputs obtained, in an execution of Protocol~A. Let $E = E(\hat{\textsc{Adv}})$ be the random variable that describes the outcome of the measurement on $\mathcal{E}$ described in Lemma~\ref{lem:strong-adv}, when the advice bits $\hat{\textsc{Adv}}$ are selected uniformly at random (independently from $A$ and $B$). Denote by $\textsc{Adv} = f_\textsc{Adv}(B_\mathbf{C})A_\mathbf{B} B_\mathbf{B}$ the ``correct'' advice bits.
The proof proceeds by contradiction. Assume that there existed a pair of devices $(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B})$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:assumption}
\Pr\big({\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A} \mathcal{B}}(\mathbf{B},\eta)\big)\,\geq\,\varepsilon,\quad \textsc{H}_{min}^\varepsilon(B_{\mathbf{C}}|XYA_\mathbf{B} B_\mathbf{B} \mathcal{E}) \,<\, \kappa |\mathbf{C}|,
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon,\eta,\kappa$ are as in the statement of the theorem.
Denote $\textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}}(\hat{\textsc{Adv}})$ the event that $E = B_\mathbf{C}$. Using Lemma~\ref{lem:strong-adv}, we deduce from~\eqref{eq:assumption} that the following must hold:
\begin{align}
\Pr\big(& {\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(\mathbf{B},\eta)\wedge \textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}}(\hat{\textsc{Adv}}) | \hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv}\big) \notag\\
&= \Pr\big( \textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}}(\hat{\textsc{Adv}}) | {\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(\mathbf{B},\eta),\hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv}\big)\notag\\
&\qquad\qquad\cdot \Pr\big({\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(\mathbf{B},\eta) | \hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv}\big)\notag\\
&\geq\, C_E(\varepsilon/m)^6 \cdot \varepsilon,\label{eq:mainpf-1}
\end{align}
where $C_E$ is the constant from Lemma~\ref{lem:strong-adv}. Since the rounds $\mathbf{B}$ are chosen uniformly at random, Claim~\ref{claim:high-chsh} below states that, for any $0\leq\beta\leq 1$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mainpf-2}
\Pr\big({\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}((1+\beta)\eta)|{\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(\mathbf{B},\eta)\big) \,\geq\, 1-e^{-2\beta^2\eta^2\gamma m},
\end{equation}
where $\gamma = |\mathbf{B}|/m$. Choose $\beta = 1/3$, and let $\eta':=4\eta/3$. Provided $C_\gamma$ is chosen large enough, the choice of $\gamma$ made in the theorem is such that $\gamma \geq \log(2m^6/C_E\varepsilon^7)/((2/9)\eta^2 m)$, so that $e^{-2\beta^2\eta^2\gamma m} \leq C_E\varepsilon^7/(2m^6)$. Hence we obtain the following by combining~\eqref{eq:mainpf-1} and~\eqref{eq:mainpf-2}:
\begin{align}
\Pr\big({\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(\eta') \wedge \textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}}(\hat{\textsc{Adv}})|\,\hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv} \big)
\,\geq\, C_E(\varepsilon^7/(2m^6))\, =:\,\varepsilon'.\label{eq:assumption-2}
\end{align}
We may now apply Lemma~\ref{lem:chain-rule}. Let $\nu = C_\nu \sqrt{\log(1/\varepsilon')/m}$, and $i_0\in [m]$ be the ``good'' round that is promised by the lemma. We proceed to show that the existence of such a round leads to a contradiction by appealing to the guessing lemma, Lemma~\ref{lem:guessing}.
Consider the following setup. Alice, Bob and Eve prepare their devices by selecting a random string of inputs $\hat{x},\hat{y}$ for Eve, except that $\hat{x}_{i_0}=2$ and $\hat{y}_{i_0} = 1$ always. Eve guesses the advice bits $\hat{\textsc{Adv}}$ at random and makes a prediction $E=e$. Alice and Bob then use their devices up to round $i_0-1$ by choosing inputs $(x_{<i_0},y_{<i_0}) = (\hat{x}_{<i_0},\hat{y}_{<i_0})$. They verify that the resulting outputs $a_{<i_0},b_{<i_0}$ are such that
$$(x_{<i_0},y_{<i_0},a_{<i_0},b_{<i_0},e_{<i_0})\in G_{i_0};$$
if not they abort. Upon having succeeded in this conditioning they separate and play the guessing game. Alice holds system $\mathcal{A}$, while Bob holds system $\mathcal{B}$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:chain-rule} shows that all conditions in Lemma~\ref{lem:guessing} are satisfied: as a result, it must be that
$$ 12\ln(2)\alpha+\nu \geq \Big(\frac{\sqrt{2}-1}{2} - 6\eta'- 2\nu\Big) - 75\nu.$$
By definition, provided the constant $C_\nu$ is large enough we have $\alpha \leq \kappa/6 + 2 \gamma + \nu$, where we used that $|\mathbf{C}|\leq m/6+10\sqrt{m}=m/6+O(\sqrt{\ln(1/\varepsilon)})$, as enforced in the protocol, and $\eta'= 4/3\eta$.
Re-arranging terms and using the definition of $\nu$ and $\gamma$ we obtain the condition
$$ \kappa \,>\, \frac{\sqrt{2}-1}{4\ln(2)} - \frac{4}{\ln(2)} \eta - O\Big(\frac{\log(1/\varepsilon)}{\eta^2 m}\Big),$$
which, given the choice of $\kappa$ made in the theorem, is a contradiction provided $C_\varepsilon$ is chosen small enough.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}\label{claim:high-chsh}
Let $\eta,\gamma>0$. The following holds for any $0\leq\beta\leq 1$:
$$\Pr_{S}\big({\textsc{CHSH}}((1+\beta)\eta)|{\textsc{CHSH}}(S,\eta)\big) \,\geq\, 1-e^{-2\beta^2\eta^2\gamma m},$$
where the probability is taken over the choice of a random subset $S\subseteq [m]$ of size $|S| = \gamma m$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Consider a given run of the protocol. Suppose that the fraction of rounds in which the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition is not satisfied is at least $(1-\texttt{opt})+(1+\beta)\eta$. By a standard Chernoff bound, a randomly chosen set $S\subseteq [m]$ will of size $\gamma m$ will have at least $((1-\texttt{opt})+\eta)\gamma m$ of its rounds with inputs corresponding to the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition being violated, except with probability at most $e^{-2\beta^2\eta^2 \gamma m}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:chain-rule}}\label{sec:chain}
This section is devoted to the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:chain-rule}. Let $D$ be the event ${\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(\eta) \wedge \textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}}$: the main assumption of the lemma states that $\Pr(D|\textsc{Adv}=\hat{\textsc{Adv}})\geq \varepsilon$. We first prove two preliminary claims which establish that, provided $\varepsilon$ is not too small, conditioning on $D$ does not affect either the distribution of inputs $(X_i,Y_i)$ or the reduced density matrices of the inner state of each device's system in most rounds $i$ by too much.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:prod_inputs}
Suppose that, in Protocol~B, Alice and Bob choose inputs $(X,Y)\in\{0,1,2\}^m \times \{0,1\}^m$ uniformly at random, obtaining outcomes $A,B\in\{0,1\}^m$. Suppose that $\mathcal{E}$ is measured using Eve's guessing measurement (as described in Lemma~\ref{lem:strong-adv}) with inputs $(\hat{X},\hat{Y})=(X,Y)$ and advice bits $\hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv}$, resulting in an outcome $E \in \{0,1\}^{|\mathbf{C}|}$. Let $P_{X_iY_i}$ be the marginal distribution of the inputs in the $i$-th round, conditioned on $(X_{<i},Y_{<i},A_{<i},B_{<i},E_{<i}) = (x_{<i},y_{<i},a_{<i},b_{<i},e_{<i})\in D_{<i}$, the projection of $D$ on the first $(i-1)$ coordinates. Then the following bound holds on expectation over $(x_{<i},y_{<i},a_{<i},b_{<i},e_{<i})$:
$$ \frac{1}{m} \sum_i \big\|P_{X_iY_i} - U_{3\times 2} \big\|_1 \,\leq\, \sqrt{\frac{\log(1/\varepsilon)}{2m}},$$
where $U_{3\times 2}$ is the uniform distribution on $\{0,1,2\}\times \{0,1\}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
The Shannon entropy $H(X,Y) = \log(6)m$, and conditioned on $D$, $H(X,Y|D) \geq \log(6)\,m - \log(1/\varepsilon)$. Applying the chain rule,
$$ \frac{1}{m} \sum_i H(X_i,Y_i | X_{<i},Y_{<i},D_{<i})\,\geq\, \log(6) - \frac{\log(1/\varepsilon)}{m}.$$
Using the classical Pinsker's inequality as $\|P_{X_iY_i}-U_{3\times 2}\|_1 \leq \sqrt{(\log(6)-H(X_i,Y_i))/2}$ and Jensen's inequality we get
$$
\frac{1}{m}\sum_i \big\|P_{X_iY_i}-U_{3\times 2}\big\|_1\,\leq\, \sqrt{ \frac{\log(1/\varepsilon)}{2m}},
$$
proving the claim.
\end{proof}
The fact that $D$ depends both on the choice of inputs $(X,Y)$ and on the adversary's measurement outcome implies that conditioning on $D$ could not only bias the distribution of $(X,Y)$ but also introduce correlations between $(X,Y)$ and the reduced state $\rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}$ of the devices. The following claim shows that, if $D$ is an event with large enough probability, the correlations introduced by this conditioning do not affect the reduced state on either $\mathcal{A}$ or $\mathcal{B}$ by too much, for most rounds $i$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:product}
Consider the same situation as described in Claim~\ref{claim:prod_inputs}. Let $\rho_{\mathcal{A}_i X_iY_i}$ denote the reduced density of the joint state of systems $\mathcal{A}$ (in round $i$) and $X_i,Y_i$, conditioned on $(X_{<i},Y_{<i},A_{<i},B_{<i},E_{<i}) = (x_{<i},y_{<i},a_{<i},b_{<i},e_{<i})\in D_{<i}$. Then the following holds on expectation over $(x_{<i},y_{<i},a_{<i},b_{<i},e_{<i})$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:product-0}
\frac{1}{m} \sum_i \,\Big\| \rho_{\mathcal{A}_i X_iY_i} - \rho_{\mathcal{A}_i}\otimes \Big(\frac{1}{6}\sum_{x,y} \ket{x,y}\bra{x,y}\Big) \Big\|_1 \,\leq\, 4 \sqrt{\log(1/\varepsilon)/m}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, the same bound holds when $\mathcal{A}_i$ is replaced by $\mathcal{B}_i$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
We use Claim~\ref{claim:mutualinfo}. Alice's sequential measurements are taken to be the ones performed on $\mathcal{A}$, while Bob's measurement is the combination of the measurements on $\mathcal{B}$, together with Eve's measurement, on inputs $X,Y$ and advice bits $\hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv}$ obtained from $B$. We set $\mathbf{X}$ in the claim to be $XY$ here, and the outcomes $\mathbf{B}$ in the claim to $BE$ here. Together with the assumption $\Pr(D|\hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv})\geq \varepsilon$, the claim shows that
$$\frac{1}{m} \sum_i \,I\big(\mathcal{A}_i;X_iY_i|D_{<i}\big)_{\rho_{\mathcal{A}_i X_iY_i}} \,\leq\, \frac{\log(1/\varepsilon)}{m}.$$
Using Pinsker's inequality~\eqref{eq:pinsker} together with Jensen's inequality,
$$\frac{1}{m}\sum_i \Big\|\rho_{\mathcal{A}_i X_i Y_i} - \rho_{\mathcal{A}_i}\otimes \Big(\frac{1}{6}\sum_{xy} \ket{x,y}\bra{x,y}\Big) \Big\|_1 \,\leq\, 4\sqrt{\log(1/\varepsilon)/m},$$
where we used Claim~\ref{claim:prod_inputs} to show that the marginal distribution of $(X_i,Y_i)$ is close to uniform on $\{0,1,2\}\times\{0,1\}$, even conditioned on $D_{<i}$.
\end{proof}
The following claim replaces the event that the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition is satisfied in a large fraction of rounds by the event that their exists many rounds in which the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition is \emph{likely} to be satisfied (when evaluated on the state of the devices in that round).
\begin{claim}\label{claim:unif}
There exists a set $T\subseteq [m]$ such that $|T|\geq 2m/3$, and a subset $D'\subseteq D$ such that $\Pr(D'|D)\geq 1/2$ and for every $i\in T$, conditioned on $\hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv}$ and on inputs and outputs to the devices in rounds prior to $i$ being in $D'$, the condition $\textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(i)\leq 3\eta + 6\sqrt{\ln(1/\varepsilon)/m}$ holds.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let $Z_i\in\{0,1\}$ be $1$ if and only if the ${\textsc{CHSH}}$ condition is not satisfied in round $i$. By definition, $\textrm{E}[Z_i] = (1-\texttt{opt}) + \textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(i)$. Let $W_i = \textrm{E}[Z_i] - Z_i$ and $W_{\leq i} = W_1+\cdots+W_i$. $(W_{\leq i})_i$ is a Martingale, and by Azuma's inequality, for any $\beta >0 $
\begin{align}
\Pr\Big( \frac{1}{m} \sum_i \textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(i) + (1-\texttt{opt}) > \frac{1}{m}\sum_i Z_i + \beta\Big)
&= \Pr\Big( \frac{1}{m}\sum_i W_i > \beta \Big) \notag\\
& \leq e^{-\beta^2 m/2}.\notag
\end{align}
Since the string $\hat{\textsc{Adv}}$ is chosen by the adversary uniformly at random, we may further condition the equations above on $\hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv}$ without affecting their validity.
Note that the event ${\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(\eta)$ is equivalent to $\frac{1}{m}\sum_i Z_i \leq (1-\texttt{opt})+\eta$. Choosing $\beta = \sqrt{2\ln(2/\varepsilon)/m}$, so that $e^{-\beta^2 m/2} < \varepsilon/4$, and using the assumption $\Pr(D|\hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv})\geq \varepsilon$ to further condition on $D={\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(\eta)\wedge\textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}}$ we get
$$
\Pr\Big( \frac{1}{m}\sum_i \textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(i) > \eta + \beta \big| D, \hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv} \Big) \,\leq\, 1/2.
$$
The quantity $\textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(i)$ is a nonnegative number which only depends on the state of the devices in round $i$, itself only depending on the string of inputs and outputs observed thus far. Applying Markov's inequality, the condition above implies that there is a set $T\subseteq[m]$ of size $|T|\geq 2m/3$ and a subset $D'\subseteq D$ of size $\Pr(D'|D)\geq 1/2$ such that for every $i\in T$ it holds that $\textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(i) \leq 3( \eta + \beta)$, provided previous inputs and outputs of the devices were in $D'$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:chain-rule}]
Let $D'$ be the set from Claim~\ref{claim:unif}. Consider the state of the devices $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ in an arbitrary round $i$ of the protocol. By applying Markov's inequality to the bound~\eqref{eq:product-0} from Claim~\ref{claim:product}, we obtain a set $|T'|\subseteq[m]$ of size $|T'|\geq 11m/12$ and a subset $D''\subseteq D'$ satisfying $\Pr(D''|D')\geq 1/2$ such that, for every $i\in T'$, conditioned on $\hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv}$ and $(X_{<i},Y_{<i},A_{<i},B_{<i},E_{<i}) = (x_{<i},y_{<i},a_{<i},b_{<i},e_{<i})\in D''_{<i}$, both bounds
$$
\Big\| \rho_{\mathcal{A}_i X_iY_i} - \rho_{\mathcal{A}_i}\otimes \Big(\frac{1}{6}\sum_{x,y} \ket{x,y}\bra{x,y}\Big) \Big\|_1 \,\leq\, 200 \sqrt{\log(1/\varepsilon)/m}
$$
and the analogous bound where $\mathcal{A}_i$ is replaced by $\mathcal{B}_i$ hold. Letting $T''=T'\cap T$, where $T$ is the set from Claim~\ref{claim:unif}, both the bound above and the condition $\textsc{VIOL}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(i)\leq 3\eta + 6\sqrt{\ln(1/\varepsilon)/m}$ hold simultaneously in the rounds from $T''$ (conditioned on previous inputs and outputs being in $D''$). Furthermore, note that whether both conditions are satisfied or not only depends on the (post-selected) state of the protocol in round $i$, itself only depending on subsequent choices of inputs and outputs in the protocol to the extent that the condition $\hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv}$ is satisfied. Hence as long as the advice bits $\hat{\textsc{Adv}}$ that Eve uses to select the measurement on her system have a positive probability of being the correct advice bits, given the data generated up to round $i-1$, both bounds must hold verbatim. As a consequence, for any fixed $(x,y,a,b,e)\in D''_{<i}$ there exists a string $(\hat{x}_{>i},\hat{y}_{>i},\hat{a}_{>i},\hat{b}_{>i})$ from which advice bits $\hat{\textsc{Adv}}_{>i}$ can be computed such that if Eve makes the corresponding measurement, and obtains outputs that match $e_{<i}$, the bounds will hold irrespective of what might happen if the protocol was to be run for rounds after $i$. Thus conditions~\eqref{eq:chain-0} and~\eqref{eq:chain-1} in the lemma hold for any round $i\in T''$.
It remains to show that condition~\eqref{eq:chain-1} holds simultaneously in some round $i_0$. Since by construction $\Pr(D''|\hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv}) \geq \varepsilon/4$, multiplying by $\Pr(\hat{\textsc{Adv}}=\textsc{Adv})=2^{-\alpha m}$, applying Baye's rule, and using the definition of $D = {\textsc{CHSH}}_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}(\eta)\wedge \textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}}$, we get
$$ \prod_{i=1}^m \Pr\big(\textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}}(i)|D''_{<i}\big) \,\geq\,(\varepsilon/4)\,2^{-\alpha m}.$$
Taking logarithms and applying Markov's inequality, there is a subset $S\subseteq[m]$ of size $|S|\geq m/2$ such that for every $i\in S$,
$$-\ln \Pr\big(\textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}}(i)|D''_{<i}\big) \leq 2(\ln(2)\alpha + \ln(4/\varepsilon)/m),$$
implying that, for all $i\in S$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cr-1}
\Pr\big(\textsc{GUESS}_{\mathcal{B}\mathcal{E}}(i)|D''_{<i})\geq 1-2\ln(2)\alpha-2\ln(4/\varepsilon)/m.
\end{equation}
Let $i_0$ be any round in $T''\cap S$. To obtain~\eqref{eq:chain-2} we need to further condition~\eqref{eq:cr-1} on inputs in round $i_0$ to be the pair $(2,1)$, which using Claim~\ref{claim:prod_inputs} happens with probability $1/6\pm O(\sqrt{\ln(1/\varepsilon)/m})$. Choosing $C_\nu$ in the lemma to be a large enough constant, all three conditions are satisfied.
\end{proof}
\section{The quantum reconstruction paradigm}\label{sec:adv}
In this section we prove a general lemma, Lemma~\ref{lem:ext_adv} in Section~\ref{sec:rec-lem} below, from which Lemma~\ref{lem:strong-adv} is deduced in Section~\ref{sec:strong-adv}. We start with some useful preliminary definitions and known results.
\subsection{Combinatorial preliminaries}
We first define extractors.
\begin{definition}\label{def:extractor}
A function $Ext: \{0,1\}^n \times \{0,1\}^d \to \{0,1\}^m$ is a
\emph{quantum-proof} (or simply \emph{quantum})
\emph{$(k,\varepsilon)$-strong extractor} if for all
states $\rho_{XE}$ classical on $X$ with $\textsc{H}_{min}(X|E) \geq k$,
and for a uniform seed $Y\in\{0,1\}^d$, we have
$$\frac{1}{2} \big\|
\rho_{Ext(X,Y)YE} - \rho_{U_m} \otimes \rho_Y \otimes \rho_E\big\|_1
\leq \varepsilon, $$
where $\rho_{U_m}$ is the fully mixed state on a system of dimension $2^m$.
\end{definition}
We will use list-decodable codes.
\begin{definition}
A code $C : \{0,1\}^n \to \{0,1\}^{\bar{n}}$ is said to be
$(\varepsilon,L)$-list-decodable if every Hamming ball of relative
radius $1/2 - \varepsilon$ in $\{0,1\}^{\bar{n}}$ contains at most
$L$ codewords.
\end{definition}
There exist list-decodable codes with the following parameters.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:ecc} For every $n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}$ and $\delta > 0$
there is a code $C_{n,\delta} : \{0,1\}^n \to \{0,1\}^{\bar{n}}$,
which is $(\delta,1/\delta^2)$-list-decodable, with $\bar{n} = \poly(n,1/\delta)$. Furthermore, $C_{n,\delta}$ can be evaluated in time
$\poly(n,1/\delta)$ and $\bar{n}$ can be assumed to be a power of
$2$.
\end{lemma}
For example, Guruswami et al.~\cite{GHSZ02} combine a Reed-Solomon
code with a Ha\-da\-mard code, obtaining such a list-decodable code with
$\bar{n} = O(n/\delta^4)$.
We will also use the notion of weak design, as defined in~\cite{RRV02}.
\begin{definition}\label{def:weakdesign}
A family of sets $S_1,\cdots,S_m \subset [d]$
is a \emph{weak $(t,r,m,d)$-design} if
\begin{enumerate}
\item For all $i$, $|S_i| = t$.
\item For all $i$, $\sum_{j = 1}^{i-1} 2^{|S_j \cap S_i|} \leq rm$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
There exists designs with the following parameters.
\begin{lemma}[\protect{\cite[Lemma 17]{RRV02}}] \label{lem:optimalweakdesign}
For every $t,m \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}$ there
exists a weak $(t,1,m,d)$-design $S_1,\dotsc,S_m \subset [d]$ such that
$d = t \left\lceil \frac{t}{\ln 2} \right\rceil \left\lceil\log 4m
\right\rceil = O(t^2 \log m)$. Moreover, such a design can be found
in time $\poly(m,d)$ and space $\poly(m)$.
\end{lemma}
Finally, we describe Trevisan's extractor construction.
\begin{definition}\label{def:genericscheme} For a
one-bit extractor $C : \{0,1\}^n \times \{0,1\}^t \to \{0,1\}$,
and for a weak $(t,r,m,d)$-design $S_1,\cdots,S_m \subset [d]$, we define the
$m$-bit extractor $Ext_C : \{0,1\}^n \times \{0,1\}^d \to
\{0,1\}^m$ as
$$ Ext_C(x,y) \,:=\, C(x,y_{S_1}),\ldots,C(x,y_{S_m}).$$
\end{definition}
\subsection{The reconstruction lemma}\label{sec:rec-lem}
The following lemma is implicit in the proof of security of Trevisan's extractor construction paradigm against quantum adversaries given in~\cite{DVPR11}. A similar lemma also appeared in~\cite[Lemma~13]{VV12}, where the code $C$ was specialized to the $t$-XOR code. For completeness, we state and sketch the proof of a more general variant of that lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:ext_adv} Let $n,m,r,t,L$ be integers and $\varepsilon>0$. Let $C:\{0,1\}^n \to \{0,1\}^{\bar{n}}$ be a $(\varepsilon^2/(8m^2),L)$-list-decodable code, where $\bar{n}=2^t$. Let $Ext_C$ be the extractor obtained by combining $C$ with a $(t,r,m,d)$ design as in Definition~\ref{def:genericscheme}.
Let $\rho_{XE}$ be a state such that $X$ is a random variable distributed over $n$-bit strings. Let $U_m$ be uniformly distributed over $m$-bit strings, and suppose that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ass-eve}
\|\rho_{Ext_C(X,Y)YE} - \rho_{U_m}\otimes \rho_Y \otimes \rho_E \big\|_{1} \, > \, \varepsilon,
\end{equation}
where $Y$ is uniformly distributed over $\{0,1\}^d$. Then there exists fixed strings $y_1,\ldots,y_{rm} \in\{0,1\}^t$ such that, given the $\{(y_i,C(X)_{y_i})\}$ as advice, with probability at least $\varepsilon^2/(8m^2)$ over the choice of $x\sim p_X$ and her own randomness an ``adversary'' Eve holding system $E$ can produce a string $z$ such that $d_H(z , C(x)) \leq 1/2 - \varepsilon^2/(8m^2)$. In particular, Eve can recover $L$ strings $\tilde{x}_i \in \{0,1\}^n$ such that there exits $i$, $\tilde{x}_i = x$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Proposition~4.4 from~\cite{DVPR11} shows that a standard hybrid argument, together with properties of Trevisan's extractor (specifically the use of the seed through combinatorial designs), can be used to show the following claim.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:ext_adv-1} Assume~\eqref{eq:ass-eve} holds. Then there exists strings $y_1,\ldots, y_{rm} \in \{0,1\}^t$, and for every $y\in\{0,1\}^t$ a binary measurement, depending on the $\{(y_i,C(X)_{y_i})\}$, on $E$ that outputs $C(X,y)$ with probability at least $1/2+\varepsilon/m$ on average over $y$. Formally,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eve-1}
\big\| \rho_{C_t(X)_Y Y V E} - \rho_{U_1}\otimes \rho_{Y} \otimes \rho_{VE} \big\|_{1} \,>\, \frac{\varepsilon}{m},
\end{equation}
where $Y$ is a random variable uniformly distributed over $\{0,1\}^t$ and $V$ is a classical register containing the $\{(y_i,C(X)_{y_i})\}$.
\end{claim}
The next step is to argue that Eq.~\eqref{eq:eve-1} implies that an adversary given access to $E'=VE$ can predict not only a random bit of $C(X)$, but a string $Z$ of length $m$ such that $Z$ agrees with $C(X)$ in a significant fraction of positions. This follows from an argument given in~\cite{KT07}, and the following claim is proved exactly as~\cite[Claim~15]{VV12}.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:ext_adv-2} Suppose~\eqref{eq:eve-1} holds. Then there exists a measurement $\mathcal{F}$, with outcomes in $\{0,1\}^n$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eve-5}
\Pr_{x\sim p_X,\,y\sim U_{t}}\big(\, C(x)_y \,= \,C(\mathcal{F}(VE))_y\,\big) \geq \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\varepsilon^2}{4m^2}\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}(VE)$ denotes the outcome of $\mathcal{F}$ when performed on the state $\rho_{VE}$.
\end{claim}
To conclude the argument, we use the error-correction properties of $C$ to argue that Eve can decode her string $C(\mathcal{F}(VE))$ into an educated guess of $x$. Claim~\ref{claim:ext_adv-2} shows that, on expectation over $x$, Eve's string is at Hamming distance $1/2-\varepsilon^2/(4m^2)$ from the encoding of $x$. In particular, the distance will be at most $1/2-\varepsilon^2/(8m^2)$ for a fraction at least $\varepsilon^2/(8m^2)$ of $x\sim p_X$.
Since, by assumption, $C$ is $(\varepsilon^2/(8m^2),L)$-list-decodable, for those $x$ Eve can narrow down the possibilities to at most $L$ distinct values.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:strong-adv}}\label{sec:strong-adv}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:strong-adv} follows immediately from Lemma~\ref{lem:ext_adv} and an appropriate choice of parameters. Let $E$ denote the system made of the combination of $XYA_\mathbf{B} B_\mathbf{B} \mathcal{E}$, and let $n=|\mathbf{C}|$. The assumption of the lemma is that $\textsc{H}_{min}^\varepsilon(B_\mathbf{C}|E) < \kappa n$. Let $m = \kappa n + 1$. Let $C = C_{n,\delta}$, where $\delta = \varepsilon^2/(32 m^2)$, be a $(\delta,1/\delta^2)$ list-decodable code, as promised by Lemma~\ref{lem:ecc}. Let $Ext_C$ be constructed from $C$ and a $(t,1,m,d)$ design, where $t = \log \bar{n}$ and $d = O(t^2\log m)$, as promised by Lemma~\ref{lem:optimalweakdesign}.
It follows from the data processing inequality (see e.g.~\cite[Lemma~V.1~(ii)]{KR11}), our assumed upper bound on $\textsc{H}_{min}^\varepsilon(B_\mathbf{C}|E)$, and our choice of $m$ that Eq.~\eqref{eq:ass-eve} holds with $(\varepsilon/2)$ in place of $\varepsilon$. Thinking of Eve as simply outputting one of her $L$ guesses $\tilde{x}_i$ chosen at random, we obtain that Eve's guess will be successful with probability at least $\varepsilon^2/(32L m^2)$. Overall, Eve needs $m$ bits of advice, given which she can predict $x$ with success probability $O(\varepsilon^6/m^6)$, given our choice of parameters.
\section{Additional lemmas}\label{sec:additional}
\begin{lemma}[Azuma-Hoeffding inequality]\label{lem:azuma}
Let $(X_k)$ be a martingale such that $|X_k-X_{k-1}|\leq c_k$ for all $k$. Then for all integers $m$ and all $t\geq 0$,
$$ \Pr\big( X_m - X_0\geq t \big)\,\leq\, e^{-t^2/(2\sum_k c_k^2)}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:conditioning} Let $\varepsilon,\delta,\eta,\beta>0$ and $m$ an integer such that $e^{-2\beta^2 \delta m} < \varepsilon/2$. Let $X$ be a random variable defined over $m$-bit strings. Suppose that $\Pr( \sum_i X_i \leq \eta m) \geq \varepsilon$. Then there exists a set $G\subseteq\{0,1\}^m$ such that $\Pr(G)\geq \varepsilon/2$ and for all $x$ in $G$, for a fraction $\geq 1-\delta$ of indices $i\in [m]$,
$$\Pr(X_i=0 | X_{<i} = x_{<i}) \geq 1-\eta-\beta.$$
As a consequence, for a fraction at least $1-2\delta$ of $i\in [m]$ there exists a set $G_i \subseteq G$ such that $\Pr(G_i|G)\geq 1/2$ and for every $x_{<i}\in G_{i}$,
$$\Pr(X_i=0 | X_{<i} = x_{<i} ) \geq 1-\eta-\beta.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For every $i\in [m]$ define
$$B_i = \big\{(x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1},\ldots,x_m)|\, \Pr(X_{i}=1 | X_{<i} = x_{<i}) \geq \eta+\beta \big\},$$
let
$$B \,=\, \Big\{ x\big|\, \sum_{i:x\in B_i}1 \geq \delta m\Big\},$$
and suppose towards a contradiction that $\Pr(B) \geq 1-\varepsilon/2$. Let $\hat{B} = \{x\in B|\sum_i x_i \leq \eta m\}$. By definition, for every $x\in B$ and at least a $\delta$-fraction of indices $i$ it holds that $\Pr(X_i=1 | X_{<i} = x_{<i}) \geq \eta+\beta$. Hence the probability that $x\in B$ has less than $\eta$ indices $j$ at which $x_j=1$ is at most $e^{-2\beta^2\delta m}$, i.e. $\Pr(\hat{B}|B) \leq e^{-2\beta^2\delta m}$. This shows that
$$ \Pr\big(\sum_i X_i > \eta m \big) \,\geq\, \Pr(B)\big(1-\Pr(\hat{B}|B)\big) \,\geq\, (1-\varepsilon/2)\big(1-e^{-2\beta^2\delta m}\big) \,>\, 1-\varepsilon$$
given our assumption on $\varepsilon,\delta,\eta,\beta$ and $m$; a contradiction.
For the ``consequence'', for any $x\in G$ and $i\in [m]$ let $Y_{x,i}=1$ if and only if the condition
$$\Pr(X_i=0 | X_{<i} = x_{<i}) \geq 1-\eta-\beta$$
is satisfied. We have shown $\Es{x\in G, i\in [m]} \big[Y_{x,i}\big] \geq 1-\delta$. The result is then a consequence of Markov's inequality.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}\label{claim:mutualinfo} Let $\rho = \rho_{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}$ be a bipartite state shared between Alice and Bob. Suppose Bob chooses $x\in \mathbf{X}^m$ according to distribution $(p_x)$, and applies a measurement with Krauss operators $\{N_x^b\}_{b\in\mathcal{B}^m}$ on $\mathcal{B}$. Alice \emph{sequentially} applies a measurement with Krauss operators $\{M_{x_i}^{a_i}\}_{a_i\in\mathbf{A}}$ on $\mathcal{A}$, for $i=1,\ldots,m$. Let $D\subseteq (\mathbf{X}\times \mathbf{A} \times \mathbf{B})^m$ be a set of probability $\Pr(D) = \varepsilon$. For $i\in [m]$, let $\rho_i$ be the state of the system $\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B} X_i$ after $i-1$ measurements have been performed by Alice, conditioned on $(x_{<i},a_{<i},b_{<i})\in D_{<i}$:
$$ \rho_i \,\propto\, \sum_{(x,a,b): (x_{<i},a_{<i},b_{<i})\in D_{<i}} p_x\,\Big(\Big( \prod_{j<i}M_{x_j}^{a_j} \Big)\otimes N_x^b \Big)\,\rho\,\Big(\Big( \prod_{j<i} \big(M_{x_j}^{a_j}\big)^\dagger \Big)\otimes \big(N_x^b\big)^\dagger\Big),$$
and $\rho_i$ is normalized. Then the following bound holds:
$$ \sum_i \,I(\mathcal{A}:X_i | D_{<i})_{\rho_i} \,\leq\, \log(1/\varepsilon).$$
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
We prove the lemma using standard techniques from quantum information theory; specifically the proof of the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland theorem~\cite{Holevo98,SchuW96}. We assume that the reader is familiar with the coding and decoding strategies employed in that result, and in particular the notion of typical subspace (see e.g.~[Chapters~14 and~19]\cite{Wilde11}, and more specifically the proof of Theorem~19.3.1). We prove the claim by describing an experiment by which Bob transmits $H(X)$ bits of information to Alice using only $H(X)+\log(1/\varepsilon)-\sum_i I(\mathcal{A}:X_i)_{\rho_i}$ bits of communication from him to Alice. This implies the claimed inequality: if it did not hold Alice could guess Bob's $H(X)$ bits with success larger than $2^{-H(X)}$ simply by running the protocol by herself, and guessing Bob's messages.
Suppose Alice and Bob share an infinite number of copies of $\rho$. For each $i\in [m]$, Alice and Bob also agree on a random code $\mathcal{C}_i\subseteq \mathcal{X}^K$, where $K$ is a large integer, such that $|\mathcal{C}_i| = 2^{K I(\mathcal{A}:X_i|D_{<i})_{\rho_i}}$. By the properties of typical subspaces, with high probability over the choice of $\mathcal{C}_i$ the collection of states $\otimes_{j=1}^K\rho_i(x'_j)$ for $(x'_1,\ldots,x'_K)\in \mathcal{C}$, where $\rho_i(x'_j)$ is the reduced density of $\rho_i$ on $\mathcal{A}$ conditioned on $X_i = x'_j$, are almost perfectly distinguishable.\footnote{Precisely, there exists a distinguishing measurement whose success probability can be made arbitrarily close to $1$ by taking $K$ large enough.}
The experiment proceeds as follows. The copies of $\rho$ are grouped in groups of $K$. For each group, Bob selects a random $x=(x_i^j)_{1\leq i \leq m,1\leq j \leq K}\in (\mathcal{X}^m)^K$ and applies the measurements $\{N_{x^j}\}$ in the $j$-th copy of $\rho$ in that group, obtaining an outcome $b^j\in \mathbf{B}^m$. For each $i\in [m]$, Alice does the following, independently for each group. She guesses whether Bob's choice of $(x_i^1,\ldots,x_i^K)$ is in $\mathcal{C}_i$ (the probability with which she guesses this should be so is equal to the probability that $x_i \in \mathcal{C}_i$, i.e. $2^{K (I(\mathcal{A}:X_i|D_{<i})_{\rho_i}-H(X_i))}$). If so, she performs the decoding measurement to recover $x_i$. If not, she guesses $(x_i^1,\ldots,x_i^K)$ according to $p^{\times K}$. She then applies the measurements $\{M_{x_i^j}^{a_i^j}\}$ corresponding to the guessed $(x_i^j)$. At the end of the $m$ repetitions, Alice sends all her guesses, and her outcomes, to Bob.
Finally, Bob finds the first group of $K$ states in which Alice's guesses were all correct, and $(x^j,a^j,b^j)\in D$ (for each $1\leq j \leq K$). In any group, the probability that this event happens is $2^{-K(H(X)-\sum_i I(\mathcal{A}:X_i|D_{<i})_{\rho_i})} \varepsilon^K$. Moreover, note that Alice's probability of correctly guessing Bob's choice of $(x_i^j)$ is independent of $(x_i^j)$. Hence Bob can indicate to Alice the index of the first group of states on which she was correct by transmitting $O(K\log(1/\varepsilon) + K(H(X)-\sum_i I(\mathcal{A}:X_i|D_{<i})_{\rho_i}))$ bits. Alice then knows all $KH(X)$ bits of information about Bob's choices of $x$ in the $m$ rounds on the group of $K$ states.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{alphaabbrvprelim}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Supersymmetry (SUSY)~\cite{Nilles:1983ge} is an extension of the Standard Model (SM) which assigns to each SM field a superpartner field with a spin differing by a half unit. SUSY provides elegant solutions to several open issues in the SM, such as the hierarchy problem, the identity of dark matter, and grand unification.
SUSY searches in collider experiments typically focus on events with high transverse missing energy (\MET) which can arise from (weakly interacting) Lightest Supersymmetric Particles (LSPs), in the case of $R$-parity conserving SUSY, or from neutrinos produced in LSP decays, when $R$-parity is broken. Hence, the event selection criteria of inclusive channels are based on large \MET, no or few leptons ($e$, $\mu$), many jets and/or $b$-jets, $\tau$-leptons and photons. The exact sets of cuts (``signal regions'', SRs) are a compromise between the necessity to suppress events coming from known SM processes while maintaining sufficient number of surviving SUSY events. Typical SM backgrounds are top-quark production ---including single-top---, $W$/$Z$ in association with jets, dibosons and QCD multi-jet events. These are estimated using semi- or fully data-driven techniques. Although the various analyses are motivated and optimised for a specific SUSY scenario, the interpretation of the results are extended to various SUSY models or topologies.
A brief summary of recent results (as of June~2012) on searches for SUSY with and without $R$-parity conservation and for long-lived massive superpartners is presented. The reported results are based on up to 4.7~\ifb\ of data from $pp$ collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\rts = 7\TeV$ recorded in 2010 -- 2011 by ATLAS~\cite{Aad:2008zzm} at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)~\cite{Evans:2008zzb}.
\section{Inclusive channels}
\label{sec:RPC}
Analyses exploring $R$-parity conserving (RPC) SUSY models are currently divided into inclusive searches for: (a) squarks and gluinos, (b) third-generation fermions, and (c) electroweak production ($\tilde{\chi}^0$, $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}$, $\tilde{\ell}$). Recent results from each category of ATLAS searches are presented in this Section. It is stressed that, although these searches are designed to look for RPC SUSY, interpretation in terms of $R$-parity violating models is also possible (cf.\ Sec.~\ref{sec:RPV}).
\subsection{Squarks and gluinos}
\label{sec:strong}
Strong SUSY production is searched in events with large jet multiplicities and large missing transverse momentum, with and without leptons. Various channels fall into this class of searches; here two cases are highlighted: the 0-lepton plus jets plus \MET\ and the lepton(s) plus jets plus \MET.
In the 0-lepton search~\cite{:2012rz}, events are selected based on a jet+\MET\ trigger, applying a lepton veto, requiring a minimum number of jets (two to six), $\MET > 160\GeV$, and large azimuthal separation between the \MET\ and reconstructed jets, in order to reject multi-jet background. Events are analysed in five SRs based on jet multiplicity, which are further divided to an overall of eleven channels by using different $m\mathrm{_{eff}(incl.)}$ thresholds. The latter variable is defined as the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of jets with $\pt > 40\GeV$ plus the \MET. The most important sources of background are estimated with data-driven methods, by using measurements in control regions (CRs) and Monte Carlo (MC) predictions for SRs and CRs, applying similar techniques as for the one/two-leptons search described below. The $m\mathrm{_{eff}(incl.)}$ distributions for data, for various background processes before and after fitting to CR observations and for two MSUGRA/CMSSM benchmark model points with $m_0 = 500\GeV$, $m_1/2 = 570\GeV$, $A_0 = 0$, $\tan\beta = 10$ and $\mu > 0$ and with $m_0 = 2500\GeV$, $m_1/2 = 270\GeV$, $A_0 = 0$, $\tan\beta = 10$ and $\mu > 0$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:0lepton} (left).
Limits for squark and gluino production are set in the absence of deviations from SM predictions. Figure~\ref{fig:0lepton} (right) illustrates the 95\% confidence level (CL) limits set under the mSUGRA/CMSSM framework. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. In the MSUGRA/CMSSM case, the limit on $m_{1/2}$ reaches 300~\GeV\ at high $m_{0}$ and 640~\GeV\ for low values of $m_0$. Squarks and gluinos with equal masses below 1360~\GeV\ are excluded in this scenario.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig01a.pdf} \hfill \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig01b.pdf}
\caption{0-lepton plus jets plus \MET\ analysis. {\it Left:} Observed $m\mathrm{_{eff}(incl.)}$ distribution for the two-jets plus MET analysis (channel~A)~\cite{:2012rz}. In the top panel, the histograms show the SM background expectations, both before (black open histogram) and after (medium (red) open histogram) use of a fit to scale the expectations to CR observations. The bottom panel shows the fractional deviation of the data from the total unscaled background estimate (black points), together with the fractional deviation of the total scaled background estimate from the total unscaled background estimate (medium (red) line). {\it Right:} The 95\% CL exclusion limits on the ($m_0, m_{1/2}$) plane of MSUGRA/CMSSM for $\tan\beta = 10$, $A_0 = 0$ and $\mu > 0$. The black dashed lines show the expected limits, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental uncertainties. Observed limits are indicated by medium (maroon) curves, where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.}
\label{fig:0lepton}
\end{figure}
The one- and two-leptons search~\cite{:2012ms} is motivated by models with SUSY decay chains with intermediate $\tilde{\chi}^0$, $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}$, $\tilde{\ell}$, for which isolated leptons are a clean signature. The SRs are divided into those which require exactly one lepton and three or four jets and those with at least two leptons and two or four jets. Within this search, ATLAS also performs a soft-lepton analysis which enhances the sensitivity of the search in the difficult kinematic region where the neutralino and gluino masses are close to each other forming the so-called ``compressed spectrum''. Further cuts are applied on \MET, $m_{\mathrm{T}}$, $m\mathrm{_{eff}(incl.)}$ and $\MET/m_{\mathrm{eff}}$, where $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is defined as the scalar sum of the \MET and the transverse momenta of the selected leptons and jets.
The major backgrounds ($t\bar{t}$, $W$+jets, $Z$+jets) are estimated by isolating each of them in a dedicated control region, normalising the simulation to data in that control region, and then using the simulation to extrapolate the background expectations into the signal region. The multijet background is determined from the data by a matrix method. All other (smaller) backgrounds are estimated entirely from the simulation, using the most accurate theoretical cross sections available. To account for the cross-contamination of physics processes across control regions, the final estimate of the background is obtained with a simultaneous, combined fit to all control regions.
Apart from other theoretical models (mSUGRA, GMSB), results are also interpreted under simplified-model assumptions. Figure~\ref{fig:12lepton} (left) illustrates the diagrams of two of the topologies used for the interpretation: a one-step $\tilde{q}_L$-pair and a two-step $\tilde{g}$-pair production. In Fig.~\ref{fig:12lepton} (right), the excluded cross sections at 95\% confidence level for the one-step simplified model of gluino pair-production with $\tilde{g} \rightarrow q \bar{q}' \tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm} \rightarrow q \bar{q}' W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ are shown. The plots are from the combination of the hard and soft single-lepton channels.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.88\linewidth]{fig02aa.pdf} \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig02ab.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\hspace*{1cm} \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig02b.pdf}
\caption{Leptons plus jets plus \MET\ analysis. {\it Left:} Representative diagrams for different SUSY models: one-step simplified model with $pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}_L \tilde{q}_L^*$ and subsequent decay via charginos (top); two-step simplified model with $pp \rightarrow\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ and subsequent decays via charginos and sleptons or sneutrinos (bottom). {\it Right:} Excluded cross sections at 95\% confidence level for the one-step simplified model of gluino pair-production with $\tilde{g} \rightarrow q \bar{q}' \tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm} \rightarrow q \bar{q}' W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_1^0$~\cite{:2012ms}. The chargino mass is set to be halfway between gluino and LSP masses. The band around the median expected limit shows the $\pm 1\sigma$ variations on the median expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties on the signal. The dotted lines around the observed limit indicate the sensitivity to $\pm 1\sigma$ variations on these theoretical uncertainties. The numbers indicate the excluded cross section in femtobarns. }
\label{fig:12lepton}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Third-generation squarks}
\label{sec:third}
The mixing of left- and right-handed gauge states which provides the mass eigenstates of the scalar quarks and leptons can lead to relatively light 3$^\mathrm{rd}$ generation particles. Stop ($\tilde{t}_1$) and sbottom ($\tilde{b}_1$) with a sub-TeV mass are favoured by the naturalness argument, while the stau ($\tilde{\tau}_1$) is the lightest slepton in many models. Therefore these could be abundantly produced either directly or through gluino production and decay. Such events are characterised by several energetic jets (some of them $b$-jets), possibly accompanied by light leptons, as well as high \MET.
The first analysis presented here~\cite{:2012pq} comprises the full 2011 dataset of 4.7~\ifb\ and adopts an improved selection that requires large \MET, no electron or muon and at least three jets identified as originating from $b$-quarks ($b$-jets) in the final state. Results are interpreted in simplified models where sbottoms or stops are the only squarks produced in the gluino decays, leading to final states with four $b$-quarks.
The gluino-sbottom model is an MSSM scenario where the $\tilde{b}_1$ is the lightest squark, all other squarks are heavier than the gluino, and $m_{\tilde{g}} > m_{\tilde{b}_1} > m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$, so the branching ratio for $\tilde{g}\rightarrow\tilde{b}_1 b$ decays is 100\%. Sbottoms are produced via $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ or by $\tilde{b}_1\tilde{b}_1$ direct pair production and are assumed to decay exclusively via $\tilde{b}_1\rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}_1^0$, where $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ is set to 60~\GeV. Exclusion limits are presented in the $(m_{\tilde{g}},m_{\tilde{b}_1})$ plane in Fig.~\ref{fig:glu-med} (left).
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig03a.pdf} \hfill \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig03b.pdf}
\caption{Results from searches for gluino-mediated third-generation squarks. The dashed black and solid bold red lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits respectively, including all uncertainties except the theoretical signal cross-section uncertainty. The shaded (yellow) band around the expected limit shows the impact of the experimental uncertainties while the dotted red lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross section by $1\sigma$ theoretical uncertainty. {\it Left:} Exclusion limits in the $(m_{\tilde{g}},m_{\tilde{b}_1})$ plane for the gluino-sbottom model~\cite{:2012pq}. Also shown for reference are the previous CDF, D0 and ATLAS analyses. {\it Right:} Exclusion limits in the $(m_{\tilde{g}},m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0})$ plane for the Gtt model~\cite{:2012pq}. Also shown for reference are the previous ATLAS analyses.}
\label{fig:glu-med}
\end{figure}
A simplified scenario (``Gtt model''), where $\tilde{t}_1$ is the lightest squark but $m_{\tilde{g}} < m_{\tilde{t}_1}$, is considered. Pair production of gluinos is the only process taken into account since the mass of all other sparticles apart from the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ are above the \TeV\ scale. A three-body decay via off-shell stop is assumed for the gluino, yielding a 100\% BR for the decay $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The stop mass has no impact on the kinematics of the decay and the exclusion limits are presented in the $(m_{\tilde{g}},m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0})$ plane in Fig.~\ref{fig:glu-med} (right).
Furthermore, a search for light top squarks has been performed in the dilepton final state: $ee$, $\mu\mu$ and $e\mu$ with 4.7~\ifb~\cite{:2012tx}. The leading lepton \pt\ is required to be less than 30~\GeV, a $Z$-veto is imposed ($|m_{\ell\ell}-m_Z|>10\GeV$) and $\MET>20\GeV$ is required. Good agreement is observed between data and the SM prediction in all three flavour channels. The results are interpreted in the $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0})$ plane, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:light-stop} with the chargino mass set to 106~\GeV, and with the assumption that the decay $\tilde{t}_1\rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}$ occurs 100\% of the time, followed by decay via a virtual $W$ ($\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\rightarrow W^{*}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) with an 11\% branching ratio (per flavour channel) to decay leptonically. A lower limit at 95\% confidence level is set on the stop mass in this plane using the combination of flavour channels. This excludes stop masses up to 130~\GeV\ (for neutralino masses between 1~\GeV\ and 70~\GeV).
\begin{figure}[!htbp]\sidecaption
\resizebox{0.43\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics*{fig04.pdf}}
\caption{Search for very light stops: 95\% exclusion limit in the $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0})$ mass plane, with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}}=106\GeV$~\cite{:2012tx}. The dashed and solid lines show the 95\% CL expected and observed limits, respectively, including all uncertainties except for the theoretical signal cross-section uncertainty (PDF and scale). The band around the expected limit shows the $\pm 1\sigma$ result. The dotted $\pm 1\sigma$ lines around the observed limit represent the results obtained when moving the nominal signal cross section up or down by the theoretical uncertainty. Illustrated also is the region excluded at the 95\% CL by the CDF experiment, where the lowest neutralino mass considered was 44~\GeV, indicated by the horizontal dotted line. }\label{fig:light-stop}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Direct weak-gaugino production}
\label{sec:gaugino}
Signatures with multiple charged leptons can arise at the LHC through cascade decays of charginos and neutralinos. These weak gauginos can either be produced directly or can result from decays of squarks and gluinos. The analysis presented here~\cite{:2012cwa} consists of a search for direct production of weak gauginos in final states with three leptons and \MET\ at $\rts = 7\TeV$ with 2.06~\ifb.
In one of the theoretical scenarios considered, the phenomenological minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (pMSSM), a series of simplifying assumptions reduces the 105~parameters of the $R$-parity conserving MSSM to~19. These assumptions include no new sources of $CP$ violation and degenerate 1$^\mathrm{st}$ and 2$^\mathrm{nd}$ generation sfermion masses. This analysis made further assumptions, e.g.\ $\tan\beta=6$ to ensure the same leptonic branching fraction for each flavour, to reduce the number of parameters to three: the $U(1)$ gaugino mass $M_1$, the $S\!U(2)$ gaugino mass $M_2$, and the higgsino mass $|\mu|$.
The baseline event selection requires three leptons with $\pt > 10\GeV$, $\MET > 50\GeV$, and at least one same-flavour, opposite-charge (SFOC) lepton pair. Two signal regions have been considered, both vetoing jets identified as originating from $b$-quarks. SR1 is defined by requiring that the invariant mass of the SFOC pair be further than 10~\GeV\ from the $Z$ mass. Conversely, SR2 is defined by requiring the SFOC mass to be within 10~\GeV\ of the $Z$ mass. The SR1 and SR2 selections target SUSY events with intermediate slepton or on-mass-shell $Z$-boson decays, respectively.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]\sidecaption
\resizebox{0.52\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics*{fig05.pdf}}
\caption{Observed and expected 95\% CL limit contours for chargino and neutralino production in the pMSSM scenario set by the three-leptons and \MET\ channel~\cite{:2012cwa}. }\label{fig:gaugino}
\end{figure}
In SR1 (SR2), 32 (95) events are observed in data. The total SM prediction is $26\pm5$ ($72\pm12$) events. The background-only $p$-value is found to be 19\% (6\%). 95\% CL limits are set on the parameter space of pMSSM, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:gaugino}. An upper bound of 9.9~fb (23.8~fb) at 95\% CL has been placed on the visible cross section in SR1 (SR2).
\section{$R$-parity violating SUSY}
\label{sec:RPV}
Searches are also performed in ATLAS for several signatures associated with the violation of $R$-parity (RPV). In one of them, a term $W_\mathrm{RPV} = \lambda'_{ijk}\tilde{u}_j \bar{d}_k l_i$ is introduced into the SUSY Lagrangian, which in turn permits a process $d\bar{d} \rightarrow e^- \mu^+$ via $t$-channel top squark exchange. In 2.1~\ifb\ of data, ATLAS has performed the first search for continuum production of a muon and electron of opposite sign~\cite{Aad:2012yw}, finding no excess above the SM expectation. As demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:RPV} (left), for a coupling parameter product of $|\lambda'_{131}\lambda'_{231}|=|\lambda'_{132}\lambda'_{232}|=0.05$, such processes are ruled out at 95\% CL for $m_{\tilde{t}} < 200\GeV$.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.46\linewidth]{fig06a.pdf} \hfill \includegraphics[width=0.52\linewidth]{fig06b.pdf}
\caption{{\it Left:} The observed 95\% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow e\mu)$ through the RPV $t$-channel exchange of a scalar top quark as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$~\cite{Aad:2012yw}. The expected limits are also shown together with the $\pm 1$ and $\pm 2$ standard-deviation uncertainty bands. The theoretical cross section for $|\lambda_{131}^{\prime}\lambda_{231}^{\prime}|=|\lambda_{132}^{\prime}\lambda_{232}^{\prime}|=0.05$ is also shown. {\it Right:} Excluded region at 95\% CL as a function of $m_{1/2}$ and $\tan\beta$ obtained with the four-leptons analysis~\cite{stauLSP}. The expected exclusion and its $\pm 1\sigma$ variations are indicated by dashed lines. The other solid shaded areas are excluded from this analysis by LEP results on the Higgs mass or because $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1} < 80\GeV$. }
\label{fig:RPV}
\end{figure}
A search requiring four or more leptons (electrons or muons) in the final state~\cite{4leptons} is sensitive to various supersymmetric models including pair-production of strongly interacting SUSY particles with $R$-parity breaking decays of a $\tilde{\tau}_1$ LSP~\cite{stauLSP}. Moderate missing transverse momentum is expected in the final state due to the presence of neutrinos originating in the decay of the LSP.
Isolated electrons (muons) with $\pt > 10\GeV$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta| < 2.47$ ($|\eta| < 2.4$) are considered. A signal region selecting events with at least four leptons, $\MET> 50\GeV$ and a veto on events containing a $Z$-boson candidate is defined. At least one of the selected leptons has to be in the efficiency plateau ($\pt^{e} >25\GeV$ and $\pt^{\mu} >20\GeV$) and match a lepton firing the trigger.
With 2.06~\ifb\ of $pp$ collision data, zero events are observed, while $0.7\pm0.8$ events are expected from SM processes. Observed (expected) upper limits of 1.5 (1.5)~fb set on the visible cross-sections for new phenomena are subsequently used to constrain the mSUGRA/CMSSM scenario with $m_0=A_0=0$, $\mu > 0$, and one $R$-parity lepton flavour violating parameter $\lambda_{121}=0.032$ at $m_\mathrm{GUT}$. In this scenario, the RPV coupling is small enough so that the SUSY particle pair production dominates, and large enough that the $\tilde{\tau}_1$ LSP decays promptly. Values of $m_{1/2} <800\GeV$ are excluded at 95\% CL if $\tan\beta <40$ and $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1} >80\GeV$, as demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:RPV} (right). These are the first limits from the LHC experiments on a model with a $\tilde{\tau}_1$ as the lightest supersymmetric particle.
\section{Meta-stable particles}
\label{sec:LL}
We discuss here the results of a search for the decay of a heavy long-lived particle producing a multi-track displaced vertex (DV) that contains a high-\pT\ muon at a distance between millimeters and tens of centimeters from the $pp$ interaction point~\cite{Aad:2011zb}. The results are interpreted in the context of an RPV SUSY scenario, where such a final state occurs in the decay $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\rightarrow\mu q\bar{q}' $, allowed by the non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'_{2ij}$.
Events that pass a single-muon trigger of $\pt^{\mu} > 40\GeV$ are selected. The reconstruction of a DV begins with the selection of high-impact-parameter tracks with $\pt > 1\GeV$. At least four tracks in the DV are required, to suppress background from random combinations of tracks and from material interactions. Background due to particle interactions with material is further suppressed by requiring $m_\mathrm{DV} > 10\GeV$, where $m_\mathrm{DV}$ is the invariant mass of the tracks originating from the DV. High-$m_\mathrm{DV}$ background arise from random spatial coincidence of such a low-$m_\mathrm{DV}$ vertex with a high-\pt\ track is suppressed by vetoing vertices that are reconstructed within regions of high-density material.
Figure~\ref{fig:DV} (left) shows the distribution of $m_\mathrm{DV}$ versus $N\mathrm{^{trk}_{DV}}$ for vertices in the selected data events, including vertices that fail the requirements on $m_\mathrm{DV}$ and $N\mathrm{^{trk}_{DV}}$, overlaid with the signal distribution for a signal sample with $m_{\tilde{q}} = 700\GeV$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} = 494\GeV$. Fewer than 0.03 background events are expected in the data sample of 33~\ipb, and no events are observed. Based on this null observation, upper limits are set on the supersymmetry production cross-section $\sigma\times B$ of the simulated signal decay chain for different combinations of squark and neutralino masses and for different values of $c\tau$, where $\tau$ is the neutralino lifetime (cf.\ Fig.~\ref{fig:DV}, right).
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{fig07a.pdf} \hfill \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{fig07b.pdf}
\caption{{\it Left:} Vertex mass ($m_\mathrm{DV}$) versus vertex track multiplicity ($N^\mathrm{trk}_\mathrm{DV}$) for displaced vertices that pass the event selection requirements except the $m_\mathrm{DV}$ and $N^\mathrm{trk}_\mathrm{DV}$ requirements, which are not applied~\cite{Aad:2011zb}. Shaded bins show the distribution for signal MC, and data are shown as filled ellipses, with the area of the ellipse proportional to the number of events in the corresponding bin. {\it Right:} Upper limits at 95\% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction versus the neutralino proper decay length for different combinations of squark and neutralino masses, based on the observation of zero events satisfying all criteria in a 33~\ipb\ data sample~\cite{Aad:2011zb}. The horizontal lines show the cross-sections calculated from PROSPINO for squark masses of 700~\GeV\ and 150~\GeV. }
\label{fig:DV}
\end{figure}
In another search for long-lived particles, SUSY is looked for through disappearing tracks, motivated by anomaly-mediated symmetry breaking (AMSB) models where the chargino can live long enough to be detected within the inner detector volume. Since the chargino and the neutralino are almost degenerate in mass in these models, the charged particle ($\pi^{\pm}$) from the decay of this chargino is too soft to be reconstructed, therefore a disappearing track is expected. Events are selected based on large \met, high jet multiplicity and a lepton veto. Chargino candidates are selected among good-quality tracks before the TRT (outer part of the inner detector with a radius between 56 to 108~cm) and less than five hits in the TRT outer module. A comparison of the number of hits in the TRT outer volume between the signal, the SM background and the data is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:kinked} (left). Constraints on the AMSB chargino mass and lifetime were set with 1.02~\ifb; a chargino having $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}} < 92\GeV$ and $0.5 < \tau_{\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}} < 2~\mathrm{ns}$ was excluded at 95\% CL, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:kinked} (right).
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{fig08a.pdf} \hfill \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{fig08b.pdf}
\caption{{\it Left:} The number of hits in the TRT outer module ($N_\mathrm{TRT}^\mathrm{outer}$) for data and LL01 signal events ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}} \simeq 1$~ns) with the high-\pt\ isolated track selection~\cite{ATLAS:2012ab}. The selection boundary is indicated by the arrow. The expectation from SM MC events, normalised to the number of observed events, is also shown. When charginos decay before reaching the TRT outer module, $N_\mathrm{TRT}^\mathrm{outer}$ is expected to have a value near zero; conversely, SM charged particles traversing the TRT typically have $N_\mathrm{TRT}^\mathrm{outer} \simeq 15$. {\it Right:} The observed and expected 95\% CL upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of chargino lifetime for $m_\mathrm{chargino} = 90.2\GeV$~\cite{ATLAS:2012ab}. The bands indicate the $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ variations on the median expected limit (dotted line) due to uncertainties. }
\label{fig:kinked}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary}
\label{sec:summ}
Supersymmetry signals have been sought after by the ATLAS experiment, motivated by various models and topologies: strong production, $3^\mathrm{rd}$ generation fermions, mass degeneracies, $R$-parity violation, among others. They lead to a wide spectrum of signatures: \MET + jets + leptons / photons / $b$-jets / $\tau$-leptons, displaced vertices, not possible to cover all of them here; analyses based on photons and $\tau$-leptons are detailed in Refs.~\cite{ATLAS:2012ag,Aad:2012rt} and~\cite{Aad:2011zj}, respectively. No deviation from known SM processes has been observed so far with $\sim 5~\ifb$ at $\rts = 7\TeV$. As both techniques and strategy keep evolving, ATLAS will keep looking for supersymmetry with the new data that become available at the LHC.
\begin{acknowledgement}
The author acknowledges support by the Spanish MINECO under the project FPA2009-13234-C04-01 and by the Spanish Agency of International Cooperation for Development under the PCI project A1/035250/11.
\end{acknowledgement}
|
\section{Introduction}
In \cite{Rouquier}, Rouquier gave several results on the dimension theory of triangulated categories. Following this paper, Orlov computed the dimension of the derived category of coherent sheaves on an elliptic curve and found it to equal one in \cite{Orlov}. Orlov then advanced a more general perspective on dimension theory by defining the spectrum of a triangulated category, now called the Orlov spectrum, which includes the generation times of all strong generators. This important concept serves as a more nuanced invariant than dimension, as it gives one a way to compare all strong generators. Many results on Orlov spectra are obtained in \cite{BFK}, where they observe, in certain instances, gaps in the generation times. On the other hand, there are many cases where no such gaps appear. This lead to several outstanding conjectures on the existence of such gaps and their potential relationship to the Hodge conjecture and homological mirror symmetry.
While the triangulated setting serves as an accessible model for homological invariants, it is generally accepted that triangulated categories are inadequate for giving a natural characterization of homotopy theory for derived categories. Instead of working in this setting, it is advisable to lift to a pretriangulated category, or $(\infty, 1)$-category framework, where several constructions are more natural \cite{Lurie, Drinfeld}. In this paper, we study the dimension of triangulated categories by lifting to pretriangulated {DG } or $A_\infty$-categories.
When the category $\mathcal{T}$ is strongly generated by a compact object $G$, we upgrade several classical results in dimension theory of abelian categories to the pretriangulated setting and find that the natural filtration given by the bar construction plays a determining role in the calculus of dimension. Indeed, if $G$ is such a generator, using a result of Lef\`evre-Hasegawa, we can regard $\mathcal{T}$ as the homotopy category of perfect modules over an $A_\infty$ algebra $A_G = \text{Hom}^* (G,G)$. In addition to being a {DG } category, the category of perfect $A_\infty$ modules over $A_G$ is enhanced over filtered chain complexes, where the filtration is obtained through the bar construction. This filtration descends to the triangulated level. The first main result, Theorem \ref{thm:main1}, in this paper is that the generation time of a strong generator $G$ equals the maximal length of this filtration.
\begin{thm} The generation time of $G \in \mathcal{T}$ equals the supremum over all $M, N \in A_G \mhyphen \pcmd$ of the lengths of $\text{Hom}_{A_G \mhyphen \pcmd} (M, N)$ with respect to the filtration induced by the bar construction.
\end{thm}
As a result, we develop a filtered cohomology theory which yields the generation times that occur in Orlov spectra. The lengths referred to in this theorem are those of the filtrations induced on the cohomology of the complexes, or the $\text{Ext}$ groups, by the pretriangulated filtrations. In practice, it is possible to compute these lengths by calculating their spectral sequences which will converge under very mild assumptions.
Another filtration that occurs naturally from the bar construction is on the tensor product. This filtration is especially useful as one may define change of base as a tensor product with an appropriate bimodule. After establishing basic adjunction results in the next section, we generalize the classical change of base formula for dimension to the $A_\infty$ algebra setting in Theorem \ref{thm:main2}. A new multiplicative constant appears in this version which is related to the speed at which a spectral sequence associated to the tensor product filtration converges.
\begin{thm} Let $P$ be a $(B, A)$-bimodule and $M$ a left $A$-module. Suppose the
spectral sequence of $P \ts{A} M$ degenerates at the $(s + 1)$-st
page. If the convolution functor $P \ts{} \_$ is faithful, then
\begin{equation*} \textnormal{lvl}_A (M) \leq \textnormal{lvl}_A (P) + s \cdot \textnormal{lvl}_B (P \ts{A} M ) \end{equation*}
\end{thm}
Here $\text{lvl}_A (M)$ plays the role of homological, or projective, dimension of a module $M$. If the algebra $A$ is formal, the constant $s$ is $1$ and we see the classical formula. If higher products are relevant, one must modify the classical inequality. \\
{\em Acknowledgements:} Support was provided by NSF Grant DMS0600800, NSF FRG Grant DMS-0652633, FWF
Grant P20778, and an ERC Grant --- GEMIS. Both authors would like to thank Matt Ballard, Colin Diemer, David Favero, Maxim Kontsevich, Dima Orlov, Pranav Pandit, Tony Pantev and Paul Seidel for helpful comments and conversation during the preparation of this work. The second author would like to thank David Favero in particular for his patient explanations of results on the dimension theory of triangulated categories.
\section{$A_\infty$ Constructions}
This section will review many definitions and constructions related to $A_\infty$ algebras and modules. The aim of our treatment is to approach this subject with a special emphasis on the filtrations arising from the bar constructions. These filtrations are the main technical structure we use in the dimension theory for pretriangulated categories.
After reviewing some standard definitions, we will give the definitions of filtered tensor product, filtered internal Hom and duals in the category of $A_\infty$-bimodules. The mantra that all constructions in the $A_\infty$ setting are derived constructions will be continually reinforced. Moreover, the above functors will land in the category of lattice filtered $A_\infty$-modules, which preserves the relevant data for a study of dimension. The $\otimes-{\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}$ adjunction, usually written in either the abelian or derived setting, will be formed as an adjunction between filtered {DG } functors. The categorical formulation of this statement is that the category $Alg_\infty$ is a biclosed bicategory enriched over filtered cochain complexes. We will utilize this to update classical results on the relationship between flat and projective dimensions for perfect modules.
\subsection{Fundamental Notions} \label{subsub:lf}
We take a moment to lay out some basic notation
and fix our sign conventions. All algebras and vector spaces will be over a fixed field $\mathbb{K}$ and categories will be $\mathbb{K}$-linear categories. Let ${gr}$
be the category of graded vector spaces over $\mathbb{K}$ and finite sums of homogeneous maps. We
take ${Ch}$ to be the category of
cochain complexes of vector spaces over $\mathbb{K}$ and finite sums of homogeneous maps.
We will identify $\text{Hom}_{Ch}$ with the internal $\text{Hom}$ whose differential of
\begin{equation*} f \in \text{Hom}_{Ch}^k ((C, d_C), (C^\prime, d_{C^\prime} )) \end{equation*}
is the usual one, namely, \begin{equation*} df := f \circ d_C -
(-1)^k d_{C^\prime} \circ f \end{equation*} Finally, we take $K$
to be the category of chain complexes and cochain maps. In other
words, maps which are cocycles relative to $d$ in ${Ch}$.
In the above definition, we are purposefully vague with respect to
the abelian group indexing the grading. For most of the paper, we
will assume our chain complexes are $\mathbb{Z}$-graded, but there will be
examples of the $(\mathbb{Z} / 2 \mathbb{Z})$-graded case. This should cause no
difficulty as the proofs will be independent of this choice.
We view ${Ch}$ as a closed category with respect to the
tensor product along with the Koszul sign rule $\gamma_{V, W} : V
\otimes W \to W \otimes V$ given by:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:symmon} \gamma_{V, W} (v \otimes w) = (-1)^{|v| |w| } w \otimes v \end{equation}
We will need to implement this sign convention when discussing
tensor products of maps as well. For this we follow the usual convention. Namely, given homogeneous maps $f \in \text{Hom}_{gr}^* (V_1 , V_2)$ $g \in \text{Hom}_{gr}^* (W_1, W_2)$ then we define $f \otimes g \in \text{Hom}_{gr} (V_1 \otimes W_1 , V_2 \otimes W_2 )$ via $(f \otimes g) (v \otimes w) = (-1)^{|g||v|} f (v) \otimes g(w)$.
By a differential graded, or {DG } , category $\mathcal{D}$ we mean a category enriched in ${Ch}$. We let
\begin{equation*} \yoned{\_} : \mathcal{D} \to {Ch}^{\mathcal{D}^{op}} \end{equation*}
be the Yoneda functor given by $\yoneda{E}{E^\prime} = \text{Hom}_\mathcal{D} (E^\prime , E )$.
In categories ${gr}$, ${Ch}$ and $K$, we have the shift functor $s$ which sends $V^*$ to $V^{* + 1}$. On morphisms we have $s (f) = (-1)^{|f|} f$. There is also a (degree $1$) natural transformation $\sigma : I \to s$ defined as $\sigma (v) = (-1)^{|v|} v$. One can utilize $\sigma$ to translate the signs occurring in various bar constructions given
in this text and those in the ordinary desuspended case. In particular, given a map $f : V^{\otimes n} \to W^{\otimes m}$ in ${Ch}$ we define $s_\otimes (f) : (s V)^{\otimes n} \to (s W)^{\otimes m}$ to be $ \sigma^{\otimes m} \circ f \circ (\sigma^{-1})^{\otimes n}$. We will often use this notation to write the equations defining various structures
without mentioning the elements of our algebras or modules. A nice account of the various choices and techniques used in sign
conventions can be found in \cite{Deligne1}.
Filtrations will occur throughout this paper and our initial approach will be rather general. We partially order $\mathbb{Z}^k$ for any $k \in \mathbb{N}$ with the product order. A lattice filtered complex will consist of the data $\mathbf{V} = \left(V, \{V_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}^k}\right)$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}$, where $V$ is an object in ${Ch}$ and $\{V_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}^k}$ is a collection of subcomplexes partially ordered by inclusion. If $k = 1$, we simply call $V$ filtered. Given two lattice filtered complexes $\mathbf{V} = \left(V, \{V_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}^k}\right)$ and $\mathbf{W} = \left(W, \{W_\beta \}_{\beta \in \mathbb{Z}^l}\right)$, we define the lattice filtered tensor product and internal hom as follows.
\begin{equation*} \mathbf{V} \otimes \mathbf{W} = \left(V \otimes W , \{ V_\alpha \otimes W_\beta \}_{\left(\alpha , \beta \right) \in \mathbb{Z}^{k + l}} \right) \end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*} {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}} \left(\mathbf{V}, \mathbf{W} \right) = \left({\mathcal{H}\textit{om}} \left(V, W\right) , \{{\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{- \alpha , \beta } \left(V , W\right) \}_{\left(\alpha , \beta \right) \in \mathbb{Z}^{k + l}} \right) \end{equation*}
where ${\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{-\alpha , \beta} \left( V, W \right) = \{\phi : V \to W | \phi ( V_\alpha ) \subseteq W_\beta \}$. The category of lattice filtered complexes and filtered complexes will be denoted ${Ch^{lf}}$ and ${Ch^f}$ respectively. We note that the above constructions make ${Ch^{lf}}$ a closed symmetric monoidal category.
Given a {DG } category $\mathcal{D}$, we define the category $\mathcal{D}^{lf}$ to have objects consisting of the data $\mathbf{E} = \left( E, \{E_\alpha \}_{\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}^k} \right)$ where $\left( \yoneda{E}{E^\prime} , \{\yoneda{E_\alpha}{E^\prime} ) \}_{\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}^k } \right) \in {Ch^{lf}}$ for every object $E^\prime \in \mathcal{D}$. The cochain complex of morphisms between $\mathbf{D}$ and $\mathbf{E}$ is simply $\text{Hom}_\mathcal{D} (D, E)$. Restricting to the case of $k=1$ yields the definition of $\mathcal{D}^f$.
The total filtration functor $Tot : {Ch^{lf}} \to {Ch^f}$ is defined as
\begin{equation*} Tot \left( V , \{V_\alpha \}_{\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}^k} \right) = \left( V , \{ \cup_{|\alpha | = n} V_\alpha \}_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \right)\end{equation*}
for $k \ne 0$ where $|\alpha | = a_1 + \cdots + a_k$ for $\alpha = (a_1, \ldots, a_k)$. One needs to deal with $k = 0$ a bit differently and define $Tot \left( V, \{V_0 \}\right) = \left( V, \{V^\prime_n \} \right)$ with $V^\prime_n = 0$ for $n < 0$ and $V^\prime_n = V_0$ otherwise.
Now suppose $\mathbf{V} \in {Ch^f}$ is a filtered complex. Letting $Z_n$ be the subspace of cocycles in $V_n$, we have that the cohomology
\begin{equation*} H^* ( \mathbf{V} ) = ( H^* (V) , \{ H^* (V)_n = Z_n / im (d) \cap Z_n \}_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} )\end{equation*}
is then a filtered object in ${gr}$. We define the upper and lower length of the filtration as follows. If $\cup_n H^* (\mathbf{V} ) \ne H^* (V)$ we take $\ell_+ (\mathbf{V} ) = \infty$ and if $\cap_n H^* (\mathbf{V} ) \ne 0$ then $\ell_- (\mathbf{V} ) = - \infty$. Otherwise, we define these lengths as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:length}
\ell_+ (\mathbf{V} ) = \inf \{n : H^* (V)_n = H^* (V) \} \hspace{.3in} \ell_- (\mathbf{V}) = \inf \{ n : H^* (V)_n \ne 0 \} .
\end{equation}
By the length $\ell (\mathbf{V})$ of $\mathbf{V}$ we will mean the maximum of $|\ell_+ (\mathbf{V} ) |$ and $| \ell_- (\mathbf{V} )|$. We extend these definitions to $\mathbf{V} \in {Ch^{lf}}$ by taking length of $Tot (\mathbf{V} )$.
Given a {DG } category $\mathcal{D}$ and an object $\mathbf{E} \in \mathcal{D}^{lf}$, we define the lengths of $\mathbf{E} $ as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\ell_+ (\mathbf{E} ) & = & \sup \{ \ell_+ (\yoneda{\mathbf{E}}{E^\prime}) : E^\prime \in \mathcal{D} \} , \\
\ell_- (\mathbf{E} ) & = & \inf \{ \ell_- (\yoneda{\mathbf{E}}{E^\prime} ): E^\prime \in \mathcal{D} \} , \\
\ell (\mathbf{E} ) & = & \sup \{ \ell (\yoneda{\mathbf{E}}{E^\prime}) : E^\prime \in \mathcal{D} \} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Given two {DG } categories $\mathcal{D}$, $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}$, a {DG } functor $F : \mathcal{D} \to \tilde{\mathcal{D}}^f$ and $E \in \mathcal{D}$, we take $\ell_\pm^F (E ) = \ell_\pm (F (E))$ and $\ell^F = \sup \{\ell^F (E) : E \in \mathcal{D} \}$. One can consider $\ell^F$ as a generalization of the cohomological dimension of a functor between abelian categories. Note that in the {DG } category ${Ch}$ the two notions of length are equal. In other words, the definition given by equations \ref{eq:length} yield the same quantities as the definition above using the Yoneda embedding $\yoned{\_}$.
A motivating example for the above definitions is the case where $\mathcal{D}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}$ are categories of bounded below cochain complexes of injective objects in abelian categories $D$ and $\tilde{D}$. Note that these categories admit embeddings into their filtered versions by sending any complex $E^*$ to $\left( E^* , \{ \tau_n (E^* ) \}_{n \in \mathbb{Z}}\right) $ where $\tau_n (E^* )^k = E^k$ for $k \leq n$ and zero otherwise. Assuming $D$ and $\tilde{D}$ have enough injectives, any functor $F : D \to \tilde{D}$ has the (pre)derived {DG } functor $RF : \mathcal{D} \to \tilde{\mathcal{D}}$ and after composition with the embedding above one has a {DG } functor $\mathcal{F} : \mathcal{D} \to \tilde{\mathcal{D}}^f$. It is then plain to see that $\ell^{\mathcal{F}}$ equals the cohomological dimension of $F$.
\subsection{$A_\infty$-algebras}
One of the fundamental structures in our study is an $A_\infty$-algebra.
\begin{defn} A non-unital $A_\infty$-algebra $A$ is an object $A \in {Ch}$ and a collection of degree $1$ maps
$\mu_A^n : (s A)^{\otimes n} \to s A$ for $n > 0$ satisfying
the relation \begin{equation*} \sum_{k = 0}^n \left[ \sum_{r =
0}^{n - k} \mu_A^{n - k + 1 } \circ (\mathbf{1}^{\otimes r} \otimes
\mu_A^{k} \otimes \mathbf{1}^{\otimes (n - r - k)} ) \right] = 0
\end{equation*} for every $n$. \end{defn}
We note that it is common to see the definition utilizing the desuspended maps $s^{-1}_\otimes (\mu_A^n )$ which involves more intricate signs.
In this paper we will assume that our $A_\infty$-algebras come
equipped with a strict unit. We recall that this means there
exists a unit map $\unit : \mathbb{K} \to A[1]$ where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:unit1} \mu_A^2 (\unit \otimes \mathbf{1} ) = \mathbf{1} = - \mu_A^2 (\mathbf{1}
\otimes \unit ) & & \\ \label{eq:unit2} \mu^n ( \mathbf{1}^{\otimes r} \otimes \unit
\otimes \mathbf{1}^{\otimes (n - r - 1)}) = 0 & & \hspace{.4in}
\hbox{for } n \ne 2 \end{eqnarray} We will normally write $e_A$ for $\unit (1)$ (or $e$ if the algebra is
implicit).
If $A$ is an $A_\infty$-algebra, we take $A^{op}$ to be the algebra with structure maps $\mu_{A^{op}}^k = \mu_A^k \circ \sigma_k$ where $\sigma_k : (s A)^{\otimes k} \to (s A)^{\otimes k}$ reverses the ordering of the factors via the symmetric monoidal transformation $\gamma$ in \ref{eq:symmon}.
It is immediate that the cohomology $H^* (A)$ defined with respect to $\mu^1_A$ is a graded
$\mathbb{K}$-algebra with multiplication induced by $\mu_A^2$. However,
the higher products determine more structure than the
cohomology algebra can express on its own. In order to see this we
need to be able to compare two different algebras. A homomorphism
of $A_\infty$-algebras is defined as follows.
\begin{defn} If $(A, \mu^*_A)$ and $(B, \mu^*_B)$ are $A_\infty$-algebras then a collection of graded maps $\phi^n : (s A)^{\otimes n} \to s B$ for $n \geq 1$ is an $A_\infty$-map if
\begin{eqnarray*} \sum_{k = 1}^n \left[ \sum_{r = 1}^{n - k} \phi^{n - k + 1 } \circ (\mathbf{1}^{\otimes r} \otimes \mu_A^{k} \otimes \mathbf{1}^{\otimes (n - r - k)} ) \right]
= \\ \indent \indent \indent \indent \sum_{j = 1}^n \left[
\sum_{i_1 + \cdots + i_j = n} \mu_B^j \circ (\phi^{\otimes i_1}
\otimes \cdots \otimes \phi^{\otimes i_j} ) \right]
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{defn}
A strictly unital homomorphism is also required to preserve the unit as well as satisfying the identities
\begin{equation*} \phi^{r + s + 1} \circ ( \mathbf{1}^{\otimes r} \otimes \unit \otimes \mathbf{1}^{\otimes s}) = 0 \end{equation*}
for all $r + s > 0$. The category of unital and non-unital $A_\infty$-algebras will be denoted $Alg_\infty$ and $Alg_\infty^{nu}$ respectively.
When all maps $\phi^k = 0$ except $\phi^1$, we call $\{\phi^k\}$
strict. If there is an $A_\infty$-map $\epsilon_A : A \to \mathbb{K}$ we
will call $A$ augmented. Any augmented, strictly unital $A_\infty$ algebra is
required to satisfy the equation $\epsilon_A \unit = 1_\mathbb{K}$.
It is important to observe that $[\phi^1]$ induces an algebra homomorphism $H^*
(A)$ to $H^* (B)$ so that cohomology is a functor from
$A_\infty$-algebras to ordinary algebras. When the induced map
$[\phi^1]$ is an isomorphism, we call $\phi^*$ a
quasi-isomorphism. The following proposition can be found in any
of the basic references given above.
\begin{prop} Given a quasi-isomorphism $\phi^* : A \to B$ there exists a quasi-isomorphism $\psi^* : B \to A$ for which $[\phi^1]$ and $[\psi^1]$ are inverse. \end{prop}
Some of the $A_\infty$-algebras discussed in this paper satisfy additional conditions.
\begin{defn} i) An $A_\infty$-algebra is formal if it is quasi-isomorphic to its cohomology algebra. \\ ii) An $A_\infty$-algebra is compact if its cohomology algebra is finite dimensional. \end{defn}
While it is rarely the case that an $A_\infty$-algebra is formal, there is an $A_\infty$-structure on its cohomology, called the minimal model, which yields a quasi-isomorphic $A_\infty$-algebra. It is a well known fact that, for $(A, \mu^*_A)$, this is a uniquely defined $A_\infty$-structure $(H^* (A), \tilde{\mu}_A^*)$ with $\tilde{\mu}_A^1 = 0$ (here $\tilde{\mu}_A^2 = [\mu_A^2]$ and the higher $\tilde{\mu}_A^*$ are determined by a tree level expansion formula).
Let us state this as a proposition.
\begin{prop} For any $A_\infty$-algebra $(A, \mu_A^*)$ there is an $A_\infty$-algebra $(H^* (A), \tilde{\mu}_A^*)$, uniquely defined up to $A_\infty$-isomorphism, and a quasi-isomorphism $\phi_A : A \to H^* (A)$. We call $(H^* (A), \tilde{\mu}_A^*)$ the minimal model of $(A, \mu_A^*)$. When there exists a minimal model with $\tilde{\mu}_A^k = 0$ for all $k > 2$, we call $A$ formal. \end{prop}
It will be important to have at our disposal another equivalent
definition, the algebra bar construction, for which we closely follow \cite{Lefevre} and
\cite{Keller}. First, given $V \in {gr}$ we denote the tensor
algebra and coalgebra by $T^a V$ and $T^c V$ respectively. As graded vector spaces, both are equal to
\begin{equation*} T V = \bigoplus_{n = 0}^\infty
V^{\otimes n} . \end{equation*}
For space considerations, we will use bar notation and write $[v_1| \cdots |v_n]$, or simply $\mathbf{v}$, for $v_1 \otimes
\cdots \otimes v_n$ for an arbitrary element of $TV$.
These spaces are bigraded, with one grading denoting
the length of a tensor product, and the other denoting the total
degree. Our notation conventions for these gradings will be
\begin{equation*} (T V)^{r, s} = \left\{[v_1 | \cdots |v_r] : \sum
|v_i| = s \right\} .
\end{equation*}
In many situations, we will be interested only in the length
grading, in which case we use the notation
\begin{equation*} (T V)_{n} = \oplus_{k = 0}^n (T V)^{k, \bullet} \hspace{.4in} (T V)_{> n} = \oplus_{k > n} (T V)^{k , \bullet} . \end{equation*}
The algebra map for $T^a V$ is the usual product and the coalgebra map $\Delta : T^c V \to T^c V \otimes_\mathbb{K} T^c V$ is defined as
\begin{equation*} \Delta [v_1 | \cdots | v_n] = \sum_{i = 0}^n [v_1| \cdots |v_i] \otimes [v_{i + 1}| \cdots | v_n] \end{equation*} where the empty bracket $[]$ denotes the identity in
$\mathbb{K}$.
The tensor coalgebra naturally lives in the category of
coaugmented, counital, dg coalgebras $Cog^\prime$. The objects in
this category consist of data $(C, d, \eta, \epsilon)$ where $C$
is a coalgebra, $d$ is a degree $1$, square zero, coalgebra
derivation, $\eta: C \to \mathbb{K}$ and $\epsilon: \mathbb{K} \to C$ are the counit and coaugmentation satisfying
$\eta \epsilon = 1_\mathbb{K}$. However, this category is too large for
our purposes and we instead consider a subcategory $Cog$
consisting of cocomplete objects. To define these objects, take
$\pi: C \to \ov{C} = C / \mathbb{K}$ to be the cokernel of $\epsilon$.
Consider the kernel $C_{n} = \ker (\tilde{\Delta}^n )$ where
\begin{equation*}\tilde{\Delta}^n : C
\stackrel{\Delta^n}{\longrightarrow} C^{\otimes n}
\stackrel{\pi^{\otimes n}}{\longrightarrow} \ov{C}^{\otimes n} .
\end{equation*}
Elements of $C_{n}$ are called $n$-primitive and $C_{1}$ is referred to as the coaugmentation ideal.
They form an increasing sequence
\begin{equation*} C_{0} \subset C_{1} \subset \cdots .\end{equation*}
This defines a natural inclusion $Cog^\prime \to (Cog^\prime)^f$ and we say that the augmented coalgebra $C$ is cocomplete if $C = \lim C_{n}$. One easily observes that the tensor coalgebra is an object of $Cog$ as
\begin{equation*} (T^c V)_n = (T V)^{n, \bullet} .\end{equation*}
Moreover, the tensor coalgebra $T^c V$ is cofree in the category $Cog$ (i.e. the tensor coalgebra functor is right
adjoint to the forgetful functor).
Now we recall the (coaugmented) bar functor
\begin{equation*} \mathcal{B} : Alg^{nu}_\infty \to Cog \end{equation*}
which takes any non-unital $A_\infty$-algebra $(A, \mu_A)$ to $\mathcal{B} A = (T^c (s A) , b_A,
\eta_{\mathcal{B} A} , \epsilon_{\mathcal{B} A} )$. The definitions of the
counit and coaugmentation are clear. We define $b_A : T^c (s A) \to
T^c (s A)$ via its restriction to $(s A )^{\otimes n}$ as
\begin{equation*} b_A|_{(s A)^{\otimes n}} = \sum_{k = 1}^n \left(\sum_{r = 0}^{n - k}
\mathbf{1}^{\otimes r} \otimes \mu_A^{k} \otimes \mathbf{1}^{\otimes (n - r -
k)} \right) . \end{equation*}
As it turns out, there is a model structure on $Cog$ and the
following theorem describes the essential image of $\mathcal{B}$ in
these terms.
\begin{thm}[\cite{Lefevre}, 1.3] The functor $\mathcal{B}$ is a full and faithful embedding of $Alg_\infty^{nu}$ into
the fibrant-cofibrant objects of $Cog$. Furthermore, minimal
models are sent to minimal models. \end{thm}
There are several variants of this construction, most importantly
the ordinary bar construction $\overline{\mathcal{B}} A = ({T} (s A)_{> 0}, b_A)$ which takes
values in cocomplete coalgebras. We fix notation for the inclusion to be
\begin{equation} \label{eq:barinc} \iota_A : \overline{\mathcal{B}} A \hookrightarrow \mathcal{B} A .\end{equation}
The differential is simply the restriction of the one defined in the coaugmented case.
It is helpful to understand $\overline{\mathcal{B}} A$ when $A$ is an ordinary
algebra $A$. In this case, we see that $\overline{\mathcal{B}} A$ is just the
augmented bar resolution for $A$ (and hence, acyclic).
The bar construction of $A$ inherits the increasing filtration
\begin{equation*} \acbn{n} A := \oplus_{i \leq n} (\mathcal{B} A)^{i, \bullet} = (\mathcal{B} A)_{n} \end{equation*} We refer to this, and the module variants to come, as the length
filtration.
We note here that one advantage of the bar construction is the ease at which one can discuss structures that are more difficult to define in the category $Alg_\infty$. One example of this is the tensor product of two $A_\infty$-algebras $A, A^\prime$ which has more than one fairly intricate definition. In $Cog$ we define the tensor product of $\mathcal{B} A \otimes \mathcal{B} A^\prime$ in the usual way. We then say that $B \in Alg_\infty$ is quasi-isomorphic to the tensor product if $B = A \otimes A^\prime$ and $\mathcal{B} B$ is quasi-isomorphic to $\mathcal{B} A \otimes \mathcal{B} A^\prime$ in $Cog^f$. See \cite{Loday} for an article comparing various constructions of a natural quasi-isomorphism.
\subsection{$A_\infty$ polymodules}
We start this section with a general definition of a module over several $A_\infty$-algebras which we call a polymodule. It is both useful and correct to think of a polymodule as a bimodule with respect to the tensor product of several algebras or, even more simply, as a module over the tensor product of algebras and their opposites. This is analogous to defining an $(R, S)$ bimodule as opposed to an $R \otimes S^{op}$ module. We take this approach at the outset to avoid some of the cumbersome notation and uniqueness issues surrounding the tensor product of multiple $A_\infty$-algebras. This is accomplished utilizing the bar construction and working in the category of comodules where many structures are more accessible. One word of notational warning is that \cite{Lefevre} uses the different term polydules to define what we would call a module.
For this section, we fix $A_\infty$-algebras $A_1, \ldots, A_r$ and $B_1 , \cdots, B_s$ and write ${(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})}$ for the data $(A_1, \ldots, A_r | B_1 , \ldots, B_s )$. Let $P$ be a graded vector space and write
\begin{equation} \label{eq:poly} \mathbf{B}^{(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} P = \mathcal{B} A_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathcal{B} A_r \otimes P \otimes \mathcal{B} B_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathcal{B} B_s \end{equation}
for the bar construction of $P$.
When ${(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})}$ is fixed or understood from the context, we simply write $\mathbf{B} P$. We make a note that $\mathbf{B} P$ is naturally an object of ${Ch}^{lf}$ where the lattice is $\mathbb{Z}^{r + s}$ and the filtration is induced by the length filtrations on the bar constructions. Given any $\gamma \in \mathbb{Z}^{r + s}$, we denote the $\gamma$ filtered piece of $\mathbf{B} P$ by $\mathbf{B}_\gamma P$. Observe also that $\mathbf{B} P$ is a cofree left comodule over the coalgebras $\mathcal{B} A_i$ and a cofree right comodule over coalgebras $\mathcal{B} B_i$ where $\Delta_{ i, P} : \mathbf{B} P \to \mathcal{B} A_i \otimes \mathbf{B} P$ and $\Delta_{P, j} : \mathbf{B} P \to \mathbf{B} P \otimes \mathcal{B} B_j$ are the comodule maps. These are defined by repeatedly applying $\gamma$ from equation \ref{eq:symmon} to permute the left factor of $\mathcal{B} A_i$ and right factor of $\mathcal{B} B_j$ to the left and right respectively, after having applied their comultiplications. We take,
\begin{equation*} \Delta_P = \Delta_{P, s} \circ \cdots \circ \Delta_{P, 1} \circ \Delta_{r, P} \circ \cdots \circ \Delta_{1, P}
\end{equation*}
as the polymodule comultiplication from $\mathbf{B} P$ to $\mathcal{B} A_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathcal{B} A_r \otimes \mathbf{B} P \otimes \mathcal{B} B_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathcal{B} B_s $. The differentials on each coalgebra tensor to define the differential $d^\prime_P : \mathbf{B} P \to \mathbf{B} P$.
\begin{defn} A non-unital ${(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} = (A_1, \ldots, A_r | B_1, \ldots, B_s)$ polymodule $(P, \mu_P)$ is a graded vector space $P$ along with a degree $1$ map
\begin{equation} \label{eq:polymu} \mu_P : \mathbf{B}^{(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} P \to P \end{equation}
satisfying the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:polymod} \mu_P \circ [ (\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_r} \otimes \mu_P \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_s} ) \circ \Delta + d^\prime_P] = 0 .\end{equation}
We call the $P$ a polymodule if $\mu_P$ satisfies the unital conditions for every $i$ and $j$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu_P \circ ( \epsilon_{\mathcal{B} A_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \unit_{\mathcal{B} A_i} \otimes \cdots \otimes \epsilon_{\mathcal{B} A_r} \otimes \mathbf{1}_P \otimes \epsilon_{\mathcal{B} B_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \epsilon_{\mathcal{B} B_r} ) & = & \mathbf{1}_P , \\ \mu_P \circ ( \epsilon_{\mathcal{B} A_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \epsilon_{\mathcal{B} A_r} \otimes \mathbf{1}_P \otimes \epsilon_{\mathcal{B} B_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \unit_{\mathcal{B} B_j} \otimes \cdots \otimes \epsilon_{\mathcal{B} B_r} ) & = & \mathbf{1}_P , \\ \mu_P \circ ( \iota_{ A_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \unit_{\mathcal{B} A_i} \otimes \cdots \otimes \iota_{ A_r} \otimes \mathbf{1}_P \otimes \iota_{ B_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \iota_{ B_r} ) & = & 0 , \\ \mu_P \circ (\iota_{ A_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \iota_{ A_r} \otimes \mathbf{1}_P \otimes \iota_{ B_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \unit_{\mathcal{B} B_j} \otimes \cdots \otimes \iota_{ B_r} ) & = & 0 ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\epsilon$ is the coaugmentation and $\iota$ the inclusion from \ref{eq:barinc}.
\end{defn}
A bimodule is a polymodule for which $r = 1 = s$. A left module is a bimodule for which $B_1 = \mathbb{K}$ and similarly for a right module. A non-unital morphism from the polymodule $P$ to $P^\prime$ is defined as any ${gr}$ map $\phi : \mathbf{B} P \to P^\prime $. The collection of these maps forms a complex $\text{Hom}_{{(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty^{nu}}} (P, P^\prime )$ with differential defined as
\begin{multline} \label{eq:polymor}
d \phi = \phi \circ (\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_r} \otimes \mu_P \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_s}) \circ \Delta_{P} \\ + \phi \circ d^\prime_P - (-1)^{|\phi |} \mu_{P^\prime} \circ (\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_r} \otimes \phi \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_s} ) \circ \Delta_P .
\end{multline}
A morphism $\phi \in \text{Hom}_{{(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}} (P, P^\prime )$ is a non-unital morphism satisfying the unital conditions
\begin{eqnarray*} \phi \circ ( \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \unit_{\mathcal{B} A_i} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_r} \otimes \mathbf{1}_P \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_r} ) & = & 0 , \\ \phi \circ ( \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_r} \otimes \mathbf{1}_P \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \unit_{\mathcal{B} B_j} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_r} ) & = & 0 . \end{eqnarray*}
The fact that $\text{Hom}_{{(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}} (P, P^\prime )$ is indeed a subcomplex follows from the unital condition on algebras and modules. A morphism $\phi \in \text{Hom}_{{(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}} (P, P^\prime )$ is called strict if $\phi |_{\mathbf{B}_{> 0} P} = 0$. A homomorphism is defined to be a cocycle in this complex. A homomorphism $\phi$ for which $\phi |_{\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{0}} P} : P \to P^\prime$ is a quasi-isomorphism will be called a quasi-isomorphism. Given $\psi \in \text{Hom}_{{(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}} ( P^\prime, P^{\prime \prime} )$ we define composition as
\begin{equation*} \psi \phi = \psi \circ (\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_r} \otimes \phi \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_s} ) \circ \Delta_P .\end{equation*}
It is a straightforward, albeit tedious check to see that these definitions make ${(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})}$ polymodules into a {DG } category which we label ${(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}$, or just ${\text{Mod}_\infty}$. We write $H^0 ({\text{Mod}_\infty} )$ ($H^* ({\text{Mod}_\infty} )$) for the zeroth (graded) cohomology category . The next proposition follows immediately from the discussion at the end of the previous section and the naturality of $\gamma$. A rigorous proof is omitted but can be assembled from results in \cite{Lefevre}.
\begin{prop} The category of filtered ${(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} = (A_1 , \ldots, A_r | B_1, \ldots, B_s )$ polymodules is quasi-equivalent to the category of filtered left $A_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes A_r \otimes B_1^{op} \otimes \cdots \otimes B_s^{op}$-modules.
\end{prop}
From this, or from a direct argument, one obtains the following corollary which will be applied often implicitly.
\begin{cor} The category of filtered $(A_1, \ldots, A_r | B_1 , \ldots , B_s )$ polymodules is naturally equivalent to the category of filtered $(A_1, \ldots, A_r, B_1^{op}, \ldots, B_s^{op} | \mathbb{K} )$ polymodules.
\end{cor}
Following \cite{BondalKapranov}, we observe that ${\text{Mod}_\infty}$ is a pretriangulated category with sums and shifts defined in the obvious way and the natural cone construction $cone (\phi )$ given in the usual way. Namely, $cone (\phi )$ is the graded vector space $ P \oplus s P^\prime$ and its structure morphism is
\begin{equation*} \mu_{cone (\phi )} = \left[ \begin{matrix}
\mu_P & \sigma \circ \phi \\ 0 & \mu_{s P^\prime}
\end{matrix} \right] \end{equation*}
Given ${(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})}$ we let $\mathbf{U}_{(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} = A_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes A_r \otimes B_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes B_s$ be the trivial polymodule whose structure map is induced by suspension, $\gamma$ and the algebra structure maps. A free polymodule is defined as a direct sum of copies of $\mathbf{U}_{(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})}$ and a projective polymodule as a direct summand of a free polymodule. A projective polymodule will be called finitely generated if it is a submodule of a finite sum of copies of $\mathbf{U}_{(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})}$. We define the subcategory of perfect ${(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})}$ polymodules to be the category $\pcmd$ of all polymodules quasi-isomorphic to a module built by finitely many cones of finitely generated projective polymodules.
The concept of a polymodule is derived from the more natural notion of a differential comodule over several coalgebras in $Cog$. From this point of view, we have taken a backwards approach by defining the polymodule first, as the structure maps and definitions of morphisms are more transparent in the comodule setting. Nevertheless, we continue along our path full circle towards a realization of this structure as the bar construction of a polymodule.
Given an ${(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} = (A_1, \ldots, A_r | B_1, \ldots, B_s)$ polymodule $(P, \mu_P)$, we take the free comodule $\mathbf{B}^{(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} P$ as its bar construction (note that this is not free as a {DG } comodule). We define its differential $b_P$ as
\begin{equation*} b_P = (\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_r} \otimes \mu_P \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_s} ) \circ \Delta_P + d^\prime_P . \end{equation*}
Then it follows from the defining equation \ref{eq:polymod} that $(\mathbf{B}^{(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} P , b_P )$ is a left and right differential comodule over the coalgebras $\mathcal{B} A_i$ and $\mathcal{B} B_j$ respectively. We denote the {DG } category of such {DG } comodules with comodule morphisms as ${(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} \mhyphen {\text{cmod}_\infty}$ or simply ${\text{cmod}_\infty}$.
Given a morphism $\phi \in \text{Hom}_{{(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}} (P, P^\prime )$ we take $b_\phi : \mathbf{B} P \to \mathbf{B} P^\prime$ to be the map $b_\phi = (\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} A_r} \otimes \phi_P \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B} B_s} ) \circ \Delta_P$. It then becomes an exercise that the bar construction gives a full and faithful functor from ${\text{Mod}_\infty}$ to ${\text{cmod}_\infty}$ whose essential image consists of free comodules.
For our purposes, this is not enough as we wish to keep track of the length filtration throughout. The category ${(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} \mhyphen {\text{cmod}_\infty}$ has a natural embedding into $({(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} \mhyphen {\text{cmod}_\infty} )^{lf}$ given by the primitive filtration. More concretely, given $(\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j} ) = (i_1, \ldots, i_r, j_1, \ldots, j_s ) \in \mathbb{Z}^{r + s}$ we recall that $\mathbf{B}^{(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})}_{(\mathbf{i} , \mathbf{j} )} P $ is
\begin{equation*} \mathcal{B}_{i_1} A_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathcal{B}_{i_r} A_r \otimes P \otimes \mathcal{B}_{j_1} B_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathcal{B}_{j_s} B_s .\end{equation*}
This induces an embedding
\begin{equation} \mathbf{B} : {(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty} \to ({(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} \mhyphen {\text{cmod}_\infty})^{lf}. \end{equation}
The induced length filtration on polymodule morphisms is then given by
\begin{equation} \mathcal{F}^{(\mathbf{i} , \mathbf{j} )} \text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (P, P^\prime ) = \{ \phi : \phi |_{\mathbf{B}_{-(\mathbf{i} , \mathbf{j} )} P } = 0 \} . \end{equation}
An advantage of the bar construction is the ease at which one sees the following proposition.
\begin{prop} The category ${(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}$ is enriched over $\mathbb{Z}^{r + s}$-lattice filtered complexes. \end{prop}
In other words, morphism composition respects the total filtration on the tensor product. As stated above, this follows immediately from the definition of comodule morphism in the category ${\text{cmod}_\infty}$. One should make certain not to confuse this enrichment with the notion that the objects of ${(\mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{b})} \mhyphen{\text{Mod}_\infty}$ are lattice filtered, as this only occurs if we resolve the polymodules.
\subsection{Filtered constructions}
In this section we define tensor products and inner homs of polymodules. To do this effectively, it is helpful to have a picture in mind as well as the appropriate notation associated to this picture. We will say ${\mathfrak{s}} = (S^+ , S^- , \kappa)$ is a labelled set if $S^+$ and $S^-$ are finite sets and $\kappa$ is a function from $S^+ \sqcup S^-$ to the objects of $Alg_\infty$. We will write $A \in {\mathfrak{s}}$ (or $A \in {\mathfrak{s}}^\pm$) if there is $s \in S^+ \sqcup S^-$ (or $s \in S^\pm$) such that $\kappa (s) = A$. Given a labelled set ${\mathfrak{s}} = (S^+ , S^- , \kappa )$, we write ${\mathfrak{s}}^*$ for the labelled set $(S^- , S^+, \kappa)$. We take $\mathcal{L}$ to be the category of labelled sets with morphisms that are injective maps respecting the labelling. Note that $\mathcal{L}$ is closed under finite direct limits.
Given a labelled set ${\mathfrak{s}} = (\{t_1^+, \ldots, t_r^+ \}, \{t_1^-, \ldots, t_s^-\} , \kappa)$ we take ${\mathfrak{s}} \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}$ to denote the category of $(\kappa (t_1^+), \ldots, \kappa (t_r^+)| \kappa (t_1^-) , \ldots, \kappa ( t_s^-))$ polymodules. We abbreviate the differential coalgebra
\begin{equation*} \mathcal{B} [\kappa (t_1^+ )] \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathcal{B} [\kappa (t_r^+ )] \otimes \mathcal{B} [\kappa (t_1^- )] \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathcal{B} [\kappa (t_s^- )] \end{equation*}
by $\mathcal{B} A_{\mathfrak{s}}$. Any morphism $i: {\mathfrak{s}}_1 \to {\mathfrak{s}}_2$ induces a forgetful functor $i^* : {\mathfrak{s}}_2\mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty} \to {\mathfrak{s}}_1\mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}$.
By gluing data ${\mathfrak{t}} = ({\mathfrak{s}}_0, {\mathfrak{s}}_1, {\mathfrak{s}}_2, i_1, i_2, j_1, j_2)$, we mean a pushout diagram as below in $\mathcal{L}$
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzcd} {\mathfrak{s}}_0 \arrow{r}{i_1} \arrow{d}{i_2} & {\mathfrak{s}}_1^* \arrow{d}{j_1} \\ {\mathfrak{s}}_2 \arrow{r}{j_2} & {\mathfrak{s}}_1^* \sqcup_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2 \end{tikzcd}
\end{figure}
and we abbreviate ${\mathfrak{s}}_1 \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2$ for the labelled set $[{\mathfrak{s}}_1 - i_1 ({\mathfrak{s}}_0^*)]\sqcup [ {\mathfrak{s}}_2 - i_2({\mathfrak{s}}_0)]$.
Given gluing data ${\mathfrak{t}} = ({\mathfrak{s}}_0, {\mathfrak{s}}_1, {\mathfrak{s}}_2, i_1, i_2, j_1, j_2)$, we define the tensor product as a functor
\begin{equation*} \_ \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \_ : {\mathfrak{s}}_1 \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty} \times {\mathfrak{s}}_2 \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty} \to ({\mathfrak{s}}_1 \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2 \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty} )^{lf}. \end{equation*}
As usual, this product is given by first passing through the bar construction, applying the cotensor product and then recognizing the result as the bar construction of a polymodule. The details of this are now given.
Let $P_1, P_2$ be ${\mathfrak{s}}_1, {\mathfrak{s}}_2$ polymodules respectively. Then we let
\begin{equation*} P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2 = P_1 \otimes \mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \otimes P_2 . \end{equation*}
To simplify the definition of the structure map, we write $\Delta_1 = \Delta_{i_1^* (P_1)}$ and $\Delta_2 = \Delta_{i_2^* (P_2)}$ as partial comultiplications. These are the comultiplications obtained when considering $\mathbf{B} P_1$ and $\mathbf{B} P_2$ as comodules over $\mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0}$. Then we see that there is an isomorphism of graded vector spaces:
\begin{equation*} \alpha : \mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}_1 \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2} (P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2 ) \to \mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}_1} P_1 \square_{\mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0}} \mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}_2} P_2 \end{equation*}
where $\square_{\mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0}}$ is the cotensor product (see, e.g. \cite{EM} ). Recall that this is the kernel of
\begin{equation*} \Delta_1 \otimes 1 - 1 \otimes \Delta_2 : \mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}_1} P_1 \otimes \mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}_2} P_2 \to \mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}_1} P_1 \otimes \mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \otimes \mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}_2} P_2 . \end{equation*}
Restricting $\alpha$ to $P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2$, it is defined as $\alpha (p_1 \otimes a \otimes p_2) = p_1 \otimes \Delta_{\mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0}} (a) \otimes p_2$ where, as always, we implicitly use the symmetric monoidal map $\gamma$. It is extended to the bar construction by tensoring with the remaining coalgebras. Utilizing $\alpha$, one pulls back the differential from the cotensor product to obtain a differential $d$ on $\mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}_1 \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2} (P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2)$. As this differential is a square zero comodule coderivation, it is induced by its composition with the projection
\begin{equation*} \pi: \mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}_1 \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2} (P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2) \to P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2 \end{equation*}
and one obtains the $A_\infty$-module map $\mu_{P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2} = \pi \circ d$.
Given morphisms $\phi_i : P_i \to P_i^\prime$ in ${\mathfrak{s}}_i$, we have that the cotensor product of the bar constructions
\begin{equation*} b_{\phi_1} \square_{\mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} } b_{\phi_2} : \mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}_1 \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2} (P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2 ) \to \mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}_1 \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2} (P_1^\prime \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2^\prime ) \end{equation*}
yields a natural map $\phi_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \phi_2$ in ${\mathfrak{s}}_1 \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2 \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}$. When considering $P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \_$ as a functor, we take $\phi_2$ to $1_{P_1} \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \phi_2$. Note that it follows from the definitions above and that of the cone that $P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \_$ is an exact functor.
Since the coalgebra $\mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0}$ is $\mathbb{Z}^{|{\mathfrak{s}}_0|}$-filtered by the primitives of $\mathcal{B} A$ for $A \in {\mathfrak{s}}_0$, we have that $P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2$ is lattice filtered by $\mathbb{Z}^{|{\mathfrak{s}}_0|}$. We will preserve this filtration in the definition and write
\begin{equation*} P_1 \tns{\gamma}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2 = P_1 \otimes \left( \otimes_{A \in {\mathfrak{s}}_0^+} \mathcal{B}_{k_i} A^{op} \right) \otimes \left( \otimes_{B \in {\mathfrak{s}}_0^-} \mathcal{B}_{l_j} B \right) \otimes P_2
\end{equation*}
where $\gamma = (k_1, \ldots, k_a, l_1, \ldots, l_b) \in \mathbb{Z}^{|{\mathfrak{s}}_0|}$. Thus, we have obtained the above mentioned {DG } functor.
It will be useful to have notation for filtered quotients in this setting. For this, we write
\begin{equation*} P_1 \odot^{\gamma}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2 := \frac{P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2}{P_1 \tns{\gamma}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2}. \end{equation*}
As expected, the tensor product of a given polymodule with the diagonal polymodule yields a quasi-equivalent polymodule. However, the filtration is added structure which will be exploited later in the paper. For now, we simply define the natural quasi-equivalence and its inverse. Fix a labelled set ${\mathfrak{s}} = (S^+ , S^- , \kappa )$, let $2{\mathfrak{s}} = {\mathfrak{s}}^* \sqcup {\mathfrak{s}}$ and ${\mathfrak{t}} = ({\mathfrak{s}}, 2 {\mathfrak{s}}, {\mathfrak{s}}, i_1, i_2, j_1, j_2)$ the natural gluing data. We take $\mathbf{D}_{\mathfrak{s}}$ to be the diagonal $2{\mathfrak{s}}$ polymodule
\begin{equation*} \otimes_{t \in S^+ \cup S^-} \kappa (t) . \end{equation*}
The structure maps for $\mathbf{D}_{\mathfrak{s}}$ are simply the tensor products of the $A_\infty$ algebra maps composed with the shift for the various labelling algebras. Then we define the natural equivalences
\begin{equation} \label{eq:units} \xi_P : \mathbf{D}_{\mathfrak{s}} \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}} P \to P \hspace{.3in} \epsilon_P : P \to \mathbf{D}_{\mathfrak{s}} \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}} P .\end{equation}
Here $\xi_P$ is defined as the map induced by tensor multiplication $m $, the shift $\sigma$ and the polymodule multiplication map $\mu_P$,
\begin{equation*} \xi_P = \mu_P \circ (m \otimes 1_P) \circ (1_{\mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}}} \otimes \sigma \otimes 1_{\mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}}} \otimes 1_P). \end{equation*}
Letting $\unit_{\mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}}} : \mathbb{K} \to \mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ send $1$ to $e_{{\mathfrak{s}}} = \otimes_{t \in S^+ \cup S^-} e_{\mathcal{B} [\kappa (s)]}$, we take
\begin{equation*}\epsilon_P = \sigma_{\otimes}^{-1} (e_{\mathfrak{s}} ) \otimes 1_{\mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}}} \otimes 1_P. \end{equation*}
Using the unital conditions, it is easy to verify that $\xi_P$ and $\epsilon_P$ are quasi-inverse maps. As a consequence, we obtain the following basic lemma which instructive as to the bar construction of a module.
\begin{lem} Suppose $A$ is an $A_\infty$ algebra and denote $A$ regarded as a right module over itself as $A^r$. Let $P$ be a left $A$ module, then the vector space $A^r \ts{} P$ is naturally quasi-isomorphic to $H^* (P )$. \end{lem}
\begin{proof} Let ${\mathfrak{s}} = (S^+ , S^- , \kappa)$ be the labelled set with $S^+ = \emptyset$, $S^- = \{t\}$ and $\kappa (t) = A$. Then the lemma follows from the fact that $A^r \ts{} P$ equals $\mathbf{D}_{2{\mathfrak{s}}} \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}} P$ as a complex. The latter is quasi-isomorphic to $P$ which has minimal model $H^* (P)$. \end{proof}
Combining this lemma with earlier remarks, we obtain the following important fact.
\begin{prop} Let ${\mathfrak{t}} = ({\mathfrak{s}}_0, {\mathfrak{s}}_1, {\mathfrak{s}}_2, i_1, i_2, j_1, j_2)$ be gluing data such that the algebras labelled by ${\mathfrak{s}}_0$ are compact. If $P_i$ are perfect ${\mathfrak{s}}_i$ polymodules then $P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2$ is a perfect ${\mathfrak{s}}_1 \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2$ polymodule.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} The previous lemma implies that there is a quasi-isomorphism
\begin{equation*} \phi: \mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1} \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_2} \stackrel{q.i.}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1 \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2} \otimes \left( \oplus_{A \in {\mathfrak{s}}_0} H^* (A ) \right) . \end{equation*}
By the compactness assumption, this implies that tensor products of finitely generated projective polymodules are finitely generated projective polymodules. Together with the definition of perfect modules and the fact that tensor product $\_ \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \_$ is exact, we have the result.
\end{proof}
To define the internal Hom, we again follow the approach for the tensor product and pass to coalgebras and comodules. There is an additional notion needed here from classical homotopy theory, that of a twisting cochain which we recall here. If $C$ is a {DG } coalgebra and $A$ a {DG } algebra, a map $\rho : C \to A$ is called a twisting cochain if $\partial \rho + \rho \cdot \rho = 0$ where $\partial \rho = d_A \rho - (-1)^{|\rho |} \rho d_C$ and $\rho \cdot \rho := m \circ \rho \otimes \rho \circ \Delta_C$ where $m$ is multiplication in $A$.
One of the central features of twisted cochains is that they allow one to define twisted tensor products \cite{Brown, Lefevre}. We take a moment to recall this construction for the case of a left module.
\begin{defn} Given a dg coalgebra $C$, a dg algebra $A$, a dg $C$ bicomodule $M$, a left dg $A$ module $N$ and a twisting cochain $\rho: C \to A$, the twisted tensor product $M \otimes_\rho N$ (or $N \otimes_\rho M$) is defined as the ordinary tensor product of vector spaces with chain map $d_M \otimes 1_N + 1_M \otimes d_N + \rho \cap \_$ where
\begin{equation*} \rho \cap \_ = (1_M \otimes m_N ) \circ (1_M \otimes \rho \otimes 1_N) \circ (\Delta_M \otimes 1_N ). \end{equation*}
The result is a left (or right) $C$ comodule.
\end{defn}
The case of right module and bimodule is analogous.
Now, let $ {\mathfrak{s}} = {\mathfrak{s}}^\prime \sqcup {\mathfrak{s}}^{\prime \prime}$ in $\mathcal{L}$ and $i: {\mathfrak{s}}^\prime \to {\mathfrak{s}}$, $j: {\mathfrak{s}}^{\prime \prime} \to {\mathfrak{s}}$ the inclusion maps. Given a ${\mathfrak{s}}$ polymodule $P$, we define a map
\begin{equation*} \rho_{j} : \mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}^\prime} \to \text{Hom}_{{\mathfrak{s}}^{\prime \prime} \mhyphen{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (j^*(P), j^*(P)) \end{equation*}
as $[\rho_{j} (\mathbf{c})] (\mathbf{a} \otimes p \otimes \mathbf{b} ) = \mu_P (\mathbf{c} \otimes \mathbf{a} \otimes p \otimes \mathbf{b} )$ where $\mathbf{a} \otimes p \otimes \mathbf{b} \in \mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}^{\prime \prime}} P$. It follows from equations \ref{eq:polymod} and \ref{eq:polymor} that $\rho_{j}$ is a twisting cochain from the {DG } coalgebra $ \mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}^\prime}$ to the {DG } algebra $\text{Hom}_{{\mathfrak{s}}^{\prime \prime} \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}} (j^*(P), j^*(P))$.
Suppose ${\mathfrak{t}} = ({\mathfrak{s}}_0, {\mathfrak{s}}_1, {\mathfrak{s}}_2, i_1, i_2, j_1, j_2) $ is gluing data and $P_1, P_2$ are ${\mathfrak{s}}_1^*, {\mathfrak{s}}_2$ polymodules respectively. Then, as a graded vector space, we define ${\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (P_1, P_2 )$ as $\text{Hom}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0 \mhyphen{\text{Mod}_\infty} } (i_1^*(P_1) , i_2^* (P_2) )$. The structure map
\begin{equation*}\mu_{{\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (P_1, P_2 )} : \mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}_1^* \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2} {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (P_1, P_2 ) \to {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (P_1, P_2 )\end{equation*}
is set to equal the differential on the twisted tensor product composed with the projection $\pi : \mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}_1^* \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2} {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (P_1, P_2 ) \to {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (P_1 , P_2 )$, where the former is induced by the isomorphism
\begin{equation*} \mathbf{B}^{{\mathfrak{s}}_1^* \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2} {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (P_1, P_2 ) = \mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_2 - i_2 ({\mathfrak{s}}_0)} \otimes_{\rho_{i_2}} {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (P_1 , P_2 ) \otimes_{\rho_{i_1}} \mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1 - i_1 ({\mathfrak{s}}_0)} \end{equation*}
Again we keep track of the lattice filtration so that ${\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (P_1 , P_2 )$ is a $\mathbb{Z}^{|{\mathfrak{s}}_0 |}$ filtered polymodule.
As in the case of the tensor product, for any ${\mathfrak{s}}$ polymodule $P$, the diagonal polymodule $\mathbf{D}_{\mathfrak{s}}$ plays the role of a unit for ${\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{\mathfrak{t}} (\mathbf{D}_{\mathfrak{s}} , P )$. Again we define the natural transformations
\begin{equation*} \chi_P : {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{\mathfrak{s}} ( \mathbf{D}_{\mathfrak{s}} , P ) \to P \hspace{.3in} \upsilon_P : P \to {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{\mathfrak{s}} ( \mathbf{D}_{\mathfrak{s}} , P ) . \end{equation*}
Where $\chi_P (\mathbf{a} \otimes \phi \otimes \mathbf{b}) = (-1)^{|\phi| |\mathbf{a}|} \phi (\mathbf{a} \otimes \unit_{\mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}} (1)} \otimes \mathbf{b} )$ and $\upsilon_P$ is the strict map sending $p$ to the morphism $\phi_p$ defined as $\phi_p (\mathbf{a} \otimes \mathbf{q} \otimes \mathbf{b} ) = \mu_P (\mathbf{a} \otimes \mathbf{q}^+ \otimes p \otimes \mathbf{q}^- \otimes \mathbf{b})$ where $\mathbf{q}^\pm$ is the tensor factor of $q$ in $\mathbf{D}_{{\mathfrak{s}}^\pm}$.
\subsection{Filtered adjunction}
In this section we observe the classic adjunction between tensor product and internal Hom for polymodules. This leads to elementary, but powerful, observations on dual $A_\infty$-modules. We will be concerned with preserving the lattice filtrations naturally throughout.
To state the theorem, we need to specify the gluing data between three categories of polymodules. Assume ${\mathfrak{s}}_i$ are labelled sets for $i = 1, 2, 3$. We say that the data ${\mathfrak{r}} = ({\mathfrak{t}}_{12}, {\mathfrak{t}}_{23}, {\mathfrak{t}}_{31})$ form a gluing cycle if ${\mathfrak{t}}_{ij}$ are the gluing data
\begin{eqnarray*} {\mathfrak{t}}_{12} & = & ({\mathfrak{s}}_{12}, {\mathfrak{s}}_1, {\mathfrak{s}}_2 , i_{12}, i^\prime_{12}, j_{12}, j^\prime_{12} ), \\
{\mathfrak{t}}_{23} & = & ({\mathfrak{s}}_{23}, {\mathfrak{s}}_2^*, {\mathfrak{s}}_3 , i_{23}, i^\prime_{23}, j_{23}, j^\prime_{23} ) ,\\
{\mathfrak{t}}_{31} & = & ({\mathfrak{s}}_{31}, {\mathfrak{s}}_3, {\mathfrak{s}}_1^* , i_{31}, i^\prime_{31}, j_{31}, j^\prime_{31} ), \end{eqnarray*}
and $image (i_{kl} )$ is disjoint from $image (i_{mk}^\prime )$. A gluing cycle can be represented graphically as a directed graph with three vertices. Vertices $v_1, v_2$ have incoming and outgoing edges ${\mathfrak{s}}_i^\mp$ and $v_3$ has incoming and outgoing edges ${\mathfrak{s}}_3^\pm$. Those edges that connect vertices $v_i$ and $v_j$ form the labelled set ${\mathfrak{s}}_{ij}$. This is depicted in Figure \ref{fig:gluecycle} below.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{picture}(0,0)%
\includegraphics{polymodulegraph1.ps}%
\end{picture}%
\setlength{\unitlength}{4144sp}%
\begingroup\makeatletter\ifx\SetFigFont\undefined%
\gdef\SetFigFont#1#2#3#4#5{%
\reset@font\fontsize{#1}{#2pt}%
\fontfamily{#3}\fontseries{#4}\fontshape{#5}%
\selectfont}%
\fi\endgroup%
\begin{picture}(3473,2697)(2988,-3355)
\put(4719,-3004){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{{\SetFigFont{8}{9.6}{\rmdefault}{\mddefault}{\updefault}{ $\vdots$}%
}}}}
\put(3095,-952){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{{\SetFigFont{8}{9.6}{\rmdefault}{\mddefault}{\updefault}{ ${\mathfrak{s}}_1^*$}%
}}}}
\put(6081,-3191){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{{\SetFigFont{8}{9.6}{\rmdefault}{\mddefault}{\updefault}{ ${\mathfrak{s}}_2^*$}%
}}}}
\put(4864,-2178){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{{\SetFigFont{8}{9.6}{\rmdefault}{\mddefault}{\updefault}{ ${\mathfrak{s}}_{12}$}%
}}}}
\put(3126,-3191){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{{\SetFigFont{8}{9.6}{\rmdefault}{\mddefault}{\updefault}{ ${\mathfrak{s}}_3$}%
}}}}
\put(3289,-2040){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{{\SetFigFont{8}{9.6}{\rmdefault}{\mddefault}{\updefault}{ $\cdots$}%
}}}}
\put(3289,-2227){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{{\SetFigFont{8}{9.6}{\rmdefault}{\mddefault}{\updefault}{ ${\mathfrak{s}}_{31}$}%
}}}}
\put(4707,-1989){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{{\SetFigFont{8}{9.6}{\rmdefault}{\mddefault}{\updefault}{ $\cdots$}%
}}}}
\put(4478,-2974){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{{\SetFigFont{8}{9.6}{\rmdefault}{\mddefault}{\updefault}{ ${\mathfrak{s}}_{23}$}%
}}}}
\end{picture}%
\caption{\label{fig:gluecycle} The gluing cycle ${\mathfrak{r}}$}
\end{figure}
We take ${\mathfrak{s}}_{\mathfrak{r}}$ to be the labelled set $({\mathfrak{s}}_1 \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{12}} {\mathfrak{s}}_2)^* \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{23} \sqcup {\mathfrak{s}}{31}} {\mathfrak{s}}_3$, i.e. ${\mathfrak{s}}_{\mathfrak{r}}$ consists of the half edges in figure \ref{fig:gluecycle}. With this notation, we can prove the following classic adjunction:
\begin{thm} Given a gluing cycle ${\mathfrak{r}}$ and polymodules $P_i \in {\mathfrak{s}}_i \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}$, there is a natural isomorphism $\Phi$ in $({\mathfrak{s}}_{\mathfrak{r}} \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty} )^{lf} $,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:adj2} \Phi : {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{31} \sqcup {\mathfrak{s}}_{23}} (P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_{12}} P_2 , P_3 ) \to {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{31} \sqcup {\mathfrak{s}}_{12}} (P_1 , {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{23}} (P_2 , P_3)). \end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} This is simply an exercise in the definitions of the last section and the observation that ${gr}^{lf}$ is a closed category. Letting $\star = {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{31} \sqcup {\mathfrak{s}}_{23}} (P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_{12}} P_2 , P_3 ) $ we have the following natural isomorphisms of $\mathbb{Z}^{|{\mathfrak{s}}_{31}| + |{\mathfrak{s}}_{12} | + |{\mathfrak{s}}_{23}|}$ filtered graded vector spaces
\begin{eqnarray*}\star & = & \text{Hom}_{({\mathfrak{s}}_{31} \sqcup {\mathfrak{s}}_{23}) \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}} (P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_{12}} P_2 , P_3 ) \\ & = & \text{Hom}_{gr} (\mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{31}} \otimes
P_1 \otimes \mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{12}} \otimes P_2 \otimes \mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{23}} , P_3 ) \\ & \simeq & \text{Hom}_{gr} ( \mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{31}} \otimes P_1 \otimes \mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{12}} , \text{Hom}_{gr} ( P_2 \otimes \mathcal{B} A_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{23}} , P_3) ) \\ & = & {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{31} \sqcup {\mathfrak{s}}_{12}} (P_1 , {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{23}} (P_2 , P_3)) \end{eqnarray*}
To complete the proof, one must show that the isomorphisms above respect the differentials, which follows immediately from the definitions.
\end{proof}
The same proof gives a natural equivalence
\begin{equation*} \Phi^l : {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{31} \sqcup {\mathfrak{s}}_{23}} (P_1 \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_{12}} P_2 , P_3 ) \to {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{32} \sqcup {\mathfrak{s}}_{23}} (P_2 , {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{13}} (P_1 , P_3)),\end{equation*}
making the bicategory of $A_\infty$-algebras and bimodules into a biclosed bicategory. We apply this theorem to a simple gluing cycle to obtain the following corollary.
\begin{cor} Suppose $A \in Alg_\infty$ and $P \in A \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}$. Then:
\begin{equation} \ell^{\_ \ts{A} P} \leq \ell^{{\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{A} (P , \_ )} \end{equation} \end{cor}
\begin{proof} Here we take ${\mathfrak{s}}_1 = {\mathfrak{s}}_2^*$ to be the labelled set $S^- = \{A \}$ and $S^+ = \emptyset$ while ${\mathfrak{s}}_3$ is just the empty labelled set. We take $P_1 = Q$ to be any $A$ module and $P_2 = P$, $P_3 = \mathbb{K}$. Then the filtered adjunction \ref{eq:adj2} reads ${\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_\mathbb{K} (Q \ts{A} P , \mathbb{K} ) \simeq {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_A (P, {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_\mathbb{K} (Q, \mathbb{K} ))$. By universal coefficients, the left hand side has length equal to $\ell (Q \ts{A} P )$ while the right hand side has length $ \ell ( {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_A (P, {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_\mathbb{K} (Q , \mathbb{K} )))$. As the $Q$ is arbitrary, we have then that the supremum $\ell^{\_ \ts{A} P}$ is less than or equal to the supremum $\ell^{{\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_A (P , \_ )}$ verifying the claim.
\end{proof}
For formal algebras concentrated in degree zero, the above corollary is the elementary fact that flat dimension is less than or equal to projective dimension. We note that for arbitrary (formal and non-formal) algebras $A$, it is not the case that all left modules are quasi-isomorphic to ${\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_\mathbb{K} (Q, \mathbb{K} )$ for some $Q$, so just as in the formal setting, this inequality can be strict. We will observe conditions for which this inequality is an equality below.
The dual $P^\vee$ of an ${\mathfrak{s}}$ polymodule $P$ is the ${\mathfrak{s}}^*$ polymodule ${\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_\mathbb{K} (P, \mathbb{K} )$. We start with an elementary lemma for perfect polymodules over compact algebras.
\begin{prop} Suppose ${\mathfrak{s}}$ labels compact algebras. Then
\begin{equation*}\_^\vee : {\mathfrak{s}} -\pcmd \to {\mathfrak{s}}^* -\pcmd \end{equation*} is an equivalence of categories and there is a natural isomorphism $\Theta : I \to (I^\vee )^\vee$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} We prove this for the case of ${\mathfrak{s}} $ labelling a single compact algebra $A$ as the general case is the same.
Every perfect $A$ module $P$ has a finite dimensional minimal model $P_{min}$ defined uniquely up to isomorphism. Thus there is the usual graded vector space natural isomorphism $\Theta_{{gr}} : P_{min} \to (P_{min}^\vee )^\vee$ defined in the usual way $[\Theta_{{gr}} (p) ] (l) = (-1)^{|l| |p|} l (p)$. It is immediate from the definition of internal hom that $\Theta := \Theta_{{gr}}$ is indeed a strict $A$-module homomorphism.
\end{proof}
To generalize this proposition, we fix gluing data ${\mathfrak{t}}$ between ${\mathfrak{s}}_1^*$ and ${\mathfrak{s}}_2$. The following proposition, which was observed early in homological algebra, is stated below in terms of polymodules.
\begin{prop} Suppose $P_i$ is a ${\mathfrak{s}}_i$ polymodule and $P_2$ is a perfect ${\mathfrak{s}}_2 $ polymodule. If the algebras labelled by ${\mathfrak{s}}_2 - i_2 ({\mathfrak{s}}_0)$ are compact, then there is a natural filtered quasi-equivalence
\begin{equation*} P_1^\vee \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2 \simeq {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (P_2, P_1 )^\vee. \end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} First we define a morphism $\Psi : P_1^\vee \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} P_2 \to {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (P_2 , P_1 )^\vee $ of filtered ${\mathfrak{s}}_1^* \sharp_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} {\mathfrak{s}}_2$ polymodules by
\begin{equation*} [\Psi ( \mathbf{a} \otimes \phi \otimes \mathbf{b} \otimes p \otimes \mathbf{c} )] (\psi) = (-1)^{|\psi| (|p| + |\mathbf{b}| + |\mathbf{c}|) + |\phi| |\mathbf{a}|} \phi (\mu_{{\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (P_2 , P_1 )} (\mathbf{a} \otimes \psi \otimes \mathbf{c}) (\mathbf{b} \otimes p )).
\end{equation*}
It is plain to see that $\Psi$ preserves the lattice filtrations and that $\Psi$ is a natural transformation.
Now we check to see that $\Psi$ is a quasi-isomorphism for $P_2 = \mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_2}$. Write ${\mathfrak{s}}_2^\prime $ for ${\mathfrak{s}}_2 - i_2 ({\mathfrak{s}}_0 )$ and note that $\mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_2} = \mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \otimes \mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_2^\prime}$. By choosing minimal models for the algebras labelled by ${\mathfrak{s}}_2^\prime$ we may assume $\mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_2^\prime}$ is a finite dimensional vector space over $\mathbb{K}$. This gives
\begin{equation*} P_1^\vee \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_2} = ( P_1^\vee \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} ) \boxtimes \mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_2^\prime}. \end{equation*}
While on the other side we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*} {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (\mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} , P_1 )^\vee & = & {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (\mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} , P_1 )^\vee \boxtimes (\mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_2^\prime}^\vee )^\vee ,\\ & = & {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (\mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} , P_1 )^\vee \boxtimes \mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_2^\prime}, \end{eqnarray*}
where the last equality follows from the compactness assumption. It is easy to see that $\Psi$ factors through this tensor decomposition of $\mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_2}$, so we need only show the equivalence on the $\mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0}$ factor.
For this, observe that the tensor product and internal Hom with $P_2 = \mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0}$ yields the same complex as $P_2 = \mathbf{D}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0}$ we restrict $\xi$ to obtain the following quasi-commutative diagram
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzcd}P_1^\vee \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \arrow{rr}{\Phi} \arrow{rd}[swap]{\xi_{P_1^\vee}} & & {\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} ( \mathbf{U}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0}, P_1 )^\vee \\ & P_1^\vee \arrow{ur}[swap]{(\chi_{P_1} )^\vee} & \end{tikzcd}
\end{figure}
By exactness of $ P_1^\vee \ts{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} \_$ and ${\mathcal{H}\textit{om}}_{{\mathfrak{s}}_0} (\_ , P_1 )^\vee$ and naturality of $\Psi$, we have that $\Psi$ induces a quasi-isomorphism on perfect ${\mathfrak{s}}_2$ polymodules. As was observed above, $\Psi$ respects filtrations which yields the claim.
\end{proof}
As a corollary, we have the following important fact
\begin{cor}\label{cor:prequalsfl} Suppose $A \in Alg_\infty$ and $P \in A - \pcmd$. Then
\begin{equation*} \ell^{\text{Hom} (P , \_ )} = \ell^{\_ \ts{} P } . \end{equation*}
\end{cor}
This equality motivates the following definition.
\begin{defn} For $P \in A \mhyphen \pcmd$ we define the length of $P$ to be
\begin{equation*} \ell (P) := \ell^{\text{Hom} (P , \_ )} = \ell^{\_ \ts{} P }, \end{equation*}
and define the global length of $A \mhyphen \pcmd$ to be the supremum
\begin{equation*} \ell (A \mhyphen \pcmd) := \sup \{\ell (P ): P \in A \mhyphen \pcmd \}. \end{equation*}
\end{defn}
\section{Dimensions of $A_\infty$ categories}
In this section we lift many of the definitions and theorems of the dimension theory for triangulated categories to the pretriangulated setting. After recalling some definitions and results from triangulated and pretriangulated categories from \cite{BFK, Lefevre, Orlov, Rouquier}, we prove our first main theorem that equates filtered length of internal homs with the generation time of a given object. We follow this with a proof of the base change formula for $A_\infty$-algebras.
\subsection{Generators in triangulated categories}
We take a moment to recall some definitions and notation from
\cite{Rouquier}. Given a triangulated category $\mathcal{C}$ and a
subcategory $\mathcal{I}$, we define $\cl{I}$ to be the smallest full
subcategory of $\mathcal{C}$ closed under direct summands, finite direct
sums and shifts. Given two subcategories $\mathcal{I}_1 , \mathcal{I}_2 \subset
\mathcal{T}$, we define $\mathcal{I}_1 * \mathcal{I}_2$ to be the category of objects
$N$ such that there exists a distinguished triangle
\begin{equation*} M_1 \to N \to M_2 \to \end{equation*}
in $\mathcal{T}$ with $M_1 \in \mathcal{I}_1$ and $M_2 \in \mathcal{I}_2$. We take $\mathcal{I}_1
\diamond \mathcal{I}_2 := \cl{\mathcal{I}_1 * \mathcal{I}_2}$. It follows from the
octahedral axiom that $\diamond$ is an associative operation, so
the category $\mathcal{I}^{\diamond d}$ is well defined. With this
notation in hand, the following definitions can be stated.
\begin{defn} Let $\mathcal{T} \subseteq \mathcal{C}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[i)] $\mathcal{I}$ generates $\mathcal{T}$ if given $N \in
\mathcal{T}$ with $\text{Hom}_\mathcal{T} ( M[i], N ) = 0$ for all $M \in \mathcal{I}$ and all
$i \in \mathbb{Z}$, then $N = 0$.
\item[ii)] $\mathcal{I}$ is a $d$-step generator of $\mathcal{T}$ if $\mathcal{T} =
\mathcal{I}^{\diamond d}$.
\item[iii)] $\mathcal{T}$ is finitely generated if there exists $G \in \mathcal{T}$
which generates $\mathcal{T}$. In this case we call $G$ a generator for
$\mathcal{T}$.
\item[iv)] $\mathcal{T}$ is strongly finitely generated if there exists $M \in
\mathcal{T}$ which is a $d$-step generator.
\end{itemize}
\end{defn}
We utilize the above definitions to define level and dimension as
follows.
\begin{defn} If $G$ generates $\mathcal{T}$ and $M \in \mathcal{T}$ we say the
level of $M$ with respect to $G$ is
\begin{equation*} \text{lvl}_G (M) = \min \left\{ d : M \in \cl{G^{\diamond
(d - 1) } } \right\} \end{equation*} and the generation time of $G$ is
\begin{equation*} t (G) = \min \left\{ d : \mathcal{T} =
\cl{G^{\diamond (d - 1) } } \right\}
\end{equation*}
The dimension of a category $\mathcal{T}$ with generators is defined to
be the smallest generation time. The Orlov spectrum of $\mathcal{T}$ is the set of all generation times.
\end{defn}
The central theme of this paper is to enhance the above
definitions into the language of {DG } and $A_\infty$-categories.
Thus we will assume our category $\mathcal{T}$ is always a subcategory of
the homotopy category $H^0 (\mathcal{A} )$ for some pretriangulated
$A_\infty$-category $\mathcal{A}$. If $\mathcal{T}$ is an algebraic triangulated category, this is implied by a theorem of Lef\`evre-Hasegawa which we site below. First we fix notation and, in triangulated category $\mathcal{T}$, write $\text{Hom}_{\mathcal{T}}^* (M, N)$ for the algebra $\oplus_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} Hom_{\mathcal{T}} (M, N[n])$.
\begin{thm}[7.6.0.4, \cite{Lefevre}] \label{thm:LF} If $\mathcal{T}$ is an algebraic triangulated which is strongly generated by an object $G$, then there is an $A_\infty$ structure on $A_G := \text{Hom}_\mathcal{T}^* (G, G)$ such that the Yoneda functor evaluated at $G$ from $\mathcal{T}$ to $H^0 (A_G \mhyphen \pcmd)$ is a triangulated equivalence.
\end{thm}
We say that a pretriangulated $A_\infty$-subcategory $\mathcal{B}$ (strongly) generates if $H^0 (\mathcal{B})$
does in $H^0 (\mathcal{A} )$. We also use the same language and notation
as above for level, generation time and dimension.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{p1p12.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:quiv1} Quivers of generators for $\mathcal{D}^b (\mathbb{P}^1 )$}
\end{figure}
Before proceeding with this discussion, we take a moment to illustrate this theorem with some examples.
\begin{eg} For $\mathbb{P}^n$, Beilinson showed (\cite{Beilinson}) that $\langle \mathcal{O}, \mathcal{O} (1) , \cdots \mathcal{O} (n) \rangle$ forms a full exceptional collection for $\mathcal{D}^b (\mathbb{P}^n )$. Taking $G = \oplus_{i = 0}^n \mathcal{O} (i)$ then gives a generator. From grading considerations, the endomorphism algebra $A_G$ has no higher products so $\mathcal{D}^b (\mathbb{P}^n ) \simeq H^0 (A_G \mhyphen \pcmd )$. In the case of $n = 1$, $A_G$ is the path algebra of the Kronecker quiver illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:quiv1}.
\end{eg}
Exceptional collections in the dimension theory of triangulated categories were studied in \cite{BFK}. In general, one can mutate an exceptional collection to obtain a new exceptional collection. Below we examine one such mutated case.
\begin{eg} Let $n = 1$, then mutating $\langle \mathcal{O} , \mathcal{O}(1) \rangle$ we obtain the collection $\langle \mathcal{O} , \mathcal{O}_p \rangle$. The algebra $A_{G^\prime}$ is the quiver algebra with relations given in the middle of Figure \ref{fig:quiv1} where $\deg (a) = 1 = \deg (c)$ and $\deg (b) = 0$ and $ba = c$. Here, the grading does not preclude the existence of higher products, but it is not hard to exhibit a quasi-isomorphism from this algebra to the {DG } algebra endomorphism algebra of the mutated objects in $A_G \mhyphen \pcmd$. Again we obtain the isomorphism $\mathcal{D}^b (\mathbb{P}^1 ) \simeq H^0 (A_{G^\prime} \mhyphen \pcmd )$ from coherent sheaves to graded modules over the graded algebra $A_{G^\prime}$.
\end{eg}
\begin{eg} \label{eg:3} Another studied example is the category of matrix factorizations for the function $f_n : \mathbb{C} \to \mathbb{C}$ via $f_n (z) = z^n$, or equivalently the derived category of singularities $D^b_{sg} (f_n^{-1} (0))$. It was observed in \cite{BFK} that every non-zero object of $MF(\mathbb{C}[[z]], f_n)$ is a strong generator and that the generator
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd} \mathbb{C}
\rar[-to, to path={([yshift=0.5ex]\tikztostart.east) -- ([yshift=0.5ex]\tikztotarget.west) \tikztonodes}]{z^{n - 1}}
\rar[to-, to path={([yshift=-0.5ex]\tikztostart.east) -- ([yshift=-0.5ex]\tikztotarget.west) \tikztonodes}][swap]{z}
& \mathbb{C} \in MF (\mathbb{C}[[z]],f_n) \end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
or $\mathcal{O}_0 \in D^b_{sg} (f_n^{-1} (0))$ had maximal generation time. Also, in \cite{Dyckerhoff}, the computation of a minimal model for $A_G$ as a $\mathbb{Z} / 2\mathbb{Z}$ graded $A_\infty$-algebra was performed and found to equal $A_G = k[\theta] / (\theta^2)$ where $\deg (\theta ) = 1$ and all higher products vanish except $\mu^n (\theta, \theta, \cdots, \theta) = 1$. Again, we have $D^b_{sg} (f_n^{-1} (0)) \simeq H^0 (A_G \mhyphen \pcmd)$.
\end{eg}
Now, starting with an $A_\infty$ pretriangulated category $\mathcal{A}$, let $G \in \mathcal{A}$ be a generator and $A_G = \text{Hom}^* (G, G)$ its $A_\infty$ endomorphism algebra. We define the $A_\infty$-functor $\text{ev}_G :
\mathcal{A} \to A_G \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}$ via
\begin{equation*} \text{ev}_G (B ) = \text{Hom}^* (G, B) \end{equation*} The map
$T^1$ on morphisms is composition and $T^k$ is defined using
higher multiplication. Clearly, $\text{ev}_G$ factors through the Yoneda
embedding and can be thought of as evaluation of Yoneda at the
point $G$. From Theorem \ref{thm:LF}, if $G$ is a strong generator, we have that that $\text{ev}_G$ is an quasi-equivalence with $A_G \mhyphen \pcmd$. In
particular, given any two objects, $M, N \in \mathcal{A}$, the associated
map
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mor} H^* \text{ev}_G: H^* (\text{Hom}^* (M, N)) \to
H^* (\text{Hom}^* (\text{ev}_G M, \text{ev}_G N))
\end{equation} is an isomorphism. In a moment, we will examine the right hand side of \ref{eq:mor}.
Were we to have started out in the triangulated setting, we could
have defined the functor $\textbf{ev}_G : H^* \mathcal{A} \to H^*
(A_G ) \mhyphen \text{mod}$. It is well known that the natural functor $\Phi: H^*
({A_G}\mhyphen \pcmd ) \to {H^* (A_G)}\mhyphen \text{mod}$ is not an equivalence of
categories. However, all of these categories and functors fit into
the diagram of categories below.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathcal{A} \arrow[maps to]{r}{H^*} \arrow{dd}[swap]{\text{ev}_G}{\simeq} & H^* (\mathcal{A}) \arrow{dd}{H^* \text{ev}_G}[swap]{\simeq} \arrow{rd}{\textbf{ev}_G} & \\ & & {H^* (A_G)}\mhyphen \text{mod} \\
A_G \mhyphen \pcmd \arrow[maps to]{r}{H^*} & H^* (A_G \mhyphen \pcmd) \arrow{ru}{\Phi} &
\end{tikzcd}
\end{figure}
The kernel (i.e. all morphisms sent to zero) of $\text{ev}_G$ is
defined to be the G-ghost ideal. We write this ideal as $\mathcal{G}_G$
and its $n$-th power to be $\mathcal{G}_G^n$. The following lemma will be
important for what follows and can be found in \cite{BFK}.
\begin{lem}[The Ghost Lemma] If $\mathcal{T}$ is an algebraic triangulated category with strong generator $G$ such that $A_G$ is compact. Then $M \in \cl{G^{\diamond (d ) } } $ and $M \not\in \cl{G^{\diamond (d - 1) } }$ if and only if there exists an $N \in \mathcal{T}$ such that $\mathcal{G}_G^d \text{Hom}^* (M, N) \ne 0$.
\end{lem}
An important conceptual point about this perspective is that, by
choosing a generating object $G$, we have enhanced the
on the homotopy category of $\mathcal{A}$ to a filtered category. This is not an invariant of
the $A_\infty$-category $\mathcal{A}$, nor is it an invariant of the
triangulated category $H^* \mathcal{A}$. It is additional structure
introduced by the choice of generator which provides homological
information relative to $G$.
\subsection{Ghosts and Length}
We will now establish the link between generation
time and filtration length. The following lemma is straightforward, but we supply a proof to establish some notation.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:basic} In $A\mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}$ we have $\ell (\mathbf{U}_A ) = 0$. \end{lem}
Before we begin the proof, we define a
weaker class of maps $ \text{Map}_{C}^{k} (P ,P^\prime)$ between two differential, free comodules of a coalgebra $C$. Given any map
of comodules $f: P \to P^\prime$, we take
\begin{equation*} [\Delta , f] := \Delta_{P^\prime} f -
(1_{C} \otimes f ) \Delta_P \end{equation*}
Note that
\begin{equation*} [\Delta , f g] = (1_{C^\prime} \otimes f \otimes 1_{C}) [\Delta
, g] + [\Delta , f] g
\end{equation*} For $k \geq 0$, define
\begin{equation*} Map^{k} (P, P^\prime ) = \left\{ f : \text{image} ([\Delta , f]) \subset {C} \otimes
P^\prime_{[k]} \right\} \end{equation*}
These classes of maps will be useful when defining homotopies. Indeed, they naturally appear in the cobar
complex of morphisms from the cobar of $P$ to the cobar of
$P^\prime$ satisfying filtration properties on their differential in that
complex. A straightforward generalization of the above definition to bicomodules will also be used. We now record some basic properties.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:map1} \item i) If $f \in Map^{k} (P, P^\prime )$, $g \in \mathcal{F}^{i} \text{Hom} (P^\prime ,
P^{\prime \prime})$ with $k \leq i$, then $g f \in
\mathcal{F}^{i - k} \text{Hom} (P, P^{\prime \prime})$.
\item ii) If $f \in Map^{k} (P, P^\prime )$
then $f (P_{[n]}) \subseteq P^\prime_{[n + k]}$.
\item iii) If $f \in Map^{k} (P, P^\prime )$, $g \in Map^{i} (P^\prime , P^{\prime \prime})$ then $g f \in Map^{k +i }
(P, P^{\prime \prime} )$.
\item iv) If $f \in Map^{k } (P, P^\prime ) $ then $\partial f
\in Map^{k} (P, P^\prime )$.
\end{lem}
We proceed with the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:basic}.
\begin{proof} In order to prove this lemma, we define a homotopy
contraction \begin{equation*} h_A : \overline{\mathbf{B}} \mathbf{U}_A \to \overline{\mathbf{B}} \mathbf{U}_A \end{equation*} as $\sum_{m = 1}^{\infty}
1^{\otimes m} \otimes \eta$ where $\eta$ is the insertion of the
identity. More concretely,
\begin{equation*} h_A ([a_1| \cdots |a_m]) = (-1)^{|a_1| + \cdots + |a_m|}[ a_1| \cdots |a_m|e]
\end{equation*} where $|a_i |$ is the degree of $a_i$ in $A[1]$. A quick
computation shows that indeed
\begin{equation*} h_A b_A + b_A h_A = 1 \end{equation*}
so that $h_A$ is a vector space contracting homotopy of $\mathbf{B} \mathbf{U}_A$.
Note that $h_A$ is not a $\mathcal{B} A$-comodule morphism of $\mathbf{B} \mathbf{U}_A$
(otherwise, the entire category $A\mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}$ would be zero). Indeed,
we have, for any $a \in \mathbf{B} \mathbf{U}_A$, \begin{equation*} (\Delta h_A - (1
\otimes h_A ) \Delta )(a) = (-1)^{|a |} a \otimes [e]
\end{equation*}
This implies that $h_A \in Map_{\mathcal{B} A}^{1} (\mathbf{B} \mathbf{U}_A, \mathbf{B} \mathbf{U}_A)$.
By \ref{lem:map1}, we have that if $\phi \in \mathcal{F}^1 \text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (\mathbf{U}_A,
M)$ then $b_\phi \circ h_A \in Map_{\mathcal{B} A}^0 (\mathbf{B} \mathbf{U}_A, \mathbf{B} \mathbf{U}_A)$ is
a comodule morphism. Thus, if $\phi \in \mathcal{F}^1 \text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (A, M)$
is a homomorphism, then $\partial (b_\phi h_A) = b_\phi
\partial h_A = b_\phi$ implying that it is a boundary and
therefore $F^1 \text{Hom} (\mathbf{U}_A , M) = 0$.
\end{proof}
Applying this lemma yields the following corollary.
\begin{cor} For any $A_\infty$-algebra $A$, $\mathcal{G}_A = F^1$. \end{cor}
\begin{proof} Clearly, if $ \phi : M \to N$ is in $\mathcal{F}^1$, then $\phi_*
:\text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (A, M) \to \mathcal{F}^1 \text{Hom} (A, N)$ so $[\phi ]_* = 0$.
Conversely, using the homotopy retract above, one sees that that
there is a map natural with respect to $K$
\begin{eqnarray*} \text{Hom}_{\text{Mod}_\infty} (A, K) & \to & \text{Hom}_{\text{Mod}_\infty} (A, K) / \mathcal{F}^1
\text{Hom}_{\text{Mod}_\infty} (A, K) \end{eqnarray*} which induces a natural inclusion
\begin{eqnarray*} \text{Hom} (A, K) & \hookrightarrow & \text{Hom}_{mod} (H (A), H(K))
\\ & \simeq & H (K)
\end{eqnarray*} Thus if $[\phi]_* = 0$ then $[\phi^0] = 0$ implying
$[\phi] \in F^1 \text{Hom} (M, N)$. \end{proof}
Owing to the compatibility of the length filtration with
multiplication, we also easily obtain.
\begin{cor} For all $r$ we have $\mathcal{G}_A^r \subseteq F^r$.
\end{cor}
The following theorem asserts that this inclusion is an equality.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:main1} For any $A_\infty$-algebra $A$, $\mathcal{G}_A^r = F^r$. \end{thm}
\begin{proof} We start this proof by writing down two homotopies of the diagonal $(A, A)$-bimodule
\begin{equation*} h^\pm_{diag} : \mathbf{B} A \to \mathbf{B} A \end{equation*}
where \begin{eqnarray*} h_{diag}^+ ([\mathbf{a} | a | \mathbf{a}^\prime] ) & =
& (-1)^{|\mathbf{a}| + |a|} [[\mathbf{a} |a]|e | \mathbf{a}^\prime ] \\ h_{diag}^-
([\mathbf{a} | a | \mathbf{a}^\prime] ) & = & (-1)^{|\mathbf{a}| } [\mathbf{a} |e |[a|
\mathbf{a}^\prime] ]
\end{eqnarray*}
While these maps fail to be bi-comodule morphisms, they do lie in
$Map^{1, 1} (\mathbf{D}_A , \mathbf{D}_A )$. Indeed, we have
\begin{equation*} [\Delta , h_{diag}^+] ([\mathbf{a} | a | \mathbf{a}^\prime]) = [\mathbf{a} | a] \otimes [e] \otimes
[\mathbf{a}^\prime ] \end{equation*} and \begin{equation*} [\Delta ,
h_{diag}^- ] ([\mathbf{a} | a | \mathbf{a}^\prime ]) = [\mathbf{a} ] \otimes [e]
\otimes [a | \mathbf{a}^\prime ]. \end{equation*}
Furthermore, letting $\tau^\pm$ be the translation maps
\begin{eqnarray*} \tau_+ ( [\mathbf{a}|a|[a_1^\prime |\cdots
|a_m^\prime]) & = & (-1)^{1 + |\mathbf{a}| +
|a|}[[\mathbf{a} |a]|a_1^\prime |[a_2^\prime| \cdots |a_m^\prime]] , \\
\tau_- ( [[a_1| \cdots|a_n]|a|[\mathbf{a}^\prime]) & = & (-1)^{1 + |a_1|
+ \cdots + |a_{n - 1}|} [[a_1| \cdots|a_{n -
1}]|a_n|[a|\mathbf{a}^\prime]] ,
\end{eqnarray*} our homotopies bound to
\begin{eqnarray*} \partial h_{diag}^\pm & = & 1 - \tau_\pm \end{eqnarray*}
More generally, we have
\begin{eqnarray*} \partial \left[ h_{diag}^\pm ( 1 + \tau_\pm + \tau_\pm^2 + \cdots + \tau_\pm^{k - 1} ) \right] & = & 1 - \tau_\pm^{k }, \end{eqnarray*} and by \ref{lem:map1},
\begin{eqnarray*} \sigma^\pm_k := h_{diag}^\pm ( 1 + \tau_\pm + \tau_\pm^2 + \cdots + \tau_\pm^{k - 1}
) \in Map^{k,0}_{(\mathcal{B} A , \mathcal{B} A)} (\mathbf{B} \mathbf{D}_A,
\mathbf{B} \mathbf{D}_A) \end{eqnarray*}
One observes that for any $l$, as a map in ${Ch}$ the translation
map satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{eq:trans} \tau_-^k (\cbn{[k , l]} \mathbf{D}_A ) = 0 \end{equation}
We now use induction to prove our theorem. It suffices to show that if
$\phi \in \mathcal{F}^r \text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (M, N)$, then there exists a module $K$ and homomorphisms $\pi : M \to K$, $\psi : K \to N$ such that
$\pi \in F^1$, $\psi \in F^{r - 1}$ and $\phi = \psi \circ \pi$. We consider the diagram below which is commutative up to homotopy.
\begin{figure}[h] \begin{tikzcd} M \arrow{r}{\epsilon_{l, M}} \arrow{d}[swap]{\phi} \arrow{rd}{\pi} & \mathbf{D}_A \ts{} M \arrow{d}[swap]{\pi_0} \\
N & \mathbf{D}_A \odot_1 M \arrow{l}{\psi}
\end{tikzcd}
\end{figure}
The map $\epsilon_{l, M}$ was defined in equation \ref{eq:units}
and is a quasi-isomorphism. In particular, a simple examination of
the map shows that $\mathbf{D}_A \ts{} M$ has length $1$ as a filtered
module. Thus, a basic application of \ref{lem:lift} implies that
$\pi \in F^1$.
On the other hand, as $\psi$ is the restriction of $\xi_{l, M}
\circ (1 \otimes \phi )$, we can write it out concretely. It is a
strict map whose restriction to $A \otimes A[1]^{\otimes n}
\otimes M$ is
\begin{equation*} \psi^0_n ([a | a_1 | \cdots | a_n | m]) = \sum_{i = 0}^n (-1)^{|a_1| + \cdots + |a_i|} \mu_N^{i + 1} ([a | a_1| \cdots |a_{i} | \phi^{n - i}([a_i| \cdots |a_n |m])] ) \end{equation*}
for $n > 1$. As $\phi \in F^r$, we see in
particular that $\psi^0_n = 0$ for $n \leq r$. Thus $\psi $
factors as a composition
\begin{equation*} A \odot_1 M
\stackrel{\pi }{\longrightarrow} A \odot_r M
\stackrel{\tilde{\psi} }{\longrightarrow} N
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde{\psi}$ is a strict homomorphism. Now, a direct calculation shows
that $\sigma_{r - 1} \otimes 1_M : \mathbf{B} \mathbf{D}_A
\otimes_{co} \mathbf{B} M \to \mathbf{B} \mathbf{D}_A \otimes_{co} \mathbf{B} M$ restricts to a
well defined $A_\infty$-module morphism
\begin{equation*} \sigma^-_{r - 1} \odot_1 1_M : A \odot_1 M
\to A \odot_r M . \end{equation*} Composing with $\tilde{\psi}$ and
applying the differential gives \begin{eqnarray*} \partial [
(-1)^{|\psi |} \tilde{\psi} \circ (\sigma^-_{r - 1} \odot_1 1_M )
] & = & \tilde{\psi} \circ ((\partial \sigma^-_{r - 1} ) \odot_1
1_M ) \\ & = & \tilde{\psi} \circ ((1_A - \tau_-^{r - 1} ) \odot_1
1_M )
\\ & = & \tilde{\psi} \circ (1_A \odot_1 1_M ) - \tilde{\psi }
\circ (\tau_-^{r - 1} \odot_1 1_M ) \\ & = & \tilde{\psi} \circ
\pi - \tilde{\psi } \circ (\tau_-^{r - 1} \odot_1 1_M ) \\ & = &
\psi - \tilde{\psi } \circ (\tau_-^{r - 1} \odot_1 1_M ).
\end{eqnarray*} Thus $\psi$ is cohomologous to $\tilde{\psi } \circ (\tau_-^{r - 1}
\odot_1 1_M )$. Yet by \ref{eq:trans} we have that
\begin{equation*} ( \tau_-^{r - 1} \odot_1 1_M ) \left(\cbn{[r -
1, 0]} \mathbf{D}_A \otimes_{co} \mathbf{B} M \right) = 0 \end{equation*} and since
$\tilde{\psi}$ is strict, this implies that \begin{equation*}
\tilde{\psi } \circ ( \tau_-^{r - 1} \odot_1 1_M ) \left(\cbn{[r -
1, 0]} \mathbf{D}_A \otimes_{co} \mathbf{B} M \right) = 0 \end{equation*} Thus,
$\psi \simeq \tilde{\psi } \circ ( \tau_-^r \odot_1 1_M ) \in F^{r
- 1}$. \end{proof}
Combining this theorem with the Ghost Lemma of the previous
section, we have the following homological criteria for generation
time.
\begin{cor} Given an $A_\infty$-algebra $A$, the generation time of an $A_\infty$-module $\mathbf{U}_A$ in
$H^0 (A\mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty})$ is the global length $\ell (A\mhyphen \pcmd )$. \end{cor}
Coupling this to the theory of enhanced triangulated categories, we also obtain the corollary below.
\begin{cor} If $\mathcal{A}$ is a pretriangulated $A_\infty$-category and
$G \in \mathcal{A}$ is a generator, then $t (G) = \ell (A_G\mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty} )$. \end{cor}
More refined statements on the level $\text{lvl}_G (M)$ of an object with
respect to a given generator $G$ are also of use. We write the
result in the $A_\infty$-module category as opposed to
concentrating on the $A_G$-module case.
\begin{cor} If $M$ is an $A$-module then $\textnormal{lvl}_{A} (M) = \ell (M)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{eg} As was mentioned at the end of Section \ref{subsub:lf}, when $A_G$ is an ordinary algebra, the global length of $\ell (A_G \mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty} )$ is precisely its homological dimension. For the cases of the Beilinson exceptional collection $\langle \mathcal{O} , \ldots ,\mathcal{O} (n) \rangle$, one may use Beilinson's resolution of the diagonal to see that this dimension is $n$.
\end{eg}
\begin{eg} For the generator $\mathcal{O} \oplus \mathcal{O}_p$ of $\mathbb{P}^1$, we again have formality, but $A_{G^\prime}$ is now a graded algebra.
Nonetheless, the graded simple modules $S_1$ and $S_2$ arise from considering the idempotents at the vertices and the graded projective modules $P_1$, $P_2$ from considering all arrows mapping out of each vertex. The projective resolutions below for the simple objects give the homological dimension of $A_{G^\prime}$ as $2$.
\begin{equation*} \cdots 0 \to P_1 \to P_2 \to P_1 \to S_1 \to 0 \end{equation*}
\begin{equation*} \cdots 0 \to P_1 \to P_2 \to S_2 \to 0 \end{equation*}
\end{eg}
The final example explores a case where higher products have a significant effect on generation time.
\begin{eg} From example \ref{eg:3}, we recalled that $MF (\mathbb{C} [[z]] , z^n)$ had a generator $G$ with $A_G = k[\theta] / (\theta^2)$ with a single higher product $\mu^n (\theta , \cdots \theta ) = 1$. To describe $H^0 (A_G \mhyphen \pcmd)$, we examine the $A_\infty$-relation for the products of a minimal $A_G$-module $M$. First, we recall that $M$ is $\mathbb{Z} / 2\mathbb{Z}$ graded and the usual $A_\infty$-module map $\mu_M^r : A_G^r \otimes M \to M$ is degree $r + 1$ (due to the desuspension of $A_G$). Since we assume $M$ is unital, $\mu_M^r$ is completely determined by $\mu_M^r ([\theta| \cdots | \theta | m])$. Writing $L_r = \mu_M^r ([\theta | \cdots | \theta | \_ ]) \in \text{Hom}_{gr}^1 (M , M)$, we may condense $\mu_M$ into a power series $\mathbf{L} = \sum_{r = 1}^\infty L_r u^r \in \text{Hom}_\mathbb{K} (M , M ) \otimes \mathbb{C}[[u]]$. It is easy to see that the $A_\infty$-relation on $\mu^r_M$ translates into the equality
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{L} \cdot \mathbf{L} = 1_M \cdot u^n
\end{equation*}
Taking $M = M_0 \oplus M_1$, we may decompose $L_r = L_r^0 \oplus L_r^1$ where $L_r^0 : M_0 \to M_1$ and $L_r^1 :M_1 \to M_0$. Summing, we write $\mathbf{L}^i = \sum_{r = 1}^\infty L_r^i u^r$ and after tensoring $M$ with $\mathbb{C}[[u]]$ we then have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd} M_0 \otimes \mathbb{C}[[u]]
\rar[-to, to path={([yshift=0.5ex]\tikztostart.east) -- ([yshift=0.5ex]\tikztotarget.west) \tikztonodes}]{\mathbf{L}^0}
\rar[to-, to path={([yshift=-0.5ex]\tikztostart.east) -- ([yshift=-0.5ex]\tikztotarget.west) \tikztonodes}][swap]{\mathbf{L}^1}
& M_1\otimes \mathbb{C}[[u]] \end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
with $\mathbf{L}^0 \mathbf{L}^1 = u^n = \mathbf{L}^1 \mathbf{L}^0$. This returns us full circle to the setting of matrix factorizations, but with the added presence of the length filtration. Indeed, as above, given another $A_G$ module $(N, \tilde{\mathbf{L}})$ we may write any morphism $\phi : M \to N$ as a power series $\mathbf{T} = \sum_{r = 0}^\infty T_r u^r \in \text{Hom}^*_{gr} (M, N) \otimes \mathbb{C}[[u]]$ where $T_r (m) = \phi ([\theta | \cdots |\theta | m] )$. The differential on $\text{Hom}_\pcmd^* (M, N)$ is the usual matrix factorization differential $d \mathbf{T} = \tilde{\mathbf{L}} \mathbf{T} - (-1)^{|T|} \mathbf{T} \mathbf{L}$. It is obvious from this representation that $\phi \in \mathcal{F}^k \text{Hom}_\pcmd (M, N)$ if and only if $\deg (\mathbf{T}) \geq k$.
For $1 \leq m \leq \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor$, and define $M_m$ to be the module corresponding to
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd} \mathbb{C}[[u]]
\rar[-to, to path={([yshift=0.5ex]\tikztostart.east) -- ([yshift=0.5ex]\tikztotarget.west) \tikztonodes}]{u^m}
\rar[to-, to path={([yshift=-0.5ex]\tikztostart.east) -- ([yshift=-0.5ex]\tikztotarget.west) \tikztonodes}][swap]{u^{n - m}}
& \mathbb{C}[[u]] \end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
These make up the irreducible modules. It is not hard to show that the maximal filtered homomorphism between any two such modules is $\phi : M_m \to M_m$ , for $m = \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor$, and $\phi$ corresponding to $\mathbf{T} = u^{m - 1}$. This implies the generation time of $G$ is $\deg (\mathbf{T} ) = \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor - 1$ in agreement with results in \cite{BFK}.
\end{eg}
The last example raises interesting questions on which filtrations arise as length filtrations on the category of matrix factorizations. In the above example, we obtained the $\mathbf{m}$-adic filtration on matrices by considering the generator $R / \mathbf{m}$ where $R = \mathbb{C}[[u]]$ and $\mathbf{m} = (u)$. It is natural to ask when the $I$-adic filtration on morphisms between matrix factorizations arises as a length filtration associated to the generator $R / I$ on the quasi-equivalent derived category of singularities.
\subsection{Change of base formula}
In this subsection we generalize the classical change of base formula for dimension to the case of dimensions of $A_\infty$-algebras. We see that a new multiplicative factor appears in this formula that measures the formality of the algebras involved.
We start by obtaining a general lemma on filtered
$A_\infty$-modules. To simplify the exposition and some proofs, we
will work with modules as opposed to polymodules. Suppose $M$ is an
$A$-module and $(N, \mathcal{G}^*) \in (A\mhyphen \pcmd)^{f}$ is a filtered $A$-module of finite
filtration length and $\phi \in \text{Hom}_{A\mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}} (M, N)$ any map. We wish to
obtain a finite approximation of $\phi$ relative to both the
internal filtration on $N$ and the filtration on $\text{Hom}_{A\mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}} (M,
N)$. A surprising parameter that emerges in this pursuit is the
degeneration time of the spectral sequence associated to $(N,
\mathcal{G}^*)$. For the following lemma, assume $\mathcal{G}^{-1} N = 0 \ne
\mathcal{G}^0 N$, let $N_t = N / \mathcal{G}^t N$ and $\pi_t : N \to N_t$ be the
projection.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:lift} Suppose the spectral sequence associated to $(N, \mathcal{G}^*)$ degenerates on the $(s + 1)$-page and $\ell (N) = n$.
Then for every $p$ there exists a lift $\gamma$ such that the
following diagram commutes up to homotopy
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{tikzcd} \text{ } & F^{p + 1} \text{Hom}_{A\mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}} (M, N_{n + sp}) \arrow[hook]{d} \\
\text{Hom}_{A\mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}} (M, N) \arrow[dashed]{ru}{\gamma} \arrow{r}{(\pi_{n + sp + 1})_*} & \text{Hom}_{A\mhyphen {\text{Mod}_\infty}} (M, N_{n +
sp} )
\end{tikzcd}
\end{figure}
\end{lem}
Before proving this lemma, let us set up some basic
notation. First we take
\begin{equation*} \rho_q: \mathcal{F}^q \text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (M, N) \to \text{Hom}_{Ch}
((\mathbf{B} M)^q , N) = \text{Hom}_{Ch} (A[1]^{\otimes q} \otimes M, N) \end{equation*}
to be the restriction map. Here, the right hand side is
the complex of morphisms from $((B^+ M)^q, b_M^0|_{(B^+ M)^q})$ to $(N, \mu^1_N)$.
It is worthwhile to note that $\rho_q$ is a map of cochain complexes (i.e. $d \rho = 0$ in ${Ch}$).
Let us also introduce a general ``strictification" map.
\begin{equation*} \sigma_q : \text{Hom}_{Ch} (A[1]^{\otimes q } \otimes M, N) \to \text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} ( M, N) \end{equation*}
This is the map $\sigma_q (\phi ) = \{ \phi^{ k}\}$ where
\begin{equation*} \phi^{k} = \left\{ \begin{matrix} \phi &
\text{if } k = q \\ 0 & \text{otherwise } \end{matrix}
\right.\end{equation*} We note that this is not in general a
cochain complex map. Nevertheless, it is clear that, for every
$q$, \begin{equation} \label{eq:st1} \rho_q \circ \sigma_q = 1
\end{equation}
\begin{proof} We start by proving the following claim. \\
\textit{Claim}: With the assumptions of the lemma, for every $q$, the following diagram in $K$ has a lift which commutes up to homotopy,
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{tikzcd} \text{ } & \mathcal{F}^{q } \text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (M, N_{n}) \arrow[hook]{d} \\
\mathcal{F}^q \text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (M, N) \arrow[dashed]{ru}{\alpha_q} \arrow{r}{(\pi_{n})_*} & \text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (M, N_{n } )
\end{tikzcd}
\end{figure}
such that $\alpha_q (\text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (M, N)) \subseteq \mathcal{F}^{q + 1} \text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (M, N_n)$. \\
We first observe that since $\mathcal{G}^{-1} N = 0 \ne \mathcal{G}^0 N$ and $\ell (N) = n$ the map $\pi_n : N \to N_t$ is contractible.
Thus, restricting to $(\mathbf{B} M)^q$, the induced map on chain complexes
\begin{equation*} (\tilde{\pi}_n)_* : \text{Hom}_{Ch}^* (A[1]^{\otimes q } \otimes M, N) \to \text{Hom}_{Ch}^* (A[1]^{\otimes q} \otimes M, N_t) \end{equation*}
is also contractible. Here the differential associated to $A[1]^{\otimes q } \otimes M$ is the restriction of $b_M^0$.
We use the notation of $\tilde{\pi}_n$ above in order to distinguish it from the map in the claim, but both are obtained through composition and the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:st2} \rho_q \circ (\pi_n)_* = (\tilde{\pi}_n)_* \circ \rho_q \end{equation} holds.
Let \begin{equation*} \tau : \text{Hom}_{Ch}^* (A[1]^{\otimes q } \otimes M, N) \to \text{Hom}^{* - 1}_{Ch} (A[1]^{\otimes q } \otimes M, N_t) \end{equation*}
be a cochain bounding $(\tilde{\pi}_n)_*$ (i.e. $(\tilde{\pi}_n)_* = d \tau$ in ${Ch}$) and
take \begin{equation*} \alpha_n (\phi ) = [(\pi_n)_* - d(\sigma_q \circ \tau \circ \rho_q)] ( \phi ) \end{equation*}
Observe that this is a map in $K$ by virtue of $(\pi_n)_*$
being a cochain map and the fact that $d f$ is cochain map for
any $f$ in ${Ch}$. It is equally obvious that the diagram then commutes
up to homotopy. So the only point left to prove for the claim is that any
module homomorphism $\phi \in \text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (M, N)$ must have image in $\mathcal{F}^{q +
1} \text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (M, N_n)$. This is true iff $\rho_q (\alpha_n (\phi
)) = 0$. Since $\rho_q$ is a chain map, we have $\rho_q (d g) = d
(\rho_q (g))$, and by \ref{eq:st1}, \ref{eq:st2} \begin{eqnarray*} \rho_q
(\alpha_n (\phi )) & = & \rho_q ([(\pi_n)_* - d(\sigma_q \circ \tau \circ \rho_q)] ( \phi
)) \\ & = & \rho_q \circ (\pi_n)_* (\phi) - \rho_q [d(\sigma_q \circ \tau \circ \rho_q) ( \phi
)] \\ & = & (\tilde{\pi}_n)_* \circ \rho_q (\phi) - d[ (\rho_q \circ \sigma_q \circ \tau \circ \rho_q) ( \phi
))] \\ & = & (\tilde{\pi}_n)_* \circ \rho_q (\phi) - d[ (\tau \circ \rho_q) ( \phi
)] \\ & = & ( \tilde{\pi}_n)_* \circ \rho_q (\phi) - (d\tau ) \circ \rho_q ( \phi
) \\ & = & (\tilde{\pi}_n)_* \circ \rho_q (\phi) - (\tilde{\pi}_n)_* \circ \rho_q ( \phi
) \\ & = & 0 \end{eqnarray*}
One now uses the claim to prove the lemma by observing that if
$(C^*, \mathcal{G})$ is any filtered chain complex whose length is $r$
and whose spectral sequence converges at the $(p + 1)$-th page,
then $\ell (C / \mathcal{G}^r C, \mathcal{G} ) \leq p$. This argument relies on
simply unravelling the definition of the spectral sequence
associated to a filtration. We recall that the page $E_k^q = Z_k^q
/ B_k^q$ is the subquotient of $\mathcal{G}^k C / \mathcal{G}^{k - 1} C$ where
\begin{equation*} Z_k^q = \{[c]: c \in \mathcal{G}^k C , dc \in \mathcal{G}^{k -
q} C \} \end{equation*} and
\begin{equation*} B_k^q = \{[dc] : c \in \mathcal{G}^{k + q - 1} C, dc
\in \mathcal{G}^{k } C \} \end{equation*} Note then that $E_k^{r + q}$ is
the same as $\tilde{E}_k^q$ for $q > p$ where the later is the
spectral sequence for $(C / \mathcal{G}^r C, \mathcal{G}^{* - r} )$. In
particular, $\tilde{E}_k^q = 0$ for all $q > p$ implying the
length $\ell (C / \mathcal{G}^r C, \mathcal{G} ) \leq p$. To finish the proof,
just inductively apply the claim above and this observation with
$(N, \mathcal{G}^*)$.
\end{proof}
The following theorem is a result of \ref{lem:lift}.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:main2} Let $P$ be a $(B, A)$-bimodule and $M$ a left $A$-module. Suppose the
spectral sequence of $P \ts{A} M$ degenerates at the $(s + 1)$-st
page. If the convolution functor $P \ts{} \_$ is faithful, then
\begin{equation*} \textnormal{lvl}_A (M) \leq \textnormal{lvl}_A (P ) + s \cdot \textnormal{lvl}_B (P
\ts{A} M ) \end{equation*} \end{thm}
\begin{proof} Assume that this is not the case. Then there exists
a nonzero morphism $f \in F^r \text{Hom}^* (M, N)$ with $r > \text{lvl}_A
P^\vee + s \text{lvl}_B (P \ts{A} M )$. Then by definition, $1_P \ts{} f$
factors through $P \tns{r - 1 } M$ implying $1_P \ts{} f = \psi
\circ \pi_r = \pi_r^* (\psi )$ where $\pi_r : P \ts{} M \to P
\odot_r M$. Now, by assumption, the spectral sequence associated
to $P \ts{A} M$ degenerates at $(s + 1)$ and by \ref{cor:prequalsfl},
the $\ell (P \ts{A} M) \leq \ell ( P^\vee ) = \text{lvl}_A (P )$. Letting
$n = \text{lvl}_A P$, the following lifting problem is solvable for
all $p$ by \ref{lem:lift}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{tikzcd} \text{ } & F^{p + 1} \text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (P \ts{} M , P \odot_{n + sp + 1} M) \arrow[hook]{d} \\
\text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (P \ts{} M, P \ts{} M) \arrow[dashed]{ru}{\gamma} \arrow{r}{(\pi_{n + sp + 1})_*} & \text{Hom}_{{\text{Mod}_\infty}} (P \ts{} M, P \odot_{n + sp +1} M)
\end{tikzcd}
\end{figure}
In particular, if $p = \text{lvl}_B (P \ts{A} M )$ we have that $\pi_{n +
sp + 1} \simeq 0$. This implies that for all
\begin{equation*} t \geq n + sp + 1 = \text{lvl}_A P^\vee + s \cdot \text{lvl}_B (P \ts{A} M )
\end{equation*}
we must have $\pi_t \simeq 0$ so that $\pi_r
\simeq 0$ and therefore $1_P \ts{} f \simeq 0$. This contradicts
the assumption that $P \ts{} \_$ is faithful.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
In the Standard Model of particles and fields, the charge conjugation C along with the spatial parity P
and time reversal T, is one of the most fundamental symmetries. The C operator in quantum field theory
applied to a particle state $\vert\psi\rangle$, changes all additive quantum numbers of this particle to
opposite sign, leaving the mass, momentum and spin unchanged, and making it an antiparticle state:
\begin{equation}
C\vert\psi\rangle = \vert\bar{\psi}\rangle.
\end{equation}
In the Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) it is postulated
that C holds in all electromagnetic and strong interactions on the level smaller than $10^{-8}$.
Therefore the C-invariance should imply the balance between the matter and antimatter,
however experimental observations of the Universe shows that there is significantly larger abundance of matter
over antimatter~\cite{Sakharov:1967dj}. The known CP breaking effect
is insufficient to explain this phenomenon, but it is hoped that investigations of the charge conjugation
invariance may help in clarification of this problem.
Difficulties in studies of the charge conjugation arise from the fact that
there are only few known particles in nature which are the eigenstates of the C operator.
The most suitable candidates are neutral and flavorless mesons and the particle-antiparticle systems.
The particularly interesting appears the $\eta$ meson, which plays a crucial
role for understanding of the low energy Quantum Chromodynamics, and can be also used to tests of the
fundamental symmetries.
In the hadronic decay $\eta\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$, the C invariance violation can manifest itself as an
asymmetry between energy distribution of the $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ mesons in the rest frame of the
$\eta$ meson. The convenient way to study this invariance is to use Dalitz plot described by the
Mandelstam variables defined as:
\begin{equation}
s_i = (p_{\eta} - p_{i})^2 = (m_\eta - m_i)^2 - 2\cdot m_\eta T_i,
\end{equation}
where $p_i$ and $m_i$ denote the four-momentum vectors and masses of final state particles, and $T_i$ stands
for the kinetic energy in the rest frame of the $\eta$ meson. For the $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$ final state
where $m_{\pi^{+}} = m_{\pi^{-}}$, one can use the symmetrized and dimensionless variables defined as:
\begin{equation}
X = \sqrt{3}\left(\frac{T_{+} - T_{-}}{Q}\right),~~~~Y = \frac{3T_{0}}{Q} - 1,
\label{dX}
\end{equation}
where $Q = T_{+} + T_{-} + T_{0}$ is the excess energy.
The Dalitz plot distribution inside the kinematic boundaries is symmetric and flat when the
transition matrix element is constant. However, in general the density distribution is given by the
matrix element squared which can be described by expanding the amplitude in the powers of X and Y:
\begin{equation}
\vert M \vert^2 = A^2_0 (1 + aY + bY^2 + cX + dX^2 + fY^3 + ...),
\label{amplituda}
\end{equation}
where $a, b, c, d, f, ...$ are the parameters which can be obtained phenomenologically or on the ground of theory, and $A_0$ stands for the normalization factor.
The amplitude mixing between $\lambda_{C} = -1$ and $\lambda_{C} = +1$, describing the transition
into isospin state $I=1$
and $I=0,2$, respectively, can be investigated by studying of the symmetries of population in different
parts of the Dalitz plot. In particular the possible presence of C violation could be observed in three
parameters:
(i) left-right asymmetry -- $A_{LR}$,
(ii) quadrant asymmetry -- $A_{Q}$, and
(iii) sextant asymmetry -- $A_{S}$.
Each of these parameters depends on different isospin states of the final three pions. The asymmetries
are defined as number of events observed in different sectors of the Dalitz plot.
The left-right asymmetry is defined as:
\begin{equation}
A_{LR} = \frac{N_{R} - N_{L}}{N_{R} + N_{L}},
\label{ALR}
\end{equation}
where the $N_{L}$ stands for the number of events where $\pi^-$ has a larger energy than
$\pi^+$ and and $N_{R}$ denotes the number of events where the $\pi^+$ has greater energy than $\pi^-$.
It is sensitive to C violation averaged over all isospin states. However, it is possible to test the
charge conjugation invariance in given $I$ state. For this, one uses the quadrant and sextant
asymmetries which are defined as:
\begin{equation}
A_{Q} = \frac{N_{1} + N_{3} - N_{2} - N_{4}}{N_{1} + N_{2} + N_{3} + N_{4}},
\label{AQ}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
A_{S} = \frac{N_{1} + N_{3} + N_{5} - N_{2} - N_{4} - N_{6}}{N_{1} + N_{2} + N_{3} + N_{4} + N_{5} + N_{6}},
\label{AS}
\end{equation}
where $N_i$ denotes the number of observed events in $i$-th sector of the Dalitz plot.
The quadrant asymmetry tests the C invariance in transition into the $3\pi$ final state
with $I=2$, and the sextant asymmetry is sensitive to the $I=1$~\cite{Jarlskog:2002zz}.
\section{Experiment}\label{sec:1}
We investigated the $\eta\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ decay which may violate charge conjugation,
by means of the WASA-at-COSY detector. The $\eta$ meson was produced via $pp\to pp\eta$ reaction
at the proton beam momentum of 2.14~GeV/c.
The tagging of the $\eta$ meson was done by means of the missing mass technique and the decay products were
identified by the invariant mass reconstruction.
Two scattered protons were registered in the Forward Detector using the scintillator detectors (FRH and FTH)
and straw tube tracker (FPC), and identified by means of the energy loss method: $\Delta E - E$.
Charged pions $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ were registered in Central Detector using the
Mini Drift Chamber (MDC) and the four-momenta vectors were reconstructed based on the track curvature in
the magnetic field of the Superconducting Solenoid. The gamma quanta originating from the $\pi^0$ decay
were registered in the Scintillating Electromagnetic Calorimeter (SEC). Furthermore, based on the
reconstruction of the invariant mass of two $\gamma$ quanta, the neutral pion was identified.
The background originating from the direct two pion production and other $\eta$ meson decays has been reduced to
negligible level by applying the momentum and energy conservation laws, and by
using conditions on the missing and invariant mass distributions. The remaining physical background for the
$\eta\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ decay originating from the direct production
of three pions via $pp\to pp\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ was subtracted for each studied phase space interval separately.
\section{Results}\label{sec:1}
The asymmetry parameters were determined by dividing the Dalitz plot into regions according to the
formulas (5), (6) and (7). The events were summed up separately for odd and even regions and a corresponding
missing mass for the $pp\to pp\eta$ reaction was reconstructed for each region.
Furthermore, to determine the number of events corresponding to the $\eta\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ decay
in each region the background was subtracted using the polynomial fit method, and the correction for
acceptance and efficiency obtained based on the simulations of signal reaction, was applied.
\begin{figure}[t]
\mbox{
\hspace{-0.3cm}
\resizebox{0.35\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{meson_CompALR.eps}}
\hspace{-0.3cm}
\resizebox{0.35\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{meson_CompAQ.eps}}
\hspace{-0.3cm}
\resizebox{0.35\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{meson_CompAS.eps}}
}
\caption{Comparison of obtained values of asymmetries~\cite{Zielinski:2012phd} with results determined
by previous experiments~\cite{Layter:1973ti,Jane:1974mk,Ambrosino:2008ht},
and a value given by PDG~\cite{Nakamura:2010zzi}.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
The preliminary estimated values of the asymmetries are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}.
Established values of the asymmetry parameters are consistent with
zero within the range of the statistical and systematic uncertainty, which allows to conclude
that the charge conjugation symmetry C is conserved in strong interactions on the level of the achieved accuracy. Obtained results are also in agreement with previously measured
values~\cite{Layter:1973ti,Jane:1974mk,Ambrosino:2008ht} and the average of the Particle
Data Group~\cite{Nakamura:2010zzi} (see Fig.\ref{fig:1}).
\section{Outlook}\label{sec:2}
The WASA-at-COSY currently collected around $10^{9}$ $\eta$ mesons in proton-proton collisions, which is
one of the world's largest data sample for the $\eta$ meson, therefore the studies on the charge conjugation
invariance in the $pp$ interactions will be continued. Available statistics should enable to lower
the statistical uncertainties for the determination of the asymmetry parameters by a factor of five in future
analysis.\\
\noindent
{\bf{Acknowledgments}}\\
This work was supported by the Polish National Science Centre under the Grant Agreement No.\\0312/B/H03/2011/40,
by the MesonNet, and by the FFE grants from the Forschungszentrum J\"{u}lich.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction}
A Lie point symmetry of an ordinary differential equation (ODE) is a point
transformation in the space of variables which preserves the set of
solutions of the ODE \cite{Bluman book ODES,Olver Book,Stephani book ODES}.
If we look at these solutions as curves in the space of variables, then we
may equivalently consider a Lie point symmetry as a point transformation
which preserves the set of solution curves. Applying this observation to the
geodesic curves in \ a Riemannian (affine) space, we infer that the Lie
point symmetries of the geodesic equations in any Riemannian (affine) space
are the automorphisms which preserve the set of these curves. However, it is
known by Differential Geometry that the point transformations of a
Riemannian (affine)\ space which preserve the set of geodesics are the
projective transformations. Therefore it is reasonable to expect a
correspondence between the Lie symmetries of the geodesic equations and the
projective algebra of the space.
The equation of geodesics in an arbitrary coordinate frame is a second-order
ODE of the for
\begin{equation}
\ddot{x}^{i}+\Gamma _{jk}^{i}\dot{x}^{j}\dot{x}^{k}+F(x^{i},\dot{x}^{j})=0
\label{de.0}
\end{equation
where $F(x^{i},\dot{x}^{j})$ is an arbitrary function of its arguments and
the functions $\Gamma _{jk}^{i}$ are the connection coefficients of the
space.\footnote
This point of view can be generalized to the general second order ODE
provided the functions $\Gamma _{jk}^{i}$ can be identified with the
connection coefficients of a metric.} Equivalently equation (\ref{de.0}) is
the equation of motion of a dynamical system moving in a Riemannian (affine)
space under the action of a velocity dependent force. According to the above
argument we expect that the Lie symmetries of the ODE (\ref{de.0}) for a
given function $F(x^{i},\dot{x}^{j})$ are a subalgebra of the projective
algebra of the space. This subalgebra is selected by means of certain
constraint conditions which will involve geometric quantities of the space
and the function $F(x^{i},\dot{x}^{j})$. This approach is not new and
similar considerations can be found in \cite{Prince Crampin (1984) 1,Aminova
2006,Aminova2010,FerozeMahomedQadir,TsamparlisGRG,TsamparlisGRG2}.
The determination of the Lie point symmetries of a given system of ODEs
consists of two steps (a)\ the determination of the conditions which the
components of the Lie symmetry vectors must satisfy and (b) the solution of
the system of these conditions. Step (a) is formal and it is outlined in
e.g. \cite{Bluman book ODES,Olver Book,Stephani book ODES}. The second step
is the key one and, for example, in higher dimensions where one has a large
number of simultaneous equations the solution can be quite involved.
However, if we express the system of Lie symmetry conditions of (\ref{de.0})
in a Riemannian space in terms of collineation (i.e. symmetry) conditions of
the metric, then the determination of Lie symmetries is transferred to the
geometric problem of determining the generators of the projective group of
the metric. In this field there is a vast amount of work that is already
done to be used. Indeed the projective symmetries are already known in many
cases or they can be determined by existing general theorems of Differential
Geometry. For example the projective algebra and all its subalgebras are
known for the spaces of constant curvature \cite{Barnes} and in particular
for the flat spaces. This implies, for example, that the Lie symmetries of
\emph{all} Newtonian dynamical systems are "known" and the same applies to
dynamical systems in Special Relativity!
In this work we state a theorem which establishes the exact relation between
the projective algebra of the space and the Lie symmetry algebra of (\re
{de.0}), assuming that the function $F$ depends only on the coordinates,
i.e. $F(x^{i}).$
What has been said for the Lie point symmetries of (\ref{de.0}) applies also
to Noether symmetries (provided (\ref{de.0}) follows from a Lagrangian). The
Noether symmetries are Lie point symmetries which satisfy the constrain
\begin{equation}
X^{\left[ 1\right] }L+L\frac{d\xi }{dt}=\frac{df}{dt}. \label{L2p.3}
\end{equation
Noether symmetries form a closed subalgebra of the Lie symmetries algebra.
In accordance to the above, this implies that the Noether symmetries will be
related with a subalgebra of the projection algebra of the space where
`motion' occurs. As it will be shown, this subalgebra is contained in the
homothetic algebra of the space.
As it is well known, each Noether point symmetry is associated conserved
current (i.e. first integral), hence the above imply that the (standard)
conserved quantities of a dynamical system depend on the space it moves and
the type of force $F(x^{i},\dot{x}^{j})$ which modulates the motion. In
particular, in `free fall', i.e. in the case $F(x^{i},\dot{x}^{j})=0$ the
\emph{geometry} of the space is the sole factor which determines the
(standard) first integrals of motion. This conclusion is by no means trivial
and shows the deep relation between Geometry and Physics!
A natural question which arises is the following:
\emph{To what extend this correspondence of Lie/Noether symmetries of second
order ODES of the form (\ref{de.0}), with the collineations of the space, is
extendable to partial differential equations of second-order of a similar
form?}
Obviously, a global answer to this question is not possible. However, it can
be shown that for many interesting PDEs the Lie symmetries are indeed
obtained from the collineations of the metric. Pioneering work in this
direction is the work of Ibragimov \cite{Ibragimov book 1}. Recently,
Bozhkov et al. \cite{Boskov} studied the Lie and the Noether symmetries of
the Poisson equation and shown that the Lie symmetries of the Poisson PDE
are generated from the conformal algebra of the metric.
In the present work we show that for a general class of PDEs of
second-order, there is a close relation between the Lie symmetries and the
conformal algebra of the space. Subsequently we apply these results to a
number of interesting PDEs and regain existing results in a unified manner.
As a new application, we determine the Lie symmetries of the heat equation
with a flux in a $n-$dimensional Riemannian space.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section \ref{Collineations of
Riemannian spaces} we review briefly the collineations in a Riemannian
space. In Section \ref{The symmetry conditions using Lie symmetry methods}
we consider the equation of geodesics in an affine space and determine the
Lie symmetry conditions in covariant form. We find that the major symmetry
condition relates the Lie symmetries with the special projective algebra of
the space. A similar result has been obtained previously in \cite{Prince
Crampin (1984) 1} using the bundle formulation of second order ODEs.
In Section \ref{The conservative system} we solve, in a concise manner, the
symmetry conditions and state Theorem \ref{The general conservative system}
which gives the Lie symmetry vectors in terms of the collineations of the
metric and Theorem \ref{The Noether Theorem} which gives the Noether point
symmetries in terms of the homothetic algebra of the metric.
In Section \ref{The case of the second order PDE's} we consider the PDEs of
the form $A^{ij}u_{ij}-F(x^{i},u,u_{i})=0$ and derive the Lie symmetry
conditions. We show that for these PDEs the $\xi ^{i}(x^{j})$ provided
A^{ij}\neq 0$ and if $A_{,u}^{ij}=0$ then $\xi ^{i}(x^{j})\partial _{i}$ is
a Conformal Killing vector of the metric $A^{ij}$.
In Section \ref{The Lie symmetry conditions for a linear function} we
consider a linear form of $F(x^{i},u,u_{i})$ and determine the Lie symmetry
conditions in geometric form. In section \ref{Applications} we apply the
results of section \ref{The Lie symmetry conditions for a linear function}
to the wave equation in a two dimensional inhomogeneous medium and to the
heat equation with flux in a $n-$dimensional Riemannian space. In the latter
case, it is shown that the Lie symmetry vectors are obtained form the
homothetic algebra of the $A^{ij}$ metric. A similar result has been found
for the Poisson equation \cite{Boskov}.
Finally in Section \ref{Conclusions} we comment on the results and point out
possible directions for future research.
\section{Collineations of Riemannian spaces}
\label{Collineations of Riemannian spaces}
A\ collineation in a Riemannian space is a vector field $\mathbf{X}$ which
satisfies an equation of the for
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{X}\mathbf{A=B} \label{L2p.2}
\end{equation
where $\mathcal{L}_{X}$ denotes Lie derivative, $\mathbf{A}$ is a geometric
object (not necessarily a tensor)\ defined in terms of the metric and its
derivatives (e.g. connection, Ricci tensor, curvature tensor etc.) and
\mathbf{B}$ is an arbitrary tensor with the same tensor indices as $\mathbf{
}$. The collineations in a Riemannian space have been classified by Katzin
et al. \cite{Katzin}. In the following we use only certain collineations.
A conformal Killing vector (CKV)\ is defined by the relation
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{X}g_{ij}=2\psi \left( x^{k}\right) g_{ij}.
\end{equation
If $\psi =0,$ $\mathbf{X}\ $is called a Killing vector (KV). If $\psi $ is a
nonvanishing constant then $\mathbf{X~}$is a homothetic vector (HV) and if
\psi _{;ij}=0,$ $\mathbf{X}$ is a special conformal Killing vector (SCKV). A
CKV is called proper if it is not a KV, a HV or a SCKV.
A Projective collineation (PC) is defined by the equation
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{X}\Gamma _{jk}^{i}=2\phi _{(,j}\delta _{k)}^{i}.
\end{equation
If $\phi =0,$ the PC\ is called an affine collineation (AC) and if $\phi
_{;ij}=0,$ a special projective collineation (SPC). A\ proper PC\ is a PC\
which is not an AC, HV or KV or SPC. The PCs form a Lie algebra whose ACs,
HV and KVs form subalgebras. It has been shown that if a metric admits a
SCKV, then also admits a SPC, a gradient HV and a gradient KV \cite{HallR}.
In the following we shall need the symmetry algebra of spaces of constant
curvature. In \cite{Barnes} it has been shown that the PCs of a space of
constant nonvanishing curvature consist of proper PCs and KVs only and if
the space is flat then the algebra of the PCs consists of KVs/HV/ACs and
SPCs.
In particular, for the Euclidian space $E^{n}$ the projection algebra
consists of the vectors of in Table 1.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Table 1: Collineations of Euclidean space
E^{n}~,~I,J=1,2,\ldots ,n$.} \\ \hline
Collineation & Gradient & Nongradient \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Killing vectors (KV)} & $\mathbf{S}_{I}=\delta
_{I}^{i}\partial _{i}$ & $\mathbf{X}_{IJ}=\delta _{\lbrack I}^{j}\delta
_{J]}^{i}x_{j}\partial _{i}$ \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Homothetic vector (HV)} & $\mathbf{H}=x^{i}\partial
_{i}~$ & \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Affine Collineation (AC)} & $\mathbf{A
_{II}=x_{I}\delta _{I}^{i}\partial _{i}~$ & $\mathbf{A}_{IJ}=x_{J}\delta
_{I}^{i}\partial _{i}$ \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Special Projective collineation (SPC)} & & $\mathbf{P
_{I}=S_{I}\mathbf{H}.~$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\section{The Lie point symmetry conditions in an affine space}
\label{The symmetry conditions using Lie symmetry methods}
We consider the system of ODEs:
\begin{equation}
\ddot{x}^{i}+\Gamma _{jk}^{i}\dot{x}^{j}\dot{x}^{k}+\su
\limits_{m=0}^{n}P_{j_{1}...j_{m}}^{i}\dot{x}^{j_{1}}\ldots \dot{x}^{j_{m}}=0
\label{de.1}
\end{equation
where $\Gamma _{jk}^{i}$ are the connection coefficients of the space and
P_{j_{1}...j_{m}}^{i}(t,x^{i})$ are smooth polynomials completely symmetric
in the lower indices and derive the Lie point symmetry conditions in
geometric form using the standard approach. Equation (\ref{de.1}) is quite
general and covers most of the standard cases, autonomous and non
autonomous, and in particular equation (\ref{de.0}). Furthermore because the
$\Gamma _{jk}^{i}$'s are not assumed to be symmetric, the results are valid
in a space with torsion. Obviously they hold in a Riemannian space provided
that the connection coefficients are given in terms of the Christofell
symbols.
The detailed calculation has been given in \cite{TsamparlisGRG2} and shall
not be repeated here. In the following we summarize these results.
The terms $\dot{x}^{j_{1}}\ldots \dot{x}^{j_{m}}$ for $m\leq 4$ give the
equations:
\begin{align}
L_{\eta }P^{i}+2\xi ,_{t}P^{i}+\xi P^{i},_{t}+\eta ^{i},_{tt}+\eta
^{j},_{t}P_{.j}^{i}& =0 \\
L_{\eta }P_{j}^{i}+\xi ,_{t}P_{j}^{i}+\xi P_{j}^{i},_{t}+\left( \xi
,_{k}\delta _{j}^{i}+2\xi ,_{j}\delta _{k}^{i}\right) P^{k}+2\eta
^{i},_{t|j}-\xi ,_{tt}\delta _{k}^{i}+2\eta ^{k},_{t}P_{.jk}^{i}& =0 \\
L_{\eta }P_{jk}^{i}+L_{\eta }\Gamma _{jk}^{i}+\left( \xi ,_{d}\delta
_{(k}^{i}+\xi ,_{(k}\delta _{|d|}^{i}\right) P_{.j)}^{d}+\xi
P_{.kj,t}^{i}-2\xi ,_{t(j}\delta _{k)}^{i}+3\eta ^{d},_{t}P_{.dkj}^{i}& =0 \\
L_{\eta }P_{.jkd}^{i}-\xi ,_{t}P_{.jkd}^{i}+\xi ,_{e}\delta
_{(k}^{i}P_{.dj)}^{e}+\xi P_{.jkd,t}^{i}+4\eta ^{e},_{t}P_{.jkde}^{i}-\xi
_{(,j|k}\delta _{d)}^{i}& =0~
\end{align
and the conditions due to the terms $\dot{x}^{j_{1}}\ldots \dot{x}^{j_{m}}$
for $m>4$ are given by the following general formula:
\begin{align}
& L_{\eta }P_{j_{1}...j_{m}}^{i}+P_{j_{1}...j_{m}~,t}^{i}\xi +\left(
2-m\right) \xi _{,t}P_{j_{1}...j_{m}}^{i}+ \notag \\
& +\xi _{,r}\left( 2-\left( m-1\right) \right) P_{j_{1}...j_{m-1}}^{i}\delta
_{j_{m}}^{r}+\left( m+1\right) P_{j_{1}...j_{m+1}}^{i}\eta
_{,t}^{j_{m+1}}+\xi _{,j}P_{j_{1}...j_{m-1}}^{j}\delta _{j_{m}}^{i}=0.
\end{align}
We note the appearance of the term $L_{\eta }\Gamma _{jk}^{i}$ in these
expressions.
Eqn (\ref{de.0}) is obtained for $m=0,$ $~P^{i}=F^{i}$ \ in which case the
Lie symmetry conditions read:
\begin{align}
L_{\eta }P^{i}+2\xi ,_{t}P^{i}+\xi P^{i},_{t}+\eta ^{i},_{tt}& =0
\label{de.13} \\
\left( \xi ,_{k}\delta _{j}^{i}+2\xi ,_{j}\delta _{k}^{i}\right) P^{k}+2\eta
^{i},_{t|j}-\xi ,_{tt}\delta _{k}^{i}& =0 \label{de.14} \\
L_{\eta }\Gamma _{jk}^{i}-2\xi ,_{t(j}\delta _{k)}^{i}& =0 \label{de.15} \\
\xi _{(,j|k}\delta _{d)}^{i}& =0. \label{de.16}
\end{align
If $F^{i}=0$ we obtain the Lie symmetry conditions for the geodesic
equations (see \cite{TsamparlisGRG2}) .
\section{The autonomous dynamical system moving in a Riemannian space}
\label{The conservative system}
We `solve' the Lie symmetry conditions (\ref{de.13}) - (\ref{de.16}) for an
autonomous dynamical system in the sense that we express them in terms of
the collineations of the metric.
Equation (\ref{de.16}) means that $\xi _{,j}$ is a gradient KV of $g_{ij}.$
This implies that the metric $g_{ij}$ is decomposable. Equation (\ref{de.15
) means that $\eta ^{i}$ is a projective collineation of the metric with
projective function $\xi _{,t}.$ The remaining two equations are the
constraint conditions, which relate the components $\xi ,n^{i}$ of the Lie
symmetry vector with the vector $F^{i}(x^{j})$. Equation (\ref{de.13}) gives
\begin{equation}
\left( L_{\eta }g^{ij}\right) F_{j}+g^{ij}L_{\eta }F_{j}+2\xi
_{,t}g^{ij}F_{j}+\eta _{,tt}^{i}=0. \label{de.21a}
\end{equation
This equation is an additional restriction for $\eta ^{i}$ because it
relates it directly to the metric symmetries. Finally equation (\ref{de.14})
give
\begin{equation}
-\delta _{j}^{i}\xi _{,tt}+\left( \xi _{,j}\delta _{k}^{i}+2\delta
_{j}^{i}\xi _{,k}\right) F^{k}+2\eta _{,tj}^{i}+2\Gamma _{jk}^{i}\eta
_{,t}^{k}=0. \label{de.21d}
\end{equation}
We conclude that the Lie symmetry equations are equations (\ref{de.21a}) ,
\ref{de.21d}) where $\xi (t,x)$ is a gradient KV of the metric $g_{ij}$ and
\eta ^{i}\left( t,x\right) $ is a special Projective collineation of the
metric $g_{ij}$ with projective function $\xi _{,t}$. We state the results
in theorem \ref{The general conservative system} \cite{TsamparlisGRG2}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{The general conservative system} The Lie point symmetries of the
system of equations of motion of an autonomous system under the action of
the force $F^{j}(x^{i})$ in a general Riemannian space with metric $g_{ij},$
namel
\begin{equation}
\ddot{x}^{i}+\Gamma _{jk}^{i}\dot{x}^{j}\dot{x}^{k}=F^{i} \label{PP.01}
\end{equation
are given in terms of the generators $Y^{i}$ of the special projective
algebra of the metric $g_{ij}.$
\end{theorem}
\bigskip If the force $F^{i}$ is derivable from a potential $V(x^{i})$ so
that the equations of motion follow from the standard Lagrangian
\begin{equation}
L\left( x^{j},\dot{x}^{j}\right) =\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}\dot{x}^{i}\dot{x
^{j}-V\left( x^{j}\right) \label{NPC.02}
\end{equation
with Hamiltonia
\begin{equation}
E=\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}\dot{x}^{i}\dot{x}^{j}+V\left( x^{j}\right) ~
\label{NPC.3}
\end{equation
the Noether conditions, are
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{,k}\eta ^{k}+V\xi _{,t} &=&-f_{,t} \\
\eta _{,t}^{i}g_{ij}-\xi _{,j}V &=&f_{,j} \\
L_{\eta }g_{ij} &=&2\left( \frac{1}{2}\xi _{,t}\right) g_{ij} \\
\xi _{,k} &=&0.
\end{eqnarray}
Last equation implies $\xi =\xi \left( t\right) $ and reduces the system as
follow
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{\eta }g_{ij} &=&2\left( \frac{1}{2}\xi _{,t}\right) g_{ij} \label{NPC.4}
\\
V_{,k}\eta ^{k}+V\xi _{,t} &=&-f_{,t} \label{PP.01.6} \\
\eta _{i,t} &=&f_{,i}. \label{PP.01.7}
\end{eqnarray}
Equation (\ref{NPC.4}) implies that $\eta ^{i}$ is a conformal Killing
vector of the metric provided $\xi _{,t}\neq 0.$ Because $g_{ij}$\ is
independent of $t$\ and $\xi =\xi \left( t\right) $\ the $\eta ^{i}$\ must
be is a HV of the metric. This means that $\eta ^{i}\left( t,x\right)
=T\left( t\right) Y^{i}\left( x^{j}\right) $\ where $Y^{i}$\ is a HV. If
\xi _{,t}=0$ then $\eta ^{i}$ is a Killing vector of the metric. Equations
\ref{PP.01.6}), (\ref{PP.01.7}) are the constraint conditions, which the
Noether symmetry and the potential must satisfy for the former to be
admitted. These lead to the following theorem \cite{TsamparlisGRG2}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{The Noether Theorem}The Noether point symmetries of the Lagrangian
\ref{NPC.02}) are generated from the homothetic algebra of the metric
g_{ij} $.
\end{theorem}
More specifically, concerning the Noether symmetries, we have the following
All autonomous systems admit the Noether symmetry $\partial _{t}~$whose
Noether integral is the Hamiltonian~$E$ (\ref{NPC.3}). For the rest of the
Noether symmetries we consider the following cases
\textbf{Case I }\ Noether point symmetries generated by the homothetic
algebra.
The Noether symmetry vector and the Noether function $G\left( t,x^{k}\right)
$ ar
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{X}=2\psi _{Y}t\partial _{t}+Y^{i}\partial _{i}~,~G\left(
t,x^{k}\right) =pt \label{NPC.03}
\end{equation
where, $\psi _{Y}$ is the homothetic factor of $Y^{i}~$($\psi _{Y}=0$ for a
KV\ and $1$ for the HV) and $p$ is a constant, provided the potential
satisfies the conditio
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{Y}V+2\psi _{Y}V+p=0. \label{NPC.04}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Case II} \ Noether point symmetries generated by the gradient
homothetic Lie algebra, i.e., both KVs and the HV are gradient. \
In this case the Noether symmetry vector and the Noether function ar
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{X}=2\psi _{Y}\int T\left( t\right) dt\partial _{t}+T\left( t\right)
H^{i}\partial _{i}~~,~G\left( t,x^{k}\right) =T_{,t}H\left( x^{k}\right)
~+p\int Tdt \label{NPC.05}
\end{equation
where, $H^{i}$ is the gradient HV or a gradient KV, the function $T(t)$ is
computed from the relation~$~T_{,tt}=mT~\ $where $~m$ is a constant and the
potential satisfies the condition
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{H}V+2\psi _{Y}V+mH+p=0. \label{NPC.06}
\end{equation}
Concerning the Noether integrals we have the following result (not including
the Hamiltonian)
\begin{corollary}
\label{The Noether Integrals}The Noether integrals of Case I and Case II are
respectively
\begin{equation}
I_{C_{I}}=2\psi _{Y}tE-g_{ij}Y^{i}\dot{x}^{j}+pt \label{NPC.07}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
I_{C_{II}}=2\psi _{Y}\int T\left( t\right) dt~E-g_{ij}H^{,i}\dot{x
^{j}+T_{,t}H+p\int Tdt \label{NPC.08}
\end{equation
where, $E$ is the Hamiltonian (\ref{NPC.3}).
\end{corollary}
We remark that theorems \ref{The general conservative system} and \ref{The
Noether Theorem} do not apply to generalized symmetries\cite{Sarlet,Kalotas}.
In a number of recent papers \ \cit
{FerozeMahomedQadir,Feroze2011,Hussain2010,Feroze2010}, the authors study
the relation between the Noether symmetries of the geodesic Lagrangian
\begin{equation}
L=\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}\dot{x}^{i}\dot{x}^{j} \label{L1}
\end{equation
where $\dot{x}^{a}=\frac{dx^{a}}{ds}$ ($s$ is an affine parameter along the
geodesics) with the spacetime symmetries. They also make a conjecture
concerning the relation between the Noether symmetries and the conformal
algebra of spacetime and concentrate especially on conformally flat
spacetimes. In \cite{Feroze2010} it is also claimed that the author has
found new conserved quantities for spaces of different curvatures, which
seem to be of nonnoetherian character. Obviously due to the above results
(see also \cite{TsamparlisGRG}) the conjecture/results in these papers
should be revised and the word `conformal' should be replaced with the word
`homothetic'.
It would be of interest to examine if the above close relation of the Lie
and the Noether symmetries of the second order ODEs of the form (\ref{de.1})
with the collineations of the metric is possible to be carried over to some
types of second order partial differential equations (PDEs). Although to
this question it is not possible to give a global answer, due to the
complexity of the study and the great variety of PDEs, it is still possible
to give an answer of some generality which concerns many interesting and
important cases. We will do this in the remaining sections.
\section{The case of the second-order PDE's}
\label{The case of the second order PDE's}
In the attempt to establish a general relation between the Lie symmetries of
a second order PDE and the collineations of a Riemannian space we derive the
Lie symmetry conditions for a second order PDE of the form
\begin{equation}
A^{ij}u_{ij}-F(x^{i},u,u_{i})=0 \label{GPE.0}
\end{equation
and we consider the coefficients $A^{ij}(x,u)$ to be the components of a
metric in a Riemannian space. According to the standard approach \cit
{Bluman book ODES,Olver Book,Stephani book ODES} the symmetry condition is
\begin{equation}
X^{[2]}(H)=\lambda H \label{GPE.10}
\end{equation
where $\lambda (x^{i},u,u_{i})$ is a function to be determined. $X^{[2]}$ is
the second prolongation of the Lie symmetry vector
\begin{equation}
X=\xi ^{i}\left( x^{i},u\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial x^{i}}+\eta \left(
x^{i},u\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial u} \label{GPE.10.1}
\end{equation
given by the expression:
\begin{equation}
X^{^{[2]}}=\xi ^{i}\frac{\partial }{\partial x^{i}}+\eta \frac{\partial }
\partial u}+\eta _{i}^{(1)}\frac{\partial }{\partial u_{i}}+\eta
_{ij}^{\left( 2\right) }\frac{\partial }{\partial u_{ij}} \label{GPE.10a}
\end{equation
wher
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta _{i}^{(1)} &=&\frac{D\eta }{Dx^{i}}-u_{j}\frac{D\xi ^{j}}{Dx^{i}}=\eta
_{,i}+u_{i}\eta _{u}-\xi _{,i}^{j}u_{j}-u_{i}u_{j}\xi _{,u}^{j} \\
\eta _{ij}^{\left( 2\right) } &=&\frac{D\eta _{i}^{\left( 1\right) }}{Dx^{j}
-u_{jk}\frac{D\xi ^{k}}{Dx^{j}}=\eta _{ij}+(\eta _{ui}u_{j}+\eta
_{uj}u_{i})-\xi _{,ij}^{k}u_{k}+\eta _{uu}u_{i}u_{j}-(\xi
_{.,ui}^{k}u_{j}+\xi _{.,uj}^{k}u_{i})u_{k} \\
&&+\eta _{u}u_{ij}-(\xi _{.,i}^{k}u_{jk}+\xi _{.,j}^{a}u_{ik})-\left(
u_{ij}u_{k}+u_{i}u_{jk}+u_{ik}u_{j}\right) \xi _{.,u}^{k}-u_{i}u_{j}u_{k}\xi
_{uu}^{k}.
\end{eqnarray*
The introduction of the function $\lambda (x^{i},u,u_{i})$ in (\ref{GPE.10})
causes the variables $x^{i},u,u_{i}$ to be independent\footnote
See Ibragimov \cite{Ibragimov book 1} p. 115}.
The symmetry condition $X^{[2]}(H)=\lambda H$ when applied to (\ref{GPE.0})
gives
\begin{equation}
A^{ij}\eta _{ij}^{\left( 2\right) }+\left( XA^{ij}\right)
u_{ij}-X^{[1]}(F)=\lambda (A^{ij}u_{ij}-F) \label{GPE.13}
\end{equation
from which follows
\begin{align}
0& =A^{ij}\eta _{ij}-\eta _{,i}g^{ij}F_{,u_{j}}-X(F)+\lambda F \notag \\
& +2A^{ij}\eta _{ui}u_{j}-A^{ij}\xi _{,ij}^{a}u_{a}-u_{i}\eta
_{u}g^{ij}F_{,u_{j}}+\xi _{,i}^{k}u_{k}g^{ij}F_{,u_{j}} \notag \\
& +A^{ij}\eta _{uu}u_{i}u_{j}-2A^{ij}\xi _{.,uj}^{k}u_{i}u_{k}+u_{i}u_{k}\xi
_{,u}^{k}g^{ij}F_{,u_{j}} \notag \\
& +A^{ij}\eta _{u}u_{ij}-2A^{ij}\xi _{.,i}^{k}u_{jk}+(\xi
^{k}A_{,k}^{ij}+\eta A_{,u}^{ij})u_{ij}-\lambda A^{ij}u_{ij} \notag \\
& -A^{ij}\left( u_{ij}u_{a}+u_{i}u_{ja}+u_{ia}u_{j}\right) \xi
_{.,u}^{a}-u_{i}u_{j}u_{a}A^{ij}\xi _{uu}^{a}. \label{Po.0}
\end{align}
We note that we cannot deduce the symmetry conditions before we select a
specific form for the function $F.$ However we may determine the conditions
which are due to the second derivative of $u$ because in these terms no $F$
terms are involved. This observation significantly reduces the complexity of
the remaining symmetry condition. Following this observation we have the
condition
\begin{align*}
0 &
=A^{ij}\eta_{u}u_{ij}-A^{ij}(\xi_{.,i}^{k}u_{ja}+\xi_{.,j}^{k}u_{ik})+
\xi^{k}A_{,k}^{ij}+\eta A_{,u}^{ij})u_{ij}-\lambda A^{ij}u_{ij} \\
& -A^{ij}\left( u_{ij}u_{a}+u_{i}u_{ja}+u_{ia}u_{j}\right)
\xi_{.,u}^{a}-u_{i}u_{j}u_{a}A^{ij}\xi_{uu}^{a}
\end{align*}
from which follow the equations
\begin{align*}
A^{ij}\left( u_{ij}u_{k}+u_{jk}u_{i}+u_{ik}u_{j}\right) \xi_{.,u}^{k} & =0 \\
A^{ij}\eta_{u}u_{ij}-A^{ij}(\xi_{.,i}^{k}u_{jk}+\xi_{.,j}^{k}u_{ik})+(\xi
^{k}A_{,k}^{ij}+\eta A_{,u}^{ij})u_{ij}-\lambda A^{ij}u_{ij} & =0 \\
A^{ij}\xi_{uu}^{a} & =0.
\end{align*}
The first equation is written
\begin{equation}
A^{ij}\xi_{.,u}^{k}+A^{kj}\xi_{.,u}^{i}+A^{ik}\xi_{.,u}^{j}=0\Leftrightarrow
A^{(ij}\xi_{.,u}^{k)}=0. \label{Po.1}
\end{equation}
The second equation gives
\begin{equation}
A^{ij}\eta_{u}+\eta
A_{,u}^{ij}+\xi^{k}A_{,k}^{ij}-A^{kj}\xi_{.,k}^{i}-A^{ik}\xi_{.,k}^{j}
\lambda A^{ij}=0. \label{Po.2}
\end{equation}
and the last equation gives
\begin{equation}
A^{ij}\xi_{uu}^{k}=0. \label{Po.2a}
\end{equation}
It is straightforward to show\footnote
We give a simple proof for $n=2$ in Appendix A. A detailed and more general
proof can be found in \cite{BlumanPaper}.} that condition (\ref{Po.1})
implies
\begin{equation}
\xi _{.,u}^{k}=0
\end{equation
which is a well known result.
From the analysis so far we obtain the first result:
\begin{proposition}
\label{Coefficient xi second} For all second-order PDEs\ of the form
A^{ij}u_{ij}-F(x^{i},u,u_{i})=0,$ for which at least one of the $A^{ij}$ is
\neq 0$ the $\xi _{.,u}^{i}=0$ or $\xi ^{i}=\xi ^{i}(x^{j}).$ Furthermore
condition (\ref{Po.2a}) is identically satisfied.
\end{proposition}
There remains the third symmetry condition (\ref{Po.2}). We consider the
following cases:\newline
$i,j\neq0$\newline
We write(\ref{Po.2}) in an alternative form by considering $A^{ij}$ to be a
metric as follows
\begin{equation}
L_{\xi^{i}\partial_{i}}A^{ij}=\lambda A^{ij}-(\eta A^{ij})_{,u}
\label{GPE.32}
\end{equation}
from which follows:
\begin{proposition}
\label{Coefficient xi third} For all second-order PDEs \ of the form
A^{ij}u_{ij}-F(x^{i},u,u_{i})=0,$ for which $A^{ij}{}_{,u}=0$ i.e.
A^{ij}=A^{ij}(x^{i}),$ the vector $\xi ^{i}\partial _{i}$ is a CKV of the
metric $A^{ij}$ with conformal factor ($\lambda -\eta _{u})(x).$
\end{proposition}
Assuming\footnote
The index $t$ refers to the coordinate $x^{0}$ whenever it is involved.}
A^{tt}=A^{ti}=0$ we have\newline
- for $i=j=0$ nothing\newline
- for $i,j\neq 0$ gives (\ref{GPE.32}) and\newline
- for $i=0,j\neq 0$ becomes:
\begin{align}
A^{tj}\eta _{u}+\eta A_{,u}^{tj}+\xi ^{k}A_{,k}^{tj}-A^{kj}\xi
_{.,k}^{t}-A^{tk}\xi _{.,k}^{j}-\lambda A^{tj}& =0\Rightarrow \notag \\
A^{kj}\xi _{.,k}^{t}& =0 \label{GPE.30b}
\end{align
which leads to the following general result.
\begin{proposition}
\label{Coefficient xi fourth} For all second-order PDEs \ of the form
A^{ij}u_{ij}-F(x^{i},u,u_{i})=0,$ for which $A^{kj}$ is nondegenerate the
\xi _{.,k}^{t}=0$, that is, $\xi ^{t}=\xi ^{t}(t)$ .
\end{proposition}
Using that $\xi _{,u}^{i}=0$ when at least one of the $A_{ij}\neq 0,$ the
symmetry condition (\ref{Po.0}) is simplified as follows
\begin{align}
0& =A^{ij}\eta _{ij}-\eta _{,i}A^{ij}F_{,u_{j}}-X(F)+\lambda F \notag \\
& +2A^{ij}\eta _{ui}u_{j}-A^{ij}\xi _{,ij}^{a}u_{a}-u_{i}\eta
_{u}A^{ij}F_{,u_{j}}+\xi _{,i}^{k}u_{k}A^{ij}F_{,u_{j}} \notag \\
& +A^{ij}\eta _{uu}u_{i}u_{j}+A^{ij}\eta _{u}u_{ij}-2A^{ij}\xi
_{.,i}^{k}u_{jk} \label{GPE.30} \\
& +(\xi ^{k}A_{,k}^{ij}+\eta A_{,u}^{ij})u_{ij}-\lambda A^{ij}u_{ij} \notag
\end{align
which together with the condition (\ref{GPE.32}) are the complete set of
conditions\emph{\ for all }second-order PDEs \ of the form
A^{ij}u_{ij}-F(x^{i},u,u_{i})=0,$ for which at least one of the $A_{ij}\neq
0 $. This class of PDEs is quite general. This fact makes the above result
very useful..
In order to continue we need to consider special forms for the function
F(x,u,u_{i}).$
\section{The Lie symmetry conditions for a linear function $F(x,u,u_{i})$}
\label{The Lie symmetry conditions for a linear function}
We consider the function $F(x,u,u_{i})$ to be linear in $u_{i},$ that is to
be of the for
\begin{equation}
F(x,u,u_{i})=B^{k}(x,u)u_{k}+f(x,u) \label{GPE.30a}
\end{equation
where $B^{k}(x,u),f(x,u)$ are arbitrary functions of their arguments. In
this case the PDE\ is of the for
\begin{equation}
A^{ij}u_{ij}-B^{k}(x,u)u_{k}-f(x,u)=0. \label{GPE.30.1}
\end{equation}
The Lie symmetries of this type of PDEs have been studied previously by
Ibragimov\cite{Ibragimov book 1}. Assuming that at least one of the
A_{ij}\neq 0$ the Lie symmetry conditions are (\ref{GPE.30}) and (\re
{GPE.32}).
Replacing $F(x,u,u_{1})$ in (\ref{GPE.30}) we find\footnote
We ignore the terms with $u_{ij}$ because we have already use them to obtain
condition (\ref{GPE.32}). Indeed it is easy to see that these terms give
A^{ij}\eta_{u}-2A^{ij}\xi_{.,i}^{k}+\xi^{k}A_{,k}^{ij}+\eta
A_{,u}^{ij}-\lambda A^{ij}=0$ which is precisely condition (\ref{GPE.32}).}
\begin{align}
0 & =A^{ij}\eta_{ij}-\eta_{,i}g^{ij}B_{j}-\xi^{k}f_{,k}-\eta f_{,u}+\lambda f
\notag \\
&
+2A^{ij}\eta_{ui}u_{j}-A^{ij}\xi_{,ij}^{a}u_{a}-u_{i}\eta_{u}g^{ij}B_{j}
\xi_{,i}^{k}u_{k}g^{ij}B_{j}+\lambda B^{k}u_{k}-\eta
B_{,u}^{k}u_{k}-\xi^{l}B_{,l}^{k}u_{k} \notag \\
& +A^{ik}\eta_{uu}u_{i}u_{k} \label{GPE.33} \\
& +A^{ij}\eta_{u}u_{ij}-2A^{kj}\xi_{.,k}^{i}u_{ji}+(\xi^{k}A_{,k}^{ij}+\eta
A_{,u}^{ij})u_{ij}-\lambda A^{ij}u_{ij}
\end{align}
from which follow the equations
\begin{align}
A^{ij}\eta_{ij}-\eta_{,i}B^{i}-\xi^{k}f_{,k}-\eta f_{,u}+\lambda f & =0
\label{GPE.34} \\
-2A^{ik}\eta_{ui}+A^{ij}\xi_{,ij}^{k}+\eta_{u}B^{k}-\xi_{,i}^{k}B^{i}+\xi
^{i}B_{,i}^{k}-\lambda B^{k}+\eta B_{,u}^{k} & =0 \label{GPE.35} \\
A^{ik}\eta_{uu} & =0. \label{GPE.36}
\end{align}
Equation (\ref{GPE.36}) gives (because at least one $A^{ik}\neq0!):$
\begin{equation}
\eta=a(x^{i})u+b(x^{i}). \label{GPE.37}
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{GPE.35}) gives
\begin{equation*}
-2A^{ik}a_{,i}+aB^{k}+auB_{,u}^{k}+A^{ij}\xi _{,ij}^{k}-\xi
_{,i}^{k}B^{i}+\xi ^{i}B_{,i}^{k}-\lambda B^{k}+bB_{,u}^{k}=0.
\end{equation*
We summarize the above results as follows.
\label{propPDE.1} The Lie symmetry conditions for the second order PDEs of
the form
\begin{equation}
A^{ij}u_{ij}-B^{k}(x,u)u_{k}-f(x,u)=0 \label{GPE.40}
\end{equation
where at least one of the $A_{ij}\neq 0$ are
\begin{equation}
A^{ij}(a_{ij}u+b_{ij})-(a_{,i}u+b_{,i})B^{i}-\xi
^{k}f_{,k}-auf_{,u}-bf_{,u}+\lambda f=0 \label{GPE.42}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
A^{ij}\xi _{,ij}^{k}-2A^{ik}a_{,i}+aB^{k}+auB_{,u}^{k}-\xi
_{,i}^{k}B^{i}+\xi ^{i}B_{,i}^{k}-\lambda B^{k}+bB_{,u}^{k}=0 \label{GPE.43}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
L_{\xi ^{i}\partial _{i}}A^{ij}=(\lambda -a)A^{ij}-\eta A^{ij}{}_{,u}
\label{GPE.44}
\end{equation
\begin{align}
\eta & =a(x^{i})u+b(x^{i}) \label{GPE.45} \\
\xi _{,u}^{k}& =0\Leftrightarrow \xi ^{k}(x^{i}). \label{GPE.46}
\end{align
We note that for all second order PDEs of the form
A^{ij}u_{ij}-B^{k}(x,u)u_{k}-f(x,u)=0$ for which $A^{ij}{}_{,u}=0$ i.e.
A^{ij}(x^{i}),$ the $\xi ^{i}(x^{j})$ is a CKV of the metric $A^{ij}.$ Also
in this case $\lambda (x^{i}).$ This result establishes the relation between
the Lie symmetries of this type of PDEs with the collineations of the metric
defined by the coefficients $A_{ij}.$
Furthermore in case the coordinates are $t,x^{i}$ (where $i=1,...,n$)
A^{tt}=A^{tx^{i}}=0$ and $A^{ij}$ is a nondegenerate metric we have tha
\begin{equation}
\xi _{,i}^{t}=0\Leftrightarrow \xi ^{t}(t). \label{GPE.46a}
\end{equation}
These symmetry relations coincide with those given in \cite{Ibragimov book 1
.
Finally note that equation (\ref{GPE.43}) can be written
\begin{equation}
A^{ij}\xi _{,ij}^{k}-2A^{ik}a_{,i}+[\xi ,B]^{k}+(a-\lambda
)B^{k}+(au+b)B_{,u}^{k}=0. \label{GPE.47}
\end{equation
Having derived the Lie symmetry conditions for the type of PDEs of the form
A^{ij}u_{ij}-B^{k}(x,u)u_{k}-f(x,u)=0$ we continue with the computation of
the Lie symmetries of some important PDEs of this form.
Before we proceed, we state two Lemmas which will be used in the discussion
of the examples.
\begin{lemma}
\label{LemmaPDE.1}
a. In flat space (in which $\Gamma _{jk}^{i}=0)$ the following identity
holds
\begin{equation}
L_{\xi }\Gamma _{ij}^{k}=\xi _{,ij}^{k}.
\end{equation
b. For a general metric $g_{ij}$ satisfying the condition $L_{\xi
^{i}\partial _{i}}g_{ij}=-(\lambda -a)g_{ij}$ the following relation holds:
\begin{equation}
g^{jk}L_{\xi }\Gamma _{.jk}^{i}=g^{jk}\xi _{,~jk}^{i}+\Gamma _{~,l}^{i}\xi
^{l}-\xi _{~,l}^{i}\Gamma ^{l}+(a-\lambda )\Gamma _{~}^{i}.
\end{equation
Proof
Using the formul
\begin{equation*}
L_{\xi }\Gamma _{.jk}^{i}=\Gamma _{.jk,l}^{i}\xi ^{l}+\xi _{,~jk}^{i}-\xi
_{~,l}^{i}\Gamma _{.jk}^{l}+\xi _{~,j}^{s}\Gamma _{.sk}^{i}+\xi
_{~,k}^{s}\Gamma _{.sj}^{i}
\end{equation*}
we have
\begin{align*}
g^{jk}L_{\xi }\Gamma _{.jk}^{i}& =\Gamma _{,l}^{i}\xi ^{l}+g^{jk}\xi
_{~,,jk}^{i}-g_{~~~~,l}^{jk}\xi ^{l}\Gamma _{.jk}^{i}-\xi _{~,l}^{i}\Gamma
^{l}+2g^{jk}\xi _{~,j}^{s}\Gamma _{.sk}^{i} \\
& =\Gamma _{,l}^{i}\xi ^{l}+g^{jk}\xi _{~,~jk}^{i}-\xi _{~,l}^{i}\Gamma ^{l}
\\
& -[g^{jl}\xi _{,l}^{k}+g^{kl}\xi _{,l}^{j}-(\lambda -a))g^{jk}]\Gamma
_{.jk}^{i}+2g^{jk}\xi _{~,j}^{s}\Gamma _{~sk}^{i} \\
& =\Gamma _{,l}^{i}\xi ^{l}+g^{jk}\xi _{~,~jk}^{i}-\xi _{~,l}^{i}\Gamma
^{l}+2(g^{jl}\xi _{~,j}^{k}\Gamma _{~kl}^{i}-g^{lj}\xi _{~,j}^{k}\Gamma
_{~kl}^{i})-(\lambda -a)\Gamma ^{i} \\
& =\Gamma _{,l}^{i}\xi ^{l}-\xi _{~,l}^{i}\Gamma ^{l}+g^{jk}\xi
_{~,~jk}^{i}+(a-\lambda )\Gamma ^{i}
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{LemmaPDE.2}
Assume that the vector $\xi ^{i}$ is a CKV of the metric $g_{ij}$ with
conformal factor $-(\lambda -a)$ i.e. $L_{\xi ^{i}\partial
_{i}}g_{ij}=-(\lambda -a)g_{ij}.$ Then the following statement is true
\begin{equation}
g^{jk}L_{\xi }\Gamma _{.jk}^{i}=\frac{2-n}{2}(a-\lambda )^{,i}
\end{equation
where $n=g^{jk}g_{kj}$ the dimension of the space.
Proof
Using the identity
\begin{equation}
L_{\xi }\Gamma _{.jk}^{i}=\frac{1}{2}g^{ir}\left[ \nabla _{k}L_{\xi
}g_{jr}+\nabla _{j}L_{\xi }g_{kr}-\nabla _{r}L_{\xi }g_{kj}\right]
\end{equation
and replacing $L_{\xi }g_{ij}=(a-\lambda )g_{ij}$ we find
\begin{align*}
L_{\xi }\Gamma _{.jk}^{i}& =\frac{1}{2}g^{ir}\left[ (a-\lambda
)_{,k}g_{jr}+(a-\lambda )_{,j}g_{kr}-(a-\lambda )_{,r}g_{kj}\right] \\
& =\frac{1}{2}\left[ (a-\lambda )_{,k}\delta _{j}^{i}+(a-\lambda
)_{,j}\delta _{k}^{i}-g^{ir}(a-\lambda )_{,r}g_{kj}\right] .
\end{align*
Contracting with $g^{jk}$ we obtain the required result.
\end{lemma}
\section{Applications}
\label{Applications}
\subsection{The wave equation for an inhomogeneous medium}
In order to show how the above considerations are applied in practice we
consider the wave equation for an inhomogeneous medium in flat 2d Newtonian
space
\begin{equation}
c^{2}(x^{1})u_{11}-u_{22}=0. \label{WE.0}
\end{equation}
In this case we have
\begin{equation*}
A_{11}=c^{-2}(x^{1}),\text{ }A_{22}=-1,\text{ }A_{12}=0;B^{i}=0;\,f=0.
\end{equation*}
The symmetry conditions (\ref{GPE.42}) - (\ref{GPE.46}) become
\begin{equation}
A^{ij}(a_{ij}u+b_{ij})=0 \label{WE.1}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
A^{ij}\xi _{,ij}^{k}-2A^{ik}a_{i}=0 \label{WE.2}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
L_{\xi ^{i}\partial _{i}}A^{ij}=(\lambda -a)A^{ij} \label{WE.3}
\end{equation
\begin{align}
\eta & =a(x^{i})u+b(x^{i}) \label{WE.4} \\
& \xi ^{k}(x). \label{WE.5}
\end{align
The vector $\xi ^{i}$ is a CKV of the metric $A_{ij}=$diag
(c^{-2}(x^{1}),-1) $ with conformal factor $-(\lambda -a).$ This is
\footnote
Because $\det A_{ij}=-c^{2}(x^{1})\neq 0$ the inverse of $A^{ij}$ exists.}
nondegenerate 2-d metric which is conformally flat, therefore if we find the
conformal factor we will have the solution $\xi ^{i}$ and the function
a(x^{i}).$
We take now the metric to be the $A^{ij.}$ Then according to Lemma \re
{LemmaPDE.1} we have (where $\Gamma _{.jk}^{i}$ are the $\Gamma ^{\prime }$
s of the metric $A_{ij}):$
\begin{align}
A^{jk}L_{\xi }\Gamma _{.jk}^{i}& =\Gamma _{,l}^{i}\xi ^{l}-\xi
_{.,l}^{i}\Gamma ^{l}+A^{jk}\xi _{.,jk}^{i}-(\lambda -a)\Gamma
_{.}^{i}\Rightarrow \notag \\
A^{jk}\xi _{.,jk}^{i}& =A^{jk}L_{\xi }\Gamma _{.jk}^{i}+\xi _{.,l}^{i}\Gamma
^{l}-\Gamma _{,l}^{i}\xi ^{l}+(\lambda -a)\Gamma _{.}^{i} \label{WE.5b}
\end{align
Then the Lie symmetry condition (\ref{WE.2}) $A^{ij}\xi
_{,ij}^{k}=2A^{ik}a_{i}$ is written:
\begin{equation}
A^{ij}(L_{\xi }\Gamma _{ij}^{k}-2\delta _{j}^{k}a_{,i})=\Gamma _{,l}^{i}\xi
^{l}-\xi _{.,l}^{i}\Gamma ^{l}-(\lambda -a)\Gamma ^{i}. \label{WE.7}
\end{equation
For the metric $A_{ij}=diag(-c^{2}(x^{1}),-1)$ \ we compute $\Gamma
^{i}=\Gamma _{,l}^{i}=0$ hence the last equation becomes
\begin{equation}
A^{ij}(L_{\xi }\Gamma _{ij}^{k}-2\delta _{j}^{k}a_{,i})=0. \label{WE.15}
\end{equation
Because the metric $A_{ij}$ is nondegenerate this implie
\begin{equation}
L_{\xi }\Gamma _{ij}^{k}=2\delta _{(j}^{k}a_{,i)} \label{WE.16}
\end{equation
which means that $\xi ^{i}$ is a projective vector of the metric $A_{ij}$
with projection function $a.$ But $\xi ^{i}$ is also a CKV of the same
metric with conformal factor $a-\lambda $ therefore $\xi ^{i}$ must be a HV
of the metric $A_{ij}.$ This implies
\begin{equation*}
a=c_{1}\text{ a constant}
\end{equation*
and
\begin{equation*}
-\lambda +c_{1}=c_{2}\Rightarrow \lambda =c_{1}-c_{2}
\end{equation*
where $c_{2}$ is the homothetic factor. From the remaining condition (\re
{WE.1}) we have $A^{ij}b_{,ij}=0$ that is, the function $b$ is a solution of
the original wave equation (\ref{WE.0}). We conclude that the Lie symmetry
vector is (see also \cite{Bluman book ODES} p. 182):
\begin{equation}
X=\xi ^{i}\partial _{i}+(c_{1}u+b)\partial _{u} \label{WE.22}
\end{equation
where $\xi ^{i}$ is a HV (not necessarily proper) of the metric $A_{ij}$ and
$b(x^{i})$ is a solution of the wave equation. The vector $\xi ^{i}\partial
_{i}$ \ is the sum $a_{i}KV^{i}+a_{HV}HV$ where $a_{i},a_{HV}$ are constants
and $KV^{i},HV$ are any of the KVs and the HV (if it exists) of the metric
A_{ij}.$
In the following section we consider a new example which is the heat
conduction equation with a flux in an $n-$dimensional Riemannian space.
\subsection{The heat conduction equation with a flux in a Riemannian space}
The heat equation with a flux in an $n-$dimensional Riemannian space with
metric $g_{ij}$ is
\begin{equation}
H\left( u\right) =q\left( t,x^{i},u\right) \label{HEF.01}
\end{equation
where
\begin{equation*}
H\left( u\right) :=g^{ij}u_{ij}-\Gamma ^{i}u_{i}-u_{t}.
\end{equation*
The term $q$ \ indicates that the system exchanges energy with the
environment. In this case the Lie point symmetry vector is
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{X}=\xi ^{i}\left( x^{j},u\right) \partial _{i}+\eta \left(
x^{j},u\right) \partial _{u}
\end{equation*
where $a=t,i$. \ For this equation we have:
\begin{equation*}
A^{tt}=0,\text{ }A^{ti}=0,\text{ }A^{ij}=g^{ij},B^{i}
\Gamma^{i}(t,x^{i}),B^{t}=1,f(x,u)=q\left( t,x^{k},u\right).
\end{equation*}
For this PDE the symmetry conditions (\ref{GPE.42}) - (\ref{GPE.46a}) become
\begin{equation}
\eta =a(t,x^{i})u+b(t,x^{i}) \label{HEF.01.1}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
\ \xi ^{t}=\xi ^{t}(t) \label{HEF.01.3}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
g^{ij}(a_{ij}u+b_{ij})-(a_{,i}u+b_{,i})\Gamma ^{i}-\left(
a_{,t}u+b_{,t}\right) +\lambda q=\xi ^{t}q_{,t}+\xi ^{k}q_{,k}+\eta q_{,u}
\label{HEF.01.4}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
g^{ij}\xi _{,ij}^{k}-2g^{ik}a_{,i}+a\Gamma ^{k}-\xi _{,i}^{k}\Gamma ^{i}+\xi
^{i}\Gamma _{,i}^{k}-\lambda \Gamma ^{k}=0 \label{HEF.01.6}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
L_{\xi ^{i}\partial _{i}}g_{ij}=(a-\lambda )g_{ij}. \label{HEF.01.7}
\end{equation}
The solution of the symmetry conditions is summarized in Theorem \ref{The
Lie of the heat equation with flux}. The proof of the theorem is given in
Appendix B.
\begin{theorem}
\label{The Lie of the heat equation with flux}The Lie point symmetries of
the heat equation with flux i.e.
\begin{equation}
g^{ij}u_{ij}-\Gamma ^{i}u_{i}-u_{t}=q\left( t,x,u\right) \label{HEF.18}
\end{equation
in a $n$-dimensional Riemannian space with metric $g_{ij}$ are constructed
form the homothetic algebra of the metric as follows:
a. $Y^{i}$ is a nongradient HV/KV.\newline
The Lie point symmetry is
\begin{equation}
X=\left( 2c_{2}\psi t+c_{1}\right) \partial _{t}+c_{2}Y^{i}\partial
_{i}+\left( a\left( t\right) u+b\left( t,x\right) \right) \partial _{u}
\label{HEF.19}
\end{equation
where $a(t),b\left( t,x^{k}\right) ,q\left( t,x^{k},u\right) $ must satisfy
the constraint equatio
\begin{equation}
-a_{t}u+H\left( b\right) -\left( au+b\right) q_{,u}+aq-\left( 2\psi
c_{2}qt+c_{1}q\right) _{t}-c_{2}q_{,i}Y^{i}=0. \label{HEF.20}
\end{equation}
b. $Y^{i}=S^{,i}$ is a gradient HV/KV.\newline
The Lie point symmetry is
\begin{equation}
X=\left( 2\psi \int Tdt+c_{1}\right) \partial _{t}+TS^{,i}\partial
_{i}+\left( \left( -\frac{1}{2}T_{,t}S+F\left( t\right) \right) u+b\left(
t,x\right) \right) \partial _{u} \label{HEF.21}
\end{equation
where $F(t),T(t),b\left( t,x^{k}\right) ,q\left( t,x^{k},u\right) $ must
satisfy the constraint equatio
\begin{align}
0& =\left( -\frac{1}{2}T_{,t}\psi +\frac{1}{2}T_{,tt}S-F_{,t}\right)
u+H\left( b\right) + \notag \\
& -\left( \left( -\frac{1}{2}T_{,t}S+F\right) u+b\right) q_{,u}+\left(
\frac{1}{2}T_{,t}S+F\right) q-\left( 2\psi q\int Tdt+c_{1}q\right)
_{t}-Tq_{,i}S^{,i}. \label{HEF.22}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
We apply theorem \ref{The Lie of the heat equation with flux} for special
forms of the function $q\left( t,x,u\right) $.
\subsubsection{The homogeneous heat equation i.e. $q\left( t,x,u\right) =0$}
In this case we have the\ following results
\begin{theorem}
\label{The Lie of the heat equation}The Lie point symmetries of the
homogeneous heat conduction equation in an $n-$dimensional Riemannian space
\begin{equation}
g^{ij}u_{ij}-\Gamma ^{i}u_{i}-u_{t}=0 \label{LHEC.01}
\end{equation
are constructed from the homothetic algebra of the metric $g_{ij}$ as
follows:
(a) If $Y^{i}$ is a nongradient HV/KV of the metric $g_{ij},$ the Lie point
symmetry is
\begin{equation}
X=\left( 2\psi c_{1}t+c_{2}\right) \partial _{t}+c_{1}Y^{i}\partial
_{i}+\left( a_{0}u+b\left( t,x^{i}\right) \right) \partial _{u}
\label{LHEC.03}
\end{equation
where $c_{1},c_{2},,a_{0}$ are constants and $b\left( t,x^{i}\right) $ is a
solution of the homogeneous heat equation.
(c) If $Y^{i}=S^{,i}$ is a gradient HV/KV of the metric $g_{ij}$ the Lie
point symmetry i
\begin{equation}
X=(c_{3}\psi t^{2}+c_{4}t+c_{5})\partial _{t}+(c_{3}t+c_{4})S^{i}\partial
_{i}+\left( -\frac{c_{3}}{2}S-\frac{c_{3}}{2}n\psi t+c_{5}\ \right)
u\partial _{u}+b\left( t,x^{i}\right) \partial _{u} \label{LHEC.04+}
\end{equation
where $c_{3},c_{4},c_{5}$ are constants and $b\left( t,x^{i}\right) $ is a
solution of the homogeneous heat equation.
\end{theorem}
In order to compare the above result with the existing results in the
literature we consider the heat equation in a Euclidian space of dimension
n.$ Then in Cartesian coordinates $g_{ij}=\delta _{ij},$ $\Gamma ^{i}=0$ and
the heat equation is
\begin{equation}
\delta ^{ij}u_{ij}-u_{t}=0. \label{LHEC.04}
\end{equation
The homothetic algebra of the space consists of the $n$ gradient KVs
\partial _{i}$ with generating functions $x^{i},$ the $\frac{n\left(
n-1\right) }{2}$ nongradient KVs $X_{IJ}$ which are the rotations and a
gradient HV $H^{i}$ with gradient function $H=\,R\partial _{R}.$ According
to theorem \ref{The Lie of the heat equation} the Lie symmetries of the heat
equation in the Euclidian $n$ dimensional space are (we may take $\psi =1)
\begin{eqnarray}
X &=&\left[ c_{3}\psi t^{2}+(c_{4}+2\psi c_{1})t+c_{5}+c_{2}\right] \partial
_{t}+\left[ c_{1}Y^{i}+(c_{3}t+c_{4})S^{i}\right] \partial _{i}+
\label{LHEC.04a} \\
&&+\left[ \left( a_{0}+\frac{c_{3}}{2}S+\frac{c_{3}}{2}n\psi t-c_{5}\right)
u+b\left( t,x^{i}\right) \right] \partial _{u}. \notag
\end{eqnarray
This result agrees with the results of \cite{Stephani book ODES} p. 158.
Next we consider the de Sitter spacetime (a four dimensional space of
constant curvature and Lorentzian character) whose metric is:
\begin{equation*}
ds^{2}=\frac{\left( -d\tau ^{2}+dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}\right) }{\left( 1+\frac
K}{4}\left( -\tau ^{2}+x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}\right) \right) ^{2}}
\end{equation*
It is known that the homothetic algebra of this space consists of the ten KV
\begin{align*}
X_{1}& =\left( -x\tau \right) \partial _{\tau }+\left( \frac{\left( -\tau
^{2}-x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}\right) }{2}-\frac{2}{K}\right) \partial _{x}+\left(
-yx\right) \partial _{y}+\left( -zx\right) \partial _{x} \\
X_{2}& =\left( y\tau \right) \partial _{\tau }+\left( yx\right) \partial
_{x}+\left( \frac{\left( -x^{2}-z^{2}+y^{2}+\tau ^{2}\right) }{2}+\frac{2}{K
\right) \partial _{y}+\left( yz\right) \partial _{x} \\
X_{3}& =\left( z\tau \right) \partial _{\tau }+\left( zx\right) \partial
_{x}+\left( zy\right) \partial _{y}+\left( \frac{\left(
-x^{2}-y^{2}+z^{2}+\tau ^{2}\right) }{2}+\frac{2}{K}\right) \partial _{x} \\
X_{4}& =\left( \frac{\left( x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}+\tau ^{2}\right) }{2}-\frac{2}
K}\right) \partial _{\tau }+\left( \tau x\right) \partial _{x}+\left( \tau
y\right) \partial _{y}+\left( \tau z\right) \partial _{x} \\
X_{5}& =x\partial _{\tau }+\tau \partial _{x}~,~X_{6}=y\partial _{\tau
}+\tau \partial _{y}~,~X_{7}=z\partial _{\tau }+\tau \partial
_{z}~,~X_{8}=y\partial _{x}-x\partial _{y} \\
X_{9}& =z\partial _{x}-x\partial _{z}~,~X_{10}=z\partial _{y}-y\partial _{z}
\end{align*
all of which are nongradient. According to Theorem \ref{The Lie of the heat
equation} the Lie symmetries of the heat equation in de Sitter space ar
\begin{equation*}
\partial _{t}+\sum\limits_{A=1}^{10}c_{A}X_{A}+(a_{0}u+b\left( x,u\right)
)\partial _{u}.~
\end{equation*}
From Theorem \ref{The Lie of the heat equation} we have the following
additional results.
\begin{corollary}
The one dimensional homogenous heat equation admits a maximum number of
seven Lie symmetries (modulo a solution of the heat equation).
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The homothetic group of a 1-dimensional metric $ds^{2}=g^{2}\left( x\right)
dx^{2}$ consists of one gradient KV (the $\frac{1}{g\left( x\right)
\partial_{x})$ and one gradient HV $(\frac{1}{g\left( x\right) }\int g\left(
x\right) dx~\partial_{x})$. According to theorem \ref{The Lie of the heat
equation} from the KV we have two Lie symmetries and from the gradient HV\
another two Lie symmetries. To these we have to add the two Lie symmetries
X=a_{0}u\partial_{u}+b\left( t,x^{i}\right) \partial _{u}$ and the trivial
Lie symmetry $\partial_{t}$ where $b\left( t,x^{i}\right) $ is a solution of
the heat equation.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The homogeneous heat equation in a space of constant curvature of dimension
n$ has at most \ $\left( n+3\right) +\frac{1}{2}n\left( n-1\right) $ (modulo
a solution of the heat equation).
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
A space of constant curvature of dimension $n$ admits $n+\frac{1}{2}n\left(
n-1\right) $ nongradient KVs To these we have to add the Lie symmetries \
X=c\partial _{t}+a_{0}u\partial _{u}+b\left( t,x^{i}\right) \partial _{u}.$
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The heat conduction equation in a space of dimension $n$ admits at most
\frac{1}{2}n\left( n+3\right) +5$ Lie symmetries (modulo a solution of the
heat equation) and if this is the case the space is flat.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The space with the maximum homothetic algebra is the flat space which admits
$n$ gradient KVs, $\frac{1}{2}n\left( n-1\right) $ nongradient KVs and one
gradient HV. Therefore from Case 1, of the theorem we have $\left(
n+1\right) +\frac{1}{2}n\left( n-1\right) $ Lie symmetries. From Case 2. we
have another $\left( n+1\right) $ Lie symmetries and to these we have to add
the Lie symmetries $X=c_{1}\partial _{t}+a_{0}u\partial _{u}+b\left(
t,x^{i}\right) \partial _{u}$ where $b\left( t,x^{i}\right) $ is a solution
of the heat equation. The set of all these symmetries is $1+2n+\frac{1}{2
n\left( n-1\right) +2+1+1=$ $\frac{1}{2}n\left( n+3\right) +5$ \cit
{Ibragimov book 1}.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\subsubsection{Case $q\left( t,x,u\right) =q\left( u\right) $}
In this case we have the following result:
\begin{theorem}
The Lie symmetries of the heat equation with conduction $q(u)$ in a $n$
dimensional Riemannian space
\begin{equation}
g^{ij}u_{ij}-\Gamma^{i}u_{i}-u_{t}=q\left( u\right) \label{HEF.23}
\end{equation}
are constructed form the homothetic algebra of the metric as follows.
a. $Y^{i}$ is a HV/KV\newline
The Lie point symmetry is
\begin{equation}
X=\left( 2c\psi t+c_{1}\right) \partial _{t}+cY^{i}\partial _{i}+\left(
a\left( t\right) u+b\left( t,x\right) \right) \partial _{u} \label{HEF.24}
\end{equation
where the functions $a\left( t\right) ,$ $b\left( t,x\right) $ and $q\left(
u\right) $ satisfy the condition
\begin{equation}
-a_{t}u+H\left( b\right) -\left( au+b\right) q_{,u}+\left( a-2\psi c\right)
q=0. \label{HEF.25}
\end{equation
b. $Y^{i}=S^{,i}$ is a gradient HV/KV\newline
The Lie point symmetry is
\begin{equation}
X=\left( 2\psi \int Tdt+c_{1}\right) \partial _{t}+TS^{,i}\partial
_{i}+\left( \left( -\frac{1}{2}T_{,t}S+F\left( t\right) \right) u+b\left(
t,x\right) \right) \partial _{u} \label{HEF.26}
\end{equation
where $b\left( t,x\right) $ is a solution of the homogeneous heat equation,
the functions $T(t),$ $F\left( t\right) ~$and the flux $q\left( u\right) ~
satisfie the equation
\begin{equation}
\left( -\frac{1}{2}T_{,t}\psi +\frac{1}{2}T_{,tt}S-F_{,t}\right) u+H\left(
b\right) -\left( \left( -\frac{1}{2}T_{,t}S+F\right) u+b\right)
q_{,u}+\left( -\frac{1}{2}T_{,t}S+F\right) q-2\psi qT=0 \label{HEF.27}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\bigskip
For various cases of $q\left( u\right) $ we obtain the results of the
following table.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
$q\left( u\right) $ & Lie Symmetry vector \\ \hline
$q_{0}u$ & $\left( \psi T_{0}t^{2}+2c\psi t+c_{1}\right) \partial
_{t}+\left( cY^{i}+T_{0}tS^{,i}\right) \partial _{i}+$ \\
& $~+\left( \left[ -2\psi cq_{0}t+a_{0}+T_{0}\left( -\frac{1}{2}S-\psi
q_{0}t^{2}-\frac{1}{2}t\right) \right] u+b\left( t,x\right) \right) \partial
_{u}\;\text{where $H(b)-bq_{0}=0$}$ \\
$q_{0}u^{n}$ & $\left( 2c\psi t+c_{1}\right) \partial _{t}+cY^{i}\partial
_{i}+\left( \frac{2\psi c}{1-n}u\right) \partial _{u}$ \\
$u\ln u$ & $c_{1}\partial _{t}+\left( Y^{i}+T_{0}e^{-t}K^{^{,}i}\right)
\partial _{i}+\left( a_{0}e^{-t}u\right) \partial _{u}~,~K^{^{,}i}$ \\
$e^{u}$ & $\left( 2c\psi t+c_{1}\right) \partial _{t}+cY^{i}\partial
_{i}+\left( -2\psi c\right) \partial _{u}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
where $Y^{i}$ is a HV/KV , $S^{,i}$ is a gradient HV/KV and $K^{,i}$ is a
gradient KV.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{Conclusions}
The main result of this work is Proposition \ref{Coefficient xi third} which
states that the Lie symmetries of the PDEs of the form \ (\ref{GPE.10}) are
obtained from the conformal Killing vectors of the metric defined by the
coefficients $A_{ij},$ provided $A_{ij,u}=0.$ This result is quite general
and covers many well known and important PDEs of Physics. The geometrization
of the Lie symmetries and their association with the collineations of the
metric, dissociates their determination from the dimension of the space,
because the collineations of the metric depend (in general) on the type of
the metric and not on the dimensions of the space where the metric resides.
Furthermore, this association provides a wealth of results of Differential
Geometry on collineations which is possible to be used in the determination
of the Lie symmetries.
We have applied the above theoretical results to two cases. The first case
concerns the two dimensional wave equation in an inhomogeneous medium and
shows the application of the general results in practice. The second example
concerns the determination of the Lie symmetry vectors of the heat
conduction equation with a flux in a Riemannian space, a problem which has
not been considered before in the literature. We proved that the Lie
symmetry algebra of this PDE is generated from the homothetic algebra of the
metric. We specialized the equation to the homogeneous heat conduction
equation and regained the existing results for the Newtonian case. Finally
it can be shown that the Lie symmetries of the Poisson equation in a
Riemannian space which have been computed in \cite{Boskov} are obtained from
the present formalism in a straightforward manner.
\section*{Appendix A}
We prove the statement for $n=2$. The generalization to any $n$ is
straightforward. For a general proof see \cite{BlumanPaper}. We consider
A^{ij}$ as a matrix and assume that the inverse of this matrix exists. We
denote the inverse matrix with $B_{ij}$ and we get form (\ref{Po.1})
\begin{align}
B_{ij}A^{ij}\xi _{.,u}^{k}+B_{ij}A^{kj}\xi _{.,u}^{i}+B_{ij}A^{ik}\xi
_{.,u}^{j}& =0 \notag \\
2\xi _{.,u}^{k}+\delta _{i}^{k}\xi _{.,u}^{i}+\delta _{j}^{k}\xi _{.,u}^{j}&
=0\Rightarrow \notag \\
\xi _{.,u}^{k}& =0. \label{Po.3}
\end{align}
Now assume that the matrix $A^{ij}$ does not have an inverse. Then we
consider $n=2$ and write:
\begin{equation*}
\lbrack A^{ij}]=\left[
\begin{tabular}{ll}
$A_{11}$ & $A_{12}$ \\
$A_{12}$ & $A_{22}
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \right] \Rightarrow\det A^{ij}=A^{11}A^{22}-(A^{12})^{2}=0
\end{equation*}
where at least one of the $A^{ij}\neq0.$ Assume $A^{11}\neq0.$ Then equation
(\ref{Po.1}) for $i=j=k=1$ give
\begin{equation*}
3A^{11}\xi_{.,u}^{1}=0\Rightarrow\xi_{.,u}^{1}=0.
\end{equation*}
The same equation for $i=j=k=2$ give
\begin{equation*}
3A^{22}\xi_{.,u}^{2}=0
\end{equation*}
therefore either $\xi_{.,u}^{2}=0$ or $A^{22}=0.$ If $A^{22}=0$ then from
the condition $\det A^{ij}=0$ we have $A^{12}=0$ hence $A_{ij}=0$ which we
do not assume. Therefore $\xi_{.,u}^{2}=0.$
We consider now equations $i=j\neq k$ and find
\begin{equation*}
A^{ii}\xi_{.,u}^{k}+A^{ki}\xi_{.,u}^{i}+A^{ik}\xi_{.,u}^{i}=0.
\end{equation*}
Because $i\neq k$ this gives $A^{ii}\xi _{.,u}^{k}=0$ and because we have
assumed $A^{11}\neq 0$ it follows $\xi _{.,u}^{2}.$ Therefore again we find
\xi _{.,u}^{k}=0.$
\section{Appendix B}
Condition (\ref{HEF.01.7}) means that $\xi ^{i}$ is a CKV of the metric
g_{ij}$ with conformal factor $a(t,x^{k})-\lambda (t,x^{k}).$
Condition (\ref{HEF.01.6}) implies $\xi ^{k}=T\left( t\right) Y^{k}\left(
x^{j}\right) $ where $Y^{i}$ is a HV with conformal factor $\psi ,$ that is,
we have:
\begin{equation*}
L_{Y^{i}}g_{ij}=2\psi g_{ij}\text{ ~,~}\psi \text{=constant.}
\end{equation*
an
\begin{equation*}
\xi _{,t}^{t}=a-\lambda
\end{equation*
from which follow
\begin{equation}
\xi ^{t}\left( t\right) =2\psi \int Tdt. \label{HEF.01.08}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
-2g^{ik}a_{,i}+T_{,t}Y^{k}=0. \label{HEF.01.09}
\end{equation
Condition (\ref{HEF.01.4}) becomes
\begin{equation*}
H(a)u+H(b)+(a-\xi _{,t}^{t})q=\xi ^{t}q_{,t}+T(t)Y^{k}q_{,k}+\eta
q_{,u}\Rightarrow
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
H(a)u+H(b)-\left( au+b\right) q_{,u}+aq-(\xi ^{t}q)_{,t}-T(t)Y^{k}q_{,k}=0
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
H\left( a\right) u+H\left( b\right) -\left( au+b\right) q_{,u}+aq-\left(
2\psi q\int Tdt\right) _{t}-Tq_{,i}Y^{i}=0. \label{HEF.12}
\end{equation}
We consider the following cases:
Case 1 $Y^{k}$ is a HV/KV \newline
From (\ref{HEF.01.09}) we have that $T_{,t}=0\rightarrow T\left( t\right)
=c_{2}$ and $a_{,i}=0\rightarrow a\left( t,x^{k}\right) =a\left( t\right) .$
Then (\ref{HEF.12}) become
\begin{equation}
-a_{t}u+H\left( b\right) -\left( au+b\right) q_{,u}+aq-\left( 2\psi
c_{2}qt+c_{1}q\right) _{t}-c_{2}q_{,i}Y^{i}=0 \label{HEF.12.1}
\end{equation}
Case 2 $Y^{k}$ is a gradient HV/KV, that is $Y^{k}=S^{,k}$ \newline
From (\ref{HEF.01.09}) we hav
\begin{equation}
a\left( t,x^{k}\right) =-\frac{1}{2}T_{,t}S+F\left( t\right) .
\label{HEF.13}
\end{equation
Replacing in (\ref{HEF.12}) we find the constraint equation
\begin{align}
0& =\left( -\frac{1}{2}T_{,t}\psi +\frac{1}{2}T_{,tt}S-F_{,t}\right)
u+H\left( b\right) + \notag \\
& -\left( \left( -\frac{1}{2}T_{,t}S+F\right) u+b\right) q_{,u}+\left(
\frac{1}{2}T_{,t}S+F\right) q-\left( 2\psi q\int Tdt+c_{1}q\right)
_{t}-Tq_{,i}S^{,i}. \label{HEF.14}
\end{align
\newpage
|
\section{The CMS Collaboration \label{app:collab}}\begin{sloppypar}\hyphenpenalty=5000\widowpenalty=500\clubpenalty=5000\input{SUS-12-014-authorlist.tex}\end{sloppypar}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:INTR}
This paper investigates the constellation design for transmission over satellite channels.
Our main goal is to show that significant improvement
with respect to the Amplitude Phase Shift Keying (APSK) modulations, which
are currently used as the digital video broadcast (DVB-S2) standard, can be
obtained by optimizing the constellation set.
In this paper we focus only on the peak power (PP) constraint as
it becomes more relevant in applications with saturating
high power amplifiers as a part of the communication system.
The APSK modulation has received a considerable attention for transmission
over satellite channels. In particular, the radii and phases of each
concentric circle of APSK constellations have been optimized
in \cite{Gaudenzi} as a function of signal to noise ratio (SNR) by maximizing the capacity.
These optimized APSK constellations are accepted
as DVB-S2 standard. One of the main reasons to focus on APSK structures is
that under the PP constraint the capacity achieving distribution in the large limit
of signals is proved to be discrete in amplitude (with finite number of
mass points) and has a uniformly distributed phase in $[0,2\pi)$
\cite{Shamai_Peak}. Even though for a finite constellation the
optimal distribution is not found in general case, some previous
studies indicate that APSK modulations perform very close to
the \emph{symmetric capacity} \cite{Joint_GB2010}, \cite{PPcapacity_Tanaka}.
However, many practical applications are based on the so called
{\em pragmatic} approach: at the transmitter the
encoder is separated from the modulator using a bit interleaver
and, at the receiver, no iteration between the binary decoder and
the detector is allowed. This approach implies a loss in the capacity
that can be very small if a proper labeling of bits to constellation
points is chosen. The relevant objective function in this case
becomes the symmetric {\em pragmatic} capacity which depends on both the constellation
set and the labeling \cite{Ungerboeck82,ZehaviPragmatic,BICM,Pragmatic_1}.
At high enough SNR, the binary reflected Gray coding has been
proved to minimize the bit error probability for several modulation
schemes \cite{Agrell_BRGC,GrayCoding}.
Recently a joint signal-labeling optimization scheme
has been proposed by the authors \cite{Joint_GB2010} for
designing constellations which maximize the symmetric pragmatic capacity under PP constraint
as a function of signal to noise ratio (SNR) using a simulated annealing (SA) algorithm.
However the simulated annealing algorithm becomes very slow for constellations
with 32 signals and is practically infeasible for higher order constellations.
This is mainly due to two facts. First of all, the complexity of SA algorithm grows
quadratic with respect to the number of constellations points. Secondly,
one usually needs to use a slower cooling scheduling in order to reach a \emph{good} local
maximum by increasing the constellation's cardinality.
In order to speed up the SA algorithm, we introduce a symmetry condition over the constellation
points.
We compare the performance of our optimized constellations with
32-APSK modulation used in DVB-S2 standard. We consider both \emph{static} and \emph{dynamic}
pre-distortion techniques in order to reduce the
warping effects and/or inter-symbol interference (ISI) of the non-linear
channel. Our optimized constellation outperforms the DVB-S2 current standard
up to 0.5 dB. Inspired by our optimized constellations, we also propose a new labeling
for the 4+12+16-APSK constellation which is Gray over all rings. This new mapping
results in a gain of approximately 0.15 dB with respect to the current DVB-S2
labeling for all system scenarios.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section
\ref{sec:system} describe the considered realistic satellite non linear system. In section \ref{sec:statement} we describe the main notations and formulate the optimization problem by introducing some simplifications. A short description of
the optimization algorithm and its improved version with the symmetry condition is provided in section \ref{sec:SA}.
The optimization results are presented in section \ref{sec:Results}.
We also provide a new Gray labeling for 4+12+16-APSK.
Finally, in section \ref{sec:simul} we compare the performance of
our optimized constellation with 32-APSK constellation on the realistic scenario described in Section~\ref{sec:system}.
\section{System Model}\label{sec:system}
In Figure~\ref{Fig:system_model} we show the system model considered
in this paper. At the transmitter side, the information bits are passed to the
channel encoder. The codewords then are interleaved and mapped into the modulation
signals. After passing through a squared root raised cosine (SRRC) filter, the signal
is sent to the satellite transponder. In this model we ignore the uplink noise.
The transponder model is composed of an input demultiplexer (IMUX) filter,
a travelling wave tube amplifier (TWTA) and an output multiplexer (OMUX) filter \cite{DVB-S2_standard}.
The downlink noise is modelled as the complex AWGN (CAWGN). At the receiver, the signal is first
passed through the SRRC filter. Note that due to the non-linear characteristics
of the channel, this filter is no longer matched, and therefore ISI is introduced.
The decoder receives the soft estimated bits from demapper/deinterleaver and
calculates the a posteriori probabilities without any further interaction with
demodulator and demapper.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.45\textwidth]{system_model.eps}
\caption {\label{Fig:system_model} Satellite communication system model.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\subsection{High Power Amplifiers and Pre-Distortion Techniques}
\label{subsec:HPA}
Nonlinear characteristics of the satellite channel largely depend
on the HPA used at the satellite transponder
and operating close to the saturation point. The HPA nonlinearity
changes both the amplitude and relative positions of the constellation points. These changes
are described with AM/AM and AM/PM curves depicted in figure~\ref{Fig:AM/AM}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.45\textwidth]{amam_ampm_2.eps}
\caption {\label{Fig:AM/AM} AM/AM and AM/PM characteristics of DVB-S2 non linear TWTA.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
In some systems, the nonlinearity distortions are reduced by using a pre distorter at the
transmitter \cite{Newtec_2009}, \cite{Gaudenzi} and \cite{Karam_Sari}.
We distinguish three main categories of pre distortion techniques as follows:\\
{\bf Static symbol level predistortion}: This technique modifies
the location of transmitted constellation points on the complex
plane with respect to their nominal positions in order to
compensate the effects of the nonlinearity. The static symbol level
pre distorter does not modify the spectrum of transmitted signal.\\
{\bf Dynamic symbol level predistortion}: Static symbol level pre-distortion
does not consider the impact of memory introduced by the filters in the
system and correspondingly neglects the ISI introduced by neighboring
symbols. In order to combat the ISI, one may
takes into account also the effect of some previous and future symbols. The dynamic
pre-distorter algorithms consider also the memory of the channel in order to compensate
for the clustering phenomenon. Several dynamic pre-distorters have been proposed
in the literature \cite{Gaudenzi} and \cite{CaDeGi04}.\\
{\bf Static sample level predistortion}: This technique pre distorts
the signal \emph{after} the transmitter shaping filter, working at
several samples per symbol. This technique is essentially equivalent
to an HPA linearizer and can be applied only if the predistorter acts
immediately before the HPA.
In the following we refer to the \emph{Soft Limiter}
or \emph{Ideal} amplifier model, which corresponds to the use of an
ideal sample level pre-distorter. In this case, the AM/AM curve is
linear up to the saturating point and remains constant afterwards.
APSK constellations are more robust to the distortions caused
by nonlinear amplifier with respect to Quadrature
Amplitude Modulation (QAM).
In general the power efficiency of APSK modulation schemes can be
improved by applying pre-distortion on the transmitted signals.
Despite the hardware complexity impact, pre-distortion techniques
have been already adopted in systems implementing standards
including APSK constellation such as the DVB-S2 \cite{Newtec_2009}.
\section{Statement of the optimization problem}\label{sec:statement}
We consider a complex constellation $\chi$ with $M=2^m$ elements. The elements of
$\chi$ are referred as constellation points or simply signals.
The Euclidean distance between two points in the complex plane is denoted by
$d(.,.)$, and $d_H(.,.)$ is used to denote the Hamming distance between two
binary sequences.
The signals are associated to the bits at the input of the
modulator through the one-to-one labeling $\mu: \chi
\rightarrow \{ 0,1 \}^m$. In particular, for any given
signal $x$, $\mu^{i}(x)$ is the value of the $i^{th}$ bit of
the label associated to it.
A labeling for $\chi$ is called a Gray mapping if for
any two signal $x_i,x_j \in \chi$ we have
$d_H(\mu(x_i),\mu(x_j)) = 1$ if $ d(x_i,x_j) \leq
d(x_i,x_k)$, for all $x_k \in \chi$.
Even though the separation of detection and decoding described in section~\ref{sec:system} is in general
suboptimal, it is widespread in communications applications
due to the complexity reduction at the receiver
\cite{ZehaviPragmatic,BICM,Pragmatic_1}. The loss
in terms of channel capacity compared to optimal joint detection
and decoding, not only depends on the constellation,
but also on the labeling. In general, non-Gray mappings induce a
higher loss of capacity at high SNR's.
For a given constellation $\chi$ and labeling $\mu$, the
symmetric pragmatic capacity of the channel is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pragcapa}
\mathcal{C}(\chi,\mu) = \sum_{i=1}^{m} I(\mu^{i}(X);Y),
\end{equation}
where $\mu^{i}(X)$ is the random variable indicating the
$i^{th}$ bit associated to the transmitted signal $X$, $Y$ is
the received symbol, and $I(.;.)$ denotes the mutual
information function.
Notice that symmetric pragmatic capacity assumes uniform probability of the input symbols so that it can be equivalently named symmetric pragmatic mutual information.
\subsection{Assumptions for the Optimization Problem}
\label{subsec:assumptions}
In order to simplify the optimization problem we make the following assumptions to model the system described in Section~\ref{sec:system}.
First of all we ignore the effect of filtering. The channel is modelled
as $y_k = f(x_k)+n_k$
where $x_k$ is the transmitted constellation point, $n_k$ is
the additive Gaussian noise and $f$ represents the memoryless effect of the
non linearity (AM/AM and AM/PM curves). Moreover, we assume that
the non-linearity is the \emph{Soft Limiter},
corresponding to the assumption of using an ideal sample level predistorter:
\[
|f(x)|=\min(|x|,P_{\rm sat}=1), \;\;\;\arg(f(x))=\arg(x),
\]
where $P_{\rm sat}$ is the saturated power of the amplifier.
With this assumptions the peak-power limit imposed
over the constellation becomes equivalent to the constraint on $P_{\rm sat}$.
In section~\ref{sec:simul} we will validate the above assumptions by testing
the resulting optimized constellations in realistic
scenarios.
\section{Simulated Annealing Algorithm for Joint Signal/Labeling Optimization} \label{sec:SA}
In \cite{Joint_GB2010} a simulated annealing (SA) algorithm has
been used for maximizing $\mathcal{C}(\chi,\mu)$.
SA, under some conditions on the cooling schedule, guarantees convergence to the global
optimum even in non convex problems and thus it is preferable to other local optimization
techniques like the gradient algorithm.
Here we briefly review the SA algorithm presented in \cite{Joint_GB2010}.
For some other applications of SA algorithm in coding theory we refer the readers
to \cite{Salehi_TCM} and the references therein.
At any time step $t$, we randomly choose a constellation point
and move it into a random new position inside the unitary
circle. If the capacity increases by this change, we accept
the new constellation. On the other hand, if the capacity
decreases, the new constellation is accepted only with
probability $e^{-|\Delta C_t|/T_t }$, where $\Delta C_t$ is
the difference between the capacity of constellations at
times $t$ and $t-1$, and $T_t$ is the ``temperature'' at time
$t$, a parameter of the SA algorithm. The initial and final temperatures
are fixed at the beginning and the cooling parameter, $0<\alpha<1$, indicates
the cooling scheduling, i.e., $T_{t+1} = \alpha T_t$.
The main adaptation needed to speed up the SA algorithm for
maximizing the capacity is to define a maximum
displacement length as a function of time. For details on such adaptation we refer
the readers to \cite{Joint_GB2010} and the references within.
Note that the initialization step distributes uniformly the $M$
signals in the unitary circle.
When the cost function is the symmetric pragmatic capacity, at the beginning of the algorithm an arbitrary labeling
is also assigned to each point and never changed afterwards, so that constellation
points "move" together with their labels during the optimization.
The output of this algorithm -with the chosen parameters-
is independent of the initial conditions for constellations with up to 16
signals, suggesting that the algorithm is optimal for such small constellations.
However for larger constellations the SA algorithm becomes very slow, and practically not applicable. Furthermore
its output starts depending on the initial conditions.
\subsection{A Simplification of Simulated Annealing with Symmetry Condition}
\label{subsec:SASymm}
In order to reduce the complexity of the SA algorithm, we introduce a symmetry condition over the constellation
points. In particular we suppose that the constellation is symmetric with respect to reflections on both horizontal and
vertical axis. To adapt the algorithm with this symmetry condition we confine the optimization
to the first quadrant of the unitary circle, i.e., we suppose that exactly one forth of points
have positive coordinates and we assume that the remaining points are obtained by reflection with respect to the two
axis. We start the algorithm by random positioning of $M/4$ signals in the first quadrant.
When the objective function is the symmetric pragmatic capacity we also assign a random labeling of length $m-2$.
The labeling associated to reflected points is the same as the corresponding signal in first quadrant, with two additional bits selecting the quadrant. Note that if two points have Hamming distance $d$ in the first
quadrant, the corresponding reflected points also have the Hamming distance $d$ in all
other three quadrants.
The optimization technique is similar to the case without symmetry condition. At each
step of the SA we choose randomly a point from the first quadrant and move it into a new random
position inside this quadrant. Note that this change cause the simultaneous change of the three points
in the other quadrants due to the symmetry condition. In other words, at each step of SA, four points are
simultaneously moved inside the unitary circle.
With the addition of the symmetry condition the time needed to converge to a \emph{good}
local maximum reduces from several days to only several minutes.
Constellations obtained with this additional constraint have the same
capacity as those obtained without it and perform exactly the same over the non-linear satellite channel.
Furthermore, the algorithm becomes independent of the initial conditions (over ten runs). This strongly suggests
that the obtained constellations are optimal under the given conditions.
\section{Optimization Results}
\label{sec:Results}
In this section we present the constellations optimized by the
SA algorithm with symmetry condition.
As we have mentioned, we are interested in optimizing the constellations
under the peak-power constraint and therefore in what follows we always
fix the maximum power to one ($|x|^2\leq 1$). More over, instead of the signal to noise ratio,
we consider the peak power to noise ratio (PSNR) as a measure for comparing our constellations.
Note that PSNR is the ratio between the {\em peak} power of the constellation and the noise
power spectral density
$$ \text{PSNR} \triangleq \frac{1}{N_0}\geq \text{SNR} \triangleq
\frac{1}{M}\sum_{x\in\chi} \frac{|x|^2}{N_0}.
$$
Under the assumptions of Section~\ref{subsec:assumptions} the PSNR coincides with the ratio $P_{sat}/N_0$ so that
$$
\text{SNR} = \frac{E_s}{N_0} = \frac{P_{\rm sat}}{N_0}\cdot\frac{E_s}{P_{\rm sat}} = \text{PSNR} - OBO {\rm [dB]}.
$$
Here we present two constellations optimized for two different values of PSNR. Figure~\ref{Fig:constell_32_1}
shows the constellation obtained for $\text{PSNR} = 15$. The mapping is presented only in the first
quadrant by numbers form zero to seven. The actual mapping of a given signal in this quadrant
is a sequence of 5 bits, of which the first two bits are zero and the last three
bits correspond to the integer associated to it.
For example the point with label
$``7"$ has the mapping $``00111"$.
The mapping for signals in other quadrants are obtained by
symmetry and change of the first two bits selecting the quadrant.
Notice that the constellation in ~\ref{Fig:constell_32_1} is by no means optimal in the classical "minimum distance" sense. At moderate and low SNR indeed the minimum distance is not dominant in the expression of the mutual information.
In Figure~\ref{Fig:constell_32_2} we show the constellation obtained for $\text{PSNR} = 18$
This constellation is optimized for a wide range of high PSNR values and will be used in the simulations reported in Section~\ref{sec:simul}.
In Figure~\ref{Fig:capacity_icc} we plot the capacity curves of the two optimized constellations
as a function of PSNR and compare them with the 4+12+16-APSK modulation used currently as
the DVB-S2 standard. As it can be seen, a gain of approximately 0.5 dB is obtained by
our optimized constellations. In Section~\ref{sec:simul} we will investigate whether this gain is
preserved also in more realistic scenarios including the presence of the HPA amplifier.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.48\textwidth]{quarter_32.eps}
\caption {\label{Fig:constell_32_1} Optimized constellation at PSNR = 15 with
the symmetry condition. }
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.48\textwidth]{quarter_32_2.eps}
\caption {\label{Fig:constell_32_2} Optimized constellation at PSNR = 18 with
the symmetry condition.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.46\textwidth]{capacity_gc12.eps}
\caption {\label{Fig:capacity_icc} Symmetric pragmatic mutual information for the optimized
constellations as a function of PSNR. A gain of approximately 0.5 dB is obtained
with respect to the 32-APSK modulation scheme used currently in DVB-S2 standard.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
The main question which arises by adding the symmetry condition over
constellation space is its impact
on the optimality of obtained constellations. We conjecture that the optimal
constellations may not satisfy the symmetry condition. The reason is mainly
because the symmetry condition
implies that the number of signals on the outer ring be divisible by four. This condition
may not need to be true in general case for an optimized constellation (see also \cite{Joint_GB2010}).
Note that one may change the ordering of the bits of a given mapping without effecting the
symmetric pragmatic capacity in equation \ref{eq:pragcapa}. When the interleaver and coding is random the ordering of
the bits of a given mapping is not an issue. However,
in DVB-S2 standard a structured row-column interleaver followed by a particular LDPC code is used and therefore it is important
to optimize also the placement of the bits \cite{DVB-S2_standard}.
This optimization can be done separately after
the joint signal/labeling optimization.
\subsection{Gray Mapping for 4+12+16-APSK}
\label{subsec:newlabeling}
Even though the constellation in Figure~\ref{Fig:constell_32_2} has not APSK structure, its
mapping can be adopted by 4+12+16-APSK constellation. Unlike the current mapping of the
DVB-S2 standard, this mapping is Gray over all rings. This new mapping for 32-APSK constellation
is shown in figure \ref{Fig:apsk_newlabeling}.
Note that we report the results obtained for this new mapping using the
4+12+16-APSK constellations with optimized radii and phases in \cite{DVB-S2_standard} and
therefore only the mapping is different from the standard.
In Figure~\ref{Fig:capacity_icc} we also plot the symmetric pragmatic capacity curve for
the 4+12+16-APSK constellation with the Gray labeling of figure \ref{Fig:apsk_newlabeling}.
This constellation has a larger pragmatic capacity than the DVB-S2 standard constellation
as a function of both SNR and PSNR. Therefore, we expect that
this constellation performs better than the current standard in all cases. This is confirmed
by our simulations over both linear and non-linear channels showing a gain of approximately
0.15 dB in all system scenarios. As we will see in the next section, the optimized constellation
performs even better than the 32-APSK with Gray labeling, suggesting that the gain obtained
by the optimization is not only due to a better mapping but also the shape of the constellation.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.48\textwidth]{gray_32APSK.eps}
\caption {\label{Fig:apsk_newlabeling} New labeling for 4+12+16-APSK constellation, inspired
by the mapping of the optimized constellation in figure \ref{Fig:constell_32_2}. Note that
this mapping is Gray over all rings.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\section{Simulation Results}
\label{sec:simul}
In this section we investigate the performance of our optimized constellations over
a realistic system model. Systems with and without pre-distortion techniques have been
considered. We compare our results with the DVB-S2 standard 32-APSK constellation.
In all simulations we have used a LDPC code of rate $R=3/4$ and length $N=64800$. The roll-off
factor of the SRRC filter is fixed to $\alpha = 0.2$ and the normalized transponder bandwidth
(ratio between symbol rate and 3 dB bandwidth of transponder) is $\phi = 0.8$.
We use the optimized constellation in figure \ref{Fig:constell_32_2} in
all the simulations and refer to it as the \emph{optimized constellation}.
In all cases the optimal Input Back-Off (IBO) values are found preliminary and are used
for simulating the bit error rates.
In our simulation results we choose the PSNR as the measure of the quality of the channel
instead of conventional SNR. Indeed, the choice of SNR can be misleading when
comparing performance for different IBO as it only captures the loss of performance due to
the intersymbol interference (ISI) introduced by the non linearity, but it neglects the power loss
at the receiver
induced by the transponder Output Back-Off (OBO).
If one is interested in finding the corresponding average SNR, it should subtract the value
of OBO for each simulated point. Notice that since the IBO is optimized for each given PSNR
the correspondence between the two quantities is not a simple offset.
\subsection{Performance without Pre-Distortion Techniques}
\label{subsec:nopredistortion} We first investigate the performance of our optimized
constellation over a system where no pre-distortion technique is present. In figure
\ref{Fig:R34_nopredistorter} we compare the BER of the optimized
constellation with 32-APSK for the two different systems:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A system without the
satellite transponder in the communication chain, where the channel is linear with AWGN
noise;
\item A system with non-ideal HPA in the communication chain but with no
pre-distortion technique available at the transmitter.
\end{enumerate}
As it was expected, the gain observed
in figure \ref{Fig:capacity_icc} is maintained for the system with no HPA, however this gain
is reduced into approximately 0.2 dB for the system with non-ideal HPA. As we will see
in the next subsection, this gain can be increased by applying some pre-distortion techniques.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.47\textwidth]{R34_nopredistorter.eps}
\caption {\label{Fig:R34_nopredistorter} Comparison between the optimized
constellation and the 32-APSK modulation of DVB-S2 standard in the presence
of non-ideal HPA with no pre-distortion. Also the simulation results for a system with
no HPA is presented.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Performance with Pre-Distortion Techniques}
\label{withpredistortion} In this section we simulate the performance of
our optimized constellation over systems where a pre-distortion technique is
available at the transmitter. All three pre-distortion techniques discussed in
subsection \ref{subsec:HPA} are considered. For details on the implementation of
static and dynamic pre-distortion algorithms we refer the readers to \cite{CaDeGi04}.
For dynamic pre-distortion we have considered $L= 3$ symbols simultaneously for reducing
the ISI introduced by the non-linear HPA.
In figure \ref{Fig:R34_predistorter} we present the BER for both the optimized constellation and
the 32-APSK for all discussed pre-distortion techniques. The results show that the
gain with respect to the non-ideal HPA is increased only when a dynamic pre-distorter is used,
implying that the optimized constellations suffer more from the ISI.
In this case the gain with respect to the DVB-S2 standard is slightly more than 0.3 dB. The gain which
can be obtained by using the Gray labeling for the 32-APSK constellation instead of the DVB-S2 standard
labeling is around 0.15-0.2 dB in all cases. Notice that dynamic predistortion can outperform the ``ideal'' HPA. This is due to the fact that dynamic predistortion also reduce ISI while the ideal HPA is a memoryless device that cannot reduce ISI.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.47\textwidth]{R34_predistor_2.eps}
\caption {\label{Fig:R34_predistorter} Comparison between the optimized
constellation and the DVB-S2 standard 32-APSK modulation scheme in a system with
pre-distortion. Static, dynamic and ideal pre-distortion techniques have
been considered.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
\balance
In this paper we have proposed a simulated annealing algorithm to optimize the
constellation space under the peak-power constraint for constellations with 32
signals. We have introduced
a symmetry condition which speeds up simulated annealing algorithm, allowing to
optimize the constellations with up to 64 signals.
We have compared the performance of our optimized constellations
with 32-APSK modulations used in DVB-S2 standard in a realistic scenario.
Systems with both static
and dynamic pre-distorters have been considered. Depending on system characteristics
a gain of 0.2 to 0.5 dB can be obtained with respect to the current
DVB-S2 standard by using the optimized constellations. We have also proposed a Gray labeling for
4+12+16-APSK constellation. A gain of approximately 0.15 dB with respect to the current
labeling of DVB-S2 standard can be obtained with this new mapping.
\section*{Appendix I: Gray Mappings for APSK Constellations}
\label{App:Gray} In the large SNR region the capacity of a constellation
mainly depends on the minimum distance \cite{Foschini_2D}. In such scenarios, given a
constellation it is desirable to find a Gray mapping for the constellation.
For a given APSK constellation the problem of finding a Gray mapping is not
solved in general case. However it is easy to find a mapping which
is Gray over each ring of the APSK constellation if all rings contain an even
number of signals. If all points are nearer to a point lying on the same ring
than the points over other rings then having a Gray mapping over all rings is desirable
in the limit of large SNR (PSNR).
\begin{Lemma}\label{lem:Gray_map}
An APSK constellation with $2^m$ signals admits a labelling which is Gray over all rings
if and only if each ring contains an even number of points.
\end{Lemma}
\emph{Proof:} It is easy to show that no Gray mapping exists for an odd number of points over
a ring and therefore it is necessary to have an even number of points over each
ring of a given APSK constellation. To proof the other side of the lemma, we explicitly
construction a mapping which is Gray for any given integer partition of $2^m$ . Let $2^m = n_1 + n_2 + ... + n_p$
be a given partition of $2^m $ where $p$ is arbitrary integer and $n_i$ is even. First we list in a column all the sequences
with $m-1$ bits ($2^{(m-1)}$ binary numbers) such that each sequence has Hamming distance one from
its neighbours. Then partition this list into $p$ subsets each having $n_i/2$ elements for
$i=1...p$. Duplicate the sequences of each subset by adding a bit (both zero and one) at the
beginning of each existing element. Now we have $p$ subsets each having exactly $n_i$ elements.
The sequences in each subset can be then arranged over a circle in such a way that the
induced mapping is Gray. $\square$
The proof can be understood easily by looking at a simple example. Suppose that we
want to find a Gray mapping a 4+6+8+14-APSK constellation. Such a mapping is provided
in table \ref{tab:Gray_map}. The sequences in each section (separated by a horizontal line) can be used
to have a Gray mapping for the ring with the corresponding number of signals.
\begin{table}
\centering{\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{|c c|}
\hline
0 0000 & 1 0000 \\
0 0001 & 1 0001 \\
\hline
0 0011 & 1 0011 \\
0 0010 & 1 0010 \\
0 0110 & 1 0110 \\
\hline
0 0111 & 1 0111 \\
0 0101 & 1 0101 \\
0 0100 & 1 0100 \\
0 1100 & 1 1100 \\
\hline
0 1101 & 1 1101 \\
0 1111 & 1 1111 \\
0 1110 & 1 1110 \\
0 1010 & 1 1010 \\
0 1011 & 1 1011 \\
0 1001 & 1 1001 \\
0 1000 & 1 1000 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{ A mapping which is Gray over each ring of a 4+6+8+14-APSK Constellation following
the construction in Lemma \ref{lem:Gray_map}. }
\label{tab:Gray_map}
\end{table}
In a realistic situation with medium SNR or PSNR, one may need to have also a good distance
property between the rings of a given APSK constellation. In this case one may first obtain a
Gray mapping over each rings as it was explained above and then calculate the capacity of all
possible rotations of rings choosing the rotation with highest pragmatic capacity.
However this method may not be optimal in general case and becomes computationally infeasible
for large constellations.
\section*{Appendix II: Higher Order Constellations}
\label{App:64Ary} As we have mentioned our optimization technique can be used
to optimize higher order constellations in two or more dimensions. For example
in figure \ref{Fig:constell_64} we show the output of the algorithm for a constellation
with 64 signals optimized at $\text{PSNR} = 18$. As it can be seen, the inner points have a cross
32-QAM structure while 32 remaining point lie on the outer ring and the associated mapping
is Gray. This constellation performs slightly
(approximately 0.15 dB) better than the 4+12+18+30-APSK constellation for a LDPC code with
rate $R=3/4$ and length $N=64800$ over the non-linear channel with ideal amplifier.
More research on this direction is on going.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.48\textwidth]{quarter_64.eps}
\caption {\label{Fig:constell_64} Optimized constellation at PSNR = 18 with
the symmetry condition.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The authors wish to thank Sergio Benedetto, Nader Alagha and Riccardo De Gaudenzi
for several discussions and useful suggestions. This work was performed under the ESA/ESTEC
contract n. $4000102300$, ``Enhanced Digital Modem Techniques Development and Validation".
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
The Standard Model Higgs boson -- or something like it -- has been
found \cite{:2012gk,:2012gu} and the race is now on to determine its
detailed properties.
Of particular interest is the $\tau \tau$ decay
channel, where, despite sensitivity to a signal comparable to that predicted in
the Standard Model with $m_h \simeq 125$ GeV,
only weak evidence somewhat below the Standard Model expectation has been seen~\cite{Einsweiler:HCP, Paus:HCP}.
This may be evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model or it may be
a statistical fluctuation.
We should dearly like to get to the bottom of the mystery, but progress is slowed by a number of
complications in the $h \rightarrow
\tau \tau$ search channel.
One complication is
the problem of triggering and identifying $\tau$ leptons, which decay
in a variety of ways, some of which resemble
common-or-garden QCD jets. A second is that, since a $\tau$ decay always
involves one or more invisible neutrinos,
it is only possible to reconstruct the resonance in an approximate way.
A third is the problem of
distinguishing $h \rightarrow
\tau \tau$ signal events from the dominant backgrounds, namely
$Z \rightarrow
\tau \tau$ decays (which, moreover, lie nearby in $\tau \tau$ invariant mass)
and production of QCD jets, with or without a $W$ boson, in which
other leptons or jets are mistakenly identified as $\tau$ leptons.
The third issue, of distinguishing the signal from backgrounds, is
compounded by the second issue, that we are {\em a priori} unable to
reconstruct the invariant mass of the $\tau \tau$ pair.
As a result, and as is readily apparent from the data shown in \cite{CMS11}, the signal and backgrounds lie close to each other in distributions of the observables that are currently available to us.
Not only does this
increase the integrated luminosity required to be sure that an
apparent signal is not a mere background
fluctuation, but it also increases our vulnerability to systematic
errors.
To be explicit, imagine a hypothetical limit in which we have
a signal (the Higgs) that consists of a narrow peak in
invariant mass, a background (the $Z$) that is also a narrow
peak, but centred elsewhere, and additional backgrounds (like $W$ plus
jets and QCD) that are approximately flat in invariant mass. The signals and backgrounds are otherwise roughly
indistinguishable in their dynamics.
Now, if the observables that we have available are uncorrelated with the invariant
mass, then we are essentially reduced to counting events in order to
try to discover the signal and our ability to do so is greatly limited
by the total statistics available. We are, moreover, completely at the
mercy of systematic uncertainties in the overall background
normalization, which we have no way to measure in data.
Even if we were able to make a discovery in this way, we could at most
make one measurement of the signal properties (its overall size) and
here too we would be exposed to the systematic uncertainty in the
background normalization.
Conversely, if we find a way to reconstruct, more or less, the invariant
mass, the first benefit is that we are no longer limited by the
overall statistics, but rather by the number of signal and background
events in a region of invariant mass of our choosing (near 125 GeV
being the obvious choice for $h \rightarrow \tau \tau$).
Moreover, we
now have a clean separation between the signal and background and
indeed between the different backgrounds themselves.
This opens up the possibility of using the extra information to constrain
the uncertainties on the background yields and shapes via data-driven techniques.
Indeed, a simple sideband analysis would
suffice, in which the $Z$ background is measured in a `control' region near 90
GeV and the other backgrounds are measured in a control region away
from the peaks
near 90 GeV and 125 GeV. Finally, independent measurements of the signal mass and
cross-section times branching ratio become possible.
Needless to say, the real situation is rather more complicated for $h\rightarrow \tau \tau$ at the LHC, with the current performance falling somewhere between the two extremes of perfect and imperfect mass resolution. Nevertheless, the basic principle remains the same:
the more we are
able to separate the signal and the different background components
from each other, the less we shall find ourselves at the mercy of
statistical and systematic uncertainties.
So, how could we reconstruct something like the $\tau \tau$ invariant
mass? Several approximate methods or observables have previously been suggested in the literature
(see, for example, \cite{Ellis:1987xu,CMS2,Elagin:2010aw,Gripaios:2011jm,Barr:2011he,Barr:2011si}).
Some of these suffer from being rather poorly correlated with the invariant mass (some provide, for example, only an upper or lower bound on it), while others suffer from the fact that they turn out to be ill-defined for a significant fraction of events, with a consequent loss of statistics. As examples, the collinear approximation used in \cite{Barr:2011he} fails for one in three events, whereas the observable used in \cite{Ellis:1987xu, Barr:2011si} does not exist for a similar fraction of events.
Here we wish to propose yet another method, which differs
significantly in that we focus on the subset of events in which a $\tau$ lepton undergoes a 3-prong
decay. This implies an immediate disadvantage in the form
of a reduced number of signal events overall for a given integrated luminosity: a
$\tau$ lepton has a branching ratio of 15 \% for a
3-prong decay (of which 9.3 \% are to $\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-\nu_\tau$
and 4.6 \% are to $\pi^-\pi^+\pi^- \pi^0 \nu_\tau$) \cite{Amsler:2008zzb}, meaning that only 28 \% of di-$\tau$ events feature at least one
3-prong decay.
However, the hope is that this disadvantage is more than compensated by the advantages.
These advantages all stem from the fact that the presence of a 3-prong
decay allows us to
reconstruct the $\tau \tau$ invariant mass, if the invariant mass of
the neutrino or neutrinos from the other $\tau$ decay is known.
Thus, for hadronic decays of the other $\tau$, we can fully reconstruct events (up to a
discrete ambiguity and in the absence
of detector mismeasurements, both of which we shall deal with below);
for leptonic decays of the other $\tau$, we are able to partially
reconstruct events. As a result we hope to benefit from a reduced
exposure to statistical and systematic uncertainties as argued above.
The extra kinematic information needed to reconstruct comes from the
location of the secondary (3-prong $\tau$-decay) vertex: if one can
measure with reasonable accuracy the impact parameter of each of the
three charged tracks, defined as the shortest distance between the
track and the primary vertex, then the intersection of these impact parameters
gives the location of the secondary vertex.\footnote{The fact that
there are three intersections means that we have an indication of
the quality of the vertex reconstruction in an individual event. This
information could, in principle, be fed into the likelihood function
that we shall use to account for detector response, but we do not do
so here.}
Now, the location of the secondary vertex tells us the direction of
the $\tau$ momentum; the mass-shell constraint for the
$\tau$ then allows to reconstruct the magnitude of the $\tau$
momentum, up to a possible two-fold ambiguity. Given the measured
missing transverse momentum, we are then able to reconstruct the
momentum of the other $\tau$ (up to a further possible two-fold ambiguity), provided we know the invariant mass of
the neutrino(s) produced in the other $\tau$ decay.
The reconstruction process just described can only be expected to work
if things are well measured. For example, if they are not, we may end
up with no real solutions to the kinematic constraints.
We account for this by
defining an {\em ad hoc} likelihood function in which we convolute
the observed quantities with a function parameterizing the detector
response. The maximum of this likelihood function is an event
observable (albeit one with an obscure definition) and it is this
observable that we propose to use for signal discrimination.
The fact that we invoke a likelihood function also allows to deal with
the unknown invariant mass of the two neutrinos produced in a leptonic
$\tau$ decay: we marginalize
with respect to the unknown invariant mass,
including the matrix element for the $\tau$ decay.
Yet another advantage of focussing on 3-prong decays is that the fake backgrounds (coming from, e.g. W+ jets and QCD) will be reduced, as jets and other leptons are presumably less likely to fake a 3-prong decay (with a reconstructed secondary vertex) than they are to fake a generic hadronic tau or leptonic tau decay.\footnote{
Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to reliably
estimate the size of this effect, since neither the full details of the
experimental $\tau$ reconstruction algorithm nor the resulting
efficiencies or fake rates for 3-prong decays are public.}
The outline of the paper is as follows. In the next Section, we describe the algebraic details of the
reconstruction procedure. In Section \ref{sec:results}, we present the
results of our numerical simulations and in Section
\ref{sec:conclusions}, we draw our conclusions.
\section{The method \label{sec:method}}
As described in the introduction, events are reconstructed using the decay
vertex information. If one of the $\tau$ leptons decays to a 3-prong
hadronic system and a $\tau$ neutrino, then the displacement $\mathbf{r}$ from the primary interaction point to the $\tau$ decay vertex
should be measurable with useful precision.\footnote{The ATLAS
CSC~\cite{Aad:2009wy} estimates a resolution of $0.6$ and $0.01$ mm in the
directions parallel and perpendicular to the displacement,
respectively.}
Let us begin by considering the limit of perfect detector resolution. Denoting the energy, momentum and mass of the 3-prong decay
products by $E_j$, $\mathbf{p}_j$ and $m_j$, respectively, and the angle
between $\mathbf{r}$ and $\mathbf{p}_j$ by $\theta$, the momentum of that
$\tau$ lepton can be reconstructed, with a twofold ambiguity,
as $\mathbf{p}_\tau = p_\tau\mathbf{r}/|\mathbf{r}|$, where (neglecting the neutrino mass)
\begin{equation} \label{eq:reconptau}
p_\tau=\frac{(m_\tau^2+m_j^2)p_j\cos\theta\pm E_j
\sqrt{(m_\tau^2-m_j^2)^2-4m_\tau^2p_j^2\sin^2\theta}}
{2(m_j^2+p_j^2\sin^2\theta)}\,.
\end{equation}
The other $\tau$ lepton may decay either hadronically or leptonically,
into a visible system $j'$ (a hadronic jet or a charged lepton) and an
invisible system $i'$ (a $\tau$ neutrino or a pair of neutrinos). The
transverse momentum of the invisible system is found from the missing
transverse momentum, $\slashed{\vp}_T$, and the reconstructed momentum
of the first $\tau$ via
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{p}_{Ti'} = \slashed{\vp}_T+\mathbf{p}_{Tj}-\mathbf{p}_{T\tau}\,.
\label{eq:pmiss}
\end{equation}
Given the invariant mass of the invisible system, $m_{i'}=m_\nu=0$ for
a hadronic and $m_{i'}=m_{\nu\nu}\geq 0$ for a leptonic decay, one can then solve for
the invisible longitudinal momentum, again with a twofold ambiguity:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:reconpl}
p_{L {i'}} = \frac 1{\mu_{j'}}\left(\alpha\,p_{Lj'}\pm E_{j'}
\sqrt{\alpha^2-\mu_{i'} \mu_{j'}}\right)\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mu_{i'} = p_{T {i'}}^2+m_{i'}^2\,,\;\;
\mu_{j'} = p_{Tj'}^2+m_{j'}^2\,,\;\;
\alpha=\frac 12 (m_\tau^2-m_{j'}^2-m_{i'}^2) + \mathbf{p}_{T {i'}}\cdot\mathbf{p}_{Tj'}\,.
\end{equation}
The momentum of the second $\tau$ can now be reconstructed as
$\mathbf{p}_{\tau'} = \mathbf{p}_{i'}+\mathbf{p}_{j'}$, and hence the invariant mass of the
$\tau\tau$ system, $m_{\tau \tau}$ is determined, up to a fourfold ambiguity.
Now consider a real detector and let
$\mathbf{q} =(\mathbf{r},E_j,\mathbf{p}_j,\mathbf{p}_j',\slashed{\vp}_T)$ correspond to the measured
quantities. These do not coincide with
their true values in an event, which we now denote by $\tilde\mathbf{q}$, but rather are shifted by amounts depending on the
detector resolution, which
we describe by a response function,
$f(\mathbf{q},\tilde\mathbf{q})$. Then the
likelihood, as a function of the true invariant mass
$\tilde{m}_{\tau \tau}$, for an event with measured
quantities $\mathbf{q}$, may be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:like}
{\cal L}(\tilde{m}_{\tau \tau}|\mathbf{q}) = \int
d\tilde\mathbf{q}\,f(\mathbf{q},\tilde\mathbf{q})\,{\cal
M}(\tilde\mathbf{q})\,\delta[\tilde{m}_{\tau \tau} - m_{\tau \tau} (\tilde\mathbf{q})]
\end{equation}
where ${\cal M}(\tilde\mathbf{q})$ is the matrix-element squared for the decay and
$m_{\tau \tau} (\tilde\mathbf{q})$ is the invariant $\tau \tau$ mass
reconstructed from the true quantities $\tilde\mathbf{q}$ according to the
recipe described above.
Here ${\cal M}(\tilde\mathbf{q})$ should also include the jacobian factor relating the
final-state phase space to the quantities $\tilde\mathbf{q}$. We find, in
most cases, that including these effects gives, at best, a marginal
improvement in the mass resolution. Indeed, some effects
(such as
the exponential distribution of the $\tau$-decay lifetimes),
lead to large fluctuations in the likelihood integrand and hence to
large errors in the numerical integration, worsening the mass
resolution.
Thus we do not include these effects, in general.
There is, however, one such effect which we do include. In the case of
leptonic decay of the second $\tau$, the matrix elements also depend
on the momenta of the two invisible neutrinos, and the right-hand side
of eq.~(\ref{eq:like}) should include an integration over their phase
space, weighted by the expected distribution of the $\nu\nu$
invariant mass. This is conveniently expressed as
$P(m_{\nu\nu}^2)\,d\Phi_{\nu\nu}$, with
\begin{equation}
d\Phi_{\nu\nu} = \frac{d^3\mathbf{p}_{\nu\nu}}{2(2\pi)^3E_{\nu\nu}}
\frac{d\Omega^*}{(4\pi)^3}dm_{\nu\nu}^2\,,
\end{equation}
where $d\Omega^*$ is the element of solid angle in the $\nu\nu$
centre-of-mass frame and
\begin{equation}
P(m_{\nu\nu}^2) = \frac{2}{m_\tau^2}
\left(1-\frac{m_{\nu\nu}^2}{m_\tau^2}\right)^2
\left(1+2\frac{m_{\nu\nu}^2}{m_\tau^2}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
At each phase-space point,
the value of $m_{\nu\nu}$ is then used, with this weight, for the reconstruction of the decay.
In the integral over the delta function in eq.~(\ref{eq:like}),
we include all real
solutions to the equation $\tilde{m}_{\tau \tau} = m_{\tau \tau} (\tilde\mathbf{q})$. In contrast to
\cite{Gripaios:2011jm}, complex solutions should be discarded here,
since they cannot correspond to true values for genuine $\tau \tau$
resonance events.
Note, however, that measured values $\mathbf{q}$ that would correspond to
complex values of $m_{\tau \tau}$ lying close to the real axis if
reconstructed directly, which correspond to real solutions shifted
slightly by detector resolution, will be included in the integration
at neighbouring values of $\tilde\mathbf{q}$. For fake backgrounds, we often
find that no nearby values of $\tilde\mathbf{q}$ lead to real solutions,
allowing the event to be rejected.
We perform the integrations in eq.~(\ref{eq:like}) by a Monte Carlo
method similar to that adopted in \cite{Kawagoe:2004rz}, generating
a large number of points $\tilde\mathbf{q}$ distributed around each measured
point $\mathbf{q}$ according to a smearing function $f(\mathbf{q},\tilde\mathbf{q})$ deduced
from detector simulations.
The jet masses are generated according to certain probabilities that
we describe in the Appendix.
Each real solution $\tilde{m}_{\tau \tau} = m_{\tau \tau} (\tilde\mathbf{q})$ is
entered into a histogram with the corresponding weight.
Because the Monte Carlo method generates
only a finite number of points, all histogram bins are given a small
positive offset, to avoid multiplications by zero.
Since our likelihood function does not encode the matrix element in
its entirety, we cannot expect to be able to make statistical
inferences directly from it in the usual way. Doing so might lead, for
example, to us wrongly rejecting the Standard Model Higgs boson
hypothesis, or obtaining a biased measurement of its mass.
Instead, we use our {\em ad hoc} likelihood function to define an
event observable in the following way: for each event,
we extract the smallest value of $\tilde{m}_{\tau \tau}$ that gives a
local maximum of the event likelihood and define this to be the
event value of the observable $m_{\mathrm{SV}}$.\footnote{Since we
have to solve a quartic equation, and since
real roots thereof come in pairs, we invariably find multiple local maxima
in the event likelihood.} Our simulations suggest that this
observable gives distributions for Higgs and $Z$ boson event samples
whose peak locations provide
a good
determination of the
corresponding boson mass, with small tails. In any case,
the presence of such effects can be mitigated by comparing
experimental distributions of
observables to template Monte-Carlo samples, as we do in simulations
of pseudo-experiments below.
\section{Simulations and results \label{sec:results}}
Our study is based on a sample from the
{\tt Herwig++} event generator~\cite{Bahr:2008pv},
version 2.52~\cite{Gieseke:2011na} and corresponds to an integrated
luminosity of 20 fb$^{-1}$,
which is very similar to what has been achieved at the LHC
by the end of 2012.
As regards the signal, recent Standard Model predictions for Higgs production at the LHC may
be found in Ref.~\cite{Dittmaier:2011ti}. For a Higgs mass of 125
GeV, at a collision energy of 8 TeV, the expected total
cross section is 19.52 pb in the gluon fusion channel and 1.58 pb in
the vector boson fusion channel, with a probable uncertainty of around 10\%.
The predicted SM branching ratio for $\tau\tau$ decay, also given in
Ref.~\cite{Dittmaier:2011ti}, is 6.4\%.
Higgs production followed by $\tau\tau$
decay thus
corresponds to a cross section of 1.34 pb.
For the $Z$ background, CMS \cite{CMS10} reports a flavour-averaged
prediction of $\sigma (pp \rightarrow Z \rightarrow ll) = 1.13$ nb and
a measurement of 1.12 nb for the 8 TeV LHC. We take $\sigma
(pp \rightarrow Z \rightarrow \tau \tau ) = 1.13$ nb. For the $W+j$
background, we use $\sigma (pp \rightarrow W j) = 2.15$ nb, taken from
{\tt Herwig++}.
All of our simulations are carried out at the parton level, without
showering or hadronization effects,
apart from hadronic tau decays which we simulate using
{\tt Herwig++}~\cite{Grellscheid:2007tt}.
The detector response was modelled
as follows.
Firstly we assume identification efficiencies of 0.4 and 0.3 for the 1- and 3-prong hadronic taus, respectively \cite{Aad:2011kt}.
The lepton identification efficiency is assumed to be 0.9 in our analysis.
To estimate the number of $W+j$ events in which the jet mimics a 1- or 3-prong hadronic tau, we use the fake rates of 0.01 and 0.002 for 1- and 3-prong taus, respectively.
These numbers are obtained from the simulation of $W + j$ events \cite{Chatrchyan:2012zz}.
Secondly, we parameterize detector mismeasurements by smearing the energy component of jets and leptons
with $\sigma(E)/E_j = 0.5\,{\rm GeV}^{\frac{1}{2}} / \sqrt{E_j}$ and $\sigma(E)/E_\ell = 0.05\,{\rm GeV}^{\frac{1}{2}} / \sqrt{E_\ell}$,
respectively.
For the missing transverse momentum, we smear each component with $\sigma_x = \sigma_y = 5$\,GeV.
For the $\tau$ decay vertex, the Monte-Carlo truth position is smeared
by Gaussian distributions of widths $0.613 \pm 0.008 $ mm and
$10.5 \pm 0.2 \,\mu$m, in the directions parallel and perpendicular to the
3-prong tau-jet, respectively. For jets that fake taus, we take
the truth vertex position to be zero and then smear as above.
We then apply event selection cuts to purify the signal, for which we impose
\begin{equation}
p_{Tj} > 20\,{\rm GeV},~~~~
p_{Tj'} > 20\,{\rm GeV},~~~~
\slashed{p}_T > 20\,{\rm GeV}.
\end{equation}
For the hadron-lepton mode, we further impose
\begin{equation}
m_T \equiv \sqrt{ 2 |{\bf p}^{\ell}_T| |{\slashed{\vp}_T}| (1 - \cos\Delta \phi) } < 40\,{\rm GeV}
\end{equation}
to reduce the background involving $W$s, where $\Delta \phi$ is the azimuthal difference between the lepton and the missing transverse momentum.
The cross section for each process/channel after taking account of the efficiencies of (mis)identification and the selection cuts
is listed in Table \ref{tab:xsec}.
We use the 3 prong-hadron\,(-lepton) channel for $m_{\mathrm SV}$ and
the hadron-hadron\,(-lepton) channel for $m_{\mathrm vis}$ and $m_{\mathrm eff}$.
\begin{table}[t!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c||c|c|}
\hline
& 3pr-had & 3pr-lep & had-had & had-lep \\ \hline
$H$ & 6.3 & 5.7 & 17.2 & 28.5 \\ \hline
$Z$ & 528.8 & 416.5 & 1451.4 & 2036.0 \\ \hline
$Wj$ & 50.5 & 32.4 & 135.3 & 161.9 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ The cross section times efficiency of each process/channel in fb.}
\label{tab:xsec}
\end{center}
\end{table}
In Figure \ref{fig:distros} we compare the signal and background
distributions of our variable $m_{\mathrm{SV}}$ with the existing
variables $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and
$m_{\mathrm{vis}}$. $m_{\mathrm{vis}}$ is simply the invariant mass of
the visible products of both $\tau$ decays, while $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$
includes the missing transverse momentum (an explicit definition may
be found in \cite{Barr:2011he}).
We show results for the lepton-hadron modes and hadron-hadron modes
separately.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/msv_comp_lep.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[ width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/msv_comp_had.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[ width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/mvis_comp_lep.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[ width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/mvis_comp_had.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[ width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/meff_comp_lep.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[ width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/meff_comp_had.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Signal and background distributions of $m_{\mathrm{SV}}$
(top), $m_{\mathrm{vis}}$ (centre) and $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ (bottom), for an integrated
luminosity of 20 fb$^{-1}$ at the 8 TeV LHC, for $m_h =125$
GeV. Left: lepton-hadron modes; right: hadron-hadron modes. \label{fig:distros} }
\end{figure}
The better separation between signal and
backgrounds that we expected to obtain using $m_{\mathrm{SV}}$ is
clear to see in the Figure. Indeed, $m_{\mathrm{vis}}$ has
distributions for the Higgs signal and $Z$ background which are
strongly peaked, but the two peaks sit on top of each
other. $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$
incorporates extra information in the form of the missing transverse
momentum, and slightly increases the separation between the maxima of
the Higgs and $Z$ boson peaks, but at the cost of introducing large
tails (from the smearing of the missing transverse momentum
measurement). As a result, the Higgs signal is easily hidden in the
large tail of the $Z$ background. Moreover, the shapes of all
components become similar, making discrimination difficult when the
overall normalizations are uncertain.
In contrast $m_\mathrm{SV}$ provides
a good separation between the narrow Higgs and $Z$ boson peaks, which appear at the true mass values.
These
peaks are, furthermore, very different in shape from the continuum $W+$
jet background.
To see how well each variable can reconstruct the resonance, we list
the peak location of the each variable's distribution and the input mass of the resonance in
Tables~\ref{tab:bias_had} and \ref{tab:bias_lep} in the hadron-hadron and hadron-lepton modes, respectively.
The pure $Z \to \tau \tau$ and $h \to \tau \tau$ samples with several Higgs masses are used.
The peak location is calculated as the weighed average of the three highest bins.
The error is estimated by using 10 independent samples.
The tables show clearly that $m_\mathrm{SV}$ reconstructs the masses of resonances very well compared to the other variables. Although this correlation is not the basis of our method for mass determination, it helps to separate the signal from the background.
Another remark is that the $S/B$ for the $W+$ jet background is better for $m_\mathrm{SV}$,
as can be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:distros}.
This is because a fraction of the $W+$ jet background events do not produce real solutions.
The fact that the tau mass is much smaller than the typical momentum scale of the reconstructed objects
(jets and leptons) implies that the neutrino momenta are inferred to be very close
to those objects (see e.g. Eq.~(\ref{eq:reconptau})).
However the direction of this inferred momentum tends to conflict with the direction of the observed missing transverse momentum, since the neutrino from the $W$ decay is generally not collimated with respect to those objects, leading to no real solution.
Nevertheless, it is also apparent that the statistics available using
$m_\mathrm{SV}$ are lower than for the other variables, even in the region of maximum signal.
We need, therefore, to make a quantitative comparison of the three variables. To
do so,
we generate distributions of them (for $m_h = 125$ GeV signal and backgrounds) in
ten pseudo-experiments, each corresponding to an integrated
luminosity of 20 fb$^{-1}$ of 8 TeV LHC
data. Each pseudo-experiment is then compared to template model distributions
with different values of $m_h$ and with different normalization
factors $f_h$, $f_W$, and $f_Z$ for the Higgs signal and $W+j$ and $Z$
backgrounds, respectively.
(The values $f_{h,W,Z} =1$ correspond to the leading order Monte-Carlo prediction.)
Allowing the model distribution normalizations to float in this way allows us not only to take into
account some of the most important systematic effects\footnote{
We assume uniform probability distribution functions for $f_{h,W,Z}$ in the likelihood calculation.
In the actual experimental situation, these probabilities are not uniform but localised around $f_{h,W,Z} = 1$
to avoid too large/small values.
In this sense, our treatment of the systematic uncertainty is conservative.
}
(arising from the uncertainties in the luminosity, the Monte-Carlo predictions, and data-driven extrapolations), but also provides a means to measure the
cross-section times branching ratio for Higgs production followed by
decay to $\tau \tau$.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $Z$(91) & $h$(119) & $h$(125) & $h$(131) \\ \hline
$m_{\rm SV}$ & $92.10 \pm 0.01$ & $117.81 \pm 0.73$ & $124.75 \pm 0.75$ & $130.84 \pm 1.00$ \\ \hline
$m_{\rm eff}$ & $89.97 \pm 0.02$ & $110.55 \pm 1.09$ & $115.12 \pm 1.19$ & $115.12 \pm 1.19$ \\ \hline
$m_{\rm vis}$ & $60.27 \pm 0.01$ & $73.87 \pm 0.84$ & $77.82 \pm 1.05$ & $78.42 +- 0.98$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ Peak position vs.~input mass in the hadron-hadron mode.
The numbers in the parentheses are the input mass of the bosons.
Pure background and signal samples are used.
\label{tab:bias_had} }
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $Z$(91) & $h$(119) & $h$(125) & $h$(131) \\ \hline
$m_{\rm SV}$ & $91.54 \pm 0.40$ & $116.12 \pm 0.82$ & $122.15 \pm 0.84$ & $129.33 \pm 0.68$ \\ \hline
$m_{\rm eff}$ & $89.90 \pm 0.02$ & $108.64 \pm 1.12$ & $113.27 \pm 0.96$ & $116.38 \pm 1.20$ \\ \hline
$m_{\rm vis}$ & $59.87 \pm 0.01$ & $70.82 \pm 0.83$ & $73.59 \pm 0.77$ & $75.52 \pm 1.28$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Peak position vs.~input mass in the hadron-lepton mode.
The numbers in the parentheses are the input mass of the bosons.
Pure background and signal samples are used.
\label{tab:bias_lep} }
\end{center}
\label{default}
\end{table}%
We make a cut on the observable of interest itself, so as
to maximize its discovery potential. Roughly
speaking, this cut selects the region that contains the bulk of
the signal events for that observable. Thus we choose
$m_\mathrm{SV} \in [110, 150]$ GeV,
$m_\mathrm{vis} \in [75, 110]$ GeV, and
$m_\mathrm{eff} \in [100, 150]$ GeV.
We then compute, for
each pseudo-experiment, a binned Poisson log-likelihood, $\log \mathcal{L}
= \Sigma_i \log
\mathcal{L}^P\left( n^\mathrm{trial}_i; x_i \right)$,
where $n^\mathrm{trial}_i$ is the number of events observed in
histogram bin $i$ in a given pseudo-experiment and $x_i = x_i (m_h,f_h, f_Z, f_W)$ is the number of events expected in a
given model, parameterized by $m_h,f_h, f_Z, f_W$.
To assess the discovery potential, we then compute the difference in
log-likelihood between models with and without a Higgs signal. In the
model without a signal, we maximize the log-likelihood with respect to
$f_Z,$ and $f_W$, whereas in the model with a signal, we additionally
maximize with respect to $m_h$ and $f_h$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:discovery},
we show $-2$ times the difference in log-likelihood for the three
variables. The centre of each bar shows the mean value over trials,
while the width of each bar gives the root-mean-square deviation over
trials.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/logL_lep.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/logL_had.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Discovery potential using $m_{\mathrm{SV}}$, compared to
$m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{vis}}$, for lepton-hadron (left)
and hadron-hadron (right) modes, for an integrated
luminosity of 20 fb$^{-1}$ at the 8 TeV LHC. The centre of each bar shows the mean value over trials,
while the width of each bar gives the root-mean-square deviation. \label{fig:discovery} }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/logL_lep_fix.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/logL_had_fix.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{
The same as Fig.~2, however $f$s are fixed at 1 in the likelihood calculation.
}
\label{fig:discovery_fix}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/logL_lep_w2.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/logL_had_w2.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{
The same as Fig.~2, however
the analysis uses a $W+j$ background sample which is twice as large as the expected one.
}
\label{fig:discovery_w2}
\end{figure}
We observe a significant improvement using $m_\mathrm{SV}$ in the
hadron-hadron channel, along with a more modest improvement (compared
to $m_\mathrm{vis}$) in the leptonic channel.
The different performances of $m_\mathrm{vis}$ in hadron-lepton and hadron-hadron modes can be understood from the distributions in Fig.~\ref{fig:distros}.
Unlike the hadron-lepton mode, the $m_\mathrm{vis}$ distribution in the hadron-hadron mode shows that both $Z$ and $W+j$ backgrounds as well as the signal have falling shapes in the signal region $m_\mathrm{vis} \in [75, 110]$\,GeV.
This suggests that in the hadron-hadron mode, fitting the signal + background distribution with only the $Z$ and $W+j$ backgrounds by floating $f_Z$ and $f_W$ can be more possible compared to the hadron-lepton mode.
This feature can be seen explicitly in Fig.~\ref{fig:discovery_fix}, which show the same likelihoods as in Fig.~\ref{fig:discovery}
but with the $f$s fixed at 1.
Floating the $f$s brings significant degradation for $m_\mathrm{vis}$ in the hadron-hadron mode.
The absolute values of the discovery significance are
exaggerated, since we have neglected sub-dominant backgrounds and many
uncertainties, but the relative performance of the different variables
should be meaningful.
We have estimated the size of $W + j$ background using the reported tau fake rates in $W + j$ events.
The tau fake rate is generally dependent on the tau identification algorithm and the jet $p_T$.
To check the robustness of our result, in Fig.~\ref{fig:discovery_w2}
we show the same discovery potential plots as Fig.~\ref{fig:discovery}
but containing a $W + j$ background twice as large as the one in Fig.~\ref{fig:discovery}.
The discovery potentials are degraded slightly but the qualitative features are unchanged.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[ width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/mass_fit_lep.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[ width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/mass_fit_had.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The log-likelihood function near $m_h = 125$ GeV obtained
using the $m_{\mathrm{SV}}$,
$m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{vis}}$ distributions, for lepton-hadron (left)
and hadron-hadron (right) modes, for an integrated
luminosity of 20 fb$^{-1}$ at the 8 TeV LHC.\label{fig:mass1} }
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
& $m_{\rm SV}$ & $m_{\rm vis}$ & $m_{\rm eff}$ \\ \hline
had-lep & 4.7 & 11.0 & 23.3 \\ \hline
had-had & 4.7 & 11.8 & 23.1 \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Uncertainty in the Higgs boson mass (in GeV), as measured
$m_{\rm SV}$, $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{vis}}$ distributions, for lepton-hadron
and hadron-hadron modes, for an integrated
luminosity of 20 fb$^{-1}$ at the 8 TeV LHC.\label{tab:mass2} }
\end{center}
\label{default}
\end{table}%
To assess the expected resolution in the Higgs mass measurement, we first show, in Fig.~\ref{fig:mass1}, the variation in
$-2\log\mathcal{L}$, averaged over pseudo-experiments, for values of the model Higgs mass, $m_h$,
in the neighbourhood of 125 GeV, after maximizing $\mathcal{L}$ with respect to
$f_h, f_Z$, and $f_W$. In the figure, we have placed the minimum of
$-2\log\mathcal{L}$
at height zero.
Because the pseudo-experimental data and templates are prepared in the same way, we cannot estimate any biases that might occur when each variable is used to determine the mass from real data. However, for each variable, we can estimate the precision of the mass measurement from a quadratic fit to the log-likelihood.
The resulting fractional uncertainties are shown in Table.~\ref{tab:mass2} and are seen to be much smaller for $m_{\mathrm{SV}}$ than for the other two observables, in both
hadron-hadron and lepton-hadron modes.
This is easily
explained by the fact that the Higgs signal peak is sharpest for $m_{\mathrm{SV}}$.
For the measurement of the product of the production cross section and
the branching ratio for the decay, the procedure is exactly analogous,
except that now we vary $f_h$, after maximizing with respect to
$m_h$. The resulting fit and fractional uncertainties are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmabr1} and Table~\ref{tab:sigmabr}, respectively.
Again, there is always an improvement when using $m_{\mathrm{SV}}$.
For $m_{\mathrm{vis}}$, the difference in resolution between the hadron-lepton and hadron-hadron modes
can be blamed on different shapes in the $W+j$ background in these modes,
as we have discussed earlier in the connection with the different discovery potentials for $m_{\mathrm{vis}}$
between these modes.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[ width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/fs_fit_lep.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{eps_files/fs_fit_had.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The log-likelihood as a function of the signal strength $f_h$, obtained
using the $m_{\mathrm{SV}}$,
$m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{vis}}$ distributions, for lepton-hadron (left)
and hadron-hadron (right) modes, for an integrated
luminosity of 20 fb$^{-1}$ at the 8 TeV LHC. $f_h=1$ corresponds to
the truth value. \label{fig:sigmabr1} }
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
& $m_{\rm SV}$ & $m_{\rm vis}$ & $m_{\rm eff}$ \\ \hline
had-lep & 0.33 & 0.44 & 0.65 \\ \hline
had-had & 0.32 & 0.93 & 0.73 \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Resolution for measurement of the production cross section times
branching ratio
for $pp \rightarrow h \rightarrow \tau \tau$ normalized by the leading order prediction
using $m_{\mathrm{SV}}$, compared to
$m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{vis}}$, for lepton-hadron (left)
and hadron-hadron (right) modes, for an integrated
luminosity of 20 fb$^{-1}$ at the 8 TeV LHC.\label{tab:sigmabr}}
\end{center}
\label{default}
\end{table}%
\section{Conclusions \label{sec:conclusions}}
As shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:discovery}-\ref{fig:sigmabr1} and Tables~\ref{tab:mass2}-\ref{tab:sigmabr}, our
simulations suggest that a significant improvement in discovery
potential, Higgs boson mass resolution, and measurement of production
cross section times branching ratio can be obtained by focussing on
3-prong $\tau$ decays. The performance of $m_{\mathrm{SV}}$ is
roughly comparable irrespective of whether the other $\tau$ meson decays leptonically or
hadronically, leading to greater gains in the hadron-hadron
channel, where the other observables perform more poorly.
One possible reason for this is that
the detector resolution is invariably poorer in this channel, in which final-state leptons are replaced by jets.
Thus the performance of $m_{\mathrm{vis}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is degraded.
However, these events are also
fully reconstructible using the vertex information, in the absence of smearing. As a result,
the likelihood that
defines the observable
$m_{\mathrm{SV}}$ is able to correct for the extra smearing to a certain extent, by insisting that the
unsmeared quantites consistently reconstruct the event.
The gains are greatest for the mass measurement, which is perhaps not
surprising since our method provides a means to reconstruct the mass
whilst partially correcting for the uncertainties that are introduced by
the detector resolution.
The results of our simulations are encouraging, but they should be
taken with a pinch of salt. The simulations themselves are rudimentary, and we have only performed a comparison
with the basic variables $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and
$m_{\mathrm{vis}}$. Both collaborations now employ more sophisticated
likelihood-based analyses. Unfortunately the full details of these
have not been made public, so it is difficult for us to make a fair
comparison.
CMS do say that their likelihood method gives a Higgs mass resolution of around 21$\%$ compared to 24$\%$ using mvis \cite{Chatrchyan:2011nx}.
We have also not made a full study of the
backgrounds, of which many are relevant for this search. However, the two backgrounds we did consider are very different in their
nature (one being a genuine, resonant background and the other being a
fake, continuum background). We hope therefore, that the other
backgrounds will be similar to one or other of these in their
behaviour. The recent CMS results suggest, moreover, that our two
backgrounds are the dominant ones in the
signal region in most of the $\tau \tau$ sub-channels (along with pure
jets, which we expect to be similar to $W+$jets).
Finally, we have only considered the most obvious systematic effect,
namely the uncertainty associated with the normalization of the signal
and backgrounds. Nevertheless, our qualtitative argument that a better
mass reconstruction gives a better separation between the signal and the
different backgrounds, means that many systematic uncertainties are expected
to be reduced.
We hope, at least, that our qualitative arguments and quantitative
simulations are enough to convince the collaborations to explore the
suitability of this method.
Even if it then turns out that a significant improvement is not obtained using our method
alone, we remark that an overall improvement can still be expected if it is combined
with existing approaches. Our method is complementary and, as is clear
from Fig~\ref{fig:correlation}, the observable we extract is not
strongly correlated with the existing variables $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$
and $m_{\mathrm{vis}}$.
It thus provides independent information and may be used to increase
the significance of searches in the $\tau \tau$ channel.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{eps_files/msv_vs_mvis_lep.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{eps_files/msv_vs_meff_lep.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{eps_files/mvis_vs_meff_lep.eps}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{3mm}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{eps_files/msv_vs_mvis_had.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{eps_files/msv_vs_meff_had.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{eps_files/mvis_vs_meff_had.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Correlation between $m_{\mathrm{SV}}$,
$m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{vis}}$, for the Higgs signal, for lepton-hadron (left)
and hadron-hadron (right) modes.\label{fig:correlation}}
\end{figure}
Our simulations apply to the current 8 TeV run and our hope is that
application of our method to data being produced now will allow us to
clear up the mystery of the observed deficit of $h \rightarrow \tau
\tau$ decays. Nevertheless, we expect our
method to become even more relevant in the subsequent stages of the
LHC programme. For one thing, the method is limited by statistics,
but gains in reducing systematic uncertainties. It is the
latter that will
limit our ultimate ability to make precision measurements of the Higgs
sector at the LHC. What is more, both
ATLAS and CMS are planning upgrades or replacements of their vertex detectors, with an
improvement of a factor of a few expected in the vertex
resolution. The associated improvement in the $\tau \tau$ mass
reconstruction using our method should reduce the uncertainties even further.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
BMG thanks A.~Barr, M.~Klute, M.~Mulders, A.~de Roeck and the
Cambridge SUSY working group for discussions. He also acknowledges the
support of King's College, Cambridge and thanks Perimeter Institute
and the CERN Theory Group for hospitality.
This work is in part supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture (MEXT), Japan (Nos. 22540300, 23104005 for MN) and World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan.
KS thanks K. Rolbiecki for helpful discussions.
BW acknowledges the support of a Leverhulme Trust Emeritus Fellowship,
and thanks IPMU, the CERN Theory Group, the CCPP at New York
University, the Galileo Galilei Institute and the Pauli Institute at ETH/University of Zurich
for hospitality. He also thanks the INFN and the Pauli Institute for support during
parts of this work.
|
\section{Introduction}
Over the past decade, nonparametric Bayesian models have gained remarkable popularity in machine learning and other fields, partly owing to their desirable utility as a ``nonparametric" prior distribution for a wide variety of probabilistic models, thereby turning the largely heuristic model selection practice, such as determining the unknown number of components in a mixture model~\citep{Antoniak:74} or the unknown dimensionality of latent features in a factor analysis model~\citep{Griffiths:tr05}, as a Bayesian inference problem in an unbounded model space. Popular examples include Gaussian process (GP)~\citep{Rasmussen:02}, Dirichlet process (DP)~\citep{Ferguson:73,Antoniak:74}, and Beta process (BP)~\citep{Thibaux:beta07}. DP is often described with a Chinese restaurant process (CRP) metaphor, and similarly BP is often described with an Indian buffet process (IBP) metaphor~\citep{Griffiths:tr05}.
Such nonparametric Bayesian approaches allow the model complexity to grow as more data are observed, which is a key factor differing them from other traditional ``parametric" Bayesian models.
One recent development in practicing Bayesian nonparametrics is to relax some unrealistic assumptions on data, such as homogeneity and exchangeability. For example, to handle heterogenous observations, predictor-dependent processes~\citep{MacEachern99,Williamson:10} have been proposed; and to relax the exchangeability assumption, stochastic processes with various correlation structures, such as hierarchical structures~\citep{YWTeh:jasa06}, temporal or spatial dependencies~\citep{Beal:iHMM07,Blei:icml10}, and stochastic ordering dependencies~\citep{Hoff:03,Dunson:07}, have been introduced. A common principle shared by these approaches is that they rely on defining, or in some unusual cases learning~\citep{Welling:ITA12} a nonparametric Bayesian prior\footnote{Although likelihood is another dimension that can incorporate domain knowledge, existing work on Bayesian nonparametrics has been mainly focusing on the priors. Following this convention, this paper assumes that a common likelihood model (e.g., Gaussian likelihood for continuous data) is given.} encoding some special structures, which {\it indirectly}\footnote{A hard constraint on the prior (e.g., a truncated Gaussian) can directly affect the support of the posterior. RegBayes covers this as a special case as shown in Remark~\ref{remarkPriorConstraint}.} influences the posterior distribution of interest through an interplay with a likelihood model according to the Bayes' rule (also known as Bayes' theorem). In this paper, we explore a different principle known as {\it posterior regularization}, which offers an additional and arguably richer and more flexible set of means to augment a posterior distribution under rich side information, such as predictive margin, structural bias, etc., which can be harder, if possible, to be captured by a Bayesian prior.
Let $\Theta$ denote model parameters and $H$ denote hidden variables. Then given a set of observed data $\mathcal{D}$, posterior regularization~\citep{Taskar:postreg10} is generally defined as solving a regularized maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) problem:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:posterior-regularization}
{\bf Posterior~Regularization}:~~\max_\Theta \mathcal{L}(\Theta; \mathcal{D}) + \Omega( p(H | \mathcal{D}, \Theta) ),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{L}(\Theta; \mathcal{D})$ is the marginal likelihood of $\mathcal{D}$, and $\Omega(\cdot)$ is a regularization function of the model posterior over latent variables (note that here we view posterior as a generic post-data distribution on hidden variables in the sense of \citep[pp.15]{Ghosh:book2003}, not necessarily corresponding to a Bayesian posterior that must be induced by the Bayes' rule).
The regularizer can be defined as a KL-divergence between a desired distribution with certain properties over latent variables and the model posterior in question, or other constraints on the model posterior, such as those used in generalized expectation~\citep{McCallum:jmlr10} or constraint-driven semi-supervised learning~\citep{Chang:07}.
An EM-type procedure can be applied to solve Eq.~(\ref{eq:posterior-regularization}) approximately, and obtain an augmented MLE of the hidden variable model: $p(H | \mathcal{D}, \Theta_{\rm MLE}$). When a distribution over the model parameter is of interest, going beyond the classical Bayesian theory, recent attempts toward learning a regularized posterior distribution of model parameters (and latent variables as well if present) include the ``learning from measurements"~\citep{Liang:ICML09}, maximum entropy discrimination (MED)~\citep{Jaakkola:99,Zhu:jmlr09} and maximum entropy discrimination latent Dirichlet allocation (MedLDA)~\citep{Zhu:MedLDA09}.
All these methods are parametric in that they give rise to distributions over a fixed and finite-dimensional parameter space. To the best of our knowledge, very few attempts have been made to impose posterior regularization in a nonparametric setting where model complexity depends on data, such as the case for nonparametric Bayesian latent variable models. A general formalism for (parametric and nonparametric) Bayesian inference with posterior regularization seems to be not yet available or apparent. In this paper, we present such a formalism, which we call {\it regularized Bayesian inference}, or RegBayes, built on the convex duality theory over distribution function spaces; and we apply this formalism to learn regularized posteriors under the Indian buffet process (IBP), conjoining two powerful machine learning paradigms, nonparametric Bayesian inference and SVM-style max-margin constrained optimization.
Unlike the regularized MLE formulation in Eq.~(\ref{eq:posterior-regularization}), under the traditional formulation of Bayesian inference one is not directly optimizing an objective with respect to the posterior. To enable a regularized optimization formulation of RegBayes, we begin with a variational reformulation of the Bayes' theorem, and define $\mathcal{L}( q(\mathbf{M} | \mathcal{D}) )$ as the KL-divergence between a desired post-data posterior $q(\mathbf{M}|\mathcal{D})$ over model $\mathbf{M}$ and the standard Bayesian posterior $p(\mathbf{M}|\mathcal{D})$ (see Section~\ref{sec:Bayes-As-Optimization} for a recapitulation of the connection between KL-minimization and Bayes' theorem). RegBayes solves the following optimization problem:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:RegBayes-Generic}
{\bf RegBayes}:~~\inf_{q(\mathbf{M}|\mathcal{D}) \in \mathcal{P}_{\textrm{prob}} } \mathcal{L}(q(\mathbf{M}|\mathcal{D})) + \Omega( q(\mathbf{M}|\mathcal{D}) ),
\end{eqnarray}
where the regularization $\Omega(\cdot)$ is a function of the post-data posterior $q(\mathbf{M}|\mathcal{D})$, and $\mathcal{P}_{\textrm{prob}}$ is the feasible space of well-defined distributions. By appropriately defining the model and its prior distribution, RegBayes can be instantiated to perform either parametric and nonparametric regularized Bayesian inference.
One particularly interesting way to derive the posterior regularization is to impose posterior constraints. Let $\boldsymbol \xi$ denote slack variables and $\mathcal{P}_{\textrm{post}}(\boldsymbol \xi)$ denote the general soft posterior constraints (see Section 3.2 for a formal description), then, we can express the regularization term variationally:
\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:RegBayes-VarReg}
\Omega( q(\mathbf{M}|\mathcal{D}) ) = \inf_{\boldsymbol \xi}~ U(\boldsymbol \xi) ,~~\textrm{s.t.:}~ q( \mathbf{M}|\mathcal{D} ) \in \mathcal{P}_{\textrm{post}}(\boldsymbol \xi),
\end{eqnarray}
{where $U(\boldsymbol \xi)$ is normally defined as a convex penalty function}. The RegBayes formalism defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:RegBayes-Generic}) applies to a wide spectrum of models, including directed graphical models (i.e., Bayesian networks) and undirected Markov networks. For undirected models, when performing Bayesian inference the resulting posterior takes the form of a hybrid chain graphical model~\citep{Frydenberg:90}~\citep{Murray:UAI04,AlanQi:05,Welling:UAI06}, which is usually much more challenging to regularize than for Bayesian inference with directed GMs. When the regularization term is convex and induced from a linear operator (e.g., expectation) of the posterior distributions, RegBayes can be solved with convex analysis theory.
By allowing direct regularization over posterior distributions, RegBayes provides a significant source of extra flexibility for post-data posterior inference, which applies to both parametric and nonparametric Bayesian learning (see the remarks after the main Theorem~\ref{lemma:RegBayes}). In this paper, we focus on applying this technique to the later case, and illustrate how to use RegBayes to facilitate integration of Bayesian nonparametrics and large-margin learning, which have complementary advantages but have been largely treated as two disjoint subfields. Previously, it has been shown that, the core ideas of support vector machines~\citep{Vapnik:95} and maximum entropy discrimination~\citep{Jaakkola:99}, as well as their structured extensions to the max-margin Markov networks~\citep{Taskar:03} and maximum entropy discrimination Markov networks~\citep{Zhu:jmlr09}, have led to successful outcomes in many scenarios. But a large-margin model rarely has the flexibility of nonparametric Bayesian models to automatically handle model complexity from data, especially when latent variables are present~\citep{Jebara:thesis,Zhu:MedLDA09}. In this paper, we intend to bridge this gap using the RegBayes principle.
Specifically, we develop the {\it infinite latent support vector machines} (iLSVM) and {\it multi-task infinite latent support vector machines} (MT-iLSVM), which explore the discriminative large-margin idea to learn infinite latent feature models for classification and multi-task learning~\citep{Argyriou:nips07,Bakker:JMLR03}, respectively.
We show that both models can be readily instantiated from the RegBayes master equation~(\ref{eq:RegBayes-Generic}) by defining appropriate posterior regularization using the large-margin principle, and by employing an appropriate prior. For iLSVM, we use the IBP prior to allow the model to have an unbounded number of latent features {\it a priori}. For MT-iLSVM, we use a similar IBP prior to infer a latent projection matrix to capture the correlations among multiple predictive tasks while avoiding pre-specifying the dimensionality of the projection matrix. The regularized inference problems can be efficiently solved with an iterative procedure, which leverages existing high-performance convex optimization techniques.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses related work. Section 3 presents regularized Bayesian inference (RegBayes), together with the convex duality results that will be needed in latter sections. Section 4 concretizes the ideas of RegBayes and presents two infinite latent feature models with large-margin constraints for both classification and multi-task learning. Section 5 presents some preliminary experimental results. Finally, Section 6 concludes and discusses future research directions.
\section{Related Work}
\iffalse
\ericx{This paragraph is unnecessary.}
Bayesian inference is one of the most successful paradigms to model uncertainty of empirical data arising in scientific and engineering domains. Bishop~\citep{Bishop:PRML06} discusses many popular examples in his seminal book, but the book mainly focuses on finite parametric models. Recently, nonparametric Bayesian inference has attracted much attention in statistics and machine learning, and many proposals have been made towards developing a full Bayesian treatment of much richer forms of objects, such as sequential data, grouped data, data with a tree structure and relational data. Gershman and Blei~\citep{Gershman:tutorial11} presents a nice tutorial on this subject.
\fi
Expectation regularization or expectation constraints have been considered to regularize model parameter estimation in the context of semi-supervised learning or learning with weakly labeled data. Mann and McCallum~\citep{McCallum:jmlr10} summarized the recent developments of the generalized expectation (GE) criteria for training a discriminative probabilistic model (e.g., maximum entropy models or conditional random fields~\citep{Lafferty:01}) with unlabeled data. By providing appropriate side information, such as labeled features or estimates of label distributions, a GE-based penalty function is defined to regularize the model distribution, e.g., the distribution of class labels. One commonly used GE function is the KL-divergence between empirical expectation and model expectation of some feature functions if the expectations are normalized or the general Bregman divergence for unnormalized expectations.
Although the GE criteria can be used alone as a scoring function to estimate the unknown parameters of a discriminative model, it is more usually used as a regularization term to an estimation method, such as maximum (conditional) likelihood estimation. Bellare et al.~\citep{McCallum:uai09} presented a different formulation of using expectation constraints in semi-supervised learning by introducing an auxiliary distribution to GE,
together with an alternating projection algorithm, which can be more efficient. Liang et al.~\citep{Liang:ICML09} proposed to use the general notion of ``measurements" to encapsulate the variety of weakly labeled data for learning exponential family models. The measurements can be labels, partial labels or other constraints on model predictions. Under the EM framework, posterior constraints were used in~\citep{Taskar:nips07} to modify the E-step of an EM algorithm to project model posterior distributions onto the subspace of distributions that satisfy a set of auxiliary constraints.
Dudik et al.~\citep{Dudik:07} studied the generalized maximum entropy principle with a rich form of expectation constraints using convex duality theory, where the standard moment matching constraints of maximum entropy are relaxed to inequality constraints. But their analysis was restricted to KL-divergence minimization (maximum entropy is a special case) and the finite dimensional space of observations. Later on, Altun and Smola~\citep{Altun:COLT06} presented a more general duality theory for a family of divergence functions on Banach spaces. We have drawn inspiration from both papers to develop the regularized Bayesian inference framework using convex duality theory.
When using large-margin posterior regularization, RegBayes generalizes the previous work on maximum entropy discrimination~\citep{Jaakkola:99,Zhu:jmlr09}.
The present paper provides a full extension of our preliminary work on max-margin nonparametric Bayesian models~\citep{Zhu:iSVM11,Zhu:iLSVM11}. For example, the infinite SVM (iSVM)~\citep{Zhu:iSVM11} is a latent class model, where each data example is assigned to a single mixture component (i.e., an 1-dimensional space), and both iLSVM and MT-iLSVM extend the ideas to infinite latent feature models. For multi-task learning, nonparametric Bayesian models have been developed in \citep{XueYa:icml07,HalDaume:10} for learning features shared by multiple tasks. However, these methods are based on standard Bayesian inference without a posterior regularization using, for example, the large-margin constraints. Finally, MT-iLSVM can be also regarded as a nonparametric Bayesian formulation of the popular multi-task learning methods~\citep{AndoTong:05,Jebara:jmlr11}.
\section{Regularized Bayesian Inference}\label{sec:RegBayes}
We begin by laying out a general formulation of regularized Bayesian inference, using an optimization framework built on convex duality theory.
\subsection{Variational formulation of Bayes' theorem}\label{sec:Bayes-As-Optimization}
We first derive an optimization-theoretic reformulation of the Bayes' theorem. Let $\mathcal{M}$ denote the space of feasible models, and $\mathbf{M} \in \mathcal{M}$ represents an atom in this space. We assume that $\mathcal{M}$ is a complete separable metric space endowed with its Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{M})$. Let $\Pi$ be a distribution (i.e., a probability measure) on the measurable space $(\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{M}))$. We assume that $\Pi$ is absolutely continuous with respect to some background measure $\mu$, so that there exists a density $\pi$ such that $\mathrm{d} \Pi = \pi \mathrm{d} \mu$.
{Let $\mathcal{D}=\{\mathbf{x}_n \}_{n=1}^N$ be a collection of observed data, which we assume to be i.i.d. given a model.
Let $P( \cdot |\mathbf{M})$ be the likelihood distribution, which is assumed to be dominated by a $\sigma$-finite measure $\lambda$ for all $\mathbf{M}$ with positive density, so that there exists a density $p(\cdot|\mathbf{M})$ such that $\mathrm{d} P(\cdot | \mathbf{M}) = p(\cdot | \mathbf{M}) \mathrm{d} \lambda$. Then, the Bayes' conditionalization rule gives a posterior distribution with the density~\citep[Chap.1.3]{Ghosh:book2003}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:bayesthrm}
p(\mathbf{M}|\mathcal{D}) = \frac{\pi(\mathbf{M}) p(\mathcal{D}|\mathbf{M})}{p(\mathcal{D})} = \frac{\pi(\mathbf{M}) \prod_{n=1}^N p(\mathbf{x}_n|\mathbf{M})}{p(\mathbf{x}_1, \cdots, \mathbf{x}_N)},
\end{eqnarray}
a density over $\mathbf{M}$ with respect to the base measure $\mu$, where $p(\mathcal{D})$ is the marginal likelihood of the observed data.}
For reasons to be clear shortly, we now introduce a variational formulation of the Bayes' theorem.
Let $Q$ are an arbitrary distribution on the measurable space $(\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{M}))$. We assume that $Q$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\Pi$ and denote by $q$ its density with respect to the background measure $\mu$.\footnote{This assumption is necessary to make the $\mathrm{KL}$-divergence between the two distributions $Q$ and $\Pi$ well-defined. This assumption (or constraint) will be implicitly included in $\mathcal{P}_{\textrm{prob}}$ for clarity.}
It can be shown that the posterior distribution of $\mathbf{M}$ due to the Bayes' theorem is equivalent to the optimum solution of the following convex optimization problem:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:BasicMaxEnt}
\inf_{q(\mathbf{M})} && \mathrm{KL}(q(\mathbf{M}) \Vert \pi(\mathbf{M})) - \int_{\mathcal{M}} \log p(\mathcal{D}|\mathbf{M}) q(\mathbf{M}) \mathrm{d} \mu(\mathbf{M}) \\
\mathrm{s.t.:} && q(\mathbf{M}) \in \mathcal{P}_{\textrm{prob}}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathrm{KL}(q(\mathbf{M})\Vert \pi(\mathbf{M})) = \int_\mathcal{M} q(\mathbf{M}) \log (q(\mathbf{M}) / \pi(\mathbf{M})) \mathrm{d} \mu(\mathbf{M})$ is the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence from $q(\cdot)$ to $\pi(\cdot)$, and $\mathcal{P}_{\textrm{prob}}$ represents the feasible space of all density functions over $\mathbf{M}$ {with respect to the measure $\mu$}.
The proof is straightforward by noticing that the objective will become $\mathrm{KL}(q(\mathbf{M}) \Vert p(\mathbf{M}|\mathcal{D}))$ by adding the constant $\log p(\mathcal{D})$. It is noteworthy that $q(\mathbf{M})$ here represents the density of a general post-data posterior distribution in the sense of \citep[pp.15]{Ghosh:book2003}, not necessarily corresponding to a Bayesian posterior that is induced by the Bayes' rule. {As we shall see soon later, when we introduce additional constraints, the post-data posterior $q(\mathbf{M})$ is different from the Bayesian posterior $p(\mathbf{M}|\mathcal{D})$, and moreover, it could even not be obtainable from any Bayesian conditionalization in a different model}. In the sequel, in order to distinguish $q(\cdot)$ from the Bayesian posterior, we will call it post-data distribution\footnote{Rigorously, $q(\cdot)$ is the density of the post-data posterior distribution $Q(\cdot)$. We simply call $q$ a distribution if no confusion arises.} in short or post-data posterior distribution in full. For notation simplicity, we have omitted the condition $\mathcal{D}$ in the post-data posterior distribution $q(\mathbf{M})$.
\begin{remark}
The optimization formulation in~(\ref{eq:BasicMaxEnt}) implies that Bayes' rule is an information projection procedure that projects a prior density to a post-data posterior by taking account of the observed data. In general, Bayes's rule is a special case of the principle of minimum information~\citep{Williams:BayesCond1980}.
\end{remark}
\iffalse
Typically, the model space is a parameter space if we assume a parametric model. We are mainly interested in the Bayesian inference with latent variables. The above results generalize to this setting. Let $H$ be a set of random variables and $\mathbb{H}$ be the set of possible values. Then, the above results can be applied by defining a conditional distribution $p(x|h)$, where $x$ is the observed part. For latent class models, such as Gaussian mixture models, each hidden variable $H$ represents the latent class label for an input data $x$. For latent feature models, such as Indian Buffet process (IBP), $H$ represents the unbounded number of features associated with each input data $x$.
\fi
\subsection{Regularized Bayesian Inference with Expectation Constraints}\label{sec:regBayes}
{In the variational formulation of Bayes' rule in Eq. (\ref{eq:BasicMaxEnt}), the constraints on $q(\mathbf{M})$ ensure that $q$ is well-normalized and the objective is well-defined, i.e., $q(\mathbf{M}) \in \mathcal{P}_{\textrm{prob}}$, which do not capture any domain knowledge or structures of the model or data. Some previous efforts have been devoted to eliciting domain knowledge by constraining the prior or the base measure $\mu$~\citep{Christian:1995,Garthwaite:jasa05}. As we shall see, such constraints without considering data are special cases of RegBayes to be presented.}
Specifically, the optimization-based formulation of Bayes' rule makes it straightforward to generalize Bayesian inference to a richer type of posterior inference, by replacing the standard normality constraint on $q$ with a wide spectrum of knowledge-driven and/or data-driven constraints or regularization. (To contrast, we will refer to the problem in Eq. (\ref{eq:BasicMaxEnt}) as ``unconstrained" or ``unregularized".) Formally, we define {\it regularized Bayesian inference} (RegBayes) as a generalized posterior inference procedure that solves a constrained optimization problem due to such additional regularization imposed on $q$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:constraindBayes}
\inf_{q(\mathbf{M}), \boldsymbol \xi} && \mathrm{KL}(q(\mathbf{M}) \Vert \pi(\mathbf{M})) - \int_{\mathcal{M}} \log p(\mathcal{D}|\mathbf{M}) q(\mathbf{M}) \mathrm{d} \mu(\mathbf{M}) + U(\boldsymbol \xi) \\
\mathrm{s.t.:} && q(\mathbf{M}) \in \mathcal{P}_{\textrm{post}}(\boldsymbol \xi), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\mathcal{P}_{\textrm{post}}(\boldsymbol \xi)$ is a subspace of distributions that satisfy a set of additional constraints besides the standard normality constraint of a probability distribution. Using the variational formulation in Eq. (\ref{eq:RegBayes-VarReg}), problem~(\ref{eq:constraindBayes}) can be rewritten in the form of the master equation~(\ref{eq:RegBayes-Generic}), of which the objective is: $\mathcal{L}(q(\mathbf{M})) = \mathrm{KL}(q(\mathbf{M}) \Vert \pi(\mathbf{M})) - \int_{\mathcal{M}} \log p(\mathcal{D}|\mathbf{M}) q(\mathbf{M}) \mathrm{d} \mu(\mathbf{M}) = \mathrm{KL}( q(\mathbf{M}) \Vert p(\mathbf{M}, \mathcal{D}))$ and the posterior regularization is $\Omega(q(\mathbf{M})) = \inf_{\boldsymbol \xi}~ U(\boldsymbol \xi) ,~\textrm{s.t.:}~ q( \mathbf{M}|\mathcal{D} ) \in \mathcal{P}_{\textrm{post}}(\boldsymbol \xi)$. {Note that when $\mathcal{D}$ is given, the distribution $p(\mathbf{M}, \mathcal{D})$ is unnormalized for $\mathbf{M}$; and we have abused the KL notation for unnormalized distributions in $\mathrm{KL}( q(\mathbf{M}) \Vert p(\mathbf{M}, \mathcal{D}))$, but with the same formula.}
\begin{figure*}\vspace{-.2cm
\begin{center}
{\hfill\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.25\columnwidth]{fig/constraints_hard.eps}\label{fig:HardConstraints}}\hfill
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=.25\columnwidth]{fig/constraints_soft.eps}\label{fig:SoftConstraints}}\hfill}\vspace{-.2cm}
\caption{Illustration for the (a) hard and (b) soft constraints in the simple setting which has only three possible models. For hard constraints, we have only one feasible subspace. In contrast, we have many (normally infinite for continuous $\boldsymbol \xi$) feasible subspaces for soft constraints and each of them is associated with a different complexity or penalty, measured by the $U$ function.}
\end{center}\vspace{-.3cm}
\end{figure*}
Obviously this formulation enables different types of constraints to be employed in practice. In this paper, we focus on the {\it expectation constraints}, of which each one is a function of $q(\mathbf{M})$ through an expectation operator. For instance, let $\boldsymbol \psi = (\psi_1, \cdots, \psi_T)$ be a vector of feature functions, each of which is $\psi_t(\mathbf{M}; \mathcal{D})$ defined on $\mathbf{M}$ and possibly data dependent. Then a subspace of feasible post-data distributions can be defined in the following form:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ExpConstraint}
\mathcal{P}_{\textrm{post}}(\boldsymbol \xi) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \Big\{ q(\mathbf{M}) | ~ \forall t=1,\cdots, T, ~h\big(E q( \psi_t; \mathcal{D} ) \big) \leq \xi_t \Big\} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $E$ is the expectation operator that maps $q(\mathbf{M})$ to a point in the space $\mathbb{R}^T$, and for each feature function $\psi_t$:~$E q (\psi_t; \mathcal{D}) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \mathbb{E}_{ q(\mathbf{M})}[ \psi_t(\mathbf{M}; \mathcal{D})]$. The function $h$ can be of any form in theory, though a simple $h$ function will make the optimization problem easy to solve.
The auxiliary parameters $\boldsymbol \xi$ are usually nonnegative and interpreted as slack variables. The constraints with non-trivial $\boldsymbol \xi$ are soft constraints as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:SoftConstraints}. But we emphasize that by defining $U$ as an indicator function, the formulation (\ref{eq:constraindBayes}) covers the case where hard constraints are imposed. For instance, if we define $$U(\boldsymbol \xi) = \sum_{t=1}^T {\mathbb I}(\xi_t = \gamma_t) = {\mathbb I}(\boldsymbol \xi = \boldsymbol \gamma),$$ where ${\mathbb I}(c)$ is an indicator function that equals to $0$ if the condition $c$ is satisfied; otherwise $\infty$, then all the expectation constraints (\ref{eq:ExpConstraint}) are hard constraints. As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:HardConstraints}, hard constraints define one single feasible subspace (assuming to be non-empty). In general, we assume that $U(\boldsymbol \xi)$ is a convex function, which represents a penalty on the size of the feasible subspaces, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:SoftConstraints}. A larger subspace typically leads to models with a higher complexity. In the classification models to be presented, $U$ corresponds to a surrogate loss, e.g., hinge loss of a prediction rule, as we shall see.
Similarly, the formulation of RegBayes with expectation constraints~(\ref{eq:ExpConstraint}) can be equivalently written in an ``unconstrained" form by using the rule in (\ref{eq:RegBayes-VarReg}). Specifically, let $g(E q( \boldsymbol \psi; \mathcal{D} ) ) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \inf_{\boldsymbol \xi} U(\boldsymbol \xi),~\textrm{s.t.}:~ h(Eq (\psi_t; \mathcal{D}) ) \leq \xi_t,~\forall t $, we have the equivalent optimization problem:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:constraindBayes2}
\inf_{q(\mathbf{M}) \in \mathcal{P}_{\textrm{prob}}} && \mathrm{KL}(q(\mathbf{M}) \Vert \pi(\mathbf{M})) - \int_{\mathcal{M}} \log p(\mathcal{D}|\mathbf{M}) q(\mathbf{M}) \mathrm{d} \mu(\mathbf{M}) + g( E q(\boldsymbol \psi; \mathcal{D} ) ),
\end{eqnarray}
where $E q(\boldsymbol \psi; \mathcal{D} )$ is a point in $\mathbb{R}^T$ and the $t$-th coordinate is $E q(\psi_t; \mathcal{D})$, a function of $q(\mathbf{M})$ as defined before.
We assume that the real-valued function $g:~\mathbb{R}^T \to \mathbb{R}$ is convex and lower semi-continuous. For each $U$, we can induce a $g$ function by taking the infimum of $U(\boldsymbol \xi)$ over $\boldsymbol \xi$ with the posterior constraints; vice versa.
If we use hard constraints, similar as in regularized maximum entropy density estimation~\citep{Altun:COLT06,Dudik:07}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
g(Eq) = \sum_{t=1}^T {\mathbb I}(h(E q( \psi_t; \mathcal{D} )) \leq \gamma_t).
\end{eqnarray}
For the regularization function $g$, as well as $U$, we can have many choices, besides the above mentioned indicator function. For example, if the feature function $\psi_t$ is an indicator function and we could obtain `prior' expectations $\mathbb{E}_{\tilde{p}}[\psi_t]$ from domain/expert knowledge about $\mathbf{M}$. {If we further normalize the empirical expectations of $T$ functions and denote the discrete distribution by $\tilde{p}(\mathbf{M})$, one natural regularization function would be the KL-divergence between prior expectations and the expectations computed from the normalized model posterior $q(\mathbf{M})$,
i.e., $g(Eq) = \sum_t s(\mathbb{E}_{\tilde{p}}[\psi_t], Eq(\psi_t)) = \mathrm{KL}(\tilde{p}(\mathbf{M}) \Vert q(\mathbf{M}) )$, where $s(x,y) = x \log(x/y)$ for $x,y \in (0,1)$. The general Bregman divergence can be used for unnormalized expectations.} This kind of regularization function has been used in~\citep{McCallum:jmlr10} for label regularization, in the context of semi-supervised learning. Other choices of the regularization function include the $\ell_2^2$ penalty or indicator function with equality constraints (Please see Table 1 in~\citep{Dudik:07} for a summary).
\begin{remark}
So far, we have focused on RegBayes in the context of full Bayesian inference. Indeed, RegBayes can be generalized to apply to empirical Bayesian inference, where some model parameters need to be estimated. More generally, RegBayes applies to both directed Bayesian networks (of which the hierarchical Bayesian models we have discussed are an example) and undirected Markov random fields. But for undirected models, a RegBayes treatment will have to deal with a chain graph resultant from Bayesian inference, which is more challenging due to existence of normalization factors. We will discuss some details and examples in Appendix A.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Optimization with Convex Duality Theory}
\iffalse
Depending on several factors, including the data likelihood model, the prior and the regularization function, a RegBayes problem in general is highly non-trivial to solve, either in the constrained or unconstrained form. Furthermore, as we have discussed, if $\Theta$ is non-empty \ericx{Here, $\Theta$ suddenly change from parameter to a set!!! and later, it changes back again to parameter. Please fix.}, the problem is not joint convex, and we need to resort to an iterative procedure. For example, an EM procedure to solve the unconstrained form could be that we iteratively solve for $q(\mathbf{M})$ with $\Theta$ fixed; and solve for $\Theta$ with $q(\mathbf{M})$ given. The second step can be solved with numerical methods, such as gradient descent. Below, we focus on solving the first step, which is also the whole RegBayes problem for a full Bayesian model (i.e., $\Theta$ is null). We know that the first step is convex if $U$ and $g$ are convex.
In this section, we present some results of convex analysis theory to deal with the convex RegBayes problem~(\ref{eq:constraindBayes2}) with expectation regularization or the first step of the iterative procedure that solves problem~(\ref{eq:constraindBayes_param}).
\fi
Depending on several factors, including the size of the model space, the data likelihood model, the prior distribution, and the regularization function, a RegBayes problem in general can be highly non-trivial to solve, either in the constrained or unconstrained form, as can be seen from several concrete examples of RegBayes models we will present in the next section and in the Appendix B.
In this section, we present a representation theorem to characterize the solution the convex RegBayes problem~(\ref{eq:constraindBayes2}) with expectation regularization. {These theoretical results will be used later in developing concrete RegBayes models}.
\iffalse
In above definitions, we have only assumed that the $U$ function is convex. The convexity is a nice property for developing efficient algorithms. Here we restrict us to expectation constraints, which have been widely used in posterior regularization \citep{x} and many other works.
Let $\boldsymbol \phi = \{\phi_1, \cdots, \phi_L\}$ be a vector of feature functions that are defined on (part of) the model $\mathbf{M}$: $\phi_l:~\mathbb{M} \to \mathbb{R}$. Expectation is a linear operator $A$ from the distribution space $\mathcal{P}_{\textrm{prob}}$ to $\mathbb{R}^L$, both are Banach spaces. In other words, $Ap \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{M} \sim p}[\boldsymbol \phi(\mathbf{M})]$. The regularized Bayesian inference problem can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:constraindBayes_linear}
\min_{p(\mathbf{M}) \in \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{post}}} f(p(\mathbf{M})) + g(A p),
\end{eqnarray}
where $f(p(\mathbf{M})) = \mathrm{KL}(p(\mathbf{M})\Vert p(\mathbf{M},\mathcal{D}))$ and $g$ is a convex function induced from the function $U$.
\fi
To make the subsequent statements general, we consider the following problem:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:GeneralProblem}
\inf_{x \in \mathcal{X}} f(x) + g(Ax)
\end{eqnarray}
where $f: \mathcal{X} \to \mathbb{R}$ is a convex function; $A: \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{B}$ is a bounded linear operator; and $g: \mathcal{B} \to \mathbb{R}$ is also convex.
Below we introduce some tools in convex analysis theory to study this problem. We begin by formulating the primal-dual space relationships of convex optimization problems in the general settings, where we assume both $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are Banach spaces\footnote{A Banach space is a vector space with a metric that allows the computation of vector length and distance between vectors. Moreover, a Cauchy sequence of vectors always converges to a well defined limit in the space.}. An important result we build on is the Fenchel duality theorem.
\begin{definition}[Convex Conjugate]
Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a Banach space and $\mathcal{X}^\ast$ be its dual space. The convex conjugate or the Legendre-Frenchel transformation of a function $f:~\mathcal{X} \to [-\infty, +\infty]$ is $f^\ast:~\mathcal{X}^\ast \to [-\infty, +\infty]$, where
\begin{eqnarray}
f^\ast( x^\ast) = \sup_{x \in \mathcal{X}}\{ \langle x^\ast, x \rangle - f(x) \}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}[Fenchel Duality~\citep{Borwein:05}]\label{thrm:FenchelDuality}
Let $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be Banach spaces, $f: \mathcal{X} \to \mathbb{R}\cup \{+\infty\}$ and $g:~\mathcal{B} \to \mathbb{R}\cup \{+\infty\}$ be convex functions and $A:~\mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{B}$ be a bounded linear map. Define the primal and dual values $t, d$ by the Fenchel problems
\begin{eqnarray}
t = \inf_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \{f(x) + g(Ax) \}~and~d = \sup_{x^\ast \in \mathcal{B}^\ast} \{ -f^\ast(A^\ast x^\ast) - g^\ast(-x^\ast) \}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Then these values satisfy the weak duality inequality $t \geq d$. If $f$, $g$ and $A$ satisfy either
\begin{eqnarray}
0 \in \mathrm{core}(\mathrm{dom}g - A\mathrm{dom}f) ~\textrm{and both}~f~\textrm{and}~g~are~lower~semicontinuous~(lsc),
\end{eqnarray}
or
\begin{eqnarray}
A \mathrm{dom}f \cap \mathrm{cont}g \neq \emptyset,
\end{eqnarray}
then $t = d$ and the supremum to the dual problem is attainable if finite.
\end{theorem}
Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a subset of a Banach space $\mathcal{B}$. In the above theorem, we say $s$ is in the {\it core} of $\mathcal{S}$, denoted by $s \in \textrm{core}( \mathcal{S} )$, provided that $\cup_{\lambda > 0} \lambda(\mathcal{S} - s) = \mathcal{B}$.
The Fenchel duality theorem has been applied to solve divergence minimization problems for density estimation~\citep{Altun:COLT06,Dudik:07}.
\iffalse
, as summarized below.
\begin{lemma}[Fenchel Duality with Constraints~\citep{Altun:COLT06}]
In addition to the assumption of Theorem~\ref{thrm:FenchelDuality}, let $b \in \mathcal{B}$ and $\epsilon > 0$. Define $t$ and $d$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
t = \inf_{x \in \mathcal{X}}\{ f(x)~\textrm{s.t.}~\Vert Ax - b \Vert_{\mathcal{B}} \leq \epsilon \}~and~d= \sup_{x^\ast \in \mathcal{B}^\ast} \{ -f^\ast(A^\ast x^\ast) + \langle b, x^\ast \rangle - \epsilon \Vert x^\ast \Vert_{B^\ast} \} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Suppose $f$ is lower semi-continuous and that for $B \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \{\bar{b} \in \mathcal{B}~with \Vert \bar{b} \Vert \leq 1 \}$~the following constraint qualification holds: $$\mathrm{core}(A \mathrm{dom}f) \cap (b + \epsilon \mathrm{int}(B)) \neq \emptyset.$$ In this case $t = d$ with dual attainment.
\end{lemma}
\fi
Let $\boldsymbol \psi \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} (\psi_1, \cdots, \psi_T)$ be a vector of feature functions. {Each feature function is a mapping, $\psi_t: \mathcal{M} \to \mathbb{R}$. Therefore, $\mathcal{B}$ is the product space $\mathbb{R}^T$, a simple Banach space. Let $\mathcal{X}$ be the Banach space of finite signed measures (with total variation as the norm) that are absolutely continuous with respect to the measure $\mu$, and let $A$ be the expectation operator of the feature functions with respect to the distribution $q$ on $\mathcal{M}$, that is, $Aq \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{M} \sim q}[\boldsymbol \psi(\mathbf{M})]$, where $\boldsymbol \psi(\mathbf{M}) = (\psi_1(\mathbf{M}), \cdots, \psi_T(\mathbf{M}))$. Let $\tilde{\boldsymbol \psi}$ be a reference point in $\mathbb{R}^T$. As for density estimation, we have some observations of $\mathbf{M}$ here, and $\tilde{\boldsymbol \psi} = A p_{\textrm{emp}}[ \boldsymbol \psi(\mathbf{M}) ]$, where $p_{\textrm{emp}}$ is the empirical distribution.}
Then, when the $f$ function is a KL-divergence and the constraints are relaxed moment matching constraints, the following result can be proven.
\begin{lemma}[KL-divergence with Constraints \citep{Altun:COLT06}]\label{lemma:KLConstraints}
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \inf_q \Big\{ \mathrm{KL}(q \Vert p)~\mathrm{s.t.}: \Vert \mathbb{E}_q[\boldsymbol \psi] - \tilde{\boldsymbol \psi} \Vert_{\mathcal{B}} \leq \epsilon~and~ q \in \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{prob}} \Big\} \\
= ~ && \sup_{\boldsymbol \phi}\Big\{ \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \tilde{\boldsymbol \psi} \rangle - \log \int_{\mathcal{M}} p(\mathbf{M}) \exp(\langle \boldsymbol \phi, \boldsymbol \psi(\mathbf{M}) \rangle ) \mathrm{d} \mu(\mathbf{M}) - \epsilon \Vert \boldsymbol \phi \Vert_{\mathcal{B}^\ast} \Big\}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the unique solution is given by $\hat{q}_{\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}}(\mathbf{M}) = p(\mathbf{M})\exp(\langle \hat{\boldsymbol \phi}, \boldsymbol \psi(\mathbf{M}) \rangle - \Lambda_{\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}} )$; $\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}$ is the solution of the dual problem; and $\Lambda_{\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}}$ is the log-partition function.
\end{lemma}
Note that for this lemma and the ones to be presented below to hold, the problems need to meet some regularity conditions (or constraint qualifications), such as those in Theorem~\ref{thrm:FenchelDuality}. In practice it can be difficult to check whether the constraint qualifications hold. One solution is to solve the dual optimization problem and examine if the conditions hold depending on whether the solution diverge or not~\citep{Altun:COLT06}.
The problem in the above lemma is subject to hard constraints, therefore the corresponding $g$ is the indicator function ${\mathbb I}(\Vert \mathbb{E}_q[\boldsymbol \psi] - \tilde{\boldsymbol \psi} \Vert_{\mathcal{B}} \leq \epsilon)$ when applying the Fenchel duality theorem. Other examples of the posterior constraints can be found in~\citep{Dudik:07,McCallum:jmlr10,Taskar:postreg10}, as we have discussed in Section~\ref{sec:regBayes}. In this paper, we consider the general soft constraints as defined in the RegBayes problem~(Eq. (\ref{eq:constraindBayes})). Furthermore, we do not assume the existence of a fully observed dataset to compute the empirical expectation $\tilde{\boldsymbol \phi}$. Specifically, following a similar line of reasoning as in~\citep{Altun:COLT06}, though this time with an un-normalized $p$ in $\mathrm{KL}(q\Vert p)$, we have the following result. The detailed proof is deferred to Appendix C.1.
\begin{theorem}[Representation theorem of RegBayes]\label{lemma:RegBayes}
Let $E$ be the expectation operator with feature functions $\boldsymbol \psi(\mathbf{M};\mathcal{D})$, and assume $g$ is convex and lower semicontinuous (lsc). We have
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \inf_{q(\mathbf{M})} \Big\{ \mathrm{KL}(q(\mathbf{M}) \Vert p(\mathbf{M}, \mathcal{D})) + g(Eq)~\mathrm{s.t.}: q(\mathbf{M}) \in \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{prob}} \Big\} \\
= ~ && \sup_{\boldsymbol \phi}\Big\{ - \log \int_{\mathcal{M}} p(\mathbf{M}, \mathcal{D}) \exp(\langle \boldsymbol \phi, \boldsymbol \psi(\mathbf{M};\mathcal{D}) \rangle ) \mathrm{d} \mu(\mathbf{M}) - g^\ast( - \boldsymbol \phi) \Big\}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the unique solution is given by $\hat{q}_{\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}}(\mathbf{M}) = p(\mathbf{M}, \mathcal{D})\exp(\langle \hat{\boldsymbol \phi}, \boldsymbol \psi(\mathbf{M};\mathcal{D}) \rangle - \Lambda_{\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}} )$; and $\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}$ is the solution of the dual problem; and $\Lambda_{\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}}$ is the log-partition function.
\end{theorem}
From the optimum solution $\hat{q}_{\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}}(\mathbf{M})$, we can see that the form of the RegBayes posterior is symbolically similar to that of the Bayesian posterior; but instead of multiplying the likelihood term with a prior distribution, RegBayes introduces an extra term, $\exp(\langle \hat{\boldsymbol \phi}, \boldsymbol \psi(\mathbf{M};\mathcal{D}) \rangle - \Lambda_{\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}} )$, whose coefficients are derived from an constrained optimization problem resultant from the constraints on the posterior. We make the following remarks.
{
\begin{remark}[Putting constraints on priors is a special case of RegBayes]\label{remarkPriorConstraint}
If both the feature function $\boldsymbol \psi(\mathbf{M};\mathcal{D})$ and $\hat{\phi}$ depend on the model $\mathbf{M}$ only, this extra term contributes to define a new prior $\pi^\prime(\mathbf{M}) \propto \pi(\mathbf{M}) \exp(\langle \hat{\boldsymbol \phi}, \boldsymbol \psi(\mathbf{M};\mathcal{D}) \rangle - \Lambda_{\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}} )$. For example, if we constrain the model space to a subset $\mathcal{M}_0 \subset \mathcal{M}$ a priori, this constraint can be incorporated in RegBayes by defining the expectation constraint on $\mathbf{M}$ only. Specifically, define the single feature function $\psi(\mathbf{M})$: $\psi(\mathbf{M}) = 0$ if $\mathbf{M} \in \mathcal{M}_0$, otherwise $1$; and define the simple posterior regularization $g(Eq) = {\mathbb I}(\mathbb{E}_q[ \psi(\mathbf{M}) ] = 0 )$. Then, by Theorem~\ref{lemma:RegBayes},\footnote{We also used the fact that if $f(x) = {\mathbb I}(x = c)$ is an indicator function, its conjugate is $f^\ast(\mu) = c \cdot \mu$.} we have $\hat{\phi} = -\infty$ and $\hat{q}_{\hat{\phi}}(\mathbf{M}) \propto \pi^\prime(\mathbf{M}) p(\mathcal{D}|\mathbf{M}) $, where $\pi^\prime(\mathbf{M}) \propto \pi(\mathbf{M}) {\mathbb I}( \mathbf{M} \in \mathcal{M}_0)$ is the constrained prior. Therefore, such a constraint lets RegBayes cover the widely used truncated priors, such as truncated Gaussian~\citep{Christian:1995}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}[RegBayes is more flexible than Bayes' rule] For the more general case where $\boldsymbol \psi(\mathbf{M};\mathcal{D})$ depends on both $\mathbf{M}$ and $\mathcal{D}$, the term $p(\mathbf{M}, \mathcal{D})\exp(\langle \hat{\boldsymbol \phi}, \boldsymbol \psi(\mathbf{M};\mathcal{D}) \rangle)$ implicitly defines a joint distribution on $(\mathbf{M},\mathcal{D})$ if it has a finite measure. In this case, RegBayes is doing implicit Bayesian conditionalization, that is, the posterior $\hat{q}_{\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}}(\mathbf{M})$ can be obtained through Bayes' rule with some well-defined prior and likelihood. However, it could be that the integral of $p(\mathbf{M}, \mathcal{D})\exp(\langle \hat{\boldsymbol \phi}, \boldsymbol \psi(\mathbf{M};\mathcal{D}) \rangle)$ with respect to $(\mathbf{M}, \mathcal{D})$ is not finite because of the way $\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}$ varies with $\mathcal{D}$,\footnote{Note: this does not affect the well-normalization of the posterior $\hat{q}_{\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}}(\mathbf{M})$ because its integral is taken over $\mathbf{M}$ only, with $\mathcal{D}$ fixed.} in which case there is no implicit prior and likelihood that give back $\hat{q}_{\hat{\boldsymbol \phi}}(\mathbf{M})$ through Bayesian conditionalization. Therefore, RegBayes is more flexible than the standard Bayesian inference, where the prior and likelihood model are explicitly defined, but no additional constraints or regularization can be systematically incorporated. The recent work~\citep{Zhu:RegBayes-icml14} presents an example. Specifically, we show that incorporating domain knowledge via posterior regularization can lead to a flexible framework that automatically learns the importance of each piece of knowledge, thereby allowing for a robust incorporation, which is important in the scenarios where noisy knowledge is collected from crowds. In contrast, eliciting expert knowledge via fitting some priors is generally hard, especially in high-dimensional spaces, as experts are normally good at perceiving low-dimensional and well-behaved distributions but can be very bad in perceiving high-dimensional or skewed distributions~\citep{Garthwaite:jasa05}.
\end{remark}}
It is worth mentioning that although the above theorem provides a generic representation of the solution to RegBayes, in practice we usually need to make additional assumptions in order to make either the primal or dual problem tractable to solve. Since such assumptions could make the feasible space non-convex, additional cautions need to be paid. For instance, the mean-field assumptions will lead to a non-convex feasible space~\citep{Wainwright:book08}, and we can only apply the convex analysis theory to deal with convex sub-problems within an EM-type procedure. More concrete examples will be provided later along the developments of various models. We should also note that the modeling flexibility of RegBayes comes with risks. For example, it might lead to inconsistent posteriors~\citep{Barron:99,Choi:08}. This paper focuses on presenting several practical instances of RegBayes and we leave a systematic analysis of the Bayesian asymptotic properties (e.g., posterior consistency and convergence rates) for future work.
Now, we derive the conjugate functions of three examples which will be used shortly for developing the infinite latent SVM models we have intended. We defer the proof to Appendix C.
Specifically, the first one is the conjugate of a simple function, which will be used in a binary latent SVM classification model.
\begin{lemma}\label{proposition:ConjugateBinaryFunc}
Let $g_0: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ be defined as $g_0(x) = C \max(0, x)$. Then, we have $$g_0^\ast(\mu) = {\mathbb I}(0 \leq \mu \leq C).$$
\end{lemma}
\iffalse
\begin{proof}
By definition, $g_0^\ast(\mu) = \sup_{x \in \mathbb{R}}(x\mu - C\max(0, x))$. We consider two cases. First, if $\mu < 0$, we have
$$g_0^\ast(\mu) \geq \sup_{x < 0}(x \mu - C\max(0,x)) = \sup_{x < 0} x \mu = \infty.$$ Therefore, we have $g_0^\ast(\mu) = \infty$ if $\mu < 0$.
Second, if $\mu \geq 0$, we have
$$g_0^\ast(\mu) = \sup_{x \geq 0}(x \mu - C x) = {\mathbb I}( \mu \leq C ).$$
Putting the above results together, we prove the claim.
\end{proof}
\fi
The second function is slightly more complex, which will be used for defining a multi-way latent SVM classifier. Specifically, we define the function $g_1:~\mathbb{R}^L \to \mathbb{R}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:gFunc}
g_1(\mathbf{x}) = C \max(\mathbf{x}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\max(\mathbf{x}) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \max(x_1, \cdots, x_L)$. Apparently, $g_1$ is convex because it is a point-wise maximum~\citep{Boyd:04} of the simple linear functions $\phi_i(\mathbf{x}) = x_i$. Then, we have the following results.
\begin{lemma}\label{proposition:ConjugateMaxFunc}
The convex conjugate of $g_1(\mathbf{x})$ as defined above is
\begin{eqnarray}
g_1^\ast(\boldsymbol \mu) = {\mathbb I}\Big( \forall i, \mu_i \geq 0;~and~\sum_i \mu_i = C\Big) .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
Let $y \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\epsilon \in \mathbb{R}_+$ are fixed parameters. The last function that we are interested in is $g_2: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$, where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:gFunc2}
g_2(x; y, \epsilon ) = C \max(0, |x - y| - \epsilon).
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, we have the following lemma, which will be used in developing large-margin regression models.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:ConjugateMaxFunc2}
The convex conjugate of $g_2(x)$ as defined above is
\begin{eqnarray}
g_2^\ast(\mu; y, \epsilon) = \mu y + \epsilon |\mu| + {\mathbb I}\big( |\mu| \leq C \big) .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\iffalse
\subsection{MedLDA: A RegBayes Model with Finite Latent Features}\label{sec:MedLDA}
\ericx{I really don't see this section is useful here. If you must keep it, state the main theorem and put details in the appendix.}
Before we present nonparametric regularized Bayesian models, which could have an unbounded number of hidden units, we end this section with a new interpretation of the previously proposed MedLDA (maximum entropy discrimination latent Dirichlet allocation)~\citep{Zhu:MedLDA09} under the framework of regularized Bayesian inference. MedLDA is a max-margin supervised topic model, an extension of latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA)~\citep{Blei:03} for supervised learning tasks. In MedLDA, each data example is projected to a point in a finite dimensional latent space, of which each feature corresponds to a topic, i.e., a unigram distribution over the terms in a vocabulary. MedLDA represents each data as a probability distribution over the features, which results in a conservation constraint (i.e., the more a data expresses on one feature, the less it can express others) ~\citep{Griffiths:tr05}. The infinite latent feature models discussed later do not have such a constraint.
Without loss of generality, we consider the MedLDA regression model as an example (classification model is similar), whose graphical structure is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:MedLDA}. We assume that all data examples have the same length $V$ for notation simplicity. Each document is associated with a response variable $Y$, which is observed in the training phase but unobserved in testing. We will use $y$ to denote an instance value of $Y$. Let $K$ be the number of topics or the dimensionality of the latent topic space. MedLDA builds an LDA model to describe the observed words. The generating process of LDA is that each document $n$ has a mixing proportion $\boldsymbol \theta_n \sim \textrm{Dirichlet}(\boldsymbol \alpha)$; each word $w_{nm}$ is associated with a topic $z_{nm} \sim \boldsymbol \theta_n$, which indexes the topic that generates the word, i.e., $w_{nm} \sim \boldsymbol \beta_{z_{nm}}$. Define $\bar{Z}_n = \frac{1}{V} \sum_{m=1}^V Z_{nm}$ as the average topic assignment for document $n$. Let $\Theta = \{\boldsymbol \alpha, \boldsymbol \beta, \delta^2\}$ denote the unknown model parameters and $\mathcal{D} = \{y_n, w_{nm}\}$ be the training set.
MedLDA was defined as solving a regularized MLE problem with expectation constraints
\setlength\arraycolsep{2pt}\begin{eqnarray}
\inf_{\Theta, \boldsymbol \xi,
\boldsymbol \xi^\ast}~ & & -\log p(\{y_n, w_{nm}\} | \Theta) + C \sum_{n=1}^N (\xi_n + \xi_n^\ast) \\
\mathrm{s.t.}~\forall n: & & \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
y_n - \mathbb{E}_p\lbrack \boldsymbol \eta^\top \bar{Z}_n \rbrack & \leq & \epsilon + \xi_n \\
- y_n + \mathbb{E}_p\lbrack \boldsymbol \eta^\top \bar{Z}_n \rbrack & \leq & \epsilon + \xi_n^\ast \\
\xi_n,~\xi_n^\ast & \geq & 0
\end{array} \right. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The posterior constraints are imposed following the large-margin principle and they correspond to a quality measure of the prediction results on training data. In fact, it is easy to show that minimizing $U(\boldsymbol \xi, \boldsymbol \xi^\ast) = C \sum_{n=1}^N (\xi_n + \xi_n^\ast)$ under the above constraints is equivalent to minimizing an $\epsilon$-insensitive loss~(Smola and Sch$\ddot{o}$lkopf, 2003)
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{R}_\epsilon\Big( p(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\} | \mathcal{D}, \Theta ) \Big) = C \sum_{n=1}^N \max(0, |y_n - \mathbb{E}_p[\boldsymbol \eta^\top \bar{Z}_n]| - \epsilon).
\end{eqnarray}
of the expected linear prediction rule $\hat{y}_n = \mathbb{E}_p\lbrack \boldsymbol \eta^\top \bar{Z}_n \rbrack$.
\begin{figure*
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.22\columnwidth]{fig/sLDA.eps}
\caption{Graphical structure of MedLDA.}\label{fig:MedLDA}\vspace{-.2cm}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
To practically learn an MedLDA model, since the above problem is intractable, variational methods were used by introducing an auxiliary distribution $q(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\} | \Theta)$~\footnote{We have explicitly written the condition on model parameters.} to approximate the true posterior $p(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\} | \mathcal{D}, \Theta )$, replacing the negative data likelihood with its upper bound $\mathcal{L}\big(q(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\} | \Theta )\big)$, and replacing $p$ by $q$ in the constraints. The variational MedLDA regression model is
\setlength\arraycolsep{2pt}\begin{eqnarray}
\inf_{q, \Theta, \boldsymbol \xi,
\boldsymbol \xi^\ast}~ & & \mathcal{L}\Big(q(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\} | \Theta )\Big) + C \sum_{n=1}^N (\xi_n + \xi_n^\ast) \\
\mathrm{s.t.}~\forall n: & & \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
y_n - \mathbb{E}_q\lbrack \boldsymbol \eta^\top \bar{Z}_n \rbrack & \leq & \epsilon + \xi_n \\
- y_n + \mathbb{E}_q\lbrack \boldsymbol \eta^\top \bar{Z}_n \rbrack & \leq & \epsilon + \xi_n^\ast \\
\xi_n,~\xi_n^\ast & \geq & 0
\end{array} \right. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{L}\big(q(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\} | \Theta )\big) = - \mathbb{E}_q\big[ \log p(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\}, \mathcal{D} | \Theta) \big\rbrack - \mathcal{H}\big(q(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\} | \Theta )\big)$ is a variational upper-bound of the negative data log-likelihood. The upper bound is tight if no restricting constraints are made on the variational distribution $q$. In practice, additional assumptions (e.g., mean-field) can be made on $q$ to derive a practical approximate algorithm.
Based on the previous discussions on the extensions of RegBayes and the duality in Lemma~\ref{lemma:MLEDuality}, we can reformulate the MedLDA regression model as an example of RegBayes. Specifically, for the MedLDA regression model, we have $\mathbf{M} = \{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\}$. According to Eq.~(\ref{eq:JointKL}), we can easily show that
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}\Big(q(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\} | \Theta )\Big) &=& \mathrm{KL}\Big( q(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta \}|\Theta) \Vert p(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\}, \{w_{nm}, y_n\} | \Theta) \Big) \nonumber \\
&=& \mathcal{L}_B\Big( \Theta, q(\mathbf{M}|\Theta) \Big). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Then, the MedLDA problem is a RegBayes model in Eq.~(\ref{eq:constraindBayes_param}) with
\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt} \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:MedLDAConstraints}
\mathcal{P}^{\textrm{MedLDA}}_{\mathrm{post}}(\Theta, \boldsymbol \xi, \boldsymbol \xi^\ast) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \left\{ q(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\} | \Theta)~ \begin{array}{|crcl}
\forall n: & y_n - \mathbb{E}_q\lbrack \boldsymbol \eta^\top \bar{Z}_n \rbrack & \leq & \epsilon + \xi_n \\
{} & - y_n + \mathbb{E}_q\lbrack \boldsymbol \eta^\top \bar{Z}_n \rbrack & \leq & \epsilon + \xi_n^\ast \\
{} & \xi_n,~\xi_n^\ast & \geq & 0
\end{array}\right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
For the MedLDA problem, we can use Lagrangian methods to solve the constrained formulation. Alternatively, we can also use the convex duality theorem to solve the equivalent unconstrained form. For the variational MedLDA, the $\epsilon$-insensitive loss is $\mathcal{R}_\epsilon(q(\{\theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\} | \Theta))$. Its conjugate can be derived using the results of Lemma~\ref{lemma:ConjugateMaxFunc2}. Specifically, we have the following result, whose proof is deferred to Appendix A.4.
\begin{lemma}[Conjugate of MedLDA]\label{lemma:conjugateMedLDA}
For the variational MedLDA problem, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\inf_{\Theta, q(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\} | \Theta) \in \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{prob}}} && \mathcal{L}(q(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\} | \Theta), \Theta) + \mathcal{R}_\epsilon(q(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\} | \Theta)) \\
=~~~~~~~~ \sup_{\boldsymbol \omega} ~~~~~~~~~&& - \log Z^\prime(\boldsymbol \omega, \Theta^\ast) - \sum_n g_2^\ast( \boldsymbol \omega_n; -y_n+\epsilon, y_n+\epsilon ) , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\boldsymbol \omega_n = (\omega_n, \omega_n^\prime)$. Moreover, The optimum distribution is the posterior distribution
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:qOptMedLDA}
\hat{q}(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\} | \Theta^\ast) = \frac{1}{Z^\prime(\hat{\boldsymbol \omega}, \Theta^\ast | \mathcal{D})}p(\{\boldsymbol \theta_n, z_{nm}, \boldsymbol \eta\}, \mathcal{D} | \Theta^\ast)\exp\Big\{ \sum_{n}(\hat{\omega}_n - \hat{\omega}_n^\prime) \boldsymbol \eta^\top \bar{z}_n \Big\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $Z^\prime(\hat{\boldsymbol \omega}, \Theta | \mathcal{D})$ is the normalization factor and the optimum parameters are
\begin{eqnarray}
\Theta^\ast = \operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_\Theta \log p(\mathcal{D} | \Theta).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
Note that although in general, either the primal or the dual problem is hard to solve exactly, the above conjugate results are still useful when developing approximate inference algorithms. For instance, we can impose additional mean-field assumptions on $q$ in the primal formulation and iteratively solve for each factor; and in this process convex conjugates are useful to deal with the large-margin constraints~\citep{Zhu:MedLDA09}. Alternatively, we can apply approximate methods (e.g., MCMC sampling) to infer the $q$ based on its solution in Eq.~(\ref{eq:qOptMedLDA}), and iteratively solves for the dual parameters $\boldsymbol \omega$ using approximate statistics~\citep{schofield2006fitting}. We will discuss more on this when presenting
the inference algorithms for iLSVM and MT-iLSVM.
In the above discussions, we have treated the topics $\boldsymbol \beta$ as fixed unknown parameters. A fully Bayesian formulation would treat $\boldsymbol \beta$ as
random variables, e.g., with a Dirichlet prior~\citep{Blei:03,Griffiths:04}. Under the RegBayes interpretation, we can easily do such an extension of MedLDA, simply by
moving $\boldsymbol \beta$ from $\Theta$ to $\mathbf{M}$.
\fi
\section{Infinite Latent Support Vector Machines}\label{sec:ilsvm}
Given the general theoretical framework of RegBayes introduced in Section~\ref{sec:RegBayes}, now we are ready to present its application to the development of two interesting nonparametric RegBayes models. In these two models we conjoin the ideas behind the nonparametric Bayesian infinite feature model known as the Indian buffet process (IBP), and the large margin classifier known as support vector machines (SVM) to build a new class of models for simultaneous single-task (or multi-task) classification and feature learning. A parametric Bayesian model is presented in Appendix B.
Specifically, to illustrate how to develop latent large-margin classifiers and automatically resolve the unknown dimensionality of latent features from data, we demonstrate how to choose/define the three key elements of RegBayes, that is, {\it prior distribution}, {\it likelihood model}, and {\it posterior regularization}.
We first present the single-task classification model. The basic setup is that we project each data example $\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{X} \subset \mathbb{R}^D$ to a latent feature vector $\mathbf{z}$. Here, we consider binary features. Real-valued features can be easily considered by elementwisely multiplying $\mathbf{z}$ by a Guassian vector~\citep{Griffiths:tr05}. Given a set of $N$ data examples, let $\mathbf{Z}$ be the matrix, of which each row is a binary vector $\mathbf{z}_n$ associated with data sample $n$. Instead of pre-specifying a fixed dimension of $\mathbf{z}$, we resort to the nonparametric Bayesian methods and let $\mathbf{z}$ have an infinite number of dimensions. To make the expected number of active latent features finite, we employ an IBP as prior for the binary feature matrix $\mathbf{Z}$, as reviewed below.
\subsection{Indian Buffet Process}
Indian buffet process (IBP) was proposed in~\cite{Griffiths:tr05} and has been successfully applied in various fields, such as link prediction~\citep{Miller:nips09} and multi-task learning~\citep{HalDaume:10}. We will make use of its stick-breaking construction~\citep{YWTeh:aistats07}, which is good for developing efficient inference methods. Let $\pi_k \in (0, 1)$ be a parameter associated with each column of the binary matrix $\mathbf{Z}$. Given $\pi_k$, each $z_{nk}$ in column $k$ is sampled independently from $\mathrm{Bernoulli}(\pi_k)$. The parameter $\boldsymbol \pi$ are generated by a stick-breaking process
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi_1 = \nu_1, ~\textrm{and}~ \pi_k = \nu_k \pi_{k-1} = \prod_{i=1}^k \nu_i,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\nu_i \sim \mathrm{Beta}(\alpha, 1)$. Since each $\nu_i$ is less than 1, this process generates a decreasing sequence of $\pi_k$. Specifically, given a finite dataset, the probability of seeing feature $k$ decreases exponentially with $k$.
{IBP has several properties. For a finite number of rows, $N$, the prior of the IBP gives zero mass on matrices with an infinite number of ones, as the total number of columns with non-zero entries is $\textrm{Poisson}(\alpha H_N)$, where $H_N$ is the $N$th harmonic number, $H_N = \sum_{j=1}^N \frac{1}{j}$. Thus, $\mathbf{Z}$ has almost surely only a finite number of non-zero entries, though this number is unbounded. A second property of IBP is that the number of features possessed by each data point follows a $\textrm{Poisson}(\alpha)$ distribution. Therefore, the expected number of non-zero entries in $\mathbf{Z}$ is $N\alpha$.}
\subsection{Infinite Latent Support Vector Machines}
Consider a single-task, but multi-way classification, where each training data is provided with a categorical label $y \in \mathcal{Y} \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \{1, \cdots, L\}$.
Suppose that the latent features $\mathbf{z}_n$ for document $n$ are given, then we can define the {\it latent discriminant function} as linear
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:latent-func-ilsvm}
f(y, \mathbf{x}_n, \mathbf{z}_n; \boldsymbol \eta) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \boldsymbol \eta^\top \mathbf{g}(y, \mathbf{x}_n, \mathbf{z}_n),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{g}(y, \mathbf{x}_n, \mathbf{z}_n)$ is a vector stacking $L$ subvectors\footnote{We can consider the input features $\mathbf{x}_n$ or its certain statistics in combination with the latent features $\mathbf{z}_n$ to define a classifier boundary, by simply concatenating them in the subvectors.} of which the $y$th is $\mathbf{z}_n^\top$ and all the others are zero; $\boldsymbol \eta$ is the corresponding infinite-dimensional
vector of feature weights. Since we are doing Bayesian inference, we need to maintain the entire distribution profile of the latent feature matrix $\mathbf{Z}$. However, in order to make a prediction on the observed data $\mathbf{x}$, we need to remove the uncertainty of $\mathbf{Z}$. Here, we define the {\it effective discriminant function} as an expectation\footnote{Although other choices such as taking the mode are possible, our choice could lead to a computationally easy problem because expectation is a linear functional of the distribution under which the expectation is taken. Moreover, expectation can be more robust than taking the mode~\citep{Murphy:nips10}, and it has been widely used in~\citep{Zhu:MedLDA09,Zhu:iSVM11}.} (i.e., a weighted average considering all possible values of $\mathbf{Z}$) of the latent discriminant function. To fully explore the flexibility offered by Bayesian inference, we also treat $\boldsymbol \eta$ as random and aim to infer its posterior distribution from given data. For the prior, we assume all the dimensions of $\boldsymbol \eta$ are independent and each dimension $\eta_k$ follows the standard normal distribution. This is in fact a Gaussian process (GP) prior as $\boldsymbol \eta$ is infinite dimensional. More formally, the effective discriminant function $f: \mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y} \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:effective-disc-func}
f\big(y, \mathbf{x}_n; q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})\big) &\stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=}& \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})} \big\lbrack f(y, \mathbf{x}_n, \mathbf{z}_n; \boldsymbol \eta) \big\rbrack \\
&=& \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{Z},\boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})}\big\lbrack \boldsymbol \eta^\top \mathbf{g}(y, \mathbf{x}_n, \mathbf{z}_n)\big\rbrack, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})$ is the post-data posterior distribution we want to infer. We have included $\mathbf{W}$ as a place holder for any other variables we may define, e.g., the variables arising from a data likelihood model. Since we are taking the expectation, the variables which do not appear in the feature map $\mathbf{g}$ (i.e., $\mathbf{W}$) will be marginalized out.
{Before moving on, we should note that since we require $q$ to be absolutely continuous with respect to the prior to make the KL-divergence term well defined in the RegBayes problem, $q(\mathbf{Z})$ will also put zero mass on $\mathbf{Z}$'s with an infinite number of non-zero entries, because of the properties of the IBP prior. The sparsity of $\mathbf{Z}$ is essential to ensure that the dot-product in Eq.~(\ref{eq:latent-func-ilsvm}) and the expectation in Eq.~(\ref{eq:effective-disc-func}) are well defined, i.e., with finite values\footnote{A more rigorous derivation of finiteness of these quantities is beyond the scope of this work and could require additional technical conditions~\citep{Orbanz:2012}. We refer the readers to~\citep{Stummer:it2012} for a generic definition of Bregman divergence (or KL divergence in particular) on Banach spaces and in the case where the second measure is unnormalized.}. Moreover, in practice, to make the problem computationally feasible, we usually set a finite upper bound $K$ to the number of possible features, where $K$ is sufficiently large and known as the truncation level (See Section~\ref{sec:inference} and Appendix D.2 for details). As shown in~\citep{Doshi-Velez:09}, the $\ell_1$-distance truncation error of marginal distributions decreases exponentially as $K$ increases. For a finite truncation level, all the expectations are definitely finite.}
\iffalse
Note that it is required to ensure that $f(y, \mathbf{x}; p(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta))$ is finite. This can be achieved in practice by imposing sparsity regularization on $\boldsymbol \eta$ and $\mathbf{Z}$. For example, using an IBP prior, the expected number of latent features is finite when only a finite number of data are observed. For $\boldsymbol \eta$, we can easily regularize it to be small by using a Gaussian or super-Gaussian prior. Moreover, although in principle each row of $\mathbf{Z}$ can be infinite, computationally, we can only deal with finite $K$-dimensional vectors, where $K$ is a sufficiently large number, also known as truncation level~\citep{YWTeh:aistats07} (See Sec~\ref{sec:inference} for details).
\fi
Let $\mathcal{I}_{\textrm{tr}}$ denote the set of training data. Then, with the above definitions, we define the $\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{post}}(\boldsymbol \xi)$ in problem~(\ref{eq:constraindBayes}) using soft\footnote{Hard constraints for the separable cases are covered by simply setting $\boldsymbol \xi=0$.} large-margin constraints as
\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt} \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:svmConstraints}
\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{post}}^{c}(\boldsymbol \xi) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \left\{ q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})~ \begin{array}{|cl}
\forall n \in \mathcal{I}_{\textrm{tr}}: & \Delta f(y, \mathbf{x}_n; q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})) \geq \ell_n^\Delta(y) - \xi_n, \forall y \\
{} & \xi_n \geq 0
\end{array}\right\}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \Delta f(y, \mathbf{x}_n; q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} f(y_n, \mathbf{x}_n; q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})) - f(y, \mathbf{x}_n; q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}))$ is the margin favored by the true label $y_n$ over an arbitrary label $y$ and the superscript is used to distinguish from the posterior constraints for multi-task iLSVM to be presented. We define the penalty function for classification as $$U^c(\boldsymbol \xi) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} C\sum_{n \in \mathcal{I}_{\textrm{tr}}} \xi_n^\kappa,$$ where $\kappa \geq 1$. If $\kappa$ is 1, minimizing $U^c(\boldsymbol \xi)$ is equivalent to minimizing the hinge-loss (or $\ell_1$-loss) $\mathcal{R}^c_h$ of the averaging prediction rule~(\ref{eq:predrule}), where $$\mathcal{R}^c_h(q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})) = C\sum_{n \in \mathcal{I}_{\textrm{tr}}} \max_y\big( \ell_n^\Delta(y) - \Delta f(y_n, \mathbf{x}_n; q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})) \big);$$ if $\kappa$ is 2, the surrogate loss is the squared $\ell_2$-loss. For clarity, we consider the hinge loss. The non-negative cost function $\ell_n^\Delta(y)$ (e.g., 0/1-cost) measures the cost of predicting $\mathbf{x}_n$ to be $y$ when its true label is $y_n$. $\mathcal{I}_{\textrm{tr}}$ is the index set of training data.
Besides performing the prediction task, we may also be interested in explaining observed data $\mathbf{x}$ using the latent factors $\mathbf{Z}$. This can be done by defining a likelihood model $p(\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{Z})$.
Here, we define the most common linear-Gaussian likelihood model for real-valued data
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:iLSVM-GaussLikelihood}
p\big( \mathbf{x}_n | \mathbf{z}_n, \mathbf{W}, \sigma_{n0}^2\big) = \mathcal{N}\big(\mathbf{x}_n | \mathbf{W}\mathbf{z}_n^\top, \sigma_{n0}^2 I\big),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{W}$ is a $D \times \infty$ random loading matrix. We assume $\mathbf{W}$ follows an independent Gaussian prior {and each entry has the prior distribution $\pi(w_{dk}) = \mathcal{N}(w_{dk}|0, \sigma_{0}^2)$}. The hyperparameters $\sigma_0^2$ and $\sigma_{n0}^2$ can be set a priori or estimated from observed data (See Appendix D.2 for details). Figure~\ref{fig:multitaskInfLSVM} (a) shows the graphical structure of iLSVM as defined above, where the plate means $N$ replicates.
{\bf Training}: Putting the above definitions together, we get the RegBayes problem for iLSVM in the following two equivalent forms
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:iLSVMconstrained}
\inf_{q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}), \boldsymbol \xi} && \mathrm{KL}(q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}) \Vert p(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}, \mathcal{D})) + U^c(\boldsymbol \xi) \\
\mathrm{s.t.}:~&& q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}) \in \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{post}}^c(\boldsymbol \xi) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:iLSVMunconstrained}
\iff ~~\inf_{q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}) \in \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{prob}}} && \mathrm{KL}(q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}) \Vert p(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}, \mathcal{D})) + \mathcal{R}^c_h(q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})),
\end{eqnarray}
where $p(\mathbf{Z},\boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}, \mathcal{D}) = \pi(\boldsymbol \eta) \pi(\mathbf{Z}) \pi(\mathbf{W}) \prod_{n=1}^N p(\mathbf{x}_n | \mathbf{z}_n, \mathbf{W}, \sigma_{n0}^2)$ is the joint distribution of the model; $\pi(\mathbf{Z})$ is an IBP prior; and $\pi(\boldsymbol \eta)$ and $\pi(\mathbf{W})$ are Gaussian process priors with identity covariance functions.
\iffalse
Note that in order to arrive at a well-defined RegBayes model,
we need to ensure that the objective function and the posterior constraints have finite values. This can be intuitively verified\footnote{A rigorous derivation of finiteness of these quantities is beyond the scope of this work and could require additional technical conditions~\citep{Orbanz:2012}. We refer the readers to~\citep{Stummer:it2012} for a generic definition of Bregman divergence (or KL divergence in particular) on Banach spaces and in the case where the second measure is unnormalized.} as follows. Although the number of latent features is allowed to be infinite, the number of non-zero features is finite with probability one when only a finite number of data are observed, under the IBP prior. Moreover, because of the facts that the $\mathrm{KL}$-term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:constraindBayes}) has the ``zero forcing" property~\citep[Chap. 10]{Bishop:PRML06} and the prior distribution of feature $z_{nk}$ decreases exponentially as $k$ increases, we can expect that the posterior distribution of feature $z_{nk}$ also decreases exponentially, when a finite set of data is observed. Thus, both the objective function and the large-margin constraints are well-defined. Finally, to make the problem computationally feasible, we usually set a finite upper bound $K$ to the number of possible features, where $K$ is sufficiently large and known as the truncation level (See Section~\ref{sec:inference} and Appendix D.2 for details). As shown in~\citep{Doshi-Velez:09}, the $\ell_1$-distance truncation error of marginal distributions decreases exponentially as $K$ increases.
\fi
Directly solving the iLSVM problems is not easy because either the posterior constraints or the non-smooth regularization function $\mathcal{R}^c$ is hard to deal with. Thus, we resort to convex duality theory, which will be useful for developing approximate inference algorithms.
We can either solve the constrained form (E.q. (\ref{eq:iLSVMconstrained})) using Lagrangian duality theory~\citep{Ito:08} or solve the unconstrained form (E.q. (\ref{eq:iLSVMunconstrained})) using Fenchel duality theory. Here, we take the second approach. In this case, the linear operator is the expectation operator, denoted by $E:~\mathcal{P}_{\textrm{prob}} \to \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{I}_{\textrm{tr}}| \times L}$ and the element of $Eq$ evaluated at $y$ for the $n$th example is
\begin{eqnarray}
Eq(n, y) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \Delta f\big(y, \mathbf{x}_n; q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})\big) = \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})}\big[ \boldsymbol \eta^\top \Delta \mathbf{g}_n(y, \mathbf{Z})\big],
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta \mathbf{g}_n(y, \mathbf{Z}) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \mathbf{g}(y_n, \mathbf{x}_n, \mathbf{z}) - \mathbf{g}(y, \mathbf{x}_n, \mathbf{z})$.
Then, let $g_1:~\mathbb{R}^{L} \to \mathbb{R}$ be a function defined in the same form as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gFunc}). We have $$\mathcal{R}_h^c\big(q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})\big) = \sum_{n \in \mathcal{I}_{\textrm{tr}}} g_1\big( \ell_n^\Delta - Eq(n) \big),$$ where $Eq(n) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} (Eq(n, 1), \cdots, Eq(n, L))$ and $\ell^\Delta_n \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} (\ell_n^\Delta(1), \cdots, \ell_n^\Delta(L))$ are the vectors of elements evaluated for $n$th data. By the Fenchel's duality theorem and the results in Lemma~\ref{proposition:ConjugateMaxFunc}, we can derive the conjugate of the problem~(\ref{eq:iLSVMunconstrained}). The proof is deferred to Appendix C.4.
\begin{lemma}[Conjugate of iLSVM]\label{lemma:conjugateiLSVM}
For the iLSVM problem, we have that
\begin{eqnarray}
\inf_{q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}) \in \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{prob}}} && \mathrm{KL}\big(q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}) \Vert p(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}, \mathcal{D})\big) + \mathcal{R}^c_h\big(q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})\big) \\
= ~~~~~~~~ \sup_{\boldsymbol \omega}~~~~~ && - \log Z(\boldsymbol \omega | \mathcal{D}) + \sum_{n \in \mathcal{I}_{\textrm{tr}}} \sum_y \omega_n^y \ell_n^\Delta (y) - \sum_n g_1^\ast(\boldsymbol \omega_n), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\boldsymbol \omega_n = (\omega_n^1, \cdots, \omega_n^L)$ is the subvector associated with data $n$. Moreover, The optimum distribution is the posterior distribution
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{q}(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}) = \frac{1}{Z(\hat{\boldsymbol \omega} | \mathcal{D} )}p(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}, \mathcal{D})\exp\Big\{ \sum_{n \in \mathcal{I}_{\textrm{tr}}} \sum_y \hat{\omega}_n^y \boldsymbol \eta^\top \Delta \mathbf{g}_n(y, Z) \Big\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $Z(\hat{\boldsymbol \omega} | \mathcal{D} )$ is the normalization factor and $\hat{\boldsymbol \omega}$ is the solution of the dual problem.
\end{lemma}
\iffalse
\begin{proof}
By definition, we have $g(Ep) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \mathcal{R}_h^c\big(p(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta)\big) = \sum_n g_1(\ell_n^\Delta - Ep(n))$. Let $\boldsymbol \mu_n = Ep(n)$. We have the conjugate
\begin{eqnarray}
g^\ast(\boldsymbol \omega) && = \sup_{\boldsymbol \mu}\Big\{ \boldsymbol \omega^\top \boldsymbol \mu - \sum_n g_1( \ell_n^\Delta - \boldsymbol \mu_n) \Big\} \nonumber \\
&& = \sum_n \sup_{\boldsymbol \mu_n}\Big\{ \boldsymbol \omega_n^\top \boldsymbol \mu_n - g_1(\ell_n^\Delta - \boldsymbol \mu_n) \Big\} \nonumber \\
&& = \sum_n \sup_{\boldsymbol \nu_n}\Big\{ \boldsymbol \omega_n^\top ( \ell_n^\Delta - \boldsymbol \nu_n ) - g_1(\boldsymbol \nu_n) \Big\} \nonumber \\
&& = \sum_n \Big( \boldsymbol \omega_n^\top \ell_n^\Delta + g_1^\ast( - \boldsymbol \omega_n ) \Big). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, $$g^\ast(-\boldsymbol \omega) = \sum_n \big(- \boldsymbol \omega_n^\top \ell_n^\Delta + g_1^\ast( \boldsymbol \omega_n ) \big).$$
Using the results of Lemma~\ref{lemma:RegBayes} proves the claim.
\end{proof}
\fi
{\bf Testing}: to make prediction on test examples, we put both training and test data together to do regularized Bayesian inference.
For training data, we impose the above large-margin constraints because of the awareness of their true labels, while for test data, we do the inference without the large-margin constraints since we do not know their true labels. Therefore, the classifier (i.e., $q(\boldsymbol \eta)$) is learned from the training data only, while both training and testing data influence the posterior distributions of the likelihood model $\mathbf{W}$. After inference, we make the prediction via the rule
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:predrule}
y^\ast \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_y f\big(y, \mathbf{x}; q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})\big).
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the ability to generalize to test data relies on the fact that all the data examples share $\boldsymbol \eta$ and the IBP prior. We can also cast the problem as a transductive inference problem by imposing additional large-margin constraints on test data~\citep{Joachims:tsvm99}. However, the resulting problem will be generally harder to solve because it needs to resolve the unknown labels of testing examples. We also note that the testing is different from the standard inductive setting~\citep{Zhu:iSVM11}, where the latent features of a new data example can be approximately inferred given the training data. Our empirical study shows little difference on performance between our setting and the standard inductive setting.
\begin{figure*
\begin{center}
\centering{
\hfill\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\columnwidth]{fig/infinite_latent_svm.eps}}\hfill
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=.33\columnwidth]{fig/multitask_infinite_latent_svm.eps}}\hfill}\vspace{-.2cm}
\caption{Graphical structures of (a) infinite latent SVM (iLSVM); and (b) multi-task infinite latent SVM (MT-iLSVM). For MT-iLSVM, the dashed nodes (i.e., $\varsigma_m$) illustrate the task relatedness but do not exist.}
\label{fig:multitaskInfLSVM}\vspace{-.3cm}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Multi-Task Infinite Latent Support Vector Machines}
Different from classification, which is typically formulated as a single learning task, multi-task learning aims to improve a set of related tasks through sharing statistical strength among these tasks, which are performed jointly. Many different approaches have been developed for multi-task learning (See~\citep{Jebara:jmlr11} for a review). In particular, learning a common latent representation shared by all the related tasks has proven to be an effective way to capture task relationships~\citep{AndoTong:05,Argyriou:nips07,HalDaume:10}. Below, we present the multi-task infinite latent SVM (MT-iLSVM) for learning a common binary projection matrix $\mathbf{Z}$ to capture the relationships among multiple tasks. Similar as in iLSVM, we also put the IBP prior on $\mathbf{Z}$ to allow it to have an unbounded number of columns.
\iffalse
\begin{figure*}
\vspace{-.35cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.5\columnwidth}
\hfill\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.34\columnwidth]{../fig/infinite_latent_svm.eps}}\hfill
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=.49\columnwidth]{../fig/multitask_infinite_latent_svm2.eps}}\hfill
\end{minipage}\vspace{-0.45cm}\hfill
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\columnwidth}
{\caption{\footnotesize Graphical structures of (a) infinite latent SVM (iLSVM); and (b) multi-task infinite latent SVM (MT-iLSVM). For MT-iLSVM, the dashed nodes (i.e., $\varsigma_m$) illustrate the task relatedness but do not exist actually. We have omitted the priors on $\mathbf{W}$ and $\boldsymbol \eta$ for notation brevity. \label{fig:multitaskInfLSVM}}}
\end{minipage}\vspace{-0.45cm}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\fi
Suppose we have $M$ related tasks. Let $\mathcal{D}_m \!=\! \{ (\mathbf{x}_{mn}, y_{mn}) \}_{n\in \mathcal{I}_{\textrm{tr}}^m}$ be the training data for task $m$. We consider binary classification tasks, where $\mathcal{Y}_m =\{+1, -1\}$. Extension to multi-way classification or regression can be easily done. A na\" ive way to solve this learning problem with multiple tasks is to perform the multiple tasks independently. In order to make the multiple tasks coupled and share statistical strength, MT-iLSVM introduces a latent projection matrix $\mathbf{Z}$. If the latent matrix $\mathbf{Z}$ is given, we define the {\it latent discriminant function} for task $m$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
f_m(\mathbf{x}_{mn}, \mathbf{Z}; \boldsymbol \eta_m) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} ( \mathbf{Z} \boldsymbol \eta_m )^\top \mathbf{x}_{mn} = \boldsymbol \eta_m^\top (\mathbf{Z}^\top \mathbf{x}_{mn}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{x}_{mn}$ is one data example in $\mathcal{D}_m$ and $\boldsymbol \eta_m$ is the vector of parameters for task $m$. The dimension of $\boldsymbol \eta_m$ is the number of columns of the latent projection matrix $\mathbf{Z}$, which is unbounded in the nonparametric setting. This definition provides two views of how the $M$ tasks get related.
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item If we let $\varsigma_m = \mathbf{Z} \boldsymbol \eta_m$, then $\varsigma_m$ is the actual parameter of task $m$ and all $\varsigma_m$ in different tasks are coupled by sharing the same latent matrix $\mathbf{Z}$;
\item Another view is that each task $m$ has its own parameters $\boldsymbol \eta_m$, but all the tasks share the same latent projection matrix $\mathbf{Z}$ to extract latent features $\mathbf{Z}^\top \mathbf{x}_{mn}$, which is a projection of the input features $\mathbf{x}_{mn}$.
\end{enumerate}
As such, our method can be viewed as a nonparametric Bayesian treatment of alternating structure optimization (ASO)~\citep{AndoTong:05}, which learns a single projection matrix with a pre-specified latent dimension. Moreover, different from~\citep{Jebara:jmlr11}, which learns a binary vector with known dimensionality to select features or kernels on $\mathbf{x}$, we learn an unbounded projection matrix $\mathbf{Z}$ using nonparametric Bayesian techniques.
\iffalse
\begin{figure*
\begin{center}
\centering{
\hfill\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.22\columnwidth]{fig/multitask2_1.eps}}\hfill
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=.28\columnwidth]{fig/multitask2_2.eps}}\hfill
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=.28\columnwidth]{fig/multitask2_3.eps}}\hfill}\vspace{-.1cm}
\caption{Illustration of (a) multiple single task learning, where each task $m$ (represented by the model $\boldsymbol \eta_m$) is performed independently; (b) related multiple tasks in MT-iLSVM with the first type of representation, where all the $M$ models need to pass a common transformation (denoted by the matrix $\mathbf{Z}$) in order to act on input data; and (c) related multiple tasks in MT-iLSVM with the second type of representation, where input data are projected into latent representations using the same projection matrix $\mathbf{Z}$.}
\label{fig:illustration}\vspace{-.2cm}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\fi
As in iLSVM, we employ a Bayesian treatment of $\boldsymbol \eta_m$, and view it as random variables. We assume that $\boldsymbol \eta_m$ has a fully-factorized Gaussian prior, i.e., $\eta_{mk} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$. Then, we define the effective discriminant function for task $m$ as the expectation
\begin{eqnarray}
f_m\big(\mathbf{x}; q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})\big) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})}\big[ f_m(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{Z}; \boldsymbol \eta_m)\big] = \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})}[\mathbf{Z} \boldsymbol \eta_m ]^\top \mathbf{x},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{W}$ is a place holder for the variables that possibly arise from other parts of the model. As in iLSVM, since we are taking expectation, the variables which do not appear in the feature map (i.e., $\mathbf{W}$) will be marginalized out. Then, the prediction rule for task $m$ is naturally $y_m^\ast \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \mathrm{sign} f_m(\mathbf{x})$.
Similarly, we perform regularized Bayesian inference by defining: $$U^{MT}(\boldsymbol \xi) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} C \sum_{m, n \in \mathcal{I}^m_{\textrm{tr}}} \xi_{mn}$$ and imposing the following constraints:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:MTconstraints}
\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{post}}^{MT}(\boldsymbol \xi) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \left\{ q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})~ \begin{array}{|cl}
\forall m,~\forall n \in \mathcal{I}^m_{\textrm{tr}}: & ~ y_{mn} \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})}[ \mathbf{Z} \boldsymbol \eta_m ]^\top \mathbf{x}_{mn} \geq 1 - \xi_{mn} \\
{} &~ \xi_{mn} \geq 0
\end{array}\right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, as in iLSVM we may also be interested in explaining observed data $\mathbf{x}$. Therefore, we relate $\mathbf{Z}$ to the observed data $\mathbf{x}$ by defining a likelihood model:
\begin{eqnarray}
p\big(\mathbf{x}_{mn} | \mathbf{w}_{mn}, \mathbf{Z}, \lambda_{mn}^2\big) = \mathcal{N}\big(\mathbf{x}_{mn}| \mathbf{Z} \mathbf{w}_{mn}, \lambda_{mn}^2 I\big),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{w}_{mn}$ is a vector. We assume $\mathbf{W}$ has an independent prior $\pi(\mathbf{W}) = \prod_{mn} \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{w}_{mn}|0, \sigma_{m0}^2 I)$. Fig.~\ref{fig:multitaskInfLSVM} (b) illustrates the graphical structure of MT-iLSVM.
For training, we can derive the similar convex conjugate as in the case of iLSVM. Similar as in iLSVM, minimizing $U^{MT}(\boldsymbol \xi)$ is equivalent to minimizing the hinge-loss $\mathcal{R}_h^{MT}$ of the multiple binary prediction rules, where
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{R}_h^{MT}\big(q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})\big) = C \sum_{m, n \in \mathcal{I}^m_{\textrm{tr}}} \max\big(0, 1 - y_{mn} \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})}[ \mathbf{Z} \boldsymbol \eta_m ]^\top \mathbf{x}_{mn}\big).
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the RegBayes problem of MT-iLSVM can be equivalently written as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:MTconstrained}
\inf_{q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})} \mathrm{KL}\big(q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}) \Vert p(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}, \mathcal{D})\big) + \mathcal{R}^{MT}_h\big(q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})\big).
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by the Fenchel's duality theorem and Lemma~\ref{proposition:ConjugateBinaryFunc}, we can derive the conjugate of MT-iLSVM. The proof is deferred to Appendix C.5.
\begin{lemma}[Conjugate of MT-iLSVM]\label{lemma:conjugateMTiLSVM}
For the MT-iLSVM problem, we have that
\begin{eqnarray}
\inf_{q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}) \in \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{prob}}} && \mathrm{KL}(q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}) \Vert p(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}, \mathcal{D})) + \mathcal{R}^{MT}_h(q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})) \\
=~~~~~~~~ \sup_{\boldsymbol \omega} ~~~~~&& - \log Z^\prime(\boldsymbol \omega | \mathcal{D} ) + \sum_{m,n} \omega_{mn} - \sum_{m,n} g_0^\ast(\omega_{mn}). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, The optimum distribution is the posterior distribution
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{q}(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}) = \frac{1}{Z^\prime(\hat{\boldsymbol \omega} | \mathcal{D} )}p(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W}, \mathcal{D})\exp\Big\{ \sum_{m,n} y_{mn} \hat{\omega}_{mn} (\mathbf{Z}\boldsymbol \eta_m)^\top \mathbf{x}_{mn} \Big\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $Z^\prime(\hat{\boldsymbol \omega} | \mathcal{D} )$ is the normalization factor and $\hat{\boldsymbol \omega}$ is the solution of the dual problem.
\end{lemma}
\iffalse
\begin{proof}
The proof is of the similar structure as the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:conjugateiLSVM}. We defer the details to Appendix~A.5.
\iffalse
In this case, the linear expectation operator is $E:~\mathcal{P}_{\textrm{prob}} \to \mathbb{R}^{\sum_m |\mathcal{I}_{\textrm{tr}}^m|}$ and the element of $Ep$ evaluated at the $n$th example for task $m$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
Ep(n, m) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} y_{mn} \mathbb{E}_{p(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta)}[ \mathbf{Z} \boldsymbol \eta_m ]^\top \mathbf{x}_{mn} = \mathbb{E}_{p(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta)}[ y_{mn} (\mathbf{Z} \boldsymbol \eta_m )^\top \mathbf{x}_{mn}].
\end{eqnarray}
Then, let $g_0:~\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ be a function defined in Lemma~\ref{proposition:ConjugateBinaryFunc}. We have $$g(Ep) \stackrel{\textrm{def}}{=} \mathcal{R}_h^{MT}\Big(p(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta)\Big) = \sum_{m, n \in \mathcal{I}^m_{\textrm{tr}}} g_0\Big( 1 - Ep(n, m) \Big).$$
Let $\boldsymbol \mu = Ep$. By definition, the conjugate is
\begin{eqnarray}
g^\ast(\boldsymbol \omega) && = \sup_{\boldsymbol \mu}\Big\{ \boldsymbol \omega^\top \boldsymbol \mu - \sum_{m, n \in \mathcal{I}^m_{\textrm{tr}}} g_0(1 - \mu_{mn}) \Big\} \nonumber \\
&& = \sum_{m, n \in \mathcal{I}^m_{\textrm{tr}}} \sup_{\mu_{mn}}\Big\{ \omega_{mn} \mu_{mn} - g_0(1 - \mu_{mn}) \Big\} \nonumber \\
&& = \sum_{m, n \in \mathcal{I}^m_{\textrm{tr}}} \sup_{\nu_n^m}\Big\{ \omega_{mn} (1 - \nu_{mn}) - g_0(\nu_{mn}) \Big\} \nonumber \\
&& = \sum_{m, n \in \mathcal{I}^m_{\textrm{tr}}} \Big(\omega_{mn} + g_0^\ast( -\omega_{mn} ) \Big). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, $$g^\ast(-\boldsymbol \omega) = \sum_{m, n \in \mathcal{I}^m_{\textrm{tr}}} \Big(-\omega_{mn} + g_0^\ast( \omega_{mn} ) \Big).$$
By the Fenchel's duality theorem and the results in Lemma~\ref{proposition:ConjugateBinaryFunc}, we can derive the conjugate of the problem~(\ref{eq:MTconstrained}).
\fi
\end{proof}
\fi
For testing, we use the same strategy as in iLSVM to do Bayesian inference on both training and test data. The difference is that training data are subject to large-margin constraints, while test data are not. Similarly, the hyper-parameters $\sigma_{m0}^2$ and $\lambda_{mn}^2$ can be set a priori or estimated from data (See Appendix D.1 for details).
\subsection{Inference with Truncated Mean-Field Constraints}\label{sec:inference}
Now we discuss how to perform regularized Bayesian inference with the large-margin constraints for both iLSVM and MT-iLSVM. From the primal-dual formulations, it is obvious that there are basically two methods to perform the regularized Bayesian inference. One is to directly solve the primal problem for the posterior distribution $q(\mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})$, and the other is to first solve the dual problem for the optimum $\hat{\boldsymbol \omega}$ and then infer the posterior distribution. However, both the primal and dual problems are intractable for iLSVM and MT-iLSVM. The intrinsic hardness is due to the mutual dependency among the latent variables in the desired posterior distribution. Therefore, a natural approximation method is the mean field~\citep{Jordan:99}, which breaks the mutual dependency by assuming that $q$ is of some factorization form. This method approximates the original problems by imposing additional constraints. An alternative method is to apply approximate methods (e.g., MCMC sampling) to infer the true posterior distributions derived via convex conjugates as above, and iteratively estimate the dual parameters using approximate statistics (e.g., feature expectations estimated using samples)~\citep{schofield2006fitting}. Below, we use MT-iLSVM as an example to illustrate the idea of the first strategy. A full discussion on the second strategy is beyond the scope of this paper.
For iLSVM, the similar procedure applies and we defer its details to Appendix D.2.
To make the problem easier to solve, we use the stick-breaking representation of IBP, which includes the auxiliary variable $\boldsymbol \nu$, and infer the augmented posterior $q(\boldsymbol \nu, \mathbf{W}, \mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta)$. The joint model distribution is now $q(\boldsymbol \nu, \mathbf{W}, \mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathcal{D})$. Furthermore, we impose the truncated mean-field constraint that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:MF-MTiLSVM}
q(\boldsymbol \nu, \mathbf{W}, \mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta) = q(\boldsymbol \eta) \prod_{k=1}^K \Big( q(\nu_k | \boldsymbol \gamma_k) \prod_{d=1}^D q(z_{dk}|\psi_{dk}) \Big) \prod_{mn} q\Big(\mathbf{w}_{mn}|\Phi_{mn}, \sigma_{mn}^2 I\Big),
\end{eqnarray}
where $K$ is the truncation level, and we assume that $$q(\nu_k | \boldsymbol \gamma_k) = \mathrm{Beta}(\gamma_{k1}, \gamma_{k2}),$$
$$q(z_{dk}|\psi_{dk}) = \mathrm{Bernoulli}(\psi_{dk}),$$
$$q(\mathbf{w}_{mn}|\Phi_{mn}, \sigma_{mn}^2 I)=\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{w}_{mn}|\Phi_{mn}, \sigma_{mn}^2 I).$$
Then, we can use the duality theory\footnote{Lagrangian duality~\citep{Ito:08} was used in~\citep{Zhu:iLSVM11} to solve the constrained variational formulations, which is closely related to Fenchel duality~\citep{Magnanti:74} and leads to the same solutions for iLSVM and MT-iLSVM.} to solve the RegBayes problem by alternating between two substeps, as outlined in Algorithm 1 and detailed below.
\iffalse
We first turn the constrained problem to a problem of finding a stationary point using Lagrangian methods by introducing Lagrangian multipliers $\boldsymbol \omega$, one for each large-margin constraint as defined in Eq. (\ref{eq:MTconstraints}), and $\mathbf{u}$ for the nonnegativity constraints of $\boldsymbol \xi$. Let $L(p, \boldsymbol \xi, \boldsymbol \omega, \mathbf{u})$ be the Lagrangian functional. The inference procedure iteratively solves the following two steps (We defer the details to Appendix A.7):
\fi
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{Inference Algorithm for Infinite Latent SVMs}
\label{alg:coord_descent_regress}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} corpus $\mathcal{D}$ and constants $(\alpha, C)$.
\STATE {\bfseries Output:} posterior distribution $q(\boldsymbol \nu, \mathbf{Z}, \boldsymbol \eta, \mathbf{W})$.
\REPEAT
\STATE infer $q(\boldsymbol \nu), q(\mathbf{W})$ and $q(\mathbf{Z})$ with $q(\boldsymbol \eta)$ and $\boldsymbol \omega$ given;
\STATE infer $q(\boldsymbol \eta)$ and solve for $\boldsymbol \omega$ with $q(\mathbf{Z})$ given.
\UNTIL{convergence}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
{\bf Infer $q(\boldsymbol \nu)$, $q(\mathbf{W})$ and $q(\mathbf{Z})$:} Since $q(\boldsymbol \nu)$ and $q(\mathbf{W})$ are not directly involved in the posterior constraints, we can solve for them by using standard Bayesian inference, i.e., minimizing a KL-divergence. Specifically, for $q(\mathbf{W})$, since the prior is also normal, we can easily derive the update rules for $\Phi_{mn}$ and $\sigma_{mn}^2$. For $q(\boldsymbol \nu)$, we have the same update rules as in~\citep{Doshi-Velez:09}. We defer the details to Appendix D.1.
For $q(\mathbf{Z})$, it is directly involved in the posterior constraints. So, we need to solve it together with $q(\boldsymbol \eta)$ using conjugate theory. However, this is intractable. Here, we adopt an alternating strategy that first infers $q(\mathbf{Z})$ with $q(\boldsymbol \eta)$ and dual parameters $\boldsymbol \omega$ fixed, and then infers $q(\boldsymbol \eta)$ and solves for $\boldsymbol \omega$. Specifically, since the large-margin constraints are linear of $q(\mathbf{Z})$, we can get the mean-field update equation as $$\psi_{dk} = \frac{1}{1 + e^{-\vartheta_{dk}}},$$ where
\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:updateZ_mainPaper}
\vartheta_{dk} = && \sum_{j=1}^k \mathbb{E}_q[ \log v_j ] - \mathcal{L}_k^\nu - \sum_{mn} \frac{1}{2\lambda_{mn}^2}\Big( (K \sigma_{mn}^2 + (\phi_{mn}^k)^2) \\
&& - 2 x_{mn}^d \phi_{mn}^k + 2 \sum_{j\neq k} \phi_{mn}^j\phi_{mn}^k \psi_{dj} \Big) + \sum_{m, n\in \mathcal{I}_{\textrm{tr}}^m} y_{mn} \mathbb{E}_q[\eta_{mk}] x_{mn}^d, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and $\mathcal{L}_k^\nu$ is an lower bound of $\mathbb{E}_q[ \log (1 - \prod_{j=1}^k v_j) ]$ (See Appendix D.1 for details). The last term of $\vartheta_{dk}$ is due to the large-margin posterior constraints as defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:MTconstraints}). Therefore, from this equation we can see how the large-margin constraints regularize the procedure of inferring the latent matrix $\mathbf{Z}$.
{\bf Infer $q(\boldsymbol \eta)$ and solve for $\boldsymbol \omega$:} Now, we can apply the convex conjugate theory and show that the optimum posterior distribution of $\boldsymbol \eta$ is
$$q(\boldsymbol \eta) = \prod_m q(\boldsymbol \eta_m),~\textrm{where}~q(\boldsymbol \eta_m) \propto \pi(\boldsymbol \eta_m) \exp\lbrace \boldsymbol \eta_{m}^\top \boldsymbol \mu_m \rbrace,$$
and $\boldsymbol \mu_m = \sum_{n \in \mathcal{I}^m_{\textrm{tr}}} y_{mn} \omega_{mn} (\boldsymbol \psi^\top \mathbf{x}_{mn})$. Here, we assume $\pi(\boldsymbol \eta_m)$ is standard normal. Then, we have $q(\boldsymbol \eta_m) = \mathcal{N}(\boldsymbol \eta_m|\boldsymbol \mu_m , I)$ and the optimum dual parameters can be obtained by solving the following $M$ independent dual problems
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{ \boldsymbol \omega_m }~&& -\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol \mu_m^\top \boldsymbol \mu_m + \sum_{n \in \mathcal{I}^m_{\textrm{tr}}} \omega_{mn} \\
\forall n \in \mathcal{I}^m_{\textrm{tr}}, ~ \mathrm{s.t.}:~&& 0 \leq \omega_{mn} \leq C, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the constraints are from the conjugate function $g_0^\ast$ in Lemma~\ref{lemma:conjugateMTiLSVM}. These dual problems (or their primal forms) can be efficiently solved with a binary SVM solver, such as SVM-light or LibSVM.
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:experiment}
We present empirical results for both classification and multi-task learning. Our results appear to demonstrate the merits inherited from both Bayesian nonparametrics and large-margin learning.
\subsection{Multi-way Classification}
We evaluate the infinite latent SVM (iLSVM) for classification on the real TRECVID2003 and Flickr image datasets, which have been extensively evaluated in the context of learning finite latent feature models~\citep{Chen:nips10}. TRECVID2003 consists of 1078 video key-frames that belong to 5 categories, including {\it Airplane scene}, {\it Basketball scene}, {\it Weather news}, {\it Baseball scene}, and {\it Hockey scene}. Each data example has two types of features -- 1894-dimension binary vector of text features and 165-dimension HSV color histogram. The Flickr image dataset consists of 3411 natural scene images about 13 types of animals, including {\it squirrel, cow, cat, zebra, tiger, lion, elephant, whales, rabbit, snake, antlers, hawk and wolf}, downloaded from the Flickr website\footnote{http://www.flickr.com/}. Also, each example has two types of features, including 500-dimension SIFT bag-of-words and 634-dimension real-valued features (e.g., color histogram, edge direction histogram, and block-wise color moments). Here, we consider the real-valued features only by defining Gaussian likelihood distributions for $\mathbf{x}$; and we define the discriminant function using latent features only as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:latent-func-ilsvm}). We follow the same training/testing splits as in~\citep{Chen:nips10}.
\begin{table}[t]
\vskip 0.1in
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|cc|cc|}
\hline
{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{TRECVID2003} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Flickr} \\
Model & Accuracy & F1 score & Accuracy & F1 score \\
\hline
EFH+SVM & 0.565 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.427 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.476 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.461 $\pm$ 0.0 \\
MMH & {\bf 0.566} $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.430 $\pm$ 0.0 & {\bf 0.538} $\pm$ 0.0 & {\bf 0.512} $\pm$ 0.0 \\
\hline
IBP+SVM & 0.553 $\pm$ 0.013 & 0.397 $\pm$ 0.030 & 0.500 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.477 $\pm$ 0.009\\
iLSVM & 0.563 $\pm$ 0.010 & {\bf 0.448} $\pm$ 0.011 & 0.533 $\pm$ 0.005 & 0.510 $\pm$ 0.010 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ Classification accuracy and F1 scores on the TRECVID2003 and Flickr image datasets (Note: MMH and EFH have zero std because of their deterministic initialization).}
\label{table:Classification}\vspace{-.1cm}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth,height=0.3\columnwidth]{fig/sensitivity_flickr_k.eps}
\caption{Accuracy and F1 score of MMH on the Flickr dataset with different numbers of latent features.}
\label{fig:FlickrK}\vspace{-.2cm}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth,height=0.45\columnwidth]{fig/trecvid_pattern.eps}
\caption{(Up) the overall average values of the latent features with standard deviation over different classes; and (Bottom) the per-class average values of latent features learned by iLSVM on the TRECVID dataset.}\vspace{-.4cm}
\label{fig:TrecPattern}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth,height=0.23\columnwidth]{fig/flickr_pattern.eps}
\caption{The overall average values of the latent features with standard deviation over different classes on the Flickr dataset.}\vspace{-.4cm}
\label{fig:FlickrZ}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2.9pt}
\scalebox{0.75}{
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c }
\hline \hline
{\multirow{5}{*}{F1}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T117/1_136.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T117/2_76.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T117/3_131.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T117/4_142.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T117/5_43.eps}}} \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
\hline
{\multirow{5}{*}{F2}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T124/1_1106.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T124/2_1139.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T124/3_1110.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T124/4_1137.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T124/5_1105.eps}}} \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
\hline
{\multirow{5}{*}{F3}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T140/1_1159.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T140/2_1234.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T140/3_1193.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T140/4_988.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T140/5_1179.eps}}} \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
\hline
{\multirow{5}{*}{F4}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T173/1_1993.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T173/2_1871.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T173/3_159.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T173/4_1896.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T173/5_1911.eps}}} \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
\hline
{\multirow{5}{*}{F5}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T202/1_1672.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T202/2_1591.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T202/3_1631.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T202/4_1598.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T202/5_1621.eps}}} \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
\hline
{\multirow{5}{*}{F6}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T11/1_1798.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T11/2_776.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T11/3_623.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T11/4_698.eps}}} & {\multirow{5}{*}{\includegraphics[width=.18\columnwidth,height=.15\columnwidth]{fig/T11/5_1754.eps}}} \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
&&&&& \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Six example features discovered iLSVM on the Flickr animal dataset. For each feature, we show 5 top-ranked images.} \label{fig:flickr_topic}
\end{center}\vspace{-1cm}
\end{figure*}
We compare iLSVM with the large-margin Harmonium (MMH)~\citep{Chen:nips10}, which was shown to outperform many other latent feature models, and two decoupled approaches -- {\it EFH+SVM} and {\it IBP+SVM}. EFH+SVM uses the exponential family Harmonium (EFH)~\citep{Welling:04} to discover latent features and then learns a multi-way SVM classifier. IBP+SVM is similar, but uses an IBP factor analysis model~\citep{Griffiths:tr05} to discover latent features. To initialize the learning algorithms for these models, we found that using the SVD factors of the input feature matrix as the initial weights for MMH and EFH can produce better results. Here, we also use the SVD factors as the initial mean of weights in the likelihood models for iLSVM.
Both MMH and EFH+SVM are finite models and they need to pre-specify the dimensionality of latent features. We report their results on classification accuracy and F1 score (i.e., the average F1 score over all possible classes)~\citep{Zhu:iSVM11} achieved with the best dimensionality in Table~\ref{table:Classification}. Figure~\ref{fig:FlickrK} illustrates the performance change of MMH when using different number of latent features, from which we can see that $K=40$ produces the best performance and either increasing or decreasing $K$ could make the performance worse. For iLSVM and IBP+SVM, we use the mean-field inference method and present the average performance with 5 randomly initialized runs (Please see Appendix D.2 for the algorithm and initialization details). We perform 5-fold cross-validation on training data to select hyperparameters, e.g., $\alpha$ and $C$ (we use the same procedure for MT-iLSVM). We can see that iLSVM can achieve comparable performance with the nearly optimal MMH, without needing to pre-specify the latent feature dimension\footnote{We set the truncation level to 300, which is large enough.}, and is much better than the decoupled approaches (i.e., IBP+SVM and EFH+SVM). For the two stage methods, we don't have a clear winner -- IBP+SVM performs a bit worse than EFH+SVM on the TRECVID dataset, while it outperforms EFH+SVM on the flickr dataset. The reason for the difference may be due to the initialization or different properties of the data.
It is also interesting to examine the discovered latent features. Figure~\ref{fig:TrecPattern} shows the overall average values of latent features and the per-class average feature values of iLSVM in one run on the TRECVID dataset. We can see that on average only about 45 features are active for the TRECVID dataset. For the overall average, we also present the standard deviation over the 5 categories. A larger deviation means that the corresponding feature is more discriminative when predicting different categories. For example, feature 26 and feature 34 are generally less discriminative than many other features, such as feature 1 and feature 30. Figure~\ref{fig:FlickrZ} shows the overall average feature values together with standard deviation on the Flickr dataset. We omitted the per-class average because that figure is too crowded with 13 categories. We can that as $k$ increases, the probability that feature $k$ is active decreases. The reason for the features with stable values (i.e., standard deviations are extremely small) is due to our initialization strategy (each feature has $0.5$ probability to be active). Initializing $\psi_{dk}$ as being exponentially decreasing (e.g., like the constructing process of $\boldsymbol \pi$) leads to a faster decay and many features will be inactive. To examine the semantics\footnote{The interpretation of latent features depends heavily on the input data.} of each feature, Figure~\ref{fig:flickr_topic} presents some example features discovered on the Flickr animal dataset. For each feature, we present 5 top-ranked images which have large values on this particular feature. We can see that most of the features are semantically interpretable. For instance, feature F1 is about squirrel; feature F2 is about ocean animal, which is whales in the Flickr dataset; and feature F4 is about hawk. We can also see that some features are about different aspects of the same category. For example, feature F2 and feature F3 are both about whales, but with different background.
\subsection{Multi-task Learning}
Now, we evaluate the multi-task infinite latent SVM (MT-iLSVM) on several well-studied real datasets.
\subsubsection{Description of the Data}
{\bf Scene and Yeast Data}: These datasets are from the UCI repository, and each data example has multiple labels. As in~\citep{HalDaume:10}, we treat the multi-label classification as a multi-task learning problem, where each label assignment is treated as a binary classification task. The Yeast dataset consists of 1500 training and 917 test examples, each having 103 features, and the number of labels (or tasks) per example is 14. The Scene dataset consists 1211 training and 1196 test examples, each having 294 features, and the number of labels (or tasks) per example for this dataset is 6.
{\bf School Data}: This dataset comes from the Inner London Education Authority and has been used to study the effectiveness of schools. It consists of examination records of 15,362 students from 139 secondary schools in years 1985, 1986 and 1987. The dataset is publicly available and has been extensively evaluated in various multi-task learning methods~\citep{Bakker:JMLR03,Bonilla:MTGP08,Zhang:uai10}, where each task is defined as predicting the exam scores of students belonging to a specific school based on four student-dependent features (year of the exam, gender, VR band and ethnic group) and four school-dependent features (percentage of students eligible
for free school meals, percentage of students in VR band 1, school gender and school denomination). In order to compare with the above methods, we follow the same setup described in~\citep{Argyriou:nips07,Bakker:JMLR03} and similarly we create dummy variables for those features that are categorical forming a total of 19 student-dependent features and 8 school-dependent features. We use the same 10 random splits\footnote{Available at: http://ttic.uchicago.edu/$\sim$argyriou/code/index.html} of the data, so that $75\%$ of the examples from each school (task) belong to the training set and $25\%$ to the test set. On average, the training set includes about 80 students per school and the test set about 30 students per school.
\iffalse
\setlength\tabcolsep{3pt}{\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\footnotesize Multi-label classification performance on Scene and Yeast datasets.}
\label{table:MultiLabel}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\scalebox{.9}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|ccc|}
\hline
{} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Yeast} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Scene} \\
Model & Acc & F1-Micro & F1-Macro & Acc & F1-Micro & F1-Macro \\
\hline
yaxue~\citep{HalDaume:10} & 0.5106 & 0.3897 & 0.4022 & 0.7765 & 0.2669 & 0.2816 \\
piyushrai-1~\citep{HalDaume:10} & 0.5212 & 0.3631 & 0.3901 & 0.7756 & 0.3153 & 0.3242 \\
piyushrai-1~\citep{HalDaume:10} & 0.5424 & 0.3946 & 0.4112 & 0.7911 & 0.3214 & 0.3226 \\
\hline
MT-IBP+SVM & 0.5475 $\pm$ 0.005 & 0.3910 $\pm$ 0.006 & 0.4345 $\pm$ 0.007 & 0.8590 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.4880 $\pm$ 0.012 & 0.5147 $\pm$ 0.018 \\
MT-iLSVM & {\bf 0.5792} $\pm$ 0.003 & {\bf 0.4258} $\pm$ 0.005 & {\bf 0.4742} $\pm$ 0.008 & {\bf 0.8752} $\pm$ 0.004 & {\bf 0.5834} $\pm$ 0.026 & {\bf 0.6148} $\pm$ 0.020 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table}}
\fi
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|ccc|}
\hline
Dataset & Model & Acc & F1-Micro & F1-Macro \\
\hline
\multirow{5}{*}{Yeast} & YaXue & 0.5106 & 0.3897 & 0.4022 \\
{} & Piyushrai-1 & 0.5212 & 0.3631 & 0.3901 \\
{} & Piyushrai-2 & 0.5424 & 0.3946 & 0.4112 \\
{} & MT-IBP+SVM & 0.5475 $\pm$ 0.005 & 0.3910 $\pm$ 0.006 & 0.4345 $\pm$ 0.007 \\
{} & MT-iLSVM & {\bf 0.5792} $\pm$ 0.003 & {\bf 0.4258} $\pm$ 0.005 & {\bf 0.4742} $\pm$ 0.008 \\
\hline
\multirow{5}{*}{Scene} & YaXue & 0.7765 & 0.2669 & 0.2816 \\
{} & Piyushrai-1 & 0.7756 & 0.3153 & 0.3242 \\
{} & Piyushrai-2 & 0.7911 & 0.3214 & 0.3226 \\
{} & MT-IBP+SVM & 0.8590 $\pm$ 0.002 & 0.4880 $\pm$ 0.012 & 0.5147 $\pm$ 0.018 \\
{} & MT-iLSVM & {\bf 0.8752} $\pm$ 0.004 & {\bf 0.5834} $\pm$ 0.026 & {\bf 0.6148} $\pm$ 0.020 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ Multi-label classification performance on Scene and Yeast datasets.}\label{table:MultiLabel}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Results}
{\bf Scene and Yeast Data}: We compare with the closely related nonparametric Bayesian methods, including kernel stick-breaking (YaXue)~\citep{XueYa:icml07} and the basic and augmented infinite predictor subspace models (i.e., Piyushrai-1 and Piyushrai-2)~\citep{HalDaume:10}. These nonparametric Bayesian models were shown to outperform the independent Bayesian logistic regression and a single-task pooling approach~\citep{HalDaume:10}. We also compare with a decoupled method {\it MT-IBP+SVM}\footnote{This decoupled approach is in fact an one-iteration MT-iLSVM, where we first infer the shared latent matrix $\mathbf{Z}$ and then learn an SVM classifier for each task.} that uses an IBP factor analysis model to find shared latent features among multiple tasks and then builds separate SVM classifiers for different tasks. For MT-iLSVM and MT-IBP+SVM, we use the mean-field inference method in Sec~\ref{sec:inference} and report the average performance with 5 randomly initialized runs (See Appendix D.1 for initialization details). For comparison with~\citep{HalDaume:10,XueYa:icml07}, we use the overall classification accuracy, F1-Macro and F1-Micro as performance measures. Table~\ref{table:MultiLabel} shows the results. On both datasets, MT-iLSVM needs less than 50 latent features on average. We can see that the large-margin MT-iLSVM performs much better than other nonparametric Bayesian methods and MT-IBP+SVM, which separates the inference of latent features from learning the classifiers.
\iffalse
For multi-label classification, different measures including the above ones have used in different papers. For example, the Hamming Loss, which actually equals to 1 minus the overall accuracy, of MT-iLSVM on the two datasets is comparable to those achieved by state-of-the-art methods, as extensively evaluated in~\citep{Zhang:SDM10}.
\fi
\iffalse
\setlength\tabcolsep{3pt}{\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Percentage of explained variance by various models on the School dataset.}
\label{table:MultiTask}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{.9}{\begin{tabular}{|cccc|cccc|}
\hline
STL & BMTL & MTGP & MTRL & MT-IBP+SVM & MT-iLSVM & MT-IBP+SVM$^f$ & MT-iLSVM$^f$\\
\hline
23.5 $\pm$ 1.9 & 29.5 $\pm$ 0.4 & 29.2 $\pm$ 1.6 & 29.9 $\pm$ 1.8 & 20.0 $\pm$ 2.9 & 30.9 $\pm$ 1.2 & 28.5 $\pm$ 1.6 & {\bf 31.7} $\pm$ 1.1 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\end{table}}
\fi
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth,height=0.35\columnwidth]{fig/explainedVar_school.eps}
\caption{Percentage of explained variance by various models on the School dataset.}
\label{fig:MultiTask}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[Yeast]{\includegraphics[width=0.43\columnwidth,height=0.33\columnwidth]{fig/sensitivity_yeast_alpha3.eps}}\hfill
\subfigure[Yeast]{\includegraphics[width=0.43\columnwidth,height=0.33\columnwidth]{fig/sensitivity_yeast_c3.eps}}\hfill
\subfigure[School]{\includegraphics[width=0.43\columnwidth,height=0.33\columnwidth]{fig/sensitivity_school_alpha3.eps}}\hfill
\subfigure[School]{\includegraphics[width=0.43\columnwidth,height=0.33\columnwidth]{fig/sensitivity_school_c3.eps}}
\caption{Sensitivity study of MT-iLSVM: (a) classification accuracy with different $\alpha$ on Yeast data; (b) classification accuracy with different $C$ on Yeast data; (c) percentage of explained variance with different $\alpha$ on School data; and (d) percentage of explained variance with different $C$ on School data.}
\label{fig:sensitivity}\vspace{-.4cm}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
{\bf School Data}: We use the percentage of explained variance~\citep{Bakker:JMLR03} as the measure of the regression performance, which is defined as the total variance of the data minus the sum-squared error on the test set as a percentage of the total variance. Since we use the same settings, we can compare with the state-of-the-art results of
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item Bayesian multi-task learning (BMTL)~\citep{Bakker:JMLR03};
\item Multi-task Gaussian processes (MTGP)~\citep{Bonilla:MTGP08};
\item Convex multi-task relationship learning (MTRL)~\citep{Zhang:uai10};
\end{enumerate}
and single-task learning (STL) as reported in~\citep{Bonilla:MTGP08,Zhang:uai10}. For MT-iLSVM and MT-IBP+SVM, we also report the results achieved by using both the latent features (i.e., $\mathbf{Z}^\top \mathbf{x}$) and the original input features $\mathbf{x}$ through vector concatenation, and we denote the corresponding methods by {\it MT-iLSVM$^f$} and {\it MT-IBP+SVM$^f$}, respectively.
On average the multi-task latent SVM (i.e., MT-iLSVM) needs about 50 latent features to get sufficiently good and robust performance. From the results in Figure~\ref{fig:MultiTask}, we can see that the MT-iLSVM achieves better results than the existing methods that have been tested in previous studies. Again, the joint MT-iLSVM performs much better than the decoupled method MT-IBP+SVM, which separates the latent feature inference from the training of large-margin classifiers. Finally, using both latent features and the original input features can boost the performance slightly for MT-iLSVM, while much more significantly for the decoupled MT-IBP+SVM.
\subsection{Sensitivity Analysis}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.88\columnwidth,height=0.4\columnwidth]{fig/sensitivity_school_size.eps}
\caption{Percentage of explained variance and running time by MT-iLSVM with various training sizes.}
\label{fig:Time}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity} shows how the performance of MT-iLSVM changes against the hyper-parameter $\alpha$ and regularization constant $C$ on the Yeast and School datasets. We can see that on the Yeast dataset, MT-iLSVM is insensitive to both $\alpha$ and $C$. For the School dataset, MT-iLSVM is very insensitive the $\alpha$, and it is stable when $C$ is set between 0.3 and 1.
Figure~\ref{fig:Time} shows how the training size affects the performance and running time of MT-iLSVM on the School dataset. We use the first $b\%$ ($b=50,60,70,80,90,100$) of the training data in each of the 10 random splits as training set and use the corresponding test data as test set. We can see that as training size increases, the performance and running time generally increase; and MT-iLSVM achieves the state-of-art performance when using about $70\%$ training data. From the running time, we can also see that MT-iLSVM is generally quite efficient by using mean-field inference.
Finally, we investigate how the performance of MT-iLSVM changes against the hyperparameters $\sigma_{m0}^2$ and $\lambda_{mn}^2$. We initially set $\sigma_{m0}^2=1$ and compute $\lambda_{mn}^2$ from observed data. If we further estimate them by maximizing the objective function, the performance does not change much ($\pm 0.3 \%$ for average explained variance on the School dataset). We have similar observations for iLSVM.
\iffalse
\setlength\tabcolsep{3pt}{\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Percentage of explained variance and running time by MT-iLSVM with various training sizes.}
\label{table:Time}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{.89}{\begin{tabular}{|c|cccccc|}
\hline
{} & 50\% & 60\% & 70\% & 80\% & 90\% & 100\% \\
\hline
explained variance (\%) & 25.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 27.3 $\pm$ 0.7 & 29.6 $\pm$ 0.4 & 30.0 $\pm$ 0.5 & 30.8 $\pm$ 0.4 & 30.9 $\pm$ 1.2\\
\hline
running time (s) & 370.3 $\pm$ 32.5 & 455.9 $\pm$ 18.6 & 492.6 $\pm$ 33.2 & 600.1 $\pm$ 50.2 & 777.6 $\pm$ 73.4 & 918.9 $\pm$ 96.5\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.18in
\end{table}}
\fi
\section{Conclusions and Discussions}
We present regularized Bayesian inference (RegBayes), a computational framework to perform post-data posterior inference with a rich set of regularization/constraints on the desired post-data posterior distributions. RegBayes is formulated as a information-theoretical optimization problem, and it is applicable to both directed and undirected graphical models. We present a general theorem to characterize the solution of RegBayes, when the posterior regularization is induced from a linear operator (e.g., expectation). Furthermore, we particularly concentrate on developing two large-margin nonparametric Bayesian models under the RegBayes framework to learn predictive latent features for classification and multi-task learning, by exploring the large-margin principle to define posterior constraints. Both models allow the latent dimension to be automatically resolved from the data. The empirical results on several real datasets appear to demonstrate that our methods inherit the merits from both Bayesian nonparametrics and large-margin learning.
RegBayes offers a flexible framework for considering posterior regularization in performing parametric or nonparametric Bayesian inference. For future work, we plan to study other posterior regularization beyond the large-margin constraints, such as posterior constraints defined on manifold structures~\citep{Huh:KDD10} and those represented in the form of first-order logic, and investigate how posterior regularization can be used in other interesting nonparametric Bayesian models~\citep{Beal:iHMM07,YWTeh:jasa06,Blei:icml10} in different contexts, such as link prediction~\citep{Miller:nips09} for social network analysis and low-rank matrix factorization for collaborative prediction. Some of our preliminary results~\citep{Xu:nips12,Zhu:icml12,Zhu:RegBayes-icml14} have shown great promise. It is interesting to investigate more carefully along this direction. Moreover, as we have stated, RegBayes can be developed for undirected MRFs. But the inference would be even harder. We plan to do a systematic investigation along this direction too. We have some preliminary results presented in~\citep{Chen:iEFH11}, but there is a lot of room to further improve. Finally, regularized Bayesian inference in general leads to a highly nontrivial inference problem. Although the general solution can be derived with convex analysis theory, it is normally intractable to infer them directly. Therefore, approximate inference techniques such as the truncated mean-field approximation have to be used. For the current truncated inference methods, one key limit is to pre-specify the truncation level. A too conservative truncation level could lead to a waste of computing resources. So, it is important to develop inference algorithms that could adaptively determine the number of latent features, such as Monte Carlo methods. We have some preliminary progress along this direction as reported in the work~\citep{Zhu:nips12,Zhu:icml13}. It is interesting to extend these techniques to deal with other challenging nonparametric Bayesian models.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank the anonymous reviewers and the editors for many helpful comments to improve the manuscript. NC and JZ are supported by National Key Foundation R\&D Projects (No.s 2013CB329403, 2012CB316301), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61322308, 61332007, 61305066), Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program (No. 20121088071), and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Grant (No. 2013T60117) to NC. EX is supported by AFOSR FA95501010247, ONR N000140910758, NSF Career DBI-0546594 and an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}}
The problem of evaluating the $l$th-order correlation function
$\langle({\hat a}^\dag)^{l}{\hat a}^{l}\rangle$ for a one-mode squeezed
thermal state of the quantum electromagnetic field by employing
the photon-number distribution led one of us \cite{PM} to consider
the following power series involving Legendre polynomials:
\begin{equation}
G_{l}^{(\frac{1}{2})}(t,w):=\sum_{n=l}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\l
\end{array}\right)t^{n}P_{n}(w), \qquad (w:=\cos\theta,
\;\;\; |t|<1, \;\;\; l=0,1,2,3,...). \label{Legser}
\end{equation}
In eq.~(\ref{Legser}), $\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\l\end{array}\right)$
are binomial coefficients. For subsequent convenience, we introduce
the square root of a complex variable as follows:
\begin{equation}
q:=(1-2wt+t^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}, \qquad (t=0 \longrightarrow q=1).
\label{var}
\end{equation}
The sum of any series of ascending powers \ (\ref{Legser}) is the product
of three factors: the generating function of the Legendre polynomials,
the $l$th power of a specific variable, and the Legendre polynomial
of degree $l$ of another specific variable:
\begin{equation}
G_{l}^{(\frac{1}{2})}(t,w)=\frac{1}{q}
\left(\frac{t}{q}\right)^l
P_{l}\left(\frac{w-t}{q}\right), \qquad (l=0,1,2,3,...).
\label{Legsum}
\end{equation}
Note that the series expansion\ (\ref{Legser}) reduces for $l=0$
to the power series of the generating function of the Legendre polynomials.
A similar result has been found later for the Laguerre polynomials
\cite{PTB}. We obtained a formula which is useful when the general
solution of the quantum optical master equation describing dissipation
is applied to a single-mode displaced squeezed thermal state \cite{PTA}.
When we performed the above-mentioned summations we were not aware
of the fact that the corresponding formulae and the similar ones for
the Gegenbauer and Hermite polynomials have been known for a long time
\cite{Rain}. This happened because such formulae are not mentioned
in any book devoted to special functions except for the cited textbook.
Rainville derived them by making combined use of an appropriate
double power series and of the generating function of the orthogonal
polynomials under discussion. Owing to their importance for some
physical problems, we find it useful to give in this work
a comprehensive overview based on an alternative approach.
We prove that a property of the type \ (\ref{Legsum}) is shared
by two one-parameter families of classical orthogonal polynomials,
namely, the Gegenbauer and Laguerre polynomials. The main ingredients
of our method are Cauchy's integral formula for the derivatives
of a holomorphic function and specific functional equations satisfied
by the generating functions of these well-known polynomials.
The outline of the article is as follows. Section 2 deals with
the Gegenbauer series, while in Sec. 3 the obtained formula is applied
to the particular cases of the Legendre and Chebyshev polynomials.
In Sec. 4 we review the Laguerre series. The sum of the series of Hermite polynomials is recovered in Sec. 5 in a straightforward manner, as well as
an asymptotic limit of both the Gegenbauer and Laguerre series. In Sec. 6
we compute a similar power series of an arbitrary derivative of Mehler's
generating function, finding a new formula. By way of illustration,
Mehler's summation formula is employed in Sec. 7 to write in closed form
the well-known propagator of a linear harmonic oscillator.
Concluding remarks are presented in Sec. 8.
\vspace{4mm}
{\centering\section{GEGENBAUER POLYNOMIALS}}
\vspace{2mm}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The generating function of the Gegenbauer polynomials of order $\lambda$,
\begin{equation}
G_{0}^{(\lambda)}(t,w):=(1-2wt+t^2)^{-\lambda}, \qquad (\lambda \not=0,
\;\;\; \lambda>-\frac{1}{2}, \;\;\; w:=\cos\theta), \label{Gegfun}
\end{equation}
is holomorphic in the variable $t$ for $|t|<1$ and has the Taylor
expansion \cite{HTFGeg}
\begin{equation}
G_{0}^{(\lambda)}(t,w)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}t^{n}C_{n}^{\lambda}(w),
\qquad (w:=\cos\theta, \;\;\; |t|<1). \label{Geggen}
\end{equation}
Accordingly, Cauchy's integral formula for the derivatives of a
holomorphic function (CIFD) \cite{Ahl, Hille} gives the following
integral representation of the Gegenbauer polynomial $C_{l}^{\lambda}(w)$
of degree $l$ and order $\lambda$:
\begin{equation}
C_{l}^{\lambda}(w)=\frac{1}{2{\pi}i}\int^{(0+)}dt \,\frac{1}{t^{l+1}}\,
G_{0}^{(\lambda)}(t,w). \label{GegCIF}
\end{equation}
The contour of integration in eq.~(\ref{GegCIF}) is a simple loop
encircling the origin $t=0$ counterclockwise and situated entirely
within the open disk $|t|<1$. Note that the sum of the power series
of interest,
\begin{equation}
G_{l}^{(\lambda)}(t,w):=\sum_{n=l}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\l
\end{array}\right)t^{n}C_{n}^{\lambda}(w), \qquad (w=:\cos\theta,
\;\;\; |t|<1, \;\;\; l=0,1,2,3,...), \label{Gegser}
\end{equation}
involves the $l$th-order derivative of the generating function:
\begin{equation}
G_{l}^{(\lambda)}(t,w)=\frac{t^l}{l!}\left(\frac{\partial}{{\partial}t}
\right)^{l}G_{0}^{(\lambda)}(t,w). \label{Gegder}
\end{equation}
We employ CIFD again and find, after a translation of the variable
of integration,
\begin{equation}
G_{l}^{(\lambda)}(t,w)=\frac{t^l}{2{\pi}i}\int^{(0+)}ds \,\frac{1}{s^{l+1}}\,
G_{0}^{(\lambda)}(s+t,w). \label{CIFGs}
\end{equation}
We now take advantage of the following functional equation
for the generating function \ (\ref{Gegfun}):
\begin{equation}
G_{0}^{(\lambda)}(s+t,w)=G_{0}^{(\lambda)}(t,w)\,G_{0}^{(\lambda)}(\xi, \eta),
\label{Gegfeq}
\end{equation}
where we have denoted
\begin{equation}
\xi:=\frac{s}{q}, \qquad \eta:=\frac{w-t}{q}.
\label{Gegvar}
\end{equation}
Insertion of eq.~(\ref{Gegfeq}) into eq.~(\ref{CIFGs}), followed by
the change of the integration variable to $\xi$ defined
in eq.~(\ref{Gegvar}), yields
\begin{equation}
G_{l}^{(\lambda)}(t,w)=G_{0}^{(\lambda)}(t,w)\left(\frac{t}{q}\right)^l
\frac{1}{2{\pi}i}\int^{(0+)}d\xi \,\frac{1}{\xi^{l+1}}\,
G_{0}^{(\lambda)}(\xi, \eta). \label{Gegint}
\end{equation}
For real $t$, the obvious inequality ${\eta}^2 \leqq 1$ allows us to use
eqs.~(\ref{Gegfun}) and \ (\ref{GegCIF}) and find the formula
\begin{eqnarray}
&&G_{l}^{(\lambda)}(t,w)=q^{-2\lambda}\left(\frac{t}{q}\right)^l
C_{l}^{\lambda}\left(\frac{w-t}{q}\right),
\nonumber \\ &&(\lambda \not=0, \;\;\; \lambda>-\frac{1}{2},
\;\;\; w:=\cos\theta, \;\;\; |t|<1, \;\;\;l=0,1,2,3,...). \label{Gegsum}
\end{eqnarray}
The validity of eq.~(\ref{Gegsum}) can be extended by analytic
continuation to any complex value $t$ inside the unit circle.
An equivalent form of eq.~(\ref{Gegsum}),
\begin{equation}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}
{c}l+m\\l\end{array}\right)t^{m}C_{l+m}^{\lambda}(w)
=q^{-2\lambda-l}C_{l}^{\lambda}\left(\frac{w-t}{q}\right), \label{Gegdec}
\end{equation}
coincides with the formula written by Rainville \cite{RainGeg}.
\vspace{4mm}
{\centering\section{LEGENDRE AND CHEBYSHEV POLYNOMIALS}}
\vspace{2mm}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Recall that the Legendre polynomials are the Gegenbauer polynomials
of order $\lambda=\frac{1}{2}$:
\begin{equation}
P_{l}(w)=C_{l}^{\frac{1}{2}}(w). \label{Legpol}
\end{equation}
Therefore, by setting $\lambda=\frac{1}{2}$ in eqs.~(\ref{Gegser}) and
~(\ref{Gegsum}), we recover eqs.~(\ref{Legser}) and
~(\ref{Legsum}), respectively. For $\lambda=\frac{1}{2}$, eq.~(\ref{Gegdec})
reduces to the equivalent formula chosen by Rainville \cite{RainLeg}:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}
{c}l+m\\l\end{array}\right)t^{m}P_{l+m}(w)=\left(\frac{1}{q}\right)^{1+l}
P_{l}\left(\frac{w-t}{q}\right). \label{RainLeg}
\end{equation}
The Chebyshev polynomials of the first kind,
\begin{equation}
T_{l}(w):=\cos(l\theta), \qquad (w:=\cos\theta, \;\;\;
l=0,1,2,3,...), \label{Che1}
\end{equation}
are the limiting case $\lambda=0$ of the Gegenbauer polynomials,
as follows \cite{HTFC1}:
\begin{equation}
T_{0}(w)=C_{0}^{0}(w), \label{Chezer}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
T_{l}(w)=\frac{l}{2}\,C_{l}^{0}(w), \qquad (l=1,2,3,...), \label{Chenat}
\end{equation}
with \cite{HTFGz}
\begin{equation}
C_{0}^{0}(w):=1, \label{Gegzer}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
C_{l}^{0}(w):=\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0}\left[\frac{1}{\lambda}\,
C_{l}^{\lambda}(w)\right], \qquad (l=1,2,3,...). \label{Gegnat}
\end{equation}
Hence the generating function of the polynomials \ (\ref{Gegnat})
is the derivative
\begin{equation}
G_{0}^{(0)}(t,w):=\frac{\partial G_{0}^{(\lambda)}(t,w)}
{\partial \lambda}\Bigg|_{\lambda=0}, \label{C1gfdef}
\end{equation}
while the functions studied here are given by the limit
\begin{equation}
G_{l}^{(0)}(w):=\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow0}\left[\frac{1}{\lambda}\,
G_{l}^{(\lambda)}(t,w)\right], \qquad (l=1,2,3,...). \label{C1fdef}
\end{equation}
The generating function \ (\ref{C1gfdef}), whose explicit form
is the principal determination of the logarithm
\begin{equation}
G_{0}^{(0)}(t,w)=-\ln(1-2wt+t^2), \label{C1fun}
\end{equation}
is the sum of the power series \cite{HTFC1g}
\begin{equation}
G_{0}^{(0)}(t,w)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}t^{n}\frac{2}{n}\,T_{n}(w),
\qquad (w:=\cos\theta, \;\;\; |t|<1). \label{C1gen}
\end{equation}
In turn, eq.~(\ref{Gegser}) leads us to write a function
\ (\ref{C1fdef}) as the sum of the series
\begin{equation}
G_{l}^{(0)}(t,w)=\sum_{n=l}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\l
\end{array}\right)t^{n}\frac{2}{n}\,T_{n}(w), \;\;\; (w:=\cos\theta,
\;\;\; |t|<1, \;\;\; l=1,2,3,...), \label{C1ser}
\end{equation}
while eq.~(\ref{Gegsum}) gives its explicit expression:
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{l}^{(0)}(t,w)=\left(\frac{t}{q}\right)^l
\frac{2}{l}\,T_{l}\left(\frac{w-t}{q}\right), \qquad (l=1,2,3,...).
\label{C1sum}
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, for $l=1$ \cite{HTFC1s},
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}t^{n}\,T_{n}(w)=\frac{1-wt}{1-2wt+t^2}. \label{C1ser1}
\end{equation}
Equations \ (\ref{C1ser}) and \ (\ref{C1sum}) also read:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}l+m\\l
\end{array}\right)t^{m}\frac{1}{l+m}\,T_{l+m}(w)=\left(\frac{1}{q}\right)^l
\frac{1}{l}\,T_{l}\left(\frac{w-t}{q}\right),
\qquad (l=1,2,3,...). \label{PTC1}
\end{equation}
The Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind,
\begin{equation}
U_{l}(w):=\frac{\sin[(l+1)\theta]}{\sin\theta}, \qquad
(w:=\cos\theta, \;\;\; l=0,1,2,3,...), \label{Che2}
\end{equation}
are the Gegenbauer polynomials of order $\lambda=1$ \cite{HTFC2}:
\begin{equation}
U_{l}(w)=C_{l}^{1}(w). \label{C2pol}
\end{equation}
Accordingly, the sum of the series
\begin{equation}
G_{l}^{(1)}(t,w):=\sum_{n=l}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\l
\end{array}\right)t^{n}U_{n}(w), \qquad (w:=\cos\theta,
\;\;\; |t|<1, \;\;\; l=0,1,2,3,...) \label{C2ser}
\end{equation}
is the special case $\lambda=1$ of eq.~(\ref{Gegsum}):
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{l}^{(1)}(t,w)=q^{-2}\left(\frac{t}{q}\right)^l
U_{l}\left(\frac{w-t}{q}\right), \qquad (l=0,1,2,3,...).
\label{C2sum}
\end{eqnarray}
An equivalent formula is given by eq.~(\ref{Gegdec}) written
for $\lambda=1$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}
{c}l+m\\l\end{array}\right)t^{m}U_{l+m}(w)=\left(\frac{1}{q}\right)^{2+l}
U_{l}\left(\frac{w-t}{q}\right). \label{PTC2}
\end{eqnarray}
\vspace{4mm}
{\centering\section{LAGUERRE POLYNOMIALS}}
\vspace{2mm}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
For the sake of completeness, we prove the similar property of the
Laguerre polynomials, repeating step by step the argument from Section 2.
The generating function of the Laguerre polynomials of order $\alpha$,
\begin{equation}
S_{0}^{(\alpha)}(t,u):=(1-t)^{-\alpha-1}\exp\left(-\frac{ut}{1-t}\right),
\qquad (\alpha>-1),
\label{Lagfun}
\end{equation}
is holomorphic in the variable $t$ inside the circle $|t|=1$
and has the Taylor expansion \cite{HTFLag}
\begin{equation}
S_{0}^{(\alpha)}(t,u)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}t^{n}L_{n}^{\alpha}(u), \qquad (|t|<1). \label{Laggen}
\end{equation}
Making use of CIFD, we write the Laguerre polynomial
$L_{l}^{\alpha}(u)$ of degree $l$ and order $\alpha$ as an integral
representation \cite{corr}:
\begin{equation}
L_{l}^{\alpha}(u)=\frac{1}{2{\pi}i}\int^{(0+)}dt \, \frac{1}{t^{l+1}}
\, S_{0}^{(\alpha)}(t,u). \label{LagCIF}
\end{equation}
Just as in eq.~(\ref{GegCIF}), the contour of integration encircles
the origin $t=0$ once, counterclockwise, inside the unit circle. Now
the power series under investigation,
\begin{equation}
S_{l}^{(\alpha)}(t,u):=\sum_{n=l}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\l
\end{array}\right)t^{n}L_{n}^{\alpha}(u), \qquad (|t|<1, \;\;\;
l=0,1,2,3,...), \label{Lagser}
\end{equation}
has the sum
\begin{equation}
S_{l}^{(\alpha)}(t,u)=\frac{t^l}{l!}\left(\frac{\partial}{{\partial}t}
\right)^{l}S_{0}^{(\alpha)}(t,u). \label{Lagder}
\end{equation}
Applying once again CIFD, we get with a translation of the variable
of integration:
\begin{equation}
S_{l}^{(\alpha)}(t,u)=\frac{t^l}{2{\pi}i}\int^{(0+)}ds\, \frac{1}{s^{l+1}}\,
S_{0}^{(\alpha)}(s+t,u). \label{CIFLs}
\end{equation}
The generating function \ (\ref{Lagfun}) satisfies the functional equation
\begin{equation}
S_{0}^{(\alpha)}(s+t,u)=S_{0}^{(\alpha)}(t,u)\,S_{0}^{(\alpha)}
\left(\frac{s}{1-t}\, , \, \frac{u}{1-t}\right). \label{Lagfeq}
\end{equation}
Combining it with the change of variable
\begin{equation}
\zeta:=\frac{s}{1-t} \label{Lagvar}
\end{equation}
in the integral, eq.~(\ref{CIFLs}) becomes
\begin{equation}
S_{l}^{(\alpha)}(t,u)=S_{0}^{(\alpha)}(t,u)\left(\frac{t}{1-t}\right)^l
\frac{1}{2{\pi}i}\int^{(0+)}d\zeta \,\frac{1}{\zeta^{l+1}}\,
S_{0}^{(\alpha)}\left(\zeta,\, \frac{u}{1-t}\right). \label{Lagint}
\end{equation}
On account of eqs.~(\ref{Lagfun}) and \ (\ref{LagCIF}),
eq.~(\ref{Lagint}) finally yields the sum of the series
\ (\ref{Lagser}):
\begin{eqnarray}
&&S_{l}^{(\alpha)}(t,u)=(1-t)^{-\alpha-1}\exp\left(-\frac{ut}{1-t}\right)
\left(\frac{t}{1-t}\right)^{l}L_{l}^{\alpha}\left(\frac{u}{1-t}\right),
\nonumber \\ &&(\alpha>-1, \;\;\; |t|<1, \;\;\; l=0,1,2,3,...).
\label{Lagsum}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that eqs.~(\ref{Lagser}) and \ (\ref{Lagsum}) are equivalent
to the formula preferred by Rainville \cite{RainLag}:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}
{c}l+m\\l\end{array}\right)t^{m}L_{l+m}^{\alpha}(u)=(1-t)^{-\alpha-1}
\exp\left(-\frac{ut}{1-t}\right)\left(\frac{1}{1-t}\right)^l
L_{l}^{\alpha}\left(\frac{u}{1-t}\right). \label{RainLag}
\end{equation}
\vspace{4mm}
{\centering\section{HERMITE POLYNOMIALS}}
\vspace{2mm}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The generating function of the Hermite polynomials is the exponential
\begin{equation}
W_{0}(z,x):=\exp(2xz-z^2). \label{Herfun}
\end{equation}
Being an entire function, the Taylor series \cite{HTFHer}
\begin{equation}
W_{0}(z,x)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{z^{n}}{n!}\,H_{n}(x) \label{Hergen}
\end{equation}
converges in the whole complex $z$-plane. The more general series
we are interested in,
\begin{equation}
W_{l}(z,x):=\sum_{n=l}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\l
\end{array}\right)\frac{z^{n}}{n!}\,H_{n}(x), \qquad (l=0,1,2,3,...),
\label{Herser}
\end{equation}
has the sum
\begin{equation}
W_{l}(z,x))=\frac{z^l}{l!}\left(\frac{\partial}{{\partial}z}
\right)^{l}W_{0}(z,x). \label{Herder}
\end{equation}
In order to evaluate it, we apply the method of Secs. 2 and 3,
taking advantage of the functional equation satisfied
by the generating function ~(\ref{Herfun}):
\begin{equation}
W_{0}(v+z,x)=W_{0}(z,x)\,W_{0}(v,x-z). \label{Herfeq}
\end{equation}
The result is
\begin{equation}
W_{l}(z,x)=\exp(2xz-z^2)\,\frac{t^{l}}{l!}\,H_{l}(x-z),
\qquad (l=0,1,2,3,...), \label{Hersum}
\end{equation}
and may be written in the equivalent form chosen by Rainville \cite{RainHer}:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\frac{z^{m}}{m!}\,H_{l+m}(x)=\exp(2xz-z^2)\,H_{l}(x-z).
\label{Herdec}
\end{equation}
However, eq.~(\ref{Hersum}) can be established as an asymptotic case
of the similar formula either for the Gegenbauer polynomials,
eq.~(\ref{Gegsum}), or for the Laguerre polynomials, eq.~(\ref{Lagsum}).
In the first case, our starting point is the limit \cite{AARGeg}
\begin{equation}
W_{0}(z,x)=\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}\left[G_{0}^{(\lambda)}
({\lambda}^{-\frac{1}{2}}z, {\lambda}^{-\frac{1}{2}}x)\right].
\label{Ggenas}
\end{equation}
Hence
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{l!}H_{l}(x)=\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}\left[{\lambda}^
{-\frac{l}{2}}C_{l}^{\lambda}({\lambda}^{-\frac{1}{2}}x)\right].
\label{Gpolas}
\end{equation}
Making use of eqs. \ (\ref{Herder}) and \ (\ref{Gegder}), we get
\begin{equation}
W_{l}(z,x)=\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}\left[G_{l}^{(\lambda)}
({\lambda}^{-\frac{1}{2}}z, {\lambda}^{-\frac{1}{2}}x)\right].
\label{Gsumas}
\end{equation}
Substitution of eqs. \ (\ref{Gegsum}), \ (\ref{Ggenas}), and
\ (\ref{Gpolas}) into eq.~(\ref{Gsumas}) yields again the result
\ (\ref{Hersum}).
In the second case, we start from the identity \cite{AARLag}
\begin{equation}
W_{0}(z,x)=\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow\infty}\left\{S_{0}^{(\alpha)}
\left(\left(\frac{2}{\alpha}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}z,\,
{\alpha}\left[1-\left(\frac{2}{\alpha}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}x\right]
\right)\right\}, \label{Lgenas}
\end{equation}
which gives the limit
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{l!}H_{l}(x)=\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow\infty}\left\{\left(
\frac{2}{\alpha}\right)^{\frac{l}{2}}L_{n}^{\alpha}\left({\alpha}
\left[1-\left(\frac{2}{\alpha}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}x\right]
\right)\right\}. \label{Lpolas}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, taking note of eqs.~(\ref{Herder}) and
~(\ref{Lagder}), we find:
\begin{equation}
W_{l}(z,x)=\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow\infty}\left\{S_{l}^{(\alpha)}
\left(\left(\frac{2}{\alpha}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}z,\,
{\alpha}\left[1-\left(\frac{2}{\alpha}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}x\right]
\right)\right\}. \label{Lsumas}
\end{equation}
By inserting eq.~(\ref{Lagsum}) as well as the limits ~(\ref{Lgenas})
and ~(\ref{Lpolas}) into eq.~(\ref{Lsumas}), we recover once more
eq.~(\ref{Hersum}).
\vspace{4mm}
{\centering\section{A GENERALIZATION OF MEHLER'S SUMMATION FORMULA}}
\vspace{2mm}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We intend to evaluate the sum of the power series
\begin{equation}
M_{l}(z,x,y):=\sum_{n=l}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\l
\end{array}\right)\frac{z^{n}}{n!\,2^n}\,H_{n}(x)H_{n}(y), \qquad
(|z|<1, \;\;\; l=0,1,2,3,...). \label{Mehser}
\end{equation}
Its special case $l=0$ is Mehler's power series expansion,
\begin{equation}
M_{0}(z,x,y)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{z^{n}}{n!\,2^n}\,H_{n}(x)H_{n}(y),
\qquad (|z|<1), \label{Mehgen}
\end{equation}
of the generating function \cite{HTFMeh,HBMeh,AARMeh}
\begin{equation}
M_{0}(z,x,y):=\left(1-z^2\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\exp\left\{\frac{1}{1-z^2}
\left[2xyz-\left(x^2+y^2\right)z^2\right]\right\}. \label{Mehfun}
\end{equation}
The analytic function\ (\ref{Mehfun}) factors in the following way
\cite{HBMfac}:
\begin{equation}
M_{0}(z,x,y)=
S_{0}^{\left(-\frac{1}{2}\right)}\left(z,\frac{1}{2}(x-y)^2\right)
S_{0}^{\left(-\frac{1}{2}\right)}\left(-z,\frac{1}{2}(x+y)^2\right),
\qquad (|z|<1), \label{Mehfac}
\end{equation}
where $S_{0}^{\left(-\frac{1}{2}\right)}(t,u)$ is the generating function
\ (\ref{Lagfun}) of the Laguerre polynomials of order
$\alpha=-\frac{1}{2}$.
On the other hand, the function\ (\ref{Mehser}) involves a $l$th-order
partial derivative of Mehler's generating function \ (\ref{Mehfun}):
\begin{equation}
M_{l}(z,x,y))=\frac{z^l}{l!}\left(\frac{\partial}{{\partial}z}
\right)^{l}M_{0}(z,x,y). \label{Mehder}
\end{equation}
Insertion of the factorization\ (\ref{Mehfac}) into
eq.~(\ref{Mehder}), followed by application of Leibniz' rule
and use of eq.~(\ref{Lagder}) with $\alpha=-\frac{1}{2}$, leads us
to a finite expansion:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&M_{l}(z,x,y)=\sum_{m=0}^{l}
S_{l-m}^{\left(-\frac{1}{2}\right)}\left(z,\frac{1}{2}(x-y)^2\right)
S_{m}^{\left(-\frac{1}{2}\right)}\left(-z,\frac{1}{2}(x+y)^2\right),
\nonumber \\&&(\,|z|<1, \quad l=0,1,2,3,...). \label{Mehsum}
\end{eqnarray}
By substituting the series sum~(\ref{Lagsum}) and employing
again eq.~(\ref{Mehfac}), we establish the following formula:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&M_{l}(z,x,y)=\left(\frac{z}{1-z}\right)^{l}M_{0}(z,x,y)\times
\nonumber \\&&\sum_{m=0}^{l}\left(-\frac{1-z}{1+z}\right)^{m}
L_{l-m}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{(x-y)^2}{2(1-z)}\right)
L_{m}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{(x+y)^2}{2(1+z)}\right),
\nonumber \\&&(\,|z|<1, \quad l=0,1,2,3,...). \label{MehsL}
\end{eqnarray}
The function \ (\ref{MehsL}) is a finite sum involving Laguerre
polynomials of order $\alpha=-\frac{1}{2}$. It can equally be expressed
in terms of Hermite polynomials, via the identity \cite{HTFLH}
\begin{equation}
H_{2m}(x)=(-1)^{m}m!\,2^{2m}L_{m}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(x^2).
\label{LagHer}
\end{equation}
We get thus an alternative explicit formula:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&M_{l}(z,x,y)=\frac{(-1)^l}{l!\,2^{2l}}\left(\frac{z}{1-z}\right)^{l}
M_{0}(z,x,y)\times
\nonumber \\&&\sum_{m=0}^{l}\left(\begin{array}{c}l\\m
\end{array}\right)\left(-\frac{1-z}{1+z}\right)^{m}
H_{2(l-m)}\left(\frac{x-y}{[2(1-z)]^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)
H_{2m}\left(\frac{x+y}{[2(1+z)]^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right),
\nonumber \\&&(\,|z|<1, \quad l=0,1,2,3,...). \label{MehsH}
\end{eqnarray}
\vspace{4mm}
{\centering\section{PROPAGATOR OF A LINEAR HARMONIC OSCILLATOR}}
\vspace{2mm}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In nonrelativistic quantum mechanics it is instructive to evaluate
the propagator of a linear harmonic oscillator by employing
Mehler's summation formula, eqs.~(\ref{Mehgen})-~(\ref{Mehfun}).
In the coordinate representation, the propagator is defined
as the probability amplitude for finding the particle at some point
$x_b$, at time $t_b$, when it has originally been at another point $x_a$,
at time $t_a$:
\begin{equation}
K(x_b, t_b ; x_a, t_a):=\langle x_b, t_b\,|\, x_a, t_a\rangle.
\label{propag}
\end{equation}
For an oscillator of mass $m$ and classical angular frequency $\omega$
it is convenient to denote
$\alpha:=\left(\frac{m\omega}{\hbar}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}>0$.
We recall the eigenvalues
\begin{equation}
E_n=\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\hbar\omega, \qquad (n=0,1,2,3,...),
\label{levels}
\end{equation}
as well as the corresponding eigenfunctions of its energy operator $\hat H$,
\begin{equation}
u_n(x)={\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}n!\,2^n}\right)}^{1/2}
\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\alpha^2x^2\right)\,H_n(\alpha x),
\qquad (n=0,1,2,3,...).
\label{eigenf}
\end{equation}
Making use of the time-evolution operator in the Schr\"odinger picture,
\begin{equation}
\hat U(t_b,\, t_a)=\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}(t_b-t_a)\hat H\right],
\label{evolution}
\end{equation}
the transition probability amplitude \ (\ref{propag}) reads:
\begin{equation}
\langle x_b, t_b\,|\, x_a, t_a\rangle=\langle x_b \,|\hat U(t_b,\, t_a)|
\, x_a\rangle.
\label{time}
\end{equation}
Insertion of eq.~(\ref{evolution}) into eq.~(\ref{time}) yields,
via the spectral decomposition of the energy $\hat H$,
the standard eigenfunction expansion of the propagator:
\begin{equation}
K(x_b, t_b ; x_a, t_a)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\exp\left[-i\,\frac{E_n}{\hbar}(t_b-t_a)\right]u_n(x_b)\,u_n^*(x_a).
\label{expansion}
\end{equation}
Substitution of the energy levels ~(\ref{levels}) and eigenfunctions
~(\ref{eigenf}) into eq.~(\ref{expansion}) enables us to exploit
Mehler's expansion ~(\ref{Mehgen}) to get a compact formula:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&K(x_b, t_b ; x_a, t_a)=\frac{\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}}
\exp\left[-i\,\frac{\omega}{2}(t_b-t_a)-\frac{1}{2}\,\alpha^2\left(x_b^2
+x_a^2\right)\right]\times
\nonumber \\ && M_0\left(\exp\left[-i\omega(t_b-t_a)\right],
\alpha x_b,\, \alpha x_a\right). \label{compact}
\end{eqnarray}
Equations ~(\ref{Mehfun}) and ~(\ref{compact}) finally give the exact
closed-form expression of the propagator of the one-dimensional
harmonic oscillator \cite{Merz}:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&K(x_b, t_b ; x_a, t_a)=\left\{\frac{-im\omega}{2\pi\hbar
\sin\left[\omega(t_b-t_a)\right]}\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}\times
\nonumber \\ &&\exp\left(\frac{im\omega}
{2\hbar\sin\left[\omega(t_b-t_a)\right]}
\left\{\left(x_b^2+x_a^2\right)\cos\left[\omega(t_b-t_a)\right]
-2x_b\,x_a\right\}\right). \label{explicit}
\end{eqnarray}
Since Mehler's summation of the eigenfunction series ~(\ref{expansion})
does not always fulfil the convergence requirement from eq.~(\ref{Mehgen}),
the propagator ~(\ref{explicit}) is a distribution involving $\delta$-type
singularities when the time difference $t_b-t_a$ is a multiple
of the classical half-period of oscillation ${\pi}/{\omega}$.
For instance, eq.~(\ref{time}), and eq.~(\ref{expansion}) as well,
displays the equal-time values
\begin{equation}
K(x_b, t ; x_a, t)=\delta(x_b-x_a). \label{delta}
\end{equation}
We stress that the transition probability amplitudes
of the type ~(\ref{propag}) are at heart of Feynman's path-integral
formulation of quantum mechanics. In particular, for the linear harmonic
oscillator the propagator ~(\ref{propag}) has been evaluated exactly
in this framework \cite{Feynman, Klein}. However, the explicit
formula ~(\ref{explicit}) can also be obtained in an alternative
simpler way \cite{Merz}. Had one started from eq.~(\ref{explicit}),
one could then find, conversely, the energy levels ~(\ref{levels})
and eigenfunctions ~(\ref{eigenf}). Indeed, insertion of Mehler's
power series ~(\ref{Mehgen}) into eq.~(\ref{compact}) allows one
to compare the resulting formula with the general eigenfunction
expansion ~(\ref{expansion}). One thus readily gets the well-known
solution of this energy eigenvalue problem.
\vspace{4mm}
{\centering\section{CONCLUSIONS}}
\vspace{2mm}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The sum of a series of the type ~(\ref{Legser}) involves the $l$th-order
derivative of the generating function of the orthogonal polynomials.
We have evaluated it in a straightforward way for both the Gegenbauer and
Laguerre polynomials taking advantage of the analytic structure
of their generating functions. The explicit sum is found to be a product
of three factors: the generating function, the $l$th power of a specific
variable, and the corresponding orthogonal polynomial of degree $l$
in another specific variable. However, the limiting case of the Chebyshev polynomials of the first kind stands out since their generating function
is missing in the explicit formula. Note that the above-mentioned result
is by no means general: it holds neither for arbitrary Jacobi polynomials,
nor for some nonclassical orthogonal polynomials \cite {AARpol}. This is
due to the analytic peculiarities of the generating functions in question.
Along the same lines, we have succeeded in evaluating the higher-order
derivatives of Mehler's generating function as finite sums involving
products of pairs of Hermite polynomials of even degrees, eq.~(\ref{MehsH}).
The importance of Mehler's formula in quantum mechanics is finally
emphasized.
\vspace{4mm}
{\centering\subsubsection*{Acknowledgements}}
\vspace{2mm}
This work was supported by the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research
through Grant IDEI-995/2007 for the University of Bucharest.
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{center}
|
\section{Introduction}
While the standard model of particle physics~\cite{Glashow1961579,*Weinberg:1967tq,*sm_salam} has been enormously successful, there are many reasons to believe it is not a final theory of nature. For example, the hierarchy problem~\cite{PhysRevD.19.1277,*PhysRevD.20.2619,*PhysRevD.13.974,*PhysRevD.14.1667,*hooft1980recent} and the possibility of astronomical observations that can be interpreted in cosmological models as being evidence for a 4th relativistic species~\cite{0004-637X-730-2-119,0067-0049-192-2-18} are suggestive of new physics. Many models have been proposed to solve these problems, and others, by embedding of the Higgs potential into a Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model~(MSSM)~\cite{Dawson:1997tz}. A full set of searches is underway to discover the new particles predicted by these models around the world so far without success~\cite{pdg} indicating the need to follow up on less common scenarios. An important such possibility is that resonant production of neutral scalars can produce pairs of heavy, long-lived neutral particles that decay into a photon and a new weakly-interacting particle~\cite{Mason:2011zv}. In this paper we describe a novel technique for measuring the mass of the heavy long-lived neutral particle if it is discovered in a collider experiment. For concreteness, we will focus on a simple model that is both not ruled out by experiment, has some appealing theoretical aspects, and allows full sensitivity study as we have a full set of recent search results from CDF data at the Tevatron. Note that our results ought to be scalable to other collider experiments, like the LHC, or for other final state topologies, such as associated production of heavy, long-lived neutral particles that decay to photons. To keep our discussion quantitative, estimates from other experiments are outside the scope of this paper, but can be done when background rates and signal shapes become available.
\section{Baseline Model}
For pedagogical reasons we begin by outlining a baseline model that illustrates the final state we are considering in a collider experiment, and after that is done we describe a novel way to measure the mass of the massive, neutral long-lived particle if such a particle were to be discovered. We note at the outset while that many of the individual techniques here are not new, we found that despite how complicated the possibilities were, using only simple measurements of the data, a fairly robust mass measurement is possible, and this measurement is insensitive to many of the other parameters of the model. In the interests of concreteness, we have focused on making quantitative estimates of the sensitivity using only experimental results for reliable information.
With this in mind, we focus on a Gauge Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking~(GMSB) scenario~\cite{Dine1981575,Dimopoulos1981353,Dine1982227,Nappi1982175,AlvarezGaumé198296,Dimopoulos1983479} as it is one of many scenarios that has the theoretical advantages of being able to solve the above problems (as well as others discussed in the literature), as well as because it is easy to work with and makes concrete predictions for judicious choices of the parameters. In this model, the lightest neutralino, $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$, is often the Next-to-Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (NLSP), and the Gravitino, $\widetilde{G}$, is the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP), with a mass less than a ${\rm KeV/c^2}$~\cite{PhysRevD.48.1277,PhysRevD.51.1362,PhysRevD.53.2658,PTPS.177.143,PhysRevD.79.035002,1126-6708-2009-03-016,1126-6708-2009-03-072,Rajaraman2009367,springerlink:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)047,springerlink:10.1007/JHEP05(2010)096}; the light $\widetilde{G}$ can serve as an additional relativistic species of particles in the early universe. The production and decay of $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}\rightarrow\gamma+\widetilde{G}$ can lead to interesting $\gamma + \slashed{E}_{T}$ final states if sparticles are produced at colliders~\cite{PhysRevLett.76.3494,PhysRevLett.76.3498,PhysRevD.54.5395,PhysRevD.54.3283,Dimopoulos199739,PhysRevLett.77.5168,PhysRevD.55.4463,PhysRevD.56.1761,
PhysRevD.68.014019,PhysRevD.69.035003,Shirai2009351,JHEP05,springerlink:10.1007/JHEP10(2010)067} and the $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ mass is lower than the $Z^0$ mass ($m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} < m_{Z^0}$)
While there is no evidence for GMSB production and decay in experiments~\cite{springerlink:10.1007/s10052-002-1005-z,*2652040520070420,*Pasztor:2005es,*springerlink:10.1140/epjc/s2004-02051-8,PhysRevLett.104.011801,
*PhysRevLett.105.221802,PhysRevLett.99.121801,*PhysRevD.78.032015,PhysRevLett.106.211802,*PhysRevLett.106.121803,*Chatrchyan:2012ir,*Chatrchyan:2012jwg,*PhysRevD.88.012001}, there are some interesting scenarios that have not been ruled out. The current experimental searches for GMSB at collider experiments consider both short lifetimes ($\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} < 1$ns) and longer lifetimes (2 ns $< \tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} < $50 ns), but these searches usually assume a minimal GMSB model and use the SPS-8 relations~\cite{SPS-8} because they yield large cross section values for direct production of gaugino pairs and/or production of squarks and gluinos. When the SPS-8 relations are released, and more general GMSB model scenarios are considered, an important variation is that the $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ and the $\widetilde{G}$ can be the only kinematically accessible supersymmetric particles at colliders~\cite{higgs2009}. In this case, known as the Light Neutralino and Gravitino (LNG) scenario, current sparticle mass bounds are evaded. A study of the phenomenology of this scenario at colliders~\cite{Mason:2011zv} indicates that if the $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ is less than half the masses of any new neutral scalar bosons that exist in nature, $\phi_i$, and if the couplings are favorable, sparticle production can be dominated by resonant production of $\phi_i \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0} \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$. This could readily produce anomalous production of events in the $\gamma + \slashed{E}_{T}$ final state. Note that in Ref.~\cite{Mason:2011zv} associated vector boson production diagrams are not considered as they have smaller production cross sections (and background estimates have not been done)
The number of neutral scalar bosons in nature is not well constrained by experiments. There is clear evidence for at least one ``Higgs Like" boson with a mass around $125~{\rm GeV/c^2}$~\protect{\cite{PhysRevLett.109.071804,higgs_CMS,higgs_ATLAS}} with some of the properties of the SM Higgs boson~\cite{MingshuiChenfortheCMS:2013fba,*Consonni:2013zsa}, but most versions of Supersymmetry (SUSY) require at least a two-Higgs doublet~\cite{PhysRevD.39.844}. While searches for other MSSM Higgs bosons have found no evidence so far~\cite{Lai:2013yaa,*Schael:2006cr,*Benjamin:2010xb,*Abazov:2011up,*Aad:2012cfr,*Chatrchyan:2011nx,*Aad:2011rv}, the discrepancy of the scalar boson mass measured in $ZZ^{(*)} \rightarrow 4l$ channel and in $\gamma \gamma$ channel at ATLAS~\cite{higgs_ATLAS} could be a sign of the existence of multiple Higgs bosons with masses around $125~{\rm GeV/c^2}$ (although it is not clear if this hint should be taken seriously). Either way, it is not unreasonable to consider the case of the production of $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ pairs from a neutral scalar boson, and contemplate large values of cross section times branching fraction when considering one or more species of neutral scalar bosons that contribute to the production diagrams. This could occur if the couplings are favorable or if multiple scalers exist in nature. For our baseline model we will simplify and refer to single scalar production with $\phi \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$
While the lifetime of a heavy long-lived particle is typically unconstrained, as is the case of a $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ in GMSB scenarios, we focus on the long-lived $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ scenario for a number of reasons. If there were $\phi \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0} \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}\rightarrow (\gamma \widetilde{G})(\gamma \widetilde{G})$ production, this final state should yield production of two photons and $\slashed{E}_{T}$ in the final state, although the number of photons identified in a detector is dependent on the lifetime of the neutralino~\cite{SearchProspect}. Previous studies of this type of production and decay~\cite{SearchProspect} indicate that the most likely way to be sensitive to this type of final state is the exclusive final state because of the fake $\slashed{E}_{T}$ backgrounds that can arise.
There are no direct searches published in the LNG scenario. LEP wouldn't have large direct production capabilities, and small number of final state particles and low $E_{T}$ kinematics, coupled with the large number of interactions per crossing at the LHC may make it less sensitive to these models, which might explain why there are no results out in this final state yet. But CDF has started considering them. Specifically, a CDF result in exclusive $\gamma\gamma + \slashed{E}_{T}$, which is expected to be sensitive to $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} < 2$~ns, didn't show an excess~\cite{PhysRevD.82.052005}. There are currently no limits in the case of a long-lived neutralino, but there is a recently released result from CDF in the exclusive $\gamma + \slashed{E}_{T}$ final state using photons that arrive late compared to expectations, so-called delayed photons~\cite{cdf10788.2,*JonThesis,*AdamThesis}. We note that most of the data in the signal region appears to be above the backgrounds in a suggestive way, albeit not in one that is statistically significant. With a clear indication that such production can be searched for, and a clear way to estimate background rates, we focus the rest of our study on this scenario as we can estimate signal and backgrounds for a full sensitivity study. We move to specify the parameter space we will consider within our baseline model so that we can determine what, in principle, could be measured in the case of an observed excess of events. As we will see, a novel method for determining the mass of the $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ will be possible.
\section{Parameter space with the Baseline Model}
To illustrate the sensitivity of measuring the mass of a heavy, long-lived neutral particle, we consider the region of parameter space in the baseline model that is both not excluded by current experiments and would allow for a measurement. As there already exist sensitivity estimates for discovery of $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ pair production from a SM Higgs boson in the exclusive $\gamma + \slashed{E}_{T}$ final state at the Tevatron~\cite{Mason:2011zv}, we follow that model. However, since that report pre-dates the discovery of a Higgs-like boson, we begin by extending our baseline model to include the possibility of neutralino pairs being produced from any number of neutral scalars with similar masses. While the production cross section for each boson and its branching fraction to $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ pairs is critically dependent on the masses and couplings of each, as will be seen, our method is not terribly sensitive to this assumption, although it will affect the statistical uncertainties of any measurement.
There are multiple parameters in the LNG scenario of GMSB, each of which affect the masses of the neutral scalar bosons, their couplings to SM and SUSY particles as well as the mass and the lifetime of $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$. These in turn affect the cross sections, the branching fractions to $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ pairs, as well as the kinematics and other observables of the final state. For phenomenological purposes, we can consider the production and decay of any set of series of neutral scalar bosons as a single scalar production, with a fixed mass if the masses are similar.
Thus, from here on we will simply discuss our model as if it were single production and decay of a SM Higgs boson, denoted as $\mathrm{\varphi}$.
With these simplifying assumptions, the number of effective observable free parameters in the baseline scenario is narrowed down to four: the effective production cross section of neutralino pairs ($\sigma_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0} \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$), the effective scalar mass ($m_{\mathrm{\varphi}}$), the neutralino mass ($m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$), and the neutralino lifetime ($\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$). The rate of $\sigma_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0} \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ only has impact on the rate of production while other three parameters mostly affect the acceptance and the observables in the final state.
To make concrete sensitivity estimates, we choose an effective cross section to use. We note that the lightest Higgs boson, if it has SM-like couplings, has a predicted production cross section of about a picobarn at the Tevatron~\cite{1126-6708-2009-04-003,*deFlorian2009291} if we assume a mass of $125~{\rm GeV/c^2}$. On the flip side, interpreting the observed boson as the Higgs boson yields limits on its branching ratio to invisible particles to be 0.37 at 95\% C.L.~\cite{JHEP12(2012)045} which can be used to constrain the production cross section of $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ pairs. If we assume that other neutral scalars exist, and each scalar has a non-dominant branching fraction decaying to $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ pairs, then it is reasonable to estimate the prospects if $\Sigma\sigma(p\bar{p} \rightarrow \phi_i \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0} \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0})$ $\sim$0.5~pb where we have summed over all production and decay fractions. Any result here can then be easily scaled by changing this assumption.
We next narrow the focus to the region of parameter space that is not excluded and could produce an observable result and measurement in the data. Since recent results show evidence of a $125~{\rm GeV/c^2}$ Higgs-like particle, we focus on the region $120~{\rm GeV/c^2} \leq m_{\mathrm{\varphi}} \leq 130~{\rm GeV/c^2}$. We focus on neutralinos with less than half of this mass ($m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} \leq 60~{\rm GeV/c^2}$) to keep the production cross section of $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ pairs high. The combination of the null result in the exclusive $\gamma\gamma+\slashed{E}_{T}$ and the hint in $\gamma_{Delayed}+\slashed{E}_{T}$ both push us to focus on $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} \geq$ 2ns. For reasons described in Ref.~\cite{SearchProspect}, we will not have sensitivity for light $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ ($m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} < 30~{\rm GeV/c^2}$) or neutralino lifetimes above approximately 30~ns. This occurs because if the $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ is too small, or if $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ goes too large, the $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ is more likely to leave the detector before it decays~(invisible final state), or if it has a large boost which pushes the photon arrival time to become indistinguishable from being promptly produced
Significant numbers of delayed photons can be observed if the neutralino lifetime is in the range of 2~ns $< \tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} < $30~ns, as is favored in some models when the SUSY breaking scale is low~\cite{PhysRevLett.76.3494}. In this case usually one neutralino will leave the detector, but the other can travel a significant distance before decaying, allowing the photon to arrive at the detector with a significant delay time relative to expectations. These photons are known as $\gamma_{Delayed}$. The final state would then be a single $\gamma_{Delayed} + \slashed{E}_{T}$, and fake backgrounds from $W\gamma \rightarrow \ell \nu \gamma \rightarrow \gamma + \ell_{\rm lost} + \slashed{E}_{T}$ and $\gamma+{\rm jet} \rightarrow \gamma +{\slashed{E}_{T}}_{\rm fake}$ make it beneficial to search in the final state of exclusive single $\gamma_{Delayed} + \slashed{E}_{T}$~\cite{Acosta:2002eq}. These delayed photons can be separated from SM and non-collision backgrounds using known techniques with the EMTiming system at CDF~\cite{Goncharov2006543,PhysRevLett.99.121801,*PhysRevD.78.032015,SearchProspect}. Specifically, a measure of the amount the photon is delayed is given by $t_{corr}~\equiv~t_f~-~t_i~-~\frac{|\vec{x}_f-\vec{x}_i|}{c}$, where $t_f$ and $\vec{x}_f$ are the time of arrival and position the photon hits the calorimeter respectively, and $t_0$ and $\vec{x}_0$ are the collision time and position respectively.
Before continuing, we comment quickly more on the $t_{corr}$ distribution of the recent CDF result in the exclusive $\gamma_{Delayed}+\slashed{E}_{T}$ result with 6.3 $~{\rm fb^{-1}}$ data~\cite{cdf10788.2,*JonThesis,*AdamThesis}. They report 322 observed events in the timing window 2~ns $\leq t_{corr} \leq$ 7~ns (signal region) on a background of $286 \pm 24$ for a significance of $1.2\sigma$. While the quoted result is not statistically significant, and one should not take it too seriously, we do note that the shape of the $t_{corr}$ distribution (after background subtraction) looks very much like the shape we expect from the LNG scenario of GMSB, a falling exponential on top of the SM and cosmic ray backgrounds.
With a specific region in our baseline well specified, we come to the question of what we can measure if $p\bar{p} \rightarrow \phi_{i} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0} \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0} \rightarrow \gamma_{Delayed}+\slashed{E}_{T}$ were discovered. In particular, we estimate both the expected number of events for various model parameter choices as well as lay out our method of analyzing the data that has the potential to yield more information about the masses and lifetimes of the neutral scalars and/or SUSY particles involved. As we will see, there is a good possibility of measuring the neutralino mass using a simple technique that could be used in other experiments.
\section{Analysis}
\label{Analysis}
To estimate the sensitivity and ability to measure observables in the data, we use {\sc PYTHIA} 6.4~\cite{pythia2} to simulate the various neutral scalar boson production using production of single scalar boson $\mathrm{\varphi}$ with all combinations of the parameters listed above, and use a modified version of PGS4~\cite{PGS4} to simulate the CDF detector. Since any measurement is crucially dependent on the timing distribution, we implemented timing response as a modification to PGS4, using the prescriptions of Ref.~\cite{Mason:2011zv,PhysRevLett.99.121801,*PhysRevD.78.032015,SearchProspect,cdf10788.2,*JonThesis,*AdamThesis,Goncharov2006543}, which are known to be very Gaussian distribution responsive, even at large times. We use the same selection requirements as in the reported CDF result when simulating the detector~\cite{cdf10788.2,*JonThesis,*AdamThesis} as it allows for acceptance and background calculations.
Assuming $m_{\mathrm{\varphi}} = 125~{\rm GeV/c^2}$, the contour of the acceptance in the signal region vs. $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ and $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ is shown in \fig{AccCont}. The acceptance peaks at $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} = 45 ~{\rm GeV/c^2}$ and $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} = 10$~ns, which we will take as our benchmark point; the signal acceptance after each analysis selection requirement is shown in Table~\ref{CutAcc}. The peak signal acceptance is $0.21$\% and quickly falls as a function of $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ as we get away from the peak which is slightly below $m_{\mathrm{\varphi}} > 2 \cdot m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ because of the balance of the kinematics making the events pass the thresholds and the boost changing the photon delay. Similarly, as the lifetime rises, more and more of the neutralinos leave the detector so we lose sensitivity above $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} >$ 30 ns. As the lifetime goes below a few ns, fewer and fewer of the events have a long enough lifetime to produce a delayed photon that shows up in the signal region.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{AccCont.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{The signal acceptance for $\mathrm{\varphi} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0} \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0} \rightarrow \gamma_{Delayed}+\slashed{E}_{T}$, with $m_{\mathrm{\varphi}} = 125~{\rm GeV/c^2}$. The signal acceptance peaks at $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} = 45 ~{\rm GeV/c^2}$ and $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} = 10$ ns, with the peak acceptance equal to $0.21$\%.}
\label{AccCont}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline
Selection Requirement & Signal Acceptance \\ \hline
$|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.1$ & 15.7\% \\ \hline
$E_{T}^{\gamma}>45~{\rm GeV}$ & 2.58\% \\ \hline
$\slashed{E}_{T}>45~{\rm GeV}$ & 1.53\% \\ \hline
Jet and Track Veto & 1.15\% \\ \hline
$2~{\rm ns}<t_{corr}<7~{\rm ns}$ & 0.21\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ The percentage of events passing each acceptance requirement (signal acceptance) for our benchmark parameter point of $m_{\mathrm{\varphi}} = 125~{\rm GeV/c^2}$, $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} = 45 ~{\rm GeV/c^2}$ and $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} = 10$ ns. We take into account a 75\% efficiency for the jet and track veto from~\cite{Mason:2011zv} since it is not well modeled in PGS.}
\label{CutAcc}
\end{table}
If we calculate the number of events we expect from our model, assuming $10~{\rm fb^{-1}}$ data, and taking our assumption of $\sigma_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0} \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ $\sim$0.5~pb, we end up with $\sim$10 events in the signal region at the peak acceptance.
The full timing distribution of the signal can be quite complicated by the geometry of the detector. However, we have found that within the signal region chosen, to an excellent degree of approximation, the shape of the signal is well described by an exponential function in the signal region, as shown in \fig{tcorr}. Remarkably, this is true for the entire parameter space we consider in this timing window. This allows for a more sophisticated analysis other than just the counting experiment which is dominated by the number of events with $t_{corr}$ just above 2~ns. We can readily fit the signal region to the functional form $e^{-t_{corr}/Slope}$. Though the CDF result doesn't report a slope, we can see what the theory predicts. For our benchmark point we find a slope of $\sim$0.9 ns. With our expectation of approximately 10 events in the signal region, the fit would give us an approximate statistical uncertainty on the slope of $\sim$30\%.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{tcorr.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{The $t_{corr}$ distribution for our benchmark point, with $m_{\mathrm{\varphi}} = 125~{\rm GeV/c^2}$, $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} = 45 ~{\rm GeV/c^2}$ and $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} = 10$ ns. We assume $\sigma_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0} \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ = 0.5~pb and normalize the histogram so that there are 10 events in the signal region. Note that within the signal region the signal is well described by an exponential distribution.}
\label{tcorr}
\end{figure}
Luckily, simulations show that within the signal timing window, the exponential shape is maintained and the slope is a smooth function of $m_{\mathrm{\varphi}}$, $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$, and $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ allowing for the exciting possibility of a clean measurement of these parameters. To get a sense of what parameters can be determined from a measurement we consider how the slope changes as a function of our three parameters as it does not depend on $\sigma_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0} \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$. For concreteness we assume a measured slope of $1.0 \pm 0.5$~ns to both simplify the analysis as well as overestimate the uncertainty as a way of including systematic errors and see how well we can measure back the assumed input parameters that yield this combination, within uncertainties. Assuming $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} = 10$ ns, the possible combinations of $m_{\mathrm{\varphi}}$ and $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ is shown as the yellow band in \fig{tau10}. We quickly note that there is only a small variation as a function of $m_{\mathrm{\varphi}}$, which gives no sensitivity to measure the neutral scalar mass. We also note that if multiple scalars were to exist and contribute similarly to the signal region, we would further have no sensitivity to measure their masses or distinguish between the single or multiple scalar scenarios. The upside to this result is that since there is only modest variation as a function of the effective scalar mass, it validates our simplification of simulating with a single scalar, and gives us better sensitivity to the other two parameters.
Assuming $m_{\mathrm{\varphi}} = 125~{\rm GeV/c^2}$, \fig{slopecont} shows the magnitude of the slope as a function of $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ and $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$. Note that the slope shows very little variation for lifetimes above about 5~ns. If we again assume that we had measured a slope of $1.0 \pm 0.5$~ns, taking into account an assumption of large systematic uncertainties, we narrow down the $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ and $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ combination to the yellow band shown in \fig{h125:h125sub1}. A $5~{\rm GeV/c^2}$ uncertainty of the effective scalar mass is shown by the grey band in \fig{h125:h125sub2}.
Since there is no evidence for short neutralino lifetime in the $\gamma\gamma+\slashed{E}_{T}$ search~\cite{PhysRevD.82.052005}, if we further assume $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} \ge 5$ns, we observe a simple dependence between the slope and the neutralino mass, as shown in \fig{schi}. If we had measured a slope of $1.0 \pm 0.5$ ns, from here we could determine the neutralino mass to be $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} = 45^{+8}_{-10}~{\rm GeV/c^2}$. Of all the possibilities, we have found that our simple model of $\mathrm{\varphi} \rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0} \widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0} \rightarrow (\gamma \widetilde{G})(\gamma \widetilde{G}) \rightarrow \gamma_{Delayed}+\slashed{E}_{T}$ has a reconstructed timing distribution that is simple enough to be measured in an experiment, and that despite the potential for complications between multiple parameters it allows for straightforward measurement of the neutralino mass. Said differently, our measurement of the slope of the timing distribution allows for a novel method to measure $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ despite how complicated it could have been.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{tau10.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Assuming $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} = 10$ ns, the red line shows possible combinations of $m_{\mathrm{\varphi}}$ and $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ that produce a slope of 1.0~ns, while the yellow band shows combinations that produce a slope of $1.0 \pm 0.5$ ns.}
\label{tau10}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{slopecont.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Assuming $m_{\mathrm{\varphi}} = 125~{\rm GeV/c^2}$, this plot shows the contour of constant Slope as a function of $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ and $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$. }
\label{slopecont}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\mbox{
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{h125.eps}
\label{h125:h125sub1}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{h125pm5.eps}
\label{h125:h125sub2}}
}
\centering
\caption{Assuming $m_{\mathrm{\varphi}} = 125~{\rm GeV/c^2}$, the red line shows possible combinations of $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ and $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$ that produce a slope of 1.0 ns, while the yellow band shows the combinations that produce a slope of $1.0 \pm 0.5$ ns. The grey band in (b) shows the variation due to the uncertainty of the effective scalar mass.}
\label{h125}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{schi.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Assuming $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} \ge 5$ns, the simple dependence between the slope and $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}}$.}
\label{schi}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{Conclusion}
We have described a method to measure the mass of a heavy, neutral particle with $\mathcal{O}$(10~ns) lifetime, which decays to photons in a collider experiment, using the time of arrival distribution of a sample of delayed photons, and estimated the potential sensitivity for any measurement. In principle this method can be applied to any model with a signature of a delayed photon in its final state. In this study we focused on a LNG-GMSB SUSY scenario where sparticle production proceeds through neutral scalar bosons at CDF as we have a full set of tools that allow for a reliable prospects study. Following the selection requirements of the CDF preliminary results, we find a peak signal acceptance of 0.21\% at $m_{\mathrm{\varphi}} = 125~{\rm GeV/c^2}$, $m_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} = 45 ~{\rm GeV/c^2}$, and $\tau_{\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}} = 10$~ns. With a 0.5~pb production cross section, this would give roughly 10 events and would yield a measurement of the slope of the $t_{corr}$ distribution in the signal region. In this case, we would have sensitivity to measure the mass of neutralino with modest assumptions. Even a 50\% measurement of the slope could give a measurement of the neutralino mass with an uncertainty of ~25\%, depending on the true parameters involved.
We encourage the CDF collaboration to update their search in the exclusive $\gamma_{Delayed}+\slashed{E}_{T}$ final state using the full dataset and to report a measurement for the slope of the timing distribution in the case that the excess holds up. In addition, we encourage other experiments to confirm or refute these preliminary observations and present their background and signal estimation methods in a manner that allows for sensitivity studies. Our preliminary studies of the phenomenology for LHC experiments indicate that while the production cross sections would clearly be higher, beam-spot size effects would make wrong-vertex backgrounds smaller, and the timing from the detectors could produce better sensitivity, the pileup effects and the larger boosts of the $\widetilde{\chi}^{1}_{0}$ could cancel out many of these advantages. However, since the possibilities are always exciting, we encourage them to provide background estimates and tools to estimate the sensitivity as soon as possible so we can perform further sensitivity studies to see if our promising results can be used there as well
\section{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank Adam Aurisano, Bhaskar Dutta and John Mason for their useful ideas and discussions. We would also thank the Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy and the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Texas A\&M University for their support during the time this work was completed. We acknowledge the Texas A\&M University Brazos HPC cluster that contributed to the research reported here\footnote{brazos.tamu.edu}.
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Introduction and results}
\label{s_intro}
Suppose that $\omega=(\omega_x)_{x\geq 1}$ is a sequence of a i.i.d.\ random variables.
Fix $b>0$ and $\alpha \in (0,\frac{1}{2})$ and let us define the sequence $(q_y)_{y\geq 0}$ such that
$q_0=0$ and $q_y=\frac{\exp({\omega}_y-by^{-\alpha})}{1+\exp({\omega}_y-by^{-\alpha})}$ for $y\geq 1$. For each
realization of~${\omega}$, we consider the continuous time random walk~$X$
on~${\mathbb Z}^+$ with transition probabilities given by
\begin{align*}
{\mathtt P}_{\omega}[X_{t+h}&=y+1\mid X_t=y]=(1-q_y)h+o(h),\nonumber\\
{\mathtt P}_{\omega}[X_{t+h}&=y-1\mid X_t=y]=q_yh+o(h),\phantom{*****} \mbox{if $y\geq 1$},
\end{align*}
as $h\to 0$. We will denote by
${\mathbb P}, {\mathbb E}$ the probability and expectation with respect to
$\omega$, and by ${\mathtt P}_{\omega}$, ${\mathtt E}_{\omega}$ the (so-called ``quenched")
probability and expectation for the random walk in the fixed
environment $\omega$. We will use the notation ${\mathtt P}_{\omega}^{x}$ for the
quenched law of $X$ starting from~$x$. Nevertheless, for the sake of brevity,
we will omit the superscript $x$ whenever $x=0$.
We make the following assumption :
\medskip
\noindent
\textbf{Condition S.} We have
\[
{\mathbb E}[\omega_1]= 0,\quad
\sigma^2 := {\mathbb E}[\omega_1^2]
\in (0, +\infty).
\]
\medskip
The vanishing expectation of $\omega_1$ means that the random walk has a drift which is asymptotically decaying,
which is the case of interest to be studied here.
For technical reasons we also assume that the following condition holds:
\medskip
\noindent
\textbf{Condition K.} There exists a $\theta_0>0$ such that ${\mathbb E}[e^{\theta{\omega}_1}]<\infty$ for all $|\theta|<\theta_0$.
\medskip
The choice of the rates $q_y$ has the interpretation of a random walk in a power law potential with amplitude $b$
on which a Sinai-type random potential is superimposed. Indeed, in the case $b=0$, Condition~S corresponds to
Sinai's regime~\cite{Sinai} (after stating our main result, we will compare
it with what happens in ``pure'' Sinai's regime).
Random walks in an asymptotically decaying power-law potential
play an important role
in a number of applications in physics. As a very well-studied example we mention the condensation
transition in the zero-range process where the grand-canonical stationary distribution on a single site
is that of a random walk in a power-law (or
logarithmic) potential \cite{ZRP1,ZRP2,ZRP3,ZRP4}.
For $0<\alpha<1$ and $b<0$ there exists a finite critical particle density above which the
grand-canonical
stationary distribution does not exist.
Then, in a canonical ensemble with fixed total particle number
such that the total density exceeds the critical value, a macroscopic
number of particles ``condenses'' on a single site.
The same is true for $\alpha=1$ and $b\leq -2$, a case
of particular importance e.g.\ in DNA denaturation where by a mapping to the dynamics of unzipped DNA
strands the presence or absence of a
condensation transition indicates whether the DNA denaturation transition is of first or second
order \cite{Kafr02,Ambj06}. It is then natural to study the effect of quenched disorder which is usually
modelled by a random potential of the
type defined above. It turns out that the condensation transition persists only in the range $0<\alpha<1/2$ \cite{CGS},
which appears to be related to the smoothening of depinning transitions for directed polymers with quenched disorder
of which the DNA denaturation transition is an example \cite{GT1,GT2}.
Directly from the viewpoint of random walks in random environments
the presence of quenched disorder
in an asymptotically decaying power-law potential
has been studied in detail in \cite{Menswade1,Menswade2} in a discrete time setting.
The presence of a
condensation transition corresponds to ergodicity of the random walk. Going beyond stationary properties,
these authors relate the position of the random walk to some expected hitting times
to obtain a series of interesting results on the speed of the random walk starting from the origin.
In this respect the transient case is of particular interest. For $b>0$ and $\alpha \geq 1/2$ the scenario is not very much different from
the case of pure Sinai-disorder (no power law potential). Roughly speaking, the displacement of the random walk
from the origin grows to leading order in time $t$ as $(\ln t)^2$, independent of $\alpha$. On the other hand, for $b>0$ and
$0 < \alpha < 1/2$ it was proved \cite{Menswade2} that for
a.e.\ random environment~$\omega$ one has a.s.\
$(\ln \ln t)^{-1/\alpha - \epsilon} < \eta_t(\omega)/(\ln t)^{1/\alpha} < (\ln \ln t)^{2/\alpha + \epsilon} $
for all but finitely many $t$.
The approach used here allows us to go further. The main result of this paper is:
\begin{theo}
\label{Theo}
Under Conditions~S and K, we have for ${\mathbb P}$-almost all realizations of $\omega$,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t\to \infty}\frac{X_t}{(C^*(\ln\ln t)^{-1}\ln t)^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}}=1,\phantom{***}\mbox{${\mathtt P}_{\omega}$-a.s.,}
\end{equation*}
with $C^*= \frac{2\alpha b}{\sigma^2(1-2\alpha)}$.
\end{theo}
Observe that we define the model in a continuous-time
setting rather than in discrete time. This brings about a (very) slight technical complication,
but is better motivated from a physics perspective.
Let us comment now on the relationship of our work with the classical
model of one-dimensional RWRE in i.i.d.\ environement (see e.g.\ \cite{Zeitouni}).
As often happens with theorems of this kind, the proof of Theorem~\ref{Theo}
is obtained by showing that the particle will eventually find a \textit{trap}
(i.e., a piece of the environment with ``drift inside''), and then
stay there up to time~$t$. It it well-known that, for the RWRE in
Sinai's regime, the location of this trap (scaled by $\ln^2 t$) is a random variable. However, it is interesting to observe that (as one can see from the proof of Theorem~\ref{Theo}) adding the power-law perturbation to the
Sinai's potential changes the situation: the position of \textit{the trap}
becomes ``less random'' (there are still fluctuations, of course, but they are
of smaller order).
As an aside, we mention that with
$s(t):=(C^*(\ln\ln t)^{-1}\ln t)^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}$ we can also
deduce from the proof of Theorem~\ref{Theo}, the following upper bounds for some particular hitting times of $X$.
For $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$, let $\tau_{(1-\varepsilon)s(t)}$ be the first hitting time of the point $\lfloor(1-\varepsilon)s(t)\rfloor$ by the random walk $X$.
Then, for all $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $\delta>0$ such that ${\mathbb P}$-a.s.,
\[
{\mathtt P}_{\omega}[\tau_{(1-\varepsilon)s(t)}>t]\leq \exp\{-t^{\frac{\delta}{2}}\}
\]
for all $t$ large enough (see equation~(\ref{FUG1})).
\medskip
In the next section, we introduce some notations and recall some auxiliary facts which
are necessary for the proof of Theorem~\ref{Theo}. In section \ref{Technical}, we prove various
technical lemmas about the asymptotic behavior of the environment. Finally, in section \ref{secTheo},
we give the proof of Theorem~\ref{Theo}.
\section{Notations and auxiliary facts}
Given a realization of~$\omega$, define the potential function
for $x\in\mathbb{R^+}$, by
\[
U(x) :=\sum_{y=1}^{\lfloor x\rfloor}\ln\frac{q_y}{1-q_y}=\sum_{y=1}^{\lfloor x\rfloor}({\omega}_y-by^{-\alpha})
\]
where $\lfloor x\rfloor$ is the integer part of $x$ and $\sum_{y=1}^{\lfloor x\rfloor}:=0$ if $x<1$. The behavior of $U$ is of crucial importance for the analysis of the asymptotic properties of the random walk $X$ (cf.\ Propositions \ref{Confine} and \ref{escape} below).
Conditions S and K will allow us to couple the potential $U$ to Brownian motion with power law drift, simplifying much the proof of limit properties of the random walk $X$.
Indeed, by the well-known Koml{\'o}s-Major-Tusn{\'a}dy strong approximation
theorem (cf.\ Theorem 1 of \cite{KMT}), there exists (possibly in an enlarged probability space) a coupling for ${\omega}$ and a standard Brownian motion $W$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{KMT}
{\mathbb P}\Big[\limsup_{n\to \infty}\frac{\max_{1\leq m\leq n}|\sum_{i=1}^m\omega_i-\sigma W(m)|}{\ln n}\leq \hat{K}\Big]=1
\end{equation}
for some finite constant $\hat{K}>0$.
A useful consequence of (\ref{KMT}) is that if $x$ is not too far away from the origin, then $\sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor x\rfloor}{\omega}_i$ and $\sigma W(x)$ are rather close for the vast majority of environments. Hence, it
is convenient to introduce the following set of ``good'' environments and
to restrict our forthcoming computations to this set.
Fix $M>\frac{1}{\alpha}$ and for any~$t>e$, let
\begin{equation}
\label{approx1}
\Gamma(t): = \Big\{\omega : \Big|\sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor x\rfloor} {\omega}_i-\sigma W(x)\Big|\leq K\ln\ln t\;, \; x\in [0,\ln^{M}t]\Big\}.
\end{equation}
By (\ref{KMT}) and properties of the modulus of continuity of Brownian motion, we can choose $K \in (0, \infty)$ in such a way that for ${\mathbb P}$-almost all~$\omega$, it holds that $\omega\in\Gamma(t)$
for all~$t$ large enough (cf. e.g. \cite{CP} or \cite{Galles} where this fact was used).
On the other hand, using the fact that there exists a finite constant $C>0$ such that for all $x\geq 1$,
\begin{equation}
\label{approx2}
\Big|\sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor x\rfloor}i^{-\alpha}-\int_1^xu^{-\alpha}du\Big|\leq C,
\end{equation}
we can define a new potential function $V$ by
\[V(x):=\sigma W(x)-\frac{b}{1-\alpha}x^{1-\alpha}\]
for all $x\in {\mathbb R}^+$ and using~(\ref{approx1})
and~(\ref{approx2}), we have that there exists a finite $K_1>0$ such that for all $t> e$ and ${\omega} \in \Gamma(t)$, $\max_{x\leq \ln^M t}|V(x)-U(x)|\leq K_1\ln\ln t$. Observe that $V$ is a Brownian motion with a power law drift. For convenience, from now on, we will work with potential $V$ instead of $U$ (see Fig.\ \ref{fig1}).
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale= 0.6]{dessin1}
\caption{Approximation of potential $U$ by $V$.}
\label{fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale= 0.6]{DessinDraw}
\caption{On the definitions of $D^+_{[x_0,y_0]}(f)$ and $D^-_{[x_0,y_0]}(f)$.}
\label{fig1b}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\medskip
For a function $f:{\mathbb R}^+\to {\mathbb R}$ and $x_0<y_0$, let $D^+_{[x_0,y_0]}(f):=\sup_{u\in [x_0,y_0]}(f(u)-\inf_{v\in[x_0,u]}f(v))$ and $D^-_{[x_0,y_0]}(f):=\sup_{u\in [x_0,y_0]}(f(u)-\inf_{v\in[u,y_0]}f(v))$ be respectively the maximum draw-up and draw-down of the function $f$ on the interval $[x_0,y_0]$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig1b}). As we will see in the proof of
Theorem~\ref{Theo}, these functionals applied to the potential $V$ are important quantities in order to determine the limiting behavior of the random walk $X$.
The distribution of $D_{[x_0,y_0]}^+$ is not known for a Brownian motion with a power law drift. Fortunately, in our case, we can locally approximate the power law drift by a linear one.
It happens that for fixed intervals~$I$ the law of $D_I^+$ is known for a Brownian motion
with linear drift (cf.\ (1)
in~\cite{MAPAM}) but in this reference, it is given under the form of an alternating
series which is not easy to handle. If, instead of considering deterministic intervals~$I$
we consider intervals of
size given by an exponential random variable independent of $W$ then the law of $D_I^+$
becomes much simpler and is more useful for our purposes.
\medskip
We now recall the following result which can be found in \cite{Salminen}:
\begin{prop}
\label{Prop0}
Let $T$ be a random variable with exponential distribution of mean $\mu$ and $W^{(\sigma,\nu)}$ a Brownian motion with diffusion coefficient $\sigma$ and linear drift $\nu$, that is, $W^{(\sigma,\nu)}(t)=\sigma W(t)+\nu t$ where $W$ is a standard Brownian motion. Assume that $T$ is independent of $W$.
Then,
\begin{equation*}
P\Big[D_{[0,T]}^+(W^{(\sigma,\nu)})>a\Big]=\frac{\exp(\nu a\sigma^{-2})}{\cosh(a\sigma^{-1}\sqrt{2\mu^{-1}+\nu^2\sigma^{-2}})+\frac{\nu\sigma^{-1}}{\sqrt{2\mu^{-1}+\nu^2\sigma^{-2}}}\sinh(a\sigma^{-1}\sqrt{2\mu^{-1}+\nu^2\sigma^{-2}})}
\end{equation*}
for all $a\geq0$.
\end{prop}
It is then not difficult to establish the following
\begin{cor}
\label{Corro1}
Suppose that $\nu<0$ and that $a$, $\nu$ and $\mu$ are functions the real variable $t>0$.
If $a|\nu|\to \infty$, $\nu^2\mu \to \infty$ and $a(\mu |\nu|)^{-1}\to 0$ as $t\to \infty$,
then
\begin{equation*}
P\Big[D_{[0,T]}^+(W^{(\sigma, \nu)})>a\Big]= \frac{1}{1+\frac{\sigma^2}{2\nu^2\mu}\exp(\frac{2|\nu|a}{\sigma^2})}(1+o(1))
\end{equation*}
as $t\to \infty$.
\end{cor}
For all $A\subset {\mathbb Z}^+$ we define $\tau_A:=\inf\{t>0: X_t\in A\}$
the first hitting time of $A$ for the random walk~$X$. When $A=\{x\}$, $x\in {\mathbb Z}^+$, we simply write $\tau_x$ instead of $\tau_{\{x\}}$.\\
Let $I=[a,b]$ with $0\leq a<b<\infty$ be a finite interval of ${\mathbb Z}^+$ and let $H(I):=D^+_I(U)\wedge D^-_I(U)$ and $\tilde{M}:=D^+_I(U)\vee D^-_I(U)$. We will need the following upper bound on the probability of confinement which comes from the proof of Proposition 4.1 of \cite{PGF}:
\begin{prop}
\label{Confine}
There exists a positive constant $K_2$ such that, ${\mathbb P}$-a.s., for any finite interval $I=[a,b]$ and any point $x$ such that $a<x<b$,
\begin{equation*}
{\mathtt P}_{\omega}^x[\tau_{\{a,b\}}\geq t] \leq \exp \Big\{-\frac{t}{K_2(b-a)^3(b-a+\tilde{M})e^{H(I)}}\Big\}
\end{equation*}
for all $t>K_2(b-a)^3(b-a+\tilde{M})e^{H(I)}$.
\end{prop}
For the random walk $X$, we will
eventually need to estimate the probability of escaping to one
specific direction. In Proposition \ref{escape}, as an example, we just state the result for the probability of escaping to the right. Nevertheless, in section \ref{secTheo}, we will use this estimate in both directions.
We define a reversible measure $\pi$ by $\pi(0):=1$ and $\pi(x):= e^{-U(x)}+e^{-U(x-1)}$ for $x\geq 1$ (observe that $\pi(x)(1-q_x)=q_{x+1}\pi(x+1)$ for all $x\in {\mathbb Z}^+$).
For any finite interval $I$ of ${\mathbb Z}^+$, we define $h_I:=\mathop{\mathrm{arg\,max}}_{x\in I}U(x)$.
We will use the following estimate (see e.g.\ the proof of \ Proposition 4.2 in \cite{PGF}):
\begin{prop}
\label{escape}
There exists a positive constant $K_3$ such that, ${\mathbb P}$-a.s., for any finite interval $I=[a,b]$ of ${\mathbb Z}^+$ we have
\begin{equation*}
{\mathtt P}_{\omega}^a[\tau_b<t] \leq K_3t\frac{\pi(h_I)}{\pi(a)}
\end{equation*}
for all $t>1$.
\end{prop}
Using the above expression of the reversible measure $\pi$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\pi(h_I)}{\pi(a)}\leq e^{-U(h_I)+U(a)}\Big(1+e^{U(h_I)-U(h_I-1)}\Big).
\end{equation*}
If ${\omega}\in \Gamma(t)$ and $h_I< \ln^M t$, we deduce that $|U(h_I)-U(h_I-1)|\leq 2K_1\ln\ln t$.
Thus, we obtain the following upper bound for $\frac{\pi(h_I)}{\pi(a)}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{WATQ}
\frac{\pi(h_I)}{\pi(a)}\leq e^{-U(h_I)+U(a)}(2K_1+1)\ln t.
\end{equation}
\section{Technical lemmas}
\label{Technical}
We start by showing four lemmas on the asymptotic behavior of the potential $V$.
We mention that since $V$ is defined on ${\mathbb R}^+$, all the intervals considered in this section are intervals of ${\mathbb R}^+$. Let us recall that $s(t)=(C^*(\ln\ln t)^{-1}\ln t)^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}$.
In Lemma \ref{Lem1}, we show that ${\mathbb P}$-a.s., for all $t$ large enough the maximum draw-up of $V$ before $(1-\varepsilon)s(t)$ is smaller than $(1-\delta)\ln t$, for $\delta$ suitably chosen
(see Fig.\ \ref{fig2}). In Lemma \ref{Lem2}, we show that for any integer $N$,
we have that, ${\mathbb P}$-a.s., for all $t$ large enough, there exists a partition
of $[0, (1-\varepsilon)s(t)]$ into $N$ intervals such that on each interval the maximum draw-down of $V$ is greater than $(1+\delta)\ln t$ (see Fig.\ \ref{fig2b}). In Lemma \ref{Lem3}, we show that for any
integer $N$, we have that, ${\mathbb P}$-a.s., for all $t$ large enough, there exists a partition of $[s(t), (1+\varepsilon)s(t)]$ into $N$ intervals such that on each interval the maximum draw-up of $V$ is greater than $(1+\delta)\ln t$ for $\delta$ suitably chosen (see Fig.\ \ref{fig2c}).
Finally, in Lemma~\ref{Lem4}, we show that on the interval $[0,\ln^{\frac{1}{\alpha}} t]$ the range of $V$ is smaller than $2\ln^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}t$.
The proofs of Lemmas \ref{Lem2} and \ref{Lem4} follow from standard properties of
Brownian motion. To prove Lemmas~\ref{Lem1} and \ref{Lem3} we essentially use the the same method, that is, we first approximate the potential $V$ by some suitable
drifted Brownian motion and then apply Corollary \ref{Corro1}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale= 0.6]{dessin2}
\caption{Maximum drawup of $V$ before $(1-\varepsilon) s(t)$.}
\label{fig2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale= 0.6]{dessin2b}
\caption{Partition of $[0,(1-\varepsilon) s(t)]$ into $N=4$ intervals.}
\label{fig2b}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale= 0.6]{dessin2c}
\caption{Partition of $[s(t), (1+\varepsilon) s(t)]$ into $N=3$ intervals.}
\label{fig2c}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$, $\delta\in (0,1)$ and $N\in {\mathbb N}$, let us define the following events
\[
A_{\varepsilon,\delta}(t):=\Big\{D^+_{[0,(1-\varepsilon)s(t)]}(V)\leq(1-\delta)\ln t\Big\},
\]
\begin{align*}
B_{\varepsilon,\delta,N}(t)&:=\Big\{\mbox{there exists a partition of $[(1-\varepsilon)s(t),(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(t)]$ into $N$ intervals $I_j$ such that} \nonumber\\
& \phantom{****}D^-_{I_j}(V)>(1+\delta)\ln t, j=1,\dots,N\Big\},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
C_{\varepsilon,\delta,N}(t)&:=\Big\{\mbox{there exists a partition of $[s(t),(1+\varepsilon)s(t)]$ into $N$ intervals $J_j$ such that} \nonumber\\
& \phantom{****}D^+_{J_j}(V)>(1+\delta)\ln t, j=1,\dots,N\Big\}.
\end{align*}
We first show the following
\begin{lm}
\label{Lem1}
For all $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$, there exists $\delta>0$ small enough such that ${\mathbb P}[\liminf_{t\to \infty}A_{\varepsilon,\delta}(t)]=1$.
\end{lm}
\textit{Proof.} Consider an exponential random variable $T$ with parameter 1 and independent of $W$. Let us also introduce the drifted Brownian motion $W^{(\sigma, m_1)}(x):=\sigma W(x)+m_1x$ where $m_1:=-\frac{b}{(1-\varepsilon)^{\alpha}s^{\alpha}(t)}$ is the derivative of the function $-\frac{b}{1-\alpha}x^{1-\alpha}$ at point $(1-\varepsilon)s(t)$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig3}).
By the choice of $m_1$, we have that the event $\{D^+_{[0,(1-\varepsilon)s(t)]}(V)>(1-2\delta)\ln t\}$ is contained in the event $\{D^+_{[0,(1-\varepsilon)s(t)]}(W^{(\sigma, m_1)})>(1-2\delta)\ln t\}$, this implies that
\begin{align}
\label{EVEnt1}
{\mathbb P}[A^c_{\varepsilon,2\delta}(t)]
&\leq {\mathbb P}\Big[D^+_{[0,((1-\varepsilon)\vee (T(\ln\ln t)^2 ))s(t)]}(W^{(\sigma,m_1)})>(1-2\delta)\ln t\Big]\nonumber\\
&\leq {\mathbb P}\Big[D^+_{[0,T(\ln\ln t)^2 s(t)]}\Big(W^{(\sigma,m_1)} \Big)>(1-2\delta)\ln t\Big]+{\mathbb P}\Big[T\leq \frac{1-\varepsilon}{(\ln\ln t)^2}\Big].
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale= 0.6]{dessin4}
\caption{On the definition of $W^{(\sigma, m_1)}$.}
\label{fig3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As $T$ is exponentially distributed with parameter 1,
the second term of the right-hand side of (\ref{EVEnt1}) is equal to
\begin{equation}
\label{RTY1}
{\mathbb P}\Big[T\leq \frac{1-\varepsilon}{(\ln\ln t)^2}\Big]=\frac{1-\varepsilon}{(\ln\ln t)^{2}}
\end{equation}
as $t \to \infty$.
For the first term, by Corollary \ref{Corro1} we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{RTY2}
{\mathbb P}\Big[D^+_{[0,Ts(t)\ln\ln t ]}\Big(W^{(\sigma, m_1)} \Big)>(1-2\delta)\ln t\Big]=\frac{(1+o(1))}{1+(\ln t)^{(\frac{1}{\alpha}-2)\Big(\frac{1-2\delta}{(1-\varepsilon)^{\alpha}}-1\Big)+o(1)}}
\end{equation}
as $t\to \infty$.
Now, let $\mu>0$ and consider the sequence of time intervals $I_n:=[t_n, t_{n+1})$, where $t_n:=e^{(1+\mu)^n}$ for $n\geq 0$.
Choosing $0<2\delta<1-(1-\varepsilon)^{\alpha}$ and
using (\ref{EVEnt1}), (\ref{RTY1}) and (\ref{RTY2}) we obtain that $\sum_{n\geq 0}{\mathbb P}[A^c_{\varepsilon,2\delta}(t_n)]<\infty$.
Thus, by Borel-Cantelli Lemma we obtain that for ${\mathbb P}$-a.a.\ ${\omega}$
there exists $n_0=n_0({\omega})$ such that $\omega \in A_{\varepsilon,2\delta}(t_n)$
for all $n\geq n_0$. Now, let $n\geq n_0$ and
suppose $t\in [t_n, t_{n+1})$. We have ${\mathbb P}$-a.s.,
\begin{align*}
D^+_{[0,(1-\varepsilon)s(t)]}(V)&\leq D^+_{[0,(1-\varepsilon)s(t_{n+1})]}(V)\nonumber\\
&\leq (1-2\delta)\ln t_{n+1}\nonumber\\
&=(1-2\delta)(1+\mu)\ln t_n\nonumber\\
&\leq (1-2\delta)(1+\mu)\ln t.
\end{align*}
Choosing $\mu$ in such a way that $(1-2\delta)(1+\mu)\leq (1-\delta)$,
we obtain that for ${\mathbb P}$-a.a.\ ${\omega}$ there exists $t_0=t_0({\omega})$ such that
$\omega \in A_{\varepsilon,\delta}(t)$ for all $t\geq t_0$, which proves Lemma \ref{Lem1}.
\hfill$\Box$\par\medskip\par\relax
\begin{lm}
\label{Lem2}
For all $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$ and $\delta>0$ we have ${\mathbb P}[\liminf_{t\to \infty}B_{\varepsilon,\delta,N}(t)]=1$, for all $N\geq 1$.
\end{lm}
\textit{Proof.} Let $\mu>0$ be such that $\beta:=(1-\varepsilon)(1+\mu)^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}< (1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})$ and consider the sequence of time intervals $I_n:=[t_n, t_{n+1})$,
where $t_n:=e^{(1+\mu)^n}$ for $n\geq 0$. Divide the interval $[\beta s(t),(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(t)]$ into $N$ intervals $\mathcal{I}_j$, $j=1,\dots,N$,
of size $\eta s(t)$ with $\eta:=N^{-1}(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}-\beta)$. Let us define the following events
\[
E_{\varepsilon,\delta,\mu}(t):=\bigcup_{j=1}^N\Big\{D^-_{\mathcal{I}_j}(V)\leq (1+\delta)\ln t\Big\}.
\]
We have
\begin{align}
\label{WER}
{\mathbb P}[E_{\varepsilon,2\delta,\mu}(t)]&\leq \sum_{j=1}^{N}{\mathbb P}\Big[D^-_{\mathcal{I}_j}(\sigma W)
\leq (1+2\delta)\ln t\Big]\nonumber\\
&= N{\mathbb P}\Big[\max_{s\in [0,\eta s(t)]}|W(s)|\leq \frac{1+2\delta}{\sigma}\ln t\Big]\nonumber\\
&\leq N{\mathbb P}\Big[\max_{s\in [0,\eta s(t)]}W(s)\leq \frac{1+2\delta}{\sigma}\ln t\Big]\nonumber\\
&=N\Big(1-2{\mathbb P}\Big[W(\eta s(t))> \frac{1+2\delta}{\sigma}\ln t\Big]\Big)\nonumber\\
&=N\Big(1-2\int_{\frac{(1+2\delta)\ln t}{\sigma (\eta s(t))^{1/2}}}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-\frac{y^2}{2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}dy\Big)\nonumber\\
&=N\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\frac{1+2\delta}{\sigma\eta^{\frac{1}{2}} (C^*)^{\frac{1}{2\alpha}}}(\ln\ln t)^{\frac{1}{2\alpha}}(\ln t)^{-(\frac{1}{2\alpha}-1)} (1+o(1))
\end{align}
as $t\to \infty$.
We obtain from (\ref{WER}) that $\sum_{n\geq 0}{\mathbb P}[E_{\varepsilon,2\delta,\mu}(t_n)]<\infty$.
Thus, by Borel-Cantelli Lemma we obtain that for ${\mathbb P}$-a.a.\ ${\omega}$ there exists $n_0=n_0({\omega})$ such that $\omega \in E^c_{\varepsilon,2\delta,\mu}(t_n)$ for all $n\geq n_0$.
Now, suppose that $n\geq n_0$ and $t\in [t_n, t_{n+1})$.
Since we have $s^{\alpha}(t_n)\leq s^{\alpha}(t)\leq (1+\mu)s^{\alpha}(t_n)$ for large enough $n$, we deduce that ${\mathbb P}$-a.s.,
there exists a partition of $[(1-\varepsilon)s(t),(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(t)]$ into $N$ intervals $I_j$, $j=1,\dots,N$, such that on each one $D^-_{I_j}(V)> (1+2\delta)\ln t_n$.
Since $\ln t_n\leq \ln t\leq (1+\mu)\ln t_n$,
we have $(1+2\delta)\ln t_n\geq \frac{1+2\delta}{1+\mu}\ln t\geq (1+\delta)\ln t$ for $\mu>0$
small enough. From these last observations, we conclude that for ${\mathbb P}$-a.a.\ ${\omega}$, there exists $t_0=t_0({\omega})$ such that $\omega \in B_{\varepsilon,\delta,N}(t)$ for all $t\geq t_0$, which proves Lemma \ref{Lem2}.
\hfill$\Box$\par\medskip\par\relax
\begin{lm}
\label{Lem3}
For all $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$, there exists small enough $\delta>0$ such that
${\mathbb P}[\liminf_{t\to \infty}C_{\varepsilon,\delta,N}(t)]=1$, for all $N\geq 1$.
\end{lm}
\textit{Proof.} Let $\mu>0$ be such that $(1+\beta):=(1+\frac{\varepsilon}{2})(1+\mu)^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}< (1+\varepsilon)$ and consider again the sequence of time intervals $I_n:=[t_n, t_{n+1})$,
where $t_n=e^{(1+\mu)^n}$ for $n\geq 0$. Divide the interval $[(1+\beta) s(t),(1+\varepsilon)s(t)]$ into $N$ intervals $\mathcal{J}_j$, $j=1,\dots,N$ of size $\frac{\varepsilon-\beta}{N} s(t)$. Let us define the following events
\[
F_{\varepsilon,\delta,\mu}(t):=\bigcup_{j=1}^N
\Big\{D^+_{\mathcal{J}_j}(V)\leq(1+\delta)\ln t\Big\}.
\]
Let $m_2:=-\frac{b}{(1+2^{-1}\varepsilon)^{\alpha}s^{\alpha}(t)}$
be the derivative of the function $-\frac{b}{1-\alpha}x^{1-\alpha}$ at
point $(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(t)$ and introduce the drifted Brownian motion $W^{(\sigma, m_2)}(x):=\sigma W(x)+m_2 x$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig4}). By definition of $W^{(\sigma, m_2)}$,
we have that the event $\Big\{D^+_{[(1+\beta)s(t),(1+\beta+T(\ln\ln t)^{-1})s(t)]}(V)\leq(1+2\delta)\ln t\Big\}$ is contained in the event
$\Big\{D^+_{[(1+\beta)s(t),(1+\beta+T(\ln\ln t)^{-1})s(t)]}(W^{(\sigma, m_2)})\leq(1+2\delta)\ln t\Big\}$, this leads to
\begin{align}
\label{event5}
{\mathbb P}[F_{\varepsilon,2\delta,\mu}(t)]&\leq \sum_{j=1}^{N}
{\mathbb P}\Big[D^+_{\mathcal{J}_j}(V)\leq(1+2\delta)\ln t\Big]\nonumber\\
&\leq N{\mathbb P}\Big[D^+_{[(1+\beta)s(t),((1+\beta+N^{-1}(\varepsilon-\beta))\wedge (1+\beta+T(\ln\ln t)^{-1}))s(t)]}(V)\leq (1+2\delta)\ln t\Big]\nonumber\\
&\leq N {\mathbb P}\Big[D^+_{[(1+\beta)s(t),(1+\beta+T(\ln\ln t)^{-1})s(t)]}(V)\leq(1+2\delta)\ln t\Big]+N{\mathbb P}\Big[T>\frac{\varepsilon-\beta}{N}\ln\ln t \Big]\nonumber\\
&\leq N {\mathbb P}\Big[D^+_{[(1+\beta)s(t),(1+\beta+T(\ln\ln t)^{-1})s(t)]}(W^{(\sigma, m_2)})\leq(1+2\delta)\ln t\Big]+N{\mathbb P}\Big[T>\frac{\varepsilon-\beta}{N}\ln\ln t \Big]\nonumber\\
&= N{\mathbb P}\Big[D^+_{[0,Ts(t)(\ln\ln t)^{-1} ]}\Big( W^{(\sigma, m_2)} \Big)\leq(1+2\delta)\ln t\Big]+N{\mathbb P}\Big[T>\frac{\varepsilon-\beta}{N}\ln\ln t \Big].
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale= 0.7]{dessin5}
\caption{On the definition of $W^{(\sigma, m_2)}$.}
\label{fig4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As $T$ is exponentially distributed with parameter 1,
we have for the second term of the right-hand side of (\ref{event5})
\begin{equation}
\label{event6}
N{\mathbb P}\Big[T>\frac{\varepsilon-\beta}{N}\ln\ln t \Big]=N\ln^{\frac{\varepsilon-\beta}{N}} t.
\end{equation}
For the first term, we use Corollary \ref{Corro1} to obtain that
\begin{equation}
\label{event7}
{\mathbb P}\Big[D^+_{[0,Ts(t)(\ln\ln t)^{-1} ]}\Big(W^{(\sigma, m_2)} \Big)\leq(1+2\delta)\ln t\Big]=1-\frac{(1+o(1))}{1+(\ln t)^{(\frac{1}{\alpha}-2)\Big(\frac{1+2\delta}{(1+2^{-1}\varepsilon)^{\alpha}}-1\Big)+o(1)}}
\end{equation}
as $t\to \infty$.
Choosing $0<2\delta<(1+2^{-1}\varepsilon)^{\alpha}-1$ and using (\ref{event5}), (\ref{event6}) and (\ref{event7}) we obtain that $\sum_{n\geq 0}{\mathbb P}[F_{\varepsilon,2\delta,\mu}(t_n)]<\infty$.
Thus, by
Borel-Cantelli Lemma we obtain that for ${\mathbb P}$-a.a.\ ${\omega}$ there exists $n_0=n_0({\omega})$ such that $\omega \in F^c_{\varepsilon,2\delta,\mu}(t_n)$ for all $n\geq n_0$. Now, let $n\geq n_0$ and
suppose $t\in [t_n, t_{n+1})$.
Since we have $s^{\alpha}(t_n)\leq s^{\alpha}(t)\leq (1+\mu)s^{\alpha}(t_n)$, we deduce that ${\mathbb P}$-a.s., there exists a partition of $[(1+\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(t),(1+\varepsilon)s(t)]$
into $N$ intervals $J_j$, $j=1,\dots,N$, such that on each one $D^+_{J_j}(V)> (1+2\delta)\ln t_n$.
As $\ln t_n\leq \ln t\leq (1+\mu)\ln t_n$, we have $(1+2\delta)\ln t_n\geq \frac{1+2\delta}{1+\mu}\ln t\geq (1+\delta)\ln t$ for $\mu>0$
small enough. From these last observations, we conclude that for ${\mathbb P}$-a.a.\ ${\omega}$, there exists $t_0=t_0({\omega})$ such that $\omega \in C_{\varepsilon,\delta,N}(t)$ for all $t\geq t_0$, which proves Lemma \ref{Lem3}.
\hfill$\Box$\par\medskip\par\relax
Finally, let $G(t):=\Big\{\max_{y\leq \ln^{1/\alpha} t}|V(y)|\leq 2\ln^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}t\Big\}$. We show the following
\begin{lm}
\label{Lem4}
We have that ${\mathbb P}[\liminf_{t\to \infty}G(t)]=1$.
\end{lm}
\textit{Proof.} Let $n$ be an positive integer. By \cite{PerMot}, Lemma 12.9, we have
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb P}\Big[\max_{y \leq \ln^{1/ \alpha} (n+1)}|V(y)|> 2\ln^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}n\Big]&\leq
{\mathbb P}\Big[\max_{y\leq \ln^{1/\alpha} (n+1)}|W(y)|>\sigma^{-1}\ln^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}n\Big]\nonumber\\
&\leq 2{\mathbb P}\Big[\max_{y\leq \ln^{1/ \alpha} (n+1)}W(y)>\sigma^{-1}\ln^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}n\Big]\nonumber\\
&=2{\mathbb P}\Big[W( \ln^{\frac{1}{\alpha}} (n+1))>\sigma^{-1}\ln^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}n\Big]\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{2}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma^2}}e^{-\frac{\ln^{\frac{1}{\alpha}} (n+1)}{{2\sigma^2}}}
\end{align*}
for sufficiently large $n$. Since $\alpha\in(0,\frac{1}{2})$, we deduce that $\sum_{n>1}{\mathbb P}\Big[\max_{y\leq \ln^{1/\alpha} (n+1)}|V(y)|> 2\ln^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}n\Big]<\infty$.
By Borel-Cantelli Lemma, we have that for ${\mathbb P}$-a.a.\ ${\omega}$ there exists $n_0=n_0({\omega})$ such that for all $n\geq n_0$ we have $\max_{y\leq \ln^{1/\alpha} (n+1)}|V(y)|\leq 2\ln^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}n$.
Now consider $n\geq n_0$ and $t\in [n,n+1)$, we have that $\max_{y\leq \ln^{1/\alpha} t}|V(y)|\leq \max_{y\leq \ln^{1/\alpha} (n+1)}|V(y)|\leq 2\ln^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}n\leq 2\ln^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}t$.
This shows that ${\mathbb P}[\liminf_{t\to \infty}G(t)]=1$ and concludes the proof of Lemma \ref{Lem4}.
\hfill$\Box$\par\medskip\par\relax
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{Theo}}
\label{secTheo}
In this last section, for the sake of brevity, expressions like $X_t=x$ or $\tau_x>t$ must be understood as $X_t=\lfloor x\rfloor$ or $\tau_{\lfloor x \rfloor}>t$ (where $\lfloor \cdot\rfloor$ is the integer part function) whenever $x$ in not necessarily integer.
Also, in contrast with the former section, all the intervals considered in this section are intervals of ${\mathbb Z}^+$. We will also need the function $\lceil\cdot \rceil:=\lfloor \cdot\rfloor+1$.
\medskip
Fix some $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$. We start by showing that for ${\mathbb P}$-a.a.\ ${\omega}$, ${\mathtt P}_{\omega}[\liminf_{t \to \infty}s(t)^{-1}X_t\geq (1-\varepsilon)]=1$. Let $\delta\in (0,1)$ be such that Lemmas \ref{Lem1} and \ref{Lem2} hold.
Take $N=\lfloor 2\delta^{-1}\rfloor$ and let ${\omega}$ be such that ${\omega}\in \liminf_{t\to \infty}(A_{\varepsilon, \delta}(t)\cap B_{\varepsilon, \delta,N}(t)\cap G(t)\cap \Gamma(t))$.
Let us define
\[
\hat{\tau}(t):=\inf\{u> \tau_{\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(\lfloor t\rfloor)\rceil}: X_u=(1-\varepsilon)s(\lceil t\rceil)\}
\]
for all $t\geq 3$, with the convention $\inf\{\emptyset\}=\infty$.
We have for all integer $n\geq 3$,
\begin{align}
\label{FUG}
{\mathtt P}_{\omega}[\{\tau_{\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil} \geq n\}\cup\{\hat{\tau}(n)-\tau_{\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil}\leq n\}] &\leq {\mathtt P}_{\omega}[\tau_{\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil} \geq n]\nonumber\\
&\phantom{**}+{\mathtt P}_{\omega}[\hat{\tau}(n)-\tau_{\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil}\leq n].
\end{align}
The next step is to apply Proposition \ref{Confine}
to the first term of the right-hand side of (\ref{FUG}). Since ${\omega}\in \liminf_{t\to \infty}(A_{\varepsilon, \delta}(t)\cap G(t)\cap \Gamma(t))$,
we have that for $n$ large enough $H([0,\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil]\leq D^+_{[0,\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil]}(U)\leq (1-\delta)\ln n+o(\ln n)$ and $\tilde{M}\leq 4\ln^{\frac{1}{\alpha}} n+o(\ln n)$.
Therefore, by Proposition~\ref{Confine}
we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{FUG1}
{\mathtt P}_{\omega}[ \tau_{\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil} \geq n]\leq \exp{\{-n^{\delta+o(1)}\}}
\end{align}
as $n \to \infty$.
For the second term of the right-hand side of (\ref{FUG}), we have by the Markov property applied at time
$\tau_{\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil}$,
\begin{equation}
{\mathtt P}_{\omega}[\hat{\tau}(n)-\tau_{\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil}\leq n]= {\mathtt P}_{\omega}^{\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil}[\tau_{(1-\varepsilon)s(n+1)}\leq n].
\end{equation}
Since ${\omega}\in \liminf_{t\to \infty}B_{\varepsilon,\delta,N}(t)\cap \Gamma(t)$
there exists for $n$ large enough a partition
$x_0=\lfloor(1-\varepsilon)s(n+1)\rfloor<x_1<\dots<x_{N-1}<x_N=\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon} {2})s(n)\rceil$ of $[\lfloor(1-\varepsilon)s(n+1)\rfloor,\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil]$ into $N=\lfloor 2\delta^{-1}\rfloor$ intervals $I_j=[x_{j-1},x_{j}]$, $j=1,\dots,N$, such that on each interval $D^-_{I_j}(U)>(1+\delta)\ln n-o(\ln n)$.
By the Markov property we have
\begin{align*}
{\mathtt P}_{\omega}^{\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil}[\tau_{(1-\varepsilon)s(n+1)}\leq n]
&\leq {\mathtt P}_{\omega}^{\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil}[\tau_{x_{j-1}}\leq n, j=1,\dots,N]\nonumber\\
&\leq \prod_{j=1}^{N}{\mathtt P}_{\omega}^{x_{j}}[\tau_{x_{j-1}}\leq n].
\end{align*}
Applying Proposition \ref{escape} to the right-hand side of the last inequality and using bound (\ref{WATQ}), we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{FUG2}
{\mathtt P}_{\omega}^{\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil}[\tau_{(1-\varepsilon)s(n+1)}\leq n]&\leq K_3^{\lfloor 2\delta^{-1}\rfloor}(n+1)^{-(2-\delta)+o(1)}
\end{align}
as $n\to \infty$.
From (\ref{FUG}), (\ref{FUG1}) and (\ref{FUG2}),
as $\delta\in (0,1)$, we deduce that $\sum_{n\geq 3}{\mathtt P}_{\omega}[\{\tau_{(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)} \geq n\}\cup\{\hat{\tau}(n)-\tau_{(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)}\leq n\}]<\infty$.
By Borel-Cantelli Lemma, we obtain that, ${\mathtt P}_{\omega}$-a.s., for all $n$ large enough $X_n>(1-\varepsilon)s(n)$.
Now, for $t\in [n,n+1)$ and $n$ large enough, we have that $\tau_{\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil}<n\leq t$ and $\hat{\tau}(t)-\tau_{\lceil(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})s(n)\rceil}\geq n+1>t$,
which implies $X_t> (1-\varepsilon)s(t)$. By Lemmas \ref{Lem1}, \ref{Lem2}, \ref{Lem4}
and the definition of $\Gamma(t)$, we conclude that for ${\mathbb P}$-a.a.\ ${\omega}$, ${\mathtt P}_{\omega}[\liminf_{t \to \infty} s(t)^{-1}X_t\geq (1-\varepsilon)]=1$.
\medskip
We continue the proof of Theorem \ref{Theo} by showing that for ${\mathbb P}$-a.a.\ ${\omega}$, ${\mathtt P}_{\omega}[\limsup_{t \to \infty} s(t)^{-1}X_t\leq(1+\varepsilon)]=1$.
Let $\delta\in (0,1)$ be such that Lemma \ref{Lem3} holds, $N=\lfloor 2\delta^{-1}\rfloor$ and ${\omega}$ be such that ${\omega}\in \liminf_{t\to \infty}(C_{\varepsilon, \delta,N}(t)\cap \Gamma(t))$.
Since ${\omega}\in \liminf_{t\to \infty}(C_{\varepsilon, \delta,N}(t)\cap \Gamma(t))$
there exists for all large enough integers $n$ a partition $y_0=0<y_1<\dots<y_{N-1}<y_N=\lfloor(1+\varepsilon)s(n)\rfloor$ of $[0,\lfloor(1+\varepsilon)s(n)\rfloor]$ into $N=\lfloor 2\delta^{-1}\rfloor$ intervals $J_j=[y_{j-1},y_{j}]$, $j=1,\dots,N$,
such that on each interval $D^+_{J_j}(U)>(1+\delta)\ln n-o(\ln n)$. By the Markov property we have
\begin{align*}
{\mathtt P}_{\omega}[\tau_{(1+\varepsilon)s(n)}\leq n]\leq \prod_{j=1}^{N}{\mathtt P}_{\omega}^{y_{j-1}}[\tau_{y_{j}}\leq n].
\end{align*}
Applying Proposition \ref{escape} to the right-hand term of the last inequality and using bound (\ref{WATQ}), we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{ERT}
{\mathtt P}_{\omega}[\tau_{(1+\varepsilon)s(n)}\leq n]\leq K_3^{\lfloor 2\delta^{-1}\rfloor}(n+1)^{-(2-\delta)+o(1)}
\end{align}
as $n\to \infty$.
From (\ref{ERT}), as $\delta\in (0,1)$, we deduce that $\sum_{n\geq 3}{\mathtt P}_{\omega}[\tau_{(1+\varepsilon)s(n)}\leq n]<\infty$.
By Borel-Cantelli Lemma, we obtain that, ${\mathtt P}_{\omega}$-a.s., for all $n$ large enough $X_n<(1+\varepsilon)s(n)$.
Now, for $t\in [n,n+1)$ and $n$ large enough, we have that $\tau_{(1+\varepsilon)s(t)}\geq \tau_{(1+\varepsilon)s(n)}\geq n+1> t$, which implies $X_t<(1+\varepsilon)s(t)$.
By Lemma~\ref{Lem3} and the definition of $\Gamma(t)$, we conclude that for ${\mathbb P}$-a.a.\ ${\omega}$,
$${\mathtt P}_{\omega}\Big[\limsup_{t \to \infty}\frac{X_t}{s(t)}\leq(1+\varepsilon)\Big]=1.$$
\medskip
To sum up, we showed that for ${\mathbb P}$-a.a.\ ${\omega}$,
\[
{\mathtt P}_{\omega}\Big[\liminf_{t\to \infty}\frac{X_t}{s(t)}\geq(1-\varepsilon),
\limsup_{t \to \infty}\frac{X_t}{s(t)}\leq(1+\varepsilon)\Big]=1.
\]
As $\varepsilon$ is arbitrary, this shows Theorem \ref{Theo}.
\hfill$\Box$\par\medskip\par\relax
\section*{Acknowledgements}
C.G.\ is grateful to FAPESP (grant 2009/51139--3) for financial
support. G.M.S.\ thanks FAPESP (grant 2011/21089-4) and S.P.\ thanks
CNPq (grant 301644/2011-0) for financial supports. C.G.\ and S.P.\ thank
FAPESP (grant 2009/52379-8) for financial support.
C.G.\ and G.M.S.\ thank NUMEC for kind hospitality.
|
\section{Fullerenes in astrophysical environments}
Fullerenes (such as the buckminsterfullerene C$_{60}$) are large
carbonaceous molecules in the shape of a hollow sphere of
ellipsoid. They are very stable, and thus it was suggested early on
that they could also form in space and be abundant and widespread in
the Universe \citep{1985Natur.318..162K}.
Astronomical searches for the electronic bands of neutral C$_{60}$
were unsuccessful though \citep[for an overview, see][]{Herbig:C60};
and the detection of two diffuse interstellar bands near the predicted
wavelengths of C$_{60}^{+}$ awaits confirmation from a gas-phase
laboratory spectrum \citep{Foing:C60_1}.
C$_{60}$ also has 4 IR active vibrational modes at 7.0, 8.5, 17.4 and
18.9 $\mu$m. Dedicated searches for these bands did not result in a
detection either \citep{1995AJ....109.2096C,Moutou:C60}.
Recently, we reported the detection of the IR active modes of C$_{60}$
and C$_{70}$ in the Spitzer-IRS spectrum of the young, low-excitation
planetary nebula (PN) Tc~1 \citep{Cami:C60-Science}. Since then,
fullerenes have been found in many more PNe
\citep{Garcia-Hernandez:PN,Garcia-Hernandez:MC}, a proto-PN
\citep{ZhangKwok:proto-PNC60}, a few R~Cor~Bor stars
\citep{Garcia-Hernandez:RcrB,2011AJ....142...54C} and even in O-rich
binary post-AGB stars \citep{Gielen:C60p-AGB}. In addition, fullerenes
have turned up in interstellar environments
\citep{2010ApJ...722L..54S,2011MNRAS.410.1320R,2012ApJ...753..168B}
and in young stellar objects \citep{Roberts:C60} as well. From these
detections it is clear that fullerenes are formed in the circumstellar
environments of evolved stars. They then either survive in the ISM
(possibly incorporated into dust grains), or form there when
conditions are right.
\section{The fullerene excitation mechanism}
To explain the IR emission of cosmic fullerenes, two mechanisms have
been considered that offer quite different predictions about the
relative band strengths \citep[for a detailed comparison,
see][]{Jero:C60excitation}. Thermal C$_{60}$ emission models show
large variations in the relative strength of all bands as a function
of temperature; for $T\le 300$~K, the 7.0 and 8.5 $\mu$m bands are
very weak compared to the 17.4 and 18.9 $\mu$m bands. For fluorescence
on the other hand, the band strengths only depend on the average
absorbed photon energy; in that case, the 17.4/18.9 $\mu$m band ratio
is roughly constant (for reasonable photon energies) while the 7.0 and
8.5 $\mu$m bands should be fairly strong.
Observationally, the 7.0 and 8.5 $\mu$m bands are often very weak or
even undetectable, while there are considerable variations in the
17.4/18.9 $\mu$m band ratio; this is more easily explained by thermal
models than by fluorescence models. However, these variations could
also be the consequence of contamination by PAH emission. In the three
known uncontaminated fullerene-rich PNe on the other hand, the 7.0
$\mu$m band is far {\em too strong} to be explained by even
fluorescence from C$_{60}$ alone. As pointed out to the careful reader
by \citet{Jero:C60excitation}, the 7.0 $\mu$m emission in those
sources includes a significant contribution from C$_{70}$, provided at
least that the emission is due to fluorescence. For one object (Tc~1),
fluorescence is further supported by the observation that the C$_{60}$
emission peaks at large distances ($\sim8000$~AU) from the central
star. If fluorescence is also the excitation mechanism for the other
astronomical sources where fullerenes have been detected, then the
weak 7.0 and 8.5 $\mu$m bands indicate that the fullerene emission is
not due to isolated, free C$_{60}$ molecules in the gas-phase; there
might be contributions from other species as well and/or the emission
may be due to fullerene clusters or nanocrystals.
\section{The formation of cosmic fullerenes}
Several routes have been proposed to explain the formation of
fullerenes in astrophysical environments. Densities in circumstellar
and interstellar environments are too low for bottom-up fullerene
formation on reasonable timescales
\citep{Micelotta:arophatics}. Fullerenes could form from the
processing of PAHs \citep{2012PNAS..109..401B}, but this requires
fine-tuned initial conditions.
A promising route starts from {\em arophatics} -- large clusters of
aromatic rings with aliphatic and olefinic bridges that originate from
a:C-H grains \citep{Micelotta:arophatics}. UV irradiation first
dehydrogenates and aromatizes such structures; subsequent C$_{2}$
ejection then shrinks down the resulting cages to C$_{60}$. Further
shrinking is inhibited by a high energy barrier. The spectral imprint
of the parent a:C-H grains in the IR spectra of fullerene-rich PNe
offers some observational support for this mechanism
\citep{Jero:C60excitation}.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{introduzione} One of the most important contribution in the
theory of large deviations is the series of papers of Donsker and Varadhan \cite{DV4}. Here
the authors develop a general approach to the study of large
deviations for Markov processes both in continuous and discrete time.
They establish large deviations principles (LDP) for the empirical
measure and for the empirical process associated to a Markov process.
Given a sample path of the process on the finite time window
$[0,T]$, the corresponding empirical measure is a probability
measure on the state space that associates to any measurable subset
the fraction of time spent on it. A LDP for the empirical measure is
usually called a \emph{level 2} LDP.
Given a sample path of the process in the finite time window
$[0,T]$, the corresponding empirical process is a probability
measure on paths defined on the infinite time window $(-\infty,+\infty)$.
More precisely it is the unique stationary (with respect to time shift)
probability measure that gives weight $1$ to periodic paths (of period $T$)
such that there exists a period $[t,t+T]$ where they coincide with the original
sample path. A LDP for the empirical process is
usually called a \emph{level 3} LDP.
\medskip
Let us restrict our discussion to the case of a Markov chain on a countable (finite or infinite) state space, which is the actual framework of this paper. The case of discrete
time Markov chains has been much more investigated with respect
to the case of continuous time.
The general picture
of the discrete time case is the following (see for example \cite{DZ,dH}).
The rate function for the level $3$ LDP coincides with
the relative entropy density. The rate function for the level $2$ LDP
has instead in general only a variational representation, which cannot be solved explicitly even for symmetric jump probabilities.
A
very natural
and much studied object is the $k$--symbols empirical measure. This is a
probability measure on strings of symbols with length $k$ obtained from
the frequency of appearance in the sample path.
With a suitable periodization procedure the
$k$--symbols empirical measures constitute a consistent family of measures
that are exactly the $k$ marginals of the empirical process. For each $k>1$, and in particular
for $k=2$ the rate function for the LDP associated to the
$k$ symbols empirical measure has an explicit expression.
In the continuous time setting, quite surprisingly, there are much less results available
and the general picture is less clear. The aim of this paper is to partly fill the gap.
As already mentioned, level 2 and level 3 LDPs have been proved in \cite{DV4}. For the empirical process
the rate function is the relative entropy density. For the empirical measure the rate function
has instead only a variational representation. Only in the case of reversible Markov chains
the corresponding variational problem can be solved and the rate function is related
to the Dirichlet form.
\medskip
In the continuous time setting a natural generalization of the $2$--symbols empirical
measure is the so called \emph{empirical flow}. Given a sample path of the Markov chain
in the finite time window
$[0,T]$, the corresponding empirical flow is a measure on the pairs of states, assigning to each pair the number of jumps performed by the path along this pair of states times a factor $1/T$.
In this paper we prove a joint
LDP for the empirical measure and the empirical flow. The rate function
is explicit and is given by a sum of Poisson like terms constrained by a zero divergence
condition for the empirical flow. The LDP is proved on the space of summable
flows with a suitable topology but also some other topological frameworks are discussed. Despite the discrete time case in which the empirical measure is the marginal of the empirical 2--symbols measure, in the continuous time case empirical measure
and flow can be arbitrary and have not to satisfy any compatibility condition.
The joint rate function for the empirical measure and flow first appeared in \cite{WK}
through an heuristic derivation. Always in \cite{WK} it was then used to recover by contraction the Donsker--Varadhan rate function
for the empirical measure in the case of a state space with only two elements. Being a LDP intermediate among
level 2 and level 3, the authors called it a level 2.5 LDP.
Later in \cite{BP}, motivated by statistical applications, the authors have showed that the contraction on the empirical measure of the rate function proposed by \cite{WK} leads to the Donsker-Varadhan rate function in the case of finite state space.
In \cite{dlF} a weak level 2.5 LDP
has been proved. Finally in \cite{maes} LDPs for flows and currents
have been discussed in relation to non equilibrium thermodynamics.
\medskip
In the present paper we give a rigorous proof
of a full LDP for Markov chains on a countable state space. As a
condition assuring the exponential tightness we assume a stronger
version of the Donsker--Varadhan condition (alternatively of the
hypercontractivity condition in \cite{DeS})
for the exponential
tightness of the empirical measure. For a finite state space the exponential tightness is trivially satisfied, and the proof is strongly simplified. We present two different approaches: a direct derivation is obtained using a perturbation of the original Markov measure (under an additional technical assumption), while an indirect derivation is obtained by contraction from the level 3 LDP.
In \cite{BFG1} we will recover the LDP for the empirical measure by contraction from the joint LDP proved here.
In a companion paper \cite{BFG2} we will discuss several applications and consequences of
our results like LDPs for currents, Gallavotti--Cohen symmetries and computations
in specific models.
Finally we mention some recent results
about fluctuations of currents and fluxes inspiring and motivating the present work. We already mentioned
the paper \cite{maes}.
In \cite{BDGJL0, BDGJL1, BDGJL2, bd, bd1, bdl} LDPs for currents of interacting particle systems in the hydrodynamic scaling limit were studied. This was a breakthrough in the study of
non equilibrium models of interacting particle systems that for example revealed the possibility
of a dynamical phase transition based on current fluctuations. LDPs for the currents in diffusion processes on $\bb R ^n$
and their symmetries were studied in \cite{bg}. In \cite{KKT} and \cite{K} LDPs for the currents
of the Brownian motion on a compact Riemann manifold are obtained.
We mention also the recent preprint \cite{MSZ}
on the joint large deviations for the empirical measure and flow for a renewal process on a finite
graph.
In the next section we fix our notation and state our main results. At the end of that section
we outline the structure of the paper.
\section{Notation and results}
\label{definizioni}
We consider a continuous time Markov chain $\xi_t$, $t \in \bb R_+$
on a countable (finite or infinite) state space $V$. The Markov
chain is defined in terms of the \emph{jump rates} $r(x,y)$, $x \not
=y$ in $V$, from which one derives the holding times and the jump
chain \cite[Section 2.6]{N}. Since the holding time at $x\in V$ is
an exponential random variable of parameter
$r(x): =\sum_{y\in V}
r(x,y)$, we need to assume that $r(x)<+\infty$ for any $x \in V$.
Note that, in some cases, we allow arbitrary long jumps, i.e.\ $\big|\big\{y\in V
:\, r(x,y)>0\big\}\big|=+\infty$.
\smallskip
The basic assumptions on the chain are the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(A1)]
for each $x \in V$, $r(x)= \sum _{y \in V} r(x,y)$ is finite;
\item[(A2)]
for each $x \in V$ the Markov chain $\xi^x_t$ starting from $x$
has no explosion a.s.;
\item[(A3)]
the Markov chain is irreducible, i.e.\ for each $x,y \in V$ and $t>0$
the event $\{\xi^x_t=y\}$ has strictly positive probability;
\item[(A4)]
there exists a unique invariant probability measure, that is denoted
by $\pi$.
\end{itemize}
As in \cite{N}, by invariant probability measure $\pi$ we mean a
probability measure on $V$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{invariante}
\sum _{y \in V} \pi(x) \, r(x,y)
= \sum _{y \in V} \pi(y) \, r(y,x)\qquad \forall \:x \in V
\end{equation}
where we understand $r(x,x)=0$. We recall some basic facts from
\cite{N}, see in particular Section~3.5 and Theorem 3.8.1 there.
Assuming (A1) and irreducibility (A3), assumptions (A2) and (A4)
together are equivalent to the fact that all states are positive
recurrent.
In (A4) one could remove the assumption of
uniqueness of the invariant probability measure, since for an
irreducible Markov chain there can be at most only one.
Under the above assumptions,
$\pi(x)>0$ for all $x \in V$, the Markov chain starting with
distribution $\pi$ is stationary (i.e.\ its law is left invariant
by time-translations), and the ergodic theorem holds, i.e.\ for any
bounded function $f: V \to \bb R$ and any initial distribution
\begin{equation}
\label{ergodico}
\lim_{T \to +\infty} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T\!dt\, f(\xi_t)
= \langle\pi, f\rangle
\qquad \textrm{a.s.}
\end{equation}
where $\langle\pi,f\rangle$ denotes the expectation of $f$ with
respect to $\pi$. Finally, we observe that if $V$ is finite then
(A1) and (A2) are automatically satisfied, while (A3) implies (A4).
\smallskip
We consider $V$ endowed with the discrete topology and the
associated Borel $\sigma$-algebra given by the collection of all the
subsets of $V$. Given $x\in V$, the distribution of the Markov
chain $\xi^x_t$ starting from $x$, is a probability measure on the
Skorohod space $D(\bb R_+;V)$ that we denote by $\bb P_x$. The
expectation with respect to $\bb P_x$ is denoted by $\bb E_x$. In
the sequel we consider $D(\bb R_+;V)$ equipped with the canonical
filtration, the Skorohod topology, and the completion of the
associated Borel $\sigma$--algebra with respect to $\bb P_x$, $x\in
V$. The canonical coordinate in $D(\bb R_+;V)$ is denoted by $X_t$.
The set of probability measures on $V$ is denoted by $\mc P(V)$ and
it is considered endowed with the topology of weak convergence and
the associated Borel $\sigma$-algebra. Since $V$ has the discrete
topology, the weak convergence of $\mu_n$ to $\mu$ in $\mc P (V)$ is
equivalent to the pointwise convergence of $\mu_n(x)$ to $\mu(x)$
for any $x\in V$.
\subsection{Empirical measure and empirical flow}
\label{s:emef}
Given $T>0$ the \emph{empirical measure}
$\mu_T\colon D(\bb R_+;V)\to \mc P(V)$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
\mu_T \, (X) = \frac 1T\int_0^T\!dt \, \delta_{X_t}
\end{equation*}
where $\delta_y$ denotes the pointmass at $y$.
Given $x\in V$, the ergodic theorem \eqref{ergodico} implies that the
empirical measure $\mu_T$ converges $\bb P_x$ a.s.\ to $\pi$ as $T \to
\infty$.
In particular, the sequence of probabilities $\{\bb P_x \circ
\mu_T^{-1}\}_{T>0}$ on $\mc P(V)$ converges to $\delta_\pi$.
\smallskip
We denote by $B$ the countable set of ordered edges without loops in $V$
and by $E$ the subset of $B$ given by ordered edges with
strictly positive jump rate:
\begin{align*}
& B := \{(y,z)\in V \times V: y
\not = z\}\,,\\
& E:= \{(y,z) \in B \,:\, r(y,z)>0\}\,.
\end{align*}
For each $T>0$ we define the \emph{empirical flow} as the map $Q_T
\colon D(\bb R_+;V)\to [0,+\infty]^B$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{montecarlo}
Q_T(y,z) \, (X) :=
\frac{1}{T} \sum_{0\leq t\leq T} \delta_y(X_{t^-}) \delta_z(X_{t})
\qquad (y,z)\in B.
\end{equation}
Namely, $ T Q_T(y,z)$ is $\bb P_x$ a.s.\ the number of jumps from
$y$ to $z$ in the time interval $[0,T]$ of the Markov chain $\xi^x$.
\begin{remark}\label{SD}
By the graphical construction of the Markov chain, the random field
$\{T Q_T (y,z) \} _{(y,z) \in B}$ under $\bb P_x$ is stochastically
dominated by the random field $\{\mc Z_{y,z}\}_{(y,z) \in B}$
given by independent Poisson random variables, $\mc Z_{y,z}$
having mean $Tr(y,z)$. This fact will be frequently used in the rest
of the paper.
\end{remark}
We denote by $L^1(E)$ the collection of absolutely summable
functions on $E$ and by $\| \cdot \|$ the associated $L^1$--norm.
The set of nonnegative elements of $L^1(E)$ is denoted by
$L^1_+(E)$. In what follows, given $Q \in \bb R_+^E$ we will think
of $Q$ as element of $[0,+\infty]^B$ setting $Q(y,z):=0$ for all
$(y,z) \in B \setminus E$. In particular, we have the inclusions
$$L^1_+ (E) \subset \bb R_+^E \subset [0,+\infty]^B\,.$$ Due to the
above identification, since the chain is not explosive, for each
$T>0$ we also have $\bb P_x$ a.s. that $Q_T\in L^1_+(E)$.
\smallskip
Given a flow $Q\in L^1_+ (E) $ we let its
\emph{divergence} $\div Q \colon V\to \bb R$ be the function defined
by
\begin{equation}
\label{divergenza_fluss}
\div Q \, (y)= \sum _{z : \, (y,z)\in E} Q(y,z)- \sum_{z:\, (z,y)\in E} Q(z,y),
\qquad y\in V.
\end{equation}
Namely, the divergence of the flow $Q$ at $y$ is given by the
difference between the flow exiting from $y$ and the flow entering
into $y$. Observe that the divergence maps $L^1_+(E)$ into $L^1(V)$.
\smallskip
Finally, to each probability $\mu \in \mc P(V)$
we associate the flow $Q^\mu\in \bb R_+^E$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{Qmu}
Q^\mu(y,z) := \mu(y) \, r(y,z)
\qquad (y,z)\in E.
\end{equation}
Note that $Q^\mu\in L^1_+(E) $ if and only if $\langle\mu,
r\rangle<+\infty$. Moreover, in this case, by \eqref{invariante}
$Q^\mu$ has vanishing divergence if only if $\mu$ is invariant for
the Markov chain $\xi$, i.e. $\mu=\pi$.
\smallskip
We now discuss the law of large numbers for the empirical flow.
As
follows from simple computations (see \cite[Lemma\,II.2.3]{S} and
\cite[App.\,1, Lemma\,5.1]{KL}, which have to be generalized to
the case of unbounded $r(\cdot)$ by means of \cite[Sec.\,2.8]{N}
and Remark \ref{SD}) for each $(y,z)\in E$ the process
\begin{equation}\label{dacitare}
M_T(y,z) = T \, Q_T(y,z) \, (X) - \int_0^T\!ds \, \delta_y(X_s) r(y,z)
\end{equation}
is a martingale with respect to $\bb P_x$, $x\in V$. Moreover, the
predictable quadratic variation of $M_T(y,z)$, denoted by $\langle
M(y,z)\rangle_T$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\langle M(y,z)\rangle_T = \int_0^T\!ds \, \delta_y(X_s) r(y,z)\, .
\end{equation*}
In view of the ergodic theorem \eqref{ergodico}, we conclude that
for each $x\in V$ and $(y,z)\in E$ the family of real random
variables $Q_T(y,z)$ converges, in probability with respect to $\bb
P_x$, as $T\to+\infty$ to $Q^\pi(y,z)$. We refer to Remark
\ref{willy} for an alternative proof.
\subsection{Compactness conditions}
The classical Donsker-Varadhan theorem \cite{DV4,DZ,DeS,Vld}
describes the LDP associated to the empirical measure. The main
purpose of the present paper is to extend this result by
considering also the empirical flow.
Below we will state two LDPs (Theorem \ref{LDP:misura+flusso} and
Theorem \ref{LDPteo2}) for the joint process given by the empirical
measure and flow.
In Theorem
\ref{LDP:misura+flusso} the flow space is given by $L_1^+(E)$
endowed of the bounded weak* topology and, in order to have some
control at infinity in the case of infinite state space $V$,
compactness assumptions are required.
In Theorem \ref{LDPteo2}
the flow space is given by $[0,+\infty]^B$ endowed of the product
topology and weaker assumptions are required (the same of
\cite{DV4}). On the other hand, the rate function has not always a
computable form.
\smallskip
Let us now state precisely the compactness conditions under
which Theorem \ref{LDP:misura+flusso} holds (at least one of the
following Conditions \ref{t:ccomp}, \ref{t:ccompls}
has to be satisfied). To this aim,
given $f\colon V\to \bb R$ such that $\sum_{y\in V }r(x,y) \, |f(y)| <+\infty$
for each $x\in V$,
we
denote by $Lf \colon V\to \bb R$ the function defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{Lf}
L f\, (x) := \sum_{y\in V} r(x,y) \big[ f(y)-f(x)\big]
,\qquad x\in V.
\end{equation}
\begin{condition}
\label{t:ccomp}
There exists a sequence of functions $u_n\colon V \to (0,+\infty)$
satisfying the following requirements:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(i)] For each $x\in V$ and $n\in\bb N$ it holds $\sum_{y\in V} r(x,y)
u_n(y) <+\infty$. In the sequel $Lu_n \colon V \to \bb R$ is the
function defined by \eqref{Lf}.
\item [(ii)] The sequence $u_n$ is uniformly bounded from below.
Namely, there exists $c>0$ such that $u_n(x)\ge c$ for any $x\in
V$ and $n\in\bb N$.
\item[(iii)] The sequence $u_n$ is uniformly bounded from above on compacts.
Namely, for each $x\in V$ there exists a
constant $C_x$ such that for any $n\in\bb N$ it holds $u_n(x)\le C_x$.
\item [(iv)] Set $v_n := - Lu_n / u_n$. The sequence
$v_n\colon V\to \bb R$ converges pointwise to some $v\colon V\to \bb R$.
\item[(v)] The function $v$ has compact level sets.
Namely, for each $\ell\in \bb R$
the level set $\big\{x \in V \,:\, v(x)\leq \ell\big\}$ is
finite.
\item[(vi)]
There exist a strictly positive constant $\sigma$ and a positive
constant $C$ such that
$v \ge \sigma \, r - C$.
\end{itemize}
\end{condition}
Replacing in Condition \ref{t:ccomp} the strictly positive constant $\sigma$
with zero one obtains the same assumptions of Donsker and Varadhan
for the derivation in \cite{DV4}--(IV) of the LDP for the
empirical measure
of the Markov chain satisfying (A1),...,(A4)
(shortly,
we will say that the \emph{Donsker--Varadhan condition} is
satisfied).
\smallskip
We recall that the Donsker-Varadhan theorem for the empirical
measure still holds under a suitable compactness condition
concerning the hypercontractivity of the underlying Markov
semigroup, see e.g.\ \cite{DeS}.
Also in this case we need a stronger version that is
detailed below.
Recall that $\pi$ is the unique invariant measure of the chain. The
maps $P_t f(x):= \bb E( f(\xi^x_t ) )$, $t\in \bb R_+$, define a strongly continuous
Markov semigroup on $L^2(V, \pi)$. We write $D_\pi$ for the
Dirichlet form associated to the symmetric part $S=(\mathcal L+\mathcal L^*)/2$ of the generator
$\mathcal L$
in $L^2(V,\pi)$. Since the time--reversed
dynamics is described by a Markov chain on $V$ with transition rates
$r^*(x,y):=\pi (y) r(y,x) /\pi (x)$, it holds
\begin{equation}
D_\pi (f)= \frac{1}{4} \sum _{x \in V} \sum_{y\in V} \bigl(
\pi(x)r(x,y)+ \pi(y) r(y,x) \bigr) \bigl( f(y)-f(x) \bigr)^2 \,,
\qquad f \in L^2 (V, \pi)\,.
\end{equation}
One can take the above expression as definition of $D_\pi$, avoiding
all technicalities concerning infinitesimal generators.
One says that the Markov chain $\xi$ satisfies the logarithmic
Sobolev inequality if there exists a constant $c_\mathrm{LS} \in
(0,+\infty)$ such that for any $\mu\in \mc P(V)$ it holds
\begin{equation}
\label{ls}
\mathop{\rm Ent}\nolimits (\mu|\pi) \le c_\mathrm{LS} \, D_\pi\left(\sqrt{\mu/\pi} \right)
\end{equation}
where $\mathop{\rm Ent}\nolimits(\mu|\pi)$ denotes the relative entropy of $\mu$ with
respect to $\pi$.
\begin{condition}
\label{t:ccompls}
$~~$
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
The Markov chain satisfies a logarithmic Sobolev inequality.
\item[(ii)]
The exit rate $r$ has an exponential moment with respect to the
invariant measure. Namely, there exists $\sigma>0$ such that
$\big\langle \pi, \exp\big\{\sigma \, r\big\} \big\rangle <
+\infty$.
\item[(iii)]
The graph $(V,E)$ is locally finite, that is for each vertex $y\in
V$ the number of incoming and outgoing edges in $y$ is finite.
\end{itemize}
\end{condition}
Item (iii) is here assumed for technical convenience and it should be
possible to drop it. Item (i) is the hypercontractivity condition
assumed in \cite{DeS} to deduce the Donsker-Varadhan theorem for the
empirical measure. Item (ii) is here required to prove the
exponential tightness of the empirical flow in $L^1_+(E)$.
\subsection{LDP with flow space $L^1_+ (E)$ endowed of the bounded weak*
topology} \label{s:ldef}
We consider the space $L^1(E)$ equipped with the so-called
\emph{bounded weak* topology}. This is defined as follows. Recall
that the (countable) set $E$ is the collection of ordered edges in
$V$ with positive jump rate. Let $C_0(E)$ be the collection of the
functions $F\colon E\to \bb R$ vanishing at infinity, that is the
closure of the functions with compact support in the uniform
topology. The dual of $C_0(E)$ is then identified with $L^1(E)$.
The weak* topology on $L^1(E)$ is the smallest topology
such that the maps $Q\in L^1(E)\to \langle Q,f\rangle\in \mathbb R$ with
$f\in C_0(E)$ are continuous.
Given $\ell>0$, let $B_\ell := \big\{ Q\in L^1(E) :\, \|Q\| \le
\ell\big\}$ be the closed ball of radius $\ell$ in $L^1(E)$
($\|\cdot\|$ being the standard $L^1$--norm). In view of the
separability of $C_0(E)$ and the Banach-Alaoglu theorem, the set
$B_\ell$ endowed with the weak* topology is a compact Polish space.
The bounded weak* topology on $ L^1(E)$ is then defined by declaring
a set $A\subset L^1(E)$ open if and only if $A\cap B_\ell$ is open
in the weak* topology of $B_\ell$ for any $\ell>0$. The bounded
weak* topology is stronger than the weak* topology (they coincide
only when $|E|<+\infty$) and for each $\ell>0$ the closed ball
$B_\ell$ is compact with respect to the bounded weak* topology. The
space $L^1(E)$ endowed with the bounded weak* topology is a locally
convex, complete linear topological space and a completely regular
space (i.e. for every closed set $C \subset L^1(E)$ and every
element $Q \in L^1(E) \setminus C$ there exists a continuous
function $f:L^1(E) \to[0,1]$ such that $f(Q)=1$ and $f(Q')=0$ for
all $Q'\in C$). Moreover, it is metrizable if and only if the set
$E$ is finite. We refer to \cite[Sec.\,2.7]{Me} for the proof of the
above statements and for further details.
\smallskip
We regard $L^1_+(E)$ as a (closed) subset of $L^1(E)$ and consider it
endowed with the relative topology and the associated Borel
$\sigma$--algebra.
Accordingly, the empirical flow $Q_T$ will be considered as a
measurable map from $D(\bb R_+;V)$ to $L^1_+(E)$, defined $\bb P_x$
a.s., $x\in V$.
Recalling that we consider $\mc P(V)$, the set of probability measures
on $V$, with the topology of weak convergence, we finally consider the
product space $\mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$ endowed with the product topology
and regard the couple
$(\mu_T,Q_T)$ where $\mu_T$ is the empirical measure and $Q_T$ the
empirical flow, as a measurable map from $D(\bb R_+;V)$ to $\mc
P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$ defined $\bb P_x$ a.s., $x\in V$.
\smallskip
Below we state the LDP for the family of probability measures on
$\mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$ given by $\big\{ \bb P_x \circ
(\mu_T,Q_T)^{-1} \big\}$ as $T\to+\infty$. Before stating precisely
the result, we introduce the corresponding rate function. Let
$\Phi\colon \bb R_+ \times \bb R_+ \to [0,+\infty]$ be the function
defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{Phi}
\Phi (q,p)
:=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle{ q \log \frac qp - (q-p)}
& \textrm{if $q,p\in (0,+\infty)$}
\\
\;p & \textrm{if $q=0$, $p\in [0,+\infty)$}\\
\; +\infty & \textrm{if $p=0$ and $q\in (0,+\infty)$.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
We point out that, given $p>0$ and letting $N_t$, $t\in\bb R_+$ be a
Poisson process with parameter $p$, the sequence of real random variables
$\{N_T/T\}$ satisfies a large deviation principle on $\mathbb R$ with rate
function $\Phi (\cdot,p)$ as $T \to \infty$. This statement can be
easily derived from the G\"{a}rtner-Ellis theorem, see e.g\
\cite[Thm.~2.3.6]{DZ}. Recalling \eqref{divergenza_fluss} and
\eqref{Qmu}, we let $I\colon \mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E) \to
[0,+\infty]$ be the functional defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{rfq}
I (\mu,Q) :=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{(y,z)\in E} \Phi \big( Q(y,z),Q^\mu(y,z) \big)
}& \textrm{if } \; \div Q =0\,,\; \langle \mu,r \rangle < +\infty
\\
\; +\infty & \textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}\label{silente} As proved in Appendix \ref{iobimbo} if $\langle \mu , r \rangle
=+\infty$ the series in \eqref{rfq} diverges. Hence the
condition $\langle \mu, r \rangle < +\infty$ can be removed from the first line of \eqref{rfq}.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}
\label{LDP:misura+flusso}
Assume the Markov chain satisfies (A1)--(A4) and at least one
between Conditions \ref{t:ccomp} and \ref{t:ccompls}.
Then as $T\to+\infty$ the family of probability measures $\{\bb
P_x\circ (\mu_T,Q_T)^{-1}\}$ on $\mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$
satisfies a large deviation principle, uniformly for $x$ in
compact
subsets of $V$, with good and convex rate function $I$.
Namely, for each not empty compact set $K \subset V$,
each closed set $\mc C\subset \mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$,
and each open set $\mc A \subset \mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$, it
holds
\begin{align}
\label{ubldp}
& \varlimsup_{T\to+\infty}\;
\sup_{x \in K} \;
\frac 1T \log \bb P_x \Big( (\mu_T,Q_T) \in \mc C \Big)
\le -\inf_{(\mu,Q)\in \mc C} I(\mu,Q),
\\
\label{lbldp}
& \varliminf_{T\to+\infty}\;
\inf_{x \in K} \;
\frac 1T \log \bb P_x \Big( (\mu_T,Q_T) \in \mc A \Big)
\ge -\inf_{(\mu,Q)\in \mc A} I(\mu,Q).
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
As discussed in Lemma \ref{basket},
under the above assumptions it holds $\langle
\pi, r\rangle <+ \infty$. In particular, $I(\mu,Q)=0$
if and only if $(\mu,Q)=(\pi,Q^\pi)$.
Hence, from the above LDP one derives the LLN for the empirical flow
in $L_+^1 (E)$, improving the pointwise version discussed at the
end of Section \ref{s:emef}. In addition, the function $I(\cdot, \cdot)$
has an affine structure:
\begin{proposition}\label{gauchito}
Let $(\mu , Q)\in \mc P(V) \times L^1_+(E)$ satisfy $I(\mu,Q)<+\infty$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] All edges in the support $E(Q)$ of $Q$ must connect vertexes in the support of $\mu$, i.e.
if $Q(y,z)>0$ then
$y,z \in \text{supp} (\mu) $.
\item[(ii)] $I(\mu,Q)$ has the following affine decomposition. Consider the oriented graph $(\text{supp} (\mu), E(Q))$
and let $K_j$, $j \in J$, be the family of its
oriented connected components.
Consider the probability measure $\mu_j$ on $V$ concentrated on $K_j$ defined as $\mu_j:= \frac{\mu_{| K_j} }{\mu (K_j)} $. Consider the flow $Q_j\in L^1_+(E)$ defined as
$$Q_j(y,z)= \begin{cases}
\frac{Q(y,z)}{\mu(K_j) } & \text{ if } (y,z) \in E, \; y,z \in K_j \,,\\
0 & \text{ otherwise}\,.
\end{cases}
$$
Then we have $(\mu, Q)=\sum_{j\in J}\mu(K_j)(\mu_j,Q_j)$ and
\begin{equation}
I(\mu,Q) = \sum _{j \in J} \mu(K_j) I(\mu_j, Q_j) \,.
\end{equation}
\item[(iii)]
The oriented connected components of the oriented graph $(\text{supp} (\mu), E(Q))$
coincide with the connected components of the unoriented graph \\ $(\text{supp} (\mu), E^u(Q))$, where
$$E^u(Q):=\bigl\{\,\{y,z\} \,:\, (y,z) \in E(Q) \text{ or } (z,y) \in E(Q)\bigr\}\,.
$$
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
For the unfamiliar reader, the definition of (oriented) connected components is recalled after Remark \ref{zecchino}. Note that the oriented components of $(\text{supp} (\mu), E(Q))$ coincide with the irreducible classes of the Markov chain on $\text{supp}(\mu)$ with transition rates $r(y,z):= Q(y,z)/\mu(y)$. Moreover, note that due to Item (i) the graph
$(\text{supp} (\mu), E(Q))$ is well defined. The proof of the above proposition is given after Lemma \ref{tommy}.
\subsection{LDP with flow space $[0,+\infty]^B$ endowed of the
product topology} \label{prodotto}
When considering the product topology on
$[0,+\infty]^B$ we take $[0,+\infty]$ endowed of the metric making
the map $x \to \frac{x}{1+x}\in [0,1]$ an isometry. Namely, on
$[0,+\infty]$ we take the metric $d(\cdot, \cdot)$ defined as
$d(x,y)=\bigl| x/(1+x) -y/(1+y)\bigr|$. It is standard to define on
the space $[0,+\infty]^B$ a metric $D(\cdot, \cdot)$ inducing the
product topology: enumerating the bonds in $B$ as $b_1,b_2, \dots$
we set $D( Q, Q'):= \sum_{n=1}^{|B|} 2^{-n} d\bigl( Q(b_n),
Q'(b_n)\bigr)$.
\smallskip
We write $\mc M_S $ for the space of stationary probabilities on $D(\bb
R ;V)$ endowed of the weak topology.
Given $R \in \mc M_S$ we denote
by $\hat \mu(R)\in \mc P (V) $ the marginal of $R$ at a given time and by $\hat
Q(R)$ the flow in $[0,+\infty]^B$ defined as
$\hat Q(R)(y,z):= \bb
E_{R}\bigl[ Q_T(y,z) \bigr]$ for all $(y,z) \in B$, where $\bb E_R$
denotes the expectation with respect to $R$. It is simple to check
that the above expectation does not depend on the time $T>0$:
\begin{lemma}\label{pasquetta} Given an oriented bond $(y,z) \in B$ and a stationary process $R \in \mc M_S$, the expectation $
\bb E_{R} \bigl[ Q_T (y,z) \bigr]\in [0,+\infty]$ does not depend on
$T>0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $R$ is stationary, fixed $t\in \bb R$ it holds $R( X_t \not =
X_{t-} )=0$. In particular, given $T>0$ and an integer $n$ for
$R$--a.a. $X\in D(\bb R; V)$ it holds $$ Q_T (y,z) (X)=\frac{1}{n}
\sum _{j=0}^{n-1} Q_{ T/n}(y,z) ( \theta_{j T /n } X)\,.
$$
Above we have used the notation $(\theta_s X)_t:= X_{s+t}$. From the
above identity and the stationarity of $R$, taking the expectation
w.r.t. $R$ one gets $f(T)=f(T/n)$, where $f(T):=\bb E_R \bigl[ Q_T
(y,z) \bigr]$. Then by standard arguments one gets that $f(T)=
f(1)$ as $T$ varies among the positive rational numbers.
Since for $0<t_1 \leq T\leq t_2$ it holds $t_1 f(t_1) \leq
T f(T) \leq t_2 f(t_2)$ it is trivial to conclude that $f(T)$ is
constant as $T$ varies among the positive real numbers.
\end{proof}
We can now state our second main result:
\begin{theorem}\label{LDPteo2}
Assume the Markov chain satisfies (A1)--(A4) together with Donsker--Varadhan condition. Consider the space $\mc P(V)\times \bb
[0,+\infty]^B$, with
$ \mc P (V)$ endowed of the weak topology and $[0,+\infty]^B$
endowed of the product topology.
Then the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
As $T\to+\infty$ the family of probability measures
$\{\bb
P_x\circ (\mu_T,Q_T)^{-1}\}$ on $\mc P(V)\times \bb [0,+\infty]^B$
satisfies a large deviation principle with good rate function
\begin{equation}
\tilde I (\mu,Q):= \inf \Big\{ H(R)\, :\, R \in \mc M_S\,,\;
\hat \mu(R)=\mu\,,\;
\hat Q(R)= Q \Big\} \label{samarcanda1}
\end{equation}
Above $H(R)$ denotes the entropy of $R$ with respect to the Markov
chain $\xi$ as defined in \cite{DV4}--(IV) (see Section
\ref{s:proiezione}). Moreover we have
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\tilde I(\mu,Q)=I(\mu,Q) & \text{ if }Q \in L^1_+ (E)\,,\\
\tilde I(\mu,Q)=+\infty & \text{ if } Q \not \in \bb R_+^E\,.
\end{array}
\label{samarcanda}
\right.
\end{equation}
\item[(ii)]
If in addition Condition \ref{t:ccomp}
is satisfied, then the rate function $\tilde I$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{fatto!}
\tilde I(\mu,Q):= \begin{cases} I(\mu,Q) & \text{ if }
Q \in L^1_+(E)\,,\\
+\infty & \text{ otherwise}\,.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
Since Condition \ref{t:ccomp} implies the
Donsker--Varadhan condition, the above theorem under Condition \ref{t:ccomp} implies the
variational characterization
$$ I (\mu,Q) = \inf \Big\{ H(R)\, :\, R \in \mc M_S\,,\;
\hat \mu(R)=\mu\,,\;
\hat Q(R)= Q \Big\}\,, \;\; (\mu,Q)
\in\mc P (V) \times L^1_+(E)\,.$$
In addition, note that \eqref{samarcanda} does not cover the case $Q
\in \bb R_+ ^E \setminus L_+^1(E)$.
\subsection{Outline}
The rest of the paper is devoted to the proofs of Theorems
\ref{LDP:misura+flusso} and \ref{LDPteo2}. Sections \ref{s:prep} and
\ref{s:geometria} contain preliminary results. Then in Section
\ref{s:diretto} we give a direct proof of Theorem
\ref{LDP:misura+flusso}. For this proof it is necessary to add the
condition that the graph $(V,E)$ is locally finite.
In Sections \ref{s:proiezione}, \ref{dim_cervo2} and \ref{dim_cervo3}
we remove the above condition and prove both Theorems
\ref{LDP:misura+flusso} and \ref{LDPteo2} by projection from the large
deviations principle for the empirical process proven by Donsker and
Varadhan in \cite{DV4}--(IV).
We discuss the details only for the Donsker-Varadhan type compactness
conditions. For this reason, we added item (iii) as a separate
requirement in the hypercontractivity type Condition~\ref{t:ccompls}.
By using similar arguments to the ones here presented, it should be
possible to remove it from Theorem~\ref{LDP:misura+flusso} and prove
the first statement in Theorem~\ref{LDPteo2} by assuming only items (i) and (ii) in
Condition~\ref{t:ccompls}.
Finally, in Section \ref{s:BD} we
discuss some examples from birth and death processes and compare the
different compactness conditions.
\section{Exponential estimates}\label{s:prep}
In this section we collect some preliminary results that will enter
in the proof of Theorems \ref{LDP:misura+flusso} and \ref{LDPteo2}.
Between other, we prove the exponential tightness in $L^1_+(E)$ of
the empirical flow when at least one between Conditions
\ref{t:ccomp} and \ref{t:ccompls} holds.
\subsection{Exponential local martingales}\label{exp_supm}
We start by comparing our Markov chain with a perturbed one. Let
$\hat{\xi}$ be a continuous time Markov chain on $V$ with jump
rates $\hat r (y,z)$, $y\not=z$ in $V$. We assume that $\hat r(y):=
\sum _{z \in V} \hat r(y,z)< +\infty$ for all $y \in V$, thus
implying that the Markov chain $\hat \xi$ is well defined at cost
to add a coffin state $\partial$ to the state space in case of
explosion \cite[Ch. 2]{N}. We write $ \hat{ \bb P} _x$ for the
law on $D( \bb R_+, V \cup \{\partial\} )$ of the above Markov chain
$\hat \xi$ starting at $x\in V$.
We denote by $\rho_T$ the map $\rho_T:D(\bb R_+, V \cup \{\partial
\}) \to D( [0,T], V\cup \{ \partial \} )$ given by restriction of
the path to the time interval $[0,T]$. We now assume that $\hat
r(y,z)=0$ if $(y,z) \not\in E$. Then, restricting the probability
measures $\bb P_x \circ \rho _T^{-1}$ and $ \hat {\bb P }_x \circ
\rho_T^{-1}$
to the set $D([0,T], V)$ (no explosion takes place in the interval
$[0,T]$), we obtain two reciprocally absolutely continuous measures
with Radon--Nykodim derivative \begin{equation}\label{RN} \frac {d
\hat {\bb P} _{x} \circ \rho_T^{-1} }{d\bb P_{x} \circ
\rho_T^{-1} } \Big|_{D([0,T], V)} = \exp \left\{ - T\langle \mu_T,
\hat r -r\rangle\right\} \prod_{ (y,z) \in E} \left[\frac{ \hat
r(y,z)}{r(y,z)}\right] ^{T Q_T(y,z)} \,.
\end{equation}
This formula can be checked very easily. Indeed, calling $\tau_1(X)<
\tau_2(X) < \tau_{N(X)} (X)$ the jump times of the path $X$ in
$[0,T]$ (below $N(X)<+\infty$ almost surely) we have
\begin{multline*} \bb P_x \circ \rho_T^{-1} \Big(N(X)= n\,, \; X(\tau_i)=x_i
\;\forall i:1\leq i \leq n ,\; \tau_i \in (t_i, t_i+dt_i)\; \forall
i :1\leq i \leq n\Big)
\\ =
\Big[\prod _{i=0}^{n-1} e^{ -r(x_i) (t_{i+1}-t_i) } r(x_i,
x_{i+1})\Big] e^{-r(x_n) (T-t_n)}dt_1 \cdots dt_n\,,
\end{multline*}
where $t_0:=0$ and $x_0:=x$, $0\leq t_1<t_2 < \cdots < t_n\leq T$,
$n=0,1,2,\dots$. Since a similar formula holds also for the law
$\hat {\bb P} _{x} \circ \rho_T^{-1}$, one gets \eqref{RN}.
\smallskip
As immediate consequence of the Radon--Nykodim derivative \eqref{RN}
we get the following result:
\begin{lemma}
\label{t:em2}
Let $F\colon E\to \bb R$ be such that $r^F(y) := \sum_z r(y,z) e^{F(y,z)}
<+\infty$ for any $y\in V$.
For $t\ge 0$ define $\bb M^F_t: D(\bb R_+, V) \to (0,+\infty)$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{expm2}
\bb M^F_t :=
\exp\Big\{ t \big[ \langle Q_t, F\rangle - \langle\mu_t, r^F-r\rangle\big]
\Big\}
\end{equation} where $\langle Q_t,F \rangle = \sum _{(y,z) \in E} Q_t(y,z) F(y,z)$.
Then for each $x\in V$ and $t\in \bb R_+$ it holds
$\bb E_x \big( \bb M^F_t \big) \le 1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} By \eqref{RN} ($\hat r(y,z):=r(y,z) e^{F(y,z)}$),
$\bb E_x( \bb M_t ^F)= \hat{\bb P} _x \bigl( D([0,t]; V )\bigr)\leq
1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
It is simple to check that the process $\bb M^F$ is a positive local
martingale and a supermartingale with respect to $\bb P_x$, $x\in
V$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{willy}
Fixed $(y,z) \in E$, taking in Lemma \ref{t:em2} $F: = \pm \lambda
\delta _{y,z}$ with $\lambda >0 $ and applying Chebyshev inequality,
one gets for $\delta >0$ that the events $\{ Q_t(y,z) >\mu_t (y)
r(y,z) (e^\lambda-1) /\lambda +\delta\}$ and $\{ Q_t(y,z) <\mu_t (y)
r(y,z) (1-e^{-\lambda}) /\lambda -\delta\}$ have $\bb
P_x$--probability bounded by $e^{-t \delta\lambda}$. Using that $(e^{\pm \lambda} -1)/\lambda=\pm1+o(1)$ and since
$\mu_t(y) \to \pi (y)$ as $t \to +\infty$ $\bb P_x$--a.s. by the ergodic theorem
\eqref{ergodico}, taking the limit $t \to+\infty$ and afterwards
taking $\delta, \lambda$ arbitrarily small, one recovers the LLN of
$Q_t(y,z)$
towards $\pi(y)r(y,z)$ discussed in Section \ref{s:emef}.
\end{remark}
The next statement is deduced from the previous lemma by choosing
there $F(y,z) = \log [ u(z)/u(y)]$, $(y,z)\in E$ for some $u\colon V
\to (0,+\infty)$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{t:em1}
Let $u\colon V \to (0,+\infty)$ be such that $\sum_{z} r(y,z) u(z)
<+\infty$ for any $y\in V$. For $t\ge 0$ define $ \mc M^u_t : D(\bb R_+, V) \to (0,+\infty)$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{expm1}
\mc M^u_t := \frac{u(X_t)}{u(X_0)}
\exp\Big\{ t \, \Big\langle \mu_t, - \frac{L u}{u}
\Big\rangle\Big\}.
\end{equation}
Then for each $x\in V$
and $t\in \bb R_+$ it holds $\bb E_x \big(\mc M^u_t \big) \le 1$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Exponential tightness}
\label{s:et}
We shall prove separately the exponential tightness of the
empirical measure and of the empirical flow. We first discuss the
case in which Condition~\ref{t:ccomp} holds. Then the proof of the
exponential tightness of the empirical measure is essentially a
rewriting of the argument in \cite{DV4} in the present setting. On
the other hand, the proof of the exponential tightness of the
empirical flow depends on the extra assumption $\sigma>0$ in item
(vi) of Condition~\ref{t:ccomp}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{t:letem}
Assume Condition~\ref{t:ccomp} to hold and
let the function $v$ and the constants $c,C_x,C,\sigma$ be as in Condition
\ref{t:ccomp}. Then for each $x\in V$ it holds
\begin{equation}\label{sirena}
\bb E_x \Big( e^{ T \langle\mu_T, v\rangle } \Big) \le
\frac {C_x}{c} \,, \qquad
\bb E_x \Big( e^{ T\sigma \langle\mu_T, r\rangle } \Big) \le
e^{TC}\frac {C_x}{c}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} The second bound in \eqref{sirena} follows
trivially from the first one and item (vi) in Condition
\ref{t:ccomp}. To prove the first bound,
let $u_n$ be the sequence of functions on $V$ provided by
Condition~\ref{t:ccomp} and recall that $v_n = - Lu_n / u_n$.
In view of the pointwise convergence of $v_n$ to $v$ and Fatou lemma
\begin{equation*}
\bb E_x \Big( e^{ T \langle\mu_T, v\rangle } \Big)
\le \varliminf_n \:
\bb E_x \Big( e^{ T \langle\mu_T, v_n\rangle } \Big)
= \varliminf_n \: \bb E_x
\Big( \exp\Big\{ T \,\Big\langle \mu_T, -\frac{L
u_n}{u_n}\Big\rangle \Big\} \Big)
\le \frac {C_x}{c}
\end{equation*}
where the last step follows from Lemma~\ref{t:em1} and
items (ii)--(iii) in Condition~\ref{t:ccomp}.
\end{proof}
The following provides the exponential tightness of the empirical
measure and the empirical flow.
\begin{proposition}
\label{t:etem}
Assume Condition~\ref{t:ccomp}.
For each $x\in V$ there exists a sequence $\{\mc K_\ell\}$ of
compacts in $\mc P(V)$ and a real sequence $A _\ell\uparrow +\infty$
such that for any $\ell\in\bb N$
\begin{align}
& \varlimsup_{T\to +\infty} \; \frac 1T
\log \bb P_x \big( \mu_T \not\in \mc K_\ell \big) \le -\ell\,,
\label{arcobaleno1}\\
& \varlimsup_{T\to +\infty} \; \frac 1T
\log \bb P_x \big( \| Q_T\| > A_\ell \big) \le -\ell\,.
\label{arcobaleno2}
\end{align}
In particular, the empirical measure and
flow are exponentially tight.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We first prove
\eqref{arcobaleno1}.
For a sequence $a_\ell\uparrow +\infty$ to be chosen later, set
$K_\ell :=\{ x\in V :\, v(x) \le a_\ell\}$. In view of item (v) in
Condition~\ref{t:ccomp}, $K_\ell$ is a compact subset $V$. Set now
\begin{equation*}
\mc K_\ell := \bigcap_{m\ge\ell} \Big\{\mu\in\mc P(V)\,:\:
\mu\big(K_m^\mathrm{c} \big) \le \frac 1{m} \Big\}
\end{equation*}
and observe that, by Prohorov theorem, $\mc K_\ell$ is a compact
subset of $\mc P(V)$.
From item (vi) in Condition~\ref{t:ccomp} (for this step we only
need it with $\sigma=0$) and the definition of $K_\ell$ we deduce $v
\ge a_\ell {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}_{K_\ell^\mathrm{c}} - C$. By the exponential
Chebyshev inequality and Lemma~\ref{t:letem} we then get
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\bb P_x \Big( \mu_T\big( K_\ell^\mathrm{c} \big) > \frac
1{\ell}\Big) \le\bb P_x \Big( \langle\mu_T, v\rangle >
\frac{a_\ell}{\ell}-C\Big)
\\
&\qquad\quad
\le \exp\Big\{ -T \Big[ \frac{a_\ell}{\ell} -C\Big]
\Big\} \: \bb E_x \Big( e^{ T \langle\mu_T, v\rangle} \Big)
\le \frac{C_x}{c} \,
\exp\Big\{ -T \Big[ \frac{a_\ell}{\ell} -C\Big]\Big\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
By choosing $a_\ell = \ell^2 +C\ell$ the proof is now easily concluded.
Let us now prove \eqref{arcobaleno2}. By the second bound in Lemma
\ref{t:letem} and Chebyshev inequality, $ \bb P_x \big(
\langle\mu_T, r \rangle > \lambda \big)
\le \frac{C_x}{c} \: e^{ -T ( \sigma \lambda -C)} $ for any
$\lambda >0$.
In particular we obtain that
$$ \bb P_x \big(
\langle\mu_T, r \rangle > A'_\ell \big)
\le
\frac{C_x}{c} e^{-T\ell}\,,\qquad \quad A'_\ell:= \sigma^{-1}(\ell +
C)\,.
$$ Hence,
it is enough to show that
for each $x\in V$ there exists a sequence
$A_\ell\uparrow +\infty$
such
that for any $T>0$ and any $\ell\in\bb N$
\begin{equation}
\label{enough1}
\bb P_x \Big( \|Q_T\|> A_\ell \,,\,
\langle\mu_T, r\rangle \le A_\ell' \Big) \le e^{-T\,\ell}\,.
\end{equation}
We consider the exponential local martingale of Lemma~\ref{t:em2}
choosing there $F\colon E\to \bb R$ constant, $F(x,y)=\lambda \in
(0,+\infty)$ for any $(x,y)\in E$. We deduce
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& \bb P_x \Big( \|Q_T\|> A_\ell \,,\,\langle\mu_T, r\rangle\le A_\ell' \Big)
\\
& \qquad =
\bb E_x \Big( e^{ -T \big[ \lambda \|Q_T\|
- (e^\lambda-1) \langle\mu_T,r\rangle \big]}
\: \bb M^F_T \: {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}_{\{\|Q_T\|> A_\ell\}}
\, {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}_{\{\langle\mu_T,r\rangle \le A_\ell'\}}
\Big)
\\
& \qquad \le
\exp\big\{ -T \big[ \lambda A_\ell -(e^\lambda-1) A_\ell'\big] \big\}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where we used Lemma~\ref{t:em2} in the last step.
The proof of \eqref{enough1} is now completed by choosing
$A_\ell = \lambda^{-1} \ell + \lambda^{-1} (e^\lambda-1) A_\ell'$.
\smallskip
Recalling that the closed ball in $L^1_+(E)$ is
compact with respect to the bounded weak* topology, the exponential
tightness of the empirical flow is due to \eqref{arcobaleno2}.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
We next discuss the exponential tightness when
Condition~\ref{t:ccompls} is assumed.
\begin{proposition}
\label{t:extls}
Fix $x\in V$. If item (i) in Condition~\ref{t:ccompls} holds then
the sequence of probabilities $\{\bb P_x\circ \mu_T^{-1}\}$ on $\mc
P(V)$ is exponentially tight. If furthermore it holds also item (ii)
in Condition~\ref{t:ccompls}, then the sequence of probabilities
$\{\bb P_x\circ Q_T^{-1}\}$ on $L^1_+(E)$ is exponentially tight.
\end{proposition}
While the first statement is a consequence of the general results in
\cite{DeS}, we next give a direct and alternative proof also of
this result. We premise an elementary lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{t:lextls}
Let $\pi\in\mc P(V)$ be such that $\pi(x)>0$ for any $x\in V$.
There exists a decreasing function $\psi_\pi\colon (0,1)\to (0,+\infty)$
such that $\lim_{s\downarrow 0} \psi_\pi(s) =+\infty$ and
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{x\in V} \pi(x) \, \psi_\pi(\pi(x)) < +\infty.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By choosing a suitable order in $V$, it is enough to prove the
lemma when $V=\bb N$ and $\pi$ is decreasing, i.e.\ $\pi(k+1)\le
\pi(k)$, $k\in \bb N$. Let us first observe that there exists a
positive increasing sequence $a_\pi(k)$ such that $\lim_k a_\pi(k)
=+\infty$ and $\sum_k \pi(k) \, a_\pi(k) <+\infty$. Indeed, it is
simple to check that the explicit choice $a_\pi(k) = \big[ \sqrt{R_k}
+\sqrt{R_{k+1}}\big]^{-1}$, where $R_k := \sum_{i=k}^\infty \pi(i)$,
meets the above requirements. By setting
\begin{equation*}
\psi_\pi (s) := \sup\big\{ a_\pi(k)\,,\: k\,:\,\pi(k)\ge s\big\}
\end{equation*}
we then conclude the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{t:extls}]
We prove first the exponential tightness of the empirical
measure. Let $\pi$ be the invariant measure of the chain,
$\psi_\pi$ be the function provided by Lemma~\ref{t:lextls}
and $\alpha:=\sum_x \pi(x)\psi_\pi(\pi(x))<+\infty$.
We define
$v \colon V\to (0,+\infty)$ as
\begin{equation*}
v(x) := \log \frac{\psi_\pi \big(\pi(x)\big)}{\alpha} \,,\qquad x\in V.
\end{equation*}
Then, in view of
Lemma~\ref{t:lextls}, $v$ has compact level sets and $\big\langle\pi,e^v\big\rangle=1$.
By the proof of Proposition~\ref{t:etem}, it is enough to show the
following bound. For each $x\in V$ there exist constants
$\lambda, C_x>0$ such that for any $T>0$
\begin{equation}
\label{exbbis}
\bb E_x \Big( e^{\lambda T\, \langle\mu_T,v\rangle }\Big) \le C_x.
\end{equation}
We now proceed using spectral estimates. When $\sup_{x \in V} r(x)<
+\infty$ the tools used below are discussed in \cite[App.~1,
Sec.~7]{KL}. We drop this boundedness assumption and proceed
formally. In Appendix \ref{montemonaco} we give a rigorous
derivation of our bounds, covering the case $\sup_{x \in V}
r(x)=+\infty$.
By the Feynman-Kac formula,
\begin{equation*}
\bb E_x \Big( e^{\lambda T\, \langle\mu_T,v\rangle } \Big)
\le \frac 1{\pi(x)} \bb E_\pi \Big( e^{\lambda \int_0^T\!dt \, v(X_t)} \Big)
\le \frac 1{\pi(x)}
\exp\big[ T \sup\mathop{\rm spec}\nolimits\big\{ S + \lambda \,v \big\} \big]
\end{equation*}
where we recall $S=(\mc L+\mc L^*)/2$ and we used
\cite[App.~1, Lemma~7.2]{KL} in the last step.
The operator $ S + \lambda \, v$ is understood as a self-adjoint
operator in $L^2(V,\pi)$.
By the variational characterization of the maximal eigenvalue of
self-adjoint operators,
\begin{eqnarray}
& &\sup\mathop{\rm spec}\nolimits\big\{ S + \lambda\,v \big\}\nonumber \\
&= &\sup_{f\,:\: \pi(f^2)=1}
\big\{ - D_\pi(f) +\lambda \,\pi\big( f^2 v\big) \big\}\nonumber \\
& =& \sup_{\mu\in\mc P(V)}
\big\{ - D _\pi(\sqrt{\mu/\pi}\, ) + \lambda \,\langle\mu,v\rangle
\big\}\,.\label{ancoratu}
\end{eqnarray}
The last equality in \eqref{ancoratu} states that we can restrict the supremum
to non negative functions. The validity of the inequality $\geq$ among the second
and the third term in \eqref{ancoratu} is immediate. The validity of the converse
inequality follows easily by the inequality $D_\pi(f)\geq D_\pi(|f|)$.
Recalling the basic entropy inequality
$\langle \mu,v \rangle \le \log \big\langle\pi,e^{v}\big\rangle + \mathop{\rm Ent}\nolimits (\mu|\pi)$
and choosing $\lambda\in (0, 1/c_\mathrm{LS}]$, the logarithmic
Sobolev inequality \eqref{ls} now implies
\begin{equation*}
\sup\mathop{\rm spec}\nolimits\big\{ S + \lambda\, v \big\}
\le \lambda \log \big\langle\pi,e^{v}\big\rangle=0
\end{equation*}
which concludes the proof of \eqref{exbbis}.
To prove the second statement, one can proceed as in the proof
of \eqref{arcobaleno2} in Proposition~\ref{t:etem} (under Condition \ref{t:ccomp}).
Indeed, that
proof is based on the exponential bounds given by \eqref{sirena}
in Lemma \ref{t:letem}. The first bound corresponds here to
\eqref{exbbis}. The same arguments used to derive \eqref{exbbis}
and item (ii) in Condition \ref{t:ccompls} imply the exponential bound \eqref{exbbis}
with $v$ replaced by $r$.
\end{proof}
We conclude with a simple observation on the stationary flow:
\begin{lemma}\label{basket}
Assume at least one between Conditions \ref{t:ccomp} and
\ref{t:ccompls} to hold. Then $\langle \pi,r\rangle < +\infty$,
equivalently $Q^\pi \in L^1_+(E)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} The thesis is trivially true
under Condition \ref{t:ccompls}. Let us assume Condition
\ref{t:ccomp}. By Lemma \ref{t:letem} we have $\bb
E_x \big( e^{ T\sigma \langle\mu_T, r\rangle } \big) \le
e^{TC}C_x/c$.
We restrict to
$V$ infinite, the finite case being obvious. Enumerating the points
in $V$ as $\{x_n\}_{n \geq 0}$, by the ergodic theorem
\eqref{ergodico} fixed $N$ there exists a time $T_0=T_0(N)>0$ and a
Borel set $\mc A \subset D( \bb R_+;V)$ such that (i) $\bb P_x(\mc
A) \geq 1/2$ and (ii) $ \mu_T(x_n) \geq \pi (x_n)/2$ for all $T
\geq T_0$ and $n \leq N$ $\bb P_x$--a.s. on $\mc A$. Hence, for all
$T \geq T_0$ it holds
$$ e^{ T \sigma \sum _{n=0}^N \pi (x_n)r(x_n) /2}/2\leq \bb E_x \big(
e^{T \sigma \sum _{n=0}^N \mu_T (x_n)r(x_n)}; \mc A\big) \leq \bb
E_x \big( e^{ T\sigma \langle\mu_T, r\rangle } \big) \le
e^{TC}C_x/c \,.
$$
This implies that $\sum _{n=0}^N \pi (x_n)r(x_n)\leq 2C/\sigma$. To
conclude it is enough to take the limit $N \to +\infty$.
\end{proof}
\section{Structure of divergenceless flows in
$L^1_+(E)$}\label{s:geometria} In this section we show that any
divergenceless flow in
$L^1_+(E)$, and more in general any divergenceless flow in $\bb R_+^E$ with zero flux towards infinity, can be written as superposition of
flows along self avoiding finite cycles.
See \cite{GV} for other problems related
to cyclic decompositions of divergenceless flows on graphs and \cite{Smi} for similar
decompositions for divergenceless vector valued measures on $\mathbb R^d$.
We first introduce
some key graphical structures.
A \emph{finite
cycle} $C$ in the oriented graph $(V,E)$ is a sequence
$(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ of elements of $V$ such that $(x_{i},x_{i+1})\in
E$ when $i=1,\dots, k$ and the sum in the indices is modulo $k$. A
finite cycle is \emph{self avoiding} if for $i\neq j$ it holds
$x_i\neq x_j$. Given $(x,y)\in E$, if there exists an index
$i=1,\dots,k$ such that $(x,y)=(x_i,x_{i+1})$
we write $(x,y)\in C$. Similarly, given $x\in V$, if there exists
an index $i=1,\dots, k$ such that $x=x_i$ we say that $x\in C$. The
collection of all the self avoiding finite cycles in $(V,E)$ is a
countable set which we denote by $\mc C$. In the sequel we shall
mostly regard elements $C\in\mc C$ as finite subsets of $E$ and
denote by $|C|$ the corresponding cardinality. Consider an invading
sequence $V_n \nearrow V$ of finite subsets $V_n$. This means a
sequence such that $|V_n|<+\infty$, $V_n\subset V_{n+1}$ and
moreover $\cup_nV_n=V$. For any fixed $n$ we define
\begin{equation}\label{nevischio}
E_n:=\left\{(y,z)\in E\,:\, y,z\in V_n\right\}\,, \end{equation} and
observe that it is an invading sequence of edges. Given a flow $Q\in
\bb R_+ ^E$, we define
\begin{align}
&E(Q):=\left\{(y,z)\in E\,:\, Q(y,z)>0\right\}\,, \label{freddo1}\\
& M_n(Q):=\max_{(y,z)\in E_n}Q(y,z)\,, \label{freddo2}\\
& \phi_n^{+}(Q):=\sum_{y\in V_n, z\not\in V_n}Q(y,z)\,,\label{freddo3}\\
& \phi_n^{-}(Q):=\sum_{y\not\in V_n, z\in
V_n}Q(y,z)\,.\label{freddo4}
\end{align}
Moreover, we say that $Q$ has zero flux towards infinity if
there exists an invading sequence $V_n \nearrow
V$ of finite subsets $V_n$ such that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to +\infty} \phi_n^{+}(Q)=0\,. \label{fluflu}
\end{equation}
We say that $Q$ admits a cyclic decomposition if there are constants $\hat Q(C)\ge 0$, $C\in\mc C$
such that
\begin{equation}
\label{c:2}
Q = \sum_{C\in\mc C} \hat Q(C){1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}_C\,.
\end{equation}
Namely, for each $(y,z)\in E$ it holds
$ Q (y,z) =\sum_{
C\in\mc C,\,
C\ni (y,z)} \hat Q(C)$.
We emphasize that the constants $\hat Q(C)$, $C\in\mc C$, are
not uniquely determined by the flow $Q$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{t:cicli}
Let $Q\in \bb R _+^E$ be a flow having zero flux towards infinity
and such that $\div Q=0$. Then $Q$ admits a cyclic decomposition
\eqref{c:2}. In particular, any divergenceless flow $Q \in L^1_+(E)$
has a cyclic decomposition.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since \eqref{fluflu} holds for any invading sequence of vertices if
$Q\in L^1_+(E)$, the second statement follows directly
from the former on which we concentrate.
On a finite graph any divergence free flow admits a cyclic
decomposition. The proof follows classical arguments (see e.g.
\cite{GV,MQ}). If $Q$ has finite support, i.e. if $|E(Q)|<+\infty$,
the thesis follows directly by the analogous result on finite
graphs. We will then consider only the case of infinite support,
using below the result in the finite case. Remember that $V_n$ is
the invading sequence satisfying \eqref{fluflu}.
We assume $|E(Q)|=+\infty$ and $\div Q=0$. Due to the zero
divergence condition, a discrete version of the Gauss theorem
guarantees that $\phi_n^+(Q)=\phi_n^-(Q)$. We define by an iterative
procedure a sequence of flows $Q^i $, $i \geq 0$, with infinite
support and having zero flux towards infinity as follows. We set
$Q^0:=Q$ and explain how to define $Q^{i+1}$ knowing $Q^i$. First,
we define $n_i:=\inf\left\{n\in \mathbb N\,:\,
M_n(Q^i)>\phi^+_n(Q^i)\right\}$. Since $Q^i\neq 0$, it must be
$n_i<+\infty$. Indeed, $\phi^+_n(Q^i)$ is a sequence in $n$
converging to zero, while $M_n(Q^i)$ is a non decreasing sequence
not identically zero. Let $g$ be a ghost site and define the flow
$Q^i_g$ on a finite graph having vertices $V_{n_i}\cup\{ g\}$ as
$$
\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
Q^i_g(y,z):=Q^i(y,z)\,, & (y,z)\in E_{n_i}\,,\\
Q^i_g(y,g):=\sum_{z\not\in V_{n_i}}Q^i(y,z)\,, & y\in
V_{n_i}\,,\\
Q^i_g(g,y):=\sum_{z \not\in V_{n_i}}Q^i(z,y)\,, & y\in
V_{n_i}\,.\\
\end{array}
\right.
$$
Roughly speaking, the flow $Q^i_g$ is obtained from $Q^i$ by
collapsing all vertices outside $V_{n_i}$ into a single vertex,
called $g$. By construction we have $\div Q^i_g=0$. Calling
$\mathcal C_{n_i}^g$ the collection of self avoiding cycles of the
finite graph and using the validity of the cyclic decomposition in
the finite case, we have
\begin{equation}
Q^i_g=\sum_{C\in \mathcal C_{n_i}^g }\hat Q^i_g(C){1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}_C\,.
\label{decfin}
\end{equation}
We claim that in the decomposition \eqref{decfin} there exists a
self avoiding cycle $C_i$ not visiting the ghost site $g$ and such
that $\hat Q^i_g(C_i)>0$.
Let us suppose by contradiction that our claim is false and let
$(x^*,y^*)\in E_{n_i}$ be such that $Q^{i}(x^*,y^*)=M_{n_i}(Q^i)$.
Then we have
$$
M_{n_i}(Q^i)=Q^{i}(x^*,y^*)=\sum_{C\in \mathcal C_{n_i}^g }\hat
Q^i_g(C) {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}} _{(x^*,y^*)\in C}\leq\sum_{C\in \mathcal C_{n_i}^g
}\hat Q^i_g(C)=\phi_{n_i}^+(Q^i)\,.
$$
The last equality follows by the fact that any cycle
with positive weight in $\mathcal C_{n_i}^g$ has to contain necessarily
the ghost site $g$.
This contradicts the definition of $n_i$, thus proving our claim.
\smallskip
At this point, we know that there exists a self avoiding cycle
$C_i:=(x_1, \dots ,x_k)$ such that $x_j\in V_{n_i}$ and
$Q^i(x_j,x_{j+1})>0$ for any $j$ (the sum in the indices is modulo
k). We fix $m_i:=\min_{j=1,\dots,k}Q^i(x_j,x_{j+1})$ and define
$$
Q^{i+1}:=Q^i-m_i{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}_{C_i}= Q-\sum_{j=0}^im_j{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}_{C_j} \,.
$$
With this definition we have that $Q^{i+1}$ is still a flow in $\bb
R_+^E$, it satisfies $\div Q^{i+1}=0$, it has zero flux towards
infinity and infinite support. Moreover
\begin{equation}
|E_{n_i}\cap E(Q^{i+1})|\leq |E_{n_i}\cap E(Q^i)|-1\,.\label{dimi}
\end{equation}
Condition \eqref{dimi} implies that $\lim_{i\to
+\infty}n_i=+\infty$. Hence, fixed any $(y,z)\in E$, for $i$ large
it holds
\begin{equation}
Q^i(y,z)\leq M_{n_i-1}(Q^i)\leq \phi^+_{n_i-1}(Q^i)\leq
\phi^+_{n_i-1}(Q) \label{stima}
\end{equation}
(for the first inequality note that $(y,z) \in E_{n_i-1}$ for $i$
large, for the second one use the definition of $n_i$, for the third
one observe that by construction $Q^i \leq Q$).
Since the r.h.s. of
\eqref{stima} converges to zero when $i$ diverges we obtain
$\lim_{i\to +\infty}Q^i(y,z)=0$ for any $(y,z)\in E$. Finally we get
$$
\lim_{i\to +\infty}\Big(Q(y,z)-\sum_{j=0}^im_j{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}_{C_j}(y,z)\Big)=
\lim_{i\to +\infty}Q^{i+1}(y,z)=0\,.
$$
The above limit trivially implies that $
Q=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}m_j{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}_{C_j}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{zecchino}
It is easy to see that Lemma \ref{t:cicli} remains valid if the
condition of zero flux towards infinity is satisfied just by the
reduced flow $q\in \bb R_+^E$ defined as
$$
q(y,z):=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
Q(y,z) & (z,y)\not \in E\,,\\
Q(y,z)-\min\left\{Q(y,z),Q(z,y)\right\}& (z,y)\in E\,.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
\end{remark}
Given an oriented graph $(\mc V,\mc E)$ with countable $\mc V,\mc
E$ we say that it is connected if for any $y,z\in \mc V$ there exist
$x_1,\dots,x_n$ such that $x_1=y$, $x_n=z$ and $(x_i,x_{i+1})\in \mc
E$, $i=1,\dots, n-1$. To every oriented graph we can associate an
unoriented graph $(\mc V,\mc E^u)$ for which $\left\{y,z\right\}\in
\mc E^u$ if at least one among $(y,z)$ and $(z,y)$ belongs to $\mc
E$. We say that the unoriented graph $(\mc V,\mc E^u)$ is
connected if for any $y,z\in \mc V$ there exist $x_1,\dots,x_n$ such
that $x_1=y$, $x_n=z$ and $\left\{x_i,x_{i+1}\right\}\in \mc E^u$,
$i=1,\dots, n-1$.
The following lemma will be useful.
\begin{lemma}
Let $(\mc V,\mc E)$ be an oriented graph with countable $\mc V, \mc
E$ such that there exists a flow $Q\in L^1_+(\mc E)$ with $Q(y,z)>0$
for any $(y,z)\in \mc E$ and $\div Q=0$. In this case $(V,\mc E)$ is
connected if and only if $(\mc V,\mc E^u)$ is connected.
\label{tommy}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Trivially if the oriented graph is connected then also the
unoriented one is connected. We prove the converse implication.
Assume that $(\mc V,\mc E^u)$ is connected and suppose by
contradiction that $\mc V^y $ is strictly included in $\mc V$ for
some $y$, $\mc V^y$ being the set of vertices that can be reached
from $y$ by oriented paths. Note that $\mc V^y$ is nonempty since $y
\in \mc V^y$. Given $A,B \subset \mc V$ we set
$Q(A,B):= \sum _{(a,b) \in E\cap (A \times B) }Q(a,b)$.
Since $Q$ is divergenceless and $Q \in L^1_+(\mc E)$ (and therefore in the following sums
the summation order can be arbitrarily chosen),
it holds
$$
0=\sum_{v\not\in \mc V^y}\div Q(v)= Q(\mc V \setminus \mc V^y,\mc V)- Q(\mc V, \mc V \setminus \mc V^y)
=
Q( \mc V \setminus \mc V^y,\mc V^y)- Q(\mc V^y,\mc V \setminus \mc V^y) \,.
$$
We point out that $Q(\mc V^y, \mc V \setminus \mc V^y)=0$ since the definition of $\mc V^y$ implies that $v \in \mc V^y$ if $u \in \mc V^y$, $v \in \mc V$ and $(u,v) \in E$. To get a contradiction we can show that $Q( \mc V \setminus \mc V^y,\mc V^y)>0$.
Since $Q$ is positive, we only need to show that there exists a oriented bond $(u,v)\in E$ such that $u\not \in \mc V^y$ and $v \in \mc V^y$. Here we use that the unoriented graph is connected.
Indeed, the
nonempty set $\mc V^y$ is connected to its complement $\mc V
\setminus \mc V^y$ in the unoriented graph. Hence there exist $u \not \in
\mc V^y$ and $v \in \mc V^y$ such that $(u,v) \in \mc E$ or
$(v,u) \in \mc E$. The case $(v,u) \in \mc E$ cannot take place by
definition of $\mc V^y$.
\end{proof}
We can now give the proof of Proposition \ref{gauchito}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{gauchito}]
From the definition of $I(\mu,Q)$ and $\Phi$ we trivially have that $Q(y,z)>0$ implies $\mu(y) r(y,z)>0$ and therefore $y \in \text{supp}(\mu)$. Suppose by contradiction that $z \not \in \text{supp}(\mu)$. Then there would be a nonzero ingoing flow at $z$ and therefore a nonzero outgoing flow at $z$ (since $I(\mu,Q)< +\infty$ implies $\div Q=0$). As a consequence there must exist an edge $(z,u)\in E$ such that $Q(z,u)>0$. As proven at the beginning, this implies that $z \in \text{supp}(\mu)$, hence a contradiction. This completes the proof of Item (i). Item (iii) is an immediate consequence of Lemma \ref{tommy}. It remains to prove Item (ii).
To this aim we first observe that $\div Q_j=0$. Indeed, the following property (P) holds: given $y \in V$ we have that $z $ belongs to the same oriented connected component of $y$ if $Q(y,z)>0$ or $Q(z,y)>0$ (apply Item (iii)). This property and the zero divergence of $Q$ imply that $\div Q_j=0$ and that, by definition \eqref{rfq} and Remark \ref{silente},
\begin{equation}\label{ritenzione}
I(\mu_j, Q_j) = \sum _{(y,z) \in E \cap (V_j \times V_j)} \Phi\bigl(Q_j(y,z), Q^\mu(y,z) \bigr)+
\sum _{(y,z)\in E\cap (V_j \times V_j^c) } Q^{\mu_j}(y,z)
\,.
\end{equation}
Always property (P) implies
that
\begin{equation}\label{biblio} I(\mu,Q)= \sum_j \left\{ \sum _{(y,z) \in E \cap( V_j \times V_j)} \Phi\bigl(Q(y,z), Q^\mu(y,z) \bigr) + \sum _{(y,z)\in E\cap (V_j \times V_j^c) } Q^\mu (y,z) \right\}
\,.\end{equation}
To conclude compare \eqref{ritenzione} with \eqref{biblio} using that $Q(y,z)= \mu(K_j) Q_j(y,z)$ and
$Q^\mu(y,z)= \mu(K_j) Q^{\mu_j} (y,z)$ if $(y,z) \in E$ with $y \in V_j$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{An approximation result for the function
$I(\mu,Q)$}\label{lattino}
Let $\mc S$ be the subset of $ \mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$ given by the
elements $(\mu,Q)$ with $I(\mu,Q)<+\infty$ and such that the graph
$(\mathop{\rm supp}\nolimits(\mu), E(Q) )$ is finite and connected.
\begin{proposition}
\label{t:dt}
Fix $(\mu,Q)\in \mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$. There exists a sequence
$\{(\mu_n,Q_n)\} \subset \mc S$ such that $(\mu_n,Q_n)\to (\mu,Q)$
in $\mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{dt}
\varlimsup_{n\to + \infty} \: I(\mu_n,Q_n) \le I(\mu,Q)\,.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
As proven below, the convergence $(\mu_n,Q_n)\to (\mu,Q)$
in $\mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$ holds also with $L^1_+(E)$ endowed of
the $L^1$--norm (strong topology).
\begin{proof} We consider only elements $(\mu,Q)$ such that
$I(\mu,Q)<+\infty$, otherwise the thesis is trivially true. In
particular, it must be $\div Q=0$. First we show that $\mathcal S$
is $I$--dense in the set $\mathcal S^*$ of elements $(\mu,Q) \in
\mathcal P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$ with finite support (i.e.\ with finite
$\mathop{\rm supp}\nolimits(\mu)$ and $E(Q)$) and $\div Q=0$. Then we show that $\mathcal
S^*$ is $I$--dense in the set of elements $(\mu,Q) \in \mathcal
P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$ with $\div Q=0$.
Let $(\mu,Q)\in \mathcal S^*$ and denote by $K_1,\dots,K_n$ the
connected components of the graph $(\mathop{\rm supp}\nolimits(\mu),Q)$ (recall Proposition \ref{gauchito}). Since $(V,E)$ is
connected, for any pair of components $(K_i,K_j)$ we can fix an
oriented path $\gamma_{i,j}$ on $E$ going from $K_i$ to $K_j$. Let
respectively $\bar V $ and $\bar E $ be the vertices and the
edges belonging to some path $\gamma_{i,j}$. We consider the finite
connected oriented graph $(\mathop{\rm supp}\nolimits(\mu)\cup \bar V,E(Q)\cup
\bar E)$. On this graph we define an irreducible Markov chain
having unitary rate associated to each oriented edge in $E(Q)\cup
\bar E$,\, i.e.\ the rate for a jump from $y$ to $z$ is $\mathds{1}((y,z) \in E(Q) \cup \bar E)$. We call $\pi^*$ its unique invariant measure. Then
$(\pi^*,Q^*)\in \mc S$, where $Q^*$ is defined as
$Q^*(y,z)=\pi^*(y)$ if $(y,z)\in E(Q)\cup E(\gamma)$ and zero
otherwise. Consequently for any $\epsilon >0$
$\epsilon(\pi^*,Q^*)+(1-\epsilon )(\mu, Q)$ is an element of
$\mathcal S$ converging to $(\mu,Q)$ when $\epsilon \to 0$ (even
with $L^1_+(E)$ endowed of the strong topology). Since in the case
of finite support $I$ can be written as a finite sum it is not
difficult to show that
$$
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0}I\bigl(\epsilon(\pi^*,Q^*)+(1-\epsilon) (\mu,
Q)\bigr)=I(\mu,Q)\,.
$$
We now show that $\mathcal S^*$ is $I$--dense in the set of elements
$(\mu,Q) \in \mathcal P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$ with $\div Q=0$. To this
aim, we fix $(\mu,Q)$ with $\div Q=0$ and $I(\mu,Q)<+\infty$.
By Lemma \ref{t:cicli} the cyclic decomposition
\eqref{c:2} of $Q$ holds.
We fix an invading sequence
$V_n\nearrow V$ of finite subsets and call $E_n$ the edges in
$E$ connecting vertices in $V_n$ (recall \eqref{nevischio}). Finally, we construct the sequence
$(\mu_n,Q_n)\in \mathcal S^*$ by
$$
\mu_n:=\frac{\mu|_{V_n}}{\mu(V_n)}\,, \qquad \qquad
Q_n:=\sum_{\left\{C\in \mathcal C\,:\, C\subset E_n\right\}}\hat
Q(C){1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}_C\,.
$$
For $n$ large $\mu(V_n)>0$ and the definition is well posed. Clearly
$(\mu_n,Q_n)$ converges to $(\mu,Q)$ (also considering the strong
topology of $L^1_+(E)$).
It remains to show \eqref{dt}. By construction $\div Q_n=0$ and $\langle \mu_n, r \rangle <+\infty$,
hence, recalling \eqref{rfq},
\begin{equation*}
I(\mu_n,Q_n) = \sum_{y\in V_n\, z\in V: (y,z)\in E} \Phi\big( Q_n(y,z), Q^{\mu_n}(y,z)\big).
\end{equation*}
We claim that $\Phi\big(
Q_n(y,z), Q^{\mu_n}(y,z)\big)=0$ if $(y,z)$ is as in the above sum and
$Q^{\mu_n}(y,z)=0$. Indeed,
since $y\in V_n$ it must be $Q^\mu(y,z)=0$. Since
$I(\mu,Q)<+\infty$ it must then be $Q(y,z)=0$, and therefore $Q_n(y,z)=0$, thus leading to our claim.
To treat the general case we proceed as follows.
Recall the definition of
$\Phi $ given in \eqref{Phi}. Given $0\le q'\le q$ and $p'\ge p> 0$, let
$\alpha,\beta\ge 0$ be respectively defined by $q'=q(1-\alpha)$ and
$p'=p(1+\beta)$. Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&
\Phi(q',p') - \Phi(q,p)
= q' \Big( \log\frac{q'}{p'} - \log\frac{q}{p}\Big)
+ (q'-q) \log\frac qp + (q-q')+ (p'-p)
\\
&\qquad
\le (q'-q) \log\frac qp + (q-q')+ (p'-p)
= - \alpha \,\Phi(q,p) +(\alpha+\beta) \, p
\le (\alpha+\beta) \, p.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
By construction, it holds $\mu_n(y) \ge \mu(y)$ for $y\in V_n$
and $Q_n(y,z)\le Q(y,z)$ for $(y,z)\in E_n$.
Therefore, by letting $\beta_n:= [\mu(V_n)]^{-1} -1$ and $\alpha_n\colon E_n
\to [0,1]$ be defined by $Q_n(y,z) =Q(y,z) \big[1-\alpha_n(y,z)\big]$ when $(y,z)\in E(Q)$
we obtain
\begin{equation*}
I(\mu_n,Q_n)
\le I(\mu,Q)
+ \sum_{y\in V_n\, z\in V: (y,z)\in E} \big[\beta_n+ \alpha_n(y,z)\big]\,\mu(y)r(y,z).
\end{equation*}
Above we used our previous claim.
If
$I(\mu,Q)<+\infty$ then it necessarily holds $\langle\mu,r\rangle <+\infty$.
We can therefore assume that $\mu(y)r(y,z)$, $(y,z)\in E$, is summable.
Since $\beta_n, \alpha_n(y,z)\downarrow 0$ and the maps $\alpha_n(\cdot) $ are uniformly
bounded,
by dominated convergence we conclude the
proof.\end{proof}
\section{Direct proof of Theorem
\ref{LDP:misura+flusso}}\label{s:diretto}
In this section we give a direct proof of Theorem
\ref{LDP:misura+flusso}, independent from the LDP for the empirical
process. As already mentioned, the proof works only under an
additional condition that we assume here: {\sl each vertex in $V$ is
the extreme of only a finite family of edges in $E$.} This
assumption implies that, given $\phi \in C_0(V)$, the
function $\nabla \phi: E \to \bb R$ defined as
$\nabla \phi (y,z)= \phi(y)-\phi(z)$ belongs to $C_0(E)$. As a
consequence, the map
\begin{equation}\label{fanta}L^1_+ (E)\ni Q \to \langle\phi,\div Q\rangle=-
\langle \nabla \phi, Q \rangle \in \bb R
\end{equation} is continuous. Since a
linear functional on $L^1_+ (E)$ is continuous w.r.t. the bounded
weak* topology if and only if it is continuous w.r.t. the weak*
topology \cite{Me}, by definition of weak* topology the map defined in
\eqref{fanta} is continuous (w.r.t. the bounded weak* topology)
if and only if $\nabla \phi \in C_0(E)$. Hence, our additional condition is equivalent
to the fact that \eqref{fanta}
is continuous for any $\phi \in C_0(V)$.
An explicit example
where \eqref{fanta} becomes not continuous for $\phi= {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}_x $, $x
\in V$, is given in Appendix \ref{div_disco}.
\subsection{Upper bound}
\label{s:ub}
Given $\phi\in C_0(V)$ and $F\in C_c(E)$ (i.e.\ $\phi$ vanishes at
infinity and $F$ is nonzero only on a finite set) let
$I_{\phi,F}\colon \mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)\to \bb R$ be the map
defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{Iff}
I_{\phi,F} (\mu,Q) :=
\langle\phi,\div Q\rangle + \langle Q, F\rangle - \langle\mu,r^F-r\rangle
\end{equation}
where $r^F\colon V \to (0,+\infty)$ is defined by $r^F(y)
=\sum_{z\in V} r(y,z)e^{F(y,z)}$ and $\langle\phi,\div
Q\rangle=\sum_{y\in V} \phi(y)\div Q(y) $.
\begin{lemma}
\label{t:pub}
Fix $x\in V$. For each $\phi\in C_0(V)$, $F\in C_c(E)$, and each
measurable $\mc B\subset \mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$, it holds
\begin{equation*}
\varlimsup_{T\to+\infty}\; \frac 1T
\log \bb P_x \Big( (\mu_T,Q_T) \in \mc B \Big)
\le -\inf_{(\mu,Q)\in \mc B} I_{\phi,F} (\mu,Q).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix $x\in V$ and observe that the following pathwise continuity
equation holds $\bb P_x$ a.s.\
\begin{equation}
\label{pce}
\delta_y(X_T)-\delta_y(X_0) + T \div Q_T (y) =0
\qquad \forall\: y\in V.
\end{equation}
Fix $F\in C_c(E)$ and $\phi\in C_0(V)$ and recall the semimartingale $\bb M^F$ introduced in Lemma~\ref{t:em2}. In view of
\eqref{Iff} and \eqref{pce}, for each $T>0$ and each measurable set
$\mc B\subset \mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\bb P_x \big( (\mu_T,Q_T) \in \mc B \big)
\\
&\qquad
= \bb E_x \Big(
\exp\big\{ -T \, I_{\phi,F} (\mu_T,Q_T) -
\big[ \phi(X_T)-\phi(x) \big] \big\}
\: \bb M_T^F \: {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}_{\mc B}(\mu_T,Q_T) \Big)
\\
&\qquad \le
\sup_{(\mu,Q)\in\mc B} e^{- T \, I_{\phi,F} (\mu,Q) }
\; \bb E_x \Big(
\exp\big\{- \big[\phi(X_T)-\phi(x)\big] \big\}
\: \bb M_T^F \: {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}_{\mc B}(\mu_T,Q_T) \Big).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Since $\phi$ is bounded, the proof is now achieved by using
Lemma~\ref{t:em2}.
\end{proof}
We can conclude the proof of the upper bound in
Theorem~\ref{LDP:misura+flusso}.
In view of the exponential tightness proven in Subsection~\ref{s:et},
it is enough to prove \eqref{ubldp} for compacts. By our
additional assumption, we get that
the map $I_{\phi,F}$ is
continuous.
Fix $x\in V$. By
Lemma~\ref{t:pub} and the min-max lemma in
\cite[App.~2, Lemma~3.3]{KL} for each compact $\mc K\subset \mc
P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$ it holds
\begin{equation*}
\varlimsup_{T\to+\infty}\;
\frac 1T \log \bb P_x \Big( (\mu_T,Q_T) \in \mc K \Big)
\le -\inf_{(\mu,Q)\in \mc K} \; \sup_{\phi,F} \; I_{\phi,F}(\mu,Q)
\end{equation*}
where the supremum is carried out over all $\phi\in C_0(V)$ and
$F\in C_c(E)$. Recalling \eqref{rfq}, it is now simple to check (see Appendix \ref{iobimbo}) that
for each $(\mu,Q)\in \mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$ it holds
\begin{equation}
\label{vci}
I(\mu,Q) = \sup_{\phi,F} \; I_{\phi,F} (\mu,Q)\,,
\end{equation}
which concludes the proof of the upper bound.
Trivially, the function $I_{\phi,F}$ can be
thought of as the restriction to $\mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$ of a
continuous linear function defined on $\bb R^V \times L^1(E)$ where
$\bb R^V$ has the product topology. This observation and \eqref{vci}
imply the convexity and lower semicontinuity of $I$.
\subsection{Lower bound}
\label{s:lb}
Recall the following general result concerning the large deviation
lower bound.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\{P_n\}$ be a sequence of probability measures on a completely
regular topological space $\mc X$. Assume that for each $x\in\mc X$
there exists a sequence of probability measures $\{\tilde{P}_n^x\}$
weakly convergent to $\delta_x$ and such that
\begin{equation}
\label{entb}
\varlimsup_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \mathop{\rm Ent}\nolimits\big(\tilde{P}_n^x \big| P_n\big)
\le J(x)
\end{equation}
for some $J\colon \mc X\to [0,+\infty]$. Then the sequence $\{P_n\}$
satisfies the large deviation lower bound with rate function given
by $\mathop{\rm sc^-\!}\nolimits J$, the lower semicontinuous envelope of $J$, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
(\mathop{\rm sc^-\!}\nolimits J) \, (x) := \sup_{U \in\mc N_x} \; \inf_{y\in U} \; J(y)
\end{equation*}
where $\mc N_x$ denotes the collection of the open neighborhoods of $x$.
\end{lemma}
This lemma has been originally proven in \cite[Prop.~4.1]{Je} in a
Polish space setting. The proof given in \cite[Prop.~1.2.4]{Ma}
applies also to the present setting of a completely regular
topological space.
Recall the definition of the set $\mc S$ given before Proposition
\ref{t:dt}: $\mc S$ is given by the elements $(\mu,Q)\in \mc
P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$ with $I(\mu,Q)<+\infty$ and such that the
graph $(\mathop{\rm supp}\nolimits(\mu), E(Q) )$ is finite and connected.
First we prove the entropy bound \eqref{entb} with $J$
given by the restriction of $I$, as defined in \eqref{rfq}, to $\mc
S$, that is
\begin{equation}
\label{Jrf}
J(\mu,Q):=
\begin{cases}
I(\mu,Q) & \textrm{ if } (\mu,Q)\in\mc S\\
+\infty & \textrm{ otherwise. }
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Then we complete the proof of the lower bound \eqref{lbldp} by
showing that the lower semicontinuous envelope of $J$ coincides with
$I$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{t:plb}
Fix $x\in V$ and set $P_T := \bb P_x \circ (\mu_T,Q_T)^{-1}$. For
each $(\mu,Q)\in \mc S$ there exists a sequence
$\{\tilde{P}^{(\mu,Q)}_T\}$ of probability measures on $\mc P(V)\times
L^1_+(E)$ weakly convergent to $\delta_{(\mu,Q)}$ and such that
\begin{equation*}
\varlimsup_{T\to+\infty} \frac 1T
\mathop{\rm Ent}\nolimits\big(\tilde{P}^{(\mu,Q)}_T \big| P_T \big)
\le I(\mu,Q).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First we discuss the case when $x\in K:=\mathop{\rm supp}\nolimits(\mu)$.
We denote by $\tilde{\bb P}_x^{(\mu,Q)}$ the distribution of the
Markov chain $\tilde{\xi}^x$ on $V$ starting from $x$ and having jump rates
\begin{equation}
\label{tilderat}
\tilde{r} (y,z) :=
\begin{cases}
\frac{Q(y,z)}{\mu(y)} & \textrm{ if } (y,z)\in E(Q)\\
\; 0 & \textrm{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Observe that this perturbed chain can be thought of as an irriducible chain on the
finite state space $K$. Moreover, the
condition $\div Q =0$ implies that $\mu$ is the invariant probability
measure.
Set $\tilde{P}^{(\mu,Q)}_T := \tilde{\bb P}_x^{(\mu,Q)} \circ
(\mu_T,Q_T)^{-1}$. The ergodic theorem for finite state Markov
chains and the law of large numbers for the empirical flow discussed
in Section~\ref{s:emef} imply that $\{\tilde{P}^{(\mu,Q)}_T\}$
converges weakly to $\delta_{(\mu,Q)}$.
A straightforward
computation of the Radon-Nikodym density (recall \eqref{RN}) yields
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& \frac 1T \mathop{\rm Ent}\nolimits\big( \tilde{P}^{(\mu,Q)}_T \big| P_T \big)
\le \frac 1T
\mathop{\rm Ent}\nolimits\Big( \tilde{\bb P}^{(\mu,Q)}_x\big|_{[0,T]} \: \Big| \:
\bb P_x \big|_{[0,T]} \Big)
\\
&\quad
= \sum_{y\in K\,,\, z:(y,z)\in E}
\tilde{\bb E}^{(\mu,Q)}_x
\Big(
Q_T(y,z) \log \frac{Q(y,z)}{\mu(y) r(y,z)}
- \mu_T(y) \Big[ \frac{Q(y,z)}{\mu(y)} - r(y,z) \Big] \Big)
\end{split}
\label{troppilabel}
\end{equation}
where the subscript $[0,T]$ denotes the restriction to the
interval $[0,T]$ (above we used the convention $0\log 0:=0$).
Since
$
T \tilde{\bb E}^{(\mu,Q)}_x
\bigl(
Q_T(y,z) \bigr)=\tilde{\bb E}^{(\mu,Q)}_x
\bigl( \langle \mu_T, \tilde{r} \rangle \bigr)
$
(adapt \eqref{dacitare} to the present setting) and since $\mu_T (y) \to \mu (y)$ $\tilde{\bb P}^{(\mu,Q)}_x$--a.s. by ergodicity,
the
r.h.s. of \eqref{troppilabel} converges in the limit $T\to +\infty$
to
$$
\sum_{y,z\in K: (y,z)\in E }\Big(
Q(y,z) \log \frac{Q(y,z)}{\mu(y) r(y,z)}
+ \mu(y)r(y,z)-Q(y,z)\Big)+\sum_{y\in K}\mu(y)\sum_{z\not\in
K}r( y,z)\,,
$$
that is $I(\mu,Q)$.
When $x\not \in K$ then there exists an oriented path on $(V,E)$
from $x$ to $K$ since $(V,E)$ is connected. In this case the
perturbed Markov chain $\tilde{\xi}^x$ is defined with rates
\eqref{tilderat} with exception that $\tilde r(y,z):=r(y,z)$ for any
$(y,z)$ belonging to the oriented path from $x$ to $K$ (fixed once
for all).
Since after a finite number of jumps that Markov chain reach the
component $K$, it is easy conclude the proof by the same
computations as before.
\end{proof}
Recall \eqref{rfq} and \eqref{Jrf}. As already noted, the
variational characterization \eqref{vci} implies that $I$ is lower
semicontinuous and convex on $\mc P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$. In
particular, the inequality $\mathop{\rm sc^-\!}\nolimits J \ge I$ holds. The proof of the
equality $I= \mathop{\rm sc^-\!}\nolimits J$ is therefore completed by Proposition
\ref{t:dt}.
\section{Projection from the empirical process: proof of Theorems \ref{LDP:misura+flusso}, \ref{LDPteo2}}
\label{s:proiezione}
We recall the definition of the \emph{empirical process} referring to \cite{DV4}--(IV), \cite{Vld} for more details.
We consider the space $ D(\bb R; V)$ endowed of the Skorohod topology and write $X$ for a generic element of $D(\bb R;V)$.
Given $X \in D(\bb
R_+;V)$ and $t>0$, the path $X^t\in D(\bb R;V)$ is defined by
$$
\begin{cases}
X^t_s:= X_s \text{ for } 0\leq s <t\,,\\
X^t_{s+t}:= X^t_s \text{ for } s \in \bb R\,.
\end{cases}
$$
Writing $\mc M_S $ for the space of stationary probabilities on $D(\bb R
;V)$ endowed of the weak topology, given $X\in D(\bb R_+;V)$ and
$t>0$ we denote by $\mc R_{t,X}$ the element in $\mc M_S $ such that
$$\mc R_{t,X} (A)= \frac{1}{t} \int _0^t \chi _A\bigl( \theta _s
X^t\bigr) ds\,, \qquad \forall A \subset D(\bb R;V) \text{ Borel}\,,
$$
where $ (\theta_s X^t)_u:= X^t _{s+u}$.
Since $X \to \mc R_{t,X}$ is a Borel map from
$D(\bb R_+;V)$ to $\mc M_S $, for each $x \in V$ it induces a
probability measure $\Gamma_{t,x}$ on $\mc M_S $ defined as
$\Gamma_{t,x} := \bb P_x \circ \mc R_{t,X}^{-1}$. The above
distribution $\Gamma_{t,x}$ corresponds to the $t$--periodized
empirical process.
\smallskip
Let us denote by $\bar R$ the stationary process in $\mc M_S$
associated to the Markov chain $\xi$ and having $\pi$ as marginal
distribution. By the ergodic theorem \eqref{ergodico},
$\Gamma_{t,x}$ weakly converges to $\delta_{\bar R}$ as $t \to
+\infty$, for each $x \in V$. As proven in \cite{DV4}--(IV), under
the Donsker--Varadhan condition, for each $x \in V$ as $t\to
+\infty $ the family of probability measures $\Gamma_{t,x}$
satisfies a LDP with rate $t$ and rate function the density of
relative entropy $H$ w.r.t. the Markov chain $\xi$.
\smallskip
We briefly
recall the definition of $H$ and some of its properties, referring
to \cite{DV4}--(IV) for more details.
Given $-\infty \leq s \leq t \leq \infty$, let $\mc F ^s_t$ be the
$\sigma$--algebra in $D(\bb R;V) $ generated by the functions $(X_r)_{s\leq r \leq
t}$. Let $R\in \mathcal M_S$ and $R_{0,X}$ be the regular conditional probability
distribution
of $R$ given $\mc F^{-\infty}_0$,
evaluated on the path $X$. Then $H(R) \in [0,
\infty]$ is the only constant such that
$ H(t, R)= t H(R)$ for all $t>0$, where
\begin{equation}\label{treporcellini} H(t, R):= \bb E_{R} \left[ H_{\mc F^0_t}\bigl(
R_{ 0, X} \,\big| \, \bb P_{X_0}\bigr) \right]\,,
\end{equation}
$ H_{\mc F^0_t}\bigl(
R_{ 0, X} \,\big| \, \bb P_{X_0}\bigr)$
being the relative entropy of $R_{ 0, X}$
w.r.t. $\bb P_{X_0}$ thought of as probability measures on the
measure space $D(\bb R;V)$ with measurable sets varying in the
$\sigma$--subalgebra $\mc F^0_t$. The entropy $H(R)$ can be also
characterized as the limit
$
H( R)= \lim _{t \to \infty} \bar{H} (t, R) /t$,
where \begin{equation}\label{babelino} \bar{H} (t, R):= \sup
_{\varphi \in \mc B (\mc F^0_t)} \left[ \bb E_R ( \varphi) - \bb
E_R\bigl( \log \bb E _{X_0 } (e^\varphi) \bigr) \right]
\end{equation}
and $\mc B ( \mc F ^0_t)$ denotes the family of bounded $\mc
F^0_t$--measurable functions on $D( \bb R; V)$. Below we will
frequently use that \begin{equation}\label{vedoluce} t H(R) =
H(t,R)\geq \bar H (t,R) = \sup _{\varphi \in Y_1(t)} \bb E_{R} (
\varphi)\,,
\end{equation}
where $Y_1(t)$ is the
family of functions $ \varphi \in \mc B( \mc F^0_t)$ such that $\bb
E_x \bigl( e^\varphi\bigr) \leq 1$ for all $x \in V$ (the last
identity is an immediate restatement of \eqref{babelino}).
\smallskip
In the following
proposition we investigate some key identities concerning the map $R
\to \bigl(\hat\mu (R),\hat Q (R)\bigr)$. Recall the definition of
$\hat Q(R)$ given before Lemma \ref{pasquetta}.
\begin{proposition}\label{cervo1pezzo}
Assume the Markov chain satisfies (A1)--(A4).
Then
$\hat \mu \bigl( \mc R _{T,X}\bigr) = \mu_T (X)$ and
$\hat Q \bigl( \mc R_{T,X} \bigr)=
Q_T(X^T)
\in L^1_+ (B)$ for
$\bb P_x$--a.a. $X \in D(\bb R_+; V)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The fact that $\hat \mu
\bigl( \mc R_{T,X}\bigr) = \mu_T (X)$ $\bb P_x$--a.s. has already
been observed in \cite{DV4}--(IV). Let us prove that $\hat Q \bigl(
\mc R_{T,X} \bigr) = Q_T(X^T)$ $\bb P_x$--a.s. It is convenient to
introduce the following notation: given $(y,z)\in B$, $X\in D(\bb
R_+; V)$ and $I \subset \bb R_+$ we write $N_{I}(y,z)(X)$ for
the number of jumps along $(y,z)$ performed by the path $X$ at some
time in $I$. In addition we write $N_T(y,z)(X)$ for
$N_{[0,T]}(y,z)(X)$.
Equivalently, $N_T(y,z)(X)=T Q_T
(y,z) (X)$. Given $T>0$ we fix a value $a\in (0,T)$. Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\hat Q (y,z) \bigl( \mc R_{T,X} \bigr) & = \frac{1}{a} \bb E
_{\mc R_{T,X} } \left( \, N_a (y,z)\, \right)= \frac{1}{a T}\int_0^T
N_a(y,z) \bigl( \theta_s X^T\bigr)ds \\& =
\frac{1}{a T}\int_0^T N_{[s,s+a]}(y,z) (X^T) ds\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Let us write $0\leq t_1< t_2 < \cdots < t_n \leq T$
for the times in $[0,T]$ at which the path $X^T$ jumps from $y$ to
$z$. Note that $n= N_T(y,z)(X^T)$. We denote by $\pi_T : \bb R \to
\bb R/ T \bb Z$ the canonical projection of $\bb R$ on the circle of
length $T$. It maps bijectively $[0,T)$ on $\bb R/ T \bb Z$.
Moreover, we define the set $\Theta_T(y,z)(X^T) := \{\pi_T(t_1),
\pi_T(t_2) , \dots , \pi_T(t_n) \}$. Since $T>a$ the number
$N_{[s,s+a]}(y,z) (X^T)$ of jumps from $y$ to $z$ made by $X^T$ in
the time interval $[s,s+a]$ coincides with the cardinality of
$\Theta_T(y,z)(X^T)\cap \pi_T( [s,s+a]) $. Hence
\begin{multline}\label{rio3D}
\hat Q (y,z) \bigl( \mc R_{T,X} \bigr)= \frac{1}{a T} \int _0^T
\left| \Theta_T(y,z)(X^T) \cap \pi_T([s,s+a ]) \right|\, ds =\\
\sum _{k=1} ^n \frac{1}{a T}
\int _0^T {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}} \left( \pi_T(y_k) \in \pi_T([s,s+a]) \right) ds= \sum
_{k=1} ^n \frac{1}{T}= Q_T(y,z)(X^T) \,.
\end{multline}
\end{proof}
Note that, since $\bb P_x$--a.s. time $T$ is not a jump time, it
holds
\begin{equation}\label{spostare}
Q_T(y,z) (X^T)=
\begin{cases} Q_T(y,z) (X) +\frac 1T& \text{ if }
X_{T-}=y,X_0=z\,,\\
Q_T(y,z)(X) & \text{ otherwise}\,,
\end{cases}
\qquad \bb P_x\text{--a.s.}
\end{equation}
\medskip
In what follows, in order to allow a better overview of the proof of
Theorems \ref{LDP:misura+flusso} and \ref{LDPteo2}, we focus on the
main steps, postponing some technical details in subsequent
sections. We start with Theorem \ref{LDPteo2}, since the product
topology on the flow space is simpler.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{LDPteo2} }\label{cassandro}
The proof is based on the generalized contraction principle
related to the concept of exponential approximation discussed in
\cite{DZ}. To this aim,
given $\epsilon \in (0,1/2)$, we
fix a continuous function $\varphi_\epsilon: \bb R\to [0,1]$ such
that $\varphi _\epsilon (x)=0$ if $ x \not \in (0,1)$ and $ \varphi
_\epsilon (x)=1$ if $x \in [\epsilon, 1-\epsilon]$. For each $(y,z)
\in B$ we consider the continuous and bounded function $F^\epsilon
_{y,z}: D(\bb R;V) \to \bb R$ defined as
\begin{equation*}
F_{y,z}^\epsilon (X):= \Big\{ \sum _{s \in [0,1]} \varphi_\epsilon
(s) {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}\bigl( X_{s-}=y\,,\; X_s =z \bigr)\Big \} \wedge \epsilon
^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
Then, we define $\hat Q _\epsilon : \mc M_S \to [0, +\infty]^B$ as
$\hat Q_\epsilon (y,z) (R):= \bb E_R \bigl (F _{y,z}^\epsilon
\bigr)$. Note that $\hat Q _\epsilon$ maps $\mc M_S$ into $[0,
\epsilon ^{-1}]^B$.
\begin{proposition}\label{cervo2} Assume the Markov chain satisfies
(A1)--(A4). Consider the space $[0,+\infty]^B$ endowed of the
product topology and the Borel $\sigma$--algebra. Then the following
holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] The map $(\hat\mu, \hat Q): \mc M_S\to \mc P(V)
\times [0,+\infty] ^B$ is measurable and the map $\hat \mu: \mc M_S
\to \mc P(V)$ is continuous.
\item[(ii)] The maps $\hat
Q_\epsilon: \mc M_S \to [0,+\infty]^B$, parameterized by $\epsilon\in
(0,1/2)$, are continuous and satisfy
\begin{align}
& \lim _{\epsilon \downarrow 0} \sup _{R \in \mc M_S \,:\, H(R) \leq
\alpha} \bigl| \hat Q(y,z) (R) - \hat Q_\epsilon (y,z) (R) \bigr|=0
\,, \label{dz1}
\\
& \lim_{\epsilon \downarrow 0} \varlimsup_{T \uparrow \infty}
\frac{1}{T} \log \Gamma_{T,x} \left( \bigl| \hat Q (y,z) - \hat
Q_\epsilon (y,z) \bigr|
> \delta \right)=-\infty\,,\label{dz2}
\end{align}
for any $x \in V$, $\alpha>0$, $\delta>0$ and any bond $(y,z) \in B$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
As shown below, if $H(R)<+\infty$ then
$\hat Q(R) \in \bb
R_+^E$. In addition $\hat Q_\epsilon$ always assumes finite values. In particular, the quantities appearing in \eqref{dz1} and \eqref{dz2} are finite and the subtraction is meaningful.
We postpone the proof of Proposition \ref{cervo2} to Section \ref{dim_cervo2} and conclude the
proof of Theorem \ref{LDPteo2}.
\smallskip
To prove item (i) up to \eqref{samarcanda1} we apply Theorem
4.2.23 in \cite{DZ}. Identity \eqref{dz1} corresponds to formula
(4.2.24) there, while identity \eqref{dz2} states that the family of
probability measures $\left\{\Gamma_{T,x}\circ \bigl(\hat\mu,\hat
Q_\epsilon)^{-1}\right\}$ is an exponentially good approximation of
the family $\left\{\Gamma_{T,x}\circ \bigl(\hat\mu,\hat
Q)^{-1}\right\}$. Combining the last observations with the LDP of
the empirical process proved in \cite{DV4}--(IV), one gets the
thesis for the family of probability measures $\{\bb
P_x\circ (\mu_T,\tilde{Q}_T)^{-1}\}$ on $\mc P(V)\times \bb [0,+\infty]^B$
where $ \tilde{Q}_T(X):= Q_T(X^T)$ (use Proposition
\ref{cervo1pezzo}). At this point, due to Theorem 4.2.13 in
\cite{DZ}, we only need to prove that the families of probability
measures
$\{\bb
P_x\circ (\mu_T,Q_T)^{-1}\}$ and $\{\bb
P_x\circ (\mu_T,\tilde{Q}_T)^{-1}\}$ are exponentially
equivalent. It is enough to show that for each $\delta>0$ it holds
\begin{equation}\label{rotture}
\varlimsup _{T \to +\infty} \frac{1}{T} \log \bb P_x \bigl( D(
\tilde{Q}_T, Q_T) >\delta)=-\infty\,,
\end{equation}
where $D(\cdot, \cdot)$ denotes the metric of $[0,+\infty]^B$ introduced at the beginning of
Subsection \ref{prodotto}.
By \eqref{spostare} $\tilde{Q}_T (y,z)= Q_T(y,z)$
with exception of at most one random bond and in this case
$\tilde{Q}_T (y,z)= Q_T(y,z)+1/T$. Since
$|a/(1+a)-(a+\Delta)/(1+a+\Delta)|\leq \Delta$ for $a, \Delta \geq
0$, we conclude that $D(
\tilde{Q}_T, Q_T)\leq 1/T$, thus allowing to end the proof.
\subsection{Proof of \eqref{samarcanda}}
\subsubsection{Proof of \eqref{samarcanda} for $Q \not \in \bb R_+
^E$}
We distinguish two cases: $Q(y,z)\in (0,+\infty]$ for some $(y,z)
\in B \setminus E$ and $Q(y,z)=+\infty$ for some $(y,z) \in E$. In
the first case we take the function $\varphi(X):= \lambda {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}} ( Q_T
(y,z)
>0) $ for fixed $\lambda >0$. Trivially, $\varphi \in Y_1 (T)$.
Hence by \eqref{vedoluce} we get
$$ TH(R) \geq \bar H(T,R)\geq \bb E_R( \varphi)= \lambda R\left(
Q_T(y,z)>0\right) \,.$$ Since the last probability is positive, the
thesis $H(R)=+\infty$ follows by taking $\lambda$ arbitrarily
large.
Let us now consider the second case. By Remark \ref{SD} (stochastic
domination), it holds $C:=\sup_{x \in V} \bb E _x \left( e^{Q_T
(y,z) }\right) < +\infty\,.$ Hence,
the proof in the second case is similar to the one in the first case taking $\varphi:= Q_T(y,z)
{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}} ( Q_T(y,z) \leq\lambda)- \log C$ and $\lambda >0$ arbitrarily large.
\subsubsection{Proof that $I(\mu,Q) \leq \tilde I(\mu,Q)$ for
$(\mu,Q)\in \mc P (V) \times L^1_+ (E)$}
\begin{lemma}\label{l1}
Given $R \in \mc M _S$ with $\hat Q= \hat Q (R) \in \bb R_+^E$, it
holds
$$ \sum _{ z\,:\,(y,z)\in E} \hat Q(y,z)= \sum _{z\,:\,(z,y) \in E}
\hat Q(z,y)\,.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The thesis follows by considering the $R$--expectation of the following
identity on $D([0,T];V)$:
$$ {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}} (X_T=y) + \sum_{z\,:\,(y,z)\in E}T Q_T(y,z)= {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}} (X_0=y)+\sum_{z\,:\,(z,y)\in
E}TQ_T(z,y)\,.\qedhere
$$
\end{proof}
Fix $(\mu,Q) \in \mc P (V) \times L^1 _+(E)$. By Lemma \ref{l1}, if
$\div Q \not =0$ then there is no $R \in \mc M_S$ such that
$Q=\hat Q(R)$ and therefore $\tilde I(\mu,Q)= +\infty=I(\mu,Q)$.
Hence, from now on we can restrict to $\div Q=0$. Fix $R\in \mc M_S$
such that $Q= \hat Q(R)$ and
$\mu = \hat \mu (R)$ (the absence of such an $R$ would imply $\tilde I(\mu,Q)=+\infty$ and there would be nothing to prove).
\medskip
We first consider the case that there is some edge $(y,z) \in E$ with $Q(y,z)>0$ and $\mu(y)=0$. Trivially in this case $I(\mu,Q)=+\infty$. Let us prove that $\tilde I(\mu,Q)=+\infty$.
To this aim, given $\epsilon>0$, we define the function $F_\epsilon:E \to \bb R$ as $F_\epsilon (u,v)=\log\frac{ Q(y,z)}{ \epsilon r(y,z)} \mathds{1} \bigl(\, (u,v)= (y,z) \,\bigr)$. Let
$e^{\varphi_{\epsilon}}:=M_T^{F_{\epsilon}}$ be the
supermartingale introduced in Lemma \ref{t:em2}:
\begin{equation}\label{crema} \varphi_{ \epsilon} =T Q_T(y,z)\log\frac{ Q(y,z)}{ \epsilon r(y,z)}-T \mu_T(y) \left[ \frac{ Q(y,z)}{\epsilon} -r(y,z) \right]\,.
\end{equation}
We take $\epsilon $ small enough so that $ \log\frac{ Q(y,z)}{ \epsilon r(y,z)}>0$ and define for $\ell>0$ the new function $\varphi_{\epsilon , \ell}$ as in the r.h.s. of \eqref{crema} with $Q_T(y,z)$ replaced by
$Q_T(y,z)\wedge \ell$.
Then $\varphi_{\epsilon , \ell} \leq \varphi_{\ell}
$ and by Lemma \ref{t:em2} we conclude that $\varphi_{\epsilon , \ell}\in Y_1(T)$. Applying
\eqref{vedoluce} we conclude that
$$ H(R) \geq \bb E_R \bigl ( \varphi_{\epsilon , \ell} \bigr) /T = \bb E_R( Q_T(y,z) \wedge \ell)
\log\frac{ Q(y,z)}{ \epsilon r(y,z)}\,.$$
Taking first the limit $\ell \to +\infty$ and afterwards $\epsilon \to 0$, we get that $H(R)=+\infty$, thus implying $\tilde I (\mu,Q) =+\infty$.
\medskip
Due to the previous result, we restrict to the case that $\mu(y)>0$ if $Q(y,z)>0$, with $(y,z)\in E$.
Then we fix an invading sequence $E_n\nearrow E$ of finite subsets of $E$ and consider the function
$F_{n }: E \to\bb R$ defined as
$$ r(y,z)e^{F_{n}(y,z)} :=
\begin{cases}
\frac{Q(y,z)}{\mu (y)}\,, & \text{ if } (y,z)\in E_n \,,
\\
r(y,z) & \text{ otherwise}\,. \end{cases}
$$
with the convention that $0/0=0$. Note that the above ratio is well defined since $\mu
(y) >0$ if $Q(y,z)>0$. Let
$e^{\varphi_{n}}:=M_T^{F_{n}}$ be the
supermartingale introduced in Lemma \ref{t:em2}:
$$ \varphi_{n} =T \sum _{(y,z) \in E_n} \Big \{ Q_T(y,z)
\log \frac{ Q(y,z) }{\mu (y) r(y,z)} -\mu_T(y) r(y,z) \bigl[\frac{ Q(y,z) }{\mu (y) r(y,z)}
-1 \bigr]\Big\}\,.
$$
Since $\varphi_{n } $ is unbounded, for $\ell>0$ we
consider the cut--off
$$ \varphi_{n, \ell} := \begin{cases}
\varphi_n & \text{ if } |\varphi_n | \leq \ell \,, \\
\frac{\varphi_n}{|\varphi_n|} \ell & \text{ if } |\varphi_n | > \ell \,.
\end{cases}
$$
We stress that the sum in the definition of $\varphi_n$ is finite. Since $|\varphi_{n,\ell}| \leq |\varphi_n| \in L^1(R) $ (recall that $Q= \hat Q(R) \in L^1_+(E)$), by the Dominated Convergence Theorem it holds $ \lim_{\ell \to +\infty} \bb E_R\left( \varphi_{n,\ell}\right)= \bb E_R \left(\varphi_n\right)$.
Moreover, applying
Remark \ref{SD} and using the notation introduced there, by enlarging the probability space we obtain that there exist positive constants $A_n,B_n$ depending only on $n$ such that
$$ |\varphi_{n,\ell} (X) |\leq | \varphi_n (X) | \leq A_n \sum _{(y,z) \in E_n} \mc Z_{y,z} +B_n $$
sampling $X$ by $\bb P_x$.
This implies that $\log \bb E_{x} \left( e ^{\varphi_{n,\ell}} \right )$ is bounded uniformly in $x\in V$ and therefore, applying twice the Dominated Convergence Theorem we conclude that $$ \lim_{\ell \to +\infty} \bb E_R \log \bb E_{X_0} \left( e ^{\varphi_{n,\ell}} \right ) = \lim_{\ell \to +\infty} \sum_{x \in V} \mu(x) \log \bb E_{x} \left( e ^{\varphi_{n,\ell}} \right ) =\sum _{x\in V} \mu(x) \log \bb E_x \left( e ^{\varphi_{n}} \right ) \leq 0\,.$$
Note that the last bound follows from Lemma \ref{t:em2}.
As a consequence $$ \lim _{\ell \to \infty} \left\{ \bb E_R\left( \varphi_{n,\ell}\right)- \bb E_R \log \bb E_{X_0} \left( e ^{\varphi_{n,\ell}} \right ) \right\} \geq E_R\left( \varphi_{n}\right)\,.$$
Combining the above estimate, \eqref{babelino} and \eqref{vedoluce}, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{fabio}
H(R) \geq \bar H(T,R)/T \geq E_R\left( \varphi_{n}\right) /T =\sum
_{(y,z) \in E_n}\Phi( Q(y,z), Q^\mu(y,z) ) \,.
\end{equation}
To conclude we take the limit $n \to +\infty$, obtaining $H(R) \geq I(\mu,Q)$ for each $R\in \mc M_S$ such that $\hat \mu(R)=\mu$, $\hat Q(R)= Q$. This implies that $\tilde I(\mu,Q) \geq I(\mu,Q)$.
\subsubsection{Proof that $I(\mu,Q) \geq \tilde I(\mu,Q)$ for
$(\mu,Q)\in \mc P (V) \times L^1_+ (E)$}\label{s:bivio} As
consequence of the first part of Theorem \ref{LDPteo2} (already
proved), the function $\tilde I$ is lower semincontinuous. Consider
the sequence $\{(\mu_n, Q_n)\}_{n \geq 0} $ in $\mc S$ converging
to $(\mu,Q)$ as stated in Proposition \ref{t:dt}. The set $\mc S$
has been defined in Section \ref{lattino} as the subset of $ \mc
P(V)\times L^1_+(E)$ given by the elements $(\mu,Q)$ with
$I(\mu,Q)<+\infty$ and such that the graph $(\mathop{\rm supp}\nolimits(\mu), E(Q) )$ is
finite and connected. For each $n$ we consider the continuous time
Markov chain $\xi^{(n)}$ on $V$ with jump rates $r_n(y,z)=
Q_n(y,z)/\mu_n (y)$ with the convention $0/0=0$. Since
$I(\mu_n,Q_n)<+\infty$ it cannot be $Q_n(y,z)>0$ and $\mu_n(y)=0$,
hence the above ratio is well defined.
Since $\mu_n$ and $Q_n$ have finite support, the Markov chain
$\xi^{(n)}$ is indeed a Markov chain with finite effective state
space. In particular, explosion does not take place. The bound
$I(\mu_n,Q_n)<+\infty$ implies also that $\div Q_n=0$, hence we get
that $\mu_n$ is an invariant measure for $\xi^{(n)}$. We define
$R_n$ as the stationary Markov chain $\xi^{(n)}$ with marginal
$\mu_n$, then $\hat Q(R_n)=Q_n$. By the Radon--Nykodim derivative
\eqref{RN} and the definition of the entropy $H(\cdot)$, we get that
$\tilde I (\mu_n,Q_n)\leq H(R_n )= I(\mu_n,Q_n)$.
Invoking the lower
semicontinuity of $\tilde I$ and Proposition \ref{t:dt}, we get the
thesis.
\subsection{Proof of \eqref{fatto!}}
Let us take $(\mu,Q) $ with $\mu \in\mc P(V)$
and $Q\in \bb R_+^E \setminus L^1_+(E)$. We need to prove that
$\tilde I(\mu,Q)=+\infty$. Let $R \in \mc M_S $ be such that $\hat
\mu (R)=\mu$ and $\hat Q(R)=Q$ (we assume $R$ exists, otherwise the
thesis is trivially true). We fix an invading sequence $V_n \nearrow
V$ of finite sets, define $E_n:= \{ (y,z) \in E\,:\, y,z \in V_n\}$
and $F_n(y,z):= {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}( (y,z) \in E_n )$ for $(y,z)\in E$. Then we
know that $\bb E_x \Big( \exp\{\bb M_T^{F_n} \}\Big)\leq 1$ for all
$x \in V$, using the same notation of Lemma \ref{t:em2}. Again we
need to work with functions in $\mc B (\mc F ^0_T)$. To this aim,
given $\ell >0$ we define $\bb M_{T,\ell}^{F_n}$ as the
supermartingale $\bb M_T ^{F_n}$ except that the empirical flow
$Q_T(y,z) $ is replaced by $Q_T(y,z) \wedge \ell $ for all edges
$(y,z)$. Then (note that $r^{F_n} \geq r$) $ \bb M_{T,\ell}^{F_n}\in \mc B (\mc F ^0_T)$
and $\bb M_{T,\ell}^{F_n} \leq \bb M_T^{F_n}$, thus implying that
$\bb M_{T, \ell}^{F_n} \in Y_1(T)$. By \eqref{vedoluce} this implies
that
\begin{equation}\label{amicoluca}
H(R)\geq \bar H(T,R)/T
\geq \varlimsup_{\ell \to \infty} \bb E_{R}\Big( \bb M_{T,
\ell}^{F_n}\Big)/T= \sum _{(y,z)\in E_n} Q(y,z) - \bb E_R( \mu_T(
r^{F_n}-r) ) \,.
\end{equation}
The conclusion then follows from the next result:
\begin{claim}\label{schnell}
Assume Condition \ref{t:ccomp}
(where the
constants $\sigma,C$ are defined). Then for each $R \in \mc M_S$ it
holds
\begin{equation}\label{armadio}
\|\hat Q (R) \| \leq
H(R)(1+e/\sigma)+ C \,e/\sigma \,.
\end{equation}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let us first prove \eqref{armadio} knowing that $H(R) \geq \bb
E_R\bigl(v(X_0)\bigr) $. We come back to \eqref{amicoluca} and take
first the limit $T \to +\infty$ and afterwards the limit $n \to
+\infty$. Since $0\leq r^{F_n}-r\leq e r$ and, by Fubini--Tonelli
and stationarity, $ \bb E_R( \mu_T(r)) = \bb E_R( r (X_0) )$, we
conclude that
$$ \|\hat Q\|=\|Q\| = \lim _{n\to +\infty}\sum _{(y,z)\in E_n} Q(y,z)\leq
H(R)+e \bb E_R( r (X_0) )\,.
$$
By Condition \ref{t:ccomp}, $ \bb E_R\bigl(r (X_0) \bigr)\leq \bb
E_R\bigl(v(X_0) \bigr) /\sigma+C/\sigma$. Combining with $H(R) \geq \bb
E_R\bigl(v(X_0)\bigr) $ we get the thesis.
\smallskip
Let us now prove that $H(R) \geq \bb E_R\bigl(v(X_0)\bigr) $. Since
both $H(R)$ and $ E_R\bigl(v(X_0)\bigr) $ are affine in $R$ (see
\cite{DV4}--(IV)) and since all stationary processes are convex
combinations of ergodic stationary processes, it is enough to prove
the claim for an ergodic $R \in \mc M _S$. Given $k, T >0$ and $W
\subset V$ we define $v^{(k)}:= v\wedge k$ and $\varphi(X):={1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}
(X_0\in W) \int _0^T v^{(k)}(X_s) ds$. Trivially, $\varphi \in \mc
B ( \mc F^0_T)$. Then, by the definition of $\bar H(T,R)$, it holds
\begin{equation}\label{iris}
\begin{split}
T H(R) & \geq \bar H(T,R) \geq \bb E_R(\varphi)- \bb E_R\bigl( \log
\bb E_{X_0} (e^\varphi)\bigr) \\& \geq \bb E_R\Big ( \int _0^T
v^{(k)}(X_s) ds; X_0 \in W \Big) - \max _{x \in W} \log (C_x/c) \,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In the last inequality we have used Lemma \ref{t:letem} and the
inequality $v^{(k)} \leq v$. At this point, we divide \eqref{iris}
by $T$. Since $R$ is ergodic, by Birkhoff ergodic theorem (note that
$v^{(k)} (X_0) \in L^1 (R)$ since $v^{(k)}$ is bounded) we know that
$$ \lim _{T \to \infty} \frac{1}{T}\int _0^T v^{(k)}(X_s) ds =\bb
E_R\bigl( v^{(k)}(X_0)\bigr)\,, \qquad \text{$R$--a.s.}$$ Taking
the limit $T \to \infty$ and applying the Dominated Convergence
Theorem we conclude that
$$ H(R)\geq \bb E_R\bigl(
v^{(k)}(X_0)\bigr) \bb R(X_0\in W)\,.
$$
At this point it is enough to take the limit $k \to \infty$ and
afterwards to take $W$ arbitrarily large and invading all $V$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{LDP:misura+flusso}}
The proof uses the results of \cite{ES}, where the notion of
exponentially good approximation and the contraction principle are
extended to the case of completely regular space as image space of
the projection. To this aim we recall some further properties of the
bounded weak* topology on $L^1_+(E)$.
We define $\mc A$ as the set of sequences
$\mathfrak{a}=(a_n)_{n\geq 1} $ of functions in $ C_0(E)$ such that
$\|a_n \|_\infty\to 0$. Given $\mathfrak{a} \in \mc A$ we introduce
the pseudometric $d_\mathfrak{a}$ on $L^1_+(E)$ as
$$d_\mathfrak{a} (Q,Q'):= \sup _{n \geq 1 } \langle Q - Q' ,a_n \rangle \,.
$$
Writing $B_\mathfrak{a}(Q,r):= \{ Q'\in L^1_+ (E) \,:\,
d_\mathfrak{a}(Q,Q') <r\}$, the family of sets $\{ B_\mathfrak{a}
(Q,r)\}$, with $\mathfrak{a} \in \mc A$, $Q\in L^1_+(E)$ and $r>0$,
form a basis for $L^1_+(E)$. This follows from Def. 2.7.1 and Cor.
2.7.4 in \cite{Me}. In addition, the family $\mc D$ of pseudometrics
$\{d_\mathfrak{a} \,:\, \mathfrak{a}\in C_0(E)\}$ is separating,
i.e. given $Q\not =Q'$ in $L^1_+(E)$ there exists $\mathfrak{a} \in
\mc A$ such that $d_\mathfrak{a}(Q,Q')>0$. The above two properties
(basis and separating family of pseudometrics) make $L^1_+(E)$ a so
called \emph{gauge space}. Indeed, one can prove that the concepts
of completely regular space and gauge space are equivalent
\cite{Du}[Ch. IX].
\smallskip
Due to the above observations on the gauge structure of $L^1_+(E)$
we are in the same settings of \cite{ES}. In what follows we
restrict to the case $|V|=+\infty$, thus implying $|E|=+\infty$ due
to the irreducibility of the Markov chain $\xi$ (the finite case is
much simpler).
Fix an enumeration
$(e_n)_{n\geq 1}$ of $E$. Consider the maps $\hat Q, \hat Q_\epsilon
$ entering in Proposition \ref{cervo2}
and define the
maps $\bar Q, \bar Q_\epsilon: \mc M_S \to L^1_+(E)$ by %
\begin{align*}
\bar Q(R)&=\begin{cases} \hat Q(R) &\; \;\;\text{ if }\hat Q(R)\in
L^1_+(E)\,,\\
0 &\;\;\; \text{ otherwise}\,, \end{cases} \\
\bar Q_\epsilon (R)(e_n)&=\begin{cases} \hat Q_\epsilon (R)(e_n) &
\text{ if } n\leq \epsilon^{-1}\,,\\
0 & \text{ otherwise}\,. \end{cases}
\end{align*}
\begin{proposition}\label{cervo3}
Assume the Markov chain satisfies (A1)--(A4) and Condition
\ref{t:ccomp}.
Consider the space $L^1_+(E) $ endowed of the bounded weak*
topology and the Borel $\sigma$--algebra. Then the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] The map $\bar Q: \mc M_S\to L^1_+(E)$ is measurable while the maps
$\bar Q_\epsilon: \mc M_S\to L^1_+(E)$
are continuous.
\item[(ii)] For each $\mathfrak{a} \in \mc A$
\begin{align}
& \lim _{\epsilon \downarrow 0} \sup _{R \in \mc M_S \,:\, H(R) \leq
\alpha} d_\mathfrak{a} \bigl( \bar Q (R), \bar Q_\epsilon (R)
\bigr)=0 \,, \label{dz1bis}
\\
& \lim_{\epsilon \downarrow 0} \varlimsup_{T \uparrow \infty}
\frac{1}{T} \log \Gamma_{T,x} \left( d_\mathfrak{a} ( \bar Q ,
\bar Q_\epsilon) > \delta \right) =-\infty\,,\label{dz2bis}
\end{align}
for any $x \in V$, $\alpha>0$, $\delta>0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
The proof is given in Section \ref{dim_cervo3}.
\smallskip
As byproduct of Proposition \ref{cervo3}, the extended contraction
principle in \cite{ES}, the LDP of the empirical process and Theorem
\ref{LDPteo2}--(ii) we can conclude the proof of Theorem
\ref{LDP:misura+flusso}. Let us be more precise. We apply Theorem
1.13 in \cite{ES}. Formula \eqref{dz1bis} corresponds to formula
(1.14) in \cite{ES}, while formula \eqref{dz2bis} means that the
family of probability measures $\left\{\Gamma_{T,x}\circ
\bigl(\hat\mu,\bar Q_\epsilon)^{-1}\right\}$ is a
$(d_\mathfrak{a})_{\mathfrak{a} \in \mc A}$--exponentially good
approximation of the family $\left\{\Gamma_{T,x}\circ
\bigl(\hat\mu,\bar Q)^{-1}\right\}$. On the other hand, we have that
$\bar Q= \hat Q \in L^1_+(E)$ $\Gamma_{T,x}$--a.s., while by
Proposition \ref{cervo1pezzo} the random variable $\hat Q$ sampled
according to $\Gamma_{T,x}$ has the same law of $\tilde
Q_T(X):=Q_T(X^T)$ with $X \in D(\bb R_+; V)$ sampled according to
$\bb P_x$. Hence, by Corollary 1.10 in \cite{ES}
we only need to prove that the families of probability
measures
$\{\bb
P_x\circ (\mu_T,Q_T)^{-1}\}$ and $\{\bb
P_x\circ (\mu_T,\tilde{Q}_T)^{-1}\}$ are $(d_\mathfrak{a})_{\mathfrak{a} \in
\mc A}$--exponentially
equivalent on $\mc P(V) \times L^1_+(E)$. It is enough to show for each $\delta>0$ and $\mathfrak{a} \in \mc A$ that
\begin{equation}\label{rotturebis}
\varlimsup _{T \to +\infty} \frac{1}{T} \log \bb P_x \bigl( d_\mathfrak{a}(
\tilde{Q}_T, Q_T) >\delta)=-\infty\,,
\end{equation}
Since by \eqref{spostare} $d_\mathfrak{a}(
\tilde{Q}_T, Q_T)\leq \|\mathfrak{a}\|_\infty/T$, we get the
thesis.
\section{Exponential approximations: Proof of Proposition
\ref{cervo2}}\label{dim_cervo2} Item (i) is straightforward. We
concentrate on item (ii). Since $\mc M_S$ is endowed of the weak topology and since $F
_{y,z}^\epsilon$ is a continuous bounded function on $D(\bb R;V)$
we conclude that $\hat Q_\epsilon $ is continuous.
\subsection{Proof of \eqref{dz1} }
As already proved in the previous section (independently from the
content of Proposition \ref{cervo2}), $\tilde I(\mu,Q) =+\infty$ if
$Q \not \in \bb R_+^E$. Hence, given $R \in \mc M_S$ with $H(R)<
+\infty$, it must be $\hat Q (y,z) (R) < \infty$ for all $(y,z) \in
B$ and $ \hat Q(y,z)(R)=0$ if $(y,z) \in B \setminus E$. Since $
\hat Q_\epsilon (y,z) \leq \hat Q(y,z)$, the same claim holds for
$\hat Q_\epsilon$ instead of $\hat Q$. In particular, equation
\eqref{dz1} is meaningful and is trivially true for $(y,z) \in B
\setminus E$. We then restrict to $(y,z) \in E$. Below $R\in \mc
M_S$ is such that $H(R)\leq \alpha$.
Recall the
definition of $N_I(y,z)$ and $N_T(y,z)$
given in the proof of Proposition \ref{cervo1pezzo}.
We can estimate
\begin{multline}\label{piangemolto}
\bigl| \hat Q (y,z) (R)- \hat Q_\epsilon (y,z) (R) \bigr|\\
\leq \bb E_R\bigl( N_1(y,z) ; N_1(y,z) \geq \epsilon^{-1} \bigr)+
\bb E_R\bigl( N_{ [0,\epsilon]\cup [1-\epsilon, 1]}(y,z) \bigr).
\end{multline}
By stationarity (see the proof of Lemma \ref{pasquetta}) $$\bb
E_R\bigl( N_{[0,\epsilon]} (y,z) \bigr) =\bb E_R\bigl(
N_{[1-\epsilon,1]} (y,z) \bigr)= \epsilon \bb E_R\bigl( N_1
(y,z)\bigr)= \epsilon \hat Q(y,z) (R)\,.
$$
Consider $\ell\in \bb R_+$ and apply \eqref{vedoluce} with $t=1$ and $\varphi=N_1(y,z)\wedge \ell-r(y,z)(e-1)$ (note that $\varphi \in Y_1(t)$ by Remark \ref{SD}).
We get for $R\in \mathcal M_S$ such that $H(R)\leq \alpha$
\begin{equation}
\alpha+r(y,z)(e-1)\geq H(R)+r(y,z)(e-1)\geq
\mathbb E_R\left(N_1(y,z)\wedge \ell\right)\,.
\label{elalafesta}
\end{equation}
Since by the Monotone Convergence Theorem $\lim_{\ell\to +\infty}\mathbb E_R\left(N_1(y,z)\wedge \ell\right)=\hat Q(y,z)(R)$,
taking the limit $\ell\to +\infty$ on both extreme sides of \eqref{elalafesta} we deduce
$$
\alpha+r(y,z)(e-1)\geq
\hat Q(y,z)(R)\,.
$$
From the above inequality we get
that the last term in \eqref{piangemolto} converges uniformly to
zero on $\left\{R\in \mathcal M_S\,: H(R)\leq \alpha\right\}$ as $\epsilon
\downarrow 0$.
To conclude, it remains to prove that
$\lim _{\epsilon \downarrow 0} \bb E_R\bigl( N_1(y,z) ; N_1(y,z)
\geq \epsilon^{-1} \bigr) =0$.
To this aim, given $\gamma,\ell >0$ we define on $D(\bb R;
V\bigr)$ the function
$$ \varphi_{\gamma , \ell, \epsilon}:= \gamma N_1(y,z) {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}} ( \ell \geq N_1(y,z) \geq \epsilon^{-1}) - C(\gamma,\epsilon)$$ where
$C(\gamma, \epsilon) := \sup_{x \in V} \log \bb E_x \bigl( e^{
\gamma N_1(y,z)\, {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}} \bigl( N_1(y,z) \geq \epsilon^{-1}\bigr)
}\bigr )$. Due to Remark \ref{SD} (stochastic domination),
we get
$ C(\gamma, \epsilon)<+\infty$ and $\lim _{\epsilon \downarrow 0}
C(\gamma, \epsilon)=0$.
By construction $\varphi _{\gamma , \ell, \epsilon} \in Y_1(t)$ for $t\geq 1$. Applying
\eqref{vedoluce} we get for $t \geq 1$ that
$$ \bb E_R (\varphi_{\gamma , \ell, \epsilon}) \leq \bar H (t, R) \leq t H(R)\leq t \alpha
\,.
$$
Taking $\ell \to \infty$, we conclude that
$\bb E_R \bigl( N_1(y,z) \,;\, N_1(y,z) \geq \epsilon^{-1} \bigr)
\leq t\alpha /\gamma + C(\gamma, \epsilon)/\gamma$. Taking first the
limit $\epsilon\downarrow 0$ and afterwards the limit $\gamma
\uparrow \infty$, we conclude that the expectation $ \bb E_R\bigl(
N_1(y,z) ; N_1(y,z) \geq \epsilon^{-1} \bigr)$ is negligible as
$\epsilon \downarrow 0$.\qed
\subsection{Proof of \eqref{dz2} }
We restrict to $T>1$ (the generic case could be treated by the same
arguments of the proof of Proposition \ref{cervo1pezzo}). Recall
the definition of the projection $\pi_T$ and set
$\Theta_T(y,z)(X^T)$ given there.
$\bb P_x$--a.s. it holds
\begin{equation}\label{secondino}
\hat Q _\epsilon (y,z)(\mc R_{T,X} )=
\frac{1}{ T} \int _0^T \Big\{ \sum _{ \substack{ u \in [s,s+1]:\\ \pi_T(u) \in \Theta_T(y,z)(X^T)
}} \varphi _\epsilon (u-s)\Bigr\} \wedge \epsilon^{-1} ds\,.
\end{equation}
For each $(y,z) \in B$ and $\epsilon>0$ we define the functions
$G_\epsilon(y,z)$ and $H_\epsilon (y,z)$ on $D(\bb R;V)$ as
\begin{align*}
& G_\epsilon (y,z)(X) := \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T \bigl| \Theta_T(y,z)(X^T) \cap \pi_T\bigl([s+\epsilon, s+1-\epsilon]\bigr) \bigr| \wedge \epsilon^{-1} ds \\
& H_\epsilon (y,z)(X):=\frac{1}{T} \int_0^T \bigl|
\Theta_T(y,z)(X^T) \cap \pi_T\bigl( [s+\epsilon, s+1-\epsilon]\bigr)
\bigr| ds
\,.
\end{align*}
By the same argument used in identity \eqref{rio3D}, it holds
\begin{equation}\label{mercatino}
H_\epsilon (y,z)(X)=(1-2\epsilon) Q_T(y,z)(X^T)= (1-2\epsilon)\hat Q
(y,z)(\mc R_{T,X} )\,.
\end{equation}
Trivially, it holds $\hat Q(y,z) (\mc R_{T,X}) \geq \hat
Q_\epsilon(y,z) (\mc R_{T,X}) \geq G_\epsilon (y,z) (X)$. Using
\eqref{mercatino} and the last bounds, we can estimate
\begin{equation}\label{magmion1}
\begin{split}
& \bb P_x \left(\hat Q(y,z) (\mc R_{T,\cdot }) - \hat Q_\epsilon(y,z)
(\mc R_{T,\cdot })\geq \delta
\right) \\
& \qquad \leq \bb P_x \left(\hat Q(y,z) (\mc R_{T,\cdot })
-G_\epsilon(y,z) \geq \delta
\right)\\
& \qquad \leq \bb P_x \Big(\hat Q(y,z) (\mc R_{T,\cdot }) -
H_\epsilon (y,z) \geq \delta/2 \Big)+
\bb P_x \Big( H_\epsilon (y,z) - G_\epsilon (y,z) \geq \delta/2
\Big)\\
&\qquad =\bb P_x \Big(2\epsilon Q_T(y,z)(X^T) \geq \delta/2 \Big) +
\bb P_x \Big( H_\epsilon (y,z) - G_\epsilon (y,z) \geq \delta/2
\Big) \,.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In order to prove the super-exponential estimate \eqref{dz2} it is enough to prove a super-exponential estimate
for both terms in the last line of \eqref{magmion1}.
Since, by the graphical construction, under $\bb P _x$ the process $\left\{|T Q _T (y,z)(X)
|\right\}_{T\in \mathbb R_+}$ is dominated by a Poisson process
$\left\{Z_T\right\}_{T\in \mathbb R_+}$ with parameter $r(y,z) $
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
& &\lim_{\epsilon \downarrow 0}\varlimsup_{T\to +\infty} \frac 1T \log\left[\bb P_x \Big(2\epsilon Q_T(y,z)(X^T) \geq \delta/2
\Big)\right]\\
& & \leq\lim_{\epsilon \downarrow 0}\varlimsup_{T\to +\infty} \frac 1T \log\left[\bb P \Big(2\epsilon (Z_T+1)/T\geq \delta/2\Big)\right]\\
& &\leq \lim_{\epsilon \downarrow 0}-\Phi\left(\frac{\delta}{4\epsilon},r(y,z)\right)=-\infty\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
We used a LDP for the Poisson process (the extra $1/T$ term is irrelevant) and the explicit form of the rate functional.
It remains to bound the last term in \eqref{magmion1}. For simplicity of notation we restrict to $T$ integer (the
general case can be treated similarly). We define $\psi_\epsilon (r)= r {1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}}( r > \epsilon^{-1})$.
Given $j =0,1,\dots , T-1$ and $s \in [j,j+1)$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split} \bigl| \Theta_T(y,z)(X^T) & \cap \pi_T\bigl([s+\epsilon,
s+1-\epsilon]\bigr) \bigr| \\ & -\bigl| \Theta_T(y,z)(X^T) \cap
\pi_T\bigl([s+\epsilon, s+1-\epsilon]\bigr) \bigr| \wedge
\epsilon^{-1} \\ &\leq \psi_\epsilon \left( \bigl|\Theta_T(y,z)(X^T)
\cap \pi_T\bigl( [j,j+2)\bigr) \bigr|\right)\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Hence, we can estimate
\begin{equation}\label{ulcera}
H_\epsilon (y,z) (X) - G_\epsilon (y,z)(X) \leq \frac{1}{T}
\sum_{j=0}^{T-1} \psi_\epsilon \left( \bigl|\Theta_T(y,z)(X^T) \cap \pi_T\bigl(
[j,j+2)\bigr) \bigr|\right)\,.
\end{equation}
By the graphical construction of Markov chains, under $\bb P_x$ the
set of jump times for a jump from $y$ to $z$ can be identified with
a suitable subset of an homogeneous Poisson point process on $\bb
R_+$ with intensity $r(y,z)$. In particular, it is possible to
define a probability measure $\mc P$ on the product space $D(\bb R_+
;V) \times D(\bb R_+;\bb N)$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
the marginal of $\mc P$ on
$D(\bb R_+;V)$ equals $\bb P_x$;
\item[(ii)] the marginal of $\mc P$ on $D(\bb R_+;\bb N)$ is the law of a Poisson process
with parameter $r(x,y)$,
\item[(iii)] calling $(X_t)_{t \in \bb R_+}$ and $(Z_t)_{t \in \bb
R_+} $ the generic elements of respectively $D(\bb R_+ ;V)$ and $
D(\bb R_+;\bb N)$, it holds $\mc P$--a.s.
$$ N_{[a,b]} (y,z) (X) \leq Z_b-Z_a \,,\qquad \forall a<b \text{ in } \bb R_+\,.
$$
\end{itemize}
Due to the above coupling and since on the interval $[0,T]$ the
paths $X$ and $X^T$ can differ at most in $T$, we can estimate $\mc
P$--a.s.
\begin{multline}\label{ruggito}
\psi_\epsilon \left( \bigl|\Theta_T(y,z)(X^T) \cap \pi_T\bigl( [j,j+2)\bigr)
\bigr|\right)
\\\leq
\begin{cases} \psi_\epsilon (
Z_{j+2}-Z_j) & \text{ if } 0\leq j \leq T-2\,,\\
\psi_\epsilon ( [Z_{T}-Z_{T-1}]+Z_1+1) & \text{ if } j= T-1\,.
\end{cases}
\end{multline}
Now we introduce the nondecreasing function $\hat \psi_\epsilon (r):= 2 r
{1 \mskip -5mu {\rm I}} ( r> \epsilon^{-1}/2)$ satisfying the inequality $\psi_\epsilon(a+b)
\leq \hat \psi_\epsilon (a)+\hat \psi_\epsilon(b)$. Then \eqref{ulcera} and
\eqref{ruggito} imply $\mc P$--a.s. that
$$ H_\epsilon (y,z) (X) - G_\epsilon (y,z)(X) \leq \frac{2}{T}
\sum_{j=0}^{T-1} \hat \psi_\epsilon (
Z_{j+1}-Z_j+1 )\,.
$$
At this point we recall that under $\mc P$ the random variables
$\Big(Z_{j+1}-Z_j\Big) _{0\leq j \leq T-1}$ are independent Poisson
random variables with parameter $r(y,z)$. Hence we can estimate
\begin{eqnarray}
& &\lim_{\epsilon \downarrow 0}\varlimsup_{T\to +\infty}\frac 1T\log\left[\bb P_x \Big( H_\epsilon (y,z) - G_\epsilon (y,z)
\geq \delta/2 \Big)\right] \nonumber \\
& &=\lim_{\epsilon \downarrow 0}\varlimsup_{T\to +\infty}\frac 1T\log\left[ \mc P \Big( H_\epsilon (y,z) - G_\epsilon
(y,z) \geq \delta/2 \Big)\right]\nonumber\\
& & \leq \lim_{\epsilon \downarrow 0}\varlimsup_{T\to +\infty}\frac 1T\log\left[\mc P \Big (\frac{2}{T}
\sum_{j=0}^{T-1} \hat \psi_\epsilon (
Z_{j+1}-Z_j+1 )\geq \delta /2\Big)\right]\nonumber\\
& &\leq \lim_{\epsilon \downarrow 0}-I_\epsilon (\delta/2)=-\infty\,.
\label{federer-tsonga}
\end{eqnarray}
In the above chain of inequalities we used Cramer Theorem for the sum of the independent
random variables $2\hat \psi_\epsilon(Z_{j+1}-Z_j+1)$ calling $I_\epsilon$ the associated
rate function.
The divergence in the last line follows by the following argument. Let $\Lambda_\epsilon(\lambda):=\log \mathbb E\left(e^{\lambda2\hat \psi_\epsilon(Z_{1}-Z_0)}\right)$.
By the Monotonce Convergence Theorem
$\Lambda_\epsilon(\lambda) $ converges to zero for each $\lambda \in \bb R$ as $\epsilon$ goes to zero.
Since the rate function $I_\epsilon$ is the Legendre transform of $\Lambda_\epsilon$, we get for each fixed $\lambda \in \bb R$ that $$I_\epsilon(\delta/2) \geq \frac{\delta \lambda}{2}-\Lambda_\epsilon(\lambda)\,.$$ Hence, $\liminf_{ \epsilon \downarrow 0 } I_\epsilon ( \delta /2) \geq \delta \lambda /2$. By the arbitrariness of $\lambda $ we get the thesis.
\section{Exponential approximations: Proof of Proposition \ref{cervo3}}\label{dim_cervo3}
The measurability of $\bar Q$ can be checked by straightforward
arguments. Let us prove that $\bar Q_\epsilon$ is continuous w.r.t.
the bounded weak* topology of $L_+^1(E)$.
As stated in Prop. \ref{cervo2} each map $\hat Q_\epsilon(y,z) :
\mc M_S\to [0,\epsilon ^{-1}]$ is continuous and bounded.
In addition it holds $\|\bar Q_\epsilon (R)\|\leq \epsilon ^{-2}$
for all $R\in \mc M_S$. The thesis then follows from Corollary 2.7.3
in \cite{Me}.
\subsection{Proof of \eqref{dz2bis}}
Due to Proposition \ref{cervo1pezzo} the law of $\hat Q $ under
$\Gamma_{T,x}$ is the same of the law of $Q_T(X^T)$ under $\bb P_x$.
Moreover, it holds $Q_T(X^T) \in L^1 _+(E)$ $\bb P_x$--a.s. In
particular, we get that $\hat Q= \bar Q$ $\Gamma_{T,x}$--a.s. In
addition, by Proposition \ref{t:etem}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{milano}
\lim _{\ell \uparrow +\infty} \varlimsup_{T \uparrow +\infty}
\frac{1}{T} \log \Gamma_{T,x} \left( \| \hat Q \|\geq \ell \right)
=-\infty\,.
\end{equation}
Due to \eqref{milano} in order to prove \eqref{dz2bis} we only need
to show for any $\ell
>0$ that
\begin{equation}\label{roma}
\lim_{\epsilon \downarrow 0} \varlimsup_{T \uparrow \infty}
\frac{1}{T} \log \Gamma_{T,x} \left( d_\mathfrak{a} ( \bar Q ,
\bar Q_\epsilon) > \delta\,,\, \|\hat Q\|\leq \ell \right)
=-\infty\,.
\end{equation}
Since $\mathfrak{a}\in \mc A$, there exits $\bar n \geq 1$ such
that $\|a_n\|_\infty \leq \delta /(2 \ell)$ for all $n \geq \bar n$.
Note that, since $\hat Q (y,z)(R) \geq \bar Q_\epsilon (y,z)(R)$,
it holds $\|\hat Q(R)\| \geq \|\bar Q_\epsilon(R)\|$ and $\|\hat
Q(R)\| \geq \|\hat Q(R)-\bar Q_\epsilon(R)\|$ for any $R \in \mc
M_S$. Then for any $n \geq \bar n$ we have $|< \hat Q(R)-\bar
Q_\epsilon(R) , a_n>| \leq \delta /2$ if $\|\hat Q(R)\|\leq \ell$.
Therefore, in order to prove \eqref{roma} we only need to show for
any $\ell >0$ that
\begin{equation}\label{romaz}
\lim_{\epsilon \downarrow 0} \varlimsup_{T \uparrow \infty}
\frac{1}{T} \log \Gamma_{T,x} \left(\exists n: 1\leq n\leq \bar n
\text{ s.t. } |< \hat Q-\bar Q_\epsilon, a_n>| > \delta /2 \,,\,
\|\hat Q\|\leq \ell \right) =-\infty
\end{equation}
Since $a_n \in C_0(E)$ we can find a finite subset $E'\subset E$
such that $|a_n (e)|\leq \delta /4\ell$ for all $n:1\leq n \leq \bar
n$ and $e \in E \setminus E'$. Estimating $$ |< \hat Q-\bar
Q_\epsilon, a_n>| \leq \sum_{(y,z) \in E'} \bigl| \bigl(\hat Q(y,z)-
\bar Q_\epsilon(y,z)\bigr) a_n(y,z)\bigr|+ \|\hat Q-\bar
Q_\epsilon\| \sup _{ e \in E \setminus E'} |a_n(e)|\,,$$ we reduce
the proof of \eqref{romaz} to the proof of
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\epsilon \downarrow 0} \varlimsup_{T \uparrow \infty}
\frac{1}{T} \log \Gamma_{T,x} \left( | \hat Q(y,z)-\bar
Q_\epsilon(y,z) |
> \beta \right ) =-\infty\,, \qquad \forall (y,z) \in E, \; \forall \beta
>0\,.
\end{equation}
This follows from \eqref{dz2}.
\subsection{Proof of \eqref{dz1bis}} By arguments similar to the ones used in the previous proof
the thesis follows thanks to the bound \eqref{armadio} in Claim
\ref{schnell} and \eqref{dz1}.
\section{Birth and death processes}\label{s:BD}
Birth and death processes are nearest--neighbor continuous time
Markov chains on $\bb Z_+$ with jump rates $r(k,k+1)=b_k$ and
$r(k+1,k)=d_{k+1}$, $k\ge 0$. We assume the birth rate $b_k$ and the
death rate $d_k$ to be strictly positive. We also assume
\begin{equation}\label{normale}
Z:= \sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}
\frac{b_0 b_1\cdots b_{k-1}}{d_1 d_2 \cdots d_{k} }<+\infty
\end{equation}
and \begin{equation}\label{urca} \sum_{k=0}^{+\infty} \frac{d_1d_2
\cdots d_k}{ b_1b_2\cdots b_k}= +\infty\,.
\end{equation}
Then assumptions (A1)--(A4) holds. Indeed, (A1) and (A3) are
trivially satisfied. Due to the presence of a leftmost point (the
origin), equation \eqref{invariante} reduces to the detailed balance
equation and admits normalizable solutions if and only if
\eqref{normale} is fulfilled. In particular, one obtains a
unique invariant probability given by
\begin{equation}
\label{pibd}
\pi(0)=\frac 1Z\,,\qquad \pi(k) = \frac 1Z \,\frac{b_0 b_1\cdots b_{k-1}}{d_1 d_2 \cdots d_{k} }
\qquad k\geq 1\,.
\end{equation}
Having \eqref{normale}, condition \eqref{urca} is equivalent
to non--explosion (A2) (combine Corollary 3.18 in \cite{C0} with
\eqref{urca}) and can be rewritten as $\sum_{k=1}^\infty 1/
(\pi(k)b_{k})=+\infty$. Note that condition \eqref{urca} is
equivalent to recurrence (combine \cite{N}[Ex.\ 1.3.4] with
\cite{N}[Th. 3.4.1]).
Under the above assumptions, the logarithmic Sobolev inequality
holds if and only if (see Table 1.4 in \cite{C}[Ch. 1])
\begin{equation}\label{lollo}
\sup_{k\geq 1} \pi [k,+\infty) \,
\log \left( \frac{1}{\pi [k,+\infty) }\right) \sum
_{j=0}^{k-1} \frac{1}{\pi(j) b_j} <+\infty\,.
\end{equation}
\smallskip
\emph{Possible absence of exponential tightness of the empirical
measure}. We first discuss a case in which the empirical measure
fails to be exponentially tight. Consider constant birth and death
rates, i.e.\ $b_k=\beta$ and $d_k=\delta$. Then \eqref{normale} and
\eqref{urca} together are equivalent to the condition
$\gamma:=\beta/\delta\in (0,1)$. In particular, $\pi$ is geometric
with parameter $\gamma$, i.e. $\pi(k)=(1-\gamma) \gamma^k$. Consider
an event in which in the time interval $[0,T]$ there are $O(T)$
jumps (typical behavior) but all the jumps are to the right
(atypical behavior). The probability of such an event is ``only''
exponentially small in $T$ and therefore the empirical measure
cannot be exponentially tight. To be more precise, we write $N_T$
for the number of jumps performed in the time interval $[0,T]$.
Since the holding time at site $k$ is exponential of parameter
$\beta$ if $k=0$ and $\beta +\delta$ if $k \geq 1$, $N_T$
stochastically dominates [is stochastically dominated by] a Poisson
random variable with mean $\beta T$ [$(\beta+\delta)T$]. Hence, with
probability $1-o(1)$, $N_T$ has value in $I:=[\beta T/2,
2(\beta+\delta)T]$. By conditioning on $N_T$, it is then simple to
check that with probability at least $(1-o(1))[ \beta /
(\beta+\delta)]^{2(\beta+\delta)T-1} $ the following event $\mc A_T
$ takes place: the random variable $N_T$ has value in $I$ and all
the jumps are to the right. Under the above event $\mc A_T$, $\mu_T=
\sum_{i=0} ^{N_T} \delta_i /T$. Take now a compact set $\mc K\subset
\mc P(V)$. By Prohorov's theorem, $\mc K$ is a tight family of
probability measures and therefore, given $\epsilon
>0$, there exists a compact (finite) set $K\subset V$ such that
$\mu(K^c)\leq\epsilon$ for all $\mu \in \mc K$. Taking $T$ large
enough, under the event $\mc A_T$ the empirical measure $\mu_T$
cannot fulfills the above requirement. Hence
$$ \bb P_0( \mu_T \not \in \mc K) \geq \bb P_0 ( \mu_T(K^c)>
\epsilon)\geq \bb P_0 (\mc A_T) \geq (1-o(1))[ \beta /
(\beta+\delta)]^{2(\beta+\delta)T-1}\,.$$ The above estimate proves
that the empirical measure cannot be exponentially tight. In
particular neither Condition~\ref{t:ccomp} nor
\ref{t:ccompls} holds (even with $\sigma=0$).
\smallskip
\emph{Condition \ref{t:ccomp}}.
Assume now
\begin{equation}
\label{cdvbd}
\lim_{k\to\infty} d_k =+\infty,
\qquad
\varlimsup_{k\to\infty} \: \frac{b_k}{d_k} <1.
\end{equation}
Trivially, \eqref{normale} and \eqref{urca} are satisfied. We show
that Condition~\ref{t:ccomp} holds. As $u_n$ we
pick the constant sequence $u(k)=A^k$, $k\in\bb Z_+$ for some $A>1$
to be chosen later. Since $u_n$ does not depend on $n$, it is enough
to check Condition \ref{t:ccomp}. Items (i)--(iv) then hold
trivially; moreover setting $d_0:=0$ we get
\begin{equation*}
v(k) = -\frac{Lu }{u} \,(k) =
d_k\Big(1-\frac{1}{A}\Big)+b_k(1-A)\,,
\qquad k\in\bb Z_+.
\end{equation*}
Since $r(k) = b_k+d_k$, for each $\sigma\in (0,1)$ we can write
$v(k) = \sigma r(k)+d_k(1-\sigma-1/A)-b_k(A-1+\sigma)$.
By
\eqref{cdvbd}, choosing $A$ large items (v) and (vi) hold.
Observe that \eqref{cdvbd} is satisfied when $d_k=k$ and
$b_k=\lambda\in (0,+\infty)$. In this case $\pi$ is Poisson with
parameter $\lambda$. This implies that $e^{-\lambda}\lambda^k/k!
\leq \pi [k,+\infty) \leq \lambda^k /k!$ (for the last bound
estimate $\pi(i)\leq e^{-\lambda} \lambda^i/(k-i)!$ for $i \geq k$).
Using these bounds, by simple computations one can check from
\eqref{lollo} that
the logarithmic
Sobolev inequality \eqref{ls} does not hold. This shows there are
cases in which Condition~\ref{t:ccomp} holds but
Condition~\ref{t:ccompls} does not.
\smallskip
\emph{Condition \ref{t:ccompls}}. Let now focus our attention on
Condition \ref{t:ccompls}. As already mentioned, the validity of the
logarithmic Sobolev inequality is equivalent to \eqref{lollo}
(assuming \eqref{normale} and \eqref{urca}). Similarly for
Condition \ref{t:ccomp} the validity of
\eqref{lollo} implies that the function $r(\cdot)$ has compact level
set. In fact, suppose that there exists an infinite subset $W
\subset \bb N$ such that $c:= \sup_{k\in W} r(k ) < +\infty$. By
detailed balance, for each $k \in W$ we have $\pi (k-1) b_{k-1} =
d_k \pi(k) \leq c \pi(k) $. Hence, we can bound from below the
$k$--term in \eqref{lollo} by $$ \pi [k,+\infty) \log \frac{1}{ \pi
[k,+\infty)} \cdot \frac{1}{ \pi (k-1) b_{k-1}} \geq \frac{1}{c}\log
\frac{1}{ \pi [k,+\infty) }
$$
which diverges as $k$ goes to infinity.
We next exhibit a choice in which Condition~\ref{t:ccompls} holds.
We take $b_k= (k+1)$ and $d_{k+1}= 2b_k$ for $k \geq 0$. Observe
that such rates satisfy \eqref{cdvbd}, and therefore \eqref{normale}
and \eqref{urca}. The invariant probability $\pi$ is $\pi(k)=
2^{-k-1}$. In remains to estimate $ \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} (\pi(j) b_j)^{-1}= \sum_{j=1}^k 2^j/j$.
Supposing for simplicity $k$ even, we observe that $\sum_{j=1}^{k/2} 2^j/j \leq (k/2) 2^{k/2}$
while $\sum_{j=k/2}^{k} 2^j/j \leq (2/k) \sum_{j=k/2}^{k} 2^j =(2/k) 2^{k/2} \sum _{j=0}^{k/2-1} 2^j \\=
(2/k) 2^{k/2}(2^{k/2}-1) $. Hence $ \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} (\pi(j) b_j)^{-1}\leq C k 2^{k/2}+ C 2^k /k$.
From the above bounds it is immediate to get \eqref{lollo}. In addition,
since $r(k)\sim k$ we deduce immediately that also item
(ii) in Condition~\ref{t:ccompls} holds, thus completing the check of
Condition~\ref{t:ccompls}.
\smallskip
\emph{Violation of the LDP in the strong topology of $L^1_+(E)$}.
By exhibiting a concrete example, we show that - under
Condition~\ref{t:ccomp} -
Theorem~\ref{LDP:misura+flusso} does not hold in the strong topology
of $L^1_+(E)$. We choose the birth and death rates as $b_k=(k+1)/2$
and $d_k =k$; in particular $\pi$ is geometric with parameter $1/2$.
Since \eqref{cdvbd} holds, Condition~\ref{t:ccomp} is satisfied. We shall show that the level sets of $I$ in
\eqref{rfq} are not compact in the strong topology of $L^1_+(E)$.
Set
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mu^n & := \big( 1-\tfrac 1n\big) \, \pi
+ \tfrac 1{2n} \big[ \delta_n +\delta_{n+1}\big]
\\
Q^n & := \big( 1-\tfrac 1n\big) \, Q^\pi
+ \tfrac 12 \big[ \delta_{(n,n+1)} +\delta_{(n+1,n)}\big].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
While $\{\mu^n\}$ converges to $\pi$ in $\mc P(\bb Z_+)$, observe
that $\{Q^n\}$ converges to $Q^\pi$ in the bounded weak* topology of
$L^1_+(E)$ but it is not compact in the strong topology of
$L^1_+(E)$. Since $\div Q^n=0$, it is simple to check that
$\varlimsup_n I(\mu^n,Q^n) < +\infty$. This implies that the level
sets of $I$ are not compact in the strong topology of $L^1_+(E)$.
|
\section{Introduction}
The young \citep[$\sim$12$^{+8}_{-4}$~Myr,][]{Zuckerman:2001} A6V-type star $\beta$\,Pic (HD~39060, A6V, 19.3\,pc) is surrounded by a famous planetary system, which is a prime target for understanding planetary system formation and evolution. Since its discovery \citep{Smith:1984}, successive generations of telescopes have reported the detection of an edge-on debris disc with several distinctive features suggestive of a multiple-belt system \citep[][]{Telesco:2005}, star-grazing comets \citep[``falling evaporating bodies'',][]{Beust:1990}, circumstellar gas \citep[e.g.,][]{Hobbs:1985, Roberge:2006}, and a 9-M$_{\rm Jup}$ planetary companion orbiting at a projected distance of approximately 4.3\,AU \citep[][]{Lagrange:2009}. The existence of other planets seems likely \citep[][]{Freistetter:2007} and might explain several asymmetries identified in the debris disc, including a warp at $\sim$50~AU \citep{Mouillet:1997,Augereau:2001} inclined by $\sim$4$^\circ$ with respect to the outer disc \citep{Lagrange:2012a}.
Over the past few years, the close environment ($\lesssim$ a few AU) of $\beta$\,Pic has been the focus of several studies trying to detect a putative sub-stellar companion \citep[e.g.,][]{Absil:2010, Lagrange:2012b}. In this paper, we present high-accuracy H-band interferometric observations of \object{$\beta$~Pic} that were originally aimed at a deep search for faint companions in the inner disc but which revealed instead the presence of a more extended circumstellar emission. Using our spectrally dispersed measurements and revisiting archival K-band VLTI/VINCI measurements, we constrain the nature of this excess emission and discuss briefly its origin.
\section{Observations and data reduction}
Interferometric data were obtained with the PIONIER combiner \citep[][]{LeBouquin:2011} at the VLT interferometer on three different occasions (see Table~\ref{tab:data_overview}). The fringe measurements were dispersed over seven spectral channels across the H band (1.50 - 1.80\,$\mu$m) but in the following we discard the first spectral channel (1.50 - 1.55~$\mu$m) that is systematically of lower quality and not suitable for the high-precision visibility measurements required by our programme. Observations of $\beta$\,Pic were interleaved with observations of reference stars to calibrate the instrumental contribution in the observed quantities. Calibrators were chosen close to $\beta$\,Pic, in terms of both position and magnitude, from the catalogue of \cite{Merand:2005}. The total \textit{u-v} plane covered by the observations is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:uv-plane}.
Data were reduced and calibrated with the \texttt{pndrs} package \citep[][]{LeBouquin:2011}. We focus here on the squared visibilities ($\mathcal{V}^2$) to measure both the stellar angular diameter and search for circumstellar material. The final calibrated data set ($\mathcal{V}^2$) is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:globalfit}. The search for faint companions by means of a closure-phase analysis will be presented elsewhere (Lagrange et al.\ in prep).
\section{Data analysis}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\vspace{0.1cm}
\includegraphics[height=7cm]{uv_coord.eps}
\caption{Sampling of the Fourier (\textit{u,v}) plane obtained for the complete data set (one colour per spectral channel). The orientation of the outer disc midplane \citep[i.e., $29\fdg5$][]{Boccaletti:2009} is represented by the black dashed line.}
\label{fig:uv-plane}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!t]
\begin{center}
\caption{Overview of the data obtained with VLTI/PIONIER on $\beta$ Pic.}\label{tab:data_overview}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c}
\hline
\hline
ID & Date & Config. & Seeing & OB$^a$ & Calib.$^b$\\
\hline
A & 2010/12/04 & E0-G0-H0-I1 & 0.9'' & 2 & 3,4,5\\
B & 2010/12/20 & A0-G1-I1-K0 & 1.0'' & 5 & 1,2,3 \\
C & 2011/11/02 & D0-G1-H0-I1 & 0.9'' & 14 & 2,3,4 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\end{center}
{\scriptsize$^a$ An observing block consists in a single observation \citep[see more details in][]{LeBouquin:2011}}.\\
{\scriptsize$^b$ Calibrator stars correspond to (1) \object{HD\,34642} (K1IV), (2) \object{HD\,35765} (K1III), (3) \object{HD\,39640} (G8III), (4) \object{HD\,46365} (K3III), and (5) \object{HD\,223825} (G9III).}
\end{table}
The calibrated $\mathcal{V}^2$ were fitted to a range of models consisting of an oblate limb-darkened photosphere surrounded by a uniform emission (``disc'') filling the entire field-of-view of PIONIER on the auxiliary telescopes. Under typical seeing conditions, this field-of-view can be approximated by a Gaussian profile with a full width at half maximum of 400~mas \citep[][]{Absil:2011}, equivalent to 4~AU in radius at the distance of \object{$\beta$~Pic}. Our model is based on two free parameters, namely the limb-darkened angular diameter of the star and the disc/star contrast. The distortion of the photosphere produced by the rapid rotation \citep[\textit{v}~$\sin i$ = 130\,km/s,][]{Royer:2007} was considered to produce a realistic model of the star. Following the parametric approach of \cite{Absil:2008b}, the distorted photosphere was modeled by an ellipse with an oblateness of 1.038 and a rotation axis perpendicular to the outer disc midplane \citep[which has a position angle of $29\fdg5$,][]{Boccaletti:2009}. The $\mathcal{V}^2$ expected from the limb-darkened photosphere was then estimated according to \cite{Hanbury:1974} considering a linear limb-darkening H-band coefficient of 0.24 \citep[][]{Claret:1995}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=7.05cm]{beta_pic_base.eps}
\caption{Expected squared visibility of the limb darkened photosphere (blue solid line) as a function of the spatial frequency, along with the measured squared visibilities and related $1-\sigma$ error bars (one colour per wavelength). The thickness of the blue solid line corresponds to the 3-$\sigma$ error related to the uncertainty on the stellar diameter. The best-fit model is represented by the dotted blue line with the residuals of the fit given in the middle panel. It corresponds to a limb-darkened photosphere of 0.736 $\pm$ 0.015 $\pm$ 0.012~mas in diameter surrounded by a uniform circumstellar emission of 1.37 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.13\% in the H band. The bottom panel gives the residuals obtained by fitting only the stellar diameter (no circumstellar emission).}\label{fig:globalfit}
\end{figure}
To search for circumstellar material, we compared the measurements to the expected $\mathcal{V}^2$ of the stellar photosphere. The circumstellar emission then appears as a $\mathcal{V}^2$ deficit at short baseline lengths as detailed in \cite{Absil:2006b}. In this first approach, we assume that the disc/star contrast does not depend on the wavelength and fit all measurements simultaneously with this single parameter. We used the bootstrapping method to compute the statistical error bars on the stellar angular diameter and the disc/star contrast. Considering correlation between the baselines, the spectral channels, and the successive measurements of the same baseline, we found that correlations mostly occur between all spectral channels of the same measurement. Hence, we performed the bootstrapping by drawing all spectral channels together, which corresponds to 126 independent data sets out of our $6\times6\times21=726$ visibility measurements. We randomly produced 100 data sets from the original data and fitted them separately to our model. The standard deviation on the derived best-fit parameters then gave us reliable error bars. Finally, we considered an additional error to take the chromatic behaviour of the beam combiner and the different colours between \object{$\beta$~Pic} (A6V) and its calibrators (G8III to K4III) into account. Based on the spectral shape of the transfer function across the H band (maximum variation of 40\% over the entire band), we derived a maximum systematic error on the $\mathcal{V}^2$ of $\pm$0.2\% in a single spectral channel \citep[see more details in][]{Defrere:2011}. This value must be considered as very conservative since all other sources of systematic error are expected to be much smaller thanks to our optimised observing strategy, i.e. spectrally-dispersed observations obtained at various epochs on various configurations with different calibrators that are close to the science target in both magnitude and position.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{flushleft}
\includegraphics[height=6.5 cm]{beta_pic_chi2map_fit_ldm-ctr.eps}
\caption{Normalised $\chi^2$ map for a model of an oblate photosphere (mean limb-darkened angular diameter in horizontal axis) surrounded by a uniform disc filling the whole field-of-view (in relative flux, vertical axis). The diameter predicted by the surface-brightness relations is represented by the vertical lines and the position of the best-fit model by a white filled circle.}
\label{fig:chi2map}
\end{flushleft}
\end{figure}
Using the approach described above, we produced the normalised $\chi^2$ map shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2map} as a function of the mean\footnote{The mean angular diameter corresponds to the geometric mean of the minor and major axes of the elliptical photosphere.} angular diameter of the photosphere and of the H-band disc/star contrast. The two contours at 1 and 5-$\sigma$ indicate the parameter space that falls within the respective confidence levels taking the number of degrees of freedom in the $\chi^2$ distribution into account. In the present case, we assume that all spectral channels are fully correlated so that there are 21$\times$6 independent measurements and two parameters to fit, hence 124 degrees of freedom. Using the surface brightness relations \citep[SBR,][]{Kervella:2004d} over various wavelength bands (B, V, J, H, K), we derived a stellar angular diameter of $\theta_{\rm LD}= 0.712 \pm 0.010$\,mas. This value does not significantly depend on the chosen photometric bands, which is a good sign of robustness.
For a purely photospheric model, the best-fit diameter is 0.875 $\pm$ 0.011 $\pm$ 0.012~mas, where the second and the third terms represent the statistical and the systematic errors, respectively. This value is at more than 10-$\sigma$ from the one given by the SBR. Moreover, the $\mathcal{V}^2$ residuals show a systematic trend versus spatial frequencies (Fig.~\ref{fig:globalfit}, bottom panel). Now accounting for a possible excess emission, the best-fit model is obtained for a stellar diameter of 0.736 $\pm$ 0.015 $\pm$ 0.012~mas and a disc/star contrast of 1.37 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.13\%. The best-fit diameter is fully compatible with the one given by the SBR, and no other trend is seen in the residuals (Fig.~\ref{fig:globalfit}, middle panel). We conclude that our dataset unambiguously demonstrates the existence of an H-band circumstellar emission around \object{$\beta$~Pic} and in the field-of-view of PIONIER. This excess emission is repeatedly detected in each run with at least a 5-$\sigma$ confidence level and with compatible values within error bars. Using our best-fit angular diameter, we derived best-fit flux ratios of 1.48 $\pm$ 0.13 $\pm$ 0.17\% and 1.32 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.13\% by fitting the data of observing runs A\&B and C separately. This suggests that the excess emission was present and did not vary during the time covered by our observations, i.e. approximately one year.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6.4 cm]{beta_pic_flux_wav_fit.eps}
\caption{Best-fit resolved fluxes given as a function of wavelength, assuming that \object{$\beta$~Pic} emits as a blackbody of temperature 8200\,K. The solid lines give the flux expected from blackbody sources of various equilibrium temperatures and the optimum emitting surface area (computed by $\chi^2$ minimisation). The dashed line represents the flux from a blackbody source of 8200~K or, equivalently, from scattered stellar light ($\chi_r^2$=0.91). The K-band flux obtained from archival VLTI/VINCI measurements is shown for comparison but is not included in the fit (see more information in the main text).}\label{fig:fit_flux}
\end{figure}
Finally, we revisited the K-band $\mathcal{V}^2$ measurement obtained in 2002 with the VLTI/VINCI instrument. These observations used a single and relatively long baseline length ($\sim$92\,m), making it impossible to lift the degeneracy between the stellar diameter and a circumstellar emission \citep[see Fig.~7 in][]{difolco:2004}. By using our best-fit stellar angular diameter (i.e., 0.736 $\pm$ 0.015 $\pm$ 0.012~mas), we derived a best-fit K-band flux ratio of 0.76\% $\pm$ 0.49\%, which will be used in the following discussion.
\section{Constraining the resolved emission}\label{sec:modelling}
To constrain the origin of the resolved near-infrared emission, we first tried to fit the data with disc models of various geometries \citep[see similar analyses in ][]{Absil:2009,Defrere:2011}. This analysis provided only a constraint on the minimum spatial extent of the near-infrared excess emission zone, which must be resolved by PIONIER on all baseline lengths and orientations (i.e., further than $\sim$0.1\,AU from the star). Then, we fitted the data corresponding to each spectral channel separately, considering the procedure described in the previous section and the stellar angular diameter derived with all data (i.e., 0.736 $\pm$ 0.015 $\pm$ 0.012~mas). Given the low spectral resolution of PIONIER (R$\approx$40), we assumed that \object{$\beta$~Pic} emits as a blackbody of temperature 8200\,K and converted the dispersed best-fit contrasts into fluxes. The best-fit fluxes were then fitted to pure blackbody models of various temperatures as represented in Fig.~\ref{fig:fit_flux}. This figure shows that a relatively high temperature ($\gtrsim$1500\,K) is required to fit the data in a satisfactory way ($\chi^2_r<5$). Including the K-band best-fit flux in the fit would reinforce this statement, although this must be considered with care given the eight to nine years separation and the greater uncertainty of the K-band measurements. Models corresponding to temperatures in the range of 1500-2000\,K would suggest the presence of hot material in the field-of-view of PIONIER while higher temperature models would rather point towards the scattering of stellar light by circumstellar dust ($\sim$8200~K, $\chi_r^2$=0.91) or towards a binary companion ($\gtrsim$2000~K). The latter scenario can, however, be excluded with good confidence based on other studies \citep{Absil:2010,Lagrange:2012b} so it is not addressed in the following discussion.
\section{Discussion}
The most attractive scenario for explaining the wavelength-independent flux ratio across the H band is the scattering of stellar light in the outer debris disc ($\chi^2_r=0.91$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:fit_flux}). Since the disc is seen edge-on, a significant amount of stellar light could be forward- (or back-) scattered towards the interferometer field-of-view. To assess the validity of this scenario, we performed radiative transfer modelling with the \textit{GraTer} software \citep{Augereau:1999}. This software computes synthetic fluxes and images of dust discs in scattered light and thermal emission over various parameters for the dust composition and for the spatial and grain size distributions. It accounts for the spatial filtering of the interferometers and uses the Mie theory to self-consistently simulate anisotropic scattering depending on grain properties. Considering a wide range for the dust parameters, we produced disc models that fit well our dispersed H-band best-fit flux ratios, the K-band contrast computed from archival VLTI/VINCI measurements, and upper limits in the mid-infrared provided by single-dish telescopes \citep{Telesco:2005}. The results show that light scattered in the known debris disc might account for a significant part (up to 70\%) of the near-infrared excess flux, while producing a very good match to archival mid- to far-IR data through its thermal emission. This maximum value of 70\% must be considered as very conservative since the Mie theory tends to overestimate forward- and back-scattering owing to the spherical grain hypothesis. The spectral slope in the near-IR is reproduced well by this scenario, but additional hot circumstellar material must be present in the vicinity of \object{$\beta$~Pic} in order to account for the remainder of the measured H-band flux ratio.
The presence of hot material around \object{$\beta$~Pic} would not be a surprise and might have various origins, such as stellar wind (free-free emission), mass-loss events, hot gas, or hot exozodiacal dust. Stellar winds and mass-loss events can, however, be excluded with very good confidence since they are expected to be very weak in the case of A-type stars \citep[see discussion in][]{Absil:2008b}. Hot gas is likely to be present in the inner system \citep[$\lesssim$ a few AU,][]{Hobbs:1988} and must emit in the continuum in order to account for our measurements. Assuming that the gas is produced by evaporating comets and braked by a ring of neutral hydrogen located at about 0.5~AU, \citet[][]{Lagrange:1998} derived temperature estimates of 1500-2000\,K with a gas production rate of $\sim$$10^{-16}$ M$_\odot$/yr. The question is thus whether hot gas could accumulate in sufficient quantities to contribute (at least partially) to the detected near-infrared emission. This is, however, beyond the scope of this paper and will not be addressed here. A more likely scenario is the presence of hot exozodiacal dust as proposed for older A-type stars \citep[e.g.,][ Mennesson et al., submitted to ApJ]{Absil:2006b,Defrere:2011}. In the case of \object{$\beta$~Pic}, the hot dust in the inner region of the disc could be produced by comets (``falling evaporating bodies'') dynamically perturbed by one or several planets \citep[][Bonsor et al., submitted to A\&A]{Beust:1990}. More investigations are clearly needed to establish the most realistic scenario and, particularly, the balance between hot material and scattered light. This will be the subject of a forthcoming paper (Lebreton et al., in prep) that will include both near-infrared (H and K bands, this work) and mid-infrared (di Folco et al., in prep.) resolved observations.
\begin{acknowledgements}
DD, JBLB, JL, OA, JCA, and SE thank the French National Research Agency (ANR) for financial support through contract ANR-2010 BLAN-0505-01 (EXOZODI). DD acknowledges the support of EII (Fizeau programme). OA acknowledges the support from an F.R.S.-FNRS Postdoctoral Fellowship. PIONIER was originally funded by the Poles TUNES and SMING of Universit\'e Joseph Fourier (Grenoble) and subsequently supported by INSU-PNP and INSU-PNPS. The integrated optics beam combiner is the result of collaboration between IPAG and CEA-LETI based on CNES R\&T funding. The authors thank all the people involved in the VLTI project. We used the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) and the ``Centre de Donn\'ees astronomiques de Strasbourg'' (CDS).
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $F$ be a finite field of order $q$ which is a power of a prime integer;
and let $X$ be a finite set. By $FX$ we denote the $F$-vector space
with the basis $X$ and with the usual scalar product
as its standard inner product.
Any subspace $C$ of $FX$ is just the usual linear code over $F$.
In coding-theoretic notation, with respect to the standard inner product,
the orthogonal subspace $C^\bot$ of a linear code $C$
is called the {\em dual code} of $C$; and
$C$ is called a {\em self-orthogonal code} if $C\subseteq C^\bot$;
and $C$ is called a {\em self-dual code} if $C=C^\bot$.
If $X$ is a group, then $FX$ is an algebra with multiplication
induced by the multiplication of the group $X$,
which is called the group algebra of the group $X$ over $F$;
and any left ideal $C$ of $FX$ is said to be a {\em group code}.
It is an interesting question to find conditions such that a group algebra
has a self-dual group codes. More generally, this question can be extended
to the group algebras over finite rings.
In \cite{R}, finite abelian groups are considered and some results on
the non-existence of self-dual group codes are shown.
For the direct product of a finite $2$-group and a finite $2'$-group,
reference \cite{Hug} showed when the self-dual group codes do not exist.
Using the representation theory of finite groups,
for group algebras over finite Galois rings
reference \cite{Wi} gave a complete answer for this question.
In particular, it is an easy conclusion that there is no self-dual
code for finite groups of odd order.
Thus it is reasonable to consider the self-dual
extended group codes for finite groups of odd order.
And \cite{MW} obtained some interesting conditions for the existence
of such self-dual codes in characteristic $2$:
one is from the point of view of self-dual modules,
another one is an elementary number-theoretical condition;
and \cite{MW} also showed some constructions of such codes.
Extending group codes, \cite{FY} discussed the so-called
{\em permutation codes} of finite groups.
If $G$ is a finite group and $X$ is a finite $G$-set, then
$FX$ is called a {\em permutation $FG$-module},
which has the standard inner product with respect to the basis $X$;
any $FG$-submodule $C$ of $FX$ is said to be an {\em $FG$-permutation code}.
If $X$ is a transitive $G$-set, the permutation cades of $FX$
is called {\em transitive permutation codes}.
View the base set of the group $G$ as a left regular $G$-set,
then the group codes are just the permutation codes of $FG$.
Some important codes are permutation codes in natural ways,
but may not be group codes; e.g. the so-called {\em multiple-cyclic codes};
see \cite{FY} for details. Moreover,
the research of permutation codes is of interests
from the point of view of automorphism groups of linear codes, for:
any permutation automorphism of a linear code is just a permutation
of the standard basis of the linear code.
In \cite{FY} some conditions are obtained for the non-existence of the self-dual
transitive permutation codes of finite groups.
And it is also an easy conclusion that there is no self-dual
transitive permutation code for finite groups of odd order.
In this paper we discuss the existence and construction of
self-dual permutation codes for the semisimple case.
The outline is as follows.
{\em Throughout the paper}, $F$ denotes a finite field of order $q$,
and $G$ denotes a finite group of order coprime to $q$,
and any $FG$-module is finite-dimensional.
In \S2, we first make observations on the related module-theoretical aspects,
and then turn to the permutation codes.
Since $FG$ is a semisimple algebra (Maschke's theorem),
any $FG$-module $V$ is decomposed into a direct sum
of irreducible $FG$-modules with
the collection of the irreducible summands
is unique determined up to isomorphism;
any irreducible $FG$-module $W$ which appears in the direct sum is called a
{\em composition factor} of $V$, and the number of the direct summands which
are isomorphic to $W$ is called the {\em multiplicity} of $W$ in $V$.
The dual space $V^*:={\rm Hom}_F(V,F)$ consisting of all the linear form
of $V$ is an $FG$-module with $G$-action:
$(g\varphi)(v)=\varphi(g^{-1}v)$, $\forall$
$g\in G$, $\varphi\in{\rm Hom}_F(V,F)$, $v\in V$.
We call $V$ a {\em self-dual $FG$-module} if $V\cong V^*$.
So, ``self-dual module'' and ``self-dual code'' are different concepts.
After the module-theoretical results which we need are obtained,
we turn to coding-theoretical notation, and show that,
for even $q$ and odd $|G|$, an $FG$-permutation module $FX$
has self-dual permutation codes if and only if
any self-dual composition factor of the $FG$-module $FX$
has even multiplicity.
For odd $q$, only a sufficient condition is obtained.
In \S3, we discuss transitive permutation codes, i.e.
codes of an permutation module $FX$ with a transitive $G$-set $X$.
We first reduce the existence of the so-called self-dual
{\em extended transitive permutation codes} to the
existence of such transitive permutation codes $C$ of $FX$
that $C^\bot=C\oplus F$.
And we show that, for a transitive $G$-set $X$ with length $n=|X|$,
if the integer $q$ as an element of the multiplicative group ${\Bbb Z}_n^\times$
has odd order, then there is a permutation code $C$ of $FX$ such that
$C^\bot=C\oplus F$.
It is easy to see that this elementary number-theoretical condition
is similar to that in \cite{MW}. However,
the situation of transitive permutation codes
is more delicate than that of group codes,
so that we take a way different from \cite{MW} to treat our cases;
and we obtained no necessary and sufficient conditions,
though some more results are shown in \S3 which seem interesting.
\section{Self-dual modules and self-dual codes}
We adopt the usual notation about linear forms, bilinear forms etc.
from the usual linear algebra.
A bilinear form $f(-,-)$ on an $FG$-module $V$
is said to be {\em $G$-invariant} if
$$
f\big(g(u),\,g(v)\big)=f(u,\,v)\,,\qquad\forall~ u,v\in V\,.
$$
Let $V$ be an $FG$-module with a $G$-invariant
non-degenerate bilinear form $\langle-,-\rangle$.
Let $U$, $W$ be submodules of $V$. Denote
$$
{\rm Ann}^l_W(U)=\{w\in W\mid\langle w,u\rangle=0,~\forall~u\in U\}\,,
$$
$$
{\rm Ann}^r_W(U)=\{w\in W\mid\langle u,w\rangle=0,~\forall~u\in U\}\,;
$$
in particular, denote $U^\bot={\rm Ann}^r_V(U)$ and
${^\bot U}={\rm Ann}^l_V(U)$.
From the $G$-invariancy of $\langle-,-\rangle$, it is easy to see that
${\rm Ann}^l_W(U)$ and ${\rm Ann}^r_W(U)$ are $FG$-submodules.
Note that ${\rm Ann}^l_W(U)={\rm Ann}^r_W(U)$
and ${^\bot U}=U^\bot$ once $\langle-,-\rangle$ is symmetric.
For any $v_0\in V$ we have the linear form
$\langle-, v_0\rangle: V\to F$, $v\mapsto \langle v,v_0\rangle$;
and restricting it to $U$, we have the linear form
$\langle -,v_0\rangle|_U$ on $U$ and it is easy to check that
\begin{equation}\label{V to U*}
V\longrightarrow U^*,\quad v_0\longmapsto \langle -,v_0\rangle|_{U}
\end{equation}
is a surjective $FG$-homomorphism with kernel $U^\bot$;
thus we have an exact sequence of $FG$-homomorphisms:
\begin{equation}\label{UU* exact}
0~\longrightarrow~U^\bot~\longrightarrow~V
~\longrightarrow~ U^* ~\longrightarrow~ 0\;;
\end{equation}
in particular, $\dim V=\dim U+\dim U^\bot$ because $\dim U=\dim U^*$.
Restricting the bilinear form $\langle-,-\rangle$ to the $FG$-submodule $U$,
we get a $G$-invariant symmetric bilinear form on $U$.
If the restricted bilinear form on $U$ is non-degenerate (equivalently,
${\rm Ann}^r_U(U)=U\cap U^\bot =0$),
we say that $U$ is a {\em non-degenerate submodule}.
On the other hand, if the restricted bilinear form on $U$ is zero
(equivalently, $U\subseteq U^\bot$),
we say, in module-theoretical notation,
that $U$ is an {\em isotropic submodule}.
\smallskip
Recall that any $FG$-module $V$ is written into a direct sum
of irreducible modules, and the irreducible direct summands
are partitioned by isomorphism, hence
$V=V_1\oplus\cdots\oplus V_h$, with every $V_i$ consisting of
the irreducible direct summands which are isomorphic
to one and the same irreducible module $W_i$,
but $V_i$ and $V_j$ for $i\ne j$ have no composition factors in common;
thus $V_i\cong m_iW_i$ with $m_i$ being the multiplicity of $W_i$ in $V$,
and $V_i$ is called the {\em homogeneous component} of $V$
associated with the irreducible module $W_i$,
and $V=V_1\oplus\cdots\oplus V_h$ is
called the {\em canonical decomposition} (or {\em homogeneous decomposition})
of $V$, see \cite[\S2.6]{S};
the canonical decomposition of $V$ is unique,
so that for any submodule $U$ of $V$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{canonical decomposition}
U=(U\cap V_1)\oplus\cdots\oplus(U\cap V_h)\,.
\end{equation}
\smallskip\noindent{\bf Lemma 1.}\quad\it Let $V$ be an $FG$-module
with a $G$-invariant non-degenerate bilinear form;
and $U$ be an $FG$-submodule.
(1)\quad If $U$ is non-degenerate
then $U$ is an self-dual $FG$-module.
(2)\quad If $U$ is irreducible,
then $U$ is either non-degenerate or isotropic.
(3)\quad If $U$ is a homogeneous component associated
with an irreducible module $W$, then
$W$ is self-dual if and only if $U$ is non-degenerate.
$W$ is not self-dual if and only if $U$ is isotropic.
\rm
\smallskip{\bf Proof.}\quad
(1).\quad The non-degeneracy of $U$ implies
$U\cap U^\bot=0$; thus from that $\dim V=\dim U+\dim U^\bot$ we get
$V=U^\bot\oplus U$, and it follows from the exact sequence (\ref{UU* exact})
that $U\cong V/U^\bot\cong U^*$.
(2).\quad Because $U\cap U^\bot$ is an $FG$-submodule of $U$,
the irreducibility of $U$ implies that
either $U\cap U^\bot=0$ or $U\cap U^\bot=U$.
(3).\quad From the exact sequence (\ref{UU* exact}) and the semi-simplicity,
we have that $V=U^\bot\oplus U'$ with $U'\cong U^*$.
Since $FG$ is an Frobenius algebra,
it is known (e.g. see \cite{Wo})
that the dual modules of all the composition factors of $U$ are just
all the composition factors of $U^*$. Thus $U'$ is a homogeneous component too.
Thus the conclusions follows from the uniqueness of the
homogeneous decomposition.
\smallskip{\bf Remark.}\quad
It is well-known that
``there is a $G$-invariant non-degenerate bilinear form
on a $FG$-module $V$ if and only if $V$ is a self-dual $FG$-module''.
The necessity is a special case of Lemma 1(1);
and the sufficiency follows that, with an $FG$-isomorphism $\alpha: V\to V^*$,
the composition map
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}
V\times V &\longrightarrow& V^*\times V &\longrightarrow & F\,,\\
(v,v') &\longmapsto& (\alpha(v),\;v') & \longmapsto& \alpha(v)(v')\,.
\end{array}
$$
is a $G$-invariant non-degenerate bilinear form on $V$.
For more details, please see \cite[Ch.VII, \S8]{HB}.
\smallskip\noindent{\bf Lemma 2.}\quad\it Let
$V$ be an $FG$-module with a $G$-invariant non-degenerate
symmetric bilinear form;
let $U$ be an isotropic $FG$-submodule of $V$.
Then the following are equivalent:
(i)\quad $U^\bot=U$;
(ii)\quad $\dim U = \dim V/2$;
(iii)\quad the collection of the composition factors of $U$
and the dual modules of the composition factors of $U$
is the collection of the composition factors of $V$.
\smallskip\rm
{\bf Proof.}\quad
(i) $\Leftrightarrow$ (ii) is obvious
since $\dim V= \dim U^\bot+\dim U$.
(i) $\Leftrightarrow$ (iii). Similar to the proof for Lemma 1(3),
$V=U^\bot\oplus U'$ with $U'\cong U^*$;
but now $U\subseteq U^\bot$ by hypothesis,
so the equivalence is obvious.
Recall from the usual linear algebra that, for an $FG$-module $V$,
any bilinear form $f$ on $V$ corresponds to exactly one
linear form $\bar f$ on the tensor product space $V\otimes_F V$:
$\bar f(v\otimes v')=f(v,v')$; in other words, the dual space
$(V\otimes_F V)^*$ is identified
with the space of all the bilinear forms on $V$.
As usually, $V\otimes_F V$ is an $FG$-module by diagonal action of $G$,
hence $(V\otimes_F V)^*$ is also an $FG$-module by diagonal action of $G$;
and the space of all the $G$-invariant bilinear forms
is identified with the subspace of all the $G$-fixed points
of $(V\otimes_F V)^*$, denoted by $((V\otimes_F V)^*)^G$.
On the other hand, $G$ acts on the space ${\rm Hom}_F(V,V)$ of all the
linear transformations of $V$ in the following way:
$$(g\alpha)(v)=g(\alpha(g^{-1}v)\,,\qquad
\forall~ g\in G,~ \alpha\in{\rm Hom}(V,V),~v\in V\,;$$
and the subspace ${\rm Hom}_{FG}(V,V)$ of all the $FG$-endomorphisms of $V$
is just the set of all the $G$-fixed points of ${\rm Hom}_F(V,V)$.
\smallskip\noindent{\bf Lemma 3.}\quad\it
Let $V$ be an $FG$-module with a $G$-invariant
non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form $\langle-,-\rangle$.
For any linear transformation $\alpha\in{\rm Hom}_F(V,V)$ define
$$
\varphi_\alpha(u,\, v)=\langle\alpha(u),\, v\rangle\,,\qquad\forall~
u,v\in V\,.
$$
Then $\varphi_\alpha$ is a bilinear form on $V$, and
$$
\varphi:\quad {\rm Hom}_F(V,V)~\longrightarrow~ (V\otimes_F V)^*,\quad
\alpha\longmapsto\varphi_\alpha\,.
$$
is an $FG$-isomorphism, and:
(1)\quad $\varphi_\alpha$ is $G$-invariant
if and only if $\alpha$ is an $FG$-endomorphism;
(2)\quad $\varphi_\alpha$ is non-degenerate
if and only if $\alpha$ is a non-degenerate transformation;
(3)\quad $\varphi_\alpha$ is a symmetric
if and only if $\alpha$ is a symmetric transformation.\smallskip\rm
{\bf Proof.}\quad
It is easy to check that $\varphi_\alpha$ is a bilinear form on $V$,
and that $\varphi$ is a linear map;
and that $\varphi$ is injective because $\langle-,-\rangle$
is non-degenerate, hence $\varphi$ is bijective since
$\dim {\rm Hom}_F(V,V)=\dim(V\otimes_F V)^*$.
Next, for any $g\in G$, any $\alpha\in{\rm Hom}_F(V,V)$,
and any $u,v\in V$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\varphi_{g\alpha}(u\otimes v)&=&\langle(g\alpha)(u),\,v\rangle
=\langle g\alpha(g^{-1}u),\,v\rangle=\langle \alpha(g^{-1}u),\,g^{-1}v\rangle\\
&=&\varphi_\alpha(g^{-1}u\otimes g^{-1}v)=\varphi_\alpha(g^{-1}(u\otimes v))
=(g\varphi_\alpha)(u\otimes v)\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
So $\varphi$ is an $FG$-isomorphism. Hence we have the following isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{Hom-Tensor}
{\rm Hom}_{FG}(V,V)~\buildrel\cong\over\longrightarrow~((V\otimes_F V)^*)^G,
\quad \alpha~\longmapsto~\varphi_\alpha\,;
\end{equation}
that is, (1) holds. The (2) and (3) can be verified straightforwardly.
\smallskip
Let $V$ and $V'$ be $FG$-modules equipped with $G$-invariant bilinear forms
$f$ and $f'$ respectively. We say that an $FG$-homomorphism
$\alpha: V\to V'$ is compatible with the bilinear forms $f$ and $f'$ if
$f'(\alpha(u),\,\alpha(v))=f(u,\,v)$ for all $u,v\in V$.
If $f$ is a non-degenerate bilinear form on $V$, then
any $FG$-homomorphism $\alpha: V\to V'$
which is compatible with $f$ and $f'$ must be injective; for:
$\alpha(u)=0$ implies that for any $v\in V$ we have
that $f(u,\,v)=f'(\alpha(u),\,\alpha(v))=f'(0,\,\alpha(v))=0$,
hence $u=0$ by the non-degeneracy of the form $f$.
\smallskip\noindent{\bf Lemma 4.}\quad\it
Assume that $q$ is even, and $V$ is a
self-dual irreducible $FG$-module.
If both $f$ and $f'$ are $G$-invariant non-degenerate symmetric bilinear
forms on $V$, then there is an $FG$-automorphism
$\beta: V\to V$ which is compatible with $f$ and $f'$. \smallskip\rm
{\bf Proof.}\quad
Apply the isomorphism (\ref{Hom-Tensor})
to the $FG$-module $V$ with the $G$-invariant
non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form $f$.
Since $V$ is irreducible, by the Schur's lemma,
$\tilde F:={\rm Hom}_{FG}(V,V)$ is a finite dimensional division $F$-algebra,
hence $\tilde F$ is a field extension of $F$ as it is finite.
By the commutativity of $\tilde F$, it is easy to check that
the sum and the product of any two symmetric transformations in $\tilde F$
are still symmetric transformations, so
all the symmetric transformations in $\tilde F$ form a
subfield $\hat F$ of $\tilde F$.
By Lemma 3, for the $G$-invariant non-degenerate symmetric
bilinear form $f'$, there is an $\alpha\in\hat F-\{0\}$ such that
$$ f'(u,v)=\varphi_\alpha(u,v)=f\big(\alpha(u),v\big)\,,\qquad
\forall~ u,v\in V\,.$$
Since $\hat F$ is a finite field of characteristic $2$,
the map $\hat F\to\hat F$, $\lambda\mapsto\lambda^2$,
is an automorphism of $\hat F$.
So there is a $\beta\in\hat F$ such that $\beta^2=\alpha^{-1}$.
Then $\beta:V\to V$ is an $FG$-automorphism of $V$ and
a symmetric transformation with respect to the bilinear form $f$;
and, noting that $\alpha\beta=\beta\alpha$,
for any $u,v\in V$ we have
$$
f'\big(\beta(u),\,\beta(v)\big)=f\big(\alpha(\beta(u)),\,\beta(v)\big)
=f\big((\beta\alpha\beta)(u)),\,v\big)=f\big(u,\,v\big)\,.
$$
That is, $\beta$ is compatible with the bilinear form $f$ and $f'$.
\smallskip\noindent{\bf Theorem 1.}\quad\it
Let $F$ be a finite field of characteristic $2$
and $G$ be a finite group of odd order.
Let $V$ be an $FG$-module with
a $G$-invariant non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form.
Then the following are equivalent:
(i)\quad every self-dual composition factor of $V$
has even multiplicity;
(ii)\quad there is an $FG$-submodule $U$ of $V$ such that $U^\bot=U$.
\smallskip\rm
{\bf Proof.}\quad We denote $\langle-,-\rangle$ for the
$G$-invariant non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form on $V$.
(ii) $\Rightarrow$ (i).\quad
This is an easy consequence of Lemma 2 (i)$\Rightarrow$(iii).
(i) $\Rightarrow$ (ii).\quad
Let $W$ be an irreducible $FG$-submodule of $V$.
Case 1: $W\subseteq W^\bot$.
By the exact sequence (\ref{UU* exact}),
we have a submodule $W'$ of $V$ such that
$V=W^\bot\oplus W'$ and the homomorphism (\ref{V to U*}) induces
an isomorphism
$$ W'~\buildrel\cong\over\longrightarrow~ W^*,\quad
w'\longmapsto\langle w',-\rangle|_{W}\,. $$
Therefore, the matrix of the symmetric bilinear form
$\langle-,-\rangle|_{W'\oplus W}$ restricted to $W'\oplus W$
is as follows
$$
\pmatrix{0 & A\cr A^T &*}
$$
where $A$ is the matrix of the bilinear form
$W'\times W\to F$, $(w',w)\mapsto \langle w',w\rangle$
and $A^T$ denotes the transpose of $A$;
so $A$ is invertible, and
hence $W'\oplus W$ is a non-degenerate submodule of $V$.
Then
$$ V=(W'\oplus W)\oplus(W'\oplus W)^\bot$$
and $(W'\oplus W)^\bot$ is also non-degenerate submodule.
If $W$ is not a self-dual module, then $W'\cong W^*$ is not self-dual,
and hence $(W'\oplus W)^\bot$ also satisfies the condition (i).
Otherwise, $W$ is a self-dual module,
and $W'\cong W^*\cong W$ is a self-dual module too,
hence $(W'\oplus W)^\bot$ still satisfies the condition (i).
In a word, by induction, there is a submodule $S$ of
$(W'\oplus W)^\bot$ such that ${\rm Ann}_{(W'\oplus W)^\bot}(S)=S$.
Take $U=W\oplus S$; then it is easy to check
that $U^\bot =U$ and (ii) holds.
\smallskip
Case 2: $W\not\subseteq W^\bot$.
Then $W$ is non-degenerate, i.e. $V=W\oplus W^\bot$,
and $W$ is a self-dual module, see Lemma 1(2).
By the condition (i),
there is a direct decomposition $W^\bot=\tilde W\oplus U$
such that $\tilde W\cong W$, and $V=W\oplus \tilde W\oplus U$.
If $\tilde W\subseteq \tilde W^\bot$,
then it is reduced to Case 1 and the (ii) holds by induction.
So we assume that $\tilde W\not\subseteq \tilde W^\bot$,
and hence $\tilde W$ is also non-degenerate.
Since $W\bot\tilde W$,
the submodule $W\oplus\tilde W$ is non-degenerate too.
Let $f$ and $\tilde f$ denote the restrictions of $\langle-,-\rangle$
on $W$ and on $\tilde W$ respectively; so $f$ and $\tilde f$
are $G$-invariant non-degenerate symmetric bilinear forms on
$W$ and $\tilde W$ respectively.
Let $\alpha: W\to\tilde W$ be an $FG$-isomorphism.
Then $\alpha$ induces a $G$-invariant non-degenerate symmetric bilinear
form $f'$ on $W$ as follows:
$$ f'(u,w):=\tilde f\big(\alpha(u),\,\alpha(w)\big)\,,\qquad
\forall~u,w\in W\,.
$$
By Lemma 4, there is an $FG$-automorphism
$\beta: W\to W$ which is compatible with $f$ and $f'$, i.e.
$$
f'\big(\beta(u),\,\beta(w)\big)=f(u,\,w)\,,\qquad
\forall~ u,w\in W\,.
$$
Let $\gamma=\alpha\beta$.
Then $\gamma: W\to\tilde W$ is an $FG$-isomorphism, and
for any $u,w\in W$ we have
$$
\tilde f\big(\gamma(u),\,\gamma(w)\big)
=\tilde f\big(\alpha(\beta(u)),\,\alpha(\beta(w))\big)
=f'\big(\beta(u),\,\beta(w)\big)=f(u,\,w)\,;
$$
that is, $\gamma$ is an $FG$-isomorphism compatible with
the bilinear forms $f$ and $\tilde f$. Let
$$ W'=\{w+\gamma(w)\mid w\in W\}\subseteq W\oplus \tilde W\,. $$
It is a routine to check that $W'$ is a submodule and $W'\cong W$;
but, noting that $W\bot \tilde W$ and ${\rm char}\,F=2$,
for any $u+\gamma(u)\in W'$ and $w+\gamma(w)\in W'$ with $u,w\in W$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big\langle u+\gamma(u),\;w+\gamma(w)\big\rangle &=&
\big\langle u,\,w\big\rangle +\big\langle\gamma(u),\,\gamma(w)\big\rangle\\
&=&f(u,\,w)+\tilde f\big(\gamma(u),\,\gamma(w)\big)\\
&=&f(u,\,w)+f(u,\,w)=0\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
So $W'\cong W$ is an irreducible $FG$-submodule of $V$
and $W'\subseteq W'^\bot$, and it is reduced to the Case 1 and
(ii) holds by induction again.
\smallskip{\bf Remark.}\quad In the proof of Theorem 1,
Lemma 4 is quoted only in Case 2 where $W$ and $\tilde W$ are
self-dual composition factors of $V$. Thus, as a consequence of the proof,
we have the following conclusion.
\smallskip\noindent{\bf Proposition 1.}\quad\it
Let $G$ be a finite group of order coprime to the
characteristic (not necessary $2$) of the finite field $F$,
and $V$ be an $FG$-module with a $G$-invariant non-degenerate
symmetric bilinear form. If $V$ has no self-dual composition factor,
then $V$ has a submodule $U$ such that $U^\bot =U$.\rm
\smallskip
Now we turn to permutation codes.
Let $X$ be a finite set;
by ${\rm Sym}(X)$ we denote the group of all the permutations of $X$.
If there is a group homomorphism $G\to{\rm Sym}(X)$,
then $X$ is called a {\em $G$-set}. In that case,
any $g\in G$ is mapped to a permutation: $X\to X$, $x\mapsto gx$.
Hence, $(gg')x=g(g'x)$ for all $g,g'\in G$ and $x\in X$;
and $1x=x$ for all $x\in X$.
Let $FX=\{\,\sum_{x\in X} a_x\,x\;|\;a_x\in F\;\}$
be the vector space over $F$ with basis $X$.
Extending the $G$-action on $X$ linearly, $FX$ becomes
an $FG$-module, called an {\em $FG$-permutation module}
with permutation basis $X$, please cf. \cite[\S12]{A}.
We say that $C$ is an {\em $FG$-permutation code} of $FX$,
denoted by $C\le FX$, if $C$ is an $FG$-submodule
of the $FG$-permutation module $ FX$; and
a permutation code $C$ is said to be {\em irreducible}
if $C$ is an irreducible $FG$-submodule of $FX$.
Further, if $X$ is a transitive $G$-set, then any
$FG$-permutation code $C$ of $FX$ is said to be a
{\em transitive permutation code}.
Recall that, for a linear code $C$ of length $n$ over $F$,
a permutation of the components of a word of length $n$ is said to be a
{\em permutation automorphism} of $C$ if the permutation keeps every code word
of $C$ still a code word. By ${\rm PAut}(C)$ we
denote the automorphism group of $C$ consisting of all
the permutation automorphisms of $C$.
It is easy to see that $C$ is an $FG$-permutation code
of a $G$-permutation set $X$ of cardinality $n$
if and only if there is a group homomorphism of $G$ to
${\rm PAut}(C)$.
There is a so-called scalar product of any two words of $FX$ as follows:
$$
\left\langle \mb w,\;\mb w' \right\rangle
= \sum_{x\in X}w_xw'_x\;,
\quad \forall~ \mb w=\sum_{x\in X} w_x x,\;
\mb w'=\sum_{x\in X} w'_x x\in FX\;,
$$
which is obvious a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form on $FX$,
we call it the {\em standard inner product} on $FX$
with respect to the permutation basis $X$.
Moreover, the standard inner product is $G$-invariant, since
for any $g\in G$ and any words $\mb w=\sum_{x\in X} w_x x$ and
$\mb w'=\sum_{x\in X} w'_x x$ of $FX$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle g(\mb w),\,g(\mb w')\rangle&=&
\left\langle g\Big(\sum_{x\in X} w_x x\Big),\,
g\Big(\sum_{x\in X} w'_x x\Big)\right\rangle \\
&=& \left\langle \sum_{x\in X} w_x(gx),\,
\sum_{x\in X} w'_x(gx)\right\rangle = \sum_{x\in X} w_xw'_x\\
&=& \langle\mb w,\,\mb w'\rangle\;;
\end{eqnarray*}
equivalently,
$$
\langle g(\mb w),\,\mb w'\rangle=\langle\mb w,\,g^{-1}(\mb w')\rangle\;,\qquad
\forall\;g\in G\,,\;\forall\;\mb w,\mb w'\in FX\;.
$$
Thus, $FX$ is a self-dual $FG$-module.
In fact, we can make the duality more precisely.
Just like the formula (\ref{V to U*}),
the standard inner product induces an isomorphism
$$
FX~\buildrel\cong\over\longrightarrow~(FX)^*\,,\quad
\mb u~\longmapsto~ \mb u^*:=\langle\mb u,-\rangle~,
$$
where
$$
\mb u^*:\quad FX\longrightarrow F\,,\quad
\mb w\longmapsto \mb u^*(\mb w)=\langle\mb u,\mb w\rangle~;
$$
and
$$
X^*:=\{x^*\mid x\in X\}
$$
is a $G$-set with $G$-action
$$
g(x^*)=(g^{-1}x)^*\,,\qquad\forall~ g\in G\,,~ x^*\in X^*~,
$$
such that $(FX)^*$ is an $FG$-permutation module of the $G$-set $X^*$,
and $\mb u\mapsto \mb u^*$ is a permutation isomorphism.
\smallskip Let $FX$ be an $FG$-permutation module.
For any permutation code $C$ of $FX$, since $C$ is an $FG$-submodule,
$C^\bot=\{\mb w\in FX\mid \langle\mb c,\,\mb w\rangle=0\,,
\;\forall\; \mb c\in C\}$
is an $FG$-submodule again, i.e. $C^\bot$ is a permutation code again.
In coding-theoretical notation,
$C^\bot$ is said to be the {\em dual permutation code} of $C$.
An $FG$-permutation code $C\le FX$ is said to be
{\em self-orthogonal} if $C\subseteq C^\bot$.
And a permutation code $C\le FX$ is said to be
{\em self-dual} if $C=C^\bot$.
With the coding-theoretical notation introduced above,
from Theorem 1 and Proposition 1, we have the following results at once.
\smallskip\noindent{\bf Theorem 2.}\quad\it
Let $F$ be a finite field of characteristic $2$,
and $G$ be a finite group of odd order, and $X$ be a finite $G$-set.
Then the following are equivalent:
(i)\quad every self-dual composition factor of $FX$ has even multiplicity;
(ii)\quad there is a self-dual $FG$-permutation code $C$ of $FX$.
\smallskip\rm
\smallskip\noindent{\bf Proposition 2.}\quad\it
Let $G$ be a finite group of order coprime to the
characteristic (not necessary $2$) of the field $F$,
and $X$ be a finite $G$-set.
If $FX$ has no self-dual composition factor,
then there is a self-dual $FG$-permutation code of $FX$.\rm
\section{Self-dual extended\\ transitive permutation codes}
If a $G$-set $X=\{x_0\}$ contains of only one element,
then $X$ is said to be the trivial $G$-set
and the permutation module $FX\cong F$ is just the {\em trivial $FG$-module},
which is obviously a self-dual module.
An elementary known fact is that, in the semisimple case,
for any transitive $G$-set $X$ the trivial $FG$-module $F$
is a composition factor of multiplicity $1$
of the $FG$-permutation module $FX$;
e.g. see \cite[Lemma 1]{FY}; we denote the
unique trivial submodule of $FX$ by $F$ if there is no confusion,
thus $FX=F\oplus F^\bot$. By Theorem 1, $FX$ has no self-dual codes.
Let $X$ be a transitive $G$-set. Let $\hat X=X\bigcup\{x_0\}$ be the
disjoint union of $X$ with a trivial $G$-set $\{x_0\}$, i.e. $x_0\notin X$.
Then $F\hat X=FX\oplus Fx_0$,
and any permutation code $C$ of $F\hat X$ is said to be
an {\em extended transitive permutation code} of $FX$.
\smallskip\noindent{\bf Lemma 5.}\quad\it Notation as above, and let
$n=|X|$. The following are equivalent:
(i)\quad there is a permutation code $C$ of $FX$ such that
$C^\bot=C\oplus F$ and, as an element of the field $F$,
$-n$ has a square root in $F$;
(ii)\quad there is a self-dual permutation code $\hat C$ of $F\hat X$.
\rm
{\bf Proof.}\quad Let $e=\sum_{x\in X}x$;
then $Fe$ is the unique submodule of $FX$ which is isomorphic to $F$,
so $Fx_0\oplus Fe$ is the homogeneous component of $F\hat X$ associated with
the trivial module $F$.
Noting that $Fx_0\bot Fe$ and $\langle x_0,x_0\rangle =1$ and
$\langle e,\,e\rangle =n\ne 0$
(because $n\,\big|\,|G|$ which is coprime to $q=|F|$),
we see that $Fx_0\oplus Fe$ is a non-degenerate submodule of $F\hat X$.
Thus
$$ F\hat X = (Fx_0\oplus Fe)\oplus (Fx_0\oplus Fe)^\bot $$
and
$$(Fx_0\oplus Fe)^\bot=(Fx_0)^\bot\cap(Fe)^\bot=FX\cap(Fe)^\bot
={\rm Ann}_{FX}(Fe)\,.$$
(ii) $\Rightarrow$ (i).\quad
By the formula (\ref{canonical decomposition}) we have
$$
\hat C=\big(\hat C\cap(Fx_0\oplus Fe)\big)
\oplus\big(\hat C\cap {\rm Ann}_{FX}(Fe)\big).
$$
From the condition (ii) that $\hat C^\bot =\hat C$, by Lemma 2(ii), we have
$$
\dim\big(\hat C\cap(Fx_0\oplus Fe)\big)=1\,,\qquad
\dim\big(\hat C\cap {\rm Ann}_{FX}(Fe)\big)=\frac{n-1}{2}\,.
$$
Set $C=\hat C\cap {\rm Ann}_{FX}(Fe)$; it is easy to check
that, $C$ is a permutation code of $FX$ and $C^\bot=C\oplus Fe$ in $FX$.
On the other hand, for $C\cap(Fx_0\oplus Fe)$ which is a one-dimensional subspace,
we assume that $\lambda\in F$ such that
$$
\hat C\cap(Fx_0\oplus Fe)=F\cdot(\lambda x_0+e)\,;
$$
then $\langle \lambda x_0+e,\;\lambda x_0+e\rangle=0$;
i.e.
$$
0=\langle \lambda x_0,\;\lambda x_0\rangle
+\langle e,\,e\rangle=\lambda^2+n\,;
$$
that is, $\lambda^2=-n$.
(i) $\Rightarrow$ (ii).\quad In $FX$, since $\dim C+\dim C^\bot =n$,
from the condition that $C^\bot=C\oplus Fe$
we have that $\dim C=\frac{n-1}{2}$.
Turn to $F\hat X$, set $\lambda\in F$ such that $\lambda^2=-n$
and $\hat C:=F\cdot(\lambda x_0+e)\oplus C$;
as shown above, the $1$-dimensional submodule $F\cdot(\lambda x_0+e)$
of $Fx_0\oplus Fe$ is isotropic,
hence $\hat C$ is an isotropic submodule.
But $\dim\hat C=\frac{n+1}{2}$; and by Lemma 2,
$\hat C$ is a self-dual permutation code of $F\hat X$.
\smallskip{\bf Remark.}\quad
In the above lemma, the condition ``$-n$ has a square root in $F$'' in (i)
always satisfies for characteristic $2$.
\smallskip
For any positive integer $n$ we denote ${\Bbb Z}_n$ the
residue ring of the integer ring ${\Bbb Z}$ modulo $n$, and denote
${\Bbb Z}_n^\times$ the multiplicity group consisting of all
the invertible elements of ${\Bbb Z}_n$.
So $q$ is considered as an element of ${\Bbb Z}_n^\times$,
and we can speak of the order of $q$ in the group ${\Bbb Z}_n^\times$.
\smallskip\noindent{\bf Lemma 6.}\quad\it Let $n$ be an odd
integer coprime to $q$. The following are equivalent:
(i)\quad The order of $q$ in ${\Bbb Z}_n^\times$ is odd.
(ii)\quad For any prime $p|n$
the order of $q$ in ${\Bbb Z}_p^\times$ is odd.\rm
\smallskip{\bf Proof.}\quad Let $n=p_1^{m_1}\cdots p_k^{m_k}$.
By Chinese Remainder Theorem we have the following
isomorphism about the multiplicative groups:
$$
{\Bbb Z}_n^\times~\buildrel\cong\over\longrightarrow~
{\Bbb Z}_{p_1^{m_1}}^\times\times\cdots\times
{\Bbb Z}_{p_k^{m_k}}^\times\,,\quad
a \longmapsto (a,\cdots,a)
$$
The order of $q\in {\Bbb Z}_n^\times$ is odd if and only if
the order $q\in {\Bbb Z}_{p_i^{m_i}}^\times$ is odd for every
$i=1,\cdots,k$. Consider the exact sequence of multiplication groups:
$$
1~\longrightarrow~ 1+p_i{\Bbb Z}_{p_i^{m_i}}
~\buildrel{\rm incl}\over\longrightarrow~{\Bbb Z}_{p_i^{m_i}}^\times
~\buildrel{\rho}\over\longrightarrow~{\Bbb Z}_{p_i}^\times
~\longrightarrow~ 1
$$
where ``incl'' is the inclusion map and $\rho$ is the natural map:
$$
{\Bbb Z}_{p_i^{m_i}}^\times~\longrightarrow~{\Bbb Z}_{p_i}^\times\,,
\quad a\longmapsto a\,.
$$
Since the order $|1+p_i{\Bbb Z}_{p_i^{m_i}}|=p_i^{m_i-1}$ is odd,
the order of $q\in{\Bbb Z}_{p_i^{m_i}}^\times$ is odd if and only if
the order of $q\in{\Bbb Z}_{p_i}^\times$ is odd.
\smallskip
Recall that $F$ is a finite field of order $q$.
For any positive integer $n$, in a suitable extension we can take a
primitive $n$'th root $\xi_n$ of unity,
and the extension $F(\xi_n)$ is independent of the choice of $\xi_n$;
and the order of the Galois group
$\left|{\rm Gal}\big(F(\xi_n)/F\big)\right|=|F(\xi_n):F|$
is just the order of $q$ in the multiplicative group ${\Bbb Z}_n^\times$.
As a consequence we have the following at once.
\smallskip\noindent{\bf Corollary 1.}\quad\it Let $n$ be an odd
integer coprime to $q$. The following are equivalent:
(i).\quad The extension degree $|F(\xi_n):F|$ is odd.
(ii).\quad For any prime $p|n$
the extension degree $|F(\xi_p):F|$ is odd.\rm
\smallskip
Let $H$ be a subgroup of the group $G$, and let $Y$ be a finite $H$-set;
then $FY$ is an $FH$-permutation module. We have the induced $FG$-module
$$ {\rm Ind}_H^G(FY)=FG\bigotimes_{FH}FY=\bigoplus_{t\in T} t\otimes FY~,$$
where $T$ is a representative set of the left cosets of $G$ over $H$;
and ${\rm Ind}_H^G(FY)$ is a vector space with basis
$$ X:={\rm Ind}_H^G(Y)=\bigcup_{t\in T}t\otimes Y
=\bigcup_{t\in T}\left\{t\otimes y\mid y\in Y\right\} $$
which is a $G$-set with $G$-action as follows:
$$ g(t\otimes y)= t_g\otimes t_g^{-1}gty\,,
\qquad\forall~\; g\in G,~ t\in T,~ y\in Y\,, $$
where $t_g$ is the representative of the unique left coset $t_gH$ such that
$gt\in t_gH$, or equivalently $t_g^{-1}gt\in H$.
We say that ${\rm Ind}_H^G(FY)$ is the {\em induced $FG$-permutation module}
with the {\em induced $G$-set} ${\rm Ind}_H^G(Y)$.
\smallskip\noindent{\bf Lemma 7.}\quad\it
Notation as above; and let $D$ be an $FH$-permutation code of the
$FH$-permutation module $FY$; then
$$
{\rm Ind}_H^G(D)^\bot={\rm Ind}_H^G(D^\bot)\,.
$$\rm
{\bf Proof.}\quad It is obvious that the induced module
$C:={\rm Ind}_H^G(D)$ is a submodule of
${\rm Ind}_H^G(FY)=\bigoplus_{t\in T}t\otimes FY$,
and we have a direct decomposition of $F$-spaces:
$$ {\rm Ind}_H^G(D)=\bigoplus_{t\in T}t\otimes D~, $$
where each $t\otimes D$ is an $F$-subspace of $t\otimes FY$.
Each $t\otimes FY$ is an $F$-space with bases $t\otimes Y$,
hence with the standard inner product:
$$
\Big\langle\sum_{y\in Y}a_y(t\otimes y),~\sum_{y\in Y}b_y(t\otimes y)\Big\rangle
=\sum_{y\in Y} a_yb_y\,;
$$
and
$$
FY~\longrightarrow~ t\otimes FY\,,\quad
\sum_{y\in Y}a_yy~\longmapsto~\sum_{y\in Y}a_y(t\otimes y)\,,
$$
is an isometric $F$-isomorphism. With respect to the isometries,
it is clear that $(t\otimes D)^\bot=t\otimes D^\bot$; hence
$$
{\rm Ind}_H^G(D)^\bot=\bigoplus_{t\in T} (t\otimes D)^\bot
=\bigoplus_{t\in T}t\otimes D^\bot={\rm Ind}_H^G(D^\bot)~.
$$
\noindent{\bf Lemma 8.}\quad\it
Let $p$ be an odd prime which is coprime to $q$ such that
the order of $q$ in ${\Bbb Z}_p^\times$ is odd.
Let $A$ be a finite abelian $p$-group, and
$H$ be a finite group of odd order which acts on the group $A$.
Then there is a group code $C\le FA$ which is stable by the action of $H$
and $C^\bot=C\oplus F$,
where $F$ denotes the unique trivial module of $FA$.\rm
\smallskip{\bf Proof.}\quad Let $|A|=n$ which is a power of $p$;
take a primitive $n$'th root $\xi$ of unity, and denote $\tilde F=F(\xi)$.
Then $\tilde F A$ is a splitting semisimple commutative algebra.
Let $\Gamma={\rm Gal}(\tilde F/F)$ denote the Galois group
of $\tilde F=F(\xi)$ over $F$;
by Lemma 6 and its corollary, $|\Gamma|$ is odd.
Let $A^*$ denote the set of all the irreducible characters of $A$ over
$\tilde F$ (i.e. all the homomorphisms $\chi:A\to\tilde F^\times$).
With the usual multiplication of functions, $A^*$ is an abelian group
and $A^*\cong A$. Note that for any integer $k$,
$$
\chi^k(a)=\chi(a^k)\,,\qquad \forall~ \chi\in A^*\,,~ a\in A\,.
$$
in particular, $\chi^{-1}(a)=\chi(a^{-1})$.
Each $\chi\in A^*$ corresponds exactly one irreducible
module $\tilde Fe_\chi$ of $\tilde FA$, where
$$
e_\chi=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{a\in A}\chi(a^{-1})a
$$
is a primitive idempotent of the algebra $\tilde FA$.
And we have the direct decomposition of irreducible $\tilde FA$-modules:
$$
\tilde FA=\bigoplus_{\chi\in A^*}\tilde Fe_\chi\,.
$$
For $\chi,\;\psi\in A^*$ and $\lambda,\;\mu\in\tilde F$,
the standard inner product
$$
\langle\lambda e_\chi,~\mu e_\psi \rangle
=n\lambda\mu\cdot(\chi|\psi^{-1})\,,
$$
where $(\chi|\psi^{-1})$ denotes the usual inner product of characters:
$$
(\chi|\psi^{-1})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{a\in A}\chi(a)\psi^{-1}(a^{-1})
=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{a\in A}\chi(a)\psi(a)\,.
$$
By the orthogonal relations of characters,
$$
\left\langle\tilde F e_\chi,~\tilde F e_\psi\right\rangle
=\cases{\tilde F, & if $\chi=\psi^{-1}$,\cr 0, & otherwise.}
$$
Any submodule $\tilde C$ of $\tilde FA$ corresponds exactly to a subset
$B\subseteq A^*$ such that
$$
\tilde C=\bigoplus_{\chi\in B}\tilde Fe_\chi\,.
$$
Thus
$$\tilde C^\bot=\bigoplus_{\psi\notin B^{-1}}\tilde Fe_\psi\, $$
where $B^{-1}:=\{\chi^{-1}\mid\chi\in B \}$;
in particular, $\tilde C$ is self-orthogonal code if and only if
$B\cap B^{-1}=\emptyset$.
Recall that $\Gamma={\rm Gal}(\tilde F/F)$ is a cyclic group
generated by the following automorphism
$$ \gamma:~
F(\xi)\longrightarrow F(\xi)\,,\quad \lambda\longmapsto\lambda^q\,.
$$
The group $\Gamma$ acts on $\tilde F$
hence acts on the ring $\tilde FA$ in the following way:
$$
\gamma\Big(\sum_{a\in A}\lambda_a a\Big)=
\sum_{a\in A}\gamma(\lambda_a) a\,,\qquad \forall~
\sum_{a\in A}\lambda_a a\in\tilde FA.
$$
We denote $(\tilde FA)^\Gamma$ the subring
consisting of all the $\Gamma$-fixed elements of $\tilde FA$.
It is obvious that
$
(\tilde FA)^\Gamma =FA\,.
$
And $\Gamma$ acts on the set $\{e_\chi\mid\chi\in A^*\}$
of the primitive idempotents of $\tilde F A$:
$$\gamma(e_\chi)=
\gamma\Big(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{a\in A}\chi(a^{-1}) a\Big)=
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{a\in A}\gamma(\chi(a^{-1}))a
=e_{\gamma(\chi)}\,,
$$
where $\gamma(\chi)\in A^*$ is the composition homomorphism
$$
A\buildrel\chi\over\longrightarrow \tilde F
\buildrel\gamma\over\longrightarrow \tilde F\,,\quad
a\longmapsto\gamma(\chi(a))=(\chi(a))^{q}\,,
$$
i.e. $\gamma(\chi)=\chi^q$.
In this way, $\Gamma$ acts on the abelian group $A^*$.
On the other hand, $H$ acts on the ring $\tilde FA$:
$$
h\Big(\sum_{a\in A}\lambda_a a\Big)=
\sum_{a\in A}\lambda_a h(a)\,,\qquad \forall~
\sum_{a\in A}\lambda_a a\in\tilde FA\,.
$$
Similarly, $H$ acts on
the set $\{e_\chi\mid\chi\in A^*\}$
of the primitive idempotents of $\tilde F A$:
$$ h(e_\chi)=
h\Big(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{a\in A}\chi(a^{-1}) a\Big)
=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{a\in A} \chi(a^{-1})h(a)
=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{b\in A} \chi(h^{-1}(b^{-1}))b=e_{h(\chi)}\,,
$$
where $h(\chi)\in A^*$ is the composition homomorphism
$$
A\buildrel h^{-1}\over\longrightarrow A
\buildrel\chi\over\longrightarrow \tilde F\,,\quad
a\longmapsto\chi(h^{-1}(a))\,.
$$
In this way, $H$ acts on the abelian group $A^*$.
In a word, $\Gamma\times H$ acts on the ring $\tilde FA$, and
the action induces the action of $\Gamma\times H$ on the abelian group $A^*$.
Let $C\le FA$ be an $H$-stable submodule; denote $\tilde C=\tilde F\otimes_F C$.
Then $\tilde C$ is a both $H$-stable and $\Gamma$-stable submodule of $\tilde FA$
such that $\tilde C^\Gamma=C$.
Let $B\subset A^*$ be the subset such that
$\tilde C=\bigoplus_{\chi\in B}\tilde F e_\chi\,.$
Since $\tilde C$ is $H$-stable, we see that $B$ is $H$-stable;
and similarly, $B$ is $\Gamma$-stable.
So $B$ is a $(\Gamma\times H)$-stable subset of $A^*$.
Conversely, if $B$ is a $(\Gamma\times H)$-stable subset of $A^*$,
then $\tilde C=\bigoplus_{\chi\in B}\tilde Fe_\chi$ is a
$(\Gamma\times H)$-stable submodule of $\tilde FA$, and
$\tilde C^\Gamma$ is an $H$-stable submodule of $FA$.
Let $\Omega$ be a non-trivial $(\Gamma\times H)$-orbit of $A^*$,
i.e. $1\notin \Omega$.
Let $\chi\in \Omega$, then $\chi\ne 1$
hence the order of $\chi$ is a power of $p$, say $p^\ell$
(recall that $A^*\cong A$ is an abelian $p$-group).
We claim that $\chi^{-1}\notin \Omega$. Suppose it is not the cases,
then there is $\gamma^i\in\Gamma$ and $h\in H$ such that
$\gamma^i h(\chi)=\chi^{-1}$, and
$$h(\chi)=\gamma^{-i}(\chi^{-1})=\chi^{(-1)(-q^i)}=\chi^{q^i}\,;$$
thus $\langle\gamma\rangle\times\langle h\rangle$
acts on the cyclic group $\langle\chi\rangle$ of order $p^\ell$,
and $\gamma^i h$ acts on $\langle\chi\rangle$ as the
nvolution $\chi\mapsto\chi^{-1}$;
but the automorphism group
${\rm Aut}(\langle\chi\rangle)$ is a cyclic group,
hence the product $\gamma^i h$ of the two automorphisms
$\gamma^i$ and $h$ of odd order still has odd order;
it contradicts to that the $\chi\mapsto\chi^{-1}$ is an involution.
The involution $\tau: A^*\to A^*$, $\chi\mapsto \chi^{-1}$,
commutes with both $\Gamma$ and $H$ clearly.
So $\tau$ permutes all the $(\Gamma\times H)$-orbits of $A^*$.
For any non-trivial orbit $\Omega\ne\{1\}$,
since $\tau(\chi)\notin \Omega$ for any $\chi\in \Omega$,
the subset $\tau(\Omega)$ is an orbit different from $\Omega$.
Thus we can partition all the non-trivial orbits into two
collections $B$ and $B^{-1}=\{\chi^{-1}\mid\chi\in B\}$, and we get
the disjoint union
$$ A^*=\{1\}\bigcup B\bigcup B^{-1}\,. $$
Then the code $\tilde C=\bigoplus_{\chi\in B}\tilde Fe_\chi$
is $H$-stable and $\tilde C^\bot=\tilde C\oplus\tilde F$;
hence the code $C=\tilde C^\Gamma$ of $FA$ is $H$-stable and
$C^\bot=C\oplus F$.
\smallskip\noindent{\bf Theorem 3.}\quad\it
Let $G$ be a finite group of odd order,
and $X$ be a finite transitive $G$-set and $n=|X|$.
Assume that $q=|F|$ is coprime to $n$,
and the order of $q$ in the multiplicative group ${\Bbb Z}_n^\times$
is odd. Then there is a permutation code $C\le FX$ such that
$C^\bot=C\oplus F$.\smallskip\rm
{\bf Proof.}\quad We prove it by induction on the order of $G$.
It is trivial for $|G|=1$. Assume $|G|>1$.
Let $x_1\in X$ and denote $G_1$ the stabilizer of $x_1$ in $G$.
Then $G_1$ is a subgroup and $FX={\rm Ind}_{G_1}^G(F)$.
Since $G$ is solvable by Feit-Thompson Odd Theorem,
a minimal normal subgroup $A$ of $G$ is an
elementary abelian $p$-group, where $p$ is a prime.
Since $A$ is normal, the product $AG_1$ is a subgroup of $G$.
There are three cases.
Case 1: $AG_1=G_1$. Then $A\subseteq G_1$, and hence
$A$ is contained in every conjugate of $G_1$ as $A$ is normal.
Thus $A$ acts trivially on $X$, and $X$ is a $G/A$-set and
$FX$ is a permutation module over $G/A$. Since $|G/A|<|G|$,
the conclusion holds by induction.
Case 2: $AG_1=G$. Since $A\cap G_1$ is both normal in $G_1$ and in $A$,
we have that $A\cap G_1$ is normal in $AG_1=G$;
but $A$ is a minimal normal subgroup of $G$, so $A\cap G_1=1$.
Then we have a bijection
$$
\beta:~ A\longrightarrow X\,,\quad a\longmapsto a(x_1)\,.
$$
Let $A$ acts on $A$ by left translation,
and let $G_1$ acts on $A$ by conjugation; hence
$G=AG_1$ is mapped into the group ${\rm Sym}(A)$
of all the permutations of $A$:
$$
(bh)(a)=bhah^{-1}\,,\qquad\forall~a,b\in A,~h\in H\,.
$$
Noting that $G_1$ stabilizes $x_1$, we have that
$$
\beta\Big((bh)(a)\Big)=(bhah^{-1})(x_1)=bha(x_1)=(bh)\beta(a)\,.
$$
Thus, mapping $bh\in G$ to the permutation $a\mapsto bhah^{-1}$ of $A$
is an action of $G$ on $A$, and $\beta$ is an isomorphism of $G$-sets.
Then $n=|A|$ hence $p|n$, so $p$ is coprime to $q$,
and by the assumption of the lemma,
the order of $q$ in ${\Bbb Z}_p^\times$ is odd
(see Lemma 6). The conclusion is derived from Lemma 8.
Case 3: $G_1\lneqq AG_1\lneqq G$. In this case,
$$
FX\cong {\rm Ind}_{G_1}^G(F)={\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G{\rm Ind}_{G_1}^{AG_1}(F)\,.
$$
Let $Y=\{gx_1\mid g\in AG_1\}$, which is an $AG_1$-set and
${\rm Ind}_{G_1}^{AG_1}(F)\cong FY$.
By induction, there is a code $D\le FY$ such that $D^\bot=D\oplus Fe_Y$
where $e_Y=\sum_{y\in Y}y$.
Turn to the permutation module $FX={\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(FY)$,
by Lemma 7, we have
$$
{\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D)^\bot={\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D^\bot)
={\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D\oplus Fe_Y)
={\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D)\oplus{\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(Fe_Y)\,.
$$
Noting that, $Fe_Y$ is the unique trivial module of $FY$, and
$${\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(Fe_Y)=\bigoplus_{t\in G/AG_1}t\otimes Fe_Y\,;$$
by induction again, there is a code
$E\le {\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(Fe_Y)$ such that
$$ {\rm Ann}_{{\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(Fe_Y)}(E)=E\oplus Fe_X\,, $$
where $e_X=\sum_{x\in X}x$.
So we can write ${\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(Fe_Y)=E'\oplus E\oplus Fe_X$,
and have
$$
{\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D)^\bot
={\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D)\oplus{\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(Fe_Y)
={\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D)\oplus E'\oplus E\oplus Fe_X\,.
$$
Let
$$ C={\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D)\oplus E $$
which is a permutation code of $FX$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
C^\bot&=&{\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D)^\bot\bigcap E^\bot
={\rm Ann}_{FX}\Big({\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D)\Big)\bigcap
{\rm Ann}_{FX}(E)\\
&=&\Big({\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D)\oplus E'\oplus E\oplus Fe_X\Big)
\bigcap{\rm Ann}_{{\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D)\oplus E'\oplus E\oplus Fe_X}(E)\\
&=&\Big({\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D)\oplus E'\oplus E\oplus Fe_X\Big)
\bigcap\Big({\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D)\oplus E\oplus Fe_X\Big)\\
&=& {\rm Ind}_{AG_1}^G(D)\oplus E\oplus Fe_X\\
&=& C\oplus Fe_X\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
\smallskip
As a consequence of Theorem and Lemma 5 (cf. its remark),
we get the followings at once.
\smallskip\noindent{\bf Corollary 2.}\quad\it
Assume that $q=|F|$ is even and $|G|$ is odd
and $X$ is a transitive $G$-set and $n=|X|$.
If the order of $q$ in the multiplicity group ${\Bbb Z}_n^\times$ is odd,
then there is a self-dual extended code of $FX$.
\smallskip\rm
\noindent{\bf Corollary 3.}\quad\it
Assume that $|G|$ is odd and $X$ is a transitive $G$-set and $n=|X|$.
If $q=|F|$ is coprime to $n$ and
the order of $q$ in the multiplicity group ${\Bbb Z}_n^\times$ is odd,
and $-n$ has square root in $F$,
then there is a self-dual extended code of $FX$.
\smallskip\rm
|
\section{Introduction}
{
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{}
\footnotetext{The fourth author was funded by the Academy of Finland, project
number 1251557.\\
Published in the Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 2013
doi:10.1112/blms/bdt076.
}
The notion of a quasiminimal excellent class was introduced by Boris Zilber in
\cite{Zilber05qmec} in order to prove categoricity of his non-elementary
theories of covers of the multiplicative group of a field (group covers)
\cite{Zilber06covers} and of pseudoexponential fields \cite{Zilber05peACF0}.
The excellence axiom is the most technical part, and is adapted from Shelah's
work on excellent sentences of $\Loo$ \cite{Sh87a}. Both Shelah's and Zilber's
work on excellence is described in Baldwin's monograph
\cite{Baldwin_Categoricity}. Zilber's original proof
of categoricity of group covers contained a gap, which was corrected in \cite{BZ11} by
strengthening a hypothesis in one of the statements relating to excellence and
giving a new proof. However, the proof of the categoricity of
pseudoexponential fields relied on the original stronger and now unproved
statement from \cite{Zilber06covers}. A patch for the categoricity proof for
pseudoexponential fields was recently circulated by the first and fifth
authors \cite{BK12patch}.
In this paper we show that the excellence axiom of quasiminimal excellence
classes is actually redundant, in that it follows from the other axioms. This
substantially simplifies the proof of categoricity of Zilber's group covers
and pseudoexponential fields, and avoids the troublesome part of the proofs
where the gaps were.
In the case of first-order theories, part of Shelah's Main Gap theorem
involves reducing a condition on $n$-systems of models, akin to excellence, to
the case $n=2$, where it becomes the condition (PMOP) that primary models
exist over independent pairs of models
(\cite{ShelahClassificationTheory},\cite{HartNOTOP}). The main insight behind
the current paper is that these arguments, suitably modified, apply also to
the (non-elementary) classes of structures considered here - and moreover that
the reduction can be pushed even further, to $n=1$, where the condition
becomes one of $\aleph_0$-stability over models. This reduction is performed in
Proposition~\ref{excellence}. In Propositions~\ref{splittaus} and
\ref{isolation in closure}, we find that this $\aleph_0$-stability condition
does follow from the $\aleph_0$-homogeneity over models assumed of
quasiminimal excellent classes. This argument is based on a classical argument
from stability theory, but the version in this paper is a modification of a
corresponding argument in the non-elementary framework of finitary AECs
\cite{indepInLocalAEC}.
An uncountable structure $M$ is {\em quasiminimal} if every first-order
$M$-definable subset of $M$ is countable or co-countable. In
section~\ref{sec:qm}, we consider in the light of our main results the question
of when a quasiminimal structure belongs to a quasiminimal excellent class.
Our main results directly answer Question~1 in \cite[Section~6]{OQMEC}.
They also render Question~2 there redundant: it asks for equivalence of the
excellence axiom and the conclusion of \cite[Lemma~3.2]{OQMEC}, which we show
both to be consequences of the other axioms, hence trivially equivalent
modulo them. The remaining questions, 3-5, concern finite-dimensional models;
our techniques say little about these, and in fact it is key to the proof of
our main result that we deal only with infinite-dimensional models.
The authors would like to thank the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics,
Bonn, where some of this work was done.
\section{Statement of main result}
Throughout this paper, the notion of type will be quantifier-free $L$-type,
denoted by $\tp$. It will follow from our axioms that if finite tuples ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}$ and
${\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}$ from a model satisfy the same quantifier-free $L$-type then they
satisfy the same complete type (and even the same $L_{\infty,\omega}$-type),
justifying our notation. In applications this is usually achieved by expanding the
language. However it does not necessarily follow that the
first-order theory of our models has quantifier-elimination, since not all
types of the first-order theory are necessarily realised in the models we
consider.
\begin{defn}
Let $M$ be an $L$-structure for a countable language $L$, equipped with a
pregeometry $\cl$ (or $\cl_M$ if it is necessary to specify $M$). We say that
$M$ is a \emph{quasiminimal pregeometry structure} if the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}[QM1.]
\item The pregeometry is determined by the language. That is, if
$\tp(a,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}) = \tp(a',{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')$ then $a \in \cl({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})$ if and only if $a'
\in \cl({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')$.
\item $M$ is infinite-dimensional with respect to $\cl$.
\item (Countable closure property) If $A \subs M$ is finite then $\cl(A)$
is countable.
\item (Uniqueness of the generic type) Suppose that $H, H' \subs M$ are
countable closed subsets, enumerated such that $\tp(H)=\tp(H')$. If $a
\in M \ensuremath{\smallsetminus} H$ and $a' \in M \ensuremath{\smallsetminus} H'$ then $\tp(H,a) = \tp(H',a')$
(with respect to the same enumerations for $H$ and $H'$).
\item ($\aleph_0$-homogeneity over closed sets and the empty set)
\ \\ Let $H, H' \subs M$ be countable closed subsets or empty,
enumerated such that $\tp(H)=\tp(H')$, and let ${\ensuremath{\bar{b}}},{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}'$ be finite
tuples from $M$ such that $\tp(H,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}) = \tp(H',{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')$, and let $a
\in \cl(H,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})$. Then there is $a'\in M$ such that $\tp(H,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}},a) =
\tp(H',{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}', a')$.
\end{enumerate}
We say $M$ is a \emph{weakly quasiminimal pregeometry structure} if it
satisfies all the axioms except possibly QM2.
\end{defn}
Note that, while in QM5 there is a restriction that $a \in \cl(H {\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})$, in the presence of the other axioms this restriction can be removed. In particular we have the usual notion of $\aleph_0$-homogeneity of a structure:
\begin{lemma}\label{homogeneity over emptyset}
Let $M$ be a weakly quasiminimal pregeometry structure, let ${\ensuremath{\bar{b}}},{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}'$ be finite tuples from $M$ such that $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}) = \tp({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')$, and let ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}$ be a finite tuple from $M$. Then there is ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}'$ in $M$ such that $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}) = \tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}'{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We may assume that ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}$ is a singleton, $a$. If $a \in \cl({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})$ then apply QM5. If not, since $\cl$ is a pregeometry and using QM1 we have $\dim M \ge \dim(a {\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}) = \dim({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})+1 = \dim({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')+1$. So there is $c \in M \ensuremath{\smallsetminus} \cl({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')$, and by QM4 we can take $a'$ to be any such $c$.
\end{proof}
Given $M_1$ and $M_2$ both weakly quasiminimal pregeometry $L$-structures, we
say that an $L$-embedding $\theta: M_1 \hookrightarrow M_2$ is a \emph{closed embedding}
if for each $A \subs M_1$ we have $\theta(\cl_{M_1}(A))=\cl_{M_2}(\theta(A))$. In particular, $\theta(M_1)$ is closed in $M_2$ with respect to $\cl_{M_2}$. We write $M_1 \ensuremath{\preccurlyeq_{\mathrm{cl}}} M_2$ for a closed embedding.
Given a quasiminimal pregeometry structure\ $M$, let $\mathcal{K}^-(M)$ be the smallest class of $L$-structures which
contains $M$ and all its closed substructures and is closed under isomorphism,
and let $\mathcal{K}(M)$ be the smallest class containing $\mathcal{K}^-(M)$ which is also
closed under taking unions of chains of closed embeddings. Then both $\mathcal{K}^-(M)$
and $\mathcal{K}(M)$ satisfy axioms 0, I, and II of quasiminimal excellent classes from
\cite{OQMEC}, and $\mathcal{K}(M)$ also satisfies axiom IV and, together with closed
embeddings, forms an abstract elementary class. We call any class of the form
$\mathcal{K}(M)$ a \emph{quasiminimal class}.
Our main result is:
\begin{theorem}\label{cat theorem}
If $\mathcal{K}$ is a quasiminimal class then every structure $A \in \mathcal{K}$ is a weakly
quasiminimal pregeometry structure, and up to isomorphism there is exactly one structure in $\mathcal{K}$ of each
cardinal dimension. In particular, $\mathcal{K}$ is uncountably categorical.
Furthermore, $\mathcal{K}$ is the class of models of an $\ensuremath{\Loo(Q)}$ sentence.
\end{theorem}
When $M$ satisfies an additional property called \emph{excellence},
Theorem~\ref{cat theorem} is Zilber's main categoricity theorem, specifically
in the form from \cite[Theorem~4.2 and Corollary~5.7]{OQMEC}, along with the
$\ensuremath{\Loo(Q)}$-definability result \cite[Theorem~5.5]{OQMEC}. We will prove
Theorem~\ref{cat theorem} by showing in Proposition~\ref{excellence} that the
specific form of the excellence property used in the categoricity proof
always holds.
Assuming that Proposition, we prove the main theorem.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{cat theorem}]
Let $\mathfrak{M}$ be a quasiminimal pregeometry structure\ and $\mathcal{K} = \mathcal{K}(\mathfrak{M})$. As in
\cite[Theorem~2.2]{OQMEC}, all closed subsets of $\mathfrak{M}$ of dimension
$\aleph_0$ are isomorphic to each other, and are also quasiminimal pregeometry structure s. Let $M$ be one.
Then by Proposition~\ref{excellence}, $M$ satisfies the excellence
property. Thus by \cite[Corollary~5.7 and Theorem~4.2]{OQMEC}, $\mathcal{K}(M)$ is a
quasiminimal excellent class and has exactly one model of each cardinal
dimension, and by \cite[Theorem~5.5]{OQMEC} it is the class of models of an
$\ensuremath{\Loo(Q)}$ sentence. It remains to show that $\mathcal{K} = \mathcal{K}(M)$. Let $B$ be a basis for
$\mathfrak{M}$, and note that $\mathfrak{M} = \bigcup \class{\cl(B')}{B' \subs B, |B'|
= \aleph_0} $. Since $\mathcal{K}(M)$ is closed under unions of chains it is also
closed under unions of directed systems, and hence $\mathfrak{M} \in \mathcal{K}(M)$. Thus
$\mathcal{K}(\mathfrak{M}) = \mathcal{K}(M)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Models and types}
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be a quasiminimal class. We call the structures in $\mathcal{K}$
\emph{models}. Then by \cite[Theorem~2.1]{OQMEC}, the models of dimension up
to $\aleph_1$ are determined up to isomorphism by their dimension.
Furthermore, back-and-forth arguments as in the proof of that theorem
immediately give us the following characterization of types.
\begin{lemma}\label{Galois}
Let $\mathfrak{M}$ be a model of dimension $\le \aleph_1$, let $M \ensuremath{\preccurlyeq_{\mathrm{cl}}}
\mathfrak{M}$ with $M$ countable, let $H = \emptyset$ or $H \ensuremath{\preccurlyeq_{\mathrm{cl}}} M$, and let
${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}, {\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}$ be $n$-tuples from $M$. Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/H) = \tp({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}/H)$.
\item There exists $f\in\Aut(M/H)$ with $f(\bar{a})=\bar{b}$.
\item There exists $f\in\Aut(\mathfrak{M}/H)$ with $f(\bar{a})=\bar{b}$.
\item There exists $f\in\Aut(\mathfrak{M}/H)$ with $f(\bar{a})=\bar{b}$ and $f(M)=M$.
\qed
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
Thus Galois types coincide with syntactic types for types over the empty set and
over models, and furthermore Galois types do not depend on the model in which
they are calculated (we have shown this for models of dimension at most
$\aleph_1$, but it will follow from our main result that it holds for arbitrary
models).
\section{Splitting of types}\label{splitting section}
\begin{defn}
Let $\mathfrak{M}$ be a model, and let $B\subs\mathfrak{M}$ and $\bar{a}\in\mathfrak{M}$.
We say that $\tp(\bar{a}/B)$ \emph{splits} over a finite $A\subs
B$ if there are finite tuples $\bar{c}$ and $\bar{d}$ in $B$ with
\[\tp(\bar{c}/A)=\tp(\bar{d}/A)\qquad\mbox{ but}\]
\[\tp(\bar{c}/A\cup\bar{a})\neq\tp(\bar{d}/A\cup\bar{a}).\]
\end{defn}
\begin{prop}\label{splittaus}
Let $\mathfrak{M}$ be a model and $M\ensuremath{\preccurlyeq_{\mathrm{cl}}} \mathfrak{M}$ be countable closed submodel.
For each finite tuple $\bar{a}\in\mathfrak{M}$ there is a finite $A\subs M$ such
that $\tp(\bar{a}/M)$ does not split over $A$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Replacing $\mathfrak{M}$ with $\cl(M\bar{a})$, we may assume $\mathfrak{M}$ to be countable.
If $M$ has finite cardinality, we may take $A=M$. So assume $|M|=\aleph_0$.
We suppose that no such finite $A$ exists and construct uncountably many types
over $M$, all realised in $\mathfrak{M}$. This contradicts the countability of
$\mathfrak{M}$.
Enumerate $M=\{e_n:n<\omega\}$. For each $k<\omega$ and $\eta: k\to 2$ we
denote by $\eta^{\frown}0$ and $\eta^{\frown}1$ the functions with domain
$k+1$ extending $\eta$ and mapping $k$ to 0 and 1 respectively. Given any
function $f$ and a subset $A$ of the domain of $f$ we write $f|A$ for the
restricted function.
We recursively construct finite sets $A_\eta$ and automorphisms
$\sigma_\eta\in\Aut(\mathfrak{M})$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\sigma_\eta(M)=M$.
\item $\eta\subset\tau$ implies $\sigma_{\tau} | A_{\eta}=\sigma_\eta | A_{\eta}$.
\item For any $\mu:\omega\to 2$, we have that
\[M=\bigcup_{k<\omega}A_{\mu | k}\]
and that
\[M=\bigcup_{k<\omega}\sigma_{\mu|k}(A_{\mu | k}).\]
\item $\tp(\sigma_{\eta^{\frown}0}(\bar{a})/B_\eta)\neq \tp(\sigma_{\eta^{\frown}1}(\bar{a})/B_\eta)$ where
\[B_\eta=\sigma_{\eta^{\frown}0}(A_{\eta^{\frown}0})\cap \sigma_{\eta^{\frown}1}(A_{\eta^{\frown}1})\subset M.\]
\end{enumerate}
First let $A_{\emptyset}=\emptyset$ and $\sigma_{\emptyset}=Id_{\mathfrak{M}}$.
Then assume we have defined these for all $\eta$ with domain $\leq k$.
Since $\tp(\bar{a}/M)$ splits over $A_{\eta}$ by assumption, there are finite
$\bar{c},\bar{d}\in M$ with $$\tp(\bar{c}/A_{\eta})=\tp(\bar{d}/A_{\eta})\textrm{ but}$$
$$\tp(\bar{c}/A_{\eta}\cup\bar{a})\neq\tp(\bar{d}/A_{\eta}\cup\bar{a}).$$ Hence there is
$f\in\Aut(\mathfrak{M}/A_{\eta})$ mapping $\bar{c}$ to $\bar{d}$ and by Lemma
$\ref{Galois}$ we may assume that $f(M)=M$.
Let $\sigma_{\eta^{\frown}0}=\sigma_\eta$ and $\sigma_{\eta^{\frown}1}=
\sigma_\eta\circ f$. Furthermore, for $i=0,1$ let
$$A_{\eta^{\frown}i}=A_{\eta}\cup \{e_{k+1}, \sigma^{-1}_{\eta^{\frown}i}(e_{k+1}), \bar{d},\bar{c}\}.$$
We have that
$$\sigma_{\eta^{\frown}1} | A_{\eta} = \sigma_{\eta^{\frown}0} | A_{\eta} =\sigma_\eta | A_{\eta}$$
and that
$$\sigma_{\eta^{\frown}1}(\bar{c})=\sigma_\eta(\bar{d})=\sigma_{\eta^{\frown}0}(\bar{d}).$$
Hence $\sigma_\eta(A_{\eta})$ and $\sigma_\eta(\bar{d})$ are in the set $B_\eta$
of item 4.
Now item 4 must hold, since if there were
$g\in\Aut(\mathfrak{M}/\sigma_\eta(A_{\eta})\cup \sigma_\eta(\bar{d}))$ mapping
$\sigma_{\eta^{\frown}0}(\bar{a})$ to $\sigma_{\eta^{\frown}1}(\bar{a})$, the
automorphism $\sigma^{-1}_{\eta^{\frown}1}\circ g\circ
\sigma_{\eta^{\frown}0}$ would map $\bar{d}$ to $\bar{c}$ and fix $\bar{a}$ and
$A_\eta$, contradicting splitting.
Finally we define for each $\mu:\omega\to 2$ a map $f_{\mu}$ as the union of
the restricted maps $\sigma_{\mu |k}$ on $A_{\mu |k}$ for $k<\omega$. By item
2 the map is well-defined and by item 3 it is an automorphism of $M$. By
Lemma~\ref{Galois}, each $f_{\mu}$ extends to an automorphism $\pi_\mu$ of
$\mathfrak{M}$.
Now suppose $\mu,\nu : \omega \to 2$ are distinct, let $k$ be greatest such
that $\mu |k = \nu | k$, and let $\eta = \mu | k$. Then without loss of
generality, $\mu|k+1 = \eta{}^\frown 0$ and $\nu | k+1 = \eta\concat1$. Thus
$\pi_\mu | A_{\eta\concat0} = \sigma_{\eta\concat0}|A_{\eta\concat0}$, so
\[\tp(\pi_\mu({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})/\sigma_{\eta\concat0}(A_{\eta\concat0})) =
\tp(\pi_\mu({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})/\pi_\mu(A_{\eta\concat0})) =
\tp(\sigma_{\eta\concat0}({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})/\sigma_{\eta\concat0}(A_{\eta\concat0})) \]
Since $B_\eta \subs \sigma_{\eta\concat0}(A_{\eta\concat0})$ we have
$\tp(\pi_\mu({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})/B_\eta) = \tp(\sigma_{\eta\concat0}({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})/B_\eta)$.
The same argument shows that
$\tp(\pi_\nu({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})/B_\eta) = \tp(\sigma_{\eta\concat1}({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})/B_\eta)$.
Thus, by item 4, $\tp(\pi_\mu({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})/B_\eta) \neq \tp(\pi_\nu({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})/B_\eta)$
and hence $\tp(\pi_\mu({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})/M)\neq\tp(\pi_{\nu}({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})/M)$. Thus we have
$2^{\aleph_0}$ different types over $M$, all realised in $\mathfrak{M}$, a
contradiction.
\end{proof}
\section{Isolation of types}
\begin{defn}
Let $A$ be a subset of a model $\mathfrak{M}$ and let ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}\in\cl(A)$. We say that
the $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/A)$ is \emph{s-isolated} if there is a finite subset $A_0 \subs
A$ such that if ${\ensuremath{\bar{b}}} \in \cl(A)$ and $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}/A_0) = \tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/A_0)$
then $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}/A) = \tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/A)$. In this case we also say $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/A)$ is
\emph{s-isolated over $A_0$}.
\end{defn}
In Shelah's notation this is $F^s_{\aleph_0}$-isolation
\cite[p157]{ShelahClassificationTheory}. In general it does not imply
isolation of a type by a single formula, at least not without expanding the
language.
We show that types of tuples inside the closure of a model union a finite set
are s-isolated.
\begin{prop}\label{isolation in closure}
Let $\mathfrak{M}$ be a model, and let $M\ensuremath{\preccurlyeq_{\mathrm{cl}}} \mathfrak{M}$ be a countable closed
submodel.
Let ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}\in \mathfrak{M}$ be finite tuples with ${\ensuremath{\bar{b}}} \in
\cl(M{\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})$. Then $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}/M\cup{\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})$ is s-isolated.
\end{prop}
To show that the hypotheses cannot be significantly weakened, consider a quasiminimal pregeometry structure\
$\mathfrak{M}$ where the language contains a single equivalence relation, and
$\mathfrak{M}$ has $\aleph_0$ equivalence classes, all of size $\aleph_0$. For $A
\subs \mathfrak{M}$, $\cl(A)$ is the union of the equivalence classes which meet
$A$. Then if $M \subs \mathfrak{M}$ is infinite but not closed, the conclusion
fails.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{isolation in closure}]
By Proposition \ref{splittaus} there exists a finite $A\subset M$ such that
$\tp(\bar{a}\bar{b}/M)$ does not split over $A$. We may suppose (extending $A$)
that $\bar{a}$ is $\cl$-independent from $M$ over $A$,
and that $\bar{b}\in\cl(A\bar{a})$.
We will show that $\tp(\bar{b}/M\bar{a})$ is s-isolated over $A\bar{a}$.
Let $\bar{b}'\in \mathfrak{M}$ with $\tp(\bar{b}'/A\bar{a})=\tp(\bar{b}/A\bar{a})$.
Let $\bar{d}\in M$.
\begin{claim}
There exists $\bar{d}'\in M$ such that $\tp(\bar{b}'\bar{d}/A\bar{a}) =
\tp(\bar{b}\bar{d}'/A\bar{a})$.
\end{claim}
Assume the claim. Then $\tp(\bar{d}/A)=\tp(\bar{d}'/A)$, so by non-splitting
$\tp(\bar{d}/A\bar{a}\bar{b})=\tp(\bar{d}'/A\bar{a}\bar{b})$. Hence
$\tp(\bar{b}\bar{d}/A\bar{a})=\tp(\bar{b}\bar{d}'/A\bar{a})=\tp(\bar{b}'\bar{d}/A\bar{a})$, so
$\tp(\bar{b}/A\bar{d}\bar{a}) = \tp(\bar{b}'/A\bar{d}\bar{a})$. So
$\tp(\bar{b}/M\bar{a})=\tp(\bar{b}'/M\bar{a})$.
It remains to prove the claim. Say $\bar{d}=\bar{d}_1\bar{d}_2$ with $\bar{d}_1$ an
independent tuple over $\cl(A\bar{a})$ and $\bar{d}_2\in\cl(A\bar{a}\bar{d}_1)$. By the
independence of $\bar{a}$ from $M$ over $A$, in fact $\bar{d}_2\in\cl(A\bar{d}_1)$.
Since $\bar{b}\in\cl(A\bar{a})$, by (QM4) we have
$\tp(\bar{b}'/A\bar{a}\bar{d}_1) = \tp(\bar{b}/A\bar{a}\bar{d}_1)$.
So by Lemma~\ref{homogeneity over emptyset}, there exists $\bar{d}'_2\in\mathfrak{M}$
such that $\tp(\bar{b}'\bar{d}_2/A\bar{a}\bar{d}_1) = \tp(\bar{b}\bar{d}'_2/A\bar{a}\bar{d}_1)$.
But then $\bar{d}'_2\in\cl(A\bar{d}_1)\subs M$, so we conclude by setting
$\bar{d}' = \bar{d}_1\bar{d}'_2$.
\end{proof}
We remark that the conclusion of Proposition~\ref{isolation in closure}, or that
of Proposition~\ref{splittaus}, could replace $\aleph_0$-homogeneity over models
in the definition of a quasiminimal pregeometry structure:
\begin{cor}\label{wstabversions}
Let $\mathfrak{M}$ be an $L$-structure for a countable language $L$, equipped with a
pregeometry $\cl$. Suppose $\mathfrak{M}$ satisfies (QM1)-(QM4) and is
$\aleph_0$-homogeneous over $\emptyset$, that is, the conclusion of Lemma~\ref{homogeneity over emptyset} holds.
Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\mathfrak{M}$ satisfies (QM5);
\item If $M\ensuremath{\preccurlyeq_{\mathrm{cl}}} \mathfrak{M}$ is countable and ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}\in \mathfrak{M}$, then there is a
finite set over which $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/M)$ doesn't split.
\item If $M\ensuremath{\preccurlyeq_{\mathrm{cl}}} \mathfrak{M}$ is countable and ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}},{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}\in \mathfrak{M}$ with
${\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}\in\cl(M{\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})$, then $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}/M{\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})$ is s-isolated.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
\providecommand{\dbar}{\bar{d}}
Proposition~\ref{splittaus} gives (a) $\implies$ (b),
and the proof of Proposition~\ref{isolation in closure} gives (b) $\implies$ (c).
We show (c) $\implies$ (a). Let $H,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}},H',{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}',a$ be as in (QM5), with
$H$ and $H'$ closed in $\mathfrak{M}$ of dimension $\leq\aleph_0$. Write $\sigma : H{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}
\to H'{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}'$ for the given isomorphism. By (c) applied to $H\ensuremath{\preccurlyeq_{\mathrm{cl}}} \mathfrak{M}$,
there exists ${\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}\in H$ such that $\tp(a/H{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})$ is
isolated by $\tp(a/{\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})$; let ${\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}':=\sigma({\ensuremath{\bar{c}}})$. By
$\aleph_0$-homogeneity over $\emptyset$, there exists $a'$ such that
$\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}} a) = \tp({\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}'{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}' a')$. Now suppose $\dbar\in H$, and
let $\dbar':=\sigma(\dbar)$. By $\aleph_0$-homogeneity over $\emptyset$
there exists $a''$ such that $\tp(\dbar'{\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}'{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}' a') =
\tp(\dbar{\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}} a'')$, and by the isolation $\tp(\dbar{\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}} a'') =
\tp(\dbar{\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}} a)$. So $\tp(H{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}} a) = \tp(H'{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}' a')$ as required.
\end{proof}
\section{Excellence}\label{excellence section}
Shelah's notion of excellence says that types over certain configurations we
call \emph{crowns} are determined over finite sets, i.e. s-isolated. It will be convenient to use
notation for crowns which is borrowed from the notation used in simplicial
complexes, in particular with the use of a boundary operator $\ensuremath{\partial}$.
Let $M$ be an infinite-dimensional model, let $B \subs M$ be an independent
subset of cardinality $\aleph_0$, write $M_B = \cl(B)$, and let
$b_1,\ldots,b_n \in B$ be distinct. We define $\ensuremath{\partial}_i M_B = \cl (B \ensuremath{\smallsetminus}
\{b_i\})$ and the $n$-crown $\ensuremath{\partial} M_B = \bigcup_{i=1}^n \ensuremath{\partial}_i M_B$. Note that
$\ensuremath{\partial} M_B$ depends on $n$ and the choice of $b_1,\ldots,b_n$, but we suppress
that from the notation.
\begin{defn}
$M$ is \emph{excellent} if for every $n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}$ with
$n \geqslant 2$ and every $n$-crown $\ensuremath{\partial} M_B$ in $M$, and every finite tuple
${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}} \in M_B$, the type $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/\ensuremath{\partial} M_B)$ is s-isolated.
\end{defn}
Note that the definition of crown here, and consequently the definition of
excellence, is a special case of the definition in \cite{OQMEC}. However, it is
exactly the special case which is used in the proofs in that paper.
\begin{prop}\label{excellence}
For each $n\geq 2$, each $n$-crown $\ensuremath{\partial} M_B$ and ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}} \in M_B$ we have
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/\ensuremath{\partial} M_B)$ is s-isolated, and
\item If $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}/\ensuremath{\partial} M_B) = \tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/\ensuremath{\partial} M_B)$ then there is $\pi \in
\Aut(M_B/\ensuremath{\partial} M_B)$ such that $\pi({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}$.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, $M$ is excellent.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Any two $n$-crowns in $M$ are isomorphic, so we may fix $B$ and assume $M =
M_B$. We proceed by induction on $n$. The proofs for the base case $n=2$ and
the inductive step are very similar, so we do them together. Thus we suppose
the result holds up to $n-1$ for some $n \geqslant 2$.
Fix $b_1,\ldots,b_n \in B$, and let ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}} \in M$ be a finite tuple. Choose
$b_0 \in B \ensuremath{\smallsetminus}\{b_1,\ldots,b_n\}$ such that ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}} \in \cl(B \ensuremath{\smallsetminus}
\{b_0\})$ and let $M' = \cl(B \ensuremath{\smallsetminus} \{b_0\})$. Choose $\pi \in \Aut(M/\cl(B
\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}\{b_0,b_n\}))$ such that $\pi(b_n) = b_0$ and $\pi(b_0)=b_n$.
First, suppose $n=2$. Then ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}, \pi({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}) \in \cl(\ensuremath{\partial}_1 M, b_1)$ so, by
Proposition~\ref{isolation in closure}, $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}, \pi({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}) /\ensuremath{\partial}_1 M,
b_1)$ is s-isolated.
Now suppose $n > 2$. Then $\Lambda := \bigcup_{i=1}^{n-1} \ensuremath{\partial}_i M$ is an $(n-1)$-crown
and $\cl(\Lambda) = M$ so, by part i) of the
induction hypothesis, $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}, \pi({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}) / \Lambda)$
is s-isolated. Note that in this case $b_1 \in \Lambda$,
so $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}, \pi({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}) / b_1,\Lambda)$ is
s-isolated. Thus (whatever $n$ is) $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}} / b_1, \pi({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}),
\bigcup_{i=1}^{n-1} \ensuremath{\partial}_i M)$ is s-isolated, say over $A_0$. Since
$\pi({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})\subs \ensuremath{\partial}_n M$, we have $A_0\subs \ensuremath{\partial} M$.
We proceed to show that $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/\ensuremath{\partial} M)$ is s-isolated over
$A_0$. So suppose ${\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}\in M$ and $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}/A_0) = \tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/A_0)$. Then we have $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{c}}} / b_1, \pi({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}),
\bigcup_{i=1}^{n-1} \ensuremath{\partial}_i M) = \tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}} / b_1, \pi({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}),
\bigcup_{i=1}^{n-1} \ensuremath{\partial}_i M)$, so by Lemma~\ref{Galois} (if $n=2$) or by part
ii) of the inductive hypothesis (if $n>2$) there is $\sigma \in \Aut(M/b_1,
\pi({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}), \bigcup_{i=1}^{n-1} \ensuremath{\partial}_i M)$ such that $\sigma({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}$.
Let $\eta$ be the commutator $\eta = \sigma \pi^{-1}\sigma^{-1}\pi$. Then
since $\pi({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})$ is fixed by $\sigma^{-1}$, we have $\eta({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}) =
\sigma({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}$. Now $\eta$ fixes $\bigcup_{i=1}^n \cl(B \ensuremath{\smallsetminus}
\{b_0,b_i\}) = \ensuremath{\partial} M'$ pointwise; indeed, for $i=1,\ldots,n-1$ we have $\cl(B
\ensuremath{\smallsetminus} \{b_0,b_i\}) \subseteq \cl(B \ensuremath{\smallsetminus} \{b_i\})$, and the latter is fixed
setwise by $\pi$ and pointwise by $\sigma$, while $\cl(B \ensuremath{\smallsetminus} \{b_0,b_n\})$
is fixed pointwise by $\pi$ and setwise by $\sigma$. So $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}/\ensuremath{\partial} M') =
\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/ \ensuremath{\partial} M')$.
Let $B_0$ be a finite subset of $B \ensuremath{\smallsetminus}\{b_0,b_1,\ldots,b_n\}$ such that
${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}} \in \cl(B_0 \cup \{b_1,\ldots,b_n\})$. Then also ${\ensuremath{\bar{c}}} \in
\cl(B_0\cup \{b_1,\ldots,b_n\})$, since $B_0\cup\{b_1,\ldots,b_n\} \subs
\bigcup_{i=1}^{n-1}\ensuremath{\partial}_i M \cup \{b_1\}$.
Since $B$ is infinite, there is a bijection $B \ensuremath{\smallsetminus} (B_0 \cup
\{b_0,b_1,\ldots,b_n\}) \to B\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}(B_0 \cup \{b_1,\ldots,b_n\})$ extending
to an isomorphism $\phi: M' \to M$ which fixes $\cl(B_0 \cup
\{b_1,\ldots,b_n\})$ pointwise.
Now $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}/\ensuremath{\partial} M') = \tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/\ensuremath{\partial} M')$, so $\tp(\phi({\ensuremath{\bar{c}}})/\phi(\ensuremath{\partial}
M')) = \tp(\phi({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})/\phi(\ensuremath{\partial} M'))$; but $\phi({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}$ and
$\phi({\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}$, and $\phi(\ensuremath{\partial} M') = \ensuremath{\partial} M$, so $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}/\ensuremath{\partial} M) =
\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/\ensuremath{\partial} M)$. Thus part i) is proved.
For ii), suppose that $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{c}}} / \ensuremath{\partial} M) = \tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/\ensuremath{\partial} M)$, and so in
particular $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}/A_0) = \tp({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}/A_0)$. Let $\eta \in \Aut(M/\ensuremath{\partial} M')$
and $\phi: M'\to M$ be as above. Since $\eta$ fixes $B$ pointwise, $\eta|M'
\in \Aut(M'/\ensuremath{\partial} M')$. Defining $\theta = \phi \circ (\eta|M') \circ
\phi^{-1}$ we have $\theta \in \Aut(M/\ensuremath{\partial} M)$ with $\theta({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}) = {\ensuremath{\bar{c}}}$,
which proves ii).
\end{proof}
\section{Quasiminimal structures}\label{sec:qm}
An uncountable structure $M$ is {\em quasiminimal} if every first-order
$M$-definable subset of $M$ is countable or co-countable.
In this section, we treat the question of when a quasiminimal structure
is a quasiminimal pregeometry structure. Certainly some conditions are
required - for example, $\omega_1 \ensuremath{\times} \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}$ equipped with the lexicographic
order has quantifier elimination and is quasiminimal, but the quasiminimal
closure ($cl_p$ defined below) does not satisfy exchange.
Based on the analyses of Zilber \cite{ZElemGST} and Pillay-Tanovi\'{c}
\cite{PiTaQM}, we are able to give simple ``natural'' criteria which, under the
assumption of quasiminimality, substitute for all the conditions of quasiminimal
pregeometry structures other than (QM5). For (QM5), we have no alternative
formulation in this context beyond those given in Corollary~\ref{wstabversions}.
So let $M$ be an uncountable quasiminimal structure in a countable language.
Suppose, extending the language if necessary, quantifier elimination for types
realised in $M$: if ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}\in M$ and ${\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}\in M$ have the same
quantifier-free type, then ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}$ have the same first-order type.
Let $p\in S_1(M)$ be the generic type, the type consisting precisely of the
co-countable formulas. For $A\subseteq M$, define $\cl_p(A) := \{ x\in M \;|\;
x \not\models p_A \}$. A weak Morley sequence in $p$ over $A\subseteq M$ is a
sequence $(a_1,\ldots)$ such that $a_i\in M$ and $\tp(a_i/Aa_{<i}) =
p_{Aa_{<i}}$, where $a_{<i} := \{ a_j \;|\; j<i \}$.
\begin{prop}
\begin{enumerate}[(A)]
\item
$(M,\cl_p)$ is a quasiminimal pregeometry structure if
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $p$ does not split over $\emptyset$; i.e.\ if
$\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}/\emptyset)=\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}'/\emptyset)$ then for all $\phi$ we
have $\phi(x,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})\in p$ iff $\phi(x,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')\in p$, i.e.\
$|\phi(M,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})| = |\phi(M,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')|$;
\item There is no $M$-definable partial order on $M$, defined over
finite $A\subseteq M$ say, for which weak Morley sequences in $p$
over $A$ are increasing.
\item $(M,\cl_p)$ satisfies (QM5).
\end{enumerate}
\item
Conversely, if $(M,\cl)$ is an uncountable quasiminimal pregeometry
structure, then $M$ is a quasiminimal structure, $\cl=\cl_p$, and
(i)-(iii) hold.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}[(A)]
\item
By \cite{PiTaQM}[Theorem 4], (i) and (ii) imply that $\cl_p$ is indeed a
pregeometry. Axioms (QM1-3) are clear. (QM4) follows directly from (i).
\item
By (QM1) and (QM4), there exists a complete type $q\in S_1(M)$ such
that for $B\subseteq M$ finite and $a\in M$, we have $a\models q_B$ iff
$a\notin\cl(B)$. By (QM3) and uncountability of $M$, a formula
$\phi(x,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}) \notin q$ iff $\phi(M,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})$ is countable. So $M$ is
quasiminimal, $q=p$, and hence $\cl=\cl_p$.
To prove (i), suppose $\phi(M,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})\in p$ and
$\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}/\emptyset)=\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}'/\emptyset)$. Then say
$a\in\phi(M,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})\setminus\cl({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})$. By (QM5), there exists $a'\in M$
such that $\tp(a,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})=\tp(a',{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')$. By (QM1),
$a'\notin\cl({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')$. Hence $\phi(M,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')\in p$.
To prove (ii), note that permutations of weak Morley sequences are weak
Morley sequences, since $\cl_p=\cl$ is a pregeometry.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Conditions (i) and (ii) in the preceeding Proposition could be replaced with
the following conditions of a more elementary flavour, which appear in
\cite{ZElemGST}:
\begin{enumerate}[(i')]
\item $\aleph_0$-homogeneity over $\emptyset$;
\item
``Countability is weakly definable in $M$'': if $a\in\cl_p({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})$, then
there exists a formula $\phi(x,{\ensuremath{\bar{y}}})$ over $\emptyset$ such that
$M\models\phi(a,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})$ and $|\phi(M,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')| \leq \aleph_0$ for all
${\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}'\in M$;
\item
$|M|>\aleph_1$ or there is no definable partial order on $M$ with a
chain in $M$ of order type $\omega_1$.
\end{enumerate}
Indeed, (i') and (ii') imply (i), since if then $\psi(M,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})$ is countable
then it is covered by countably many $\phi_i(M,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})$ as in (ii'); by (i'),
if $\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')=\tp({\ensuremath{\bar{b}}})$ then $\psi(M,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')$ is countable since it is
covered by the countably many countable $\phi_i(M,{\ensuremath{\bar{b}}}')$. By
\cite{ZElemGST}[Lemma~3.0.3], (ii') and (iii') imply that $\cl_p$ is a
pregeometry and hence that weak Morley sequences in $p$ are indiscernible,
and hence that (ii) holds by \cite{PiTaQM}[Theorem 4];
conversely, \cite{PiTaQM}[Theorem 4] shows under the assumption of (i) and
(ii) that $p$ is $\emptyset$-definable, which implies (ii'), and that $\cl_p$
satisfies exchange, which implies (iii').
\end{remark}
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec::intro}
For 100 years since their discovery, primary cosmic rays
have been measured with different techniques
and at different locations on Earth\cite{Kampert:2012vi}.
Particularly interesting are those cosmic particles
in the energy range between 3~$\cdot 10^{14}$~eV (300~TeV or 0.3~PeV)
and $10^{21}$~eV (1000~EeV), whose
origin, composition, and energy spectrum
remain not fully understood. Cosmic magnetic fields permeating all
space prevent the localization
of the sources that produced the charged particles observed at Earth.
In addition, the relatively low flux of these primaries (about 1~m$^{-2}\cdot$yr$^{-1}$ at $10^{15}$~eV)
does not allow for direct measurements.
Subsequent interactions in the atmosphere result in air showers of secondary
particles that are sampled at ground. These secondaries also release
Cherenkov and fluorescence light detected with telescopes.
The IceCube Observatory is a three-dimensional cosmic-ray air shower
detector (Fig.~\ref{fig::icecube}). The surface component, IceTop, is
an array of water Cherenkov tanks that samples the shower at the surface.
The deep detectors of IceCube (between 1.45~km and 2.45~km below
the surface) measure the signal from penetrating muons, which have
500~GeV or greater at production in the atmosphere.
Events seen in coincidence by both the surface and the deep detectors (coincident events)
offer a unique view of cosmic-ray air showers because
they carry information from two different regions of shower development.
The surface shower is
dominated by low-energy photons, electrons, and muons produced throughout
the cascade, while the high-energy muons reflect the early stage of shower development.
In addition to coincident events, it is also possible to use IceTop as a stand-alone air shower array and to
use the deep detector by itself as a muon detector. Together, the three types of events allow
measurement of the energy spectrum, composition, and anisotropy of the primary cosmic rays
from about 10~TeV to about 1~EeV.
The main goal of IceCube is to detect and measure high-energy neutrinos of extra-terrestrial origin,
as described in the companion review article in this journal\cite{Taboada:2012}.
The high-energy neutrinos are expected to point back to the cosmic-ray sources
in which they are produced\cite{Gaisser:2012ru}.
From the point of view of neutrino astronomy, IceTop serves as a partial {\it veto} against
atmospheric background in the deep detector.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{I3ArrayJan2011NoAmanda.eps}
\caption{Sketch of the IceCube Observatory labeled with some of its main features.
The different colors at the surface identify different deployment stages of
the detector. IceCube in its 2006-07 configuration is shown in red
and termed as IT26/IC22 (26 IceTop stations/22 in-ice strings).
Other configurations are IT40/IC40 (2007-08) in green,
IT59/IC59 (2008-09) in violet, IT73/IC79 (2009-10) in blue, and
IT81/IC86 (2010-11) in yellow.
\protect\label{fig::icecube}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The emphasis of this paper is to review the apparatus and its performances, and the recent physics results
of IceCube as a cosmic-ray detector.
The performances will be reviewed in Sec.~\ref{sec::det}.
Current results from cosmic-ray mass composition and energy spectrum
analysis will be discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec::comp}.
The anisotropy measured with IceTop data is presented in Sec.~\ref{sec::ani}.
Finally, this paper will also report on recent results including $PeV$ $\gamma$
search (Sec.~\ref{sec::pevs}), high momentum in-ice laterally separated muons
(Sec.~\ref{sec::lsm}), and detection of transient events (solar flares and gamma-ray bursts)
with IceTop (Sec.~\ref{sec::moni}).
\section{Cosmic-ray Detection and Reconstruction}
\label{sec::det}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{it_array.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Bakhtiyar/snow_map.eps}}
\caption{ (a) Layout of the IceTop array at its completion. (b) Snow coverage (in color) over the IceTop array..}
\label{fig::icetop}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
The IceTop detector\cite{IT} is a surface array of 162 cylindrical Cherenkov tanks
installed at the 2835~m altitude of the South Pole surface (atmospheric depth
of about 680~g/cm$^2$). The tanks are 1.86~m in diameter and 1.10~m in height.
Filled with clear ice to a depth of 0.90~m, they operate on the same principle as the water tanks
of the Haverah Park experiment\cite{HP} and the Pierre Auger Observatory\cite{PA}.
To minimize accumulation of drifting snow, the tanks have their top surface
level with the surrounding snow. Nevertheless, a variable
and not negligible snow coverage is measured and accounted for when analyzing data.
Pairs of tanks, 10~m apart from each other, localize 81 stations that
are distributed over an area of about 1~km$^2$
on a triangular grid with mean spacing of approximately 125~m.
An {\it in-fill} array for denser shower sampling is configured in the center of IceTop
by using 3 stations at smaller distances together with their 5 neighboring stations.
Each IceTop tank contains two standard IceCube
digital optical modules\cite{DOM,fyp} (DOMs), which include light sensor and readout electronics.
To enhance the dynamic range, the DOMs
of each tank are run at 2 different gains (low and high) with resulting effective thresholds
of 20 and 200 photoelectrons (pe), respectively.
Cosmic-ray muons, hitting the tanks at an approximate rate of 2~kHz,
provide the basic calibration of tanks. The signal spectrum of a tank consists of a
low-energy electromagnetic component and a muon peak at higher energy.
The tank signals are calibrated in units of ``vertical equivalent muon'' or VEM
whose definition is based on the muon peak of the tank spectrum.
A vertically through-going muon of about 1~GeV produces approximately 125~pe
in a high-gain DOM.
In addition to measuring signal amplitudes, the IceTop DOMs can record
the counting rate of low-energy cosmic rays (scaler mode). The rates are available
for heliospheric studies of solar modulation and transient events
such as solar flares and gamma-ray bursts (GRBs).
To initiate the readout of a DOM, its neighbor in the other tank
at the same station has to be hit (hard local coincidence or HLC).
This suppresses the background of accidental signals
caused by isolated muons and allows a good angular resolution.
The basic IceTop air shower trigger requires 6 DOMs to
``launch'' or report signals within a 5~$\mu$s time window.
Thus, even if only high-gain DOMs are
above threshold, this trigger includes all 3-station events.
The rate for these events is 30~Hz.
Once the trigger is formed, additional signals from single tanks
are added if they occur within a 20~$\mu$s time window
(soft local coincidence or SLC). Counting SLCs is useful to evaluate the shower muon content.
These SLC signals are also read out when an in-ice
trigger forms either with or without the presence of HLC signals.
In this case, SLCs can be used to veto
dow-going cosmic rays when measuring up-going neutrinos.
There are different topologies of events that are
relevant for analysis of cosmic-ray data
with IceTop/IceCube. This paper will concentrate on results obtained with analysis of
events caused by nearly vertical (zenith angles $\theta\lesssim$~37$^\circ$ or $\cos\theta >$~0.8)
and contained air showers (Fig.~\ref{fig::coinceve}).
These showers are reconstructed with their axis crossing both parts of the detector.
The effective area of IceCube for such coincident events is
A$\approx$0.15~km$^2$sr.
The maximum energy above which the intensity is too low to obtain
enough events for analysis is about 1~EeV.
The effective area rises to 0.4~km$^2$sr
for detecting events by IceTop alone.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[]{0.42\textwidth}
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{BigEvent.eps}\protect\label{fig::coinceve}}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}[]{0.46\textwidth}
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.88\textwidth]{BigEvent_ldf.eps}\protect\label{fig::dlp}}\\
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{dedx_sel1_mod.eps}\protect\label{fig::dedx}}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{\label{Fig: anis}{(a) Coincident event recorded by IceTop/IceCube in 2010 (IT73/IC79). The triggered
DOMs are indicated with colored spheres with radii proportional to the signal. (b) Lateral distribution of tank
signals in VEM for the event in Fig.~\ref{fig::coinceve} fitted to a double logarithmic parabola
(see text for details). (c) Muon energy loss $dE/dX$ as a function of the in-ice depth
for the event in Fig.~\ref{fig::coinceve}. The stochastic energy loss is about 880~GeV/m above the fitted average energy
loss (black line). The dashed line is the average energy
loss after removal of the stochastic peaks.}}
\end{figure}
The surface shower particle density decreases rapidly with the distance from
the shower axis (lateral distribution function).
This lateral distribution carries
information about the energy of the primary particles.
The charge expectation value $S$ in an IceTop tank at distance $r$ from the shower axis is described
with a ``double logarithmic parabola'' (Fig.~\ref{fig::dlp}) as follows\cite{Klepser}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq::dlp}
S(r) = S_{ref}\cdot \left(\frac{r}{R_{ref}}\right)^{-\beta-\kappa\log_{10}(r/R_{ref})},
\end{equation}
where $R_{ref}=~$125~m, $S_{ref}$ is the charge in VEM at $R_{ref}$, and $\kappa=$~0.303.
The parameter $S_{ref}$ is thus referred to as $S_{125}$ and is a measurement
of the shower size. The signals measured
between about 30~m and 300~m from the shower axis are quite well
described by Eq.~\ref{eq::dlp} for primary
energies in the range 1--100~PeV and arrival directions with zenith in the range
0$^\circ$--40$^\circ$.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{s125.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{EnergyEstimators.eps}}
\caption{\protect\label{fig::s125}
(a) $S_{125}$ distribution for IT73 events reconstructed with
$cos\theta >$0.8 and triggering different numbers of stations.
(b) True primary energy as a function of measured $S_{125}$ obtained in simulation
of iron and proton showers at different zenith angles in IT73.
As a rule of thumb, one can use PeV$\approx$VEM to
convert shower sizes into primary energies.}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
The arrival time behind the shower plane, $\Delta t(r)$, as a function
of the lateral distance $r$ from the shower axis is described
by the sum of a parabola and a Gaussian function, both symmetric around the
shower axis, with the following form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq::artimes}
\Delta t(r) = ar^2 + b\left( \exp\left( \frac{r^2}{2\sigma^2_r}\right)-1\right),
\end{equation}
where $a =$~4.823$\cdot$10$^{-4}$~ns/m$^2$, $b =$~19.41~ns, and $\sigma_{r}=$~83.5~m.
The energy, zenith angle, and mass dependence of $a$, $b$, and $\sigma_r$ is currently
under investigation in simulations.
When reconstructing the shower direction $\vec{n}$, Eq.~\ref{eq::artimes}
accounts for the shower front curvature as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{eq::shplane}
t(\vec{x}) = t_0 + \frac{\vec{x} - \vec{x}_c}{c} \vec{n}+ \Delta t (r),
\end{equation}
where $t(\vec{x})$ is the tank signal time,
$\vec{x}$ the tank position, $\vec{x}_c$ the shower core position,
and $t_0$ the time when the core reaches the surface.
For events triggering 5 or more stations, Eq.~\ref{eq::shplane} is fitted to
the measured signal times with 5 free parameters, 3 for core position and time,
and 2 for shower direction.
At the same time, Eq.~\ref{eq::dlp} is fitted to the measured tank signals with
2 free parameters, $S_{125}$ and $\beta$. A maximum likelihood method is
adopted to obtain the best fit to the measurements\cite{IT}.
For events triggering 3 or 4
stations, only $S_{125}$ and $\beta$ are kept free after fitting the measured signal times
to obtain core position and time, and shower direction.
The position of IceTop at the high altitude of the South Pole
makes it possible to sample ground particles near the shower maximum,
thus reducing significantly the effects of fluctuations
and allowing accurate measurements.
Events of 5 or more stations are expected from primaries of
energy between PeV and EeV, whereas 3 or 4 station
events set the threshold for cosmic ray detection with IceTop to
about 300~TeV. Lower energies ($\gtrsim$100~TeV) are expected if the events triggering
the denser in-fill array are considered.
The energy resolution is estimated to be $\lesssim$0.1 in units of $\log_{10}($E/GeV$)$
above about 1~PeV, reaching about 0.05 for $E>$~10~PeV.
The angular resolution ranges from about 1$^\circ$ at 10$^{15}$~eV to
about 0.2$^\circ$ at 10$^{17}$~eV. The core resolution ranges from about 15.0~m at 10$^{15}$~eV
to about 6~m at 10$^{17}$~eV.
Analysis of IceCube coincident events aims to give clear insights
into the nuclear composition of cosmic rays
for energies that span from PeV to EeV.
For a given primary energy, penetrating muons are more abundant
in iron showers than in proton showers since their development starts higher in the atmosphere.
The muon bundle size is therefore larger for iron showers.
On the other hand, proton showers reach their maximum development
deeper in the atmosphere than iron showers and the ratio of muons to electrons and
photons is therefore smaller at the surface.
The number of in-ice muons or muon multiplicity is closely related to the
amount of energy deposited in the detector, which is proportional to the
amount of Cherenkov light generated.
For example, depending on the mass of the primary particle (proton or iron),
an event of 5$\cdot$10$^{15}$~eV is expected to carry 30 to 80 muons with
sufficient energy to reach a depth of 1500~m and deposit 5$\cdot$10$^{12}$~eV to 15$\cdot$10$^{12}$~eV in the deep detector.
Analogous to surface measurements of tank signals,
the in-ice DOM signals (in photoelectrons)
can be described in terms of a lateral distribution, which
is a function of the distance from the muon bundle track
at a given slant depth from the surface.
This function is dominated by a decaying exponential
whose slope is the attenuation length of light in the ice\cite{IceCube:2012vv}.
The bundle size, termed as $K_{70}$, is defined as the in-ice signal measured
at a slant depth of 1950~m and at a perpendicular distance from
the track of 70~m. This observable has been used in combination
with $S_{125}$ to discriminate between light and heavy primary masses (see Sec.~\ref{sec::comp}).
A different approach explored the reconstruction of the muon bundle
energy loss $dE/dx$ to find composition sensitive properties
of bundles\cite{Feusels:2009xb}. The muon bundle energy loss as a function of the slant depth
is a convolution of the shower muon multiplicity,
the muon energy distribution and the energy
loss of a single muon. For iron showers,
the bundle energy loss is expected to be greater.
Furthermore, for the same amount of energy
deposited, stochastic losses along the
bundle track are larger in proton showers, which
produce more high energy muons.
The reconstruction of air showers with IceTop/IceCube is affected by
several uncertainties. These uncertainties have been extensively investigated
and several advances are expected in the future results.
Pressure variations at the surface and snow coverage affect
the measurement of $S_{125}$ with the latter giving the largest contribution.
For a given primary energy and arrival direction, higher pressure
makes the primary interaction depth shallower thus reducing
the shower size.
The snow over each tank is physically measured every year
and also estimated from the muon/electron ratio in calibration curves.
The snow mainly affects the response of the tank to
the electromagnetic component of the shower front thus affecting
the energy threshold.
The shower size is corrected
for pressure and snow coverage.
Other systematic uncertainties affect the in-ice reconstruction: the ice model used to describe the
properties of the photon propagation\cite{SpiceMie} ($\pm$10\%),
the DOM efficiency\cite{Abbasi:2010vc} ($\pm$10\%),
and the muon rate seasonal variation\cite{Tilav:2010hj}.
\section{Cosmic-ray Energy Spectrum and Nuclear Composition}
\label{sec::comp}
Most galactic cosmic rays are believed to be accelerated
in the blast waves (diffusive shocks) of nearby supernova remnants\cite{Hillas:2005cs} (SNRs)
and in some cases (extended sources/strong magnetic fields)
can escape the acceleration region with energies
up to about 10$^{18}$~eV.
The signature of these sources is the gradual steepening
of the cosmic-ray flux at a few 10$^{15}$~eV, called {\it knee}.
The well-known power-law form of the
cosmic-ray energy spectrum $dN/dE\propto E^{-2.7}$ changes
its spectral index to about -3.0.
The knee is interpreted as the maximum energy reached through
acceleration in SNRs. This energy scales with the charge of the nucleus.
Therefore, the spectrum of galactic cosmic rays
is predicted to end at energies of about 10$^{18}$~eV with
the heaviest elements being accelerated\cite{Blasi:2011fi}.
Depending on whether the transition is from galactic iron to extragalactic
proton or from galactic iron to extra-galactic mixed composition of different nuclei,
the transition energy is predicted\cite{Berezinsky:2007wf} at few 10$^{17}$~eV or
few 10$^{18}$~eV.
At energies between 10$^{15}$~eV to 10$^{17}$~eV,
all air shower experiments observe energy dependent changes of
composition that are compatible with an increase of the measured average mass
of cosmic rays. Above 10$^{17}$~eV and up to 10$^{18}$~eV
measurements of composition indicate a decrease
of the cosmic-ray average mass\cite{Kampert:2012mx}.
The cosmic-ray flux up to 10$^{17}$~eV is believed to be mostly dominated by
the contribution of galactic sources.
The ``fingerprint'' of the transition to the extra-galactic contribution
is expected in the measurement of the
mass composition at this energy and above.
At the highest energies (above 10$^{19}$~eV), measurements from
the Pierre Auger Observatory, and HiRes/Telescope Array
give opposite results\cite{Abraham:2010yv,Abbasi:2009nf,Sagawa:2011zza}.
These experiments are extending their detectors to
reach about 10$^{18}$~eV and below\cite{Maris:2011zz,Mathes:2011zz,Ogio:2011zz},
and their measurements will overlap with IceCube measurements.
IceCube/IceTop allows for precise measurements of the primary energy spectrum
in a wide energy range that reaches the energy threshold of
the largest air shower arrays and is sensitive to cosmic-ray nuclear composition changes.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{spectrum/spectrumIT.eps}\protect\label{fig::spectraIT}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{masscomp/composition.eps}\protect\label{fig::massc}}
\caption{ (a) Energy spectra obtained with data of IceTop running in different configurations (IT26,
IT40, and IT73). For the IT26 and IT40 spectrum, the systematic uncertainty is also shown.
(b) The mean logarithmic mass vs primary energy adapted from Ref.~\cite{IceCube:2012vv}.
The IT40/IC40 results are shown in (red) stars along with
their statistical errors (solid red error bars) and systematic errors (dashed red region).
Measurements from other experiments are also shown. Data points are compiled from
Ref.~\refcite{Hoerandel:2002yg,Kampert:2012mx}. }
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{spectrumIT.eps}
\caption{Energy spectra obtained with data of IceTop running in different configurations (IT26,
IT40, and IT73). For the IT26 and IT40 spectrum, the systematic uncertainty is also shown.
\protect\label{fig::spectraIT}}
\end{figure}
The first analysis to determine the all-particle energy spectrum
with IceTop\cite{Abbasi:2012wn}
was based on data of IT26 (area of 0.094~km$^2$)
taken between June and October 2007.
In this analysis, the measured shower size ($S_{125}$) spectra in three zenith angle
ranges up to 46$^\circ$ are unfolded or de-convoluted
into the estimated energy spectrum.
The spectrum obtained in the energy range
between 1 and 100~PeV is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig::spectraIT} along with other spectra measured
with IceTop data and discussed in this section.
The energy at which the lines with the minimum and maximum slope before and after the
knee intersect identifies the knee position.
Assuming pure iron, the energy spectra measured in different zenith angle ranges
have been shown to disagree and prove that pure iron primaries can
be excluded in the energy range up to 25~PeV.
A consistent interpretation of the spectra
measured at different zenith angles requires a mixed composition.
For a two-component model,
the knee measured in the IT26 spectrum is at 4.32~PeV and
the spectral index above the knee is -3.11. An indication of a flattening of
the spectrum above 22~PeV is also observed with a spectral index changing to -2.85.
A preliminary measurement of the spectrum with IT73 has been
obtained by analyzing 11 months of data (June 15 to
May 13, 2010)\cite{Tamburro:2012,Serap:2012,Bakhtiyar:2012} (Fig.~\ref{fig::spectraIT}).
The statistics is nearly 40,000,000 events between about
0.3~PeV and 1~EeV and for $\cos\theta>$~0.8. Of these events,
about 200 are found above about 200~PeV.
With enhanced precision, better energy resolution, and larger statistics above 100~PeV,
this measurement confirms the earlier result of a flattening observed with IT26 data
and reveals the spectrum structure in the steepening between the knee and ankle
above about 100~PeV. It also appears that the spectrum is not well described by a single
power law. All showers with 5 or more stations and with $\cos\theta >$~0.8 are considered in this analysis.
The energy spectrum, now measured between 1~PeV and 1~EeV, will
be extended to lower energies, down to 300~TeV.
This can be achieved by selecting small events in IceTop\cite{Bakhtiyar:2009}
and is particularly interesting in view of the recent
measurements with ATIC\cite{Panov:2011ak}
and CREAM\cite{Yoon:2011aa} balloon-borne calorimeters that are providing increased
statistics and a new view of the region around 100~TeV/nucleus.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{spectraAll.eps}
\caption{Cosmic-ray energy spectrum measured with IT73 and other experiments operating
in the same energy range. The spectra from the Pierre Auger Observatory\protect\cite{Augerspec}
and Telescope Array\protect\cite{TAspec} are also shown. Finally, the {\it H4a} model of the cosmic-ray flux
is overlaid (see text for detail).}
\protect\label{fig::spectraAll}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig::spectraAll}, the IceTop spectrum is compared to the spectra obtained
with recent measurements of
KASCADE-Grande (Karlsruhe, Germany, 110~m a.s.l.)\cite{Apel:2011mi,Apel:2012rm},
Tibet Array (at Tibet Yangbajing, 4300~m a.s.l.)\cite{Amenomori:2008aa,Amenomori:2011zza},
GAMMA (on the south side of Mount Aragats in Armenia, 3200~m a.s.l.)\cite{Garyaka:2008gs},
and Tunka (in the Tunka Valley in Buryatia, Siberia, 675~m a.s.l.)\cite{Tunka:spectrum}.
A model assuming three populations of cosmic rays\cite{Gaisser:2012zz}
(SNR component, high energy
galactic component, and extra-galactic component)
and termed as {\it H4a} is also shown.
A first attempt to measure the mass composition of cosmic rays
was performed with one month of data (constant snow coverage) of IceCube in its 2008 IT40/IC40
configuration\cite{IceCube:2012vv}.
A neural network was trained with Monte Carlo simulations
of 5 primaries (proton, helium, oxygen, silicon, and iron).
Measurements of the electromagnetic
component of the air showers at the surface ($S_{125}$) and the muon component
in the ice ($K_{70}$) are used to ``teach'' the network how
to find the best fit to the primary energy and mass.
A measurement of the cosmic-ray energy spectrum (Fig.~\ref{fig::spectraIT}) and
composition (Fig.~\ref{fig::massc}) at energies between 1~PeV and 30~PeV was
determined.
The energy resolution from the neural network ranges from 18--20\% in the threshold region
of this analysis (1.5~PeV) to 6--8\% at 30~PeV,
for an average resolution better than 14\% over the full range of
energies.
The energy spectrum derived with this analysis is consistent with other
IceTop results within systematic uncertainties.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{composition.eps}
\caption{The mean logarithmic mass vs primary energy adapted from
Ref.~\cite{IceCube:2012vv}.
The IT40/IC40 results are shown with (red) stars along with
their statistical errors (solid red error bars) and systematic errors (shaded red region).
Measurements from other experiments are also shown. Data points are compiled from
Ref.~\cite{Hoerandel:2002yg,Kampert:2012mx}.}
\protect\label{fig::massc}
\end{figure}
The mean logarithmic mass $<lnA>$ as a function of the primary energy
indicates a strong increase in mass through the knee
although the systematic uncertainties can greatly affect the measured composition in terms
of absolute value of $<lnA>$.
\section{Cosmic-ray Anisotropy Measurements}
\label{sec::ani}
Although detection of $\gamma$ rays and neutrinos from individual galactic
or extra-galactic sources of cosmic rays remains a method to
probe the origin of cosmic rays, studies of anisotropy of cosmic-ray arrival directions
are important to investigate the characteristics of cosmic-ray
propagation in the local interstellar medium.
In IceCube the anisotropy of cosmic-ray arrival directions can be measured
in two different ways: using TeV muon events collected with the deep detector
or using cosmic-ray air shower events triggering the surface array.
The in-ice detector has a lower energy threshold than IceTop, which allows
to investigate the anisotropy of cosmic rays at lower primary energies (down to
20~TeV) and larger zenith angles (up to 90$^\circ$).
This makes it possible for the deep detector to
reach a higher sensitivity (about 6.3$\cdot$10$^{10}$~events/yr,
anisotropy level $\delta >$~10$^{-5}$) and scan small scale structures.
On the other hand, IceTop presents a better energy resolution (20\% at $>$300~TeV),
although binning is limited by statistics, and potential for including
composition sensitivity.
A dipole-like large scale anisotropy (amplitude of about 10$^{-3}$)
from few tens of TeV to about 100~TeV
has been observed with in-ice data\cite{Abbasi:2010mf,Abbasi:2011zka}.
This anisotropy is inconsistent, both in
amplitude and phase, with the Compton-Getting prediction\cite{CG},
i.e. the apparent anisotropy caused by the relative motion between the Earth and sources
of cosmic rays. A small scale anisotropy with
significant structure at angular sizes between 10$^\circ$
and 30$^\circ$ has been also observed.
This might uncover non-diffusive propagation effects or SNR connection
and be a natural consequence of the stochastic nature of cosmic-ray galactic sources, in
particular nearby and recent SNRs ($<$0.1--1~kpc)\cite{Erlykin:2006ri,Blasi:2011fl,Biermann:2012tc}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}[]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ic79_20tev_20deg.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ic79_400tev_20deg.eps}}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{IT73_400TeV_skymap.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{IT73_2PeV_skymap.eps}}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{\protect\label{fig::skymaps}{Statistical significance sky maps obtained
with IC79 in-ice (left panels) and IT73 IceTop data (right panels).
The in-ice data sets have median energies
of 20~TeV (upper) and 400~TeV (lower).
The IceTop datasets have a median energy of
400~TeV (upper) and 2~PeV (lower). The angular binning or smoothing angle is 20$^\circ$.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{ic79_40tev_20deg.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{ic79_400tev_20deg.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{IT73_400TeV_skymap.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{IT73_2PeV_skymap.eps}}
\caption{Statistical significance sky maps obtained with IC79 in-ice data (upper panels)
and IT73 IceTop data (lower panels). The in-ice data sets have median energies
of 40~TeV (left) and 400~TeV (right). The IceTop datasets have a median energy of
400~TeV (left) and 2~PeV (right). The angular binning or smoothing angle is 20$^\circ$.}
\protect\label{fig::skymaps}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
The analysis of IceTop data confirms and complements the measurement
of the large scale anisotropy also at PeV energies\cite{Santander:2012sn}.
IceTop has an angular resolution of about 3$^\circ$
for energies above 100~TeV and zenith angles up to 40$^\circ$
when pure event geometry reconstruction
is performed. The angular resolution degrades to
10$^\circ$ and above for zenith angles greater than 60$^\circ$.
Only events with zenith angles less than 60$^\circ$ are
selected (1.4$\cdot$10$^8$~events/yr, $\delta >$~10$^{-4}$).
Monte Carlo studies indicate that the median primary cosmic-ray energy of
IceTop data is 640~TeV, with 68\% of the events between
200~TeV and 2,400~TeV. Events are classified as low
(68\% of events in 100--700~TeV, median energy of 400~TeV)
and high energy events (68\% of events in 0.8--3.8~PeV, median energy of 2~PeV).
Analysis of IceTop data reveals a deficit that confirms what was observed
with the in-ice muon analysis at 400~TeV (compare lower left to upper right
plot of Fig.~\ref{fig::skymaps}). The amplitude of this deficit is about
2$\cdot$10$^{-3}$ and therefore larger than 10$^{-3}$ observed with in-ice muons.
However, these values are in agreement if the uncertainties are considered.
Furthermore, above 400~TeV there is indication of an increase in strength
of the anisotropy.
\section{PeV $\gamma$ search}
\label{sec::pevs}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{pev_sens_int.eps}\protect\label{fig::pevs}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{pev_sens.eps}\protect\label{fig::pevs5}}
\caption{(a) Sensitivity of IceCube and existing limit from CASA-MIA as
a function of energy. In addition to the IceCube sensitivity obtained with
the analysis of 40-string/40-station data in the energy range $1.2-6 \,PeV$ (purple line),
the 5-year sensitivity to a diffuse $\gamma$-ray flux from a region within $10^\circ$
from the Galactic Plane is shown (dashed blue line) for energies in $1-10 \,PeV$.
The differential sensitivity is also shown (blue dots) with energy bins of $1 \,PeV$.
(b) IceCube 5 year sensitivity to point sources as a function of declination.
The dashed red line indicates the lowest
declination reached by the Galactic plane. The blue points
indicate the flux of identified $TeV$ sources extrapolated at $1 \,PeV$
and assuming no energy cutoff.}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
High energy $\gamma$ rays ($\gtrsim$1~TeV) have been observed
from different galactic sources (SNRs, pulsar wind nebulae, binary systems,
the Galactic Center) and extra-galactic sources (starburst galaxies,
active galactic nuclei, and objects containing supermassive black holes).
At higher energies
($\gtrsim$100~TeV),
extra-galactic photons are likely
to interact with the cosmic microwave background radiation
and radiation from infrared starlight from
galaxies, producing $e^+-e^-$ pairs.
It is unknown whether galactic sources
can emit $\gamma$ of energy $\gtrsim$100~TeV.
However, a guaranteed diffuse flux of $\gamma$ rays
from interaction of cosmic rays with
the interstellar medium and dense molecular clouds
is also expected.
IceCube can detect high energy $\gamma$ rays
by {\it vetoing} on the in-ice component, i.e.
searching for showers detected by IceTop where no in-ice
activity is observed (muon poor showers)\cite{Kolanoskiecrs}.
A PeV $\gamma$-ray shower produces about 0.1 muons above 800~GeV.
The uncertainties due to the surface detector response
and the muon rate production for photon showers
are added in quadrature and return an overall systematic uncertainty in sensitivity of 18\%.
No detectable $\gamma$-ray flux has been found by IceCube above 1.2~PeV
with one year of data.
The fraction of $\gamma$ in cosmic rays
is estimated to be less than 1.2$\cdot$10$^{-3}$ (90\% {\it cl})
in the range 1.2--6.0~PeV and within 10$^\circ$ of the galactic plane.
IceCube is also sensitive to localized sources, where galactic accelerators or dense targets for
extra-galactic cosmic rays might be discovered.
It is estimated that at about 1~PeV, IceCube can reveal fluxes as low as
about 10$^{-19}$~cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$TeV$^{-1}$ for point sources.
\section{Laterally separated muons}
\label{sec::lsm}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{separated_muon1.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{latsep_dist.eps}}
\caption{(a) Example of laterally separated muons (upper track) from the muon bundle
(lower track) of a cosmic-ray shower reaching the in-ice detector. The separation is 400~m,
the angular separation is 3.5$^\circ$, and the time difference is 20~ns.
(b) The separation between the laterally separated (LS) muon
and the bundle track after applying all selection criteria
for data, simulation with the Sibyll, DPMJET, and QGSJET
interaction models, as well as double showers estimated from
off-time data.}
\protect\label{fig::lsmu}
\end{figure}
High energy muons ($>$1~TeV) are produced early in air showers and
probe the initial shower development. One can distinguish between ``conventional'' muons,
which come from pion and kaon decays, and ``prompt'' muons, which
come from the decays of particles containing heavy
quarks, mostly charm. The former are expected to dominate at TeV energies,
the latter at higher but uncertain energies. Extending the earlier measurements
performed by the MACRO experiment\cite{Ambrosio:1999qu}, IceCube is capable to
resolve muons of cosmic-ray primary interactions and high-energy
secondary interactions that are laterally separated by 135~m up to
400~m from the shower core (Fig.~\ref{fig::lsmu}), where the muon
bundle is detected\cite{Lisa:2012}.
The separation is due to high transverse momentum
of 2--15~GeV/c (corresponding to separations of 135--400~m)
transferred to the muon by its parent. Above 2~GeV/c, interactions can be described
with perturbative quantum chromodynamics.
However, the cosmic-ray hadronic interaction models used to simulate IceCube events do not
reproduce the rates and the zenith angle distributions observed in data.
\section{Solar and Heliospheric Physics, and GRB Search}
\label{sec::moni}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{flare.eps}
\caption{Time profile of the count rate measured by groups of IceTop DOMs with decreasing
thresholds (from $MPE$ to $SPE3$), neutron monitors, and the GOES satellite\protect\cite{Evenson:2012}.
\protect\label{fig::flare}}
\end{figure}
Due to the high altitude and the nearly zero geomagnetic cutoff at the South Pole, secondary
particle spectra measured with IceTop retain a significant amount of information on the spectra
of the primary particles.
IceTop has already demonstrated the novel and unique ability to
derive the energy spectrum of solar particles in the multi-GeV
regime. The first event detected and studied by IceTop\cite{Abbasi:2008vr}
was the solar flare associated to the ground-level
event of December 13, 2006.
IceTop DOMs can span thresholds from 1~pe to 30~pe
corresponding to counting rates of about 8~kHz to about 1~kHz.
By taking the differential rates at multiple thresholds,
the spectrum of detected events can be studied.
Furthermore, IceTop presents 50 times better sensitivity than conventional detectors used for solar and
heliospheric physics such as neutron monitors.
In addition to solar flares,
the typical phenomena studied with IceTop are complex interplanetary disturbances\cite{Kuwabara:2007zz} and
``Forbush Decreases''\cite{Kuwabara:2011}. The latter are associated with strong shocks following
coronal mass ejections that deplete cosmic rays from the region traversed by the Earth.
On May 12, 2012 a significant solar flare was detected by IceTop and is being
currently analyzed to determine the energy spectrum (Fig.~\ref{fig::flare}).
An ongoing study shows that IceTop can also reveal
GRBs through detection of an overall increase of the counting rates
observed in coincidence with the signal recorded
on board of dedicated satellites.
A flux of $\gamma$ rays with energies greater than 10~GeV
and zenith angles up to about 20$^\circ$ can enhance the counting rate
above the steady cosmic-ray background if it is greater
than 10$^{-5}$~erg$\cdot$cm$^{-2}$. IceTop can detect GRBs
whose emission extends up to a few 100~GeV and occurring
in a sky region not monitored by any other experiment.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec::conc}
The IceCube Observatory is currently taking data in the second year
after its completion in 2010. Analysis performed with data of the detector
in earlier stages of its deployment has been reviewed in this paper.
On the one hand, events seen in coincidence by both the surface component, IceTop,
and in-ice detectors offer precious information to investigate the mass composition of cosmic rays.
On the other hand, analysis of IceTop events allows for precise measurements
of the cosmic-ray energy spectrum with large sensitivity.
The better understanding of the systematic uncertainties along
with the exquisitely large event rate collected will allow IceCube to
significantly contribute to shed light on galactic cosmic rays
in the near future.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
I am grateful to F. Halzen for the possibility to
review IceTop results and to T. Gaisser, H. Kolanoski, and T. Stanev
for helpful discussions. A special thanks goes to
T. Feusels, L. Gerhardt, T. Kuwabara, B. Ruzybayev, and M. Santander for providing
plots. This research is supported in part by the
U.S. National Science Foundation Grant NSF-ANT-0856253.
|
\section{Introduction}
Answer Set Programming (ASP)
is a
declarative programming approach \cite{niem-99,mare-trus-99,lifs-2002},
in which solutions to a problem correspond to answer
sets~\cite{gelf-lifs-91} of a logic program, which are computed using an
ASP solver. While this approach has turned out, thanks to expressive and
efficient systems like \smodels{} \cite{simo-niem-02}, \dlv{}
\cite{leon-etal-06-dlv}, ASSAT~\cite{lz2004-aij},
cmodels~\cite{glm2006-jar}, and \clasp{} \cite{gks2012-aij,gkkoss2011-aicom}, to be
fruitful for a range of applications, cf.\ \cite{brew-etal-11-asp},
current trends in distributed systems and the World Wide
Web, for instance, revealed the need for
access to external sources in a program,
ranging from light-weight data access (e.g., XML, RDF, or data bases) to
knowledge-intensive formalisms (e.g., description logics).
To cater for this need, \hex{}-programs~\cite{eist2005} extend ASP
with so called external atoms, through which the user can couple any
external data source with a logic
program. Roughly, such atoms pass information from the program, given
by predicates and constants, to an external source which
returns output values of an (abstract) function that it computes.
This extension is convenient and has been exploited for
applications in different areas, cf.\ \cite{efiks2011-lpnmr}, and it is also
very expressive since recursive data exchange between the logic program and
external sources is possible. Advanced reasoning
applications like default
reasoning over description logic ontologies \cite{eilst2008-aij,dek2009}
or reasoning over Nonmonotonic Multi-Context
Systems~\cite{be2007,efsw2010-kr} take advantage of it.
Current algorithms for evaluating \hex-programs use a translation
approach and rewrite them to ordinary ASP programs. The idea is to
guess the truth values of external atoms (i.e., whether a
particular fact is in the ``output'' of the external source access) in
a modified program; after computing answer sets, a
compatibility test checks whether the guesses coincide with the actual source behavior.
While elegant, this approach is a bottleneck in advanced applications
including those mentioned above. It does not scale, as
blind guessing leads to an explosion of candidate answer
sets, many of which might fail the compatibility test.
Furthermore, a blackbox view of external sources disables any
pruning of the search space in the ASP translation, and even if
properties would be known, it is sheer impossible
to make use of them in ordinary ASP evaluation on-the-fly using standard
solvers.
To overcome this bottleneck, a new evaluation method is needed. In this
paper, we thus present a novel algorithm for evaluating \hex-programs,
described in Section~\ref{sec:learning:algorithms},
which avoids the simple ASP translation approach. It has three key
features.
\begin{myitemize}
\item First, it natively builds model candidates from first
principles and accesses external sources already during the model
search, which allows to prune candidates early.
\item Second, it considers
external sources no longer as black boxes, but exploits
meta-knowledge about their internals.
\item And third, it takes up modern SAT and ASP
solving techniques based on \emph{clause learning}~\cite{HandbookOfSAT2009}, which led to very efficient
\emph{conflict-driven} algorithms for answer-set computation~\cite{gks2012-aij,Drescher08conflict-drivendisjunctive},
and extends them to external sources, which is a major contribution of
this work. To this end,
we introduce {\em external behavior learning (EBL)}, which generates conflict clauses (nogoods) after
external source evaluation (Section~\ref{sec:learning:algorithms}).
We do this in Section~\ref{sec:learning}, first in the uninformed case (Section~\ref{sec:learning:uninformed}), where no meta-information
about the external source is available, except that a certain input generates a
certain output. We then exploit meta-information\footnote{Not to be confused with semantically annotated data, which is not considered here.} about external sources
(properties such as monotonicity and functionality) %
to learn even more effective
nogoods which restrict the search space further (Section~\ref{sec:learning:informed}).
\end{myitemize}
We have implemented the new algorithm and incorporated it into
the \dlvhex{} prototype system.\footnote{\url{http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/research/systems/dlvhex/}} It is designed in an extensible fashion,
such that the provider of external sources
can specify refined learning functions which exploit specific knowledge about
the source.
Our theoretical work is confirmed by experiments that we
conducted with our prototype on synthetic benchmarks and
programs motivated by real-world applications (Section~\ref{sec:impl}). In several cases,
significant performance improvements compared to the previous algorithm
are obtained, which shows the suitability and potential of the new approach.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:prelim}
In this section, we introduce syntax and semantics of \hex{}-programs
and,
following~\cite{Drescher08conflict-drivendisjunctive},
conflict-driven SAT and
answer set solving.
We start
with basic definitions.
A (signed) literal is a positive or a negated ground atom
$\mathbf{T} a$ or $\mathbf{F} a$, where ground atom $a$ is of form $p(c_1, \dotsc, c_\ell)$,
with predicate $p$ and function-symbol free ground terms $c_1, \dotsc, c_\ell$,
abbreviated as $p(\vec{c})$.
For a literal $\sigma = \mathbf{T} a$ or $\sigma = \mathbf{F} a$,
let $\overline{\sigma}$ denote its negation,
i.e. $\overline{\mathbf{T} a} = \mathbf{F} a$ and $\overline{\mathbf{F} a} = \mathbf{T} a$.
An assignment $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ over a (finite) set of atoms $\mathcal{A}$
is a consistent set of signed literals
$\mathbf{T} a$ or $\mathbf{F} a$, where $\mathbf{T} a$ expresses that~$a \in \mathcal{A}$
is true and
$\mathbf{F} a$ that it is false.
We write $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{T}}$ to refer to the set of elements
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{T}} = \{ a \mid \mathbf{T} a \in \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \}$
and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{F}}$ to refer to
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{F}} = \{ a \mid \mathbf{F} a \in \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \}$.
The extension of a %
predicate symbol $q$
wrt. an assignment~$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ is
defined as
$\mathit{ext}(q, \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}) =
\{ \vec{c} \mid \mathbf{T} q(\vec{c}) \in \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \}$.
Let further~${\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}|_{q}$ be the set of all signed literals over
atoms of form $q(\vec{c})$ in $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$. For a list $\vec{q} =
q_1,\dotsc,q_k$ of
predicates, we let ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}|_{\vec{q}}
= {\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}|_{q_1} \cup \dotsb \cup {\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}|_{q_k}$.
A \emph{nogood} $\{ L_1, \dotsc, L_n \}$ is a set of (signed) literals
$L_i, 1 \le i \le n$.
An assignment $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ is a \emph{solution} to a nogood $\delta$
resp.\ a set of nogoods $\Delta$, iff $\delta \not\subseteq \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$
resp.\ $\delta \not \subseteq \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ for all $\delta \in \Delta$.
\subsection{\hex-Programs}
We briefly recall \hex-programs, which have been introduced
in~\citeN{eist2005} as a generalization of (disjunctive)
extended logic programs under the answer set
semantics~\cite{gelf-lifs-91}; for more details and background, we refer
to~\citeN{eist2005}.
\leanparagraph{Syntax}
\hex-programs extend ordinary ASP programs by \emph{external atoms},
which enable a bidirectional interaction between a program
and external sources of computation.
External atoms have a list of input parameters (constants or predicate names)
and a list of output parameters. Informally,
to evaluate an external atom, the reasoner passes the constants and extensions of the predicates
in the input tuple to the external source
associated with the external atom, which
is plugged into the reasoner. %
The external source
computes %
an output tuple, which %
is matched %
with the output list.
More formally, %
a \emph{ground external atom} is of the form $\ext{g}{\vec{p}}{\vec{c}}$, where
$\vec{p} = p_1, \dotsc, p_k$ are constant input parameters (predicate names or object constants),
and
$\vec{c} = c_1, \dotsc, c_l$ are
constant output terms. %
Ground \hex-programs are then defined similar to ground ordinary ASP programs.
\begin{definition}[Ground \hex-programs]
A ground \hex-program consists of rules of form
\begin{equation*}
a_1\lor\cdots\lor a_k \leftarrow b_1,\dotsc, b_m, \naf\, b_{m+1},
\dotsc, \naf\, b_n \ ,
\end{equation*}
where each $a_i$ for $1 \le i \le k$ is a ground atom $p(c_1,\dotsc,c_\ell)$
with constants $c_j$, $1 \le j \le \ell$,
and each~$b_i$ for $1 \le i \le n$ is either a classical ground atom or a ground external atom.%
\footnote{
For simplicity, we do not formally introduce strong negation
but see classical literals of form $\neg a$ as new atoms
together with a constraint which disallows that $a$ and $\neg a$ are simultaneously true.}
\end{definition}
The \emph{head} of a rule $r$ is
$H(r) = \{a_1, \dotsc, a_k \}$ and
the \emph{body}
is $B(r) = \{b_1, \dotsc, b_m,$ $\naf\, b_{m+1}, \dotsc, \naf\, b_n\}$.
We call $b$ or $\naf b$ in a rule body a \emph{default literal};
$B^{+}(r) = \{b_1, \dotsc, b_m\}$ is the \textit{positive body},
$B^{-}(r) = \{b_{m+1}, \dotsc, b_n\}$ is the \textit{negative body}.
In Sections~\ref{sec:learning} and~\ref{sec:impl} we will also make use
of non-ground programs. However, we restrict our theoretical
investigation to ground programs as suitable safety conditions allow for
application of grounding procedure \cite{eist2006}.
\leanparagraph{Semantics and Evaluation}
The semantics of a ground external atom $\ext{g}{\vec{p}}{\vec{c}}$
wrt. an assignment $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ is given by the value of a $1{+}k{+}l$-ary Boolean
\emph{oracle function} $\extfun{g}$ that is defined for all possible values
of $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$, $\vec{p}$ and $\vec{c}$. Thus,
$\ext{g}{\vec{p}}{\vec{c}}$ is true relative
to %
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ if and only if it holds that
$\extsem{g}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}{\vec{p}}{\vec{c}} = 1$.
Satisfaction of ordinary rules and ASP programs~\cite{gelf-lifs-91}
%
is then extended to
\hex-rules and programs in the obvious way, and
the notion of extension $\mathit{ext}(\cdot, \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$
for external predicates $\amp{g}$ with input lists $\vec{p}$
is naturally defined by
$\mathit{ext}(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}) =
\{ \vec{c} \mid \extsem{g}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}{\vec{p}}{\vec{c}} = 1\}$.
The answer sets of a \hex-program $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ are
determined by the \dlvhex{} solver using a transformation
to ordinary ASP programs as follows.
Each external atom
$\ext{g}{\vec{p}}{\vec{c}}$
in~$\ensuremath{\Pi}$ is replaced by an ordinary ground \emph{replacement atom}
$e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c})$
and a rule~
$e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c}) \vee \mathit{ne}_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c}) \leftarrow$
is added to the program. The answer sets of the resulting \emph{guessing program}~$\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$
are determined by an ordinary ASP solver and projected
to non-replacement atoms.
However, the resulting
assignments are not necessarily models
of $\ensuremath{\Pi}$, as %
the value of~$\amp{g}[\vec{p}]$ under~$f_{\amp{g}}$
can be different from the one of~$e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c})$.
Each answer set of $\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$ is thus a \emph{candidate compatible set}
(or \emph{model candidate})
which must be checked against the external sources.
If no discrepancy is found, the model candidate is a
\emph{compatible set} of~$\ensuremath{\Pi}$. More precisely,
\begin{definition}[Compatible Set]
\label{def:compatibleset}
A \emph{compatible set} of a program $\ensuremath{\Pi}$
is an assignment $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$
\begin{compactenum}[(i)]
\item\label{en:cs1} which is an answer set \cite{gelf-lifs-91} of the \emph{guessing program}
$\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$, and
\item\label{en:cs2} $\extsem{g}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}{\vec{p}}{\vec{c}} = 1$ iff
$\mathbf{T} e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c}) \in \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ for
all external atoms $\amp{g}[\vec{p}](\vec{c})$ in $\ensuremath{\Pi}$,
i.e. the guessed values coincide with the actual output
under the input from $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$.
\end{compactenum}
\end{definition}
The compatible sets of $\Pi$ computed by \dlvhex{} include (modulo $A(\Pi)$) all answer
sets of $\Pi$ as defined in \citeN{eist2005} using the
FLP reduct \cite{flp2011-ai}, which we refer to as
FLP-answer sets; with an additional test on candidate answer sets $A$ (which is easily formulated
as compatible set existence for a variant of $\Pi$), the FLP-answer sets can be obtained. By
default, \dlvhex{} computes compatible sets with smallest true part on
the original atoms; this leads to answer sets as follows.
\begin{definition}[Answer Set]
\label{def:answerset}
An (\dlvhex) answer set of $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ is any set $S \subseteq \{ \mathbf{T} a \mid a \in A(\ensuremath{\Pi}) \}$
such that \begin{inparaenum}[(i)]
\item $S= \{ \mathbf{T} a \mid a \in A(\ensuremath{\Pi})\} \cap \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ for some
compatible set $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ of $\Pi$ and
\item $\{ \mathbf{T} a \mid a \in A(\ensuremath{\Pi})\} \cap \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \not\subset S$ for every
compatible set $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ of $\Pi$.
\end{inparaenum}
\end{definition}
The answer sets in Definition~\ref{def:answerset} include all
FLP-answer sets, and in fact often coincide with them (as in all
examples we consider). Computing the (minimal) compatible
sets is thus a key problem for \hex-programs on which we focus here.
\subsection{Conflict-driven Clause Learning and Nonchronological Backtracking}
Recall that DPLL-style SAT solvers rely on an alternation of drawing deterministic consequences
and guessing the truth value of an atom towards a complete interpretation.
Deterministic consequences are drawn by the basic operation of \emph{unit propagation},
i.e., whenever all but one signed literals of a nogood are satisfied, the last one must be false.
The solver stores an integer \emph{decision level} $\mathit{dl}$, written $@ \mathit{dl}$ as
postfix to the signed literal.
An atom which is set by unit
propagation gets the highest decision level of all already assigned atoms,
whereas guessing increments the current decision level.
Most modern SAT solver are \emph{conflict-driven}, i.e.,
they learn additional nogoods when current assignment violates a nogood.
This prevents the solver from running into the same conflict again.
The learned nogood is determined by initially setting the conflict nogood to the violated one.
As long as it contains multiple literals from the same decision level,
it is resolved with the \emph{reason} of one of these literals, i.e.,
the nogood which implied it.
\begin{example}
\label{ex:cdcl}
Consider the nogoods
\begin{equation*}
\{ \mathbf{T} a, \mathbf{T} b \}, \{ \mathbf{T} a, \mathbf{T} c \}, \{ \mathbf{F} a, \mathbf{T} x, \mathbf{T} y \},
\{ \mathbf{F} a, \mathbf{T} x, \mathbf{F} y \}, \{ \mathbf{F} a, \mathbf{F} x, \mathbf{T} y \},
\{ \mathbf{F} a, \mathbf{F} x, \mathbf{F} y \}
\end{equation*}
and suppose the assignment is $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} = \{ \mathbf{F} a@1, \mathbf{T} b@2, \mathbf{T} c@3,
\mathbf{T} x@4 \}$. Then the third nogood is unit and implies $\mathbf{F} y@4$,
which violates the fourth nogood $\{ \mathbf{F} a,
\mathbf{T} x, \mathbf{F} y \}$. As it contains multiple literals ($x$ and $y$) which were
set at decision level $4$, it is resolved with the reason for setting
$y$ to false, which is the nogood $\{ \mathbf{F} a, \mathbf{T} x, \mathbf{T} y \}$. This results
in the nogood $\{ \mathbf{F} a, \mathbf{T} x \}$, which contains the single literal $x$
set at decision level $4$, and thus is the learned nogood.
In standard clause notation, the nogood set corresponds to
$$(\neg a \vee \neg b) \wedge (\neg a \vee \neg c) \wedge (a \vee \neg x \vee \neg y)
\wedge (a \vee \neg x \vee y) \wedge (a \vee x \vee \neg y) \wedge (a \vee x \vee y)$$
and the violated clause is $(a \vee \neg x \vee y)$. It is resolved with $(a \vee \neg x \vee \neg y)$
and results in the learned clause $(a \vee \neg x)$.
\qedhere
\end{example}
State-of-the-art SAT and ASP solvers backtrack then to the second-highest
decision level in the
learned nogood.
In Example~\ref{ex:cdcl}, this is
decision level $1$.
All assignments after decision level $1$ are undone ($\mathbf{T} b@2$,
$\mathbf{T} c@3$, $\mathbf{T} x@4$). Only variable $\mathbf{F} a@1$ remains assigned.
This makes the new nogood $\{ \mathbf{F} a, \mathbf{T} x \}$ unit and derives $\mathbf{F} x$ at
decision level $1$.
\subsection{Conflict-driven ASP Solving}
In this subsection we summarize conflict-driven
(disjunctive) answer-set solving %
\cite{gks2012-aij,Drescher08conflict-drivendisjunctive}.
It corresponds to Algorithm~\ref{alg:hexcdcl} without
Part~\ref{alg:hexcdcl:3}, %
(cf.~Section~\ref{sec:learning:algorithms}, where we also discuss Part~\ref{alg:hexcdcl:3}).
Subsequently, we provide a
summary of the base algorithm; for details we refer
to \citeN{gks2012-aij} and \citeN{Drescher08conflict-drivendisjunctive}.
To employ conflict-driven techniques from SAT solving
in ASP,
programs are represented as sets of nogoods.
For a program $\ensuremath{\Pi}$, let $A(\ensuremath{\Pi})$ be the set of all
atoms occurring in $\ensuremath{\Pi}$,
and %
let $\mathit{BA}(\ensuremath{\Pi})= \{B(r) \mid r \in \ensuremath{\Pi}\}$ %
be the set of all rule bodies of $\ensuremath{\Pi}$, viewed as fresh atoms.
We first define the set $\gamma(C) = \{ \{\mathbf{F} C\} \cup \{ \mathbf{t} \ell \mid \ell \in C \} \} \cup
\{ \{ \mathbf{T} C, \mathbf{f} \ell \} \mid \ell \in C \}$ of nogoods to encode that a set
$C$ of default literals must be assigned $\mathbf{T}$ or $\mathbf{F}$ in terms of the
conjunction of its elements, where $\mathbf{t} \naf a = \mathbf{F} a$,
$\mathbf{t} a = \mathbf{T} a$,
$\mathbf{f} \naf a = \mathbf{T} a$,
and $\mathbf{f} a = \mathbf{F} a$.
That is, the conjunction is true iff each literal is true.
Clark's completion $\ensuremath{\Delta_{\Program}}$ of a program~$\ensuremath{\Pi}$ over
atoms $A(\ensuremath{\Pi}) \cup \mathit{BA}(\ensuremath{\Pi})$ is the
set of nogoods
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{\Delta_{\Program}} = \bigcup\nolimits_{r \in \ensuremath{\Pi}}(\gamma(B(r)) \cup
\{ \{ \mathbf{T} B(r) \} \cup \{ \mathbf{F} a \mid a \in H(r) \} \}) \enspace .
\end{equation*}
The body of a rule is true iff each literal is true, and
if the body is true, a head literal must also be true.
Unless a program is tight~\cite{Fages94consistencyof}, Clark's
completion does not fully capture the semantics of a program; unfounded
sets may occur, i.e., sets of atoms which only cyclically support each
other, called a \emph{loop}.
Avoidance of unfounded sets requires additional \emph{loop nogoods},
but as there are exponentially many, they are only introduced
on-the-fly.
Disjunctive programs require additional concepts.
Neglecting details, it is common to use
additional nogoods $\ensuremath{\Theta_{\ShiftedProgram}}$ derived from
the \emph{shifted program} $\ensuremath{\mathit{sh}(\Program)}$,
which encode the loop formulas of singleton loops;
a comprehensive study is available in~\citeN{Drescher08conflict-drivendisjunctive}.
\nop{
For a disjunctive program $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ the notion of the
\emph{shifted program} $\ensuremath{\mathit{sh}(\Program)}$ is important:
$\ensuremath{\mathit{sh}(\Program)} = \{ a_i \leftarrow B(r), \neg a_1, \dotsc, \neg a_{i - 1},
\neg a_{i + 1}, \dotsc, \neg a_\ell \mid r \in \ensuremath{\Pi}, H(r) =
\{ a_1, \dotsc, a_{i - 1}, a_i, a_{i + 1}, \dotsc, a_\ell \} \}$
This leads to the additional nogoods:
$\ensuremath{\Theta_{\ShiftedProgram}} = \bigcup_{\overrightarrow{r} \in \ensuremath{\mathit{sh}(\Program)}}
\gamma(B(\overrightarrow{r})) \cup \{ \delta(a, B(\ensuremath{\mathit{sup}}_{\ensuremath{\mathit{sh}(\Program)}}(\{a\})))
\mid a \in \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}(\ensuremath{\mathit{sh}(\Program)}) ) \}$
where the \emph{external support} $\ensuremath{\mathit{sup}}_{\ensuremath{\Pi}}(Y)$ of an atom set $Y$
wrt. a program $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ is defined as the set of rules
$\ensuremath{\mathit{sup}}_{\ensuremath{\Pi}}(Y) := \{ r \in \ensuremath{\Pi} \mid H(r) \cap Y \not=
\emptyset, B(r) \cap Y = \emptyset \}$.
}
With these concepts we are ready to describe the basic algorithm for
answer set computation shown in \ref{alg:hexcdcl}.
The algorithm keeps a set
$\ensuremath{\Delta_{\Program}} \cup \ensuremath{\Theta_{\ShiftedProgram}}$ of ``static'' nogoods
(from Clark's completion and from singular loops), and a set $\ensuremath{\nabla}$ of
``dynamic'' nogoods which are learned from conflicts and unfounded sets
during execution.
While constructing the assignment $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$, the
algorithm stores for each atom $a \in A(\ensuremath{\Pi})$ a \emph{decision level}
$\mathit{dl}$. The decision level is initially $0$ and incremented for each
choice. Deterministic consequences of a set of assigned values
have the same decision level as the highest decision level in this set.
The main loop iteratively derives deterministic
consequences using $\textsf{Propagation}$
trying to complete the assignment.
This includes both unit propagation and unfounded set propagation.
Unit propagation derives $\overline{d}$ if $\delta \setminus \{d\} \subseteq \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$
for some nogood $\delta$,
i.e. all but one literal of a nogood are satisfied, therefore the last one needs to be falsified.
Unfounded set propagation detects atoms which only cyclically support each other
and falsifies them.
Part~\ref{alg:hexcdcl:1} checks if there is a conflict, i.e.
a violated nogood $\delta \subseteq \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$.
If this is the case we need to backtrack.
For this purpose we use $\textsf{Analysis}$ to compute a learned nogood~$\epsilon$
and a backtrack decision level $k$.
The learned nogood is added to the set of dynamic nogoods, and assignments above
decision level $k$ are undone.
Otherwise, Part~\ref{alg:hexcdcl:2} checks if the assignment is complete.
In this case, a final unfounded set check is necessary due to disjunctive heads.
If the candidate is founded, it is an answer set.
Otherwise we select a violated loop nogood~$\delta$
from the set $\ensuremath{\lambda_{\ProgramP}}(U)$ of all loop nogoods for an unfounded set $U$
(for the definition see~\citeNP{Drescher08conflict-drivendisjunctive}),
we do conflict analysis and backtrack.
If no more deterministic consequences can be derived and the
assignment is still incomplete, we need to guess in Part~\ref{alg:hexcdcl:4}
and increment the decision level.
The function $\textsf{Select}$ implements a variable selection heuristic.
In the simplest case it chooses an arbitrary yet unassigned variable,
but state-of-the-art heuristics are more sophisticated.
E.g., \citeN{Goldberg2007} prefer variables
which are involved in recent conflicts.
\nop{
The \emph{independent satisfaction} of a rule $r$ wrt. to a set of
literals $Y$ is defined as the set:
$\ensuremath{\mathit{sat}}_r(Y) := \{ \mathbf{F} B(r) \} \cup \{ \mathbf{T} a \mid a \in H(r) \setminus Y \}$;
i.e., the set of literals such that the truth of any of them
immediately satisfies $r$ independently from $Y$.
Moreover, for components $C$ of disjunctive
programs $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ the following
set of nogoods is important for the minimality check:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\ensuremath{\Gamma_{\Program}^\Assignment(C)} &=& \{
\{ \mathbf{T} a \mid a \in H(r) \cap \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{T}}\} \cup
\{ \mathbf{F} a \mid a \in B(r) \cap C\} \mid r \in \ensuremath{\Pi}, \ensuremath{\mathit{sat}}_r(C) \cap \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} = \emptyset \} \cup \\
&& \{ \{ \mathbf{F} a \mid a \in C \cap \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{T}} \} \}
\end{eqnarray*}
}
\section{Algorithms for Conflict-driven \hex{}-Program Solving}
\label{sec:learning:algorithms}
We present now our new, genuine algorithms
for \hex-program evaluation.
They are based on~\citeN{Drescher08conflict-drivendisjunctive},
but integrate additional novel learning techniques
to capture the semantics of external atoms.
The term \emph{learning} refers to the process of adding further
nogoods to the nogood set as the search space is explored.
They are classically derived from conflict situations to
avoid similar conflicts during further search, as
described above.
We add a second type of learning which captures the behavior of external
sources, called \emph{external behavior learning} (EBL).
Whenever an external atom is evaluated, the algorithm might learn
from the call.
If we have no further information about the internals of a source,
we may learn only very general input-output-relationships, if we have more information
we can learn more effective nogoods.
In general, we can associate a \emph{learning-function} with each external source.
For the sake of introducing the evaluation algorithms, however, in this section
we abstractly consider a set of nogoods learned from the evaluation of some external
predicate with input list $\amp{g}[\vec{p}]$, if evaluated under an assignment
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$,
denoted by $\Lambda(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$.
The next section will provide definitions %
of particular nogoods that can be learned for various types of external sources, i.e.,
to instantiate $\Lambda(\cdot,\cdot)$.
The crucial requirement for learned nogoods is \emph{correctness},
which intuitively holds if the nogood can be added without eliminating compatible sets.
\begin{definition}[Correct Nogoods]
A nogood $\delta$ is \emph{correct wrt. a program $\ensuremath{\Pi}$}, if all compatible
sets of $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ are solutions to $\delta$.
\end{definition}
\setlength{\algomargin}{0mm}
\SetAlCapSkip{0ex}
\SetAlCapHSkip{0ex}
\SetVlineSkip{1mm}
\SetAlgoSkip{}
\SetInd{0.5mm}{3.25mm}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\textwidth}
\vspace{0pt} %
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\SetAlgoRefName{\textsf{\hex-Eval}}
\SetAlgoCaptionSeparator{}
\caption{}
\label{alg:hexeval}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\SetAlgoVlined
\KwIn{A \hex{}-program $\ensuremath{\Pi}$}
\KwOut{All answer sets of $\ensuremath{\Pi}$}
$\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}} \leftarrow \ensuremath{\Pi}$ with ext. atoms $\ext{g}{\vec{p}}{\vec{c}}$
replaced by $e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c})$\;
Add guessing rules for all replacement atoms to $\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$\;
$\ensuremath{\nabla} \leftarrow \emptyset$ \tcp*[f]{set of dynamic nogoods}\;
$\Gamma \leftarrow \emptyset$ \tcp*[f]{set of all compatible sets}\;
\nlset{(a)}{%
\label{alg:hexeval:0a}%
\While{$\mathbf{C} \not= \bot$}{%
\Indm
$\mathbf{C} \leftarrow \bot$\;
$\mathit{inconsistent} \leftarrow \mathit{false}$\;
\nlset{(b)}{%
\label{alg:hexeval:0b}%
\While{$\mathbf{C} = \bot$ and $\mathit{inconsistent} = \mathit{false}$}{%
\nlset{(c)}{\label{alg:hexeval:1}%
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \leftarrow$$\textsf{\hex-CDNL}($\ensuremath{\Pi}$, $\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}},$ \ensuremath{\nabla}$)\;}
\lIf{$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} = \bot$}{%
$\mathit{inconsistent} \leftarrow \mathit{true}$\;
}\Else{
$\mathit{compatible} \leftarrow \mathit{true}$\;
\nlset{(d)}{\label{alg:hexeval:2}
\For{all external atoms $\amp{g}[\vec{p}]$ in $\ensuremath{\Pi}$}{
Evaluate $\amp{g}[\vec{p}]$ under~$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$\;
\nlset{(e)}{\label{alg:hexeval:3}$\ensuremath{\nabla} \leftarrow \ensuremath{\nabla} \cup \Lambda(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$\;}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}^{\amp{g}[\vec{p}](\vec{c})} \,{=}\, 1 \Leftrightarrow \mathbf{T} e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}](\vec{c})} \in \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$\;
\If{$\exists \vec{c}\colon\extsem{g}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}{\vec{p}}{\vec{c}} \neq \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}^{\amp{g}[\vec{p}](\vec{c})}$}{
Add $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ to $\ensuremath{\nabla}$\;
$\mathit{compatible} \leftarrow \mathit{false}$\;
}
}
}
\lIf{$\mathit{compatible}$}{
$\mathbf{C} \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$\;
}
}
}}
\If{$\mathit{inconsistent} = \mathit{false}$}{
\tcp*[f]{$\mathbf{C}$ is a compatible set of $\ensuremath{\Pi}$}\;
$\ensuremath{\nabla} \leftarrow \ensuremath{\nabla} \cup \{ \mathbf{C} \}$ and $\Gamma \leftarrow \Gamma \cup \{ \mathbf{C} \}$\;
}
}}
\Return $\subseteq$-minimal $\left\{ \{ \mathbf{T} a \in \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \mid a \in A(\ensuremath{\Pi}) \} \mid \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \in \Gamma \right\}$\;
\end{algorithm}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.51\textwidth}
\vspace{0pt} %
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\SetAlgoRefName{\textsf{\hex-CDNL}}
\SetAlgoCaptionSeparator{}
\caption{}
\label{alg:hexcdcl}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\SetAlgoVlined
\KwIn{A program $\ensuremath{\Pi}$, its guessing program $\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$,
a set of correct nogoods $\ensuremath{\nabla}\!$ of $\!\Pi$}
\KwOut{An answer set of $\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$ (candidate for a compatible set of~$\ensuremath{\Pi}$) which is a solution to all nogoods $d \in \ensuremath{\nabla}$, or $\bot$ if none exists}
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \leftarrow \emptyset$ \hspace*{-0.5ex} \tcp*[f]{$\!$over
$A(\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}})\,{\cup}\, \mathit{BA}(\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}})\,{\cup}\,
\mathit{BA}(\ensuremath{\mathit{sh}(\ProgramP)})\!$} \;
$\ensuremath{\mathit{dl}} \leftarrow 0$ \tcp*[f]{decision level} \;
\While{true}{%
\Indm
$(\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}, \ensuremath{\nabla}) \leftarrow \textsf{Propagation}(\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}, \ensuremath{\nabla}, \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$\;
\nlset{(a)}{\label{alg:hexcdcl:1}}%
%
%
\uIf{$\delta \subseteq \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ for some $\delta \in \ensuremath{\Delta_{\ProgramP}} \cup \ensuremath{\Theta_{\ShiftedProgramP}} \cup \ensuremath{\nabla}$}{
\lIf{$\ensuremath{\mathit{dl}} = 0$}{%
\Return{$\bot$}\;%
}
%
$(\epsilon, k) \leftarrow \textsf{Analysis}(\delta, \ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}, \ensuremath{\nabla}, \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$\;
$\ensuremath{\nabla} \leftarrow \ensuremath{\nabla} \cup \{ \epsilon \}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathit{dl}} \leftarrow k$\;
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \setminus \{ \sigma \in \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \mid k < \ensuremath{\mathit{dl}}(\sigma) \}$\;
%
}%
\nlset{(b)}{\label{alg:hexcdcl:2}}%
\uElseIf{$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{T}} {\cup} \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{F}} {=} A(\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}) {\cup} \mathit{BA}(\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}) {\cup} \mathit{BA}(\ensuremath{\mathit{sh}(\ProgramP)})$}{
$U \leftarrow \textsf{UnfoundedSet}(\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}, \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$\;
%
\uIf{$U \not= \emptyset$}{%
let $\delta \in \ensuremath{\lambda_{\ProgramP}}(U)$ such that $\delta \subseteq \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$\;
\lIf{$\{\sigma \in \delta \mid 0 < \ensuremath{\mathit{dl}}(\sigma)\} = \emptyset$}{%
\Return{$\bot$}\;%
}%
$(\epsilon, k) \leftarrow \textsf{Analysis}(\delta, \ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}, \ensuremath{\nabla}, \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$\;
$\ensuremath{\nabla} \leftarrow \ensuremath{\nabla} \cup \{\epsilon\}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathit{dl}} \leftarrow k$\;
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \setminus \{\sigma \in \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \mid k < \ensuremath{\mathit{dl}}(\sigma)\}$\;
%
}\lElse{
\Return{$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}^{\mathbf{T}} \cap A(\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}})$}\;
}
}
%
\nlset{(c)}{\label{alg:hexcdcl:3}}%
\uElseIf{Heuristic decides to evaluate $\amp{g}[\vec{p}]$}{%
Evaluate $\amp{g}[\vec{p}]$ under~$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ and set
$\ensuremath{\nabla} \leftarrow \ensuremath{\nabla} \cup \Lambda(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$\;
}%
\nlset{(d)}{\label{alg:hexcdcl:4}}%
\Else{%
$\sigma \leftarrow \textsf{Select}(\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}, \ensuremath{\nabla},\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$ and $\ensuremath{\mathit{dl}} \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathit{dl}} + 1$\;
%
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \circ (\sigma)$\;
}%
}
\end{algorithm}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
In our subsequent exposition we assume that the program $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ is clear from
the context.
The overall approach consists of two parts. First,
\ref{alg:hexcdcl} computes model candidates;
it is essentially an ordinary ASP solver, but includes calls to external
sources in order to learn additional nogoods. The external calls
in this algorithm are not required for correctness of the algorithm, but may influence
performance dramatically as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:impl}.
Second, Algorithm~\ref{alg:hexeval} uses Algorithm~\ref{alg:hexcdcl}
to produce model candidates and checks each of them against
the external sources (followed by a minimality check).
Here, the external calls are crucial for correctness of the algorithm.
For computing a model candidate, \ref{alg:hexcdcl} basically
employs the conflict-driven approach presented in \citeN{Drescher08conflict-drivendisjunctive}
as summarized in Section~\ref{sec:prelim},
where the main difference is the addition of Part~\ref{alg:hexcdcl:3}.
Our extension is driven by the following idea: whenever (unit and unfounded set)
propagation does not derive any further atoms and the assignment is
still incomplete, the algorithm possibly evaluates external atoms
(driven by a heuristic) instead of simply guessing truth values.
This might lead to the addition of new nogoods, which can in turn
cause the propagation procedure to derive further atoms.
Guessing of truth values only becomes necessary if no deterministic
conclusions can be drawn and the evaluation of external atoms does not yield
further nogoods; guessing also occurs if
the heuristic does not decide to evaluate.
For a more formal treatment,
let $\mathcal{E}$ be the set of all external predicates with input list
that occur in $\ensuremath{\Pi}$, and let $\mathcal{D}$ be the set of all signed
literals over atoms in %
$A(\ensuremath{\Pi})\cup A(\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}})\cup \mathit{BA}(\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}})$.
Then, a \emph{learning function} for $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ is a mapping
$\Lambda: \mathcal{E} \times 2^{\mathcal{D}} \mapsto 2^{2^{\mathcal{D}}}$.
We extend our notion of correct nogoods to correct learning
functions $\Lambda(\cdot, \cdot)$, as follows:
\begin{definition}
A learning function $\Lambda$
is \emph{correct} for a program $\ensuremath{\Pi}$, iff
all~$d \in \Lambda(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$
are correct for $\ensuremath{\Pi}$, for all
$\amp{g}[\vec{p}]$
in $\mathcal{E}$ and
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}} \in 2^{\mathcal{D}}$.
\end{definition}
Restricting to
learning functions %
that are correct for $\ensuremath{\Pi}$, the following results hold.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:hexcdcl}
If for input $\Pi$, $\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$ and $\ensuremath{\nabla}$,
\ref{alg:hexcdcl} returns
\begin{inparaenum}[(i)]
\item
\label{prop:hexcdcl:correctness}
an interpretation $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$, then $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ is an answer set of
$\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$ and a solution to $\ensuremath{\nabla}$;
\item
\label{prop:hexcdcl:completeness}
$\bot$, then $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ has no compatible set that is a
solution to $\ensuremath{\nabla}$.
\end{inparaenum}
\end{proposition}%
\extproof{
(\ref{prop:hexcdcl:correctness})
The proof mainly follows \cite{Drescher08conflict-drivendisjunctive}.
In our algorithm we have potentially more nogoods, which can never produce
further answer sets but only eliminate them. Hence, each produced
interpretation $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ is an answer set of $\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$.
(\ref{prop:hexcdcl:completeness})
By completeness of \citeN{Drescher08conflict-drivendisjunctive}
we only need to justify that adding
$\Lambda(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$
after evaluation of $\amp{g}[\vec{p}]$
does not eliminate compatible sets of $\ensuremath{\Pi}$.
For this purpose we need to show that when one of the added nogoods
fires,
the interpretation is incompatible with the external sources anyway.
But this follows from the correctness of $\Lambda(\cdot, \cdot)$
and (for derived nogoods) from the completeness of \citeN{Drescher08conflict-drivendisjunctive}.
\hfill $\Box$
}
The basic idea of \ref{alg:hexeval} is to compute
all compatible sets of $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ by the loop at \ref{alg:hexeval:0a}
and checking subset-minimality afterwards.
For computing compatible sets, the loop at \ref{alg:hexeval:0b}
uses \ref{alg:hexcdcl} to compute answer sets of
$\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$ in \ref{alg:hexeval:1}, i.e.,
candidate compatible sets of~$\ensuremath{\Pi}$, and subsequently
checks compatibility for each external atom in \ref{alg:hexeval:2}. Here
the external calls are crucial for correctness.
However, different from the translation approach, the
external source evaluation serves not only for compatibility checking, but
also for generating additional dynamic nogoods~$\Lambda(\amp{g}[\vec{p}],
\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$ in Part~\ref{alg:hexeval:3}.
We have the following result.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:hexeval}
\ref{alg:hexeval} computes all answer sets of $\ensuremath{\Pi}$.
\end{proposition}
\extproof{
We first show that the loop at \ref{alg:hexeval:0b} yields after
termination a compatible set~$\ensuremath{\mathbf{C}}$ of $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ that is a solution of
$\ensuremath{\nabla}$
at the stage of entering the
loop iff such a compatible set does exist, and yields $\ensuremath{\mathbf{C}}=\bot$ iff no
such compatible set exists.
Suppose that %
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{C}} \not= \bot$ after the loop. Then $\ensuremath{\mathbf{C}}$ was assigned $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}
\neq \bot$, which was returned by \textsf{\hex-CDNL}($\ensuremath{\Pi}$,
$\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$, $\ensuremath{\nabla}$). From Proposition \ref{prop:hexcdcl} (\ref{prop:hexcdcl:completeness})
it follows that $\ensuremath{\mathbf{C}}$ is an answer set of $\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$ and a solution
to $\ensuremath{\nabla}$. Thus \eqref{en:cs1} of
Definition~\ref{def:compatibleset} holds.
As $\mathit{compatible} = \mathit{true}$, the
for loop guarantees the compatibility with the external sources in \eqref{en:cs2} of
Definition~\ref{def:compatibleset}:
if some source output on input from $\ensuremath{\mathbf{C}}$ is not compatible with the guess,
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{C}}$ is rejected (and added as nogood).
Otherwise $\ensuremath{\mathbf{C}}$ coincides with the behavior of the
external sources, i.e., it satisfies $(ii)$ of Definition~\ref{def:compatibleset}.
Thus, $\ensuremath{\mathbf{C}}$ is a compatible set of $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ wrt.\, $\ensuremath{\nabla}$
at call time. As only correct nogoods are added to $\ensuremath{\nabla}$, it is
also a compatible set of $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ wrt. the initial set $\ensuremath{\nabla}$.
Otherwise, after the loop $\ensuremath{\mathbf{C}}=\bot$. Then $\mathit{inconsistent}
=\mathit{true}$, which means that the call \textsf{\hex-CDNL}($\ensuremath{\Pi}$,
$\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$, $\ensuremath{\nabla}$) returned $\bot$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:hexcdcl} (\ref{prop:hexcdcl:completeness})
there is no answer set of $\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$ which is a solution to $\ensuremath{\nabla}$.
As only correct nogoods were added to $\ensuremath{\nabla}$, there exists also
no answer set of $\ensuremath{\hat{\Pi}}$ which is a solution to the original set $\ensuremath{\nabla}$.
Thus the loop at \ref{alg:hexeval:0b} operates as desired.
The loop
at \ref{alg:hexeval:0a} then enumerates one by one all compatible sets and terminates:
the update of $\ensuremath{\nabla}$ with $\ensuremath{\mathbf{C}}$ prevents recomputing
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{C}}$, and thus the number of compatible sets decreases.
As by Definition~\ref{def:answerset} the answer sets of $\Pi$ are the
compatible sets with subset-minimal true
part of original literals, the overall algorithm correctly outputs all answer
sets of $\ensuremath{\Pi}$.
\hfill $\Box$
}
\begin{example}\label{ex:algorithmexample}
Let $\amp{\mathit{empty}}$ be an external atom with one (nonmonotonic)
predicate input~$p$, such that its output is $c_0$ if the extension
of~$p$ is empty and $c_1$ otherwise.
%
Consider the program~$\ensuremath{\Pi}_e$ consisting of the rules
%
\begin{align*}
p(c_0).\ \ dom(c_0).\ \ dom(c_1).\ \ dom(c_2). \quad
p(X) \leftarrow \mathit{dom}(X), \ext{\mathit{empty}}{p}{X}
\end{align*}
%
Algorithm~\ref{alg:hexeval} transforms $\ensuremath{\Pi}_e$ into the guessing program $\hat{\ensuremath{\Pi}}_e$:
%
\begin{align*}
p(c_0).\ \ dom(c_0).\ \ dom(c_1).\ \ dom(c_2). \quad
p(X) & \leftarrow \mathit{dom}(X), e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(X). \\
e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(X) \vee
\mathit{ne}_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(X) & \leftarrow \mathit{dom}(X).
\end{align*}
%
The traditional evaluation strategy without learning will then produce
$2^3$ model candidates in \ref{alg:hexcdcl}, which are
subsequently checked in \ref{alg:hexeval}. For instance,
the guess $\left\{ \mathbf{T} \mathit{ne}_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_0), \mathbf{T}
e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1), \mathbf{T}
\mathit{ne}_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_2) \right\}$ leads to the model candidate
$\left\{ \mathbf{T} \mathit{ne}_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_0), \mathbf{T}
e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1), \mathbf{T}
\mathit{ne}_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_2), \mathbf{T} p(c_1) \right\}$ (neglecting
false atoms and facts). This is also the only model candiate which
passes the compatibility check:~$p(c_0)$ is always true, and
therefore $e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1)$ must also be true due to
definition of the external atom. This allows for deriving $p(c_1)$ by
the first rule of the program. All other atoms are false due to
minimality of answer sets. \qedhere
\end{example}
The effects of the additionally learned nogoods will be discussed in
Section~\ref{sec:learning} after having formally specified concrete
$\Lambda(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$ for various types of external
sources.
\section{Nogoods for External Behavior Learning}
\label{sec:learning}
We now discuss nogoods generated for external behavior
learning (EBL) in detail.
EBL is triggered by external source evaluations
instead of conflicts.
The basic idea is to integrate knowledge about the
external source behavior into the program to guide the search.
The program evaluation then starts with an empty set
of learned nogoods and the preprocessor generates a
guessing rule for each ground external atom, as discussed
in Section~\ref{sec:prelim}. Further nogoods
are added during the evaluation as more information about
external sources becomes available.
This is in contrast to
traditional
evaluation, where
external atoms are assigned arbitrary truth values
which are checked only after the assignment was completed.
We will first show how to construct useful learned nogoods
after evaluating external atoms,
if we have no further information about the internals of external sources,
called \emph{uninformed learning}.
In this case we can only learn simple input/output relationships.
Subsequently we consider \emph{informed learning}, where additional
information about properties of external sources is available. This
allows for using more elaborated learning strategies.
\subsection{Uninformed Learning}
\label{sec:learning:uninformed}
We first assume that we do not have
information about the internals and consider external sources as black
boxes.
Hence, we can just apply very general rules for learning:
whenever an external predicate with
input list $\amp{g}[\vec{p}]$ is
evaluated under an assignment $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$, we learn that
the input $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}|_{\vec{p}}$ for $\vec{p}=p_1,\dotsc,p_n$ to the
external atom $\amp{g}$ produces the output $\mathit{ext}(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$.
This can be formalized as the following set of nogoods.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:extlearn:general}
The learning function for a general external predicate with input list
$\amp{g}[\vec{p}]$ in program $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ under assignment $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}\label{eqn:general}
\Lambda_g(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}) =
\left\{ \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}|_{\vec{p}} \cup
\{ \mathbf{F} e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c}) \}
%
%
\mid \vec{c} \in \mathit{ext}(\amp{g}[\vec{p}],
\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})\right\} \enspace .
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
In the simplest case, an external atom has no input and
the learned nogoods are unary, i.e., of the form
$\{ \mathbf{F} e_{\amp{g}[]}(\vec{c}) \}$.
Thus, it is learned that certain tuples are in the output of the
external source, i.e. they must not be false.
For external sources with input predicates, the added rules encode the
relationship between the output tuples and the provided input.
\begin{example}[ctd.]\label{ex:learningnogoods}
Recall $\ensuremath{\Pi}_e$ from Example~\ref{ex:algorithmexample}. Without
learning, the algorithms produce $2^3$ model candidates and check them
subsequently. It turns out that
EBL allows for falsification
of some of the guesses without actually evaluating the external atoms.
Suppose the reasoner first tries the guesses containing literal $\mathbf{T}
e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_0)$. While they are checked against the
external sources, the described learning function allows for adding the
externally learned nogoods shown in Table~\ref{tab:learnednogoods}.
%
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\caption{Learned Nogoods of Example~\ref{ex:learningnogoods}}\label{tab:learnednogoods}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\toprule\toprule
\normalsize Guess & \normalsize Learned Nogood \\
\midrule
$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{T} e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_0), \mathbf{T}
\mathit{ne}_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1), \\
\mathbf{T} \mathit{ne}_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_2)
\end{array}
\right\}$
%
& $\{ \mathbf{T} p(c_0), \mathbf{F} p(c_1), \mathbf{F} p(c_2), \mathbf{F} e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1) \}$ \\[3mm]
%
$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{T} e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_0), \mathbf{T}
\mathit{ne}_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1),\\
\mathbf{T} e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_2), p(c_2)
\end{array}
\right\}$
%
& $\{ \mathbf{T} p(c_0), \mathbf{F} p(c_1), \mathbf{T} p(c_2), \mathbf{F} e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1) \}$ \\[3mm]
%
$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{T} e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_0), \mathbf{T}
e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1),\\
\mathbf{T} \mathit{ne}_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_2), p(c_1)
\end{array}
\right\}$
%
& $\{ \mathbf{T} p(c_0), \mathbf{T} p(c_1), \mathbf{F} p(c_2), \mathbf{F} e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1) \}$ \\[3mm]
%
$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{T} e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_0), \mathbf{T}
e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1),\\
\mathbf{T} e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_2), p(c_1), p(c_2)
\end{array}
\right\}$
%
& $\{ \mathbf{T} p(c_0), \mathbf{T} p(c_1), \mathbf{T} p(c_2), \mathbf{F} e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1) \}$ \\
\bottomrule\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
%
Observe that the combination $\mathbf{T} p(c_0), \mathbf{F} p(c_1), \mathbf{F} p(c_2)$
%
will be reconstructed also for different
choices of the guessing variables. As $p(c_0)$ is a fact, it is
%
true independent of the choice between
$e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_0)$
and~$\mathit{ne}_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_0)$. E.g., the
guess $\mathbf{F} e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_0),$ $\mathbf{F}
e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1),$ $\mathbf{F}
e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_2)$ leads to the same extension of
$p$. This allows for reusing the nogood, which is immediately
invalidated without evaluating the external atoms.
%
Different guesses with the same input to an external source
allow for reusing learned nogoods, at the latest when the
candidate is complete, but before the external source is
called for validation. However, very often learning allows for
discarding guesses even earlier. For instance, we can derive $\{ \mathbf{T} p(c_0), \mathbf{F}
e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1) \}$ from the nogoods
above in 3 resolution
steps. Such derived nogoods will be learned after running into a
couple of conflicts. %
We can derive $\mathbf{T}
e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1)$ from
%
$p(c_0)$ even before the truth value of $\mathbf{F} e_{\amp{\mathit{empty}}[p]}(c_1)$ is set,
i.e., external learning guides the search while the traditional
evaluation algorithm considers the behavior of external sources
only during postprocessing. \qedhere
\end{example}
For the next result, let $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ be a program which contains an
external atom of form $\amp{g}[\vec{p}](\cdot)$. %
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:correctness:uninformed}
For all assignments $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$, the nogoods
$\Lambda_g(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$
(Def.~\ref{def:extlearn:general}) are correct wrt. $\ensuremath{\Pi}$.
\end{lemma}
\extproof{
The added nogood for
an output tuple $\vec{c} \in \mathit{ext}(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$
contains $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}|_{\vec{p}}$
and the negated replacement atom $\mathbf{F} e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c})$.
If the nogood fires, then the guess was wrong
as the replacement atom is guessed false
but the tuple $(\vec{c})$ is in the output.
Hence, the interpretation is not compatible and
cannot be an answer set anyway.
\qedhere
}
\subsection{Informed Learning}
\label{sec:learning:informed}
The learned nogoods of the above form can become quite large as
they include the whole input to the
external source.
However, known properties of external sources can be
exploited in order to learn smaller and more general nogoods.
For example, if one of the input parameters of an external source
is monotonic, it is not necessary to include information about false atoms
in its extension,
as the output will not shrink given larger input.
Properties for informed learning can be stated on the level
of either \emph{predicates} or individual \emph{external atoms}.
The former means that all usages of the predicate
have the property. To understand this, consider predicate
$\amp{\mathit{union}}$ which takes two predicate inputs~$p$ and $q$
and computes the set of all elements which are in at least one
of the extensions of~$p$ or~$q$. It will be \emph{always} monotonic in
both parameters, independently of
its usage in a program.
While an external source may lack a property
in general, it may hold for particular usages.
\begin{example} %
Consider an external atom
$\ext{\mathit{db}}{r_1,\dotsc,r_n,\mathit{query}}{\vec{X}}$
as an interface to an SQL query processor, which
evaluates a given query (given as string) over tables (relations) provided by predicates $r_1,\dotsc,r_n$.
In general, the atom will be nonmonotonic, but for special
queries (e.g., simple selection of all tuples), it will be monotonic.
\qedhere
\end{example}
Next, we discuss two particular cases of informed learning which
customize the default learning function for generic external sources by
exploiting properties of external sources, and finally present examples
where the learning of user-defined nogoods might be useful.
\leanparagraph{Monotonic Atoms}%
A parameter $p_i$ of an external atom $\amp{g}$ is called \emph{monotonic}, if
$\extsem{g}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}{\vec{p}}{\vec{c}} = 1$ implies
$\extsem{g}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}'}{\vec{p}}{\vec{c}} = 1$
for all~$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}'$ with $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}'|_{p_i} \supseteq \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}|_{p_i}$
and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}'|_{p'} = \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}|_{p'}$ for all other $p' \not= p_i$.
The learned nogoods
$\Lambda(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$
after evaluating $\amp{g}[\vec{p}]$
are not required to include $\mathbf{F} p_i(t_1, \dotsc, t_\ell)$
for monotonic $p_i \in \vec{p}$.
That is, for an external predicate with input list $\amp{g}[\vec{p}]$
with monotonic input parameters $\vec{p_m} \subseteq \vec{p}$
and nonmonotonic parameters $\vec{p_n} = \vec{p} \setminus \vec{p_m}$,
the set of learned nogoods can be restricted as follows.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:extlearn:monotonic}
The learning function for an external predicate $\amp{g}$ with input list
$\vec{p}$ in program~$\ensuremath{\Pi}$ under assignment $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$,
such that $\amp{g}$ is monotonic in $\vec{p_m} \subseteq \vec{p}$, is defined as
\begin{equation*}\label{eqn:monotonic}
\Lambda_m(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}) =
\left\{%
\{ \mathbf{T} a \in \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}|_{\vec{p_m}} \} \cup
%
\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}|_{\vec{p_n}}
\cup \{ \mathbf{F} e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c}) \}
\vphantom{\bigcup\nolimits_{p_i \not\in M}}
\mid \vec{c} \in \mathit{ext}(\amp{g}[\vec{p}],
\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}) \right\} \enspace .
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
\begin{example}\label{ex:learningmonotonicity}
Consider the external atom $\ext{\mathit{diff}}{p,q}{X}$ which
computes the set of all elements $X$ that are in the extension of $p$,
but not in the extension of $q$. Suppose it is evaluated under
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$, s.t. $\mathit{ext}(p, \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}) = \{\mathbf{T} p(a), \mathbf{T} p(b),
\mathbf{F} p(c)\}$ and $\mathit{ext}(q, \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}) = \{\mathbf{F} q(a), \mathbf{T} q(b), \mathbf{F}
q(c)\}$. Then the output of the atom is
$\mathit{ext}(\amp{\mathit{diff}}[p, q], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}) = \{ a \}$
and the (only) naively learned nogood is $\{ \mathbf{T} p(a), \mathbf{T} p(b), \mathbf{F}
p(c), \mathbf{F} q(a), \mathbf{T} q(b), \mathbf{F} q(c), \mathbf{F} e_{\amp{\mathit{diff}[p, q]}}(a)
\}$.
%
However, due to monotonicity of $\amp{\mathit{diff}}[p, q]$ in $p$, it
is not necessary to include $\mathbf{F} p(c)$ in the nogood; the output of the
external source will not shrink even if $p(c)$ becomes true.
Therefore the (more general) nogood $\{ \mathbf{T} p(a), \mathbf{T} p(b), \mathbf{F} q(a), \mathbf{T}
q(b), \mathbf{F} q(c), \mathbf{F} e_{\amp{\mathit{diff}[p, q]}}(a) \}$ suffices to
correctly describe the input-output behavior. \qedhere
\end{example}
\leanparagraph{Functional Atoms}
When evaluating $\amp{g}[\vec{p}]$ with some functional $\amp{g}$ under
assignment~$\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$, only one output tuple can be contained in
$\mathit{ext}(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$,
formally: for all assignments~${\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}$ and all $\vec{c}$, if
$\extsem{g}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}{\vec{p}}{\vec{c}} = 1$ then $\extsem{g}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}{\vec{p}}{\vec{c}'} = 0$
for all $\vec{c}' \not= \vec{c}$.
Therefore the following nogoods may be added right from the beginning.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:extlearn:functional}
The learning function for a functional external predicate $\amp{g}$ with input list
$\vec{p}$ in program $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ under assignment $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda_f(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}) =
\left\{ \{ \mathbf{T} e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c}),
\mathbf{T} e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c'}) \}
\mid \vec{c} \not= \vec{c'} \right\} \enspace .
\label{eqn:functional}
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
However, our implementation of this learning rule does not generate all
pairs of output tuples beforehand. Instead, it memorizes all generated
output tuples $\vec{c^i}$, $1 \leq i \leq k$ during evaluation of
external sources. Whenever a new output tuple $\vec{c'}$ is added, it
also adds all nogoods which force previously derived output tuples
$\vec{c^i}$ to be false.
\begin{example}
Consider the rules
%
\begin{align*}
\mathit{out}(X) &\leftarrow \amp{\mathit{concat}}[A,x](X), \mathit{strings}(A), \mathit{dom}(X) \\[-1ex]
\mathit{strings}(X) &\leftarrow \mathit{dom}(X), \naf \mathit{out}(X)
\end{align*}
%
where $\ext{\mathit{concat}}{a,b}{c}$ is true iff string $c$ is
the concatenation of strings $a$ and $b$,
and observe that the external atom is involved in a cycle through negation.
%
%
As the extension of the domain $\mathit{dom}$ can be large, many ground instances
of the external atom are generated. The old evaluation algorithm guesses
%
their truth values completely uninformed.
%
%
E.g., $e_{\amp{\mathit{concat}}}(x,x,xx)$
(the replacement atom of $\amp{\mathit{concat}}[A,x](X)$ with $A=x$ and $X=xx$,
where $\mathit{dom}(x)$ and $\mathit{dom}(xx)$ are supposed to be facts)
is in each guess set randomly to true or to false, independent of previous guesses.
%
In contrast, with learning over external sources, the algorithm learns after
the first evaluation that $e_{\amp{\mathit{concat}}}(x,x,xx)$ must be true.
%
Knowing that $\amp{\mathit{concat}}$ is functional,
all atoms $e_{\amp{\mathit{concat}}}(x,x,O)$ with $O \,{\neq}\, xx$
must also be false. \qedhere
\end{example}
For the next result, let $\ensuremath{\Pi}$ be a program which contains an
external atom of form $\amp{g}[\vec{p}](\cdot)$. %
%
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:correctness:informedm}
For all assignments $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$,
\begin{inparaenum}[(i)]
\item the nogoods
$\Lambda_m(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$
(Def.~\ref{def:extlearn:monotonic}) are correct wrt.~$\ensuremath{\Pi}$, and
\item if $\amp{g}$ is functional, the nogoods
$\Lambda_f(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$
(Def.~\ref{def:extlearn:functional}) are correct wrt.~$\ensuremath{\Pi}$.
\end{inparaenum}
\end{lemma}
\extproof{
For monotonic external sources
we must show that negative input literals over monotonic parameters
can be removed from the learned
nogoods without affecting correctness.
For uninformed learning, we argued that
for output tuple $\vec{c} \in \mathit{ext}(\amp{g}[\vec{p}], \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}})$,
the replacement atom $e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c})$ must not be be guessed false
if the input to $\amp{g}[\vec{p}](\vec{c})$ is $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}|_{\vec{p}}$
under assignment $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}$. However, as the output of $\amp{g}$ grows monotonically
with the extension of a monotonic parameter $p \in \vec{p_m}$,
the same applies for any $\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}'$ which is ``larger'' in $p$,
i.e., $\{ \mathbf{T} a \in \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}'|_{p} \} \supseteq \{ \mathbf{T} a \in \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}|_{p} \}$
and consequently $\{ \mathbf{F} a \in \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}'|_{p} \} \subseteq \{ \mathbf{F} a \in \ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}|_{p} \}$.
Hence, the negative literals are not relevant
wrt. output tuple $\vec{c}$ and can be removed from the nogood.
For functional $\amp{g}$, we must show that the nogoods
$\left\{ \{ \mathbf{T} e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c}),
\mathbf{T} e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c'}) \} \mid \vec{c} \not = \vec{c'} \right\}$
are correct.
Due to functionality, the
external source cannot return more than one output tuple
for the same input. Therefore no such guess
can be an answer set as it is not compatible.
Hence, the nogoods do not eliminate possible answer sets.
\qedhere
}
\nop{
\leanparagraph{Functional Dependencies of Elements in the Output Tuple}
External atoms may return tuples where the elements depend on each other.
For instance, the atom
\begin{center}
$\ext{\mathit{predicates}}{\mathit{answerHandle},
\mathit{answersetHandle}}{\mathit{pred}, \mathit{arity}}$
\end{center}
returns pairs of elements, where the second element ($\mathit{arity}$)
depends on the first one ($\mathit{pred}$).
In the general case, suppose
that for some external atom $\amp{g}[\vec{p}]$
the output parameters $d_1, \dotsc, d_k$ depend on
$\vec{c}$.
This allows for the derivation of additional nogoods.
$\{ \{ \mathbf{T} e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c}, d_1, \dotsc, d_k),
\mathbf{T} e_{\amp{g}[\vec{p}]}(\vec{c}, d'_1, \dotsc, d'_k) \} \mid
d_1 \not= d'_1 \vee \dotsc \vee d_k \not= d'_k \}$.
\leanparagraph{Linear Atoms}
Linearity is a special case of monotonicity.
\leanparagraph{Efficiency}
External sources with a short estimated runtime (e.g. string modifications)
may be tagged to be \emph{efficient}, which can be used to influence
the evaluation strategy. For instance, efficient atoms may be evaluated
immediately whereas non-efficient ones are evaluated only later when
the input is more complete.
\leanparagraph{Learning and Facts from Lower Strata}
The current evaluation framework organizes programs in
strongly connected components of depending rules.
A program is then evaluated bottom-up, such that the output models of
components serve as input models to depending components.
Each output model of one component leads to a new subproblem
in the next component, where the input model is added as set of facts.
This allows for simplification of all learned nogoods: As facts will
always be true, they are not required to be included in the nogoods.
\leanparagraph{Size Estimation of Nogoods}
Learned nogoods can be very different in size. External atoms with
constant input only usually lead to small learned nogoods, whereas
the nogoods produced by external atoms with many predicate parameters
can be very large. Therefore the size of learned nogoods may be
estimated, and the estimated value can be used to decide whether
learning is activated for the call or not.
\leanparagraph{Dynamic Properties}
While some external atoms have properties like monotonicity for
arbitrary input, others may have them only wrt. certain input parameters.
For instance, description logic atoms may behave monotonic for certain
DL knowledge bases but nonmonotonic for others.
Therefore we consider the possibility for the user to tag external atoms
dynamically with certain properties as part of the input to the reasoner.
That is, the developer of an external atom defines the properties in the
general case (static properties), but the user may provide
additional information
for a certain usage of the external atom within the program.
} %
\leanparagraph{User-defined Learning}
In many cases the developer of an external atom has more information
about the internal behavior. This allows for defining more
effective nogoods. It is therefore beneficial to give the
user the possibility to customize learning functions.
Currently, user-defined functions
need to directly specify the learned nogoods.
The development of a user-friendly language for writing
learning functions is subject to future work.
\begin{example}
Consider the program
\begin{align*}
r(X,Y) \vee \mathit{nr}(X,Y) &\leftarrow d(X), d(Y) \\
r(V,W) &\leftarrow \ext{\mathit{tc}}{r}{V,W}, d(V), d(W)
\end{align*}
It guesses, for some set of nodes $d(X)$, all subgraphs of the
complete graph.
Suppose $\amp{\mathit{tc}}[r]$ checks if the edge selection $r(X,Y)$
is \underline{t}ransitively \underline{c}losed; if this is the case, the output is empty,
otherwise
the set of missing transitive edges is returned. For instance, if the
extension of $r$ is $\{ (a,b), (b,c) \}$, then the output
of $\amp{\mathit{tc}}$ will be $\{ (a,c) \}$, as this edge is missing
in order to make the graph transitively closed.
The second rule eliminates all
subgraphs which are not transitively closed.
Note that
$\amp{\mathit{tc}}$ is nonmonotonic.
The guessing program is
\begin{align*}
r(X,Y) \vee \mathit{nr}(X,Y) &\leftarrow d(X), d(Y) \\
r(V,W) &\leftarrow e_{\amp{\mathit{tc}}[r]}(V,W), d(V), d(W) \\
e_{\amp{\mathit{tc}}[r]}(V,W) \vee \mathit{ne}_{\amp{\mathit{tc}}[r]}(V,W) &\leftarrow d(V), d(W)
\end{align*}
The naive implementation guesses for $n$ nodes all
$2^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}$ subgraphs and checks the transitive
closure for each of them, which is costly.
Consider the domain~$D = \{ a, b, c, d, e, f \}$. After checking one selection with $r(a,b), r(b,c), \mathit{nr}(a,c)$,
we know that \emph{no} selection containing these three literals will be transitively closed.
This can be formalized as a user-defined learning function.
Suppose we have just checked our first guess $r(a,b), r(b,c)$,
and $\mathit{nr}(x,y)$ for all other $(x,y) \in D \times D$.
Compared to the nogood learned by the general learning function, the nogood
$\{ \mathbf{T} r(a,b), \mathbf{T} r(b,c), \mathbf{F} r(a,c), \mathbf{F} e_{\amp{\mathit{tc}}[r]}(a,c) \}$
is a more general description of the conflict reason,
containing only relevant edges.
It is immediately violated and future guesses
containing $\{ \mathbf{T} r(a,b), \mathbf{T} r(b,c), \mathbf{F} r(a,c) \}$ are avoided. \qedhere
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Linearity]
\label{ex:smin}
A useful learning function for $\amp{\mathit{diff}}[p, q](X)$ is the following:
whenever an element is in $p$ but not in $q$, it belongs to the output
of the external atom. This user-defined function works elementwise and
produces nogoods with three literals each. We call this property
\emph{linearity}. In contrast, the naive learning function from the
Section~\ref{sec:learning:uninformed} includes the complete extensions
of $p$ and $q$ in the nogoods, which are less general. \qedhere
\end{example}
For user-defined learning, correctness of the learning function
must be asserted.
\section{Implementation and Evaluation}
\label{sec:impl}
We have integrated \clasp{} into our reasoner
\dlvhex{}; previous versions of \dlvhex{} used just \dlv{}. In
order to learn nogoods from external sources we exploit \clasp{}'s SMT
interface, which was previously used for the special case of constraint
answer set solving and implemented in the \clingcon{}
system~\cite{geossc09a,os2012-tplp}. We compare three configurations: \dlvhex{}
with \dlv{} backend, \dlvhex{} with (conflict-driven)~\clasp{} backend
but without EBL, and \dlvhex{} with \clasp{} backend and EBL.
For our experiments we used variants of the above examples, the \dlvhex{}
test
suite,
and default reasoning over
ontologies.
It appeared that learning has high potential to reduce the number of
candidate models.
Also the number of total variable assignments and backtracks during search decreased
drastically in many cases.
This
suggests that
candidate rejection often needs only
parts of interpretations
and
is possible early in the evaluation.
All benchmarks were carried out on a machine with two 12-core AMD
Opteron 6176 SE CPUs and 128 GB RAM, running Linux and using
\clasp{} 2.0.5 and \dlv{} Dec 21 2011 as solver backends.
For each benchmark instance, the average of three runs was calculated,
having a timeout of 300 seconds, and a memout of 2 GB for each run. We
report runtime in seconds; gains and speedups are given as a factor.
\leanparagraph{Set Partitioning}
The following program partitions a set $S$ into two subsets
$S_1,S_2\subseteq S$
such that $\lvert S_1 \rvert \le 2$. The partitioning criterion is expressed
by two rules for $S_1 = S \setminus S_2$ and~$S_2 = S \setminus S_1$.
The implementation is by the use of external atom $\amp{\mathit{diff}}$
(cf. Example~\ref{ex:learningmonotonicity}):
\begin{align*}
\mathit{dom}(c_1).\ &\dotsb \ \mathit{dom}(c_n). \\[-0.5ex]
\mathit{nsel}(X) &\leftarrow \mathit{dom}(X), \ext{\mathit{diff}}{\mathit{dom}, \mathit{sel}}{X}. \\[-0.5ex]
\mathit{sel}(X) &\leftarrow \mathit{dom}(X), \ext{\mathit{diff}}{\mathit{dom}, \mathit{nsel}}{X}. \\[-0.5ex]
&\leftarrow \mathit{sel}(X), \mathit{sel}(Y), \mathit{sel}(Z), X \neq Y, X \neq Z, Y \neq Z.
\end{align*}
The results in Table~\ref{fig:setmin}
compare the run of the reasoner
with different configurations for computing
\begin{inparaenum}[(i)]
\item\label{eq:all} all models
resp.
\item\label{eq:first} the first model.
\end{inparaenum}
In both cases, using the conflict-driven \clasp{} reasoner instead of \dlv{}
as backend already improves efficiency.
Adding EBL leads to a further improvement:
in case~\eqref{eq:first}, the
formerly exponentially growing runtime becomes almost constant.
When computing all answer sets, the runtime
is still exponential
as exponentially many subset choices must be considered
(due to the encoding);
however, also in this case many of them can be pruned early
by learning, which makes the runtime appear linear for the shown range of instance sizes.
Moreover, our experiments show that the delay between the models decreases
over time when EBL is used (not shown in the table), while
it is constant without EBL due to the generation of additional
nogoods.
\leanparagraph{Default Reasoning over Description Logic Ontologies}
We consider now a more realistic scenario using the
DL-plugin~\cite{eiks2009-amai} for \dlvhex{}, which integrates
description logics (DL) knowledge bases and nonmonotonic logic programs. The
DL-Plugin allows to access an ontology using the description logic
reasoner {\small\texttt{RacerPro} 1.9.0}
({\small\url{http://www.racer-systems.com/}}). For our first experiment, consider
the program (shown left) and the terminological part of a DL knowledge base on the right:
\begin{align*}
\mathit{birds}(X) &\leftarrow \mathit{DL}[\mathit{Bird}](X).
& \mathit{Flier} &\sqsubseteq \lnot \mathit{NonFlier} \\[-0.5ex]
\mathit{flies}(X) &\leftarrow \mathit{birds}(X), \naf \mathit{neg\_flies}(X).
& \mathit{Penguin} &\sqsubseteq \mathit{Bird} \\[-0.5ex]
\mathit{neg\_flies}(X) &\leftarrow \mathit{birds}(X),
\mathit{DL}[\mathit{Flier} \uplus \mathit{flies}; \neg
\mathit{Flier}](X).
& \mathit{Penguin} &\sqsubseteq \mathit{NonFlier}
\end{align*}
This encoding realizes the classic Tweety bird example using %
DL-atoms (which is an alternative syntax for external atoms in this
example and allows to express queries over description logics in a more
accessible way). The ontology states that $\mathit{Flier}$ is disjoint
with~$\mathit{NonFlier}$, and that penguins are birds and do not fly;
the rules express that birds fly by default, i.e., unless the contrary
is derived. The program amounts to the $\Omega$-transformation of
default logic over ontologies to dl-programs~\cite{dek2009}, where the
last rule ensures consistency of the guess with the DL ontology.
If the assertional part of the DL knowledge base contains
$\mathit{Penguin}(\mathit{tweety})$, then
$\mathit{flies}(\mathit{tweety})$ is inconsistent with the given
DL-program %
($\mathit{neg\_flies}(\mathit{tweety})$
is derived by monotonicity of DL atoms and~$\mathit{flies}(\mathit{tweety})$ loses its support).
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Benchmark Results (runtime in seconds, timeout 300s)}
\subfloat[Set Partitioning]{\label{fig:setmin}%
%
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.575\textwidth}
\vspace{0cm} %
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}[t]{@{}r@{~~~}r@{}r@{}r@{~~}r@{}r@{}r@{}}
\toprule\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{l}{\# elements} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{all models} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{first model} \\
& \dlv{} & \clasp{} & \clasp{} & \dlv{} & \clasp{} & \clasp{} \\
& & w/o EBL & w EBL & & w/o EBL & w EBL \\
\midrule
1 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 0.07 & 0.07 \\
5 & 0.20 & 0.16 & 0.10 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.07 \\
10 & 12.98 & 9.56 & 0.17 & 0.56 & 0.28 & 0.07 \\
11 & 38.51 & 21.73 & 0.19 & 0.93 & 0.63 & 0.08 \\
12 & 89.46 & 49.51 & 0.19 & 1.69 & 1.13 & 0.08 \\
13 & 218.49 & 111.37 & 0.20 & 3.53 & 2.31 & 0.10 \\
14 & --- & 262.67 & 0.28 & 8.76 & 3.69 & 0.10 \\[-1.5mm]
$\vdots$~ & --- & --- & $\vdots$~~~ & $\vdots$~~~ & $\vdots$~~~ & $\vdots$~~~ \\
18 & --- & --- & 0.45 & 128.79 & 62.58 & 0.12 \\
19 & --- & --- & 0.42 & --- & 95.39 & 0.10 \\
20 & --- & --- & 0.54 & --- & 91.16 & 0.11 \\
\bottomrule\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{5mm}
\subfloat[Bird-Penguin]{\label{fig:tweety}%
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.31\textwidth}
\vspace{0cm} %
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}[t]{@{}r@{~~~}r@{}r@{}r@{}}
\toprule\toprule
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\# individuals} \\
& \dlv{} & \clasp{} & \clasp{} \\
& & w/o EBL & w EBL \\
\midrule
1 & 0.50 & 0.15 & 0.14 \\
5 & 1.90 & 1.98 & 0.59 \\
6 & 4.02 & 4.28 & 0.25 \\
7 & 8.32 & 7.95 & 0.60 \\
8 & 16.11 & 16.39 & 0.29 \\
9 & 33.29 & 34.35 & 0.35 \\
10 & 83.75 & 94.62 & 0.42 \\
11 & 229.20 & 230.75 & 4.45 \\
12 & --- & --- & 1.10 \\[-1.5mm]
$\vdots$~ & --- & --- & $\vdots$~~~ \\
20 & --- & --- & 2.70 \\
\bottomrule\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
}
\bigskip
\subfloat[Wine Ontology]{\label{tab:wine}%
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.42\textwidth}
\vspace{0cm} %
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}[b]{@{}r@{}r@{}r@{}r@{}r@{}}
\toprule\toprule
Instance & \multicolumn{2}{c}{concept completion} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{gain} \\
& \clasp{} & \clasp{} & max & avg \\
& w/o EBL & w EBL \\
\midrule
wine\_0 & 25 & 31 & 33.02 & 6.93 \\
wine\_1 & 16 & 25 & 16.05 & 5.78 \\
wine\_2 & 14 & 22 & 11.82 & 4.27 \\
wine\_3 & 4 & 17 & 10.09 & 4.02 \\
wine\_4 & 4 & 17 & 6.83 & 2.87 \\
wine\_5 & 4 & 16 & 5.22 & 2.34 \\
wine\_6 & 4 & 13 & 2.83 & 1.52 \\
wine\_7 & 4 & 12 & 1.81 & 1.14 \\
wine\_8 & 4 & 4 & 1.88 & 1.08 \\
\bottomrule\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
}
\hspace{5mm}
\subfloat[MCS]{\label{tab:mcs}%
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.28\textwidth}
\vspace{0cm} %
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}[t]{@{}r@{~~~}r@{}r@{}r@{}}
\toprule\toprule
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\hspace{-1mm}\# contexts}\\
& \dlv{} & \clasp{} & \clasp{} \\
& & w/o EBL & w EBL \\
\midrule
3 & 0.07 & 0.05 & 0.04 \\
4 & 1.04 & 0.68 & 0.14 \\
5 & 0.23 & 0.15 & 0.05 \\
6 & 2.63 & 1.44 & 0.12 \\
7 & 8.71 & 4.39 & 0.17 \\
\bottomrule\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{table}
Note that defaults cannot be encoded in standard (monotonic) description
logics, which is achieved here by the cyclic interaction of DL-rules and
the DL knowledge base.
As all individuals appear in the extension of the predicate
$\mathit{flier}$, all of them are considered simultaneously.
This requires a guess on the ability to fly for each individual
and a subsequent check, leading to a combinatorial
explosion.
Intuitively, however, the property can be determined for each individual independently. Hence, a query
may be split into independent subqueries,
which is achieved by our learning function for \emph{linear sources}
in Example~\ref{ex:smin}. %
The learned nogoods are smaller and more candidate models are
eliminated. Table~\ref{fig:tweety} shows the runtime for different
numbers of individuals and evaluation with and without EBL. The runs
with EBL exhibit a significant speedup, as they exclude many model
candidates, whereas the performance of the \dlv{} and the \clasp{}
backend without EBL is almost identical (unlike in the first example);
here, most of the time is spent calling the description logic
reasoner and not for the evaluation of the logic program.
The findings carry over to large ontologies (DL knowledge bases) used in real-world
applications. We did similar experiments with a scaled version of the
wine ontology ({\small\url{http://kaon2.semanticweb.org/download/test_ontologies.zip}}).
The instances differ in the size of the ABox (ranging from $247$
individuals in wine\_$0$ to $20007$ in wine\_${8}$) and in several
other parameters (e.g., on the number of concept inclusions and concept
equivalences;~\citeN{ms2006} describe the particular
instances~wine\_$i$). We implemented a number of default rules using an
analogous encoding as above: e.g., wines not derivable to be dry are
not dry,
wines which are not sweet are assumed to be dry,
wines are white by default unless they are known to be red.
Here, we discuss the results of the latter scenario.
The experiments
classified the wines in the~$34$ main concepts of the ontology (the
immediate subconcepts of the concept $\mathit{Wine}$, e.g.,
$\mathit{DessertWine}$ and $\mathit{ItalianWine}$),
which have varying numbers of known concept memberships
(e.g., ranging from $0$ to $43$, and $8$ on average, in wine\_$0$)
and percentiles of red wines among them (from~$0\%$ to $100\%$, and
$47\%$ on average).
The results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:wine}.
There, entries for concept completion state the number of classified concepts.
Again, there is
almost no difference between the~\dlv{} and the~\clasp{} backend without
EBL, but EBL leads to a significant improvement for most concepts and
ontology sizes. E.g., there is a gain for $16$ out of the $34$
concepts of the wine\_$0$ runs, as EBL can exploit linearity.
Furthermore, we observed that $6$ additional instances can be solved
within the $300$ seconds time limit. %
If a concept could be classified both with and without EBL, we could
observe a gain of up to $33.02$ (on average $6.93$). As expected,
larger categories profit more from EBL as we can reuse learned nogoods
in these instances.
Besides $\Omega$, \citeN{dek2009} describe other transformations of
default rules over description logics. Experiments with this
transformations revealed that the structure of the resulting
\hex-programs prohibits an effective reuse of learned nogoods. Hence,
the overall picture does not show a significant gain with EBL for
these encodings, we could however still observe a small improvement for
some runs.
\leanparagraph{Multi-Context Systems (MCS)}
MCS~\cite{be2007} is a formalism for interlinking multiple
knowledge-based systems (the contexts). \citeN{efsw2010-kr} define
\emph{inconsistency explanations (IE)}\/ for MCS, and present a system
for finding such explanations on top of \dlvhex{}. In our benchmarks we
computed explanations for inconsistent multi-context systems with $3$ up
to $7$ contexts. For each number we computed the average runtime over
several instances with different topologies (tree, zigzag, diamond), which
were randomly created with an available benchmark generator, and report
the results in Table~\ref{tab:mcs}.
Unlike in the previous benchmark we could already observe a speedup
of up to~$1.98$ when using \clasp{} instead of the \dlv{} backend.
This is because of two reasons: first,
\clasp{} is more efficient than \dlv{} for the given problem,
and second, \clasp{} was tightly integrated into \dlvhex{}, whereas using
\dlv{} requires interprocess communication. %
However, the most important aspect is again EBL, which leads to a further significant speedup
with a factor of up to $25.82$ compared to \clasp{} without EBL.
\leanparagraph{Logic Puzzles}
Another experiment concerns logic puzzles. We
encoded \emph{Sudoku} as a \hex{}-program, such that the logic
program makes a guess of assignments to the fields
and an external atom is used for verifying the
answer. In case of a negative verification result, the external atom indicates
by user-defined learning rules
the reason of the inconsistency, encoded a pair of assignments to fields
which contradict one of the uniqueness rules.
As expected, all instances times out without EBL, because the logic
program has no information about the rules of the puzzle and
blindly guesses all assignments, which are subsequently checked by the
external atom. But with EBL, the Sudoku instances could be solved in
several seconds.
More details on the experiments and links to benchmarks
and benchmark generators can be found at
\url{http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/research/systems/dlvhex/experiments.html}.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
The basic idea of our algorithm is related to constraint ASP solving
presented in~\citeN{geossc09a}, and~\citeN{os2012-tplp}, which is realized in the
\clingcon{} system. External atom evaluation in our algorithm can
superficially be regarded as constraint propagation.
However, while both,\citeN{geossc09a} and~\citeN{os2012-tplp}, consider a
particular application, we deal with a more abstract interface to
external sources. An important difference between \clingcon{} and EBL
is that the constraint solver is seen as a black box, whereas we exploit
known properties of external sources. Moreover, we support
\emph{user-defined learning}, i.e., customization of the default
construction of conflict clauses to incorporate knowledge about the
sources, as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:learning}. Another difference
is the construction of conflict clauses. ASP with CP has special
constraint atoms, which may be contradictory, e.g.,~$\mathbf{T} (X > 10)$ and
$\mathbf{T} (X = 5)$. The learned clauses are sets of constraint literals,
which are kept as small as possible. In our algorithm we have usually
\emph{no} conflicts between ground external atoms as output atoms are
mostly independent of each other (excepting e.g.\ functional
sources). Instead, we have a strong relationship between the input and
the output. This is reflected by conflict clauses which usually consist
of (relevant) input atoms and the negation of one output atom. As in
constraint ASP solving, the key for efficiency is keeping conflict
clauses small.
We have extended conflict-driven ASP solving techniques from ordinary
ASP %
to \hex-programs, which allow for using external atoms
to access external sources. Our approach uses two types of learning.
The classical type is conflict-driven clause learning, which derives
conflict nogoods from conflict
situations while the search tree is traversed. Adding such nogoods
prevents the algorithm from running into similar conflicts again.
Our main contribution is
a second type of learning which
we call \emph{external behavior learning} (EBL). Whenever external atoms are
evaluated, further nogoods may be added which capture parts of the
external source behavior.
In the simplest case these nogoods encode that a certain input to
the source leads to a certain output. This default learning function
can be customized to learn shorter or more general nogoods.
Customization is either done explicitly by the user, or learning functions
are derived automatically from known properties of external atoms,
which can be stated either on the level of external predicates or
on the level of atoms.
Currently we exploit monotonicity
and functionality.
Future work includes the identification of further properties which allow for
automatic derivation of learning functions.
We further plan the development of a user-friendly language for writing
user-defined learning functions. Currently,
they require to specify the learned nogoods by hand. It may be
more convenient to write
rules that
a certain input to an external source leads to a certain output,
in (a restricted variant of) ASP or a more convenient language. The
challenge is that evaluation of learning rules introduces additional
overhead, hence there is another tradeoff between costs and benefit of
EBL. Finally, also the development of heuristics for lazy evaluation
of external sources is subject to future work.
\ifinlineref
\input{references}
\else
\bibliographystyle{acmtrans}
|
\section{Introduction}
Remarkable progress has been made in recent years
in understanding and improving
electronic transport in organic semiconductors (OSC)
and devices.
Mobilities exceeding $10cm^2/Vs$ are now measured in
an increasing number of organic field-effect transistors (OFETs) based
on single crystals \cite{Podzorov,Xie,Minder,Sakanoue,Liu}.
Such values are orders of magnitude lower than those attainable
in inorganic semiconductors, and are indicative of extremely short
electronic mean-free paths ---
on the order of
the inter-molecular distances \cite{Friedman,Cheng} --- causing a
breakdown of the basic assumptions underlying band transport.
This occurs despite the relatively modest coupling of the carriers with
intra-molecular vibrations, which rules out the presence of polarons in such
materials.\cite{orgarpes11,Stojanovic}
It is currently believed
that the mobility in crystalline organic semiconductors
is intrinsically limited by the presence of
large thermal molecular motions,
which are a direct consequence of the weak Van
der Waals inter-molecular bonds.
\cite{Munn,Troisi06,Picon,reconcile09,RTA11}
Deviations from the perfect crystalline arrangement
act as a dynamical source of disorder on the already narrow electronic
bands arising from the $\pi$-intermolecular overlaps,
inducing
a localization of the electronic wavefunctions on the timescale
of the inter-molecular vibrations themselves\cite{RTA11} ---
a phenomenon that is not described by
the semiclassical Boltzmann theory of electron-phonon scattering, nor
by the classical Marcus electron transfer theory.
Theories based on such ``transient electron
localization'' \cite{Troisi06,Picon,RTA11}
are able to explain the power-law decrease of the mobility with
temperature observed
in ultrapure organic
semiconductors \cite{Karl} as well as the optical
conductivity data available in OFETs \cite{Li,Fischer,RTA11}.
Experimentally, the intrinsic mobility of organic semiconductors
is still difficult to observe in practical OFET
devices. Even when polaronic self-trapping \cite{Hulea} and dipolar
disorder\cite{Richards08} induced by the interface polarizability
are avoided by using non-polar gate dielectrics or suspended samples,
the carrier mobility in OFETs is still affected
by extrinsic sources of disorder,
related to the presence of structural defects or
to the interface roughness.
Extrinsic disorder favors the formation of trapped states in the band
tails,
at energies located below those of the intrinsic carriers \cite{Kalb,Xie}.
As a result, depending on the device quality,
a crossover from an intrinsic transport regime
to a thermally activated (trapped) regime is
observed upon lowering the
temperature \cite{Xie,Podzorov,Minder}, or the intrinsic
regime can be completely washed out if the disorder is sufficiently strong as
occurs in polycrystalline films. \cite{Chang11}
As is clear from the above discussion,
a proper description of the transport mechanism in both
pure and disordered OSC requires
a method that (i) goes beyond both Boltzmann and Marcus approaches and (ii)
is able to describe the interplay between highly
conducting states in the band range
and weakly mobile states induced by disorder.
This is achieved here by applying a recently developed
theory of charge transport
based on the Kubo formula for the electrical conductivity
combined with a suitable
relaxation time approximation (RTA) on the current-current correlation
function, which takes quantum localization effects into account.
\cite{Mayou00,RTA11}
The present method
has already been successfully applied to analyze the quantum transport
properties of quasicrystals\cite{Mayou00,Trambly06} and to address
the role of defects in
graphene\cite{Trambly11}.
It has also been shown to provide an efficient
description of the transient localization phenomenon in
pure OSC\cite{RTA11}, as it gives access to the {\em time-resolved}
diffusivity and localization length of electronic states.
By addressing the same quantities
{\em resolved in energy}, we show here that
this theoretical framework also
establishes a direct relationship between the existence of
competing electronic states at different energy scales and the
resulting transport properties.
Accordingly, both the intrinsic transport mechanism of clean organic
semiconductors and the crossover to
a thermally activated motion in the presence of extrinsic disorder are
rationalized in terms of the relative weight played by
strongly localized tail states
and more mobile electronic states in the band range.
The increase of the mobility observed in OFETs
upon injecting a sufficiently large density of carriers is also
naturally explained within this scenario.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec:general} we introduce the
formalism relating the quantum diffusion
of electrons
to the Kubo response theory. Based on this formalism,
in Sec. \ref{sec:approx} we briefly describe the semiclassical approximation
used in Ref. \onlinecite{reconcile09} and then
derive the relaxation time approximation to be used here.
A model relevant to organic semiconductors and devices
is introduced in Sec. \ref{sec:model}.
The results obtained in the
limit of low carrier concentration are presented in Section
\ref{sec:results} and their density-dependence is analyzed in
Sec. \ref{sec:density}. The main conclusions are drawn in Sec. \ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{General formalism}
\label{sec:general}
A formalism that relates the quantum diffusion
of electrons, i.e. the quantum mechanical spread of the electron position with
time, to the optical conductivity was introduced in
Refs. \onlinecite{Mayou00,Trambly06} for metals and generalized to semiconductors in Ref.
\onlinecite{RTA11}.
The main steps of the derivation are reviewed
here. Readers not interested in formal developments may skip
this Section and move on
directly to Section III.
\subsection{Optical conductivity and time-resolved diffusivity}
We start from the Kubo formula that relates the response of
electrons to an
oscillating electric field to the current-current correlation
function (say, along $x$)\cite{Mahan}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Kubostandard}
\sigma(\omega)=\frac{1}{\Omega \omega} Re \int_0^\infty dt
e^{i(\omega + i\delta)t} \langle [J_x(t),J_x(0)]\rangle.
\end{equation}
Here $\delta$ is a small positive number enforcing convergence,
$\Omega$ is the system volume, and we have set $\hbar=1$.
Denoting the retarded current-current correlation function as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Cpm}
C_-(t)= \theta(t)\langle [\hat J_x(t),\hat J_x(0)]\rangle ,
\end{equation}
and its its Fourier transform as $ C_-(\omega)$,
the Kubo formula Eq. (\ref{eq:Kubostandard}) can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Kubocompact}
\sigma(\omega)=\frac{1}{\Omega \omega} Re \ C_-(\omega).
\end{equation}
A relation between the mean square particle displacement and the current
correlations can now be obtained through the retarded current-current
anti-commutator correlation function,
\begin{equation}
C_+(t)= \theta(t)\langle \lbrace\hat J_x(t),\hat J_x(0)\rbrace \rangle.
\label{eq:retardedCp}
\end{equation}
Writing the current operator
in terms of the velocity operator, $\hat J=e\hat V=e d\hat X/dt$,
and performing the time derivative
we see that this function is directly related to the mean square
displacement $\Delta X^2(t) = \langle |\hat X(t)-\hat X(0) |^2
\rangle$ of the total position operator $\hat X(t)=\sum_i \hat x_i(t)$
along the chosen direction,
(with $\hat x_i$ the position operator for the $i$-th particle) via
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vv}
\frac{d \Delta X^2(t)}{dt}=\frac{1}{e^2}\int_0^t C_+(t^\prime) dt^\prime.
\end{equation}
This defines the instantaneous diffusivity of a system of $N$
quantum particles,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:diffusivity}
{\cal D}(t)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d \Delta X^2(t)}{dt}.
\end{equation}
Introducing the
mean square displacement reached by the $N$-particle system over
a typical timescale $\tau$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:defL2}
L^2(\tau) = \int_0^\infty dt e^{-t/\tau} \frac{d \Delta X^2(t)}{d t},
\end{equation}
and using the properties of Laplace trasforms of derivatives,
Eq. (\ref{eq:vv}) yields the following relation between the
mean square displacement
and the Laplace transform $C_+(p)$ of the
anti-commutator correlation function,
\cite{symbols}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Laplace}
C_+(p=1/\tau)=e^2\frac{L^2(\tau)}{\tau}.
\end{equation}
The above equation shows that the quantity $C_+(p)$ has a precise physical
meaning: it corresponds to the diffusivity of
the electronic system averaged on a timescale $\tau=p^{-1}$.
Because the functions $C_+$ and $C_-$ are
related by the detailed balance condition, which in Fourier space reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:detbal}
Re C_-(\omega)=\tanh \left(\frac {\beta \omega}{2}\right) Re C_+(\omega)
\end{equation}
(with $\beta$ the inverse temperature,
see appendix \ref{app:detbal}), the two relations
Eqs. (\ref{eq:Kubocompact}) and (\ref{eq:Laplace}) are
are not independent.
Indeed, by expressing
the right-hand side of Eq. (\ref{eq:Kubocompact}) in terms of the Laplace
transform $C_+(p)$, via Eq. (\ref{eq:CpCw}),
we obtain an expression relating the
mean square displacement $L^2(\tau)$
and the optical conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:L2omega}
L^2(\tau)=\int_0^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{\pi}
\frac{2\omega}{\omega^2+(1/\tau)^2}\frac{\sigma(\omega)}{\tanh(\beta
\omega/2)}.
\end{equation}
Remarkably, this relationship allows to
address the time-resolved diffusion of electrons from the knowledge
of the optical conductivity, which is a spectral property.
An analogous equation was derived in Ref. \onlinecite{RTA11} for the
instantaneous spread $\Delta X^2(t)$.
\subsection{d.c. conductivity and mobility}
From the equivalence of the two formulations
Eqs. (\ref{eq:Kubocompact}) and (\ref{eq:Laplace})
we can
derive a generalized Einstein relation connecting the electrical
conductivity to the extensive diffusion coefficient ${\cal D}$,
which is valid for quantum
$N$-particle systems.
By definition, a system is diffusive if
the diffusivity at long times tends to a
constant value, $\lim_{t\to \infty} {\cal D}(t)={\cal D}$.
In the limit
$\tau \to \infty $
the integral in Eq. (\ref{eq:defL2}) is then dominated
by such asymptotic diffusive behavior leading to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:asympt}
{\cal D}=
\lim_{\tau \to \infty } \frac{L^2(\tau)}{2\tau}= \frac{C_+(p=0)}{2e^2}.
\end{equation}
Conversely, the above equation shows that reaching a
finite localization length $L(\tau\to \infty)$ in the long time limit
implies a vanishing diffusion coefficient.
Using Eq. (\ref{eq:Laplace}) together with the definition
of the d.c. conductivity from Eq. (\ref{eq:Kubocompact}) as the limit
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sigmadc}
\sigma=\lim_{\omega\to 0} \frac{Re C_-(\omega)}{\Omega \omega}
\end{equation}
and observing that $\lim_{p\to 0}
C_+(p)=\lim_{\omega\to 0} C_+(\omega)/2$ (see appendix \ref{app:detbal})
we can write
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Einstein}
\sigma=\frac{e^2}{k_BT\Omega}{\cal D }=\frac{e^2}{2k_BT\Omega}{\lim_{\tau \to \infty } \frac{L^2(\tau)}{\tau}}.
\end{equation}
Our definition of the extensive
diffusion coefficient ${\cal D}$ for the N-particle system differs from
the usual single particle diffusivity, which we denote
$D$. The latter
is an intensive quantity, defined as the
ratio between the conductivity and the
charge-charge
susceptibility \cite{Kubo57}, so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:relationKK}
\frac{\cal D}{\Omega}=D \frac{\partial n}{\partial \mu} k_BT
\end{equation}
with $n$ the density and $\mu$ the chemical potential.
The density-dependent proportionality factor on
the r.h.s.
corresponds to the number of particles that can actually
move, i.e. the compressibility times the (thermal) energy
interval.
Accordingly, the mobility of electrons can be defined at any finite
density via
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mobfin}
\mu_e=\frac{eD}{k_B T}=\frac{\sigma}{e k_B T \frac{\partial n}{\partial \mu}}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Energy resolved quantities}
\label{sec:energy-resolved}
Our aim is to address the charge dynamics in systems
where localized and itinerant states coexist in
different regions of the electronic spectrum: tail states generated by
disorder below the band edges behave differently
from states within the electronic band. It is therefore useful
to
decompose the response of the electronic
system into contributions from states at different energy
scales.\cite{reconcile09,Coropceanu12}
This can be done by exploiting the following
expression of $C_-(\omega)$ as an
energy integral (see appendix \ref{app:detbal}):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Kuboexpand}
C_-(\omega)=\pi\int d\nu \left[ f(\nu)-f(\omega+\nu)\right] tr
[\hat \rho(\nu) \hat J \hat \rho(\nu+\omega) \hat J],
\end{equation}
where and $f(\nu)=[e^{\beta(\nu-\mu)}+1]^{-1}$ is
the Fermi function,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:defrho}
\hat \rho(\nu)=-\frac{1}{\pi} Im \frac{1}{\nu-\hat H}
\end{equation}
is the spectral operator from which the DOS $\rho(\nu)$ can be
obtained as $\rho(\nu)=tr\hat \rho(\nu)$,
and $\hat H$ is the Hamiltonian operator.
Defining
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:corrJJ}
B(\nu)= tr [\hat \rho(\nu) \hat J \hat \rho(\nu) \hat J],
\end{equation}
the d.c. conductivity is readily obtained from Eq. (\ref{eq:sigmadc})
as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Kubo-Fourier}
\sigma=\frac{\pi}{ \Omega} \int d\nu B(\nu)
\left(-\frac{\partial f}{\partial\nu} \right)
\end{equation}
[note that there was a misprint in the definition of $B(\nu)$ in
Ref. \onlinecite{reconcile09}].
We see from the above equation
that the
total conductivity of an electronic system arises from an average of $B(\nu)$
over all electronic
states, weighted by the corresponding statistical population.
For example,
in a system at finite electron density and low temperature,
because the derivative of the Fermi function is peaked at
$\nu \simeq \mu$, the conductivity is determined by the electrons in proximity
(within $k_BT$) of the chemical
potential, leading to $\sigma\simeq (\pi/\Omega)B(\mu)$.
We now show that
$B(\nu)$ is actually proportional to the energy-resolved
diffusivity of states at energy $\nu$.
In the case of independent electrons which is of interest here,
the electron mobility can be evaluated at any finite density
via Eq. (\ref{eq:mobfin}), using the following expression for
the compressibility
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:compr}
\frac{\partial n}{\partial \mu}
=\int d\nu \left(-\frac{\partial f}{\partial\nu} \right)\rho(\nu).
\end{equation}
From Eqs. (\ref{eq:mobfin}) and (\ref{eq:Kubo-Fourier}),
and defining the
diffusivity of states at energy $\nu$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:resolvD}
D(\nu)=(\pi/e)[B(\nu)/\rho(\nu)].
\end{equation}
we can rewrite the mobility as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mobdens}
\mu_e=\frac{e}{k_BT}\frac{\int d\nu \left(-\frac{\partial f}{\partial\nu} \right)
\rho(\nu) \ D(\nu)}{\int d\nu \left(-\frac{\partial f}{\partial\nu} \right) \rho(\nu)},
\end{equation}
which has explicitly the form of an average over energy with
a probability distribution $W(\nu)= \left(-\frac{\partial f}{\partial\nu}
\right) \rho(\nu)/\int d\nu \left(-\frac{\partial f}{\partial\nu} \right) \rho(\nu)$.
In the limit of vanishing density, by taking the
$\mu\to -\infty$ limit appropriate to a non-degenerate
semiconductor in Eq. (\ref{eq:mobdens}), we find
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mobzero}
\mu_e=\frac{e}{k_BT}\frac{\int d\nu
\rho(\nu)e^{-\beta \nu}D(\nu)}{\int d\nu \rho(\nu)e^{-\beta \nu}} .
\end{equation}
\section{Approximation schemes}
\label{sec:approx}
\subsection{Semiclassical Kubo bubble approximation}
A powerful approximation scheme to calculate the carrier
mobility is to evaluate the Kubo formula using
the exact electron propagators obtained in the limit of static molecular
displacements, but neglecting
vertex corrections \cite{reconcile09}.
Evaluating the single-particle propagators in the static limit is
justified in virtue of the low frequencies of the
intermolecular vibrations that couple to the electronic motion.
On the other hand,
the neglect of vertex corrections amounts to dropping the quantum
interference processes that are responsible for Anderson
localization,\cite{LeeRMP,vertex}
in the spirit of the semiclassical
approximation.
It corresponds to replacing
the function $B(\nu)$ appearing in Eq. (\ref{eq:mobdens}) by the
factorized expression
\begin{equation}
B(\nu)= tr \left \langle \ \langle\hat \rho(\nu)\rangle \ \hat J \
\langle\hat \rho(\nu) \rangle \ \hat J \ \right\rangle,
\label{eq:BubbleNoVtx}
\end{equation}
where $\langle \ldots \rangle$
means an average over disorder variables
(the averaging
procedure will be
defined in the following Section).
In diagrammatic terms, only the elementary particle-hole ``bubble'' --- a
convolution of two spectral functions --- is retained in the
evaluation of the current-current correlation function.
While Eq. (\ref{eq:BubbleNoVtx}) neglects
particle-hole quantum correlations,
it still accounts for
non-trivial interaction effects contained in the
single-particle propagators, which are calculated exactly.
In particular, it is able to capture
those aspects of the transport mechanism
which stem from the dual nature of the
electron states.
It is therefore superior to the
usual Bloch-Boltzmann treatment in that it can account for both the
coherent motion of band
states and the incoherent motion of tail states.
The convolution Eq. (\ref{eq:BubbleNoVtx}) is actually
analogous to the form that applies in the limit of large lattice
connectivity underlying dynamical mean field theory,
and that has proven successful to address
the crossover from band-like to hopping motion of small polarons
non-perturbatively.\cite{Fratini03}
It reduces to the static treatment of the gaussian
disorder model presented in Refs. \onlinecite{Bassler} and
\onlinecite{Coehoorn} in the classical limit where the
electron bandwidth is neglected, which is
appropriate for narrow-band amorphous semiconductors and polymers
in the strong disorder regime.
\subsection{Relaxation time approximation (RTA)}
The theoretical framework developed in Sec. II allows us to restore the
backscattering processes leading to Anderson localization,
i.e. those that are neglected in Eq. (\ref{eq:BubbleNoVtx}),
by performing a
physically transparent relaxation time approximation (RTA)
\cite{RTA11,Mayou00,Trambly06}.
The idea underlying the RTA is to express the dynamical properties of
the electronic system under study in terms of those of a suitably defined
reference system from which it decays over time,
and that can be solved at reasonable cost.
In the semiclassical theory of electron transport, for example,
one starts from a perfectly periodic crystal and describes
via the RTA the decay of momentum states due to the scattering by impurities or
phonons.
The idea here is to find an alternative
reference system to start with, so that quantum
localization effects are built-in from the beginning.
We now show that this can be achieved by
starting from the exact description of a
``parent'' localized system where the disorder is assumed to be
static. The RTA can then be used to
restore the disorder dynamics related to
the low-frequency lattice
vibrations.\cite{RTA11,Mayou00,Trambly06}
Let us consider an organic semiconductor where
the disorder variables (i.e. the molecular positions)
fluctuate in time over a typical timescale $\tau_{in}$.
At times $t\ll \tau_{in}$,
the molecular lattice appears to the moving electrons as an
essentially frozen disordered landscape.
The velocity correlation function $C_+(t)$ [cf. Eq. (\ref{eq:Cpm})]
then coincides with what would be
obtained if the
disorder were static,
which we denote $C^{loc}_+(t)$ (our reference system).
In particular, the buildup of quantum interferences
underlying Anderson localization --- which
occurs on the scale of the {\it elastic} scattering time $\tau_{el}$ ---
is realized provided that $\tau_{el}<\tau_{in}$. In this time range,
the organic semiconductor therefore exhibits all the features of a truly
localized electronic system.
Quantum interferences that were present in the parent localized
system are instead destroyed at longer times because, due to the
lattice dynamics, the electrons encounter different disorder
landscapes when moving in the forward and backward directions \cite{LeeRMP}.
The form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:defRTA}
C_+(t)= C^{loc}_+(t) e^{-t/\tau_{in}}
\end{equation}
is the simplest form that is able to capture such decay process.
Transforming Eq. (\ref{eq:defRTA}) to Laplace space, results in
$C_+(p)=C_+^{loc}(p+1/\tau_{in})$.
The corresponding diffusion coefficient can be straightforwardly obtained
from Eq. (\ref{eq:asympt}).
We see that
starting from a localized system with a
vanishing diffusion coefficient, $C_+^{loc}(p\to 0)=0$,
the RTA restores a finite
diffusion coefficient
which equals the diffusivity of the localized system at a time
$\tau_{in}$. This result can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:diffRTA}
{\cal D}=\frac{L^2_{loc}(\tau_{in})}{2\tau_{in}},
\end{equation}
which is analogous to the
Thouless diffusivity of Anderson insulators \cite{Thouless}.
Correspondingly, the quantity $L^2_{loc}(\tau_{in})$
evaluated through Eq. (\ref{eq:defL2}) for the reference localized system
acquires the meaning of a {\it transient localization length} for the
actual dynamical system,
as it represents the
typical electron spread achieved after the initial localization stage,
and before diffusion sets back in at $t>\tau_{in}$
(see Figs. 1 and 3 in
Ref. \onlinecite{RTA11} as well as Fig. 1 below
for a real-time illustration of this behavior).
The emerging physical picture of the electronic motion that follows
from the RTA Eq. (\ref{eq:diffRTA}) is quite
different from the usual semiclassical picture, where disorder and
lattice vibrations cause rare scattering events on extended
electronic states.
The present scenario rather describes
electrons that are prone to localization but can take advantage of the
dynamics of disorder to diffuse freely over a distance
$L_{loc}(\tau_{in})$, with a trial rate $1/\tau_{in}$.
As will be shown in Sec. V,
the RTA essentially reproduces
the results obtained from more time-consuming
mixed quantum-classical simulations \cite{Troisi06,RTA11,Wang}, and is free
from the known drawbacks of these approaches.
Before presenting model-specific results in Section \ref{sec:results},
we analyze in more detail how the energy-resolved quantities
of Sec. \ref{sec:energy-resolved} translate into the RTA language.
From Eqs. (\ref{eq:mobfin}) and (\ref{eq:diffRTA}) the RTA mobility in
the low density limit is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:defmuRTA}
\mu_e = \lim_{n\rightarrow 0} \frac{e}{n
k_BT\Omega}\frac{L^2_{loc}(\tau_{in})}{2\tau_{in}}.
\end{equation}
In the spirit of Eq. (\ref{eq:mobzero}),
the transient localization length $L_{loc}(\tau_{in})$ can
be expressed in terms of its energy resolved equivalent,
$\ell(\tau,\nu)$, i.e.
the spread reached {\em by electronic states of energy $\nu$}
at time $ \tau_{in}$,
as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Lextensive}
\lim_{n\rightarrow 0}\frac{L^2_{loc}(\tau_{in})}{\Omega n} =
\frac{\int d\nu \rho(\nu) e^{-\beta \nu} \ell^2(\tau_{in},\nu)}{\int
d\nu \rho(\nu) e^{-\beta \nu}}
\end{equation}
[see Appendix \ref{sec:BoltzmannRTA} for an explicit expression of
$\ell^2(\tau_{in},\nu)$] \cite{nota-ell-Kubo}.
Combining Eqs. (\ref{eq:mobzero}),
(\ref{eq:defmuRTA}) and (\ref{eq:Lextensive})
we recognize the energy-resolved diffusivity
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:RTAbub}
D(\nu)= \frac{ \ell^2(\tau_{in},\nu)}{2\tau_{in}}
\end{equation}
which relates directly
the conduction properties of the electronic states to
their localization length in the parent localized system.
Finally, from the considerations of the preceding Section we can
derive the following relation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:relmuRTAsigma}
\mu_e = \frac{e}{2\tau_{in}k_BT}
\int_0^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{\pi}
\frac{2\omega}{\omega^2+\tau_{in}^{-2}}
\frac{\sigma_{loc}(\omega)/n}{\tanh(\beta\omega/2)}.
\end{equation}
Eq. (\ref{eq:relmuRTAsigma}) expresses the electron mobility in the RTA
in terms of the optical conductivity of the reference localized system, whose
mobility strictly vanishes. This result
deserves a few comments.
From scaling theories of localization, a finite
d.c. conductivity is customarily obtained by
taking the optical conductivity
to saturate at a cutoff frequency of the order of
the inverse of the inelastic scattering time,
$\sigma_{d.c.}= \sigma_{loc}(\omega\simeq\tau_{in}^{-1})$.
In Eq. (\ref{eq:relmuRTAsigma}), instead,
the inelastic scattering time enters into the determination of
the mobility via a
weighted integral (i.e. through a lorentzian convolution)
that involves the conductivity at all frequencies.
The mobility Eq. (\ref{eq:relmuRTAsigma})
can therefore be quite different from the value obtained
from the usual thumbrule.
Our scheme
is also conceptually different from the
approach used in Ref. \cite{Cataudella}. There
the mobility was obtained by performing a Lorentzian convolution
of the optical conductivity itself, with a phenomenological
broadening $\Gamma=1/\tau_{in}$
that was assumed to originate from the {\it quantum}
fluctuations of the molecular vibrations instead of the {\it classical}
molecular motions.
Apart from its different physical content,
the method of Ref. \onlinecite{Cataudella} provides,
for a given value of $\tau_{in}^{-1}$,
a lower estimate for the mobility than Eq. (\ref{eq:relmuRTAsigma}).
\section{Model and method}
\label{sec:model}
We now apply the theoretical framework developed in the preceding Sections to
a model relevant to organic semiconductors,
that accounts for both the intrinsic dynamical
disorder caused by
inter-molecular motions \cite{Troisi06,reconcile09,RTA11,Cataudella} and the
fluctuations of the molecular site energies that are assumed to
originate from
extrinsic sources disorder.
Specifically, we consider the following tight-binding Hamiltonian, for
electrons or holes on a one-dimensional molecular
lattice
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:H}
H= \sum_i \epsilon_i c^+_i c_i +\sum_{\langle i j\rangle} t_{ij}
c^+_i c_j + h.c.
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_i$ are molecular site energies, and $t_{ij}$
are intermolecular transfer integrals between nearest neighboring
molecules. In a perfect crystal all site energies $\epsilon_i$ are
equal and can be set to zero without loss of generality. Static disorder
leads to variations of the site energies with
a statistical distribution $P(\epsilon_i)$.
We are interested here in the effects of energetically distributed disorder,
as opposed to disorder centers with a definite energy (such as specific
point defects). Correspondingly, we take $P(\epsilon_i)$
to be a gaussian of variance $\Delta$ as a representative case study.
In addition, the coupling of the electrons to the vibrations of the molecules
induces a dynamical disorder in
the inter-molecular transfer integrals $t_{ij}$ which depend on the
molecular positions $R_i,R_j$. These fluctuate
on a timescale
governed by the relevant vibrational modes, whose frequency we denote
as $\omega_0$
\cite{Troisi06,reconcile09,RTA11}.
We assume a linear dependence of
$t_{ij}$ on the intermolecular distance, $t_{ij}=t_0
[1-\alpha(R_i-R_j)]$.
One-particle properties --- i.e. the properties that derive from
the electron Green's function, such as the spectral function, the
quasiparticle lifetime
or the density of states (DOS) --- can be efficiently evaluated by treating the
molecular degrees of freedom as static.
This is justified because
the frequencies of the
inter-molecular vibrations that couple to the electron motion are
much smaller than
the band energy scale, which follows from
the large molecular mass. For example in rubrene\cite{TroisiAdv}
$\omega_0\simeq 4-9meV$, $t_0\simeq 130meV$, so that $\omega_0\ll t_0$
(see \cite{Troisi06,Hannewald,WangJCP07} for different compounds).
The static approach amounts to
treating the positions $R_i$ as classical
variables distributed according to a Gaussian
distribution of thermal origin\cite{reconcile09,RTA11}
$P_T(R_i)\propto \exp(-M\omega_0^2 R_i^2/2k_BT)$ ($M$ is the
molecular mass).
\cite{reconcile09}
In practice, a numerical solution for the electronic problem is obtained
for each given configuration
of $\{R_i\}$ and $\{\epsilon_i\}$ and
then averaged over the disorder configurations.
The electronic properties of the model Eq. (\ref{eq:H}) in the static limit
depend on two dimensionless coupling parameters:
$\Delta/t_0$, that controls
the amount of extrinsic disorder,
and $\lambda=\alpha^2t_0/(2M\omega_0^2)$, the electron-molecular lattice coupling parameter. From the latter,
the variance of the intrinsic thermal fluctuations of
the inter-molecular transfer intergrals is obtained as
$s=\sqrt{8\lambda T t_0}$.
The static limit described above
leads to a strictly vanishing particle
diffusivity for all states.
This can be seen from Eq. (\ref{eq:RTAbub}), which
vanishes when $\tau_{in}\to \infty$.
The dynamical nature of
the inter-molecular vibrations
must therefore be accounted for in order
to address the transport properties of electrons.
Both approximation schemes described in Sec. \ref{sec:approx}
accomplish this task by taking
the solution of the static model as a starting point. The technical details
are described in what follows.
(i) To obtain the spectral function $\rho(\nu)$ needed in the
semiclassical Kubo bubble (KB) approximation we adopt
an algorithm based on regularization of the tri-diagonal
recursion formulas for the electron propagator
(see Ref. \cite{reconcile09} for details).
Using this method, system sizes up to
$N=2^{16}$ sites can be achieved.
The spectral function is then obtained after averaging up to $6 \cdot
10^5$ different realizations of the ${R_i}$ and ${\epsilon_i}$.
The mobility is directly obtained using Eq. (\ref{eq:BubbleNoVtx}).
The average diffusivity $C_+(p)$ is obtained by evaluating
the optical conductivity via Eq. (A20) applying the same factorization as
in Eq. (\ref{eq:BubbleNoVtx}), and then
using Eqs. (\ref{eq:Laplace}) and (\ref{eq:L2omega}).
(ii) To evaluate the average diffusivity $C_+^{loc}(p)$ needed in
the RTA we use standard exact diagonalization techniques
on chains of up to $N=2^9$ sites. The functions
of interest are then calculated
via their Lehman representation as a sum over the resulting
eigenstates (see Appendix A).
Since we are considering electrons moving in the time-dependent
potential of the fluctuating molecular lattice,
it is a natural
choice to associate the scale $\tau_{in}$ in the RTA Eq. (\ref{eq:defRTA})
with the typical timescale of inter-molecular vibrations.
Assuming a single vibrational mode with a frequency
$\omega_0=5meV$, in the range of the relevant inter-molecular vibrations
in rubrene, we set $\tau_{in}= 1/\omega_0=10^{-13}s$.
This assumption has been shown in Ref. \onlinecite{RTA11} to be
consistent with the optical absorption data available in Rubrene OFETs
\cite{Li,Fischer}. This choice is also consistent with
the results of dynamical Ehrenfest simulations in Ref. \onlinecite{RTA11},
as it correctly reproduces
the departure from localization observed at time $\tau \simeq 1/\omega_0$.
However, a more precise estimate of $\tau_{in}$ from the Ehrenfest
results is prevented due to the inaccuracy of this
method in the long time limit (see below).
(iii) For comparison,
we shall also present results obtained with the method of
Refs. \cite{Troisi06,RTA11,Wang} (termed Ehrenfest in the following).
The dynamics of the molecular positions $R_i$
are then included explicitly by adding a vibrational term
$H_{vib}= \sum_i \frac{M \omega_0^2R_i^2}{2}
+ \frac{P_i^2}{2M}$
to the Hamiltonian Eq. (\ref{eq:H})
($P_i$ are the conjugate momenta of the $R_i$).
The electron diffusion is obtained via
Ehrenfest quantum-classical dynamical simulations:
the $R_i$ are treated as classical variables
subject to forces evaluated as averages over the electronic state
obtained from the solution of its time-dependent Sch\"odinger equation
\cite{Troisi06,RTA11}.
We average up to
$12800$ initial conditions on a $1024$-site chain,
with the initial molecular displacements
and velocities taken from the corresponding thermal distribution. For each
initial condition we use a different set of disorder variables ${\epsilon_i}$.
(iv) By artificially freezing the ${R_i}$ variables in the simulation
we obtain a formulation in the time domain of the static problem
described at point (ii), that we shall refer to as Ehrenfest-S.
From Eqs. (\ref{eq:defL2}) and (\ref{eq:Laplace})
the calculation of the time dependent mean square displacement of
Eq. (\ref{eq:diffusivity}) can then be used to obtain the quantities
$L^2_{loc}(\tau)$ and $C_+(p)$
from a Laplace transform.
\section{Results in the low density limit}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Time-resolved diffusivity and transient localization}
\label{sec:transient}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig1a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig1b.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Average diffusivity $C_+(p)$ defined in
Eq. (\ref{eq:Laplace}) as a function of the timescale $\tau=p^{-1}$, at
a temperature $T=0.2t_0=300K$. Panels (a) and (b) are respectively
without $\Delta=0.0$ and with $\Delta=0.5t_0$ extrinsic disorder.
The bold short-dashed curve (light blue) is obtained by solving
the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation on a $1024$-sites chain
(Ehrenfest-S).
The dotted curve (magenta)
is the result of the
dynamical Ehrenfest approach with vibrational frequency $\omega_0=0.05t_0$.
The long-dashed line (green) is the RTA approximation
with $\tau_{in}=\omega^{-1}_0$.
The full (red) line is the result of the semiclassical Kubo bubble
approximation Eq.
(\ref{eq:L2omega}). Open circles are results from exact diagonalization
of a $256$-sites chain.
The arrows mark the elastic and inelastic scattering times (see text).
}
\label{fig:CpAll}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:CpAll} illustrates the function $C_+(p)$ defined in
Eqs. (\ref{eq:diffusivity})-(\ref{eq:Laplace}), as calculated from
the different methods outlined at the end of the preceding Section.
This quantity has the
meaning of a diffusivity averaged up to a time $\tau=1/p$ and therefore
provides direct information on the quantum dynamics of electrons as a
function of time.
We fix $\lambda=0.17$, which is representative for
the intrinsic electron-vibration coupling in
rubrene\cite{reconcile09}, and set the temperature to
$T=0.2t_0=300K$.
The numerical results for a single electron
in a pure organic semiconductor
($\Delta=0$) and in the presence of extrinsic disorder
($\Delta=0.5t_0=65meV$) are
reported in Figs.
\ref{fig:CpAll}a and
\ref{fig:CpAll}b respectively.
This value of $\Delta$ is close to the one that was derived from the analysis
of angle-resolved photoemission spectra (ARPES) in crystalline pentacene
films\cite{Hatch}.
All the methods outlined above yield a ballistic time
evolution in the short-time limit. It can be shown that the average
diffusivity at
short times obeys exactly
$C_+= 2\langle v^2\rangle/p= 2\langle v^2\rangle \tau$,
which is ruled by the average band
velocity $\langle
v^2\rangle$ (cf. Appendix \ref{app:sum-rules}).
The ballistic regime is followed by a flattening
of the average difusivity due to
the onset of scattering processes, occurring on a timescale
which we identify with the elastic
scattering time, $\tau_{el}$ \cite{LeeRMP}.
From Fig. \ref{fig:CpAll} we estimate
approximately $\tau_{el}\sim
10^{-14} s$ in the pure case ($\Delta=0$), and $\tau_{el}\sim
5\cdot 10^{-15} s$ in the disordered case ($\Delta=0.5t_0$).
In the long time limit,
the different methods yield qualitatively different
behaviors
reflecting the fundamentally distinct treatments
of the intermolecular dynamics. Let us focus on the intrinsic case first,
Fig. \ref{fig:CpAll}a.
In the parent system with static disorder, the electrons are
localized (Ehrenfest-S and ED, respectively
blue short-dashed curve and open circles). The existence of
a finite localization length $L(\tau)=const$ as $\tau\to\infty$
implies through Eq. (\ref{eq:Laplace}) that the average diffusivity
bends down
and tends to $C_+\propto 1/\tau$ at
long times.
Restoring the dynamical nature of the
inter-molecular vibrations via the RTA
causes a departure from the
localized behavior on the scale of the inelastic scattering time
$\tau_{in}$,
so that a diffusive behavior ($C_+=const$) is reached at
long times (green long-dashed curve).
We note that within the RTA
the diffusion coefficient at $\tau\to\infty$ is necessarily lower
than the maximum attainable value, which is obtained when $\tau_{in}
\simeq \tau_{el}$.
Finally, the Ehrenfest method (purple, dotted line) also captures the
departure from localization occurring at $\tau \simeq \tau_{in}$. However,
this method
yields a spurious superdiffusive behavior at long times\cite{RTA11},
which is testified by a marked upturn of the diffusivity.
This drawback leads to an overestimate of the
mobility, whose value can vary strongly depending on the chosen
simulation time. For this reason, the mobilities obtained from Ehrenfest
simulations \cite{Troisi06,TroisiAdv,Wang,RTA11,Ishii} should
be taken with some care.
The results reported in Fig. \ref{fig:CpAll}a, that have been obtained
using microscopic parameters appropriate for pure rubrene (the organic
semiconductor with the highest mobility reported to date),
indicate that
even in ideal samples without extrinsic disorder the elastic
scattering time at room temperature is shorter than
the typical inelastic scattering time, $\tau_{el}<\tau_{in}$.
This situation
results from the combination of the large mass of the molecular units,
which leads to low vibrational frequencies and therefore to large values
of $\tau_{in}$, together with the typically weak inter-molecular transfer
rates and their strong sensitivity to inter-molecular
motions, which lead to short values of $\tau_{el}$. It is
therefore expected to
be a general feature of all organic semiconductors, resulting in
a transport mechanism that is fundamentally different from that of
inorganic materials.
Specifically, a "transient" localization regime
emerges at intermediate times, $\tau_{el}<\tau< \tau_{in}$,
where the electrons tend to localize (the
diffusivity bends down)
before a constant diffusivity sets back in at
$\tau\gtrsim \tau_{in}$ (green long-dashed curve in Fig.
\ref{fig:CpAll}a).
When such transient localization is realized, the diffusion coefficient at long
times depends on the history of the system at this intermediate
stage, being inversely proportional to
the inelastic time $\tau_{in}$, cf. Eq. (\ref{eq:diffRTA}).
The existence of a transient localization phenomenon invalidates in principle
semiclassical treatments of electron transport, which are instead
successful in inorganic materials. To illustrate this point
we show in Fig. \ref{fig:CpAll}a the average diffusivity $C^+$
obtained from the semiclassical Kubo bubble
approximation (red full line). Because in
this approximation the backscattering processes at the origin of
localization are neglected, the system evolves continuously from
a ballistic to a diffusive behavior. Semiclassical approaches are
therefore inadequate to describe electron transport
in organic semiconductors where $\tau_{el} <
\tau_{in}$.
On the other hand,
the present RTA is able to recover
the semiclassical picture in the opposite regime where $\tau_{in} <
\tau_{el}$. As discussed at the beginning of this
Section we have that
$C^+_{loc}(p)= 2 \langle v^2 \rangle/p$ at short times. Using the RTA
Eq. (\ref{eq:defRTA}) and Eq. (\ref{eq:asympt}) yields a diffusion coefficient
$D= \langle v^2 \rangle \tau_{in}$, which is formally analogous to the
Bloch-Boltzmann result.
The situation in the presence of extrinsic static disorder
is not qualitatively modified with respect to the pure
case,
as can be seen from Fig. 1b. In particular, the inelastic
scattering time remains unchanged, because it is determined by the
intrinsic timescale of the intermolecular vibrations.
However, an increased amount of disorder shifts the
onset of localization $\tau_{el}$ to shorter times. This
enlarges the time interval where the transient localization
phenomenon is effective, with a consequent reduction of the
diffusion coefficient.
Finally, one can wonder if the transient localization
scenario, which was demonstrated here in the one-dimensional case,
is robust in more realistic descriptions of OSC.
For materials
with a sizable in-plane anisotropy, i.e. such that the inter-molecular
transfer rates in the transverse direction are much smaller than in the
longitudinal direction, $t_\perp\ll t_0$, the one-dimensional
picture is expected to remain valid up to times $t\simeq \hbar/t_\perp$.
This is the situation that applies to Rubrene, according to recent
photoemission data.\cite{Machida}
Because the elastic scattering time is very short, of the order of
$\hbar/t_0$ or less (see Fig. 1), we have
$ \hbar/t_\perp \gg \tau_{el}$ and
nothing prevents the transient localization to occur in this case.
Backscattering processes remain relevant also in isotropic
two-dimensional materials. Although the timescale for two-dimensional
weak localization is known to be longer than $\tau_{el}$, \cite{LeeRMP}
the present scenario should remain qualitatively correct also in that
case due to the
strong intrinsic disorder present in OSC.
\subsection{Temperature dependence of the mobility}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig2a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig2b.pdf}
\caption{Mobility as a function of temperature calculated (a) within
the RTA
and (b) within the Kubo bubble approximation. The inset of panel (a)
shows the behavior of the transient
localization length $L^2_{loc}(\tau_{in})$ with $1/\tau_{in}=\omega_0=0.05 t_0$.
Mobilities are expressed in units of $\mu_0=ea^2/\hbar$, with
$a$ the lattice spacing ($\mu_0=7cm^2/Vs$ taking $a=7.2\AA$ for
rubrene). In this and all subsequent figures, we take $t_0$ as the unit of energy.}
\label{fig:mobility}
\end{figure}
Fig. 2a shows the temperature dependence of the mobility as
obtained from the RTA
for different amounts of extrinsic
disorder, $\Delta=0$, $0.2t_0$ and $0.5t_0$.
The lowest accessible temperature is set by the limits of validity of
our classical treatment for the molecular
vibrations, namely $T\gtrsim
\omega_0=0.05t_0$.
The intrinsic mobility of pure compounds
($\Delta=0$, full red line)
is a monotonically decreasing function of temperature,
even though the microscopic transport mechanism
is far from a conventional band transport, as
discussed in Sec. \ref{sec:transient}.
Depending on the explored temperature window,
a power law temperature dependence, $T^{-\gamma}$, can be identified.
In practice the exponent $\gamma$ depends on how the transient
localization length in Eq. (\ref{eq:defmuRTA}) varies with
temperature, due to the thermal increase of
inter-molecular disorder.
The behavior of $L^2_{loc}(\tau_{in})$ is shown in the inset of
Fig. \ref{fig:mobility}a.
In the temperature interval
$T=200-600 K$,
the transient localization length
decreases steadily\cite{reconcile09} as $L^2_{loc}(\tau_{in})\propto
a^2 t_0/(\lambda T)$.
Substituting this expression in Eq. (\ref{eq:defmuRTA}) leads to
a mobility $\mu_e \propto T^{-2}$ \ \cite{reconcile09,Troisi06}. Moreover, using explicitly the
definition of $\lambda$ given in Sec. IV and the relation $1/\tau_{in}\sim \omega_0$
we obtain that
the mobility in this regime increases with the third power of $\omega_0$,
while it is independent of the transfer integral $t_0$. An analogous calculation in
the semiclassical regime \cite{reconcile09} yields for the model under study a mobility proportional
to $\omega_0$ and to $t_0^{1/2}$. In both cases, increasing $\omega_0$ results
in an increase of the charge mobility, because it suppresses the effects of dynamical
inter-molecular disorder. This observation suggests a possible strategy for the design
of high mobility materials: rather than optimizing the inter-molecular $\pi$ overlaps that control
the value of $t_0$, it could be advantageous to stiffen the inter-molecular vibrations
either via an appropriate
tayloring of the inter-molecular structure (e.g. by molecular functionalization)
or via the interaction with a substrate
(as in self-assembled monolayers).
The localization length becomes a weakly increasing function of T at very high
temperatures, where a
vibrationally assisted electron motion arises via the
large fluctuations of the inter-molecular distances. This results in
a weaker power law dependence of the mobility with exponent $\gamma
<1$, which was termed ``mobility saturation'' in Ref. \cite{reconcile09}.
Although such high temperatures are not attainable experimentally in
rubrene, the
mobility saturation regime
could actually be observed in materials with a stronger
electron-vibration coupling constant $\lambda$ than that considered here.
The inclusion of extrinsic disorder ($\Delta\neq 0$) causes a
downturn of the mobility at low
temperatures, that is reminiscent of a thermally activated behavior,
i.e. $\mu_e$ increases with $T$.
This behavior reflects a crossover between the extremely short
$L^2_{loc}(\tau_{in})$ obtained at low
temperatures and the larger intrinsic value at higher temperatures,
as shown in the inset of Fig. \ref{fig:mobility}a.
\cite{note:transient}
The location of the crossover from extrinsic to intrinsic transport
depends on the amount of extrinsic
disorder, so that it can vary experimentally depending on the material
and device quality.
Correspondingly, a variety of behaviors ranging from thermal
activation to a power law decrease can be realized in the
experimental temperature window, which
is possibly at the origin of the different temperature
dependent mobilities observed
in organic FETs.
The results of the semiclassical Kubo bubble approximation are shown in
Fig. \ref{fig:mobility}b for comparison.
Despite the profound differences in the
two descriptions of charge transport, the overall behavior obtained in the
explored temperature interval is qualitatively similar.
From a fundamental viewpoint, the fact that a thermally activated
behavior is
obtained for $ \Delta \neq 0$
in both the RTA and the Kubo bubble approach
indicates that the
corresponding hopping processes (incoherent
jumps from molecule to molecule) are already present at
the semiclassical level, being captured by the Kubo bubble
approximation in the strong disorder limit.\cite{Coehoorn}
This result means that the hopping behavior is not
related to the quantum (backscattering) localization corrections, as
the latter are not contained in the semiclassical treatment.
As we proceed to show, the crossover from the intrinsic to the
thermally activated regime can be explained
in terms of the competition between highly
conducting states located in the band range and weakly mobile states
located in the band tails --- a competition that is
captured by both the RTA and the Kubo bubble approximation.
\subsection{Energy resolved diffusivity and localization length}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig3a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig3b.pdf}
\caption{(a) Density of states in a pure crystal with intrinsic
inter-molecular disorder and $\Delta=0$.
The different curves correspond to increasing temperatures from
$T=0.1t_0$ to $T=0.7t_0$. The dashed line is the DOS of the
perfect crystal in the absence of thermal disorder
($\lambda=0$). (b) DOS at $T=0.2t_0$ for
several values of the extrinsic disorder $\Delta$. }
\label{fig:DOS}
\end{figure*}
Based on Eq. (\ref{eq:mobzero}),
the electron mobility in a non-degenerate semiconductor
arises from a weighted average
of the energy-resolved diffusivity
$D(\nu)$ via the thermal population of electronic
states. The latter is
measured by the thermally weighted DOS,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:wDOS}
W(\nu)=\frac{\rho(\nu)e^{-\beta
\nu}}{\int \rho(\nu)e^{-\beta
\nu}},
\end{equation}
which represents the normalized probability of occupation of the
states at energy $\nu$. The functions $\rho(\nu)$, $D(\nu)$ and
$W(\nu)$ are analyzed below.
Fig. \ref{fig:DOS} illustrates the evolution of the
DOS $\rho(\nu)$ as a function of increasing thermal disorder
in a pure sample (a) and upon increasing extrinsic
disorder (b). The DOS of a perfectly
ordered crystal is shown for reference (dashed).
In both cases, the Van-Hove singularity marking the edge of the
one-dimensional band at
$\nu=-2t_0$ is
rounded off and shifts deeper in energy, indicating an increase of the
effective bandwidth. \cite{HoHu,orgarpes11,Coropceanu12}
In addition, tails are generated beyond the range of band states.
Both the bandwidth increase and the extension of band tails
are controlled by the amount of disorder. This can be
quantified through the variance
$s=\sqrt{8\lambda T t_0}$ of the thermal fluctuations of the inter-molecular
transfer intergrals in the intrinsic case
\cite{reconcile09} (Fig.\ref{fig:DOS}a), and by the spread $\Delta$ of
molecular energy levels in the
extrinsic case \cite{HoHu} (Fig.\ref{fig:DOS}b).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig4a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig4c.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig4b.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig4d.pdf}
\caption{(a) Energy-resolved transient localization length squared $\ell^2
(\tau_{in},\nu)$ (left axis) and diffusivity $D(\nu)$ (right axis)
in a pure OSC, for increasing temperatures from
$T=0.1t_0$ to $T=0.9t_0$. Parameters are the same as in the
preceding figures. The length unit is the lattice spacing $a$.
(b) Weighted DOS [see Eq. (\ref{eq:wDOS})] at the same temperatures.
(c) and (d) show the same quantities in the presence of extrinsic disorder
($\Delta=0.5$). In panel (d) the temperature
$T=0.15t_0$ has been added to highlight the crossover from extrinsic to
intrinsic transport.}
\label{fig:ellBubble}
\end{figure*}
The diffusivity $D(\nu)$ obtained through the RTA in the pure case
($\Delta=0$) is shown
in Fig. \ref{fig:ellBubble}a (right axis scale). The diffusivity is directly related,
through Eq. (\ref{eq:RTAbub}), to the square of the energy-resolved
transient localization length, $\ell^2(\tau_{in},\nu)$, which is also shown on
the same figure on the left axis. Analogous estimates for the localization length in the
static disorder limit $\tau_{in}\to \infty$ can be found in Refs. \onlinecite{reconcile09,Chang11}.
The comparison with the DOS of Fig. \ref{fig:DOS}a
allows us to identify two distinct regions in the electronic
spectrum, separated by a crossover region of width $\simeq s$ around
the band edge. States
located in the band region
have a large diffusivity, that is strongly suppressed upon
increasing the thermal disorder.
Tail states induced by
disorder below the band edge instead
have a much lower diffusivity as a consequence of their more localized
character.
The diffusivity of tail states
is essentially temperature independent and corresponds in our
one-dimensional model to a minimum
localization length of approximately one lattice spacing,
$\ell(\tau_{in},\nu)\approx a$.
We note that the existence of two distinct characteristic values of
the localization length is in agreement with recent ESR measurements
performed on pentacene transistors.\cite{Marumoto,Matsui,Mishchenko}
The relative importance of band and tail states in the transport mechanism is
determined by the weighting function $W(\nu)$,
which is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ellBubble}b.
At temperatures $T\lesssim 0.5t_0$, which includes the experimentally
accessible range, the function $W(\nu)$ is
peaked right in the
crossover range that separates the band and tail states
(cf. Fig. \ref{fig:DOS}), with a
sizable overlap on both sides. As expected for two conduction channels in
parallel, the electronic transport in this case
is dominated by the channel whose diffusivity is largest, i.e. the band
states. Correspondingly, the
temperature dependence of the mobility is governed by the
suppression of the diffusivity in the band range, that is illustrated in
Fig. \ref{fig:ellBubble}a. Upon increasing the
temperature, the weighting function progressively broadens and
shifts towards the tail states. These eventually become
the dominant transport channel, leading to the mobility saturation observed in
Fig. \ref{fig:mobility}a.
The energy-resolved diffusivity and transient localization length
obtained in the presence of extrinsic disorder ($\Delta=0.5t_0$) are
illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:ellBubble}c.
The main difference with the pure case shown in
Fig. \ref{fig:ellBubble}a is that
the crossover region separating tail and band states is now broadened
by an amount $\propto \Delta$. Nevertheless, the typical values of the
diffusivity both in the band region and in the tails remain close to their
intrinsic values, provided that the temperature is not too low.
This is more clearly seen in
Fig. \ref{fig:ell-vs-Delta}a, which shows the RTA diffusivity
at increasing values of $\Delta$ for fixed $T=0.2t_0$.
At lower temperatures ($T\le 0.1t_0$) the extrinsic disorder eventually
becomes dominant and the results tend to recover
those obtained in the absence of intrinsic electron-vibration coupling
($\lambda=0$, dashed curve in Fig. \ref{fig:ellBubble}c).
Since for $\Delta = 0.5t_0$
the diffusivity is a monotonically decreasing function of
$T$ for all states, the origin of the activated behavior of the mobility
observed at low temperatures in Fig. \ref{fig:mobility}a
has to
be sought elsewhere, i.e.
in the weighting function $W(\nu)$. As illustrated in
Fig. \ref{fig:ellBubble}d,
the behavior of $W(\nu)$ in the presence of extrinsic
disorder is opposite to that of the
pure case, Fig. \ref{fig:ellBubble}b: at low temperature (here $T=0.1t_0$)
the peak of the weighting function is located deep in
the tail states and it moves towards the band
upon increasing the temperature. Tail states with a low diffusivity therefore
dominate the transport mechanism at low temperature, while
the intrinsic regime is progressively recovered upon increasing the
temperature. The
crossover between these two regimes is signaled by a maximum in the
mobility of Fig. \ref{fig:mobility}a at a temperature that we denote $T^*$.
By comparing the variances of intrinsic and extrinsic disorder given
at the beginning of this Section, i.e. setting $s\simeq \Delta$,
we obtain the following estimate for
the crossover temperature: $T^*\simeq
\Delta^2/(8\lambda t_0)$. Taking $\Delta=0.5t_0$ and $\lambda=0.17$
gives $T^*=0.18t_0$, in good agreement
with the data of Fig. \ref{fig:mobility}a. The predicted crossover
temperature for
$\Delta=0.2t_0$ is $T^*=0.03t_0$, outside the studied range.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig5a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig5b.pdf}
\caption{
Energy resolved localization length squared $\ell^2 (\tau_{in},\nu)$
within the RTA (a) and Kubo bubble approximations (b). In both cases we
take $1/\tau_{in}=\omega_0=0.05t_0$}
\label{fig:ell-vs-Delta}
\end{figure}
The Kubo bubble approximation yields qualitatively similar results for
the temperature and $\Delta$ dependence of the diffusivity $D(\nu)$ (of
course the DOS and weighting function $W(\nu)$ are exactly the
same, as they are obtained in the common static limit).
The main differences between the two methods
are quantitative and arise
from the inclusion or not of backscattering effects,
i.e. they are indicative of the
relevance of vertex corrections in the disordered system under study.
As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ell-vs-Delta},
the diffusivity of band states in the Kubo bubble approximation
is larger than in the RTA, corresponding to the fact that for band states
the Kubo bubble essentially recovers the Boltzmann
transport theory\cite{reconcile09} where quantum localization phenomena are
absent.
This leads to
larger values of the intrinsic mobility than in the RTA,
as seen in Fig. \ref{fig:mobility}b.
Concerning tail states, the opposite is true.
In the RTA the localization length and hence the diffusivity appear
to be bound from below,
which provides a lower bound to the mobility
at low temperatures: taking $\ell(\tau_{in},\nu)> a$ from
Fig. \ref{fig:ell-vs-Delta}a yields $\mu_e> ea^2/(2\tau_{in} k_B
T)$.
This lower bound is absent in the Kubo bubble approximation,
where $D(\nu)$ vanishes asymptotically
for negative energies, being itself proportional to the DOS.
It can actually be shown \cite{Coehoorn}
that a behavior
of the form $\mu_e\propto e^{-(\Delta/2T)^2}$ is obtained from the
Kubo bubble in the
limit of strong disorder, $\Delta\gg t_0$.
As a result
the thermal activation at low temperatures is more pronounced in
the Kubo bubble approximation than in the RTA.
The two effects discussed here are at the origin of the
much sharper crossover from
extrinsic to intrinsic transport obtained in the Kubo bubble compared
to the RTA, cf. Fig. \ref{fig:mobility}.
\section{Density dependence of the mobility}
\label{sec:density}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig6a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig6b.pdf}
\caption{Mobility as a function of carrier concentration per molecule
within (a) the RTA and (b) Kubo bubble approximation, for $T=0.2t_0$.
The inset shows the variation of mobility with respect to its zero
density limit. }
\label{fig:mobility-vs-dens}
\end{figure}
The mobility obtained through Eq. (\ref{eq:mobdens})
at finite electron concentration is shown in
Fig. \ref{fig:mobility-vs-dens}. The parameters are the same as in
Fig. \ref{fig:CpAll}, i.e. $\lambda=0.17$, $T=0.2t_0=300K$.
In both the RTA, Fig. \ref{fig:mobility-vs-dens}a, and Kubo bubble
approximation, Fig. \ref{fig:mobility-vs-dens}b,
we find a steady increase of the mobility with
increasing density.
This behavior can be understood as arising from a progressive filling of tail
states, which occurs through a shift of the chemical potential
towards the band region as the
electron liquid becomes degenerate. This allows
states with a higher diffusivity to be populated,
via a shift of the the factor $-\partial
f/\partial \nu$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:mobdens}).
This argument is only qualitatively correct
however, because it neglects the fact that
the diffusivity $D(\nu)$ itself depends on the density,
which is instead
correctly incuded in the results of Fig.
\ref{fig:mobility-vs-dens}.
Based on the same argument, increasing the
density of carriers will shift the crossover between the extrinsic and
intrinsic regimes to lower temperatures.
Such depinning effect
can be achieved in OFETs through the application of
a strong enough gate electric
field.
We see from Fig. \ref{fig:mobility-vs-dens} that
the curves describing the density dependence of the mobility for different
degrees of extrinsic disorder are essentially parallel.
The quantity
$\mu_e-\mu_e(n=0)$,
where the $n=0$ limiting value has been subtracted, is shown in the
inset. Interestingly, it appears to be insensitive to the presence of extrinsic
sources of disorder: the curves show a clear collapse
for different values of the static
disorder, that persists up to fairly large carrier concentrations.
This indicates that at the considered temperature, $T=0.2t_0=300K$,
the observed increase of mobility with density comes
entirely from populating carriers with a strong band character
(cf. Fig. \ref{fig:ellBubble}).
The quantity $\mu_e-\mu_e(n=0)$ could therefore be used to
measure the mobility of band carriers even in samples
with a sizable degree of disorder.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig7.pdf}
\caption{Mobility as a function of carrier concentration per molecule,
obtained from the RTA
for $T=0.2t_0$ and $\Delta=0.2t$ (dashed line, same as Fig. 6a).
The full line is obtained by replacing
the definition Eq. (\ref{eq:mobfin}) by the expression
$\mu_e=\sigma/(ne)$.}
\label{fig:compare}
\end{figure}
Finally, because large carrier concentrations
are now customarily obtained in OFETs
via liquid gating \cite{Frisbie,Iwasa},
the correct definition of the
mobility, Eq. (\ref{eq:mobfin}), should be used to analyze experiments,
instead of the usual expression
$\sigma/(ne)$ that only holds in the limit of vanishing density.
To illustrate this point, we compare the results obtained with the two
definitions in Fig. \ref{fig:compare}. Use of the low-density expression
(black, full line) leads to
an erroneous result, as it incorrectly predicts a reduction of the mobility
upon increasing the density. To understand this result,
we observe that for degenerate carriers, the susceptibility Eq. (\ref{eq:compr})
is given by the DOS at the chemical potential, i.e.
$\partial n/\partial \mu \simeq \rho(\mu)$. Using Eq. (\ref{eq:mobfin})
we can then rewrite $\sigma/(ne)\simeq \mu_e k_BT \rho(\mu) /n$,
which is itself proportional to the DOS (cf. Fig. 3b). In the present model an increase
of the density implies a reduction of the DOS at the chemical potential,
explaining the behavior observed in Fig. \ref{fig:compare}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
Based on a theoretical formalism that relates the Kubo formula for the
conductivity
to the time-resolved diffusivity of electronic states, we
have analyzed the electronic transport mechanism in a model that
accounts for several key ingredients relevant to organic semiconductors:
the existence of narrow electronic bands, the
dynamical disorder arising from the thermal vibrations of the
molecules and the presence of extrinsic sources of disorder that are
unavoidable in real samples and devices.
The presence of strong dynamical
disorder is intrinsic to organic semiconductors and invalidates
the usual semiclassical treatments of electronic transport that apply
to inorganic semiconductors, calling for a theoretical
approach that is able to treat quantum localization corrections in
a controlled way. This is achieved here through a relaxation time
approximation (RTA) that relates directly the carrier diffusivity to
the localization properties of the electronic states.
Within this theoretical scenario,
the deviations from semiclassical transport are
understood as arising from a {\it transient localization} of
electrons, that takes place before the onset of a true diffusive
behavior at long times. This phenomenon
appears to be a characteristic feature
of organic semiconductors, where the typical timescale of inter-molecular
vibrations is longer than the elastic scattering time.
The transient localization scenario is supported by numerical simulations on the
time-dependent diffusivity \cite{RTA11} and by optical conductivity
measurements in Rubrene OFETs \cite{Li,Fischer}.
Based on the present theory,
the intrinsic transport mechanism
in clean organic semiconductors
is explained as the diffusive
spread of localized wavefunctions rather than the scattering of
delocalized waves by phonons and disorder.
A power-law decay with temperature is predicted for
the intrinsic mobility, which results from
the reduction of the transient localization length as the
thermal disorder increases. Our results suggest that the intrinsic mobility
of organic semiconductors could be improved by tailoring crystal structures
with stiffer inter-molecular bonds, as this would reduce the impact of thermal
disorder on the charge transport.
The inclusion of extrinsic disorder causes a crossover from the
intrinsic power-law behavior, persisting at high temperature, towards a
thermally activated behavior induced by carrier trapping
at low temperature.
Increasing the electron concentration
induces a depinning from trapped states,
leading to an increase of the mobility
and a progressive suppression
of the thermally activated regime.
Our results for the concentration dependence of the mobility
generalize the findings obtained in the classical hopping
limit $t_0 \ll \Delta$ \cite{Bassler,Coehoorn}
to the high mobility organic FETs of present interest, where
the existence of electronic bands requires a
quantum treatment of electron motion.
From a more general viewpoint,
the present work demonstrates that
the conductive properties of both
pure and disordered
organic semiconductors can be efficiently understood within a unified
framework, by addressing the interplay
between mobile states in the band region and strongly localized states
in the band tails.
The present results confirm and extend the considerations of
Ref. \onlinecite{reconcile09} by allowing for a proper inclusion of
quantum localization phenomena.
Interestingly,
the relationship between the energy-resolved properties of electronic
states and the resulting mobility, that we have exploited here,
could also be generalized to study how the intrinsic
polarizability of the organic crystals affects the transport
characteristics, as was recently proposed in
Ref. \onlinecite{Minder}.
|
\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{10pt}{-1.25ex plus -1ex minus -.1ex}{0ex plus 0ex}{\normalsize\bf}}
\def\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{10pt}{-1.25ex plus -1ex minus -.1ex}{0ex plus 0ex}{\normalsize\textit}}
\renewcommand\@biblabel[1]{#1}
\renewcommand\@makefntext[1]%
{\noindent\makebox[0pt][r]{\@thefnmark\,}#1}
\makeatother
\renewcommand{\figurename}{\small{Fig.}~}
\sectionfont{\large}
\subsectionfont{\normalsize}
\fancyfoot{}
\fancyfoot[RO]{\footnotesize{\sffamily{1--\pageref{LastPage} ~\textbar \hspace{2pt}\thepage}}}
\fancyfoot[LE]{\footnotesize{\sffamily{\thepage~\textbar\hspace{3.45cm} 1--\pageref{LastPage}}}}
\fancyhead{}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{1pt}
\setlength{\arrayrulewidth}{1pt}
\setlength{\columnsep}{6.5mm}
\setlength\bibsep{1pt}
\twocolumn[
\begin{@twocolumnfalse}
\noindent\LARGE{\textbf{Chiral and chemical oscillations in a simple dimerization model$^\dag$}}
\vspace{0.6cm}
\noindent\large{\textbf{Michael Stich,$^{\ast}$\textit{$^{a}$} Celia
Blanco,\textit{$^{a}$} and David Hochberg\textit{$^{a}$}}}\vspace{0.5cm}
\noindent\textit{\small{\textbf{Received Xth XXXXXXXXXX 201X, Accepted Xth XXXXXXXXX 201X\newline
First published on the web Xth XXXXXXXXXX 201X}}}
\noindent \textbf{\small{DOI: 10.1039/b000000x}}
\vspace{0.6cm}
\noindent \normalsize{We consider the APED model
(activation-polymerization-epimerization-depolymerization) for
describing the emergence of chiral solutions within a non-catalytic
framework for chiral polymerization. The minimal APED model for
dimerization can lead to the spontaneous appearance of chiral
oscillations and we describe in detail the nature of these
oscillations in the enantiomeric excess, and which are the
consequence of oscillations of the concentrations of the associated
chemical species.}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\end{@twocolumnfalse}
]
\footnotetext{\dag~Electronic Supplementary Information (ESI) available: [details of any supplementary information available should be included here]. See DOI: 10.1039/b000000x/}
\footnotetext{\textit{$^{a}$~Centro de Astrobiolog\'ia (CSIC-INTA),
Ctra de Ajalvir km 4,
28850 Torrej\'on de Ardoz (Madrid),
Spain. Fax: +34 91 520-1074; Tel: +34 91 520-6409; E-mail: <EMAIL>}}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Chemical oscillations are a paradigmatic example of temporal
self-organization in non-equilibrium systems and have been at the
center of intense experimental and theoretical research for
decades~\cite{Kuramoto84,Scott94,Kapral95}, with theoretical work
going back at least to the times of Lotka~\cite{LotkaJPC10}.
At the heart of these
spontaneous oscillations are a positive feedback loop, often an
autocatalytic step, and a negative control loop, responsible for the
saturation of the growth process and which operates often on a slower
time scale.
The mathematical description of chemical oscillations relies usually
on ordinary differential equations readily derived from the chemical
rate laws. The number of reacting species determines the number of
variables and chemical reaction kinetics implies that these equations
are nonlinear. The number, nature, and stability of the solutions of
the system are studied through standard methods from dynamical systems
theory, bifurcation theory, among
others~\cite{Guckenheimer83,Kuznetsov95}. One simple possibility to
obtain stable oscillations is the Hopf bifurcation scenario, discussed
in more detail below.
Instabilities observed in chemical systems are nowadays
well-established in theory and experiment, and in tradition of the
famous Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction~\cite{ZaikinN70}, most
experiments refer to chemical reactions in solution. Nevertheless,
surface chemical reactions and an increasing number of biochemical
reactions have also been studied
extensively~\cite{Murray89,Walgraef97}.
In this article, we study a model purporting to describe general
chiral polymerization processes in a prebiotically relevant chemical
system, devised for explaining the appearance of
homochirality~\cite{PlassonPNAS04}. Although there are many different
theoretical (and experimental) models tackling the open question of
the origin of biological homochirality, i.e., the preference of living
matter for only one of two chiral states of an otherwise chemically
identical molecule, at the heart of many of these approaches lies a
mechanism responsible for spontaneous mirror symmetry breaking. The
initially small chiral fluctuation must then be amplified to a state
that is useful for biotic evolution. A precondition for this to happen
is that the chirality must be preserved and transmitted to the rest of
the system.
In this context, the implications of chiral oscillations for chirality
transmission are far-reaching: indeed, the memory of the sign of the
initial primordial chiral fluctuation is erased and diluted as it were
by whatever subsequent oscillations are present in the enantiomeric
excess. This phenomenon, if and when it occurs in any model purporting
to have relevance to prebiotic chemistry, adds a further element of
uncertainty and stochasticity to the determination of the sign of the
chirality that is \textit{finally} transmitted to the system (say,
within a closed reacting system with necessarily damped chiral
oscillations). Recently in fact, numerical evidence for such damped
oscillations was found in a chiral polymerization model closed to
matter and energy flow, where the amplitude of the oscillation depends
on the length of the homochiral chain
formed~\cite{BlancoPCCP11}. While such models are successful in
fitting to real chemical data on e.g., relative abundances of chiral
polymers~\cite{BlancoPCCP12}, they usually involve dozens or even
hundreds of nonlinear coupled differential equations, and they do not
lend themselves easily to a systematic controlled mathematical
analysis of the kind needed to study rigorously oscillatory phenomena
in detail.
For this essentially technical reason, a detailed study of chiral
oscillatory phenomena is best carried out in a simple model, ideally
not too far removed, if possible, in spirit from a more complex "real"
model. Linear stability analysis proves that there is no possibility
for oscillations in the original Frank model, nor within any of its
minimal extensions~\cite{RiboPLA08}. On the other hand, the model
proposed by Plasson et al.~\cite{PlassonPNAS04} is amenable to
theoretical analysis, and it exhibits different stable stationary
states, together with instabilities and even temporal
oscillations. These oscillations refer not only to the concentrations
of the different species, and therefore represent chemical
oscillations, but also to oscillations in the enantiomeric excess of
the system. These chiral oscillations are the focus of this article.
This article is organized as follows: In Sec.~\ref{sec:model} we
introduce the minimal APED model and perform a basic bifurcation
analysis. In Sec.~\ref{sec:bif}, we discuss in more detail the basic
bifurcations observed in the model and display bifurcation diagrams
for other parameters. One of the interesting results is that chiral
oscillations can be expected for parameter values that are chemically
more realistic, at least within simple models based on Frank's scheme,
when these are proposed as the fundamental candidate reaction network
for explaining the salient features of the Soai
reaction~\cite{CrusatsCPC09}. Finally, we close the article with a
discussion of the results in Sec.~\ref{sec:disc}.
\section{The APED model}
\label{sec:model}
We consider the so-called APED
(activation-polymerization-epimerization-depolymerization) model,
introduced by Plasson et al.~\cite{PlassonPNAS04}, used to describe
the spontaneous onset of homochiral states in a symmetric system of
interacting polymerization products. The reaction scheme for the
minimal APED dimerization model is represented by the following
chemical transformations
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\textrm{L} \stackrel{a}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{L}^\ast \qquad
\textrm{LL} &\stackrel{h}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{L}+\textrm{L} \\
\textrm{D} \stackrel{a}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{D}^\ast \qquad
\textrm{DD} &\stackrel{h}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{D}+\textrm{D} \\
\textrm{L}^\ast \stackrel{b}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{L} \qquad
\textrm{LD} &\stackrel{\beta h}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{L}+\textrm{D} \\
\textrm{D}^\ast \stackrel{b}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{D} \qquad
\textrm{DL} &\stackrel{\beta h}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{L}+\textrm{D} \\
\textrm{L} + \textrm{L}^\ast \stackrel{p}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{LL} \qquad
\textrm{LL} &\stackrel{\gamma e}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{DL} \\
\textrm{D} + \textrm{D}^\ast \stackrel{p}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{DD} \qquad
\textrm{DD} &\stackrel{\gamma e}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{LD} \\
\textrm{L} + \textrm{D}^\ast \stackrel{\alpha p}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{DL}\qquad
\textrm{LD} &\stackrel{e}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{DD} \\
\textrm{D} + \textrm{L}^\ast \stackrel{\alpha p}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{LD} \qquad
\textrm{DL} &\stackrel{e}{\longrightarrow} \textrm{LL}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The model contains deactivated monomers L and D, activated monomers
L$^\ast$ and D$^\ast$, homodimers LL and DD, and heterodimers LD and
DL. The reactions include activation (rate $a$), deactivation (rate
$b$), homochiral polymerization (rate $p$), heterochiral
polymerization (rate $\alpha p$), homochiral hydrolysis (rate $h$),
heterochiral hydrolysis (rate $\beta h$), homochiral epimerization
(rate $e$), and heterochiral epimerization (rate $\gamma e$). In
general, polymerization, hydrolysis, and epimerization processes are
stereoselective, i.e., $\alpha \ne 1$, $\beta \ne 1$, $\gamma \ne
1$. Mass is conserved and therefore the total concentration in
residues
$c=[\mathrm{L}]+[\mathrm{D}]+[\mathrm{L^\ast}]+[\mathrm{D^\ast}]+
2([\mathrm{LL}]+[\mathrm{DD}]+[\mathrm{LD}]+[\mathrm{DL}])$, is
constant.
The chemical reactions transcribe into the following set of ordinary
differential equations:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\dot{\textrm{[L]}} &=-a\textrm{[L]}
-p\textrm{[L]}\textrm{[L}^\ast\textrm{]} -\alpha
p\textrm{[L]}\textrm{[D}^\ast\textrm{]} + 2h\textrm{[LL]} + \nonumber \\
& \quad + b\textrm{[L}^\ast\textrm{]} +\beta h\textrm{[DL]} + \beta h \textrm{[LD]}\\
\dot{\textrm{[D]}} &=-a\textrm{[D]}
-p\textrm{[D]}\textrm{[D}^\ast\textrm{]} -\alpha
p\textrm{[D]}\textrm{[L}^\ast\textrm{]} + 2h\textrm{[DD]} + \nonumber \\
& \quad + b\textrm{[D}^\ast\textrm{]} + \beta h\textrm{[DL]} + \beta h \textrm{[LD]}\\
\dot{\textrm{[L}^\ast\textrm{]}} &=a\textrm{[L]} -p\textrm{[L]}\textrm{[L}^\ast\textrm{]} - \alpha p\textrm{[L}^\ast\textrm{]}\textrm{[D]} - b\textrm{[L}^\ast\textrm{]} \\
\dot{\textrm{[D}^\ast\textrm{]}} &=a\textrm{[D]} -p\textrm{[D]}\textrm{[D}^\ast\textrm{]} - \alpha p\textrm{[D}^\ast\textrm{]}\textrm{[L]} - b\textrm{[D}^\ast\textrm{]} \\
\dot{\textrm{[LL]}} &=p\textrm{[L]}\textrm{[L}^\ast\textrm{]} -h\textrm{[LL]} +e\textrm{[DL]} -\gamma e\textrm{[LL]} \\
\dot{\textrm{[DD]}} &=p\textrm{[D]}\textrm{[D}^\ast\textrm{]} -h\textrm{[DD]} +e\textrm{[LD]} -\gamma e\textrm{[DD]} \\
\dot{\textrm{[DL]}} &=\alpha p\textrm{[L]}\textrm{[D}^\ast\textrm{]} -e\textrm{[DL]} -\beta h\textrm{[DL]} + \gamma e\textrm{[LL]} \\
\textrm{[LD]}
&=(c-\textrm{[L]}-\textrm{[D]}-\textrm{[L}^\ast\textrm{]}-\textrm{[D}^\ast\textrm{]}-2\textrm{[LL]}-\nonumber \\
& \quad -2\textrm{[DD]}-2\textrm{[DL]})/2
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where due to mass conservation, the concentration of one of the
species, here chosen to be LD, is given by the others. An important
quantity is the enantiomeric excess in the system. Unless otherwise
stated, we consider the total enantiomeric excess,
$ee=(\textrm{[L]}+\textrm{[L}^\ast\textrm{]}-\textrm{[D]}-\textrm{[D}^\ast\textrm{]}+2\textrm{[LL]}-2\textrm{[DD]})/c$.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{fig01.eps}
\caption{Bifurcation analysis of the APED model in the $\alpha-c$
space for the parameter values $a=h=e=p=1$ and $b=\beta=\gamma=0$.
The GH point (open circle) is located at GH$=(0.19559,16.23713)$.
Stable oscillations of the variables (and enantiomeric excess) are
found in the region between the supercritical Hopf curve and the LPC
(for: Limit Point bifurcation of Cycles)
curve. In (a), $\alpha$ is shown on a linear scale from $0$ to $60$
and the insets qualitatively display the main solutions: open
(filled) circle for the unstable (stable) fixed point, i.e., racemic
state, and solid (dashed) curves for the stable (unstable) limit
cycle, i.e., oscillations. (b) Same curves shown on a logarithmic
scale for $\alpha$, for comparison with Fig.~3 of
Ref.~\cite{PlassonPNAS04}. Note that oscillations cannot be found
for any $\alpha$ if $c$ becomes sufficiently large. More information
see text.}
\label{calpha1}%
\end{figure*}
It is straightforward to search for different stable states within the
system. Following the analysis published in Ref.~\cite{PlassonPNAS04},
we present in Fig.~\ref{calpha1} a bifurcation diagram obtained with
{MatCont}~\cite{DhoggeACMTOMS03} for the $\alpha -c$ space. The
different behaviors of the system depend on the total concentration
$c$ and the relative strength of the hetero- vs. homo-dimerization,
$\alpha$. We start our analysis at the point $c=1$, $\alpha=10$ (other
parameters are $a=h=e=p=1$ and $b=\beta=\gamma=0$), where we find a
stable racemic state (vanishing enantiomeric excess) characterized by
constant and nonvanishing values for all variables (but with [D]=[L],
[DD]=[LL] etc.). We keep $a=1$, $b=0$ for the remainder of this
article.
If we decrease the total matter in the system (lowering $c$), the
system crosses the blue curve and the only stable state is the ``dead
state'', characterized by vanishing concentrations for all species
except for the activated species L$^\ast$ and D$^\ast$. This curve is
given by the equation $c=2a/(p+p\alpha)$, see
Ref.~\cite{PlassonPNAS04}. If we decrease $\alpha$ while $c>1$, the
system undergoes a pitchfork bifurcation at $\alpha=1$, at which the
racemic state becomes unstable and stable chiral states appear. These
chiral states were the focus of the article~\cite{PlassonPNAS04}, and
therefore we do not discuss them in detail here.
\begin{figure}%
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig02.eps}
\caption{Stable oscillations of the concentrations and the
enantiomeric excess $ee$ observed in the APED model for the
parameter values $a=h=e=p=c=1$, $b=\beta=\gamma=0$, and $\alpha=40$.
All concentrations oscillate, for simplicity we just display [L] and
[D], and have omitted the initial transient. Note that [L] and [D]
oscillate out of phase.}
\label{times1}%
\end{figure}
As we increase $\alpha$ for fixed $c$ (which is allowed to have values
as small as $c\approx 0.2$), we observe the onset of oscillations as
the racemic stationary state becomes unstable through a supercritical
Hopf bifurcation (red curve). This means that close to the
bifurcation, oscillations have small amplitude and finite
frequency. These oscillations are exemplified in Fig.~\ref{times1} for
$\alpha=40$, $c=1$, i.e., already at some distance from the Hopf point
located at $\alpha=\alpha_H=38.24$. All concentrations oscillate (with
a period $T=6.52355$), with the chiral species oscillating in
antiphase, and the enantiomeric excess oscillates with the same
period. The range where stable chiral oscillations are observed does
not extend to the hyperbola limiting the dead state. As $c$ is
decreased for a fixed $\alpha$, the stable limit cycle undergoes a
saddle-node bifurcation of limit cycles (black curve, denoted as LPC,
for: Limit Point bifurcation of Cycles). This means that the stable
limit cycles collides with an unstable one and both disappear (and
hence no limit cycles are present to the left of the black curve).
The fixed point describing the racemic state remains unstable in that
parameter region and numerical simulations (not shown here) indicate
that the system dynamics is governed by irregular oscillations that do
not saturate and finally lead to negative values for the
concentrations, hence not representing any realistic chemical state.
The curve of the supercritical Hopf bifurcation and the curve of
saddle-node bifurcation of limit cycles meet at a Generalized Hopf
(GH) point at GH$=(0.19559,16.23713)$. This implies that the
supercritical Hopf bifurcation converts into a subcritical one. Hence,
the red curve between the GH point and the point where the Hopf
bifurcation meets the hyperbola $c=2/(1+\alpha)$ represents a
subcritical Hopf bifurcation where the unstable fixed point (above the
curve) becomes stable (below the curve), representing the stable
racemic state, while at the same time an unstable limit cycle
appears. This unstable limit cycle is the one which disappears at the
LPC curve. The insets of Fig.~\ref{calpha1}(a) show qualitatively the
stationary racemic state and the limit cycles as one moves around the
GH point in $\alpha-c$ parameter space. In the parameter regime where
stable chiral oscillations are observed, another, unstable, limit
cycle is present. For this parameter set, the minimal $\alpha$-value
for oscillations is given by $\alpha_c = 16.237$.
In Fig.~\ref{calpha1}(b), we show the same bifurcation diagram in a
log-linear plot. Contrary to what was displayed in Fig.~3 of
Ref.~\cite{PlassonPNAS04}, the Hopf curve bends upward for $c \to 2$,
demonstrating that the oscillations are not posible if the total
amount of residues is large. Therefore, the region for $c$ for which
stable oscillations are found is bound from below and above.
\section{Bifurcation analysis}
\label{sec:bif}
The bifurcation analysis carried out in Sec.~\ref{sec:model} shows
that for the parameter values $a=h=e=p=1$ and $b=\beta=\gamma=0$,
stable oscillations are only to be found for $\alpha > \alpha_c =
16.237$. Here, we consider other (obviously not all) regions of the
overall 9-parameter space (we always keep $a=1$, $b=0$) to check how
general is the appearance of chiral oscillations. Since we focus on
the oscillations, we do not show a complete bifurcation diagram.
\begin{figure}%
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig03.eps}
\caption{Bifurcation analysis in $p-\alpha$ space for the parameter
values $c=1$ and $c=0.3$. The area with sustained oscillations is
found to the right of the Hopf curves and above the LPC curves,
respectively. The GH and the intersection with $c=2a/(p+p\alpha)$
(appearance of the dead state) are denoted by open circles and
squares, respectively. For $c=1$: GH$=(16.23713,0.19559)$,
intersection at $(15.36557,0.12221)$. For $c=0.3$:
GH$=(16.23713,0.65197)$, intersection at $(15.36451,0.40739)$.
Other parameters are $a=h=e=1$ and $b=\beta=\gamma=0$.}
\label{palpha1}%
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{palpha1} we investigate for two different total
concentrations $c=1$ and $c=0.3$, the region of stable oscillations in
the $p-\alpha$ space. We hence probe at the same time the absolute
influence of the polymerization rate ($p$) and the relative influence
of its stereoselectivity ($\alpha$). The region of stable
oscillations is again limited by a Hopf curve and an LPC curve. The
two curves are qualitatively similar for both values of $c$, so we
restrict the description to the case $c=1$. If we choose, e.g.,
$p=1$, and increase $\alpha$, the system undergoes a supercritical
Hopf bifurcation at $\alpha_H=38.24$ as already seen above. Hence, to
the right of the Hopf curve, the region of stable oscillations is
found, which is limited from below by the LPC curve. This means that
if $p$ takes smaller values, smaller $\alpha$'s are necessary to
induce oscillations, although there is a minimum value for $p$, below
which no oscillations can be found, here, $p\approx 0.2$,
independently of $\alpha$. The LPC and Hopf curves merge at the GH
point, giving again a minimum value for $\alpha=\alpha_c$, below
which no oscillations are observed. For smaller $c$, larger $p$ have
to be chosen to obtain stable oscillations.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{fig04.eps}
\caption{(a) Bifurcation analysis in $\beta-\alpha$ space. The area
with sustained oscillations is found below the supercritical Hopf
curve (to the left of GH) and below the LPC curve (to the right of
GH). The insets qualitatively display the main solutions: filled
(open) circle for the stable (unstable) fixed point, i.e., racemic
state, and solid (dashed) curves for the stable (unstable) limit
cycle, i.e., oscillations. Note that the bifurcation scenario is
slightly different than in Fig.~\ref{calpha1}, giving rise to a thin
parameter region where bistability among the stable fixed point and
the stable limit cycle exists. The GH point is located at
GH$=(358.033236,0.011450)$, Other parameters are $a=c=h=p=e=1$ and
$b=\gamma=0$. (b) Bifurcation analysis in $\gamma-\alpha$ space. The
area with sustained oscillations is found below the supercritical
Hopf curve (to the left of GH) and below the LPC curve (to the right
of GH). The insets qualitatively display the main solutions: filled
(open) circle for the stable (unstable) fixed point, and solid
(dashed) curves for the stable (unstable) limit cycle. The GH point
is located at GH$=(309.5748,0.043262)$, $\beta=0$, and other
parameters are as in (a). (c) Bifurcation analysis in
$\beta-\gamma$ space. We show three supercritical Hopf curves
($\alpha=50,100,200$). The area with sustained oscillations is found
below the corresponding curve. Other parameters are as in (a).}
\label{alphabeta1}%
\end{figure*}
To measure how the stereoselectivity of polymerization and
depolymerization influence the appearance of oscillations, we perform
a bifurcation analysis in $\beta-\alpha$ space
(Fig.~\ref{alphabeta1}(a)). Since $c=1$ and other parameters are also
as in Fig.~\ref{calpha1}, for $\beta=0$, stable oscillations are found
for $\alpha > \alpha_H$ (at least for $\alpha < 1500$). If $0<\beta <
0.020445$, i.e., for only weak heterochiral depolymerization, the
range of $\alpha$ that allows for stable oscillations shrinks, with a
lower bound that increases and an upper bound that decreases. If
$\beta >0.020445$, there is no value of $\alpha$ that admits stable
oscillations. At the same time, from the figure we deduce that the
range of allowed values of $\beta$ is maximal for $\alpha=102.3$. Also
in this parameter space, we observe a Generalized Hopf point at
GH$=(358.033236,0.011450)$. To the left of that point, the Hopf
bifurcation is supercritial, to the right it is subcritical. There is
a LPC curve emerging at the GH point that in this scenario lies above
the subcritical Hopf curve. This implies that the local bifurcation
scenario is slightly different to the one displayed in
Fig.~\ref{calpha1}. The insets show the main solutions. In
particular, we have a stable fixed point coinciding with a stable
limit cycle between the subcritical Hopf curve and the LPC curve. This
represents a bistability of oscillations with a stationary state.
However, this scenario is not complete. As we know from
Fig.~\ref{calpha1}, for $\beta=0$ and $\alpha>\alpha_H$, there exists
also another unstable limit cycle that, however, does not undergo any
bifurcation in this parameter range (and hence is not added to the
insets).
To check the relative impact of the stereoselectivity of
polymerization and epimerization, in Fig.~\ref{alphabeta1}(b), we
explore the region of stable oscillations in $\gamma-\alpha$ space.
Again, the other parameters are as in Fig.~\ref{calpha1}, implying
that for $\gamma=0$, stable oscillations are found for $\alpha >
\alpha_H=38.24$. The functional form of the Hopf and LPC curves and
the location of GH point are qualitatively similar to the scenario in
the $\beta-\alpha$ space. Therefore, if $0<\gamma < 0.083136$, i.e.,
for only weak heterochiral epimerization, the range of $\alpha$ that
allows for stable oscillations shrinks, with a lower bound that
increases and an upper bound that decreases. If $\gamma >0.083136$,
there is no value of $\alpha$ that admits stable oscillations. At the
same time, from the figure we deduce that the range of allowed values
of $\gamma$ is maximal for $\alpha=90.05$.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{fig05.eps}
\caption{(a) Bifurcation analysis in $h-\beta$ space. We show a
supercritical Hopf curve for the parameters $\alpha=50$,
$a=c=p=e=1$, and $b=\gamma=0$. The area with sustained oscillations
is found to the left of the curve. (b) Bifurcation analysis in
$e-\gamma$ space. We show a supercritical Hopf curve for
$\alpha=50$, $a=c=p=h=1$, and $b=\beta=0$. The area with sustained
oscillations is found below the curve.}
\label{hbeta1}%
\end{figure*}
To complete the view on relative impact of heterochiral
polymerization, depolymerization, and epimerization on oscillations,
in Fig.~\ref{alphabeta1}(c), we explore the $\beta-\gamma$ space for
fixed $\alpha$. As can be already inferred from the above figures,
there is a minimum value for $\alpha=\alpha_H=38.24$, below which no
combination of $(\gamma,\beta)$ yields stable oscillations. However,
if $\alpha>\alpha_H$, small values of $\gamma$ and $\beta$ are
allowed. As we increase $\alpha$, this area first increases and
decreases later, once the relative maxima of the $\beta-\alpha$ and
$\gamma-\alpha$ curves are passed.
In an analogous way as our study of $p$ and $\alpha$, we can compare
the influence of the depolymerization rate $h$ vs. its
stereoselectivity $\beta$ (Fig.~\ref{hbeta1}(a)). We choose
$\alpha=50$ that for $\beta=0$ and $h=1$ (and other parameters as
above) corresponds to stable oscillations. We find that while for
$h=1$ the allowed interval of $\beta$ is small, we see that if we
decrease $h$, the range of $\beta$ values giving rise to oscillations
becomes larger. This means that the depolymerization process needs not
to be very unefficient for heterochirals in order to produce
oscillations. There exists an optimal value $h \approx 0.2$ where the
favorable $\beta$ range becomes largest. Nevertheless, there is a
minimum value $h=0.0931$ below which no stable limit cycles are found.
Similarly, we study in Fig.~\ref{hbeta1}(b) the influence of the
$\gamma$. Interestingly, we do not observe a minimal threshold for $e$
as for $h$. To the contrary, we find that for $e\to 0$, the range of
allowed values of $\gamma$ becomes maximal, and reaches values close
to $14$. However, we should have in mind that if $e=0$, the value of
$\gamma$ becomes irrelevant since $\gamma e=0$. Furthermore, since for
$e=0$ the Jacobian matrix becomes singular, a more detailed analysis
should be performed to investigate the bifurcation scenario in that
limit. We remark that stable oscillations are also possible for
$\gamma=1$, i.e., the absence of any stereoselectivity.
To complete our study, we revisit the $\beta-\alpha$ space, but with a
parameter set for which $\gamma=1$ (Fig.~\ref{alphabetaN2}). The
motivation is to find stable oscillations in absence of any
stereoselective de- and epimerization. We choose $c=1$, $e=0.1$, and
$p=0.3$, and consider three values for $h$. We see that the region of
oscillations increase for smaller $h$, and in particular, for $h=0.1$
and $\beta=1$, we have a critical value for $\alpha=321.447$ above
which a stable limit cycle is found. This is just an example to
demostrate that $\beta\ll 1$ and $\gamma\ll 1$ are not necessary
conditions for the presence of sustained oscillations.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\vspace{0.6cm}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig06.eps}
\caption{Bifurcation analysis in $\beta-\alpha$ space. We show three
supercritical Hopf curves ($h=0.3,0.2,0.1$). The area with sustained
oscillations is found below the corresponding curve. Other
parameters are $a=c=\gamma=1$, $e=0.1$, $p=0.3$, and $b=0$.}
\label{alphabetaN2}%
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:disc}
In this paper, we have studied a simple polymerization model
(actually, dimerization), aimed originally to explain the emergence of
chiral states, in the context of the onset of {\emph{chiral
oscillations}}. These oscillations represent temporal changes in
the enantiomeric excess of the underlying system, i.e., the continuous
change of a state, where one of the chiral states momentarily
dominates, into a subsequent state where the opposite handed state is
more abundant.
During decades, models for explaining the emergence and amplification
homochirality have been focused on the creation of stable stationary
states, typically associated with chiral states of maximum
enantiomeric excess. The description of temporally oscillatory states
in these models and the discussion of what these chiral oscillations
mean, are rare.
Chiral oscillatory
states have been reported by Iwamoto in two different systems
motivated by traditional models for chemical
oscillations~\cite{IwamotoPCCP02,IwamotoPCCP03} and shortly after for
the APED model~\cite{PlassonPNAS04} studied here. Nevertheless, chiral
oscillations were not studied in detail in the latter paper, and no
explanation was given nor relevance is attributed to this effect.
Here, we have studied in detail the onset of chiral oscillations, and
have demonstrated that they are associated with temporal oscillations
of the underlying chemical species, i.e., chemical
oscillations. Mathematically speaking, the onset of oscillations is
described by a supercritical Hopf bifurcation scenario, implying that
oscillations have small amplitude and finite frequency (opposed to
other mechanisms where oscillations arise with finite amplitude and
vanishing frequency). The Hopf bifurcation is of codimension-1, and
oscillations are found in large parameter regions and hence represent
a generic solution of the system.
While it has been suggested~\cite{PlassonPNAS04} that the reason for
observing chiral oscillations is that heterochiral polymerization is
favoured over homochiral polymerization, we test this hypothesis and
clarify in more detail what are the conditions that enable the
stabilization of chiral oscillations within the framework of the
rather general APED model. We show continuation results varying
$\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $p$, $h$, $e$, and $c$ (keeping $a=1$,
$b=0$), demonstrating that oscillations are in fact a typical solution
of the model. In particular, for the $\alpha-\beta-\gamma$ space, we
measure the impact of hetero- vs. homochiral polymerization,
hydrolysis, and epimerization, and find that $\alpha \gg 1$,
$\beta<1$, and $\gamma<1$ are favorable, in particular $\alpha> 38.24$
for $\beta=0$, and $\gamma=0$, where $c=1$ is the total mass of the
system and other the parameters are also equal to unity. This means
that oscillations are favored for heterochiral polymerization and
homochiral de-polymerization and epimerization. This is a noteworthy
result, especially in light of recent analysis of
Ref.~\cite{CrusatsCPC09} using the Frank scheme to model the Soai
reaction, which argued that an ideal system for kinetically controlled
spontaneous mirror symmetry breaking should consist of a fast
exergonic mutual inhibition step leading to the formation of the
heterodimer LD (i.e., $\alpha \gg 1$) and which must be more exergonic
that the possible homodimerization leading to LL and DD. The latter
condition translates into the constraint $\alpha \gg \beta$ in terms
of the APED model. In all cases observed, the oscillations arise from
a achiral state. Oscillations are not occurring for any amout of
total mass in the system. We observe that there is a lower bound (even
before the racemic solution reaches the dead state) and also an upper
bound.
We show stable sustained oscillations for a wide range of parameter
sets. In particular, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ can also be chosen to unity,
i.e., depolymerization and epimerization need not be stereoselective
in order to produce oscillations, although heterodimers must be
polymerized preferentially. Recent experimental results demonstrate
the stereoselectivity of polymerization reactions and show in detail
that the stereoselectivities can be modified experimentally (e.g., by
pH) in magnitude and can be found to be both larger or smaller than
unity~\cite{DangerAb10,PlassonOLEB11}.
The presence of oscillations of chirality adds a further element of
uncertainty to the determination of the sign of the chirality that is
finally transmitted to the system (say, within a closed reacting
system with necessarily damped chiral oscillations). In some
parameter regions, even bistability of oscillations with the racemic
state are observed, implying that then it is a matter of the initial
condition which state is realized.
Until recently, chiral oscillations have not been reported in
experiments, and hence the possibility for studying their onset in
theoretical models has received sparse attention. However, there is
now growing interest in oscillatory phenomena close to the onset of
chirality, as chiral oscillations have been reported in different
experimental systems consisting of carboxyclic acids (profens, amino
acids, hydroxy acids)~\cite{SajewiczJPOC10,SajewiczJSC10}. There,
several theoretical models are presented and checked whether they can
account for the experimental observations. Among them, the APED model
studied here, is the only one that was already known to display chiral
oscillations, while the other
ones~\cite{HyverJCP85,BykovCES87,PeacockLopezBpC97} had to be modified
or reinterpreted in order to account for chiral, rather than just mere
chemical oscillations. Here, we do not aim to discuss any of those
models with regard to the experiments (the reader is referred
to~\cite{SajewiczJPOC10,SajewiczJSC10} directly).
For the Soai reaction, Buhse presented a simplified
model~\cite{BuhseTA03} that was later modified to investigate temporal
oscillations in continuous flow and semibatch
conditions~\cite{MicskeiJPCB08}. While there are stable oscillations
of the reactants in a continuous flow scenario, they are apparently
not associated with oscillations in the enantiomeric excess. This
means that chemical oscillations are not related to chiral
oscillations, as they are in the APED model. On the other hand, in the
case of a semibatch system, oscillations necessarily fade out and give
rise to a chiral state, but transient oscillations in the enantiomeric
excess can be observed.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
M.S. acknowledges financial support from MICINN (currently
MINECO) through project FIS2011-27569 and from the Comunidad
Aut\'onoma de Madrid, project MODELICO (S2009/ESP-1691) and
acknowledges very useful help from W. Govaerts and V. De Witte using
MatCont and useful discussions with R. Plasson.
The research of C.B. and D.H. is supported by the Grant
AYA2009-13920-C02-01 from MICINN (currently MINECO) and C.B. has a
Calvo-Rod\'{e}s predoctoral contract from INTA.
\providecommand*{\mcitethebibliography}{\thebibliography}
\csname @ifundefined\endcsname{endmcitethebibliography}
{\let\endmcitethebibliography\endthebibliography}{}
\begin{mcitethebibliography}{26}
\providecommand*{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
\providecommand*{\mciteSetBstSublistMode}[1]{}
\providecommand*{\mciteSetBstMaxWidthForm}[2]{}
\providecommand*{\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue}
{\def\unskip.}{\unskip.}}
\providecommand*{\mciteBstWouldAddEndPunctfalse}
{\let\unskip.}\relax}
\providecommand*{\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct}[3]{}
\providecommand*{\mciteSetBstSublistLabelBeginEnd}[3]{}
\providecommand*{\unskip.}}{}
\mciteSetBstSublistMode{f}
\mciteSetBstMaxWidthForm{subitem}
{(\emph{\alph{mcitesubitemcount}})}
\mciteSetBstSublistLabelBeginEnd{\mcitemaxwidthsubitemform\space}
{\relax}{\relax}
\bibitem[Kuramoto(1984)]{Kuramoto84}
Y.~Kuramoto, \emph{Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence}, Springer,
Berlin, 1984\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Scott(1994)]{Scott94}
S.~K. Scott, \emph{Oscillations, Waves, and Chaos in Chemical Kinetics}, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 1994\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Kapral and Showalter(1995)]{Kapral95}
\emph{Chemical Waves and Patterns}, ed. R.~Kapral and K.~Showalter, Kluwer
Academic, Dordrecht, 1995\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Lotka(1910)]{LotkaJPC10}
A.~J. Lotka, \emph{J. Phys. Chem.}, 1910, \textbf{14}, 271--274\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Guckenheimer and Holmes(1983)]{Guckenheimer83}
J.~Guckenheimer and P.~J. Holmes, \emph{Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical
Systems and Bifurcations of Vector Fields}, Springer, New York, 1983\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Kuznetsov(1995)]{Kuznetsov95}
Yu.~A. Kuznetsov, \emph{Elements of Applied Bifurcation Theory}, Springer, New
York, 1995\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Zaikin and Zhabotinsky(1970)]{ZaikinN70}
A.~N. Zaikin and A.~M. Zhabotinsky, \emph{Nature (London)}, 1970, \textbf{255},
535--537\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Murray(1989)]{Murray89}
J.~D. Murray, \emph{Mathematical Biology}, Springer, Berlin, 1989\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Walgraef(1997)]{Walgraef97}
D.~Walgraef, \emph{Spatio-Temporal Pattern Formation}, Springer, New York,
1997\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Plasson \emph{et~al.}(2004)Plasson, Bersini, and
Commeyras]{PlassonPNAS04}
R.~Plasson, H.~Bersini and A.~Commeyras, \emph{Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA},
2004, \textbf{101}, 16733--16738\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Blanco and Hochberg(2011)]{BlancoPCCP11}
C.~Blanco and D.~Hochberg, \emph{Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.}, 2011, \textbf{13},
839--849\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Blanco and Hochberg(2012)]{BlancoPCCP12}
C.~Blanco and D.~Hochberg, \emph{Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.}, 2012, \textbf{14},
2301--2311\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Rib\'o and Hochberg(2008)]{RiboPLA08}
J.~M. Rib\'o and D.~Hochberg, \emph{Phys. Lett. A}, 2008, \textbf{373},
111--122\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Crusats \emph{et~al.}(2009)Crusats, Hochberg, Moyano, and
Rib\'o]{CrusatsCPC09}
J.~Crusats, D.~Hochberg, A.~Moyano and J.~M. Rib\'o, \emph{ChemPhysChem}, 2009,
\textbf{10}, 2123--2131\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Dhooge \emph{et~al.}(2003)Dhooge, Govaerts, and
Kuznetsov]{DhoggeACMTOMS03}
A.~Dhooge, W.~Govaerts and Yu.~A. Kuznetsov, \emph{ACM TOMS}, 2003, \textbf{29},
141--164\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Iwamoto(2002)]{IwamotoPCCP02}
K.~Iwamoto, \emph{Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.}, 2002, \textbf{4}, 3975--3979\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Iwamoto(2003)]{IwamotoPCCP03}
K.~Iwamoto, \emph{Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.}, 2003, \textbf{5}, 3616--3621\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Danger \emph{et~al.}(2010)Danger, Plasson, and Pascal]{DangerAb10}
G.~Danger, R.~Plasson and R.~Pascal, \emph{Astrobiol.}, 2010, \textbf{10},
651--662\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Plasson \emph{et~al.}(2011)Plasson, Tsuji, Kamata, and
Asakura]{PlassonOLEB11}
R.~Plasson, M.~Tsuji, M.~Kamata and K.~Asakura, \emph{Orig. Life Evol.
Biosph.}, 2011, \textbf{41}, 413--435\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Sajewicz \emph{et~al.}(2010)Sajewicz, Matlengiewicz, Leda, Gontarska,
Kronenbach, Kowalska, and Epstein]{SajewiczJPOC10}
M.~Sajewicz, M.~Matlengiewicz, M.~Leda, M.~Gontarska, D.~Kronenbach,
T.~Kowalska and I.~R. Epstein, \emph{J. Phys. Org. Chem.}, 2010, \textbf{23},
1066--1073\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Sajewicz \emph{et~al.}(2010)Sajewicz, Gontarska, Kronenbach, Leda,
Kowalska, and Epstein]{SajewiczJSC10}
M.~Sajewicz, M.~Gontarska, D.~Kronenbach, M.~Leda, T.~Kowalska and I.~R.
Epstein, \emph{J. Syst. Chem.}, 2010, \textbf{1}, 7\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Hyver(1985)]{HyverJCP85}
C.~Hyver, \emph{J. Chem. Phys.}, 1985, \textbf{83}, 850--851\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Bykov and Orban(1987)]{BykovCES87}
V.~I. Bykov and A.~N. Orban, \emph{Chem. Eng. Sci.}, 1987, \textbf{42},
1249--1251\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Peacock-L\'opez \emph{et~al.}(1997)Peacock-L\'opez, Radov, and
Flesner]{PeacockLopezBpC97}
E.~Peacock-L\'opez, D.~B. Radov and C.~S. Flesner, \emph{Biophys. Chem.}, 1997,
\textbf{65}, 171--178\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Buhse(2003)]{BuhseTA03}
T.~Buhse, \emph{Tetrahedron: Asymmetry}, 2003, \textbf{14}, 1055--1061\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Micskei \emph{et~al.}(2008)Micskei, Rabai, Gal, Caglioti, and
Palyi]{MicskeiJPCB08}
K.~Micskei, G.~Rabai, E.~Gal, L.~Caglioti and G.~Palyi, \emph{J. Phys. Chem.
B}, 2008, \textbf{112}, 9196--9200\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\end{mcitethebibliography}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{s:intro}
The realization of manifolds as branched coverings is a classical long-standing problem in topology. A well-known theorem of Alexander~\cite{Al} states
that every oriented, closed, smooth $n$-dimensional manifold is a branched covering of $S^n$. Strong restrictions for the existence of branched coverings
were found by Berstein and Edmonds~\cite{BE}. Branched coverings have been investigated in many different contexts and they turned out
to be a useful tool for the study of several problems in geometry, such as the minimal genus problem in four dimensions.
Recall that a branched $d$-fold covering is a smooth proper map $f \colon X \longrightarrow Y$ with a codimension two subcomplex $B_f \subset Y$, called
the branch locus of $f$, such that $f \vert_{X \setminus f^{-1}(B_f)} \colon X \setminus f^{-1}(B_f) \longrightarrow Y \setminus B_f$ is a $d$-fold
covering in the usual sense and for each $x \in f^{-1}(B_f)$ the map $f$ is given by $(z,v) \mapsto (z^m,v)$, for some charts of $x$ and $f(x)$ and some
positive integer $m$. The point $x$ is called singular and its image $f(x)$ is called a branch point.
In dimensions two and three, Edmonds showed that a dominant map is quite often homotopic to a branched covering~\cite{Ed1,Ed2}. More precisely,
Edmonds proved that every non-zero degree map between two closed surfaces is homotopic to the composition of a pinch map followed by a branched
covering~\cite{Ed1}. A pinch map in dimension two is a map which collapses 2-handles, i.e. is a quotient map $\pi \colon \Sigma \longrightarrow
\Sigma/\Sigma'$, where a submanifold $\Sigma' \subset \Sigma$, with circle boundary in the interior of $\Sigma$, is identified to a point. In dimension
three, Edmonds result is that every $\pi_1$-surjective map of degree at least three is homotopic to a branched covering~\cite{Ed2}. The existence of branched coverings in low dimensions has been explored by several other people, including Fox, Hilden, Hirsch and Montesinos.
Our aim in this paper is to show that every simply connected, closed four-manifold, resp. five-manifold, admits a branched double covering by a product
$S^1 \times N$, composed with a certain pinch map, resp. a map whose degree depends on the torsion of the integral homology of the target.
The main result is the following general statement:
\begin{thm}\label{t:main}
For $n \geq 4$ and every $k$ there is a branched double covering
\begin{align*}
S^1 \times (\#_k S^{n-2} \times S^1) \longrightarrow \#_k (S^{n-2} \widetilde{\times} S^2),
\end{align*}
where $S^{n-2} \widetilde{\times} S^2$ denotes the total space of the non-trivial $S^{n-2}$-bundle over $S^2$ with structure group $\SO(n-1)$.
\end{thm}
We note that the statement of Theorem \ref{t:main} does not contain any reference on orientations, because the targets are simply connected and therefore
always orientable.
The existence of dominant maps, not necessarily branched coverings, where the domain is a non-trivial product has an independent interest and its study is
partially motivated by Gromov's work on functorial semi-norms on homology~\cite{gromovmetric}. Kotschick and L\"oh~\cite{KL} investigated such maps and
showed that many targets with suitably large fundamental groups are not dominated by products. On the other hand, the fundamental group conditions given
in~\cite{KL} are not always sufficient to deduce domination by products, cf.~\cite{KN,NeoThesis}.
However, as pointed out in~\cite{KL}, it is natural to ask whether every connected, oriented, closed manifold with finite fundamental group is dominated by a non-trivial product. In order to study this question, it obviously suffices to obtain an answer for simply connected targets. In dimensions two and three, the
answer is easy and affirmative, because $S^2$ and $S^3$ respectively represent the only simply connected manifolds in those two dimensions.
In this paper, we combine our constructions of branched coverings, with some classification results for simply connected manifolds in dimensions four and
five (cf.~\cite{Wall0,Fre} and~\cite{Sm,B} respectively) to obtain the following:
\begin{thm}\label{t:4and5-mfds}
Every connected, oriented, closed manifold with finite fundamental group in dimensions four and five is dominated by a non-trivial product.
\end{thm}
In dimension four, Kotschick and L\"oh~\cite{KL} have previously obtained a non-constructive proof for the above statement based on a result of Duan and
Wang~\cite{DWa}. Our proof here is independent of those earlier works and it moreover gives an explicit construction of a degree two map from a product
of type $S^1 \times (\# S^2 \times S^1)$ to every simply connected four-manifold, obtained as the composition of a branched double covering with a
certain degree one map; cf. Theorem \ref{t:4-mfds}.
In Section \ref{s:construction}, we first prove Theorem \ref{t:main} and then we discuss briefly the
existence of branched double coverings for connected sums of direct products with a sphere factor.
In Sections \ref{s:4-mfds} and \ref{s:5-mfds}, we apply the constructions of Section \ref{s:construction} to simply connected four- and five-manifolds respectively in order to
prove Theorem \ref{t:4and5-mfds}. In the final Section \ref{s:final}, we give another application in higher dimensions and we make further remarks.
\section{Construction of branched double coverings}\label{s:construction}
We begin this section by proving Theorem \ref{t:main}. After that, we give a branched double covering for every connected sum of copies of a direct
product $M \times S^2$, where $M$ is any oriented, closed $n$-dimensional manifold (cf. Theorem \ref{t:general}).
\begin{figure}
\labellist
\pinlabel {\tiny $D^2=P(A)$} at 235 149
\pinlabel {\tiny $x_1$} at -5 91
\pinlabel {\tiny $x_2$} at 82 91
\pinlabel {\tiny $x_3$} at 82 -5
\pinlabel {\tiny $x_4$} at -5 -5
\pinlabel {\tiny $y_1$} at 355 137
\pinlabel {\tiny $y_2$} at 386 137
\pinlabel {\tiny $y_3$} at 391 23
\pinlabel {\tiny $y_4$} at 357 23
\pinlabel {$\stackrel{P}\longrightarrow$} at 235 87
\endlabellist
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{branchcovtor2}
\caption{\small The 2-torus is a branched double covering of the 2-sphere, $P \colon T^2 \longrightarrow S^2$, branched along four points $P(x_i) = y_i$, $i \in \{1,2,3,4\}$, and so that $P(A) = D^2$, where $A$ is an annulus in $T^2$ containing two singular points.}
\label{f:branchcovtor}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{t:main}]
By assumption, we consider oriented $S^{n-2}$-bundles over $S^2$ with structure group $\SO(n-1)$, where $n \geq 4$. These bundles are classified
by $\pi_1(\SO(n-1)) = \mathbb{Z}_2$ (cf. Steenrod~\cite{Steen}), therefore there exist only two; the product $S^{n-2} \times S^2$ and the twisted bundle $S^{n-2}
\widetilde{\times} S^2$. Let $\pi \colon S^{n-2} \widetilde{\times} S^2 \longrightarrow S^2$ denote the twisted bundle. There is a branched double covering
with four branch points, $P \colon T^2 \longrightarrow S^2$, given by the quotient for an involution on $T^2$; see Figure \ref{f:branchcovtor} (this map is
known as ``pillowcase''). We pull back $\pi$ by $P$ to obtain a branched double covering $P^* \colon P^*(S^{n-2} \widetilde{\times} S^2) \longrightarrow S^{n-2} \widetilde{\times} S^2$. Now $P^*(S^{n-2} \widetilde{\times} S^2)$ is the total space of an oriented $S^{n-2}$-bundle over $T^2$ with structure group $\SO(n-1)$. Again, there exist
only two such bundles and since $P$ has even degree we deduce that $P^*(S^{n-2} \widetilde{\times} S^2)$ is the trivial bundle, i.e. the product $T^2
\times S^{n-2}$. Therefore, $T^2 \times S^{n-2}$ is a branched double covering of $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^{n-2}$, with branch locus four copies of the
$S^{n-2}$-fiber of $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^{n-2}$, given by the preimages under $\pi$ of the four branch points of $P$. This proves the statement of
Theorem \ref{t:main} for $k = 1$.
Next, we prove the claim for $k \geq 2$. Let the branched covering $P^* \colon T^2 \times S^{n-2} \longrightarrow S^2 \widetilde{\times}
S^{n-2}$ constructed above. We can think of $T^2 \times S^{n-2}$ as a trivial $S^1$-bundle over $S^1 \times S^{n-2}$. We thicken an $S^1$-fiber of this
bundle to an annulus $A$ in $T^2$ so that $P(A) = D^2$, as in Figure \ref{f:branchcovtor}. A fibered neighborhood of this $S^1$-fiber is a product $S^1
\times D^{n-1}$ in $T^2 \times S^{n-2}$ and $P^*(S^1 \times D^{n-1})$ is an $n$-disk $D^n$ in $S^2 \widetilde\times S^{n-2}$. We now remove the fibered
neighborhood $S^1 \times D^{n-1}$ from two copies of $T^2 \times S^{n-2}$ and perform a fiber sum by gluing the $S^1 \times S^{n-2}$-boundaries. Since $T^2
\times S^{n-2}$ is a trivial $S^1$-bundle this fiber sum will produce another trivial $S^1$-bundle, namely a product $S^1 \times ((S^1 \times S^{n-2}) \#
(S^1 \times S^{n-2}))$. At the same time, we connected sum two copies of $S^2 \widetilde\times S^{n-2}$ along $D^n$, so that the branch loci fit together.
We have now obtained a branched double covering
\begin{align*}
S^1 \times ((S^1 \times S^{n-2}) \# (S^1 \times S^{n-2})) \longrightarrow (S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^{n-2}) \# (S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^{n-2}),
\end{align*}
proving the claim for $k = 2$. For $k > 2$ we iterate the above construction.
\end{proof}
The statement of Theorem \ref{t:main} is the most general possible concerning oriented $S^{n-2}$-bundles over $S^2$, but it moreover presupposes the
structure group of these bundles to be linear. This assumption is not necessary in dimensions four and five (cf.~\cite{Smale} and~\cite{Ha} respectively)
and so we will be able to construct many branched coverings in those two dimensions; cf. Sections \ref{s:4-mfds} and \ref{s:5-mfds}.
The inspiration for the construction of the branched covering of Theorem \ref{t:main} stems from a previous joint work with Kotschick on domination for
three-manifolds by circle bundles~\cite{KN}. More precisely, we proved there that for every $k$ there is a $\pi_1$-surjective branched double covering $S^1
\times (\#_k S^1 \times S^1) \longrightarrow \#_k(S^1 \times S^2)$. A direct generalization of that construction is achieved if we replace $S^1$ in
$\#_k(S^1 \times S^2)$ by any oriented, closed $n$-dimensional manifold $M$. The steps of the proof follow those of~\cite{KN} and they are left to
the reader:
\begin{thm}\label{t:general}
Let $M$ be a connected, oriented, closed $n$-dimensional manifold. For every $k$ there is a $\pi_1$-surjective branched double covering
$S^1 \times (\#_k M \times S^1) \longrightarrow \#_k (M \times S^2)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
The constructions given in Theorems \ref{t:main} and \ref{t:general} are of different nature, because the connected
summands of the target in Theorem \ref{t:main} are twisted products, while in Theorem \ref{t:general} the summands are direct products. For this reason the
proof of Theorem \ref{t:main} cannot be deduced using Theorem \ref{t:general}. (Nevertheless, Theorem \ref{t:general} could be seen as
a special case of Theorem \ref{t:main} for $M = S^{n}$.) A further generalization of Theorem \ref{t:main} would be to consider targets that are connected
sums of fiber bundles over $S^2$, where the fiber is an arbitrary oriented, closed manifold $M$. However, the comprehension of arbitrary twisted products
$S^2 \widetilde{\times} M$ (and of connected sums built out of such summands) seems, in general, not sufficiently enough to produce further generalization
of Theorem \ref{t:main}.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\label{r:generalpillow}
The two-dimensional pillowcase $T^2=S^1\times S^1 \longrightarrow S^2$ can be generalized for any sphere $S^n, \ n\geq 2$. Namely, for every $n > k \geq 1$, there is a branched double covering $P \colon S^k \times S^{n - k} \longrightarrow S^n$. The branched locus of $P$ is $B_P = S^{k-1} \times S^{n-k-1}$ and there is an $n$-ball $D^n \subset S^n$ such that $P^{-1}(D^n) = S^k \times D^{n-k}$. Therefore, in place of $S^2$ in Theorem \ref{t:general} we may take any sphere of dimension at least two. We refer to Chapter 3 of~\cite{NeoThesis} for further details.
\end{rem}
\section{Simply connected four-manifolds}\label{s:4-mfds}
We now apply Theorem \ref{t:main} to simply connected four-manifolds. First, we show that every four-manifold diffeomorphic to a connected sum $\#_k \mathbb{CP}^2
\#_k \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$ admits a branched double covering by a product $S^1 \times (\#_k S^1 \times S^2)$. We then deduce by the classification results of
Wall~\cite{Wall0} and Freedman~\cite{Fre}, that every simply connected, closed four-manifold admits a branched double covering by a
product of the circle with a connected sum of copies of $S^2 \times S^1$, followed by a collapsing map.
By a result of Smale~\cite{Smale}, the inclusion $\SO(3) \hookrightarrow \Diff^+(S^2)$ is a homotopy equivalence and so there exist only two oriented
$S^2$-bundles over $S^2$. Moreover, $\mathbb{CP}^2 \#\overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$ is diffeomorphic to $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^2$ (cf. Wall~\cite{Wall}), therefore Theorem
\ref{t:main} implies the following for $n = 4$:
\begin{cor}\label{c:4-mfds}
For every $k$ there is a branched double covering $S^1 \times (\#_k S^1 \times S^2) \longrightarrow \#_k \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_k \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$.
\end{cor}
Given a connected sum $P \# Q$, we define a pinch map $P \# Q \longrightarrow P$, by collapsing the gluing sphere and then mapping $Q$ to a point. This
degree one map is called collapsing map. For a connected sum $P \# \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$, instead of the whole summand $\overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$, we may collapse the
exceptional embedded sphere $\overline{\mathbb{CP}^1} \subset \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$ to obtain again a degree one map $P \# \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2} \longrightarrow P$. The
collapsed $\overline{\mathbb{CP}^1}$ has self-intersection number $-1$ and is called $-1$-sphere. If $P$ is smooth, then this is the usual blow-down operation.
Similarly, for a connected sum $P \# \mathbb{CP}^2$ we obtain a degree one map $P \# \mathbb{CP}^2 \longrightarrow P$ by collapsing the embedded $+1$-sphere $\mathbb{CP}^1 \subset
\mathbb{CP}^2$. In the smooth category, this operation is known as the antiblow-down of $P$.
In the light of Corollary \ref{c:4-mfds}, we now rely on results of Wall~\cite{Wall0} and Freedman~\cite{Fre} on the classification of simply connected,
closed four-manifolds to obtain the following statement which moreover proves Theorem \ref{t:4and5-mfds} in dimension four:
\begin{thm}\label{t:4-mfds}
Every simply connected, closed four-manifold $M$ admits a degree two map by a product $S^1 \times (\#_k S^2 \times S^1)$, which
is given by the composition of a branched double covering $S^1 \times (\#_k S^2 \times S^1) \longrightarrow \#_k \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_k \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$ with a
collapsing map $\#_k \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_k \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2} \longrightarrow M$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Corollary \ref{c:4-mfds}, it suffices to show that for every simply connected, closed four-manifold $M$ there exists a $k$ and a collapsing map
$\#_k \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_k \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2} \longrightarrow M$.
First, if necessary, we perform connected sums of $M$ with copies of $\mathbb{CP}^2$ or $\overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$ (or both) to obtain a manifold $M \#_p \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_q
\overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$, whose intersection form is odd and indefinite (and therefore diagonal; cf.~\cite{MH}).
If $M$ is smooth, then Wall's stable diffeomorphism classification in dimension four~\cite{Wall0} implies that $M\#_p \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_q \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$ is
stably diffeomorphic to a connected sum $\#_l \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_m \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$. The connected summing with $\overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$, resp. $\mathbb{CP}^2$, is the blow-up,
resp. antiblow-up, operation.
For $M$ non-smooth, we may first assume that the homotopy type of $M$ has trivial Kirby-Siebenmann invariant
and then deduce that $M\#_p \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_q \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$ is homeomorphic to a connected sum $\#_l \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_m
\overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$, by Freedman's topological classification of simply connected four-manifolds~\cite{Fre}. In particular, $M\#_p \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_q
\overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$ inherits a smooth structure.
We can now assume that, in both cases, $M\#_p \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_q \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$ is (stably) diffeomorphic to a connected sum $\#_k \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_k \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$,
after connected summing with more copies of $\mathbb{CP}^2$ or $\overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$, if necessary.
Finally, a degree one collapsing map
\begin{align*}
\#_k \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_k \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2} \cong M \#_p \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_q \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2} \longrightarrow M
\end{align*}
is obtained by collapsing the $q$ embedded exceptional spheres $\overline{\mathbb{CP}^1} \subset \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$ and the $p$ embedded spheres $\mathbb{CP}^1
\subset \mathbb{CP}^2$. If $M$ is smooth, then the collapsing map is also smooth.
We have now completed the proof of Theorem \ref{t:4-mfds} and therefore of Theorem \ref{t:4and5-mfds} in dimension four.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{r:Wall1}
Wall's stable diffeomorphism classification~\cite{Wall0} is obtained after adding summands $S^2 \times S^2$. However, for simply connected, closed, smooth
four-manifolds with odd intersection form (as in the proof of Theorem \ref{t:4-mfds}), this is equivalent to adding summands $\mathbb{CP}^2 \# \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$,
again by a result of Wall~\cite{Wall}; see also Remark \ref{r:Wall2}.
\end{rem}
In dimension two, Edmonds~\cite{Ed1} proved that every non-zero degree map between two closed surfaces is homotopic to the composition of a pinch map
followed by a branched covering. We observe that the maps constructed in Theorem \ref{t:4-mfds} for every simply connected, closed four-manifold have an
analogy to Edmonds result, where however the order between the pinch map and the branched covering is reversed.
Moreover, Edmonds~\cite{Ed1} showed that a non-zero degree map between two closed surfaces, $f \colon \Sigma \longrightarrow F$, is homotopic to a branched
covering if and only if either $f$ is $\pi_1$-injective or $|\deg(f)| > [\pi_1(F) \colon \pi_1(f)(\pi_1(\Sigma))]$. This implies that every non-zero degree
map between two closed surfaces can be lifted to a ($\pi_1$-surjective) map which is homotopic either to a pinch map (absolute degree one) or to a branched
covering.
In dimension three, every $\pi_1$-surjective map of degree greater than two between two closed three-manifolds is homotopic to a branched covering, again
by a result of Edmonds~\cite{Ed2}. This result fails in dimension four, by a recent work of Pankka and Souto~\cite{PS}, where it is shown that $T^4$ is not
a branched covering of $\#_3 (S^2 \times S^2)$, while every integer can be realized as the degree for a map from $T^4$ to $\#_3 (S^2 \times S^2)$ (by a criterion
of Duan and Wang~\cite{DWa}; see Section \ref{ss:final2}).
\section{Simply connected five-manifolds}\label{s:5-mfds}
In this section we show that every closed five-manifold with finite fundamental group is dominated by products. We first recall the classification of
simply connected, closed five-manifolds by Smale~\cite{Sm} and Barden~\cite{B} and show that every five-manifold diffeomorphic to a connected sum of copies
of the two $S^3$-bundles over $S^2$ admits a branched double covering by a product $S^1 \times (\#_k S^1 \times S^3)$. We then give some existence results
of dominant maps between simply connected five-manifolds and using these results we prove Theorem \ref{t:4and5-mfds} for five-manifolds.
Given two $n$-dimensional manifolds $M$ and $N$ with boundaries $\partial M$ and $\partial N$ respectively, we form a new manifold
$M \cup_fN$, where $f$ is an orientation reversing diffeomorphism of any $(n-1)$-dimensional submanifold of $\partial N$ with one of $\partial M$.
Smale~\cite{Sm} classified simply connected, spin five-manifolds and a few years later Barden~\cite{B} completed that classification by including
non-spin manifolds as well.
The following constructions are given in~\cite{B}: Let $S^3 \times S^2$, $S^3 \widetilde{\times} S^2$ be the two $S^3$-bundles over $S^2$ and
$A = S^2 \times D^3$, $B = S^2 \widetilde{\times} D^3$ be the two $D^3$-bundles over $S^2$ with boundaries $\partial A = S^2 \times S^2$ and $\partial B = S^2\widetilde{\times} S^2 \cong \mathbb{CP}^2 \# \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$ respectively. As in dimension four, we don't need to assume that the structure group of oriented $S^3$-bundles over $S^2$ is linear, because the inclusion $\SO(4) \hookrightarrow \Diff^+(S^3)$ is a homotopy equivalence, by the proof of the Smale conjecture (cf. Hatcher~\cite{Ha}).
A prime, simply connected, closed, spin five-manifold is either $M_1 := S^5$ or $M_\infty := S^2 \times S^3$, if its integral homology groups have no
torsion. If its second homology group is torsion, then is
\begin{align*}
M_k := (A \#_{\partial} A) \cup_{\overline{f_k}} (\overline{A \#_{\partial} A}), 1 < k < \infty,
\end{align*}
where $A \#_{\partial} A$ denotes the boundary connected sum of two copies of $A$ and $f_k$ is an orientation preserving diffeomorphism on
$\partial (A \#_{\partial} A) = (S^2 \times S^2) \# (S^2 \times S^2)$, realizing a certain isomorphism
\begin{align*}
H_2(f_k;\mathbb{Z}) \colon H_2 (\partial (A \#_{\partial} A); \mathbb{Z}) \stackrel{\cong} \longrightarrow H_2 (\partial (A \#_{\partial}A);\mathbb{Z}).
\end{align*}
The second integral homology of $M_k$ is given by $H_2 (M_k; \mathbb{Z}) = \mathbb{Z}_{k} \oplus \mathbb{Z}_{k}$, $1 < k < \infty$; cf.~\cite{B}. For details on the
$f_k$'s construction see~\cite{Wall}.
A prime, simply connected, closed, non-spin five-manifold with torsion-free integral homology is the non-trivial $S^3$-bundle over $S^2$, denoted by
$X_\infty$. A simply connected, closed, non-spin five-manifold with torsion second integral homology is either
\begin{itemize}
\item $X_{-1} := B \cup_{\overline{g_{-1}}} \overline{B}$,
where $g_{-1}$ is an orientation preserving diffeomorphism on $\partial B$, realizing a certain isomorphism
\begin{align*}
H_2 (g_{-1};\mathbb{Z}) \colon H_2 (\partial B; \mathbb{Z}) \stackrel{\cong} \longrightarrow H_2 (\partial B; \mathbb{Z}),
\end{align*}
or
\item $X_m := (B \#_{\partial} B) \cup_{\overline{g_m}} (\overline{B \#_{\partial} B})$, $1 \leq m < \infty$, where $B \#_{\partial} B$ denotes the
boundary connected sum of two copies of $B$ and $g_m$ is an orientation preserving diffeomorphism on
$\partial (B \#_{\partial} B) = (S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^2) \# (S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^2)$, realizing a certain isomorphism
\begin{align*}
H_2(g_m;\mathbb{Z}) \colon H_2 (\partial (B \#_{\partial} B); \mathbb{Z}) \stackrel{\cong} \longrightarrow H_2 (\partial(B \#_{\partial} B);\mathbb{Z}).
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
Except $X_1 \cong X_{-1} \# X_{-1}$, each $X_m$ is prime. Their second integral homology group is given by $H_2 (X_m; \mathbb{Z}) = \mathbb{Z}_{2^m} \oplus
\mathbb{Z}_{2^m}$, $0 < m < \infty$ and $H_2 (X_{-1}; \mathbb{Z}) = \mathbb{Z}_2$; cf.~\cite{B}. Also, $X_{-1}$ is the Wu manifold $\SU (3) / \SO(3)$; cf.~\cite{Do,Wu}. Finally,
we set $X_0 := S^5$ which is spin and has torsion-free homology.
According to the above data, we have the following classification theorem for simply connected five-manifolds.
\begin{thm}[Barden~\cite{B}]\label{t:Barden}
Every simply connected, closed five-manifold $M$ is diffeomorphic to a connected sum $M_{k_1} \# ... \# M_{k_l}
\# X_m$, where $-1 \leq m \leq \infty$, $l \geq 0$, $k_1 > 1$ and $k_i$ divides $k_{i+1}$ or $k_{i+1} = \infty$.
\end{thm}
Since every summand, except $X_1 \cong X_{-1} \# X_{-1} $, is prime, we may refer to the above decomposition of $M$ as prime decomposition. Moreover, a
summand $X_{m \neq 0}$ exists if and only if $M$ is not spin.
For a simply connected, closed five-manifold with torsion-free homology the following particular classification result holds:
\begin{thm}[Smale~\cite{Sm}, Barden~\cite{B}]\label{t:BaSm}
Every simply connected, closed five-manifold $M$ with torsion-free second homology group $H_2(M;\mathbb{Z})=\mathbb{Z}^k$ is (up to diffeomorphism)
\begin{enumerate}
\item either a connected sum $\#_k (S^3 \times S^2)$, for $M$ spin, or
\item a connected sum $\#_{k-1} (S^3 \times S^2) \# (S^3 \widetilde{\times} S^2)$, for $M$ non-spin.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}\label{r:Wall2}
By a theorem of Wall~\cite{Wall}, a connected sum $\#_{k-1} (S^3 \times S^2) \# (S^3 \widetilde{\times} S^2)$ is diffeomorphic to $\#_k
(S^3 \widetilde{\times} S^2)$. In Remark \ref{r:Wall1}, we refer to the corresponding statement in dimension four. This is also true for all oriented
$S^{n-2}$-bundles over $S^2$, $n \geq 6$, with structure group $\SO(n-1)$.
\end{rem}
The above classification results will be our guide to prove Theorem \ref{t:4and5-mfds} for five-manifolds. First, we can prove this theorem for every
simply connected five-manifold with torsion-free second homology group:
\begin{prop}\label{p:torsionfree}
Let $M$ be a simply connected, closed five-manifold with torsion-free second homology group $H_2(M;\mathbb{Z})=\mathbb{Z}^k$. Then $M$ admits a branched double covering
by the product $S^1 \times (\#_k S^1 \times S^3)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We know by Theorem \ref{t:BaSm} and by Remark \ref{r:Wall2} that such $M$ is diffeomorphic to a connected sum of copies of the twisted product $S^2
\widetilde{\times} S^3$ or of the trivial bundle $S^3 \times S^2$. Now Theorem \ref{t:main} and Theorem \ref{t:general} imply the proof, for $\#_k (S^2
\widetilde{\times} S^3)$ and $\#_k (S^3 \times S^2)$ respectively.
\end{proof}
In the remainder of this section we complete the proof of Theorem \ref{t:4and5-mfds} for five-manifolds. We observe that $S^2 \times S^3$ is a branched
double covering of the other two prime, simply connected, closed five-manifolds with torsion-free homology, namely of $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^3$ and
$S^5$. Indeed:
\begin{itemize}
\item A branched double covering $S^2 \times S^3 \longrightarrow S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^3$ is obtained by pulling back the $S^3$-bundle map $S^2
\widetilde{\times} S^3 \longrightarrow S^2$ by a branched double covering $S^2 \longrightarrow S^2$ (recall that $S^3$-bundles over $S^2$ are classified by
$\pi_1(\SO(4)) = \mathbb{Z}_2$).
\item $S^2 \times S^3$ is a branched double covering of $S^5$, by pulling back the $S^1$-bundle map $S^5 \longrightarrow
\mathbb{CP}^2$ by a branched double covering $S^2 \times S^2 \longrightarrow \mathbb{CP}^2$; cf.~\cite{Gibl,DuL}. (A branched double covering $S^2 \times S^2 \longrightarrow \mathbb{CP}^2$ is obtained as the quotient map for the involution $(x,y) \mapsto (y,x)$ of $S^2\times S^2$.)
\end{itemize}
As we shall see below, every simply connected, closed
five-manifold $M$ with torsion second integral homology group admits a non-zero degree map by $S^2 \times S^3$, given by the composition of a branched
double covering $S^2 \times S^3 \longrightarrow S^5$ with a dominant map $S^5 \longrightarrow M$ whose degree depends on $H_2(M;\mathbb{Z})$. The latter map will
be obtained by applying the Hurewicz theorem modulo a Serre class of groups.
A Serre class of abelian groups is a non-empty class $\mathcal{C}$ of abelian groups such that for every exact sequence
$A \longrightarrow B \longrightarrow C$, where $A, C \in \mathcal{C}$, then $B\in\mathcal{C}$. A Serre class $\mathcal{C}$ is called a ring of
abelian groups if it is closed under the tensor and the torsion product operations. Moreover, $\mathcal{C}$ is said to be acyclic if for every aspherical
space $X$ with $\pi_1 (X) \in \mathcal{C}$, then the homology groups $H_i (X;\mathbb{Z}) \in \mathcal{C}$, for all $i > 0$. We say that $A, B \in \mathcal{C}$ are
isomorphic modulo $\mathcal{C}$ if there is a homomorphism between $A$ and $B$ whose kernel and cokernel belong to $\mathcal{C}$.
The Hurewicz theorem modulo a Serre class states the following:
\begin{thm}[Serre~\cite{Se}]
Let $X$ be a simply connected space and $\mathcal{C}$ be an acyclic ring of abelian groups. Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\pi_i (X) \in \mathcal{C}$, for all $1 < i < n$,
\item $H_i (X) \in \mathcal{C}$, for all $1 < i < n$.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, each of the above statements implies that the Hurewicz homomorphism $h \colon \pi_i(X) \longrightarrow H_i (X)$ is an isomorphism modulo
$\mathcal{C}$ for all $i \leq n$.
\end{thm}
As a consequence of this version of the Hurewicz theorem, every simply connected, closed $n$-dimensional manifold $M$ whose homology groups $H_i (M;\mathbb{Z})$
are all $k$-torsion, for $0 < i < n$, is minimal with respect to the domination relation (i.e. it is dominated by every other manifold).
\begin{cor}[Ruberman~\cite{Ru}]\label{c:Ru}
Let $M$ be a simply connected, closed $n$-dimensional manifold with $k$-torsion homology groups $H_i(M;\mathbb{Z})$, for $0 < i < n$ and some integer $k$. Then
the image of the Hurewicz homomorphism $\pi_n (M) \longrightarrow H_n (M)$ is given by $k^r \mathbb{Z}$ for some $r$. In particular, there is a map $S^n
\longrightarrow M$ of degree $k^r$.
\end{cor}
We have now shown that every five-manifold $M$ which is a connected sum of copies of $M_k$ and $X_m$, where $1 \leq k < \infty$ and $-1 \leq m < \infty$,
admits a branched double covering by the product $S^2 \times S^3$, followed by a map $S^5 \longrightarrow M$ whose degree is determined by $H_2(M;\mathbb{Z})$,
being a power of the least common multiple of the torsion second integral homology groups $H_2(M_k;\mathbb{Z})$ and $H_2(X_m;\mathbb{Z})$. As we have seen
above, the non-trivial $S^3$-bundle over $S^2$
admits a branched double covering by the product $S^2 \times S^3$. We now want to combine these maps, together with our constructions from Section
\ref{s:construction}, to obtain domination by products for every simply connected, closed five-manifold.
We remark that it is not generally possible to obtain a non-zero degree map $M_1 \# M_2 \longrightarrow N_1 \# N_2$ by connected summing any two non-zero
degree maps between closed $n$-dimensional manifolds, $f_i \colon M_i \longrightarrow N_i$, $i = 1,2$. A first obstruction is that the preimage
$f_i^{-1}(D_i^n)$ of a removed $n$-disk $D_i^n$ from $N_i$, is not generally an $n$-disk in $M_i$. Moreover, even if we can find such a disk, we need the
degrees of $f_1$ and $f_2$ to be equal in order to connected sum the domains and the targets, otherwise we cannot paste those maps along the gluing sphere
(recall that maps between spheres are classified by their degrees).
If the above two constraints are satisfied, then we can paste those $f_i$ together to obtain a new map $M_1 \# M_2 \longrightarrow N_1 \# N_2$ of the same
non-zero degree. The $\pi_1$-surjectivity of the $f_i$ is a sufficient condition to overcome the first obstacle (cf.~\cite{St}).
\begin{lem}[Derbez-Sun-Wang~\cite{DSW}]\label{l:consum}
Let $M_i$, $N_i$ be connected, oriented, closed $n$-dimensional manifolds, $n \geq 3$, and assume that for $i = 1,...,k$ there exist $\pi_1$-surjective
maps $M_i \longrightarrow N_i$ of non-zero degree $d$. Then there is a $\pi_1$-surjective map $\#_{i=1}^{k} M_i \longrightarrow \#_{i=1}^{k} N_i$ of degree
$d$.
\end{lem}
For simply connected targets the $\pi_1$-surjectivity condition is automatically satisfied. Moreover, $S^2 \times S^3$ and $S^5$ admit self-maps of any
degree, which implies that the domination for every minimal summand by $S^5$ and for every $S^3$-bundle over $S^2$ by $S^2 \times S^3$ can be done by maps
of the same degree. We therefore obtain the following statement which also completes the proof of Theorem \ref{t:4and5-mfds} for five-manifolds:
\begin{thm}\label{t:5-mfds}
Let $M$ be a simply connected, closed five-manifold so that $H_2(M;\mathbb{Z})$ has rank $k$. Then $M$ admits a non-zero degree map by the product $S^1 \times
(\#_k S^1
\times S^3)$, which is given by the composition of a branched double covering $S^1 \times (\#_k S^1 \times S^3) \longrightarrow \#_k(S^2 \times S^3)$ with
a map $\#_k(S^2 \times S^3) \longrightarrow M$ whose degree is determined by the torsion of $H_2(M;\mathbb{Z})$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{t:Barden}, a simply connected, closed five-manifold $M$ is diffeomorphic to a connected sum $M_{k_1} \# ... \# M_{k_l} \# X_m$, where the
summands $M_{k_i}$, $X_m$ are described at the beginning of this section. Clearly, the rank $k$ of $H_2(M;\mathbb{Z})$ is equal to the number of $M_\infty$ and
$X_\infty$, i.e. the number of $S^3$-bundles over $S^2$. Furthermore, we may assume that the torsion of $H_2(M;\mathbb{Z})$
is not trivial, otherwise we appeal to Proposition \ref{p:torsionfree} to deduce that $M$ admits a branched double covering by a product $S^1 \times (\#_k
S^1 \times S^3)$.
By Corollary \ref{c:Ru} (and the comments following that) we deduce that the part of $M_{k_1} \# ... \# M_{k_l} \# X_m$ not containing $M_{\infty}$ or
$X_\infty$ admits a dominant map by $S^5$ whose degree is a power of the least common multiple of the torsion second integral homology groups
$H_2(M_{k_i};\mathbb{Z})$ and $H_2(X_m;\mathbb{Z})$, $k_i, m \neq \infty$. Now Lemma
\ref{l:consum} implies that $M$ is dominated by a manifold diffeomorphic to $\#_k (S^2 \times S^3)$ (if $m = \infty$, we additionally use the fact that
$M_\infty$ is a branched double covering of $X_\infty$, as we have seen above in this section). The degree of $\#_k(S^2 \times S^3) \longrightarrow M$ is
clearly determined (up to multiplication by two) by the torsion of $H_2(M;\mathbb{Z})$. Finally, Theorem \ref{t:general} implies that $\#_k (S^2 \times S^3)$
admits a branched double covering by $S^1 \times (\#_k S^1 \times S^3)$, completing the proof of Theorem \ref{t:5-mfds}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
By Remark \ref{r:generalpillow}, we also have that $\#_k (S^2 \times S^3)$ admits branched double coverings by $S^1 \times (\#_k S^2 \times S^2)$ and $S^2 \times (\#_k S^2 \times S^1)$, and branched four-fold coverings by $T^2 \times (\#_k S^1 \times S^2)$ and $S^1 \times S^2 \times \Sigma_k$, where $\Sigma_k$ is an oriented, closed surface of genus $k$.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\label{r:mappingdegrees5-mfds}
In contrast to Theorem \ref{t:4-mfds}, the statement of Theorem \ref{t:5-mfds} does not provide absolute control of the degree of the map $\#_k(S^2 \times S^3)
\longrightarrow M$ following the branched double covering $S^1 \times (\#_k S^1 \times S^3) \longrightarrow \#_k(S^2 \times S^3)$. This is related to the
problem of determining the sets of (self-)mapping degrees of simply connected five-manifolds, which is essentially still unsolved. However, an aside
result of this paper is that the sets of degrees of maps between the summands $M_k$ and $X_m$ (for $k,m \neq \infty$) are infinite, because every multiple
of a power of the torsion second homology of $X_m$ (resp. $M_k$) can be realized as a degree for a map $M_k \longrightarrow X_m$ (resp. $X_m \longrightarrow M_k$); recall that $S^5$ admits self-maps of any degree and it is minimal for the domination relation. In particular, we deduce, without using formality (see~\cite{CL}), that the set
of self-mapping degrees for every simply connected five-manifold is infinite.
\end{rem}
\section{A further application and final remarks}\label{s:final}
\subsection{Six-manifolds}\label{ss:final1}
In the light of Theorems \ref{t:main} and \ref{t:general} we can further verify that the fundamental classes of certain simply connected manifolds in
dimensions higher than five are representable by products.
As an example we deal with 2-connected, closed six-manifolds. Wall~\cite{Wall1} classified simply connected, closed, smooth six-manifolds (see
also~\cite{Zhubr}). As usual, the empty connected sum is $S^6$.
\begin{thm}[Wall~\cite{Wall1}]
Let $M$ be a simply connected, closed, smooth six-manifold. Then $M$ is diffeomorphic to $N \# (S^3 \times S^3) \# \cdots \# (S^3 \times S^3)$, where
$H_3(N)$ is finite.
\end{thm}
If now the target is 2-connected then $N = S^6$; cf. Smale~\cite{Sm}. In that case the topological and the diffeomorphism
classification coincide (cf. Wall~\cite{Wall1}) and so we obtain:
\begin{cor}\label{c:6-manifolds}
Every 2-connected, closed six-manifold $M$ admits a branched double covering by $S^1 \times (\#_k S^2 \times S^3)$, where $k=\frac{1}{2}\rank H_3(M;\mathbb{Z})$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By the above results of Wall~\cite{Wall1} and Smale~\cite{Sm}, every 2-connected, closed six-manifold $M$ is diffeomorphic to $\#_k (S^3 \times S^3)$,
for some non-negative integer $k = \frac{1}{2} \rank H_3 (M; \mathbb{Z})$. The proof now follows by the generalized pillowcase map in Remark \ref{r:generalpillow}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
By Remark \ref{r:generalpillow}, $M$ admits also a branched double covering by $S^2 \times (\#_k S^1 \times S^3)$, and branched four-fold coverings by $T^2 \times (\#_k S^2 \times S^2)$, $S^1 \times S^2 \times (\#_k S^2 \times S^1)$ and $S^2 \times S^2 \times \Sigma_k$.
We note that $M$ admits a degree two map by $S^1\times(\#_k T^5)$ as well. For take the branched double covering $S^1 \times (\#_k S^2 \times S^3) \longrightarrow M$ of Corollary \ref{c:6-manifolds} and precompose it with a degree one map $S^1 \times (\#_k T^2 \times T^3) \longrightarrow S^1 \times (\#_k S^2 \times S^3)$, using Lemma \ref{l:consum} and the fact that every sphere is minimal admitting maps of any degree.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Branched coverings in dimension four}\label{ss:final2}
Every dominant map onto a simply connected four-manifold
\begin{align}\label{eq.1}
S^1 \times (\#_k S^2 \times S^1) \longrightarrow N,
\end{align}
is a priori $\pi_1$-surjective because the target has trivial fundamental group. However, the branched double covering $S^1 \times (\#_k S^2
\times S^1) \longrightarrow \#_k (S^2 \times S^2)$ obtained in Theorem \ref{t:general} (for $M = S^2$) is $\pi_1$-surjective also by construction. In a
previous joint work with Kotschick~\cite{KN} we have shown that there is a branched double covering
\begin{align}\label{eq.2}
S^1 \times \Sigma_k \longrightarrow \#_k (S^2 \times S^1)
\end{align}
which is again $\pi_1$-surjective (now the target $\#_k (S^2 \times S^1)$ is not simply connected). We multiply (\ref{eq.2}) with the identity map on
$S^1$ to obtain a $\pi_1$-surjective branched double covering
\begin{align}\label{eq.3}
T^2 \times \Sigma_k \longrightarrow S^1 \times (\#_k S^2 \times S^1).
\end{align}
Now we compose (\ref{eq.3}) with (\ref{eq.1}) to obtain a dominant map $T^2 \times \Sigma_k \longrightarrow N$. This map is not a branched covering,
not even in the case where $N$ is diffeomorphic to $\#_k \mathbb{CP}^2 \#_k \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$, because the branch locus
of (\ref{eq.3}) intersects the preimage of the branch locus of (\ref{eq.1}) in a codimension four subset of $S^1 \times (\#_k S^2 \times S^1)$.
Nevertheless, we note that $T^2 \times \Sigma_k$ is a branched four-fold cover of $\#_k(S^2 \times S^2)$, by Remark \ref{r:generalpillow}. The existence of dominant maps from products $T^2 \times \Sigma_k$ to every simply connected four-manifold has also been shown by Kotschick and L\"oh~\cite{KL}, using a result of Duan and Wang~\cite{DWa}. That result states that if $X$ and $Y$ are oriented, closed four-manifolds and $Y$ is simply connected, then a degree $d \neq 0$ map $f \colon X \longrightarrow Y$ exists if and only if the intersection form of $Y$, multiplied by $d$, is embedded into the intersection form of $X$, where the embedding is given by $H^*(f)$ (the ``only if'' part is obvious).
As we mention in Section \ref{s:4-mfds}, the above existence criterion by Duan and Wang implies that every integer can be realized as the degree of a map from $T^4$ to $\#_3 (S^2 \times S^2)$, although no such map can be deformed to a branched covering by a recent result of Pankka and Souto~\cite{PS}. However, according to Theorem \ref{t:4-mfds}, it is natural to ask when a $\pi_1$-surjective non-zero degree map between two connected, oriented, closed four-manifolds is homotopic to the composition of a branched covering with a pinch map.
Another natural question in this context is the following (suggested to me by J. Souto): Let $N$ be a connected, oriented, closed four-manifold and $f \colon M \longrightarrow N$ a $\pi_1$-surjective map of non-zero degree. Is there a $k \geq 0$ so that the composition of the pinch map $\#_k(S^2 \times S^2) \# M \longrightarrow M$ with $f$ is homotopic to a branched covering?
\subsection{Domination by products and sets of self-mapping degrees}\label{ss:final3}
Kotschick and L\"oh~\cite{KL} asked whether every closed manifold with finite
fundamental group is dominated by a product. In this paper, we have answered in positive that question in dimensions four and
five and in certain higher dimensions. For all our dominant maps onto a simply connected $n$-dimensional
manifold, the domain can be taken to be a product of the circle with a connected sum of copies of $T^{n-1}$. According to this, one could ask
whether every closed manifold with finite fundamental group is dominated by a product of type $S^1 \times N$, where $N$ is an $(n-1)$-dimensional manifold
(e.g. $N = \#_k T^{n-1}$ for some $k \geq 0$), or more generally, by a product of type $S^m \times N$. This is a considerably stronger question than that of~\cite{KL}, however,
it seems less likely to be true. For instance, simply connected manifolds which admit self-maps of absolute degree at
most one might not be dominated by products (at least) of type $S^m \times N$. Such manifolds exist and are called inflexible; see for example~\cite{CL}. In this direction, and since the set of self-mapping degrees of $S^m \times N$ is infinite, we ask the following (at least in the simply connected case): Are there examples of inflexible manifolds that are dominated by flexible ones (i.e. by manifolds whose sets of self-mapping degrees are infinite)?
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{The black hole information loss paradox}
The black hole information loss paradox can be appreciated without
getting into the details of quantum gravity.
As first addressed by Hawking \cite{haw}, the information loss paradox,
or the Hawking paradox, refers to the ever increasing entropy
of the thermal radiations (Hawking radiations) from a black hole.
If the radiations are thermal (thermally distributed) with no correlations
between individual radiated quanta, an increasing entropy equals to
loss of information. In order to resolve the paradox,
one must find a mechanism capable of balance the entropy increase.
Many scenarios for possible resolutions have been discussed at varying
levels of details. For instance, we recently point out the increasing
entropy is balanced exactly by the nontrivial correlations among
Hawking radiations if the non-thermal spectrum based on
Hawking radiation as tunneling is adopted.
The information-carrying correlation we discover will play a crucial
role in any resolution. Yet, the Hawking paradox cannot be
considered resolved even if these correlations are detected. A
complete resolution can only occur after entropy conservation is
confirmed, which then implies the dynamics of Hawking radiation is
consistent with unitarity as required by quantum mechanics, despite
our inabilities in writing down a time-dependent wave function for
the emissions consistent with quantum statistics and general
relativity.
\section{Mathur's ``precise formulation'' of the paradox}
Recently, Mathur concludes that small corrections cannot resolve the
information loss paradox \cite{sm10}. His reasoning rests upon the so-called
``precise formulation" of the paradox, outlined in four steps A-D \cite{sm11}.
In his step (C) ``Creation of the entangled state",
EPR pairs of the type
\begin{equation}
|\Psi\rangle_{\rm pair}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
(|0\rangle_{c_i}|0\rangle_{b_i}+|1\rangle_{c_i}|1\rangle_{b_i}),
\label{epr}
\end{equation}
are assumed to be created one after another near the horizon
with evolution. After $N$ pairs the whole
wave function then takes the following form
\begin{equation}
|\Psi\rangle\approx |\Psi\rangle_M\otimes
(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|0\rangle_{c_i}|0\rangle_{b_i}
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|1\rangle_{c_i}|1\rangle_{b_i})^{\otimes N},
\label{state}
\end{equation}
where $|\Psi\rangle_M $ is the state of the matter shell.
The regions outside the horizon are labelled $b_i$ while
those inside the horizon are labelled $c_i$.
the numbers $0$ and $1$ denote the occupation number of a particular mode.
The mass of a black hole decreases by the ingoing (negative massed) particle $c_i$
with each (positive massed) particle $b_i$ outside the horizon
becoming Hawking radiation. In the end, the hole vanishes due to exhaustion.
Mathur concludes the initial pure state $|\Psi\rangle_M$ for the
infalling hole evolves into a mixture claiming it is not entangled with
emissions $b_i$, outside the horizon. $b_i$ is therefore
left also in a mixed state as there is nothing remaining in the hole
for it to be entangled with. This is clearly erroneous as
we show in detail below.
When the initial correlation between $c_i$ and $b_i$
is considered as Mathur does in his `precise formulation',
$b_i$ actually evolves into a pure state upon
the annihilation of $c_i$ into the black hole.
Rather than relying on unstated assumptions or philosophical arguments,
we will walk through Mathur's scenario line by line, step by step,
exam his mistake in detail.
Let us consider the EPR pair state
$|\Psi\rangle_{\rm pair}=(|0\rangle_{c_i}|0\rangle_{b_i}
+|1\rangle_{c_i}|1\rangle_{b_i})/\sqrt{2}$ for the particles
$b_i$ and $c_i$ respectively outside and inside the horizon.
The state for particle $b_{i}$ is found to be $\rho_{b_i}=(|0\rangle\langle
0|+|1\rangle\langle 1|)/2$ after tracing out $c_i$, which is a mixed
state, actually a maximally mixed state. Likewise, we find $\rho_{c_i}=(|0\rangle\langle
0|+|1\rangle\langle 1|)/2$. The respective entropies for the
$b_i$ and $c_i$ are
\begin{equation}
S(b_i)= S(c_i)=\ln2,
\label{entropy}
\end{equation}
which are nonzero as both are in mixed states.
However, the EPR pair state $|\Psi\rangle_{\rm pair}$ is a pure state,
whose entropy is simply zero, or $S(|\Psi\rangle\langle \Psi|_{\rm pair})=0$.
This helps us to obtain the entropy of the correlation between $b_i$ and $c_i$
\begin{equation}
S(b_i:c_i)=-2\ln2,
\label{correlation}
\end{equation}
as $S(b_i)+S(c_i)+S(b_i:c_i)=0$.
When a negative energy (mass $m_{c_i}=-\omega$) particle $c_i$ falls
into the hole, it eventually annihilates a positive energy matter
$a_i$ of $m_{a_i}=\omega$. The mass of the hole thus decreases by
$-\omega$ since $m_{a_i}+m_{c_i}=0$. The annihilation actually
causes the particles $a_{i}$ and $c_{i}$ to end up in a maximally
entangled state, a point presumptuously skipped over in Mathur's
reformulation. This is the reason for his subsequent false statement
and conclusion. In essence, the annihilation is like a joint
measurement in teleportation, causing the state of particle $a_{i}$
to be teleported to the emission $b_{i}$ outside the horizon
\cite{b93}. If $a_i$ initially exists in a pure state, $b_i$ will
end up in a pure state, not a mixed state as Mathur concluded,
although $b_i$ is no longer entangled with $c_i$ or $a_i$ after
their annihilation inside the horizon.
To be more precise, the joint state $|\Psi\rangle$ for the whole
black hole including EPR pairs cannot be written down in a product
state Eq. (\ref{state}) because its temperature changes after each
emission $\omega$, {\it i.e.}, $M\rightarrow M-\omega_i$. Taking
this into account, the joint state is more appropriately expressed
as
\begin{eqnarray}
|\Psi\rangle=\lambda_{i}|a_i\rangle|c_i\rangle|b_i\rangle,
\label{joint}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda_{i}\sim e^{-4\pi M_{i}\omega_{i}}$ denotes the
temperature change due to an emission $b_i$.
When the hole is exhausted due to annihilations
of $a_i$ and $c_i$ pairs, the initial pure state of the hole,
$|\Psi\rangle_{M}$, is teleported to the Harking radiations.
A detailed discussion of the above is already present and can be found
in Ref. \cite{sl06}, where one finds the final state of Hawking radiation
is a pure state [see Eq. (9) of \cite{sl06}], not a mixed state as
assumed by Mathur.
We thus claim Mathur's conclusion that the initial pure state
$|\Psi\rangle_{M}$ will involve into a mixed state because
the quanta $b_i$ outside the horizon is in a mixed state is false.
\section{small corrections are sufficient}
The temperature of a black hole is inversely proportional to its mass,
thus it is most easily described in terms of an ensemble with
its entropy, $S_{\mathrm{BH}}=4\pi M^2$,
or the Bekenstein entropy for a Schwarzschild black hole \cite{Ben}.
Although it is possible in principle to carry out a pure state analysis
of the Hawking radiation dynamics, we do not know how to write down
an appropriate initial pure state. The statistical properties of a black hole,
on the other hand,
can be described once its entropy is known.
After the hole is vanished into Hawking radiations,
the entropy for the remaining system made up of emissions becomes
$S_{\rm emissions}=\sum_{i}S(\omega_{i})$
with $M=\sum_{i}\omega_{i}$ due to energy conservation.
The information loss paradox arises as a result of total entropy increase,
or $S_{\rm emissions}>S_{\mathrm{BH}}$,
if the spectrum for Hawking radiation is thermal.
Based on an earlier work by us \cite{zc09,zc11}, it is straightforward
working backwards to find out what kind of spectrum for Hawking radiation
is needed in order to resolve the paradox making use of the information
carrying correlations between emissions.
This rests in our belief of unitarity in quantum mechanics,
{\it i.e.}, information is conserved,
which requires the total entropy of a closed system,
composed of the hole and the emissions in the present case, to be conserved.
After an emission of energy $\omega$, the entropy for the black hole
decreases by $\Delta S_{\mathrm{BH}}=4\pi (M-\omega)^2-4\pi M^2=-8\pi M\omega+4\pi
\omega^2$. From $\Delta S_{\mathrm{BH}}=\ln\Gamma(\omega)$, we find the
appropriate spectrum is $\Gamma(\omega)=\exp[-8\pi\omega(M-\omega/2)]$,
or precisely the nonthermal spectrum of Parikh and Wilczek \cite{pw00}.
When compared to Hawking's thermal spectrum, it contains a small correction
$O(\omega^2)$, due to the back action of the quantum emission event. Although
tiny in magnitude for most massive black holes, this small correction
in the Parikh-Wilczek spectrum \cite{pw00} provides exactly what is needed to
balance the total entropy increase with information contained in
correlations among Hawking radiations.
Thus, due to our discovery of the non-trivial correlations
among radiations governed by the Parikh-Wilczek spectrum \cite{zc09},
one can now conclude that small corrections
in the nonthermal spectrum are sufficient to resolve the paradox
of black hole information loss.
\section{Mathur's criticism on our resolution}
As outlined above, the spectrum of Parikh and Wilczek,
based on Hawking radiation as tunneling, is sufficient
to resolve the information loss paradox.
In the article by Mathur \cite{sm11}, however,
a criticism is raised regarding our resolution (see page 14 of Ref. \cite{sm11}).
Mathur argues that there exists a missing prefactor in the Parikh-Wilczek
spectrum $\Gamma(\omega)=\exp[-8\pi\omega(M-\omega/2)]$, which should have
the appropriate dimension of frequency like an attempt frequency in
the standard tunneling treatment for a particle of mass $\omega$.
Thus $\Gamma(\omega)$ represents the probability flux of transmitted
particles. This point of a missing prefactor is certainly correct.
Generally speaking, $\Gamma=\Lambda\exp[-8\pi\omega(M-\omega/2)]$
indeed comes with a prefactor $\Lambda$.
When the probability flux of the incident particles is assumed unity,
the prefactor becomes $\Lambda=1$.
The key criticism of Mathur to our resolution concerns
the crucial relationship used by us for the nonthermal spectrum,
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(\omega_1,\omega_2)=\Gamma(\omega_1)\Gamma(\omega_2|\omega_1)=\Gamma(\omega_1+\omega_2).
\label{relation}
\end{equation}
Mathur proclaims this to be true even for the thermal spectrum
$\Gamma_{T}(\omega)=\exp(-8\pi M\omega)$, which
is a totaly erroneous as we show below.
Using statistical theory,
it is easy to find for the thermal spectrum the
various terms are given by
$\Gamma(\omega_2|\omega_1)=\exp[-8\pi (M-\omega_1)\omega_2]$,
$\Gamma(\omega_1,\omega_2)=\Gamma(\omega_1)\Gamma(\omega_2|\omega_1)=\exp[-8\pi
M(\omega_1+\omega_2)]\exp(8\pi\omega_1\omega_2)$, and
$\Gamma(\omega_1+\omega_2)=\exp[-8\pi M(\omega_1+\omega_2)]$.
Thus it is easy to check that
$\Gamma(\omega_1,\omega_2)=\Gamma(\omega_1+\omega_2)\exp(8\pi\omega_1\omega_2)\neq
\Gamma(\omega_1+\omega_2)$ .
Therefore, this key criticism from Mathur to our resolution
is based on a rather elementary mistake in his calculation of the conditional
probability and joint probability. His criticism cannot stand.
Finally, we stress that the essential difference between the
thermal spectrum of Hawking and the nonthermal spectrum of Parikh-Wilczek
translates into the absence and existence of correlations among different emissions.
Although rather small between any two individual emissions, the correlations
among all pairs of Hawking radiations have the capacity to carry off
all information in the initial black hole, thus the information loss
paradox is resolved \cite{iy10}.
\section{conclusion}
In summary, we point out that Mathur's ``precise formulation"
of the information loss paradox lacks content and is false in
several of the key components.
His key calculations are incorrect and his conclusion
regarding our resolution based on Hawking radiation
as tunneling is erroneous.
In the simply example he provides to discuss entanglement and
correlation between two particles in an EPR pair respectively
residing inside and outside the horizon, the final state
of emissions is a pure state when quantum correlations
are properly treated, again in stark contrast to his presumptuous
statement of a mixture state.
We further point out that
Mathur's criticism on our resolution of Hawking radiation
as tunneling is once again due to an incorrect use of
probability theory.
We show using straightforward statistics and probability theory that
there exists information-carrying correlations among
Hawking radiations \cite{zc09,zc11,iy10} and the entropy is
conserved during Hawking radiation process, when the non-thermal
spectrum of Parikh and Wilczek is assumed, or when back reaction
from Hawking radiation is considered \cite{pw00}.
Our discovery thus proves undoubtedly that no information is lost in
Hawking radiation. The small correction in the spectrum of
Parikh and Wilczek is necessary and sufficient to resolve the
information loss paradox \cite{zc09,zc11,iy10}.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Asymmetric superconducting loops without tunnel contacts are
interesting for a prospective technological application
\cite{sit1} and fundamental studies of unusual quantum
magnetic-field-dependent oscillations of both rectified direct
voltage \cite{sit1} and critical superconducting currents
\cite{sit2, sit3}. A superconducting asymmetric circular loop and
the asymmetric loops in series are very efficient rectifiers of ac
voltage \cite{sit1}.
Rectification effect can be interpreted as follows. If a
superconducting loop is threaded with a magnetic flux $\Phi$ and
biased by an alternating sinusoidal current (with a zero dc
component) and if, in addition, the sum of bias ac and
magnetic-filed-periodically-dependent loop circulating current
exceeds the critical current value in a certain loop part, then an
alternating voltage, with the period equal to the current period,
appears across the loop. In a strictly symmetric circular loop,
the time-averaged value of alternating voltage is zero because of
the positive voltage corresponding to certain half-periods is
cancelled out by the negative voltage corresponding to other
half-periods. In a superconducting asymmetric circular loop
\cite{sit1}, the difference between circulating current densities
in two semi-loops disturbs the symmetry between positive and
negative voltages, and a nonzero time-averaged (rectified) direct
voltage $V_{rec}(B)$ appears as a function of magnetic field $B$.
$V_{rec}(B)$ voltage oscillates with the period $\Delta
B=\Phi_{0}/S$, here $\Phi_{0}$ is the superconducting magnetic
flux quantum and $S$ is the effective loop area \cite{sit1}. In a
single asymmetric loop, $V_{rec}(B)$ is the sign-alternating
function of $B$. $V_{rec}(B)$ voltage changes its sign in fields
corresponding to integer and half-integer values of a normalized
magnetic flux $\Phi / \Phi_{0}$ \cite{sit1}.
$V_{rec}(B)$ oscillations \cite{sit1} are quite unusual. They
radically differ from oscillations in the Little-Parks (LP) effect
\cite{sit4}. As compared to the LP oscillations \cite{sit4}, in
low fields, the amplitude of the $V_{rec}(B)$ oscillations can
reach a giant magnitude that can be calculated by the expression
$I_{c}R_{N}/2 \pi$ (for a bias sinusoidal current) \cite{sit1}.
Here, $I_{c}$ is the critical superconducting current in the zero
field and $R_{N}$ is the structure resistance in the normal state.
The maximum amplitude of voltage oscillations $V_{rec}(B)$
corresponds to the maximum amplitude $\Delta R$ (from peak to
peak) of resistance oscillations that can reach $R_{N}$. For
aluminum loops \cite{sit1}, the $\Delta R$ amplitude derived from
$V_{rec}(B)$ oscillations can exceed the amplitude of
magnetoresistance oscillations expected on the basis of the LP
effect more than by one order of magnitude.
$V_{rec}(B)$ oscillations reach their extreme values (maxima and
minima) at $\Phi / \Phi_{0}$ close to $\pm (n+1/4)$, where $n$ is
an integer, while $R(B)$ oscillations in the LP effect reach their
extreme values at $\Phi / \Phi_{0}=n+1/2$.
In a single asymmetric circular loop and identical asymmetric
loops in series, a nonzero rectified voltage $V_{rec}(B)$ appears
because of a difference between critical superconducting currents
$I_{c+}(B)$ and $I_{c-}(B)$ measured \cite{sit2, sit3} for
arbitrarily positive and negative half-waves of a bias ac.
$I_{c+}(B)$ and $I_{c-}(B)$ oscillations were unexpectedly found
to be unusual. It was revealed that in low fields the curves
$I_{c+}(B)$ and $I_{c-}(B)$ are shifted from one another with a
$\pi$ phase shift (corresponds to magnetic-field shift of
$\Phi_{0}/2$) \cite{sit2, sit3}. Note that according to
contemporary theoretical conceptions this incomprehensible $\pi$
phase shift can be hardly expected in the studied asymmetric
structures \cite{sit1, sit2, sit3}.
Moreover, like $V_{rec}(B)$ oscillations these $I_{c+}(B)$ and
$I_{c-}(B)$ oscillations reach their extreme values at $\Phi /
\Phi_{0}$ close to $\pm (n+1/4)$. Some other striking features of
$V_{rec}(B)$, $I_{c+}(B)$, and $I_{c-}(B)$ oscillations were also
found in asymmetric loops \cite{sit2, sit3}.
Unlike LP oscillations, the unusual quantum $V_{rec}(B)$,
$I_{c+}(B)$, and $I_{c-}(B)$ oscillations \cite{sit1, sit3} in an
asymmetric circular loop cannot be explained in the framework of
the simple Ginzburg-Landau (GL) quasi-one-dimensional model
\cite{sit5}, using only the requirement of superconducting fluxoid
quantization \cite{sit6}. Thus, experimental studies of the
unusual quantum oscillations \cite{sit1, sit2, sit3, sit7, sit8}
in simple superconducting circular-asymmetric structures generate
many unsolved questions.
Besides the rectification of ac voltage, an asymmetric loop is
interesting for other applications. Earlier \cite{sit1, sit7,
sit8}, it was assumed that the quantum states of a single
superconducting asymmetric circular loop placed in the normal
magnetic field $B$ at $T$ below $T_{c}$ can be described by the
oscillating superconducting circulating current of the loop
$I_{R}(B)$. In order to determine the time-averaged quantum
states, the loop was periodically switched from superconducting
state to resistive state and back by a bias alternating current
(without a dc component) with an amplitude close to the critical
current value. As a result of the multiple switching, the
rectified direct voltage $V_{rec}(B)$ appears in the loop
\cite{sit1}. At certain values of the magnetic field, $V_{rec}(B)$
can be directly proportional to $I_{R}(B)$ in a single asymmetric
circular loop \cite{sit1}. Therefore, measurements of $V_{rec}(B)$
can allow the readout of the time-averaged quantum states of the
loop \cite{sit1}. Moreover, the oscillating $V_{rec}(B)$ voltage
recorded at the different current values can describe quantum
magneto-resistive states of the loop (the states depend both on
the magnetic field and the bias ac). Quantum magneto-resistive
states of the two directly connected asymmetric circular loops
\cite{sit7, sit8} can be described by quantum magneto-resistive
states of each loop and coupling between the states of the loops.
In addition, an asymmetric loop of high-resistance material with
an extremely small wall narrowing could be used as an element of a
superconducting flux qubit \cite{sit9, sit10} with quantum
phase-slip centers \cite{sit11, sit12}. Two successive loops of
this kind could be an analog of two successive flux qubits.
For certain technological applications, it is necessary to know
both the strength and mechanism of coupling between quantum states
of loops. Earlier, an interaction (nonlinear coupling) was
revealed \ between quantum magnetic-resistive states of two
different superconducting directly connected asymmetric circular
loops forming a figure-of-eight-shaped structure \cite{sit7,
sit8}. To determine the quantum state of each loop and coupling
between the loops, rectified voltage $V_{rec}(B)$ was measured in
a figure-of-eight-shaped structure pierced with a magnetic flux
and biased with a low-frequency current (without a dc component)
and with an amplitude close to critical, at $T$ slightly below
$T_{c}$ \cite{sit7, sit8}. Possible mechanisms of the interaction
between the loops can be magnetic coupling and electro-dynamic
coupling through a bias ac.
We assume that electro-dynamic coupling between two successive
loops that occurs through a bias ac is a nonlocal phenomenon with
the nonlocal superconducting length \cite{sit13, sit14, sit15}
close, by the order of magnitude, to the Ginzburg-Landau coherence
length $\xi(T)$ \cite{sit6}. Note that the nonlocal length
estimated from Ref. \cite{sit16} can reach the value several times
exceeding $\xi(T)$.
Nonlinear \ coupling \ between quantum magnetic-resistive states
of two asymmetric loops in series should become weaker with an
increasing distance between them. It can be assumed that the most
long-scaled electro-dynamic coupling should almost disappear if
the spacing between loop centers increases to $10 \xi(T)$.
The aim of this work was to find the largest distance between the
loops at which the coupling between quantum magnetic-resistive
states of the loops would still occur. For this purpose, we
experimentally studied the quantum magnetic-resistive behavior of
two different superconducting aluminum asymmetric circular loops
connected in series with a wire of a length (Fig. \ref{image})
close to the penetration depth of a nonuniform electric field into
a superconductor \cite{sit5, sit17} $\Lambda_{E}$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{kuznfig1.eps}
\caption{\label{image} SEM image of the structure. The scale bar:
$2$ $\mu$m.}
\end{figure}
Like the authors of Refs. \cite{sit7, sit8}, we measured the
rectified direct voltage $V_{rec}(B)$ in the structure (Fig.
\ref{image}) versus normal magnetic field $B$ and a bias
sinusoidal low-frequency current (without a dc component) at
temperatures $T$ slightly below $T_{c}$ in order to determine the
quantum magnetic-resistive states of two loops in series and the
coupling between the loop states. In addition, we measured a dc
voltage $V_{dc}(B)$ as a function of $B$ and bias dc (without an
ac component) through the structure.
One more goal was to test whether $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations can be
used to describe the quantum magnetic-resistive states of an
asymmetric structure. We also made a comparison of $V_{rec}(B)$
and $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations.
\section{SAMPLES AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE}
A 45 nm thick structure of two loops connected in series was
fabricated by thermal sputtering of aluminum onto a silicon
substrate using the lift-off process of electron-beam lithography.
Figure \ref{image} displays a scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
image of the structure. It consists of two different successive
asymmetric circular loops with the distance between the loop
centers $L=12.5$ $\mu$m. The average widths of all narrow and wide
wires in the sample central part are $w_{n}=0.22$ $\mu$m and
$w_{w}=0.41$ $\mu$m, respectively. The circular asymmetry permits
the observation of nonzero rectified voltage $V_{rec}(B)$ in the
structure \cite{sit1, sit7, sit8}. The minimum area of the loop is
the internal area within the inner loop border. The minimum areas
of the larger and smaller loops are $S_{Lmin}=11.57$ $\mu\rm
m^{2}$ and $S_{Smin}=6.34$ $\mu\rm m^{2}$, respectively. From the
structure geometry, the average areas of the larger and smaller
loops are $S_{Lg}=13.93$ $\mu\rm m^{2}$ and $S_{Sg}=7.92$ $\mu\rm
m^{2}$, respectively.
The structure has the following parameters. The critical
superconducting temperature $T_{c}=1.355\pm 0.001$ K was
determined from the midpoint of normal-superconducting transition
$R(T)$ in a zero field. The total normal-state resistance measured
between two vertical wires at $T=4.2$ K is $R_{N}=32$ $\Omega$.
The ratio of room-temperature to the helium-temperature resistance
is $R_{300}/R_{4.2}=2$. Sheet resistance is $R_{S}=0.69$ $\Omega$,
the resistivity is then $\rho=3.105\times 10^{-8}$ $\Omega$ m.
From the expression \cite{sit1, sit18} $\rho l=(6 \pm 2)\times
10^{-16}$ $\Omega$ $\rm m^2$, we determine the electron mean free
path $l=19$ nm. The superconducting coherence length of pure
aluminum at $T=0$ is $\xi_{0}=1.6$ $\mu$m. Hence, the structure is
a "dirty" superconductor, because $l \ll \xi_{0}$. Therefore, for
this structure the temperature-dependent superconducting G-L
coherence length at temperatures slightly below $T_{c}$ is
determined from the expression \cite{sit6, sit19}
$\xi(T)=\xi(0)(1-T/T_{c})^{-1/2}$, where
$\xi(0)=0.85(\xi_{0}l)^{1/2}=0.15$ $\mu$m. In the studied
temperature range, $\xi(T)=0.85-1.2$ $\mu$m. For this structure,
the theoretical estimation results in the penetration depth of a
nonuniform electric field into a superconductor \cite{sit5, sit17}
$\Lambda_{E} \approx 10$ $\mu$m in the experimental temperature
range. So, $\Lambda_{E}$ is larger than $\xi(T)$ by an order of
magnitude.
Two types of four-probe measurements of voltage oscillations
versus magnetic field normal to the substrate surface were
performed in the structure (Fig. \ref{image}). In the first case,
a rectified time-averaged direct voltage $V_{rec}(B)$ appeared in
the structure biased by a sinusoidal current (without a dc
component) $I_{ac}(t)=I_{ac}\sin(2\pi\nu t)$, with the amplitude
$I_{ac}$ close to the critical current in the zero field $ I_{c}$
at frequencies $\nu$ from $1$ to $10$ kHz at $T$ slightly below
$T_{c}$. The experimental procedure was similar to that in Refs.
\cite{sit1, sit7, sit8}. The $V_{rec}(B)$ voltage was measured at
a slowly varying magnetic field. The $V_{rec}(B)$ voltage was the
time-averaged value of the alternating voltage $V_{ac}(B, t)$ over
a time interval $\Delta t$, i.e. $V_{rec}(B)=\frac{1}{\Delta
t}\int^{\Delta t}_{0} V_{ac}(B, t)dt$. The condition $\Delta t
>20\Delta t_{I}$ was valid ($\Delta t_{I}$ is the period of bias
ac).
In the second case, a dc voltage $V_{dc}(B)$ was measured when a
bias direct current $I_{dc}$ (without an ac component) passed
through the structure. As well as $V_{rec}(B)$ curves, $V_{dc}(B)$
data were obtained at different dc values, close to the $I_{c}(T,
B=0)$ at $T$ slightly below $T_{c}$.
In addition, we measured a dc voltage $V_{dc}(I)$ as a function of
the bias dc at different magnetic-field values.
\section{RESULTS AND DISCUSSION}
\subsection{Main results}
The measured $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations are shown
in Figs. \ref{voltage} and \ref{volt}, respectively. The values of
the direct $I_{dc}$, alternating $I_{ac}$ and critical currents
$I_{c}$ together with the temperature $T$ are given in the
figures. For a detailed study, fast Fourier transformations (FFT)
of the $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ functions were obtained using
4096 uniformly of distributed points in magnetic fields from -25
to +25 G (Gauss $=10^{-4}$ Tesla). The Fourier spectra of these
functions exhibit a variety of peaks of different magnitudes and
frequencies (insets of Figs. \ref{voltage} and \ref{volt}). The
frequency $f$ has the meaning of a value inversely proportional to
a certain period of voltage oscillations, i.e. $f=1/ \Delta B$.
The great number of various frequencies in the spectra indicates
the presence of various periodic magnetic-field-dependent
responses of the structure.
Fundamental frequencies of the smaller and larger loops are
\begin{equation}
f_{S}=1/\Delta B_{S}=S_{S}/\Phi_{0}~,~~\rm ~~f_{L}=1/\Delta
B_{L}=S_{L}/\Phi_{0}~,
\end{equation} respectively.
Here $\Delta B_{S}$ and $\Delta B_{L}$ are the periods of voltage
oscillations in the loops, and $S_{S}$ and $S_{L}$ are effective
loop areas, with $S$ and $L$ relating to the smaller and larger
loops, respectively. The expected fundamental frequencies
corresponding to averaged geometrical areas of the loops are
$f_{Sg}=0.38$ ${\rm G}^{-1}$ and $ f_{Lg}=0.67$ ${\rm G}^{-1}$.
The minimum expected values of fundamental frequencies of the
loops are $f_{Smin}=0.31$ ${\rm G}^{-1}$ and $ f_{Lmin}=0.56$
${\rm G}^{-1}$, corresponding to the minimum areas of the smaller
and larger loops.
\begin{figure*}\includegraphics[width=3.35 in]{kuznfig2a.eps}\includegraphics[width=3.35 in]{kuznfig2c.eps}
\includegraphics[width=3.35 in]{kuznfig2b.eps}\includegraphics[width=3.35 in]{kuznfig2d.eps}
\caption{\label{voltage} (Color online) [(a)-(d)] $V_{rec}(B)$
curves measured at the parameters shown in the figure. Magnetic
field values are given in G $=10^{-4}$ T. Insets: FFT spectra of
the curves. Symbols $S$, $L$, $\Delta$, $\Sigma$, and $2S$ show
the spectral regions corresponding to the fundamental frequencies
of the smaller and larger loops, difference and sum of these
frequencies, and second higher harmonics of the fundamental
frequency of the smaller loop, respectively. Symbols $A$, $C$,
$B$, and $D$ mark the regions corresponding to the extra low
frequencies $f_{A}=0.048-0.060$ ${\rm G}^{-1}$,
$f_{C}=0.119-0.141$ ${\rm G}^{-1}$, their difference
$f_{B}=f_{C}-f_{A}=0.072-0.081$ ${\rm G}^{-1}$, and their sum
$f_{D}=f_{C}+f_{A}=0.167-0.201$ ${\rm G}^{-1}$, respectively.
Linear combinations of symbols $S$, $L$, $\Delta$, $\Sigma$, $A$,
$C$, $B$, and $D$ denote various combination frequencies. For
example, the sum $S+A$ near a peak shows that the peak corresponds
to the summation frequency $f_{S}+f_{A}$.}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{voltage} presents the rectified direct voltage
$V_{rec}(B)$ versus magnetic field through the structure. The
structure was biased by a sinusoidal current with the frequency
$\nu=4.023$ kHz (without a dc component) and a current amplitude
$I_{ac}$ close to critical $I_{c}$ at $T$ slightly below $T_{c}$.
Figure \ref{volt} shows a dc voltage $V_{dc}(B)$ through the
structure biased with direct current (without any ac component) at
$T$ slightly below $T_{c}$. The FFT spectra of both $V_{rec}(B)$
and $V_{dc}(B)$ functions exhibit peaks (labeled $S$ and $L$)
localized near the fundamental frequencies $f_{S}=0.31-0.33$ ${\rm
G}^{-1}$ and $ f_{L}=0.56-0.57$ ${\rm G}^{-1}$, corresponding to
the smaller and larger loops. These obtained $f_{S}$ and $f_{L}$
frequencies are close to the corresponding minimum expected
fundamental $f_{Smin}$ and $f_{Lmin}$ frequencies of the loops
[insets of Figs. \ref{voltage}(a), \ref{voltage}(b),
\ref{voltage}(d), \ref{volt}(a), \ref{volt}(b)]. This means that
the effective loop areas are close to the corresponding minimum
areas of the loops.
\begin{figure}\includegraphics[width=3.35 in]{kuznfig3a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=3.35 in]{kuznfig3b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=3.35 in]{kuznfig3c.eps}
\caption{\label{volt} (Color online) [(a)-(c)] $V_{dc}(B)$ curves
measured at the parameters shown in the figure. Field values are
given in G $=10^{-4}$ T. Insets: solid lines correspond to FFT
spectra of the curves, dash-dot-dot lines present spectra of other
$V_{dc}(B)$ curves (not shown in the figure) measured at the
parameters shown in the insets of Figs. \ref{volt}(a) and
\ref{volt}(b). Regions corresponding to certain frequencies are
marked with symbols and their combinations the way used in Fig.
\ref{voltage}. From the insets, extra low frequencies are equal:
$f_{A}=0.050-0.062$ ${\rm G}^{-1}$, $f_{C}=0.120-0.130$ ${\rm
G}^{-1}$, $f_{B}=0.070-0.088$ ${\rm G}^{-1}$, and
$f_{D}=0.166-0.187$ ${\rm G}^{-1}$.}
\end{figure}
The spectral peaks labeled $2S$ at $f_{S2}=2f_{S}$ correspond to
the second higher harmonics of $f_{S}$ frequency [insets of Figs.
\ref{voltage}(b), \ref{voltage}(c), and \ref{volt}(a)].
Apart from fundamental $f_{S}$ and $f_{L}$ frequencies, the
spectra exhibit the difference frequency $f_{\Delta}= f_{L}-f_{S}$
[insets of Figs. \ref{voltage}(a), \ref{voltage}(b),
\ref{voltage}(d) and \ref{volt}(a) - lower curve, \ref{volt}(b)
and \ref{volt}(c)] and the summation frequency
$f_{\Sigma}=f_{L}+f_{S}$ [insets of Figs. \ref{voltage}(a),
\ref{voltage}(d), \ref{volt}(a)- both curves and \ref{volt}(b)].
In the insets of Figs. \ref{voltage} and \ref{volt}, the symbols
$\Delta$ and $\Sigma$ denote peaks corresponding to $f_{\Delta}$
and $f_{\Sigma}$ frequencies.
These difference and summation frequencies $f_{\Delta}=
f_{L}-f_{S}$ and $f_{\Sigma}=f_{L}+f_{S}$ point out to the
interaction (nonlinear coupling) between the loops. Earlier,
$f_{\Delta}$ and $ f_{\Sigma}$ frequencies were found in the
Fourier spectrum of $V_{rec}(B)$ voltage in a
figure-of-eight-shaped structure \cite{sit7, sit8}.
The spectra also demonstrate extra peaks of low frequencies
$f_{A}=0.048-0.062$ ${\rm G}^{-1}$, $f_{C}=0.119-0.141$ ${\rm
G}^{-1}$ and difference $f_{B}= f_{C}-f_{A}=0.070-0.088$ ${\rm
G}^{-1}$, and summation $f_{D}= f_{C}+f_{A}=0.166-0.201$ ${\rm
G}^{-1}$ frequencies (insets of Figs. \ref{voltage} and
\ref{volt}) denoted as $A$, $C$, $B$, and $D$, respectively. We
found that $1/f_{C}$ and $1/f_{A}$ are several times smaller than
the critical magnetic field at which the superconducting order
parameter is radically suppressed in the structure.
Moreover, combination satellite frequencies $f_{S}+f_{A}$,
$f_{S}+2f_{A}$, $f_{S}+f_{B}$, $f_{S}+f_{C}$ localized to the
right of the $f_{S}$ frequency, $f_{L} \pm f_{A}$, $f_{L} \pm
f_{B}$, $f_{L}+2f_{B}$, $f_{L}+f_{D}$ near $f_{L}$ frequency,
$f_{\Delta}-f_{A}$ to the left of $f_{\Delta}$ and $f_{\Sigma} \pm
f_{C}$, $f_{\Sigma}+f_{B}$ near $f_{\Sigma}$ can be seen in the
spectra [insets of Figs. \ref{voltage}(a), \ref{voltage}(b),
\ref{voltage}(d), \ref{volt}(a), \ref{volt}(b) and \ref{volt}(c)].
Earlier, extra low frequencies and satellite frequencies which are
combinations of the loop fundamental frequency and a low frequency
were found in the Fourier spectrum of the of $V_{rec}(B)$
oscillations in a single almost symmetric circular loop
\cite{sit20}. At present, the reason of the low frequencies
appearance in the spectra is not found.
Relative and absolute resistive contributions of both loops into
$V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations vary with external
parameters. The resistive response of the smaller loop $S$ is
often larger than that of the larger loop $L$ [insets of Figs.
\ref{voltage}(a)-(d) and \ref{volt}(a)]. At $T$ slightly below
$T_{c}$, a larger response of the larger loop $L$ was observed as
compared with the smaller loop response $S$ [insets of Figs.
\ref{volt}(b) - the lower curve and \ref{volt}(c)].
With changing external parameters, dips were observed instead of
peaks at certain frequencies. For example, dips are observed near
the $f_{S}$ and $f_{L}$ frequencies [upper curve in the inset of
Fig. \ref{volt}(b)] instead of peaks $S$ and $L$ [lower curve in
the inset of Fig. \ref{volt}(b)]. A dip $S$ at $f_{S}$ is also
seen in the inset of Fig. \ref{volt}(c). The dip in the inset of
Fig. \ref{voltage}(d) labeled $2S$ corresponds to the second
higher harmonics of the $f_{S}$ frequency. The inset of Fig.
\ref{volt}(c) exhibits a dip $\Sigma$ near the summation frequency
$f_{\Sigma}$. Instead of the spectral peak $\Delta$ observed at
the frequency close to $f_{\Delta}$ at current $I_{dc}=0.71$
$\mu$A [inset of Fig. \ref{volt}(a), lower curve], a dip $\Delta$
appears at $I_{dc}=0.81$ $\mu$A [inset of Fig. \ref{volt}(a),
upper curve]. Both curves [Fig. \ref{volt}(a)] were measured at
the same temperature. With increasing current a dip $\Delta-A$
[inset of Fig. \ref{volt}(c)] appears instead of the extra
low-frequency spectral peak $\Delta-A$ [inset of Fig.
\ref{volt}(a)].
We believe that dips arise because of the nonlinear coupling of
loop (wire) oscillations to give the product of two or more
periodic signals with certain frequencies (amplitude modulation).
In an ordinary case, an amplitude modulation is a periodic change
in the amplitude of high frequency carrier oscillations by a low
modulating frequency. Instead of the original frequencies, the
spectrum of this product would contain the difference and
summation frequencies. For example, the upper spectrum in the
inset of Fig. \ref{volt}(b) exhibits a dip at the frequency
$f_{L}$ and two side satellite peaks at frequencies $f_{L-A}$ and
$f_{L+A}$ instead of the peak at the $f_{L}$. At the same time,
apart from the side satellites at $f_{L-B}$ and $f_{L+B}$, Fig.
\ref{voltage}(a) shows a peak at the frequency $f_{L}$ suggesting
the presence of the carrier signal in the spectrum.
So, we consider that both the $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$
oscillations can allow us to determine the quantum
magneto-resistive states of the 2-loop structure and the coupling
between the quantum states.
In order to obtain a supplementary information, we measured
$V_{dc}(I)$ curves (not presented here) in different magnetic
fields for two opposite directions of the bias dc sweep. In low
fields, a large hysteresis of the $V_{dc}(I)$ curves is observed
even at temperatures sufficiently close to $T_{c}$ and low
currents $I_{dc}<1$ $\mu$A. We believe that the hysteresis is due
to a quasiparticle overheating \cite{ sit16} that can be caused by
the energy dissipation in thermally activated phase-slip centers
(TAPSCs) \cite{sit5, sit16, sit17}. TAPSC generates a
quasiparticle imbalance and consequently, a nonuniform electric
field in a nonequilibrium region with the size close to
$2\Lambda_{E}$.
\subsection{Nonlinear coupling, combination frequencies, heating effects}
The difference and sum of fundamental frequencies in FFT spectra
suggest that nonlinear coupling does exist between quantum
magnetic-resistive states of the successive loops. Let consider
now how nonlinear coupling between loops arises and how
combination frequencies appear. Nonlinear coupling between
directly connected loops can be due to magnetic inductive coupling
between loops and electrodynamic interaction through a bias
current \cite{sit7, sit8}. However, magnetic coupling cannot
explain the great number of frequencies observed in the
oscillation spectra, e.g. the sum of loop fundamental frequencies.
We assume that in the case of successive loops, the inductive
coupling between loops would become much weaker as the distance
between the loops increases. Then, the interaction through a bias
current should predominate over the inductive coupling in the
studied 2-loop structure.
Quantum magnetic-resistive properties of a single loop depend both
on the loop circulating current and the bias current. A fraction
of the bias current passing through the single loop becomes
magnetic-field-dependent, oscillating with a period equal to that
of the loop circulating current oscillations ($\Delta
B_{S}=1/f_{S}$ for the smaller loop and $\Delta B_{L}=1/f_{L}$ for
the larger loop). Because of the finite spatial change of
superconducting order parameter, the nonlocal the $V_{rec}(B)$ or
$V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations can be expected to appear on a wire part
located outside of the loop at a distance equal to the nonlocal
superconducting length. As shown experimentally and theoretically
in Refs. \cite{sit13, sit14, sit15}, the nonlocal superconducting
length is close to the $\xi (T)$ length.
If the length of a wire connecting two successive loops is shorter
than $\pi \xi (T)$, then it can be expected that some fraction of
the oscillating current leaving one of the loops could also pass
through the other loop in the 2-loop structure. As a result,
current (voltage) oscillations with the fundamental frequency
$f_{S}$ corresponding to the smaller loop could be amplitude
modulated by the oscillations with the fundamental frequency
$f_{L}$ corresponding to the larger loop and vice versa. So, the
oscillating current fraction passing through both loops becomes
dependent on both loop oscillating currents. As a result, a
nonlinear coupling occurs between quantum magneto-resistive states
of the loops. The amplitude modulation i.e. the multiplication of
one oscillating signal by another oscillating signal should be
expected to lead to the appearance of combination frequencies.
Note that if the distance between the two loops is several times
larger than $\pi \xi (T)$, then one can hardly expect to observe
the coupling between the quantum states of the loops. In the
2-loop structure, the distance between the loop centers is close
to $13 \xi (T)$, therefore the coupling can be expected to
disappear. Nevertheless, we found the coupling.
Here we provide an explanation for the unexpected coupling. We
consider that the 2-loop structure is in a nonequilibrium state
with a nonequilibrium length $\Lambda_{E}$. Then, weak
$V_{rec}(B)$ or $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations can be expected to appear
on a wire part located outside of the loop at the distance several
times larger than $\xi (T)$. In addition, the weak coupling
between the quantum states of two loops due to a nonlocal effect
can be expected to be observed in the 2-loop structure.
In a nonequilibrium state at distances between the loop centers
close to $\Lambda_{E}$, the coupling can be still noticeable
whereas the inductive coupling between the loops should almost
disappear. Therefore, it is most likely that the coupling of
quantum magnetic-resistive states of both loops mainly occurs
through a common bias ac (dc) owing to the nonlocal effect.
Let us speculate how the quasiparticle overheating can effect on
the quantum magneto-resistive behavior of the 2-loop structure. As
a result of the quasiparticle overheating (an increase in the
effective local quasiparticle temperature) \cite{ sit16} of the
structure nonequilibrium region, an effective nonequilibrium
length $\Lambda_{E}$ should be expected to increase. Since the
effective resistance of the region is directly proportional to
$\Lambda_{E}$, then, one would expect that the amplitude of the
magneto-resistive oscillations would be increased. Moreover, we
believe that the quasiparticle overheating can result in an
increase in the coupling between the loops. If the overheating
would be every strong and the quasiparticle temperature would
exceed $T_{c}$ in the immediate vicinity of the $2\Lambda_{E}$
region, then the nonequilibrium region should be expected to
transform to the normal-state region with a total size larger then
$2\Lambda_{E}$ and with an increased resistance. Moreover, the
strong overheating periodically driven by the field would result
in the giant amplitude of the quantum oscillations that is due to
the switching between a state close to the normal state and a
state close to the superconducting state. So, we assume that the
overheating not only doesn't weaken quantum oscillations, but even
can strengthen the oscillations. Moreover, it is possible that the
overheating can even result in an increase in the loop coupling.
\subsection{$V_{rec}(B)$ oscillations}
The amplitude of $V_{rec}(B)$ oscillations is the function of both
a bias ac amplitude $I_{ac}$ and a magnetic filed. As was noted
above, in low fields $V_{rec}(B)$ oscillations in a single
asymmetric circular loop (in a system of identical loops in
series) \cite{sit1} are of unusual character. For example, they
have a giant amplitude at a bias ac amplitude $I_{ac}$ close to
the critical value. In the studied structure, the behavior of
$V_{rec}(B)$ oscillations is also unusual in a certain region of
low fields. In this region, the oscillation amplitude is maximum
and almost independent of the magnetic field [Fig.
\ref{voltage}(d)]. Outside the region, the oscillations first
drastically decrease with increasing field and then smoothly fade
in high fields [Fig. \ref{voltage}(d)].
In low fields, the weak magnetic-field dependence of the
oscillation amplitude is probably caused by the overheating of the
nonequilibrium region.
In a general case, in low magnetic fields, the $V_{rec}(B)$
oscillations cannot be described \cite{sit3} in the framework of
the simple GL quasi-one-dimensional theory \cite{sit5, sit17}, if
only the requirement of superconducting fluxoid quantization
\cite{sit6} is used.
The maximum value of $V_{rec}(B)$ oscillations in the structure as
well as and the maximum magneto-resistive response of a single
asymmetric loop are determined by that how close the resistive
state of the structure part (loop) is to the midpoint of the
superconducting-normal ($S$-$N$) transition \cite{sit7}.
On transition from a state close to the superconducting state to a
state more close to the midpoint of the $S$-$N$ transition, the
amplitude of $V_{rec}(B)$ oscillations increases in fields close
to zero [Figs. \ref{voltage}(a) and \ref{voltage}(b)]. When the
condition $I_{ac}\approx I_{c}$ holds, these oscillations reach
their maxima in fields close to zero, with the state corresponding
to the midpoint of the $S$-$N$ transition being realized [Fig.
\ref{voltage}(d)]. When $I_{ac}>I_{c}$, a state more close to the
normal realizes [Fig. \ref{voltage}(c)]. The oscillations also
reach their maxima in fields close to zero. The oscillation
amplitude, however, decreases [Fig. \ref{voltage}(c)]. The
magneto-resistive response of the smaller loop $S$ dominates over
the larger loop response $L$ at the parameters of Fig.
\ref{voltage}. The spectral peak corresponding to the larger loop
$L$ practically disappears with increasing current [inset of Fig.
\ref{voltage}(c)].
\subsection{Comparison of $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations}
1. Let compare the $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations and
their spectra in the 2-loop structure (Fig. \ref{image}). We found
both the $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ voltages measured in the
structure under applied ac (with a zero dc component) and dc (with
a zero ac component) respectively, can give information about the
structure quantum magneto-resistive states and nonlinear coupling
between the loops.
Although the $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ functions differ
fundamentally, their spectra contain a similar set of frequencies.
The spectra show quantitative and relative differences between
periodic magnetic-field responses of the structure biased with ac
(with a zero dc component) and dc (with a zero ac component) at
the same values of $T$ and bias current $I_{ac}(I_{dc})$. The
response of the smaller loop often dominated over the one of the
larger loop when $V_{rec}(B)$ was measured (Fig. \ref{voltage}).
During $V_{dc}(B)$ measurements, a response of any of the loops
could be dominating at certain values of $T$ and $I_{dc}$.
Moreover, unlike $V_{rec}(B)$ oscillations, the $V_{dc}(B)$ ones
reach their maxima in low fields at somewhat smaller currents at
the same $T$ (Figs. \ref{voltage} and \ref{volt}).
2. Now compare the $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations in
the structure with $V_{rec}(B)$ oscillations in the
figure-of-eight-shaped structure of Ref. \cite{sit7}. Unlike the
spectra of $V_{rec}(B)$ oscillations in the figure-of-eight-shaped
structure, the spectra of $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$
oscillations in the structure virtually do not contain higher
harmonics of loop fundamental frequencies expect for the second
harmonics of $f_{S}$. Moreover, the spectra of $V_{rec}(B)$ and
$V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations in the structure exhibit extra peaks at
low frequencies and peaks corresponding to extra combination
frequencies. The difference is most appears due to another
geometry of the structure as compared to that in Ref. \cite{sit7}.
It is seen that $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations can be
dependent on the field direction. The magnetic asymmetry (parity
and oddness violations of $V_{dc}(B)$ and $V_{rec}(B)$ functions)
considerably exceeds an experimental error. The asymmetry
practically disappears at high bias current values [Fig.
\ref{voltage}(c)]. A similar magnetic asymmetry was first observed
in the figure-of-eight-shaped structure \cite{sit8}. We speculate
that a possible reason for the asymmetry is in an increase in the
termo-dynamical instability in the structure (the system of the
TAPSCs) that can be caused by the quasiparticle overheating. A
careful experimental study of the quantum oscillations in a single
asymmetric loop would provide us with clues for an acceptable
explanation of the asymmetry.
3. Compare the $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations and their
spectra in the structure with LP oscillations in a hollow
thin-walled superconducting cylinder. In a low field region, the
oscillations in the structure and those in a single asymmetric
loop \cite{sit1} are of unusual character. The striking difference
of $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations in the structure from LP oscillations
is clearly seen in Fig. \ref{volt}(c). In a low field region, the
peak-to-peak amplitude of $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations can reach a
value close to the total voltage through the whole structure in
the normal state, i.e. $V_{dc}(B)=R_{N}I_{dc}$. This means that
the transition of the structure as a whole from the state close to
superconducting to the state close to normal and back can occur at
certain field and current values. The $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations
more resemble abrupt jumps between the superconducting and normal
states as magnetic field changes.
We believe that the great amplitude of the $V_{dc}(B)$
oscillations can be due to the periodical magnetic-field-dependent
overheating of the nonequlibrium region by TAPSC up to the
effective quasiparticle temperature slightly above $T_{c}$ and
then by a following cooling of the overheated region to the
temperature slightly below $T_{c}$.
\section{CONCLUSION}
We found an unexpected interaction (nonlinear coupling) between
quantum magnetic-resistive states of two superconducting loops in
series with a very large distance between the loop centers close
to the penetration depth of a nonuniform electric field into a
superconductor $\Lambda_{E}>>\xi (T)$. Note that according to the
present-day studies such an interaction should not be expected in
the superconducting aluminum structure of two asymmetric circular
loops (Fig. \ref{image}).
To detect the interaction we measured both quantum oscillations of
a rectified time-averaged direct voltage $V_{rec}(B)$ and a dc
voltage $V_{dc}(B)$ in the 2-loop structure. The $V_{rec}(B)$ and
$V_{dc}(B)$ curves were recorded for the structure biased only
with an alternating current (without a dc component) and only with
a direct current (without an ac component), respectively, with the
maximum current values close to critical and $T$ slightly below
$T_{c}$.
Detailed analysis of the oscillations shows that Fourier spectra
of $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ functions contain the sum and
difference of the loop fundamental frequencies, which implies an
interaction (nonlinear coupling) between the quantum states of two
loops. We believe the coupling most likely realizes through a
common bias ac (dc) due to nonequilibrium nonlocal effects. The
large value of the nonequilibrium length $\Lambda_{E}$ in the
structure allow us to observe the coupling between the quantum
states of successive loops at a considerable distance between
them.
Quasiparticle overheating of the structure should be expected to
increase in the effective nonequilibrium length and the loop
coupling. Moreover, the quasiparticle overheating would result in
a great increase in the oscillation amplitude.
Earlier in Refs. \cite{sit1, sit7, sit8}, it was suggested that
measurements of a rectified voltage $V_{rec}(B)$ can be used to
determine quantum magneto-resistive states of an asymmetric
circular loop and two directly connected asymmetric circular loops
\cite{sit1, sit7, sit8}. In this work, we found that measurements
of a dc voltage $V_{dc}(B)$ can be also used to describe the
quantum states of the asymmetric structure.
The spectra of $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations are
complicated. Apart from the fundamental frequencies of both loops,
summation and difference fundamental frequencies, the spectra
contain low and extra combination frequencies. The extra
combination frequencies are linear combinations of the loop
fundamental frequencies and low frequencies.
The $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations in the structure
radically differ from the LP oscillations.
Quasiparticle overheating of the structure should be taken into
consideration when the $V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations
are analyzed.
Further investigations would help to elucidate the nature of the
$V_{rec}(B)$ and $V_{dc}(B)$ oscillations.
\section{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
We thank Yu. Khanin and P.~Shabelnikova for technical help. This
work was financially supported in the frame of the program of
fundamental investigations of DNIT RAS "Organization of
computations on new physical principles" and the program of RAS
Presidium "Quantum Macrophysics" (section "Mesoscopics").
|
\section{Introduction}
The meridional flow in the solar convection zone plays a key role
in many solar dynamo models and an accurate measurement of the
flow with depth and latitude would thus be invaluable for
constraining solar dynamo models. There have been numerous
attempts to obtain estimates using a variety of techniques, including
time-distance \citep[in the following Z12]{Giles00,Zhaoetal12},
ring diagrams \citep{SchouBogart98,Haberetal02},
normal modes \citep[in the following W12]{Wetal12},
and supergranulation studies \citep{Hathaway2011}.
While these studies have given reasonable numbers
near the surface, they have suffered from large and unexplained
systematic errors, preventing us from obtaining reliable numbers
throughout the convection zone.
A meridional counter-cell at high latitude was first found by
\citet{Haberetal02}; subsequent work \citep{GHetal06,Zaatrietal06}
found this to be a periodic phenomena tightly correlated with the
solar inclination angle ($B_0$). \citet{Zaatrietal06}, concluding
that the counter-cells were likely spurious, applied a correction
to remove them. \citet{BraunBirch08} found that North--South
travel times differed depending on the heliocentric longitude
at which the measurement was performed. Most recently, Z12 used
data from the {\it Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager\/} (HMI) to measure
East--West travel time shifts along the equator and North--South
travel time shifts along the central meridian in four different
observables: continuum intensity, line core intensity, line depth
(continuum minus line core), and Doppler velocity. They found
large E--W travel time shifts along the equator, and found that they were
quite different in different observables.
Although Z12 did not provide an explanation for the source of the
error, they treated it as a heliocentric angle dependent phase
or time shift. Using this assumption, they used the E--W travel
time anomalies to correct the N--S travel time shifts --- this
brought the four different observables into good agreement,
which was encouraging. Similarly, it was noted by W12 that a radially
varying phase of the eigenfunctions coupled with the variation in the
height of formation with changing heliocentric angle might be an
explanation, but again no source of such a phase variation was
identified.
It is evident that helioseismic observations should suffer from a
phase error as a function of heliocentric angle --- as \citet{DH09}
pointed out, the light travel time for an observation at disk
center is different than for an observation near the limb by
roughly 2s. When analyzing travel time residuals, however, they
found the correct magnitude but opposite sign. They conlcuded that
the measured travel times suffer from a systematic effect with twice
the magnitude and opposite sign as the expected light travel time
effect. Similar numbers were found by
\citet{SchouWoodardAAS12}, who found that a travel time error of
2--3s at a heliocentric angle of 60$^\circ$ could explain their
results.
In general, standing acoustic waves should
have a constant phase with height. Many effects that are known to be
poorly modeled or neglected entirely do not change this. What is
required to add a phase shift
with height is an asymmetric effect, e.g. an effect which knows
whether a wave is traveling upwards or downwards. In the Sun, of
course, the modes we observe are not purely standing, and mode
damping due to, for example, non-adiabatic effects will have an effect. In this
work we are considering low frequencies, however, so we neglect this.
Here we suggest that a phase variation arises from the large asymmetry
between the upflows and downflows in the convection near the solar
surface. In particular, the broad upflows and narrow downflows give
rise to net vertical flows when horizontally averaged over length
scales much smaller than the acoustic modes. As was shown by \citet{GH2010}
in the context of meridional flows,
a flow introduces a phase shift in acoustic modes --- one would
expect the vertical convective flows in the Sun to introduce a phase
shift with height in the solar atmosphere.
In the following discussion, we extract complex eigenfunctions from
a detailed numerical simulation of convection to compute the phase
delay as a function of height. We attempt to explain this phase shift
as being due to the spatially averaged vertical flows by computing
phases shifts to theoretical eigenfunctions with an imposed vertical
flow and comparing these to the numerical eigenfunctions from the
simulation. We use the phase shifts from the simulation data to
predict systematic effects in travel-time measurements as a function
of distance from disk center, and compare these effects to the
observed discrepancies in solar data. Finally, we discuss some of the
shortcomings of our models, how they might be improved, and discuss
other observable consequences.
\begin{figure}
\plotone{f1.eps}
\caption{Mach number as a function of depth from a model by
\citet{Steinetal09}.
The area average of the flow divided by the area average
of the sound speed is used.
To exclude the buffer zone used in the model the outer 5 grid points
were excluded. The Mach number below 1Mm is negligible.
\label{mach96}}
\end{figure}
\section{Models}
We use a non-magnetic simulation of solar convection
\citep{Steinetal09}.\footnote[1]{The model can be found at
http://sha.stanford.edu/stein\_sim/ }
Convection in the outer layers of the solar envelope and atmosphere are
simulated in a small Cartesian box. We show
the horizontally averaged vertical Mach number in Figure \ref{mach96}.
In this work we assume that the modes `see' only this horizontal
average. For low degree modes, this is likely to be an adequate
approximation for our purposes.
\subsection{Simulation Results}
\label{sec:simresults}
The phase shifts of the eigenfunctions can be estimated by
extracting them from a convection simulation, as previously done
\citep{SteinNordlund2001}, but this time including the imaginary component.
This is easily done by
horizontally averaging the vertical velocity (to isolate radial modes)
from such a simulation and taking a temporal Fourier transform at each depth.
The phase shifts can be converted to time delays by dividing by
the angular frequency $\omega$.
Results of such an analysis
are shown in Figure \ref{plotnum1} for the two lowest frequency modes
(those at higher $n$ are less well defined).
\begin{figure}
\plotone{f2.eps}
\caption{Time delay as a function of depth from the simulation.
Solid line is for lowest $n$ at 1142$\mu$Hz, dashed for the second lowest $n$
at 1761$\mu$Hz.
\label{plotnum1}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Explaining the Simulation Results: Theoretical Eigenfunctions}
What is the cause of the phase shift we see in the standing waves in the
simulation box? To get a crude estimate of the effect of the vertical flows,
we start by considering the wind-in-a-pipe model of \citet{GH2010}, Section 3.
Manipulating their equations and extending their Equation (9) to allow all variables
to depend on position shows that the time shift introduced by a flow is given
by
\begin{equation}
\Delta \tau (x) = \int_{x1}^{x2} \frac{U(x)}{c(x)^2} dx = \int_{x1}^{x2} \frac{M(x)}{c(x)}dx,
\label{pipe}
\end{equation}
where $x$ is the distance from the end of the pipe. The results of this
calculation are shown in Figure \ref{eigencalc}. It will be noted that, while
some features of the numerical eigenfunctions are qualitatively reproduced
(i.e. a negative slope in the atmosphere and a steeper positive slope just
below the photosphere), there is a quantitative disagreement of more than an
order of magnitude. This is not surprising, however, as this toy model
assumes that the background model varies slowly compared to the wavelength,
and that is manifestly not the case here.
A somewhat more sophisticated approach is to compute the oscillation
eigenfunctions for a stellar envelope with a specified vertical flow
$U(r)$. To do this, we perturb the
equations of continuity, motion, and energy in the usual way
\citep[following, e.g., ][]{Unnobook}, but with the added velocity
term in the base equations. For simplicity, we consider only radial
modes in this work, but the generalization to non-radial modes is straightforward.
When a vertical flow is present, the solutions become complex, and we can
compute a phase delay as a function of height.
By including only a horizontally averaged vertical flow, we are of course
involving a certain physical inconsistency --- that is, a horizontally
invariant vertical flow is not consistent with a one dimensional background model,
which requires a zero net mass flux. Because we are computing eigenfunctions
in the linear perturbative regime, this is not necessarily an unreasonable
inconsistency to accept, but it does require that we employ certain
assumptions. As noted above, we assume here that the modes `see' the
horizontal spatial average of the convective flows. One consequence of
this assumption is that we assume that variations on convective length
scales (horizontally) do not affect the acoustic modes. For radial modes
this is reasonable. It also also assumes that the correlations between
flows and thermodynamic quantities --- say, density --- do not have an
effect on the phases of these modes.
\begin{figure}
\plotone{f3.eps}
\caption{Predicted effect of vertical velocity on mode eigenfunctions. The
dotted line shows the result of integrating Equation \ref{pipe}, multiplied
by a factor of 10 to that it can be seen on this scale. The solid and dashed
lines show the predictions from a more detailed calculation, at 1142 $\mu$Hz
and 1761 $\mu$Hz, respectively.
\label{eigencalc}}
\end{figure}
Using the horizontally averaged thermodynamic quantities and vertical
flow from the simulation box, we integrate the oscillation equations for
radial modes with frequencies of 1142$\mu$Hz, and 1761$\mu$Hz, which may
be directly compared with the eigenfunction phases shifts shown in Figure
\ref{plotnum1}. The calculated eigenfunction phase
shifts are shown in Figure \ref{eigencalc}. As can be seen, there is
a general qualitative agreement between the two sets of phase delays.
Most prominently, we see a strong positive phase shift just below the
photosphere, though we calculate a somewhat smaller shift, and also
find the peak to be much broader below the surface. In the atmosphere
itself we find a fairly constant phase, or a slight phase lag with
height. This is not entirely in agreement with the numerical eigenfunctions,
but there is some uncertainty in the numerical eigenfunctions due to
noise. We consider
the agreement to be sufficiently good to conclude that the phase shifts
we observe in the convection simulations are due to the vertical
convective flows.
\subsection{Effects on observations}
The HMI instrument measures, among other things, continuum intensity,
line core intensity, and line-of-sight velocity. These observables are
produced at a range of heights in the solar atmosphere \citep{Flecketal11},
and can be represented as the convolution of some
contribution function of height and the actual variation of the quantity
in the solar atmosphere. A contribution function for the HMI line core
intensity measurements can be found in \citet[][Figure 2]{Flecketal11};
the other observables have contribution functions that peak at different
heights. The contribution function can be approximated by a Gaussian with
a width of 250km. We will use this in the work that follows. A detailed
study of the contribution function of the various HMI observables as a
function of viewing angle is far beyond the scope of this letter.
To relate the change with height to the change with viewing angle
we need to determine the relationship between these two quantities. Assuming
that the atmosphere is isothermal and that the height of formation corresponds
to the place where a certain column density of matter has been traversed from
infinity, it can easily be shown that the change in height with angle is
given by $\Delta h = - H \log(\cos(\theta))$, where $H\approx$120 km
is the density scale height and $\theta$ is the angle between vertical
and the line of sight. At $\theta=60^\circ$ this corresponds to about 80km.
In Figure \ref{phaseshift} we show the time delays integrated over
a Gaussian contribution function as a function of viewing angle for
various disk-center formation heights. We also show the derivatives
with respect to angular distance from disk center of the time delays.
These derivatives give the travel time differences one would measure in
the limit of infinitely small apperture size, and can provide a good
approximation for the apperture sizes used in Z12. For direct comparison
with Z12, the values of our derivatives must be multiplied by the
apperture size used in the measurement.
\begin{figure}
\plotone{f4.eps}
\caption{Phase shifts as a function of viewing angle for different disk
center formation heights, integrated over a Gaussian contribution function.
The width of the Gaussian is 250km, chosen to match the contribution
function from \citet{Flecketal11}. The top panel shows the phases at
different viewing angles; the bottom panel shows the derivative of the
phases with viewing angle.
\label{phaseshift}}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
We have explored the effects of vertical convective flows on solar acoustic
modes. Can they explain the systematics that have been observed in solar data,
for example the effect found in Z12? In that work,
the authors showed East-West travel time differences across the the solar
equator for different HMI observables (line-of-sight velocity, continuum
intensity, line core intensity, and line depth). They found that all
observables exhibited systematic effects along the equator that they
believed to be spurious, but that each different observables had different
signatures. Comparing their Figure 2 with the bottom panel of
our Figure \ref{phaseshift}, we
note some striking similarities. First, the continuum shows the largest
anomaly --- as does the 0km height measurement we predict, and with the
same sign (negative). The Doppler signal, with a peak in the contribution
function at approximately 150km, shows a much smaller anomaly but still
the same sign. We predict the same thing (note that our 150km signal changes
sign, but only above 60$^\circ$ from disk center, which is further than
the Z12 results go. Finally the line core intensity, with the highest
formation height (250km), shows an anomaly with the opposite sign, and this is
matched by our results. Furthermore, the Z12 anomalies show turnovers
as the distance from disk center gets large, and we show the same.
The quantitative agreement is not as promising, however. In particular,
the magnitude of the effect we predict,
by multiplying the derivative of the phase shifts by the aperture
size used in the measurements, is too small --- at most a few
seconds, as opposed to the more than 10 seconds Z12 find in continuum
intensity. Furthermore, while we do predict the turnover observed, we
do not accurately predict where this should happen.
Several approximations may be identified, some of which are
easily amenable to improvement and others not.
First of all the use of the area weighted vertical velocity is
unlikely to be correct. In reality the propagation of waves in
a medium with small scale ($\ll$ wavelength) variations is a
complicated issue and the velocities would likely
have to be weighted in some other way. In particular, variations
in different quantities (significantly density and velocity)
are correlated, which will need to be taken into account.
Another problem is that the granulation is not static on the
timescale of the oscillations and that there are likely to
be interactions between the two. This should be well captured
by the simulations, but is probably difficult to model accurately --- at
least for the present authors.
Finally we have ignored complex issues of radiative transfer.
In approximating the contribution function as a Gaussian, we have
simplified the problem but done violence to the actual physics. For
the present purposes we consider it sufficient, but the exact shape
of the actual contribution functions (which are different both for
different observables and for the same observable at different viewing
angles) will have significant quantitative effects. It is not likely,
however, that the qualitative results would be affected. At least
this problem is well understood and has been addressed in detail for
other purposes.
In addition to the phase shift with observing angle, there are
other possible observational consequences.
Perhaps most obviously there will be a phase shift between
different observables, such as continuum intensity and Doppler
shift, which might be misinterpreted as a propagation or non-adiabaticity
effect.
Another effect is that even for the same observable there should be a
phase difference between observation heights. This includes, e.g.,
Doppler shifts derived from different parts of the spectral line and
even observations in the middle of granulation versus intergranular
lanes.
In addition to the observational effects, the fact that eigenfunctions
can be determined with significant accuracy from numerical
simulations presents many opportunities, in particular ones
involving the ability to determine if the depth variation of
both the real and imaginary parts match models.
Potentially this could be used to test models of the
interaction of waves with granulation and non-adiabatic effects,
hopefully leading to a better understanding of the physics behind
such things as the surface terms currently being applied in an ad hoc
way in structure inversions.
\section{Conclusion}
We have shown that the effect of the vertical flows from convection in the
outer solar convection zone and atmosphere do affect the quantities we
observe in helioseismology. We have further shown that the systematic
errors that have been observed can be qualitatively explained by this
effect. We conclude that the ad hoc correction applied by Z12 is likely
justified.
A full quantitative prediction of the effects of the vertical flows
requires a more sophisticated effort than that employed in this work.
In particular, the modeling of the structure of the atmosphere must be
very accurate and a proper treatment of the actual measurements we take
must be done. This work, while non-trivial, is certainly feasible, and
would be useful in addressing a number of different outstanding
problems in helioseismology.
\acknowledgments
We are grateful to Bob Stein for help with the simulations
and to Regner Trampedach, Douglas Gough, Phil Scherrer, and Thomas Straus for
useful discussions. The present work was supported, in part, by NASA contracts
NAS5-02139 and NNH09CF93C. The simulations used in this work were performed
by Robert F. Stein, Ake Nordlund, Dali Georgobiani and David Benson. Their work was
supported by NASA grants NNG04GB92G and NAG 512450, NSF grants AST-0205500
and AST-0605738, and by grants from the Danish Center for Scientific Computing.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $\mathbb{T}=\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$. A subset $X \subset \mathbb{T}$ is called $\epsilon$-\textit{dense} in $\mathbb{T}$ if it intersects every interval of length $2\epsilon$ in $\mathbb{T}$.
A \textit{dilation} of $X$ is a set of the form $nX=\left\lbrace nx :x \in X \right\rbrace \subset \mathbb{T}$. The following theorem of Glasner \cite{MR531259} is the basis for our investigation.
\newtheorem{glasner}{Theorem}
\renewcommand*{\theglasner}{\Roman{glasner}}
\begin{glasner}[Glasner] \label{Glasner}
Let $X$ be an infinite subset of $\mathbb{T}$ and $\epsilon>0$, then there exists a positive integer $n$ such that the dilation $nX$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}$.
\end{glasner}
Theorem \ref{Glasner} can be made effective in the sense that every sufficiently large subset $X$ has an $\epsilon$-dense dilation of the form $nX$ for some positive integer $n$, and `sufficiently large' can be quantified. The first result in this direction was obtained by Berend and Peres in \cite{MR1200973}.
Given $\epsilon>0$, let $k(\epsilon)$ be the minimal integer $k$ such that for any set $X\subset \mathbb{T}$ of cardinality at least $k$, some dilation $n X$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}$. Berend and Peres showed that
\begin{equation} \label{glasnerEff0}
c/\epsilon^{2}\leq k(\epsilon)\leq (c_{1}/\epsilon)^{c_{2}/\epsilon}
\end{equation}
where $c,c_{1},c_{2}$ are absolute constants.
The question of determining the correct order of magnitude of $k(\epsilon)$ was further studied in depth by Alon and Peres \cite{MR1143662}, who gave the bound
\begin{equation} \label{glasnerEff}
k(\epsilon) \ll_{\delta} \left( \frac{1}{\epsilon} \right)^{2+\delta}
\end{equation}
for any $\delta>0$. This is almost best possible in view of (\ref{glasnerEff0}). Actually, they gave a more precise bound
\begin{equation} \label{glasnerEff2}
k(\epsilon) \ll \left(\dfrac{1}{\epsilon}\right)^{2+\frac{3}{\log\log (1/\epsilon)}}.
\end{equation}
In \cite{MR1143662}, Alon and Peres provided two different approaches to this problem. On the one hand, the probabilistic approach gives more information about the dilation, such as its discrepancy. On the other hand, the second approach, using harmonic analysis, is particular suited when one is interested
in dilating the set $X$ by a sequence of arithmetic nature, such as the primes or the squares. They proved
\newtheorem{alonPeres6.3}[glasner]{Theorem}
\begin{alonPeres6.3}[Alon-Peres] \label{alonPeres}
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item \label{ap1} For any $\delta>0$, every set $X$ in $\mathbb{T}$ of cardinality
\begin{equation*}
k \gg_{\delta} \dfrac{1}{\epsilon^{2+\delta}},
\end{equation*}
has an $\epsilon$-dense dilation $pX$ with $p$ prime.
\item \label{ap2} Let $f$ be a polynomial of degree $L>1$ with integer coefficients and let $\delta>0$. Then any set $X$ in $\mathbb{T}$ of cardinality
\begin{equation*}
k \gg_{\delta, f} \left( \dfrac{1}{\epsilon} \right)^{2L+\delta},
\end{equation*}
has an $\epsilon$-dense dilation of the form $f(n)X$, for some $n\in\mathbb{Z}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{alonPeres6.3}
It is shown in \cite{MR1452815} that in part (ii) of the above theorem there is an $\epsilon$-dense dilation of the form $f(p)X$ where $p$ is a prime number.
In this paper we investigate high dimensional analogues of Glasner's theorem and the above results of Alon and Peres using Alon-Peres' harmonic analysis approach. One problem that comes to mind is that of determining the natural analogue of ``dilating by $n$'' in the one-dimensional case. Any continuous endomorphism of $\mathbb{T}$ is represented this way, so we may regard the dilation as the action by a continuous endomorphism. When considering higher dimensional generalizations of the above theorems we need not restrict ourselves from maps of a torus into itself. We will instead consider maps between tori of possibly different dimension. A continuous homomorphism between $\mathbb{T}^N$ and $\mathbb{T}^L$ is represented by left multiplication of an $L\times N$ matrix with entries in $\mathbb{Z}$. This will be our analogue of dilation. We say that a subset of $\mathbb{T}^L$ is $\epsilon$-\textit{dense} in $\mathbb{T}^L$ if it intersects any box of side length $2\epsilon$.
Our first theorem is a high dimensional analogue of Glasner's theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{HDGlasner}
For any $\epsilon>0$ and any infinite subset $X\subset \mathbb{T}^N$ there exists a continuous homomorphism $T:\mathbb{T}^N\rightarrow\mathbb{T}^L$ such that $TX$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}^L$.
\end{theorem}
The proof of this result is similar to the proof of (\ref{glasnerEff}). Our main investigation, however, is an analogue of the fact that if $X \subset \mathbb{T}$ is infinite, then there is a dilation of the form $f(n)X$ that is $\epsilon$-dense, where $f(x)$ is a non-constant polynomial with integral coefficients. Let us introduce the set-up to this problem and lay out some of the complications that arise when moving to high dimensions. In this paper, a \textit{subtorus} of $\mathbb{T}^N$ is defined to be a non-trivial closed and connected Lie subgroup.
Let $\mathbf{A}(x)\in\mathrm{M}_{L\times N}(\mathbb{Z}[x])$ be non-constant and let $D$ be the positive integer representing the largest of the degrees of the entries of $\mathbf{A}(x)$. Then there are $A_{0},...,A_{D}\in\mathrm{M}_{L\times N}(\mathbb{Z})$ such that
\[
\mathbf{A}(x)=A_{0}+x A_{1}+\cdots +x^{D}A_{D}=A_{0}+\mathbf{A}_{\ast}(x)
\]
where $\mathbf{A}_{\ast}(x)$ is the \textit{non-constant part} of $\mathbf{A}(x)$. We wish to consider dilations of subsets $X\subset \mathbb{T}^N$ of the form $\mathbf{A}(n)X$.
Simple examples show that, unlike Theorem \ref{HDGlasner}, there are configurations of $\mathbf{A}(x)$ and $X$ for which $\mathbf{A}(n)X$ is never $\epsilon$-dense in the full torus. Take, for instance,
$\mathbf{A}(n)=\begin{pmatrix}
n & 0\\
0 & n
\end{pmatrix}$
and $X$ to live in a proper subtorus, then $A(n)X$ is also in the same subtorus, for every $n$. Furthermore, if we take $X$ to be in a translate of a subtorus, then $A(n)X$ is also in a translate of a subtorus (where the translate depends of $n$). So the best one can hope for in this situation is to achieve an $\epsilon$-dense dilation in a \textit{translate of a subtorus}. Before stating our results, we give some examples to show that even this restriction is not always achieved.
\begin{example} \label{ex1}
If $\mathbf{A}(n)=\begin{pmatrix}
n & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$ and $X=\{(0,x): |x| \leq 1/4 \}$, then there is no value of $n$ such that $A(n)X$ is $1/4$-dense in a translate of a subtorus. Basically, this is because the matrix $\mathbf{A}_{\ast}$ is degenerate in a sense so that $\mathbf{A}(n)X$ doesn't ``move $X$ around.''
\end{example}
\begin{example} \label{ex2}
If $\mathbf{A}(n)=\begin{pmatrix}
n & 0\\
0 & n+1
\end{pmatrix}$ and $X=\{(1/j, 1/j): j=1,2,\ldots \}$, then clearly $\mathbf{A}(n)X$ is not $1/4$-dense in any translate of the diagonal. On the other hand, one can show that for any $n$, for any subtorus $\mathcal{T}$ of $\mathbb{T}^2$ that is different from the diagonal, $\mathbf{A}(n)X$ is not $\epsilon$-dense in any translate of $\mathcal{T}$ (since the set of dot products of elements of $\mathbf{A}(n)X$ with $(-1 \quad 1)$ has only one accumulation point). The reason of such a failure can be attributed to the lack of a compromise between the constant part and the non-constant part of $\mathbf{A}$.
\end{example}
Our main result says that the only obstructions to $\epsilon$-dense dilations are the ones described in Examples \ref{ex1} and \ref{ex2}.
\begin{theorem}\label{hoangMike}
Let $\mathbf{A}(x)\in\mathrm{M}_{L\times N}(\mathbb{Z}[x])$. The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{epdense} For any infinite subset $X\subset\mathbb{T}^N$ there exists a subtorus $\mathcal{T}=\mathcal{T}(X,\mathbf{A})$ of $\mathbb{T}^L$ such that for any $\epsilon>0$ there exists an integer $n$ such that $\mathbf{A}(n)X=\left\lbrace \mathbf{A}(n)\mathbf{x}: \mathbf{x}\in X \right\rbrace$ is
$\epsilon$-dense in a translate of $\mathcal{T}$.
\item \label{cond}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item \label{cond1} The columns of $\mathbf{A}_{\ast}(x)$ are $\mathbb{Q}$-linearly independent, and
\item \label{cond2} If there are $\mathbf{v}\in\mathbb{Q}^{L}$ and $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{Q}^{N}$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{v}\cdot A_{d}\mathbf{w}=0 \;\;\;\;\text{ for each }\;d=1,...,D,
\end{equation}
then $\mathbf{v}\cdot A_{0}\mathbf{w}=0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remarks}
\noindent \begin{itemize}
\item Theorem \ref{hoangMike} shows one how to construct matrices $\mathbf{A}(n)$ such that the conclusion (\ref{epdense}) holds. The condition (\ref{cond1}) tells us how to choose the non-constant part $\mathbf{A}_{\ast}(n)$, and the condition (\ref{cond2}) tells us that the constant part $A_0$ has to behave accordingly.
\item In the case $N=L=1$, (\ref{cond}) is automatically satisfied if $\mathbf{A}$ is not constant, which explains why in Theorem \ref{alonPeres} (\ref{ap2}) we can take $f$ to be any non-constant polynomial.
\item If we replace $\mathbb{Q}$ with $\mathbb{C}$ in (\ref{cond2}), then by Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, it would imply that $A_0$ is a linear combination of $A_1, \ldots, A_D$. It would be interesting to construct examples of $\mathbf{A}$ satisfying (\ref{cond2}) without $A_0$ being a linear combination of $A_1, \ldots, A_D$.
\end{itemize}
\end{remarks}
We also prove an effective form of this result. Define $k(\epsilon;L,N,\mathbf{A})$ to be the largest integer $k$ such that there exist $k$ distinct points $X=\{\mathbf{x}_{1},...,\mathbf{x}_{k}\}\subset\mathbb{T}^N$ such that $\mathbf{A}(n)X=\left\lbrace \mathbf{A}(n)\mathbf{x}_{1},...,\mathbf{A}(n)\mathbf{x}_{k} \right\rbrace$ is not $\epsilon$-dense in any translate of any subtorus for any $n=1,2,3,...$.
\begin{theorem}\label{polynomialEffective}
Let $\mathbf{A}(x)$ be of degree at most $D$ and satisfy (\ref{cond1}) and (\ref{cond2}) from Theorem \ref{hoangMike}. Then there are constants $c_{1}(N,L,D)$ and $c_{2}(N,L,D)$ such that
\begin{equation}
k(\epsilon;L,N,\mathbf{A})\ll_{N,L,D} \|\mathbf{A}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}^{c_{1}(N,L,D)}\left( \dfrac{1}{\epsilon} \right)^{c_{2}(N,L,D)}.
\end{equation}
where $\|\mathbf{A}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}$ is the max of the heights\footnote{\textup{Recall that the height of a polynomial is the maximum of the absolute values of its coefficients.}} of the entries of $\mathbf{A}_{\ast}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Theorem \ref{hoangMike} would be a mere consequence of Theorem \ref{polynomialEffective}, if not for the fact that the subtorus $\mathcal{T}$ is independent of $\epsilon$ in the conclusion of Theorem \ref{hoangMike}.
\end{remark}
The exponents $c_1$ and $c_2$ can be given explicitly. We do not try to find the best possible exponents, since these are not known even in the case $N=L=1$, though our values can certainly be improved. Finally, we remark that it is straightforward to prove a version of Theorem \ref{polynomialEffective} in the spirit of \cite{MR1452815}, with bounds of the same quality, for dilations of the form $\mathbf{A}(p)X$ where $p$ is prime. Indeed, the proof would proceed exactly the same way, albeit with an appropriate modification of Lemma \ref{hua}. We leave the details to the interested reader.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{prelim} we gather some useful facts that we need in our proofs, including Alon-Peres' machinery. In Section \ref{infinite} we prove Theorem \ref{hoangMike}, and in Section \ref{finite} we prove Theorem \ref{polynomialEffective}. In Section \ref{glasnerSection} we prove (a variant of) a quantitative version of Theorem \ref{HDGlasner}. Finally, in Section \ref{applications} we discuss some applications of our results.\\
\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgements.} We would like to thank Professor Noga Alon for a discussion regarding Proposition \ref{count} and Professor Jeffrey Vaaler for helpful comments during our investigation and during the preparation of this paper.
\section{Notation and preliminaries} \label{prelim}
\subsection{Notation} Throughout this paper, we will use Vinogradov's symbols $\ll$ and $\gg$. For two quantities $A,B$, we write $A \ll B$, or $B \gg A$ if there is a positive constant $c$ such that $|A|\leq cB$. If the constant $c$ depends on another quantity $t$, then we indicate this dependence as $A \ll_{t} B$. The numbers $N,L,D$ are fixed throughout this paper, so dependence on these quantities is implicitly understood.
Given a vector $\mathbf{v}$, we denote by $\| \mathbf{v} \|_{\infty}$ its usual sup norm. Given a matrix $A$, let us denote by $\| A \|_{\infty}$ the maximal of the absolute values of its entries. Finally, for a matrix $\mathbf{A}(x)=A_{0}+x A_{1}+\cdots +x^{D}A_{D}$ whose entries a polynomials in $x$, we define $\| \mathbf{A} \|_{\infty}=\max \{ \|A_{d} \|_{\infty}: d=0,1, \ldots, D \}$. While we use the same symbol for slightly different objects, the use should be clear from the context.
For $x \in \mathbb{R}$, we denote by $\| x \|$ the distance from $x$ to the nearest integer. For $\mathbf{x}=(x_1, \ldots, x_{\ell}) \in \mathbb{R}^{\ell}$, let $\| \mathbf{x} \| = \max_{i=1, \ldots, \ell} \|x_i\|$. In other words, $\| \mathbf{x} \|$ denotes the distance from $\mathbf{x}$ to the nearest integer lattice point under $\|\cdot \|_{\infty}$.
Throughout the paper, we always identify a point in a torus $\mathbb{T}^{\ell}$ with its unique representative in $[0,1)^{\ell}$. This point of view is important, since it enables us to define subtori in terms of equations.
\subsection{Preliminaries}
Let $\left\lbrace x_{1},...,x_{k} \right\rbrace$ be a set of $k$ distinct numbers in $\mathbb{T}$. Define
\begin{equation}\label{hm}
h_{m}=\#\left\lbrace (i,j):1\leq i,j\leq k\;\text{ and }m(x_{i}-x_{j})\in\mathbb{Z} \right\rbrace
\end{equation}
and $H_{m}=h_{1}+\cdots+h_{m}$. The quantities $h_i, H_m$ certainly depend on the sequence $\left\lbrace x_{1},...,x_{k} \right\rbrace$, but we always specify the sequence we are working with. The numbers $h_{m}$ and $H_{m}$ appear in several of the arguments in \cite{MR1143662} and they will make an appearance in the proof of our main results. We will need the following simple estimate:
\begin{proposition} \label{count}
$H_{m}\leq km^{2}.$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Observe that for fixed $i$ and $m$, there are at most $m$ values of $j$ such that $m(x_i-x_j) \in \mathbb{Z}$. Thus for fixed $i$, the number of couples $(j,m)$
such that $m(x_i-x_j) \in \mathbb{Z}$ is at most $1+\cdots+M \leq M^2$. Summing this up over all $i$ gives the desired estimate.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Since we are not concerned with optimal exponents, this estimate will suffice for our purposes, but we note that it is shown in \cite{MR1143662} that the (essentially sharp) bound $H_{m}\ll_{\gamma} (mk)^{1+\gamma}$ holds for any $\gamma>0$.
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}\label{alonPeresCorollary2}
If $\mathtt{s}_{2},\mathtt{s}_{3},...$ is a sequence of positive integers such that $\mathtt{S}_{b}=\mathtt{s}_{2}+\cdots+\mathtt{s}_{b}\leq H_{b}$ and $\mathtt{S}_{b}\leq k^{2}$, then
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle\sum_{b=2}^{\infty}\mathtt{s}_{b}b^{-1/D} \ll_{D} k^{2-1/(2D)}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} We follow the proof of a similar estimate in \cite{MR1143662}. For $b\geq \sqrt{k}$ use the bound $\mathtt{S}_{b}\leq k^{2}$ and if $b>\sqrt{k}$ use $\mathtt{S}_{b}\leq H_{b}\ll kb^{2}$ so we have by summation by parts
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{b=2}^{\infty}\mathtt{S}_{b}\Big( b^{-1/D}-(b+1)^{-1/D} \Big)
\ll
k^{2}k^{-1/(2D)}+k\displaystyle\sum_{b=2}^{\sqrt{k}}b^{2} b^{-1/D-1}.
\]
But \[ \displaystyle\sum_{b=2}^{\sqrt{k}}b^{1-1/D}\ll_{D} k^{1-1/(2D)}. \]
\end{proof}
The following Lemma is a high dimensional analogue of an inequality used in the several of the results in \cite{MR1143662}. It may be regarded as a general principle
which connects the lack of $\epsilon$-denseness to exponential sums.
\begin{proposition}\label{mainInequality}
Let $A(1),A(2),...$ be a sequence of linear transformations taking $\mathbb{T}^N$ to $\mathbb{T}^{\ell}$ and assume $X=\left\lbrace\mathbf{x}_{1},...,\mathbf{x}_{k}\right\rbrace$ is a subset of $\mathbb{T}^N$ of cardinality $k$ such that $\mathbf{A}(n)X$ is not $\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}^{\ell}$ for any $n\in\mathbb{Z}$. Then for any $\epsilon>0$ there is an integer $0 \leq M \ll_{\ell} \epsilon^{-1}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{main}
k^{2}\ll_{\ell} \dfrac{1}{\epsilon^{\ell}}\underset{\mathbf{m}\in\mathbb{Z}^\ell}{\displaystyle\sum_{0<\|\mathbf{m}\|_{\infty}\leq M}} \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{k}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{k} \lim_{R \rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{1}{R}\displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{R} e_{\mathbf{m}}\Big(\mathbf{A}(r)(\mathbf{x}_{i}-\mathbf{x}_{j})\Big)
\end{equation}
where $e_{\mathbf{m}}(\mathbf{t})=\exp(2\pi i \mathbf{m}\cdot\mathbf{t})$.
\end{proposition}
Alon-Peres proved the one-dimensional version of Lemma \ref{mainInequality} using a classical result of Denjoy and Carleman, and obtained the same inequality with
$M \ll (1/\epsilon)\log^2 (1/ \epsilon)$. Their method can be extended in a straightforward manner to higher dimensions. As pointed out to us by Vaaler, one could as well use the machinery developed by Barton-Montgomery-Vaaler \cite{bmv} to improve this to $M \ll 1/\epsilon$. We will follow the latter approach in our proof of Proposition \ref{mainInequality} since it gives us a cleaner value for $M$, though this is inconsequential. Indeed, even in the case $N=L=1$, this improved value of $M$ does not lead to any improvement on Alon-Peres' bound (\ref{glasnerEff2}).
We first recall the following consequence of \cite[Corollary 2]{bmv}:
\begin{lemma} \label{multi-montgomery}
Let $0< \epsilon \leq 1/2$. Let $\boldsymbol{\xi}_1, \ldots, \boldsymbol{\xi}_{k} \in \mathbb{R}^{\ell}$ be such that $\| \boldsymbol{\xi}_{i} \| \geq \epsilon$ for any $i=1, \ldots, \ell$. Then we have
\[
\dfrac{k}{3} \leq \sum_{ \substack{\mathbf{m} \in \mathbb{Z}^{\ell} \\ 0<\|\mathbf{m}\|_{\infty}\leq \left[ \frac{\ell}{\epsilon} \right] } } \left| \sum_{i=1}^{k} e_{\mathbf{m}}(\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i}) \right|
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{mainInequality}] For any $r$, since $\mathbf{A}(r)X$ is not $\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}^{\ell}$, there exists $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{r} \in \mathbb{R}^{\ell}$ such that $\| \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{r} - \mathbf{A}(r) \mathbf{x}_i \| \geq \epsilon$ for any $i=1, \ldots, k$.
Let $M=\left[ \frac{\ell}{\epsilon} \right]$. By Lemma \ref{multi-montgomery}, we have
\[
\dfrac{k}{3} \leq \sum_{ \substack{\mathbf{m} \in \mathbb{Z}^{\ell} \\ 0<\|\mathbf{m}\|_{\infty}\leq M } } \left| \sum_{i=1}^{k} e_{\mathbf{m}}( \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{r} - \mathbf{A}(r) \mathbf{x}_i) \right|
\]
By Cauchy-Schwarz, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
k^2 &\ll_{\ell}& M^{\ell} \sum_{ \substack{\mathbf{m} \in \mathbb{Z}^{\ell} \\ 0<\|\mathbf{m}\|_{\infty}\leq M } } \left| \sum_{i=1}^{k} e_{\mathbf{m}}( \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{r} - \mathbf{A}(r) \mathbf{x}_i) \right|^2 \\
&\ll_{\ell}& \dfrac{1}{\epsilon^{\ell}} \sum_{ \substack{\mathbf{m} \in \mathbb{Z}^{\ell} \\ 0<\|\mathbf{m}\|_{\infty}\leq M } } \sum_{i=1}^{k} \sum_{i=1}^{k} e_{\mathbf{m}}( \mathbf{A}(r) (\mathbf{x}_i-\mathbf{x}_j))
\end{eqnarray*}
This is true for any $r$ so by taking the average of the right hand side over $1 \leq r \leq R$, we have
\[
k^{2}\ll_{\ell} \dfrac{1}{\epsilon^{\ell}}\underset{\mathbf{m}\in\mathbb{Z}^\ell}{\displaystyle\sum_{0<\|\mathbf{m}\|_{\infty}\leq M}} \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{k}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{k} \dfrac{1}{R}\displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{R} e_{\mathbf{m}}\Big(\mathbf{A}(r)(\mathbf{x}_{i}-\mathbf{x}_{j})\Big)
\]
Letting $R \rightarrow \infty$ we have the desired inequality.
\end{proof}
We also recall the following classical estimate due to Hua \cite{chen, necaev}:
\begin{lemma}[Hua] \label{hua}
Suppose $f(x)=a_{d}x^d +\cdots a_{1}x+a_{0}\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$ and $q$ is a positive integer such that $\gcd(a_{1},...,a_{d},q)=1$. Then
\[
\left| \displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{q}e^{2\pi i f(r)/q}\right| \ll_{d} q^{1-1/d} .
\]
\end{lemma}
\section{The infinite version} \label{infinite}
Of the two implications, the implication (\ref{epdense}) $\Rightarrow$ (\ref{cond}) is the more difficult so let us begin by quickly proving the implication (\ref{cond}) $\Rightarrow$ (\ref{epdense}). We will need the following lemma in the proof of the necessity of (\ref{cond2}). The assertion of the lemma is that by taking the dot product with a vector $\mathbf{v}$, an $\epsilon$-dense subset of a torus becomes an $\tilde{\epsilon}$-dense set in $\mathbb{T}$ where $\tilde{\epsilon}$ is comparable to $\epsilon$, as long as $\mathbf{v}$ is not orthogonal to the original torus.
\begin{lemma}\label{oneTorusLemma}
Let $\epsilon>0$, $\mathbf{b}\in\mathbb{R}^{L}$, $V$ a proper subspace of $\mathbb{R}^{L}$, $\mathbf{v} \in \mathbb{Z}^{L}, \mathbf{v} \not \in V^{\perp}$, and
\[ X \subset S=\left\lbrace \mathbf{b}+\mathbf{x}+\mathbb{Z}^{L}: \mathbf{x}\in V \right\rbrace\subset \mathbb{T}^L.\]
If $X$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $S$, then $\left\lbrace \mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{x}+\mathbb{Z}:\mathbf{x}\in X \right\rbrace$ is $L\|\mathbf{v}\|_{\infty}\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $t\in\mathbb{T}$. We want to find a $\mathbf{x}\in X$ such that $\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{x}$ is contained in an interval of length $2L\|\mathbf{v}\|_{\infty}\epsilon$ in $\mathbb{T}$ centered at $t$. That is we wish to show the existence of an $\mathbf{x}\in X$ such that $\|\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{x}-t\|\leq L \|\mathbf{v}\|_{\infty}\epsilon$.
Since $\mathbf{v} \not \in V^{\perp}$ we may write $t=\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{a}$ for some $\mathbf{a}\in V$. And since $X$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $S$ there exists an $\mathbf{x}\in X\cap S$ and a $\mathbf{w}\in \mathbb{Z}^{L}$ such that $\|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{a}-\mathbf{w}\|_{\infty}\leq \epsilon$. But since $\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{Z}$ we have
\[
\|\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{x}-t\|=\|\mathbf{v}\cdot(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{a}-\mathbf{w})\|\leq |\mathbf{v}\cdot(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{a}-\mathbf{w})|\leq L\|\mathbf{v}\|_{\infty}\epsilon.
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of necessity of (\ref{cond1})]
Suppose, by way of contradiction, that the columns of $\mathbf{A}_{\ast}(x)$ are not $\mathbb{Q}-$linearly independent. Then there is a nonzero $\mathbf{m}\in\mathbb{Q}^{N}$ such that
\[
\mathbf{A}_{\ast}\mathbf{m}=0.
\]
If \[X=\left\lbrace \mathbf{m}/j : j=1,2,.... \right\rbrace,\] then $\mathbf{A}(n)X=A_{0}X=\left\lbrace \mathbf{x}_j= A_{0}\mathbf{m}/j:j=1,2,.... \right\rbrace$ which is not $\epsilon$-dense in a translate of a subtorus for any sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of necessity of (\ref{cond2})]
Suppose that there are vectors $\mathbf{v}\in\mathbb{Z}^{L}$ and $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ such that
\[
\mathbf{v}\cdot A_{d}\mathbf{w}=0 \;\;\;\text{ for each }d=1,...,D
\]
but $\mathbf{v}\cdot A_{0}\mathbf{w}=t\neq0$. In particular $\mathbf{v} \neq \bzero$ and $\mathbf{w} \neq \bzero$. Let $X=\left\lbrace\mathbf{w}/j:j=1,2,... \right\rbrace \subset \mathbb{T}^{N}$. Note that $X$ is an infinite set. It then follows that
\begin{equation}\label{lineToContradict}
\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{A}(n)\mathbf{x}_{j}=t/j\searrow0 \;\;\; \text{ for each }n=1,2,...
\end{equation}
Suppose for a contradiction that there is a subtorus $S$ of $\mathbb{T}^L$ such that for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $n$ such that $\mathbf{A}(n)X$ is dense in a translate of $S$. Suppose $S$ is given by $S=\left\lbrace \mathbf{b}+\mathbf{a}+\mathbb{Z}^{L}:\mathbf{a}\in V \right\rbrace$ where $V$ is a proper subspace of $\mathbb{R}^{L}$ and $\mathbf{b}\in\mathbb{R}^{L}$. Let $\epsilon>0$ be sufficiently small and suppose there is a subset $Y\subset X \cap S$, an integer $n$ such that $\mathbf{A}(n)Y$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $S$. We have two possibilities:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\mathbf{v}\in V^{\perp}$, then $\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{A}(n) \mathbf{y}$ is a constant (namely $\mathbf{v} \cdot \mathbf{b}$) for any $\mathbf{y} \in Y$, which is not true in view of (\ref{lineToContradict}).
\item If $\mathbf{v} \not \in V^{\perp}$, then by Lemma \ref{oneTorusLemma} we have $\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{A}(n)Y$ is $L\|\mathbf{v}\|_{\infty}\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}$. Again, in view of (\ref{lineToContradict}), this is impossible if $\epsilon>0$ is sufficiently small.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
In the remainder of the paper we will say the \textit{rank} (\textit{corank}) of $\mathbf{A}(x)$ is the rank of the $\mathbb{Z}$-module generated by the rows (columns) of
$\mathbf{A}(x)$. First we describe briefly the ideas of the proof of the implication (\ref{cond}) $\Rightarrow$ (\ref{epdense}).
Observe that we can't expect $\mathbf{A}(n) X$ to be $\epsilon$-dense in the whole of $\mathbb{T}^L$ since there may be some linear dependencies between the rows of $\mathbf{A}$.
If $\mathbf{A}(n) X$ fails to be $\epsilon$-dense in the ``natural" subtorus defined by these linear dependencies for every $n$, then we use Proposition \ref{mainInequality} to conclude that
$X$ has \textit{structure}, in the sense that it has an infinite intersection with a translate of a subtorus of $\mathbb{T}^N$.
This enables us to perform induction on $N$. Let us now introduce some preparatory lemmas.
\begin{lemma}\label{inductLem}
Let $\mathbf{A}(x)\in \mathrm{M}_{L\times N}(\mathbb{Z}[x])$ be of rank $\ell$ and satisfy condition (\ref{cond2}) from Theorem \ref{hoangMike}. Then there exist matrices $T\in \mathrm{M}_{L\times\ell}(\mathbb{Q})$, $\mathbf{B}(x)\in \mathrm{M}_{\ell\times L}(\mathbb{Z}[x])$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\mathbf{A}(x)=T\mathbf{B}(x)$,
\item $\mathbf{B}_{\ast}(x)$ has full rank, and
\item There is a positive integer $q$ such that $qT$ is integral and $\|qT\|_{\infty}\ll_{\ell} \|\mathbf{A}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}^{\ell}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality we my assume the first $\ell$ rows of $\mathbf{A}_{\ast}(x)$ are $\mathbb{Q}$-linearly independent. Then there is an $L\times\ell$ matrix $T$ with entries in $\mathbb{Q}$ such that $\mathbf{A}_{\ast}=T\mathbf{B}_{\ast}$ where $\mathbf{B}_{\ast}=\mathbf{B}_{\ast}(x)\in \mathrm{M}_{\ell\times N}(\mathbb{Z}[x])$ is the block of the first $\ell$ rows of $\mathbf{A}_{\ast}(x)$. We claim that condition (b) guarantees that $A_{0}=TB_{0}$ for some $\ell\times N$ integral matrix $B_{0}$. First we show $\ker \left( T^t \right)\subset \ker\left(A_{0}^t\right)$.
Suppose $\mathbf{v}\in\ker(T^t)$. Then $\mathbf{A}^{t}_{\ast}\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{B}_{\ast}^{t}T^{t}\mathbf{v}=0$, which implies $\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{A}_{\ast}\mathbf{w}=0$ for any $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{Q^{N}}$. But by condition (b) this implies that $\mathbf{v}\cdot A_{0}\mathbf{w}=0$ for each $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{Q^{N}}$, which implies $A_{0}^{t}\mathbf{v}=0$. That is, $\mathbf{v}\in\ker(A_{0}^t)$.
Therefore there exists $B_{0}\in M_{\ell\times N}(\mathbb{Q})$ such that $A_{0}=TB_{0}$. But the uppermost $\ell\times\ell$ block of $T$ is the identity. Thus $B_{0}$ is none other than the uppermost $\ell\times N$ block of $A_{0}$, and consequently $B_0$ is integral. Upon putting $\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{B}_{\ast}+ B_0$, we have $\mathbf{B}$ is integral and $\mathbf{A}=T\mathbf{B}$.
Let $A$ be the $L\times DN$ matrix given by $A=[A_{1}\cdots A_{D}]$ and $B$ be the $\ell \times DN$ matrix given by $B=[B_{1}\cdots B_{D}]$. Since $A_{d}=TB_{d}$ for each $d=1,...,D$, we have $A=TB$. $B$ must have rank $\ell$ since $\mathbf{B}_{\ast}(x)$ does, so there is an invertible $\ell\times\ell$ minor $B^{\prime}$ of $B$. Let $A^{\prime}$ be the corresponding minor of $A$ and observe we have the equality $A^{\prime}(B^{\prime})^{-1}=T$. Let $q=\det B^{\prime} \neq 0$ and $C=q^{-1}(B^{\prime})^{-1}$ be the adjugate of $B^{\prime}$. We then have the inequality
\[
\|qT\|_{\infty}=\|A'C \|_{\infty} \ll_{\ell} \|A'\|_{\infty} \|C\|_{\infty} \ll_{\ell} \|\mathbf{A}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}^{\ell}
\]
as required. Clearly we may assume $q$ to be positive.
\end{proof}
Our crucial tool is the following consequence of Proposition
\ref{mainInequality}. We regard it as some sort of \textit{inverse result} since it tells about the structure of $X$ if dilations of $X$ fail to be $\epsilon$-dense.
In this respect our use of Proposition \ref{mainInequality} is rather different from Alon-Peres. It is perhaps no surprise that our proof of Proposition \ref{infinitePtsLemma} involves Ramsey's theorem.
\begin{proposition}\label{infinitePtsLemma}
Suppose $\epsilon>0$, $X$ is an infinite subset of $\mathbb{T}^N$, and $\mathbf{B}(x)\in M_{\ell\times N}(\mathbb{Z}[x])$ such that $\mathbf{B}_{\ast}(x)$ has full rank. If $\mathbf{B}(r)X$ is not $\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}^{\ell}$ for any $r\in\mathbb{Z}$, then there exists a point $\mathbf{y}_{0}\in X$, an integer $J$, and nonzero $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ such that $\mathbf{w}\cdot(\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{y}_{0})=J$ for infinitely many $\mathbf{y}\in X$.
\end{proposition}
Note that the last equation is an equality in $\mathbb{R}$ rather than in $\mathbb{T}$, by our identification of points in $\mathbb{T}^N$ with their representatives in $[0,1)^{N}$.
\begin{proof}
We create a complete graph whose vertex set is $X$ and whose edges $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$ are colored $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ ($0<\|\mathbf{w}\|_{\infty} \leq M\ell \|\mathbf{B}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}$) if $\mathbf{w}\cdot(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})\in\mathbb{Z}$ and\footnote{Observe we are allowing multiple colors per edge.} colored $\boldsymbol{\omega}$ otherwise. By the infinite version of Ramsey's theorem there exists an infinite complete monochromatic subgraph whose vertex set is $Y\subset X$. We now would like to show that this graph cannot be $\boldsymbol{\omega}$-colored.
Suppose, by way of contradiction, that the graph is $\boldsymbol{\omega}-$colored. For any distinct $\mathbf{x}_{1},...,\mathbf{x}_{k}$ in $Y$ and $R>0$ we have, by Proposition \ref{mainInequality}:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{main3}
k^{2}
&\ll_{\ell}& \dfrac{1}{\epsilon^{\ell}}\underset{\mathbf{m}\in\mathbb{Z}^{\ell}}{\displaystyle\sum_{0<\|\mathbf{m}\|_{\infty}\leq M}} \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{k}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{k} \lim_{R \rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{1}{R}\displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{R} e_{\mathbf{m}}\big(\mathbf{B}(r)(\mathbf{x}_{i}-\mathbf{x}_{j})\big) \nonumber \\ \nonumber
&=& \dfrac{1}{\epsilon^{\ell}}\underset{\mathbf{m}\in\mathbb{Z}^{\ell}}{\displaystyle\sum_{0<\|\mathbf{m}\|_{\infty}\leq M}} \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{k}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{k} \lim_{R \rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{1}{R}\displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{R} e_{\mathbf{m}}\left(\displaystyle\sum_{d=0}^{D}r^{d}B_{d}(\mathbf{x}_{i}-\mathbf{x}_{j})\right) \nonumber \\
&=& \dfrac{1}{\epsilon^{\ell}}\underset{\mathbf{m}\in\mathbb{Z}^{\ell}}{\displaystyle\sum_{0<\|\mathbf{m}\|_{\infty}\leq M}} \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{k}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{k} \lim_{R \rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{1}{R}\displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{R} e\left(\displaystyle\sum_{d=1}^{D}r^{d}B_{d}^{t}\mathbf{m}\cdot(\mathbf{x}_{i}-\mathbf{x}_{j})\right) \nonumber \\
&\ll_{\ell} & \dfrac{M^{\ell}}{\epsilon^{\ell}} \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{k}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{k} \lim_{R \rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{1}{R}\displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{R} e\left(\displaystyle\sum_{d=1}^{D}r^{d}B_{d}^{t}\mathbf{m} \cdot (\mathbf{x}_{i}-\mathbf{x}_{j}) \right)
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{m}$ is the lattice point which maximizes the last sum. Let $\tilde{d}$ be the largest index such that $B_{\tilde{d}}^{t}\mathbf{m}\neq \bzero$. Then $\tilde{d}>0$ because $\mathbf{B}^{t}_{\ast}(x)$ has $\mathbb{Q}$-linearly independent columns, which implies $B_{d}^{t}\mathbf{m}$ is not zero for some $d=1,\ldots,D$. For any $i \neq j$, since $(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{x}_j)$ is $\boldsymbol{\omega}$-colored under our coloring and $\| B_{\tilde{d}}^{t}\mathbf{m} \| \leq M\ell \|\mathbf{B}_{\ast} \|_{\infty}$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{distinct}
B_{\tilde{d}}^{t}\mathbf{m} \cdot(\mathbf{x}_{i}-\mathbf{x}_{j}) \neq 0
\end{equation}
Therefore, if $i \neq j$, the polynomial
\[
\Phi_{ij}(r)=\mathbf{m} \cdot \mathbf{B}_{\ast}(r) (\mathbf{x}_{i}- \mathbf{x}_{j}) = \displaystyle\sum_{d=1}^{D} r^{d} B_{d}^{t} \mathbf{m} \cdot (\mathbf{x}_{i}-\mathbf{x}_{j})
\]
has degree $\tilde{d}$. By Weyl's equidistribution theorem and Hua's bound (Lemma \ref{hua}), we have:
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\dfrac{1}{R}\displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{R}e\left( \Phi_{ij}(r) \right) =
\begin{cases}
0, & \textup{if }\Phi_{ij} \textup{ has at least one irrational coefficient} \\
\ll_{D} b^{-1/\tilde{d}} \leq b^{-1/D}, & \textup{if } \Phi_{ij}(x)\in\mathbb{Q}[x],
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where in the second case $b=b(i,j)$ is the least positive integer such that $b(\mathbf{m}\cdot \mathbf{B}_{\ast}(x)(\mathbf{x}_{i}-\mathbf{x}_{j}))\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$.
For each $b>1$ we define
\begin{eqnarray*}
S_{b}=\Big\lbrace (i,j)
&:& 1\leq i,j\leq k,\;\; b \text{ is the smallest positive integer} \\ && \text{such that}\;\; b(\mathbf{m}\cdot \mathbf{B}_{\ast}(x)(\mathbf{x}_{i}-\mathbf{x}_{j}))\in\mathbb{Z}[x]\Big\rbrace.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $\mathtt{s}_{b}=\# S_{b}$ and $\mathtt{S}_{b}=\mathtt{s}_{2}+\cdots+\mathtt{s}_{b}$. Let $x_{i}=B_{\tilde{d}}^{t}\mathbf{m}\cdot\mathbf{x}_{i}$ for any $i=1, \ldots, k$, then the $x_i$ are distinct in $\mathbb{T}$ in view of (\ref{distinct}). We notice that if $(i,j)\in S_{b}$
then $b(x_i - x_j) \in \mathbb{Z}$. Consequently, $\mathtt{S}_{b}\leq H_{b}$ where $H_{b}=h_{1}+\cdots+h_{b}$ and $h_{m}$ is the quantity defined by (\ref{hm}) for the sequence $x_1, \ldots, x_k$. We also have the trivial bound $\mathtt{S}_{b} \leq k^2$ for any $b$, since for each couple $(i,j)$ we associate at most one $b$. Therefore
\begin{eqnarray*}
k^{2} \ll_{l,D} \dfrac{M^{\ell}}{\epsilon^{\ell}}\left( k + \displaystyle\sum_{b=2}^{\infty} \mathtt{s}_{b}b^{-1/D} \right)
\end{eqnarray*}
Combining this with Corollary \ref{alonPeresCorollary2} we have
\begin{equation}
k^{2} \ll_{D,\epsilon,\ell} k^{2-1/(2D)}
\end{equation}
which is a contradiction.
Therefore there is an infinite complete monochromatic subgraph whose color is $\mathbf{w}$ for some $\mathbf{w}\in \mathbb{Z}^N$ and $0<\|\mathbf{w}\|_{\infty}\leq M\ell \|B_{\ast} \|_{\infty}$. More specifically we find that there is an infinite subset $Y\subset X$ such that $\mathbf{w}\cdot(\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{y}')\in\mathbb{Z}$ for any $\mathbf{y},\mathbf{y}' \in Y$. Now fix an element $\mathbf{y}_{0}\in Y$. Upon noticing that the map $\mathbf{y}\mapsto \mathbf{w}\cdot(\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{y}_{0})$ has a finite image (since $\mathbf{y}, \mathbf{y}_0 \in [0,1)^{N}$) and $Y$ is infinite, there exists an integer $J$ such that $\mathbf{w}\cdot(\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{y}_{0})=J$ for infinitely many $\mathbf{y}\in Y$.
\end{proof}
We are now in a position to finish the proof of Theorem \ref{hoangMike}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of sufficiency of (\ref{cond1}) and (\ref{cond2})]
First we will provide a proof when $N=1$ and then proceed by induction on $N$.\newline
Let $X\subset \mathbb{T}$ be an infinite subset, $0<\ell\leq L$ be the rank of $\mathbf{A}(x)$, and $\mathbf{B}(x)$ and $T$ be given by Lemma \ref{inductLem}.
We claim that for any $\epsilon>0$ there is an integer $n$ such that $\mathbf{B}(n)X$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}^{\ell}$.
Assume, by way of contradiction, that there exists an $\epsilon_{0}>0$ such that $\mathbf{B}(n)X$ is not $\epsilon_{0}$-dense in $\mathbb{T}^{\ell}$ for any $n\in\mathbb{Z}$.
By Proposition \ref{infinitePtsLemma} there exists an integer $m \neq 0$, a point $y_{0}\in X$, an integer $J$ such that $m(y-y_{0})=J$ for infinitely many $y\in X$.
This is clearly impossible (recall that this is an equality in $\mathbb{R}$). Therefore for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists an integer $n$ such that $\mathbf{B}(n)X$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}^{\ell}$. Let $\mathcal{T}=\mathrm{Im}(T)/\mathbb{Z}^{L}$ where $\mathrm{Im}(T) \subset \mathbb{R}^{L}$ is the image of $T$. Let $q$ be given by Lemma \ref{inductLem}.
Then $qT$ is integral and well-defined when considered as a map from $\mathbb{T}^{\ell}$ to $\mathcal{T}$. Letting $X/q=\left\lbrace \mathbf{x}/q: \mathbf{x}\in[0,1)^{N} \text{ and }\mathbf{x} \in X\right\rbrace$ we find that $\mathbf{A}(n)X=(qT)\mathbf{B}(n)(X/q)$. Therefore for any $\epsilon>0$ there exists an integer $n$ such that $\mathbf{A}(n)X$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $\mathcal{T}$.
Now we assume the theorem holds for each integer up to $N-1$. Again, by Lemma \ref{inductLem} there exist an $L\times \ell$ matrix $T$ with entries in $\mathbb{Q}$, an $\ell\times N$ matrix $\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{B}(x)$ with entries in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$, a positive integer such that
\[
\mathbf{A}=T\mathbf{B}
\]
and the rows of $\mathbf{B}_{\ast}$ are $\mathbb{Q}$-linearly independent. Define
\[
X/q=\left\lbrace \mathbf{x}/q: \mathbf{x}\in[0,1)^{N} \text{ and }\mathbf{x} \in X\right\rbrace.
\]
and $\mathcal{T}=\textrm{Im}(T)/\mathbb{Z}^{L}$, so that $qT$ is integral and well-defined as a map from $\mathbb{T}^{N-1}$ to $\mathcal{T}$. We have two possibilities:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item Either for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists an integer $n$ such that $\mathbf{B}(n)(X/q)$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}^{\ell}$. This implies that $\mathbf{A}(n)X = (qT) \mathbf{B}(n) (X/q) $ is $\tilde{\epsilon}$-dense in $\mathcal{T}\subset{\mathbb{T}^L}$, where $\tilde{\epsilon} \ll \epsilon \|qT\|_{\infty}$.
\item Or there exists an $\epsilon_{0}>0$ such that $\mathbf{B}(n)(X/q)$ is not $\epsilon_{0}$-dense in $\mathbb{T}^{\ell}$ for any $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ .
\end{enumerate}
If we are in the first case, then we are done. We suppose (ii), and rename $X/q$ as $X$. Proposition \ref{infinitePtsLemma} tells us that there is a nonzero $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ and an infinite subset $Y\subset X$ such that $\mathbf{y}\mapsto \mathbf{w}\cdot\mathbf{y}$ is constant on $Y$. We can assume $\mathbf{w}\cdot\mathbf{y}=0$ for each $\mathbf{y}\in Y$ since this amounts to translating $X$ by a fixed $\boldsymbol{\theta}\in\mathbb{T}^N$. Let the subtorus $\mathcal{T}$ of $\mathbb{T}^N$ be defined by $\mathcal{T}=\left\lbrace \mathbf{t}\in [0,1)^{N}: \mathbf{w}\cdot\mathbf{t}=0\right\rbrace$. Then there is an $N\times (N-1)$ matrix $H$ with full rank and integral entries such that
\begin{equation} \label{h}
\mathrm{Im}(H) /\mathbb{Z}^{N}=\mathcal{T}
\end{equation}
Since the mapping $\mathbf{t}\mapsto H\mathbf{t}+\mathbb{Z}^N\in\mathcal{T}$ is surjective, there is an infinite subset $Z\subset \mathbb{T}^{N-1}$ such that $H Z = Y$.
Let $\mathbf{C}(x)=\mathbf{A}(x)H$, then $\mathbf{C}$ is an $\ell\times (N-1)$ matrix. Let us verify that $\mathbf{C}$ satisfies conditions (\ref{cond1}) and (\ref{cond2}).
Suppose there is $\mathbf{q} \in \mathbb{Q}^{N-1}$ such that $\mathbf{C}_{\ast} \mathbf{q} = \bzero$. Then $\mathbf{A}_{\ast}(x) H \mathbf{q} = \bzero$. Since $\mathbf{A}$ satisfies (\ref{cond1}), it follows that $H \mathbf{q} = \bzero$. Since $H$ has a trivial kernel, this implies that $\mathbf{q} = \bzero$ and $\mathbf{C}$ satisfies condition (\ref{cond1}).
To see that $\mathbf{C}$ satisfies condition (\ref{cond2}), let vectors $\mathbf{v} \in \mathbb{Q}^{\ell}$ and $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{Q}^{N-1}$ be such that $\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{C}_{\ast}(x)\mathbf{w}=0$ identically. Upon setting $\tilde{\mathbf{w}}=H \mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{Q}^{N}$, we find that $\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{A}_{\ast}(x)\tilde{\mathbf{w}}=0$ is the zero polynomial. Since $\mathbf{A}(x)$ satisfies condition
(\ref{cond2}), it follows that $0=\mathbf{v}\cdot A_{0}\tilde{\mathbf{w}}=\mathbf{v}\cdot A_{0}H\mathbf{w}=\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{C}(0)\mathbf{w}$.
Let us now invoke the inductive hypothesis for $\mathbf{C}$. It follows that there is a subtorus $\mathcal{T}$ such that for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists $n$ such that $\mathbf{C}(n)Z$ is $\epsilon$-dense in a translate of $\mathcal{T}$. But $\mathbf{A}(n)Y=\mathbf{C}(n)Z$, so we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{remarks}
It may not be clear from the proof why conditions (\ref{cond1}), (\ref{cond2}) are the correct ones.
At first sight, it would seem that the only conditions we need in order to make the proof work are the weaker ones:
\begin{itemize}
\item $T \neq 0$, which is equivalent to $\mathbf{A} \neq 0$.
\item $\mathrm{Ker}(T^t) \subset \mathrm{Ker}(A_{0}^t)$, which is equivalent to $\mathrm{Ker}(\mathbf{A}_{\ast}^t) \subset \mathrm{Ker}(A_{0}^t)$.
\end{itemize}
But we want to maintain these requirements throughout our inductive process. Recall that our matrix $\mathbf{A}$ is changed after each step,
so keeping these requirements at each step ultimately leads to conditions (\ref{cond1}) and (\ref{cond2}).
\end{remarks}
\section{The finite version} \label{finite}
In order to make the proof of Theorem \ref{hoangMike} effective, we need to keep track of all the quantities involved when we move from one dimension to the next. The main obstacle in the proof of Theorem \ref{polynomialEffective} is finding an effective version of Proposition \ref{infinitePtsLemma}. One could use the finite version of Ramsey's theorem,
but currently we don't have a sensible bound for Ramsey numbers which involve more than two colors. We can get past this, by noticing that the graph we used in
Proposition \ref{infinitePtsLemma} is a very special graph. The following lemma is an effective form of Proposition \ref{infinitePtsLemma}.
\begin{proposition}\label{effectiveLemma}
Let $\mathbf{B}(x)\in\mathrm{M}_{\ell\times N}(\mathbb{Z}[x])$ have full rank and let $X=\left\lbrace \mathbf{x}_{1},...,\mathbf{x}_{k}\right\rbrace\subset \mathbb{T}^N$ be a set of $k$ distinct points. If $\mathbf{B}(n)X$ is not $\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}^{\ell}$ for any $n=1,2,...$ then there exists a subset $Y\subset X$, $\mathbf{y}_{0}\in X$, $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$, and $J\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
& & \mathbf{w}\cdot(\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{y}_{0})=J \;\;\textup{ for each }\mathbf{y}\in Y \label{y}, \\
& & \|\mathbf{w}\|_{\infty}\ll_{\ell,N} \|\mathbf{B}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}\epsilon^{-1} \label{j}, \text{ and} \\
& & \epsilon^{\ell+1}k^{1/4D} \| \mathbf{B}_{\ast} \|_{\infty}^{-1} \ll_{\ell,N,D} |Y|. \label{k}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proposition}
Note that again, (\ref{y}) is an equality in $\mathbb{R}$.
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{mainInequality} we have a constant $M \ll_{\ell} \epsilon^{-1}$ such that
\begin{equation}
k^{2}\ll_{\ell} \dfrac{1}{\epsilon^{\ell}} \underset{\mathbf{m}\in\mathbb{Z}^\ell}{\displaystyle\sum_{0<\|\mathbf{m}\|_{\infty}\leq M}} \displaystyle\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in X}\displaystyle\sum_{\mathbf{y}\in X} \lim_{R \rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{1}{R}\displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{R} e\left(\displaystyle\sum_{d=0}^{D}r^{d}B_{d}^{t}\mathbf{m}\cdot(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})\right)
\end{equation}
where $e(t)=\exp(2\pi i t)$ and $M\ll_{\ell}\epsilon^{-2}$. By an abuse of notation, let $\mathbf{m}\in\mathbb{Z}^{\ell}$ (with $0<\|\mathbf{m}\|_{\infty}\leq M$) be the lattice point which maximizes the first sum. Then
\begin{equation} \label{mainIneqEffPoly}
k^2 \ll_{\ell} \dfrac{M^{\ell}}{\epsilon^{\ell}} \displaystyle\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in X}\displaystyle\sum_{\mathbf{y}\in X} \omega(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})
\end{equation}
where $\omega(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$ is the weight given by
\begin{equation*}
\omega(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})=\left|\displaystyle\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty} \dfrac{1}{R}\displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{R} e\left(\displaystyle\sum_{d=1}^{D}r^{d}B_{d}^{t}\mathbf{m}(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})\right) \right|
\end{equation*}
Let $d$ be the largest integer such that $B_{d}^{t}\mathbf{m}\neq0$, then $d>1$ since $\mathbf{B}_{\ast}$ has full rank. We partition
$X$ into equivalence classes $R_{1},...,R_{s}$, with $|R_{i}|=c_{i}$, where $\mathbf{x} \sim \mathbf{y}$ if $B_{d}^{t}\mathbf{m}\cdot(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})\in\mathbb{Z}$.
Define
\[
\Phi_{i,j}(r)=\mathbf{m}\cdot\mathbf{B}_{\ast}(r)(\mathbf{x}_{i}-\mathbf{x}_{j}) = \displaystyle\sum_{d=1}^{D}r^{d}B_{d}^{t}\mathbf{m}(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})
\]
then $\Phi$ has degree $d$. We use Weyl's equidistribution theorem and Hua's bound to obtain
\begin{equation} \label{huabound}
\omega(\mathbf{x}_{i},\mathbf{x}_{j})\leq \begin{cases}
1 & \text{ if } \mathbf{x}\sim \mathbf{y} \\
b^{-1/d} & \text{ if }\mathbf{x}\not\sim \mathbf{y}\;\;\text{ and }\Phi_{ij}(x)\in\mathbb{Q}[x] \\
0 &\text{ if } \Phi_{ij} \text{ has at least one irrational coefficient}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where in the second case $b=b(i,j)$ is the smallest positive integer such that $b \Phi_{ij}(x) \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$.
Let $y_{1},...,y_{s}\in\mathbb{T}$ be given by $y_{i}=B_{d}^{t}\mathbf{m}\cdot \mathbf{x}_{i}$ for some $\mathbf{x}_{i}\in R_{i}$. Then by the way we define equivalence classes, $y_{1},...,y_{s}$ are distinct in $\mathbb{T}$. By substituting the bound (\ref{huabound}) into (\ref{mainIneqEffPoly}), we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
k^{2} &\ll_{\ell} &
\left(\dfrac{M}{\epsilon}\right)^{\ell} \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{s} \displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{s} \displaystyle\sum_{\mathbf{x}_{i}\in R_{i}}\displaystyle\sum_{\mathbf{x}_{j}\in R_{j}} \omega(\mathbf{x}_{i},\mathbf{x}_{j}) \\
&\leq & \left(\dfrac{M}{\epsilon}\right)^{\ell}\left\lbrace\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{s}c_{i}^{2} +\underset{i\neq j}{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{s}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{s}}\displaystyle\sum_{\mathbf{x}_{i}\in R_{i}}\displaystyle\sum_{\mathbf{x}_{j}\in R_{j}}\omega(\mathbf{x}_{i},\mathbf{x}_{j})\right\rbrace\\
&\leq &\left(\dfrac{M}{\epsilon}\right)^{\ell}\left\lbrace \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{s}c_{i}^{2}+c^{2}\displaystyle\sum_{b=2}^{\infty}\mathtt{s}_{b}b^{-1/d}\right\rbrace
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathtt{s}_{b}=\#\{ (i,j) &:& 1\leq i,j\leq s,\;\; b \text{ is the smallest positive integer} \\ & & \text{ such that } \; b\Phi_{ij}(x)\in\mathbb{Z}[x] \}
\end{eqnarray*}
and $c=\max\left\lbrace c_{1},...,c_{s}\right\rbrace$. Clearly the sequence $\mathtt{s}_b$ satisfies the conditions of Corollary \ref{alonPeresCorollary2}. Upon writing $c_{1}+\cdots+c_{s}=k$
and noticing $s \leq k$, we have
\begin{equation*}
k^{2}\ll_{D,\ell} \left(\dfrac{1}{\epsilon}\right)^{\ell}\left\lbrace kc +c^{2}s^{2-1/(2D)} \right\rbrace \ll_{D,\ell} \epsilon^{-2 \ell} c^{2}k^{2-1/(2D)}.
\end{equation*}
That is,
\begin{equation*}
\epsilon^{\ell}k^{1/4D}\ll_{\ell, D}c.
\end{equation*}
Now let $Y'$ be equal to one of the equivalence classes $R_{1},...,R_{s}$ whose cardinality is $c$, and $\mathbf{w}=B_{d}^{t}\mathbf{m}$. Then $\mathbf{w}\cdot(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})\in\mathbb{Z}$ for each $\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}\in Y^{\prime}$. But seeing that $|\mathbf{w}\cdot(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})|\leq N\|\mathbf{w}\|_{\infty}$, we are guaranteed the existence of an integer $|J|\leq N\|\mathbf{w}\|_{\infty}$ and $\mathbf{y}_{0}\in Y^{\prime}$ such that $\mathbf{w}\cdot(\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{y}_{0})=J$ for at least $c/N\|\mathbf{w}\|_{\infty}$ elements $\mathbf{y}$ of $Y^{\prime}$. But
\[\|\mathbf{w}\|_{\infty}\ll_{N,\ell} \|\mathbf{B}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}M\ll_{N, \ell} \|\mathbf{B}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}\epsilon^{-1}\]
Combining this with the above we have the existence of a subset $Y\subset Y^{\prime}\subset X$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\epsilon^{\ell+1}k^{1/4D} \|\mathbf{B}_{\ast} \|_{\infty}^{-1} \ll_{\ell ,N, D} |Y|
\end{equation*}
as desired.
\end{proof}
We also need to estimate the entries of the matrix $H$ introduced in (\ref{h}).
\begin{lemma}\label{hProp}
Let $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ be nonzero and $\mathbf{w}^{\perp}=\left\lbrace \mathbf{v}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}: \mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{w}=0\right\rbrace$. There exists an $(N-1)\times N$ integral matrix $H$ whose image is $\mathbf{w}^{\perp}$ and $\|H\|_{\infty}= \|\mathbf{w}\|_{\infty}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\mathbf{w}=(w_{1},...,w_{N})$ is nonzero we may assume without loss of generality that $w_{N}\neq0$. Let
\[ \mathbf{v}_{j}=w_{N}\mathbf{e}_{j}-w_{j}\mathbf{e}_{N}. \]
where $(\mathbf{e}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{e}_N)$ is the standard basis of $\mathbb{R}^N$. Then $\mathbf{v}_{j}\in\mathbf{w}^{\perp }$ because
\[\mathbf{v}_{j}\cdot\mathbf{w}=w_{N}\mathbf{e}_{j}\cdot\mathbf{w}-w_{j}\mathbf{e}_{N}\cdot\mathbf{w}=0.\]
Clearly $\mathbf{v}_{1},...,\mathbf{v}_{N-1}$ are linearly independent and therefore form a basis for $\mathbf{w}^{\perp}$. Letting $H$ be the $N\times (N-1)$ matrix whose columns are $\mathbf{v}_{1},...,\mathbf{v}_{N-1}$ gives the result.
\end{proof}
We are now in a position to prove Theorem \ref{polynomialEffective}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{polynomialEffective}] Let us proceed by induction. \newline
\noindent \textbf{Base case:}
Let $N=1$ and $\mathbf{A}(x)$ be an $L\times 1$ matrix with entries in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$, having rank $\ell$, degree at most $D$, and satisfy conditions (\ref{cond1}) and (\ref{cond2}) of Theorem \ref{hoangMike}. Let $X=\left\lbrace x_{1},...,x_{k}\right\rbrace$ be a set of $k$ distinct points in $\mathbb{T}$ such that there does not exist a subtorus $\mathcal{T}$ such that $\mathbf{A}(n)X$ is not $\epsilon$-dense in a translate of $\mathcal{T}$ for any $n=1,2,\ldots$.
By Lemma \ref{inductLem}, there exist an $\ell\times N$ matrix $\mathbf{B}(x)$ whose rows are rows of $\mathbf{A}(x)$, an $L\times \ell$ matrix $T$ with entries in $\mathbb{Q}$ such that $\mathbf{B}_{\ast}(x)$ has full rank and $\mathbf{A}(x)=T\mathbf{B}(x)$. Furthermore, there is a positive integer $q$ such that $qT$ is integral and $\|qT\|_{\infty}\ll_{\ell} \|\mathbf{A}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}^{\ell}$. Define
\[
X/q=\left\lbrace x/q+\mathbb{Z}:x\in [0,1)\;\text{ and }x \in X \right\rbrace
\]
then $X/q$ also has cardinality $k$, and $(qT)\mathbf{B}(n)(X/q)=\mathbf{A}(n)X$ is not $\epsilon$-dense in any translate of $\mathcal{T}=\mathrm{Im}(T)/\mathbb{Z}^{L}$. This implies that $\mathbf{B}(n)(X/q)$ is not $\epsilon_{1}$ dense in $\mathbb{T}^{\ell}$ for any $n=1,2,\ldots$, where $\epsilon_1 \gg _{L} \epsilon/\|qT\|_{\infty}$. Therefore by Proposition \ref{effectiveLemma}, there exists a subset $Y\subset X/q$,
$y_0 \in \mathbb{T}$, integers $J$ and $w$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{j2}
w(y-y_0)=J \;\;\text{ for each }y\in Y,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{y2}
\epsilon_{1}^{\ell+1}k^{1/4D} \|\mathbf{B}_{\ast} \|_{\infty}^{-1} \ll_{L,D} |Y|,
\end{equation}
But (\ref{j2}) cannot happen for more than one value of $y$ (recall that it's an equality in $\mathbb{R}$), Combining this with (\ref{y2}), we have
\begin{equation}
k\ll_{L,D} \|\mathbf{B}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}^{4D}\left( \dfrac{1}{\epsilon_{1}}\right)^{4D(\ell+1)} \leq \|\mathbf{B}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}^{4D}\left( \dfrac{1}{\epsilon_{1}}\right)^{4D(L+1)}
\end{equation}
Recall that $\epsilon_{1} \gg_{L} \epsilon/\|qT\| \gg_{L} \epsilon \| \mathbf{A}_{\ast} \|_{\infty}^{-\ell} \geq \epsilon \| \mathbf{A}_{\ast} \|_{\infty}^{-L}$. We also trivially have $\|\mathbf{B}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}\leq \|\mathbf{A}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}$ (since the rows of $\mathbf{B}$ are the rows of $\mathbf{A}$ by construction) so
\begin{equation}
k\ll_{L,D} \|\mathbf{A}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}^{4D(L(L+1)+1)} \left( \dfrac{1}{\epsilon}\right)^{4D(L+1)}
\end{equation}
which shows that $k(\epsilon;L,1,\mathbf{A})$ exists and can be bounded by the right hand side.\\
\\
\noindent \textbf{Inductive step.} Now we assume that for each $\mathbf{C}\in \mathrm{M}_{L\times n}(\mathbb{Z}[x])$ having degree $D$ and that satisfies conditions (\ref{cond1}) and (\ref{cond2}) of Theorem \ref{hoangMike}, there exist constants $c_{1}(n,L,D)$ and $c_{2}(n,L,D)$ such that
\begin{equation}
k(\epsilon;L,n,\mathbf{C})\ll_{N,L,D} \|\mathbf{C}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}^{c_{1}(n,L,D)}\left( \dfrac{1}{\epsilon} \right)^{c_{2}(n,L,D)}.
\end{equation}
for $n=1,2,...,N-1$.
Let $\mathbf{A}(x) \in \mathrm{M}_{L\times N}(\mathbb{Z}[x])$ have degree at most $D$ and satisfy conditions (\ref{cond1}) and (\ref{cond2}) from Theorem \ref{hoangMike}. Suppose that $X=\left\lbrace \mathbf{x}_{1},...,\mathbf{x}_{k}\right\rbrace$ is a set of $k$ distinct points in $\mathbb{T}^N$ such that there does not exist a subtorus $\mathcal{T}$ of $\mathbb{T}^{L}$ such that $\mathbf{A}(n)X$ is $\epsilon$-dense in a translate of $\mathcal{T}$ for any $n=1,2,...$. Suppose $\mathbf{A}(x)$ has rank $\ell$. Again, let $\mathbf{B}(x)\in\mathrm{M}_{\ell\times N}(\mathbb{Z}[x]), \;T\in\mathrm{M}_{L\times \ell}(\mathbb{Q})$ and $q \in \mathbb{Z}$
be given by Proposition \ref{inductLem}, and let $X/q=\left\lbrace\mathbf{x}/q:\mathbf{x}\in[0,1)^{N}\text{ and }x\in X\right\rbrace$. As before we see that $\mathbf{B}(n)(X/q)$ cannot be $\epsilon_{1} \gg \epsilon/\|qT\|-$dense in $\mathbb{T}^L$ for any $n=1,2, \ldots$. Therefore by Lemma \ref{effectiveLemma} then there exists a subset $Y\subset X/q$, $\mathbf{y}_{0}\in\mathbb{T}^N$, $J\in\mathbb{Z}$ and a $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ such that
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{w}\cdot(\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{y}_{0})=J \;\;\text{ for each }\mathbf{y}\in Y,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{y3}
\epsilon_{1}^{\ell+1}k^{1/(4D)} \|\mathbf{B}_{\ast} \|^{-1}_{\infty} \ll_{N,L,D} |Y|, \text{ and }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
0< \|\mathbf{w}\|_{\infty}\ll_{L,N} \|\mathbf{B}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}\epsilon_{1}^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Clearly $Y$ lies in a translate of the torus $\mathcal{T}=\left\lbrace \mathbf{x}+\mathbb{Z}^N: \mathbf{x} \in [0,1)^{N}, \mathbf{x}\cdot\mathbf{w}=0 \right\rbrace\subset \mathbb{T}^N$. By Lemma \ref{hProp}, there is a matrix $H\in\mathrm{M}_{N\times (N-1)}(\mathbb{Z})$ of rank $N-1$ such that the range of $H$ is $\mathbf{w}^{\perp}$ and $\| H\|_{\infty}=\|\mathbf{w}\|_{\infty}$. $H$ is surjective as a map from $\mathbb{T}^{N-1}$ to $\mathcal{T}$ so there is a set $Z$ of cardinality $|Z|=|Y|$ points in $\mathbb{T}^{N-1}$ such that $HZ=Y$. By the definition of the function $k(\epsilon;L,N,\mathbf{A})$, we have that
\begin{equation}
|Y|=|Z| \leq k(\epsilon_1;L,N-1,\mathbf{A} H).
\end{equation}
Note that the degree of $\mathbf{A} H$ is at most $D$, so by the inductive hypothesis and (\ref{y3}) we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:4}
\epsilon_{1}^{L+1}k^{1/(4D)} \| \mathbf{B}_{\ast} \|_{\infty}^{-1} \ll_{N,L,D} \|(\mathbf{A} H)_{\ast}\|_{\infty}^{c_{1}(N-1,L,D)}\left( \dfrac{1}{\epsilon_1} \right)^{c_{2}(N-1,L,D)}
\end{equation}
But \[\|(\mathbf{A} H)_{\ast}\|_{\infty}\ll_{N,L}\|\mathbf{A}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}\|H\|_{\infty}=\|\mathbf{A}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}\|\mathbf{w}\|_{\infty}\ll \|\mathbf{A}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}\epsilon_{1}^{-1}\]
and $\|\mathbf{B}_{\ast} \|_{\infty} \leq \|\mathbf{A}_{\ast} \|_{\infty}$. Therefore,
\[
k^{1/(4D)} \ll_{N,L,D} \|\mathbf{A}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}^{1+c_{1}(N-1,L,D)}\left( \dfrac{1}{\epsilon_1} \right)^{c_{1}(N-1,L,D)+c_{2}(N-1,L,D)+L+1} \\
\]
Recalling that $\epsilon_1 \gg_{N,L} \epsilon \|qT\|_{\infty}^{-1} \gg \epsilon \| \mathbf{A}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}^{-L}$, we have
\begin{equation}
k \ll_{N,L,D} \| \mathbf{A}_{\ast}\|_{\infty}^{c_{1}(N,L,D)}\left( \dfrac{1}{\epsilon} \right)^{c_{2}(N,L,D)}
\end{equation}
where
\[
c_{2}(N,L,D)= 4D \Big( c_{1}(N-1,L,D)+c_{2}(N-1,L,D)+L+1 \Big)
\]
and
\[
c_1(N,L,D) = Lc_2 (N,L,D) + 4D \Big( 1+c_1(N-1,L,D) \Big)
\]
This shows that $k(\epsilon;L,N,\mathbf{A})$ exists, and establishes a bound of the desired form for $k(\epsilon;L,n,\mathbf{A})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
As we noted in the introduction, we do not attempt to find the optimal values of the exponents $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ and the values that we achieve can be improved. We found in the base step that $c_{1}(1,L,D)=4D(L(L+1)+1)$ and $c_{2}(1,L,D)=4D(L+1)$. It is not difficult to show that $c_{1}(N,L,D)\leq (CD)^{N}L^{N+1}$ and $c_{2}(N,L,D)\leq (CDL)^{N}$ for $N,D,L\geq 1$, and $C$ is a positive constant with $C\leq 20$. It would be interesting to know the true order of magnitude for the optimal exponents, even for fixed values of $N,L$, and $D$. When $N\geq L$ and $X=X_{m}^N$ where $X_{m}$ is the Farey sequence of order $m=2/\epsilon$, no dilation $n\mathbb{P} X$, where $\mathbb{P}$ is projection onto the first $L$ components, contains a point in the cube $(0,\epsilon)^{L}$. But $\# X=\Omega(\epsilon^{-2N})$ which implies that the optimal choice for $c_{2}(N,L,1)$ is at least $2N$ when $N\geq L$. This is how the lower bound for $k$ is obtained in \cite{MR1200973} when $N=L=1$ and it is \textit{nearly} sharp in this case.
\end{remark}
\section{The High Dimensional Glasner Theorem}\label{glasnerSection}
In this section we prove a stronger result than Theorem \ref{HDGlasner}. The proof of Theorem \ref{HDGlasner} follows along the same lines of the proof of \cite[Proposition 6.1]{MR1143662}.
Without any extra effort effort, we can add the extra requirement that the entries of $T$ be relatively prime. This is reminiscent of Theorem \ref{alonPeres} (\ref{ap1}) though perhaps any resemblance stops here. We have the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{primitiveGlasner}
For any $\epsilon>0$ and any subset $X\subset \mathbb{T}^N$ of cardinality at least
$k\gg_{L}\epsilon^{-3LN}$
there exists a matrix $T\in\mathrm{M}_{L\times N}(\mathbb{Z})$ with relatively prime entries such that $TX$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}^L$.
\end{theorem}
We note that the exponents we obtain can be easily improved, but we opt for cruder bounds for the sake of brevity.
\begin{proof}
Let $\epsilon>0$ and Let $X\subset \mathbb{T}^N$ have cardinality $k$ and let $X_{j}\subset \mathbb{T}$ be the projection of $X$ onto the $j^{th}$ coordinate axis for $j=1,2,...,N$. The projection homomorphism $\mathbb{P}_{j}$ is represented by inner product with the vector $(0,...,1,...,0)$ where the 1 is in the $j^{th}$ entry. Clearly
\begin{equation}
k=\# X\leq \displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{N}\#X_{j}.
\end{equation}
Consequently there is a projection $X_{i}$ for which $\#X_{i}\geq k^{1/N}$. Let $Y$ be a subset of $X$ such that its projection on the $i^{th}$ coordinate
$Y_i \subset \mathbb{T}$ has cardinality at least $K=\lceil k^{1/N} \rceil$. Now if we can find a primitive vector $\mathbf{a}\in\mathbb{Z}^{L}$ such that $\mathbf{a} Y_i$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}^L$ we are done once setting $T$ equal to the composition of $\mathbb{P}_{i}$ and the homomorphism induced by multiplication by $\mathbf{a}$. We will show that we can choose $\mathbf{a}$ to be of the following form
\[
\mathbf{a}=\mathbf{a}(n)=(q_1n,q_{2}n+1,q_{3}n,...,q_{L}n)
\]
where we choose $q_{\ell}=(M+1)^{\ell-1}$ for $n\geq 1$ where $M=[L/\epsilon]$. Note that $\mathbf{a}$ is primitive since $(n,q_{2}n+1)=1$.
Suppose, by way of contradiction, that there is no $n$ for which $\mathbf{a} Y=\mathbf{a}(n)Y$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{T}^L$. Then we have by Proposition \ref{mainInequality}
\begin{equation}\label{main5}
K^{2}\ll_{L} \dfrac{1}{\epsilon^{L}}\underset{\mathbf{m}\in\mathbb{Z}^{L}}{\displaystyle\sum_{0<\|\mathbf{m}\|_{\infty}\leq M}} \displaystyle\sum_{x\in Y_{i}}\displaystyle\sum_{y\in Y_{i}} \lim_{R \rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{1}{R}\displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{R}e\Big(\mathbf{m}\cdot \mathbf{a}(r)(x-y)\Big).
\end{equation}
By abuse of notation, let $\mathbf{m}$ be the lattice point which maximizes the first sum. Then
\[
K^{2}\ll_{L} \dfrac{M^L}{\epsilon^{L}} \displaystyle\sum_{x\in Y_{i}}\displaystyle\sum_{y\in Y_{i}} \lim_{R \rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{1}{R}\displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{R}e\Big(\mathbf{m}\cdot \mathbf{a}(r)(x-y)\Big).
\]
But
\begin{eqnarray*}
\displaystyle\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\dfrac{1}{R}\displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{R}e\Big(\mathbf{m}\cdot \mathbf{a}(r)(x-y)\Big)
&=& \displaystyle\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\dfrac{1}{R}\displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{R}e\left(r(x-y)\displaystyle\sum_{\ell=1}^{L} m_{\ell}q_{\ell} \right) \\
&=& \begin{cases}
1 & \text{ if } (x-y)\displaystyle\sum_{\ell=1}^{L} m_{\ell}q_{\ell}\in\mathbb{Z} \\
0 & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence,
\[
K^{2 }\ll_{L}\epsilon^{-2L} \#\{ (x,y): x, y \in Y_{i}, \; Q(x-y) \in \mathbb{Z} \}
\]
where $Q=\displaystyle\sum_{\ell=1}^{L} m_{\ell}q_{\ell}$. Our choices of $q_{1},...,q_{L}$ guarantee that $Q$ is non-zero. The right hand side of the above inequality can be trivially be bounded (by the same reasoning as in Proposition \ref{count}) by
\[\epsilon^{-2L} KQ \ll \epsilon^{-2L}K M^{L} \ll \epsilon^{-3L} K\]
Recalling $K=\lceil k^{1/N} \rceil$ gives
\[
k\ll_{L}\epsilon^{-3LN}.
\]
\end{proof}
\section{Concluding Remarks} \label{applications}
We conclude with a few remarks concerning our main results. For example, it is obvious by Theorem \ref{HDGlasner} that if $X\subset \mathbb{T}^N$ is an infinite subset then the union $\cup_{T}TX$ over all $T\in\mathrm{M}_{L\times N}(\mathbb{Z})$ is dense in $\mathbb{T}^L$. Moreover, if $X$ is invariant under the action of $\mathrm{M}_{L\times N}(\mathbb{Z})$, then $X$ is dense in $\mathbb{T}^L$. Similarly, a simple compactness argument implies the following corollary Theorem \ref{hoangMike}.
\begin{corollary} \label{largeInvariant}
Let $\mathbf{A}(x)\in \mathrm{M}_{L\times N}(\mathbb{Z}[x])$ satisfy conditions (\ref{cond1}) and (\ref{cond2}) of Theorem \ref{hoangMike}. If $X\subset \mathbb{T}^N$ is an infinite subset, then the closure of $\cup_{n}\mathbf{A}(n)X$ contains a translate of a subtorus $\mathcal{T}$.
\end{corollary}
In particular, if $X$ is infinite and $X\subset\mathbf{A}(n)X$ for each $n$, then the closure of $X$ contains a translate of a subtorus $\mathcal{T}$. \newline
\indent It would be interesting to see what kind of generalizations can be made of Theorem \ref{HDGlasner}. That is, what conditions on an infinite topological group $G_{1}$ and a metric group $G_{2}$ guarantee that for any infinite subset $X\subset G_{1}$, and $\epsilon>0$, there exists a continuous homomorphism $\varphi:G_{1}\rightarrow G_{2}$ such that $\varphi(X)$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $G_{2}$? An interesting special case of this question occurs when $G_{1}$ is a compact (or locally compact) Abelian group and $G_{2}=U(1)=\left\lbrace z\in\mathbb{C}: |z|=1\right\rbrace$, the problem is to find a unitary character $\varphi$ of $G_{1}$ which distributes a prescribed set of points evenly throughout $U(1)$. \newline
\indent One necessary condition on $G_{1}$ is that for each $\epsilon>0$ there must exist a characters $\varphi$ for which $\varphi(G_{1})$ is $\epsilon$-dense in $U(1)$. Even though this condition is inherently necessary, it cannot be dismissed as a triviality. For instance, if $G_1= \mathbf{F}_2^{\infty}$ with the metric $d(x,y)=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{|x_i-y_i|}{2^i}$, then the group of all (continuous) characters of $G_1$ is $\mathbf{F}_2^{\omega} = \{x=(x_1,x_2 \ldots): x_i \neq 0 \textup{ for finitely many } i\}$ via
$x(y)= (-1)^{x \cdot y}$ for all $x \in \mathbf{F}_2^{\omega}, y \in \mathbf{F}_2^{\infty}$ (note that the dot product is well defined).
But the image of the whole of $G_1$ under any $x$ is the set $\{-1,1\}$ and can't be $\epsilon$-dense. \newline
\indent As noted in the introduction, Alon and Peres are able to estimate the discrepancy of dilations of the form $nX$ using the probabilistic method (see Theorem 1.2 from \cite{MR1143662}). It would be interesting to see an analogous result in higher dimensions.\newline
\indent Baker \cite{MR2803785} has proven a quantitative lemma about dilations of the form $nX$ where $X\subset \mathbb{T}^N$, though his hypotheses and conclusion differ from our results. His proof makes use of Lemma \ref{multi-montgomery} as well.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Curve approximation has a rich history, where the Weierstrass Approximation Theorem is a classical, seminal result \cite{Rudin}. Curve approximation algorithms typically do not include any guarantees about retaining topological characteristics, such as ambient isotopic equivalence. One may easily obtain a sequence of non-trivial knots converging pointwise to a circle, with the knotted portions of the sequence becoming smaller and smaller. These non-trivial knots will never be ambient isotopic to the circle. However, ambient isotopic equivalence is a fundamental concern in knot theory. Moreover, it is a theoretical foundation for curve approximation algorithms in computer graphics and visualization.
So a natural question is what criterion will guarantee ambient isotopic equivalence for curve approximation? The answer is that, besides pointwise convergence, an additional hypothesis of convergence in total curvature will be sufficient, as we shall prove. An example is shown by Figure~\ref{fig:aa}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfigure[Unknot vs. Knot]
{
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{knot-unknotpoly1}
\label{fig:ku0}
}
\subfigure[Knot vs. Knot]
{
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{sub2}
\label{fig:ku2}
}
\caption{Ambient isotopic approximation}
\label{fig:aa}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:ku0} shows a knotted curve (yellow) which is a trefoil, where this curve is a spline initially defined by an unknotted PL curve (purple), called a control polygon. This PL curve is often treated as the initial approximation of the spline curve. A standard algorithm, called subdivision \cite{G.Farin1990}, is used to generate new PL curves that more closely approximate the spline curve. Figure~\ref{fig:ku2} shows an ambient isotopic approximation generated by subdivision, as this PL approximation is a trefoil.
There are three main theorems presented. All have a hypothesis of a sequence of curves converging to another smooth curve $\mathcal{C}$. In Theorem~\ref{thm:insc}, the elements of the sequence are PL inscribed curves. In Theorem~\ref{tim:bigcurva} and~\ref{thm:distcurv}, the class of curves is generalized to any piecewise $C^2$ curves, with the first being a technical result about a lower bound for the total curvature of elements in some tail of the sequence. These first two results are used to provide the main result Theorem~\ref{thm:distcurv}, showing that pointwise convergence and convergence in total curvature over this richer class of piecewise $C^2$ curves produce a tail of elements that are ambient isotopic to $\mathcal{C}$.
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:rw}
The Isotopic Convergence Theorem presented here is motivated by the question about topological integrity of geometric models in computer graphics and visualization. But it is a general and pure theoretical result, dealing with the fundamental equivalence relation in knot theory, which may be applied, but extends beyond the limit of any specific applications.
The preservation of topology in computer graphics and visualization has previously been articulated in two primary applications \cite{TJP2011}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item preservation of isotopic equivalence by approximations; and
\item preservation of isotopic equivalence during dynamic changes, such as protein unfolding.
\end{enumerate}
The publications \cite{Amenta2003, L.-E.Andersson2000, Lance2009, Moore_Peters_Roulier2007} are among the first that provided algorithms to ensure an ambient isotopic approximation. The paper \cite{Maekawa_Patrikalakis_Sakkalis_Yu1998} provided existence criteria for a PL approximation of a rational spline curve, but did not include any specific algorithms.
Recent progress was made for the class of B\'ezier curves, by providing stopping criteria for subdivision algorithms to ensure ambient isotopic equivalence for B\'ezier curves of any degree $n$ \cite{JL-bez-iso}, extending the previous work of \cite{Moore_Peters_Roulier2007}, that had been restricted to degree less than $4$. This extension is based on theorems and sophisticated techniques on knot structures.
This work here extends to a much broader class of curves, piecewise $C^2$ curves, where there is no restriction on approximation algorithms. Because of its generality, this pure mathematical result is potentially applicable to both theoretical and practical areas.
There exist results in the literature showing ambient isotopy from a different point of view \cite{DenneSullivan2008, Sullivan2008}. Precisely, there is an upper bound on distance and an upper bound on angles between corresponding points for two curves. If the corresponding distances and angles are within the upper bounds, then they are ambient isotopic.
Milnor \cite{Milnor1950} defined the total curvature for a $C^2$ curve using inscribed PL curves. The extension of the definition to piecewise $C^2$ curves can be trivially done. Consequently, Fenchel's Theorem can be applied to piecewise $C^2$ curves, as we need here.
Milnor \cite{Milnor1950} also proved the result restricted to inscribed curves. That is a similar version of Theorem~\ref{thm:insc} presented here. That result was recently generalized to finite total curvature knots \cite{DenneSullivan2008}. The application to graphs was also established recently \cite{Gulliver2012}. Our proof here indicates upper bounds on distance and total curvature, which leads to the formulation of algorithms.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:ddttc}
\textbf{Use $\mathcal{C}$ to denote a compact, regular, $C^2$, simple, parametric, space curve. Let $\{C_i\}_{1}^{\infty}$ denote a sequence of piecewise $C^2$, parametric curves. Suppose all curves are parametrized on $[0,1]$, that is, $\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{C}(t)$ and $C_i=C_i(t)$ for $t \in [0,1]$. Denote the sub-curve of $\mathcal{C}$ corresponding to [$a,b] \subset [0,1]$ as $\mathcal{C}_{[a,b]}$, and similarly use $C_{i[a,b]}$ for $C_i$. Denote total curvature as a function $T_{\kappa}(\cdot)$.}
\subsection{Total curvatures of piecewise $C^2$ curves}
\begin{definition}[Exterior angles of PL curves]\textup{\cite{Milnor1950}}
\label{def:exterior_angles}
The \textit{exterior angle} between two oriented line segments $\overrightarrow{P_{m-1}P_m}$ and $\overrightarrow{P_mP_{m+1}}$, is the angle between the extension of $\overrightarrow{P_{m-1}P_m}$ and $\overrightarrow{P_mP_{m+1}}$, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:a}. Let the measure of the exterior angle to be $\alpha_m$ satisfying:
\begin{center}
$0 \leq \alpha_m \leq \pi$.
\end{center}
This definition naturally generalizes to any two vectors, $\vec{v}_1$ and $\vec{v}_2$, by joining these vectors at their initial points, while denoting the measure between them as $\eta(\vec{v}_1,\vec{v}_2)$, as indicated in Figure~\ref{fig:av}.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\subfigure[Orientated lines]
{ \includegraphics[height=3.5cm]{alpha} \label{fig:a} }
\subfigure[Vectors]
{ \includegraphics[height=3.5cm]{alpha-v} \label{fig:av} }
\caption{An exterior angle}
\label{fig:alpha1}
\end{figure}
The concept of exterior angle is used to unify the concept of total curvature for curves that are PL or differentiable.
\begin{definition}[Total curvatures of PL curves] \textup{\cite{Milnor1950}}
The total curvature of a PL curve, is the sum of the exterior angles.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Total curvatures of $C^2$ curves] \textup{\cite{Milnor1950}}
Parametrize a $C^2$ curve with arc length $s$ on $[0,\ell]$ and use $\kappa(s)$ to denote the curvature. Then the total curvature of the curve is $\int_0^{\ell} | \kappa(s)| \ ds.$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Exterior angles of piecewise $C^2$ curves]
\label{def:exall}
For a piecewise $C^2$ curve $\gamma(t)$, define the exterior angle at some $t_i$ to be the exterior angle formed by $\gamma'(t_i-)$ and $\gamma'(t_i+)$ where
$$\gamma'(t_i-) = \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{\gamma(t_i)-\gamma(t_i-h)}{h},$$
and $$\gamma'(t_i+) = \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{\gamma(t_i+h)-\gamma(t_i)}{h}.$$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\footnote{This is similarly defined in a recent paper \cite{Gulliver2012}.} [Total curvatures of piecewise $C^2$ curves]
\label{def:ttc}
Suppose that a piecewise $C^2$ curve $\phi(t)$ (regular at the $C^2$ points) is not $C^2$ at finitely many parameters $t_1,\cdots,t_n$. Denote the sum of the total curvatures of all the $C^2$ sub-curves as $T_{\kappa1}$, and the sum of exterior angles at $t_1,\cdots,t_n$ as $T_{\kappa2}$. Then the total curvature of $\phi(t)$ is $T_{\kappa1} + T_{\kappa2}$.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Definitions of convergence}
\begin{definition}\label{def:indist}
We say that $\{C_i\}_{1}^{\infty}$ converges to $\mathcal{C}$ in {\em parametric measure distance} if for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists an integer $N$ such that $\max_{t \in [0,1]} |C_i(t)-\mathcal{C}(t)| < \epsilon$ for all $i \geq N$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
For compact curves, this convergence in parametric measure distance is equivalent to pointwise convergence.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition} \textup{\cite{J.Munkres1999} }
Let $X$ and $Y$ be two non-empty subsets of a metric space $(M, d)$. We define their Hausdorff distance $\mu(X,Y)$ by
$$\max\{\sup_{x\in X} \inf_{y\in Y} d(x,y), \sup_{y\in Y} \inf_{x\in X} d(x,y) \}.$$
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
By the definition of Hausdorff distance, the pointwise convergence implies the convergence in Hausdorff distance.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}\label{def:tc}
We say that $\{C_i\}_{1}^{\infty}$ converges to $\mathcal{C}$ in total curvature if for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists an integer $N$ such that $|T_{\kappa}(C_i)-T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C})| < \epsilon$ for all $i \geq N$. We designate this property as \textit{convergence in total curvature}.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{def:ltc}
We say that $\{C_i\}_{1}^{\infty}$ uniformly converges to $\mathcal{C}$ in total curvature if for any $[t_1,t_2] \subset [0,1]$ and $\forall \epsilon>0$, there exists an integer $N$ such that whenever $i \geq N$, $|T_{\kappa}(C_{i[t_1,t_2]})-T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_1,t_2]})| < \epsilon$. We designate this property as \textit{uniform convergence in total curvature}.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Uniform convergence in total curvature implies convergence in total curvature. But the converse is not true.
\end{remark}
\section{Isotopic Convergence of Inscribed PL Curves}
\label{sec:inc}
We will use the concept of PL inscribed curves as previously defined \cite{Milnor1950}.
\begin{definition} \label{def:ins}
A closed PL curve $L$ with vertices $v_1,v_2,\cdots,v_m$ is said to be inscribed in curve $\mathcal{C}(t)$ if there is a sequence $\{t_j\}_{1}^m$ of parameter values such that $v_i=\mathcal{C}(t_j)$ for $j=1,2,\cdots,m$.
We parametrize $L$ over $[0,1]$, denoted as $L(t)$, by
$$
L(t_j)=v_j\ for\ j=0,1,\cdots,m
$$
and $L(t)$ interpolates linearly between vertices.
\end{definition}
The previously established results \cite[Theorem 2.2]{Milnor1950} and \cite[Proposition 3.1]{Sullivan2008} showed that a sequence of finer and finer inscribed PL curves will converge in total curvature. The uniform convergence in total curvature follows easily. For the sake of completeness, we present the proof here.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:app}
For a piecewise $C^2$ curve $\gamma(t)$ parametrized on $[0,1]$ (which is regular at all $C^2$ points), a sequence $\{L_i\}_1^{\infty}$ of inscribed PL curves can be chosen such that $\{L_i\}_1^{\infty}$ pointwise converges to $\gamma$ and uniformly converges to $\gamma$ in total curvature.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first take the end points $\gamma(t_0) = \gamma(0)$ and $\gamma(t_n) = \gamma(1)$. And then select\footnote{Acute readers may find later that this choice of points is sufficient for this lemma, but not necessary. This choice is for ease of exposition.} the points where $\gamma$ fails to be $C^2$. Denoted these points as $\{\gamma(t_0), \gamma(t_1),\cdots,\gamma(t_{n-1}), \gamma(t_n)\}$. We then compute midpoints: $\gamma(\frac{t_j+t_{j+1}}{2})$ for $j\in \{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$ to form $L_2$ which is determined by vertices:
$$\{\gamma(t_0), \gamma(\frac{t_0+t_1}{2}), \gamma(t_1), \cdots, \gamma(t_{n-1}), \gamma(\frac{t_{n-1}+t_n}{2}), \gamma(t_n)\}.$$
Continuing this process, we obtain a sequence $\{L_i\}_1^{\infty}$ of inscribed PL curves.
Suppose the set of vertices of $L_i$ is $\{ v_{i,k}=\gamma(t_{i,k}) \}$, for some finitely many parameter values $t_{i,k}$. Use uniform parametrization \cite{Morin_Goldman2001} for $L_i$ such that $v_{i,k}=L_i(t_{i,k})$, and points between each pair of consecutive vertices are interpolated linearly. Note first that this process implies that $\{L_i\}_1^{\infty}$ pointwise converges to $\mathcal{C}$. For the uniform convergence in total curvature, consider the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Consider each $t_j$ where $\gamma$ fails to be $C^2$. Denote the parameters of two vertices of $L_i$ adjacent to $L_i(t_j)$ as $t^i_{j1}$ and $t^i_{j2}$. Note that $\lim _{i \rightarrow \infty}t^i_{j1}=\lim _{i \rightarrow \infty}t^i_{j2}=t_j$. This implies that the slope of $\overrightarrow{L_i(t^i_{j1})L_i(t_j)}$ and the slope of $\overrightarrow{L_i(t^i_{j2})L_i(t_j)}$ go to $\gamma'(t_j-)$ and $\gamma'(t_j+)$ respectively. This shows that
$$\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} \eta(\overrightarrow{L_i(t^i_{j1})L_i(t_j)}, \overrightarrow{L_i(t^i_{j2})L_i(t_j)})= \eta(\gamma'(t_j-),\gamma'(t_j+)).$$
\item For a $C^2$ sub-curve of $\gamma$, the proof of \cite[Theorem 2.2] {Milnor1950} shows that the total curvatures of the corresponding inscribed PL curves converge to the total curvature of the $C^2$ sub-curve.
\end{enumerate}
By Definition~\ref{def:ttc}, the above (1) and (2) together imply the uniform convergence in total curvature.
\end{proof}
Since uniform convergence in total curvature implies convergence in total curvature (Definition~\ref{def:ltc}), the corollary below follows immediately.
\begin{corollary}\label{coro:app} \textup{\cite[Theorem 2.2]{Milnor1950} \cite[Proposition 3.1]{Sullivan2008}}
For $\mathcal{C}$, a sequence $\{L_i\}_1^{\infty}$ of inscribed PL curves can be chosen such that $\{L_i\}_1^{\infty}$ converges to $\mathcal{C}$ pointwise and in total curvature.
\end{corollary}
\begin{theorem} [Fenchel's Theorem] \textup{\cite{Milnor1950}} \label{thm:gen-fenchel}
The total curvature of a closed curve is at least $2 \pi$, with equality holding if and only if the curve is convex.
\end{theorem}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:npwint}
Denote the plane normal to $\mathcal{C}$ at some $t_0 \in (0,1)$ as $\Pi(t_0)$. Consider two sub-curves $\mathcal{C}_{[t_0-u]}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{[t_0+v]}$ for some $u\in (0,t_0)$ and $v\in (t_0,1)$. If both $T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_0-u]})<\frac{\pi}{2}$ and $T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_0+v]})<\frac{\pi}{2}$, then these two sub-curves $\mathcal{C}_{[t_0-u]}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{[t_0+v]}$ are separated by $\Pi(t_0)$ except at $\mathcal{C}(t_0)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Denote the point $\mathcal{C}(t_0)$ as $a$. Suppose that the conclusion is false, then either $\mathcal{C}_{[t_0-u]}$ or $\mathcal{C}_{[t_0+v]}$ intersects $\Pi(t_0)$ other than at $a$. Assume without loss of generality that $\mathcal{C}_{[t_0+v]} \cap \Pi(t_0)$ contains another point, denoted as $b$. Then the sub-curve $\mathcal{C}_{[t_0+v]}$ and the line segment $\overline{ab}$ form a closed curve $\mathcal{C}_{[t_0+v]} \cup \overline{ab}$. So $T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_0+v]} \cup \overline{ab}) \geq 2\pi$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:gen-fenchel}.
Denote the exterior angles at $a$ and $b$ as $\alpha$ and $\beta$ respectively. Then $\alpha=\frac{\pi}{2}$ since $\Pi(t_0)$ is normal to $\mathcal{C}'(t_0)$. By Definition~\ref{def:exterior_angles}, $\beta \leq \pi$. By Definition~\ref{def:ttc} we have
$$T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_0+v]} \cup \overline{ab}) =T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_0+v]}) + \alpha + \beta \leq T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_0+v]}) + \frac{\pi}{2} +\pi.$$
So $$T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_0+v]}) + \frac{\pi}{2} +\pi \geq 2\pi.$$
Therefore
$$T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_0+v]}) \geq \frac{\pi}{2},$$
which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Theorem~\ref{thm:insc} below is restricted to ``inscribed PL curves". The general theorem of ``piecewise $C^2$ curves, either inscribed or not" will be established later in Theorem~\ref{thm:distcurv}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:insc}
For any sequence $\{L_i\}_1^{\infty}$ of inscribed PL curves that pointwise converges to $\mathcal{C}$ and uniformly converges to $\mathcal{C}$ in total curvature, a positive integer $N$ can be found as below such that for all $i > N$, $L_i$ is ambient isotopic to $\mathcal{C}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For $\mathcal{C}$, there is a non-self-intersecting tubular surface\footnote{We use the terminology of \textit{tubular surface} as generalization from the recent usage \cite{Maekawa_Patrikalakis_Sakkalis_Yu1998} regarding the classically defined \textit{pipe surface} \cite{Monge}. } of radius $r$ \cite{Maekawa_Patrikalakis_Sakkalis_Yu1998}.
Pointwise convergence and the uniform convergence in total curvature imply that there exists a positive integer $N$ such that for an arbitrary $i>N$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The PL curve $L_i$ lies inside of the tubular surface of radius $r$; and
\item Denote the set of vertices of $L_i$ as $\{v_j\}_{j=0}^n$. Suppose the sub-curve of $\mathcal{C}$ between two arbitrary consecutive vertices $v_j$ and $v_{j+1}$ as $\mathcal{A}_j$, for $j=0,\ldots,n-1$. Then since the total curvature of $\overrightarrow{v_jv_{j+1}}$ is $0$, the total curvature of $\mathcal{A}_j$ can be less than $\frac{\pi}{2}$.
\end{enumerate}
Lemma~\ref{lem:npwint} implies that all such sub-curves $\mathcal{A}_j$ are separated by normal planes except the connection points. The facts about fitting inside a tubular surface and separation by normal planes provide a sufficient condition \cite{Maekawa_Patrikalakis_Sakkalis_Yu1998} for $L_i$ being ambient isotopic to $\mathcal{C}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:pipe}
The paper \cite{Maekawa_Patrikalakis_Sakkalis_Yu1998} provides the computation of the radius $r$ only for rational spline curves. However, the method of computing $r$ is similar for other compact, regular, $C^2$, and simple curves, that is, setting
$$r < \min \{\frac{1}{\kappa_{max}}, \frac{d_{min}}{2}, r_{end}\},$$
where $\kappa_{max}$ is the maximum of the curvatures, $d_{min}$ is the minimum separation distance, and $r_{end}$ is the maximal radius around the end points that does not yield self-intersections.
\end{remark}
\section{Pointwise Convergence}
\label{sec:cdo}
Pointwise convergence provides a lower bound of the total curvatures of approximants (Theorem~\ref{tim:bigcurva}). The proof relies upon showing this for PL curves first (Lemma~\ref{lem:egre}). The technique used here is the well known ``2D push" \cite{Bing1983}. It is sufficient here to consider a specialized type of push, designated, below, as a {\em median push}.
\begin{definition}\label{def:mp}
Assume that triangle $\triangle{ABC}$ has non-collinear vertices $A,B$ and $C$. Push a vertex, say $B$, along the corresponding median of the triangle to the midpoint of the side $AC$. We call this specific kind of ``2D push", a median push.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:egre}
Let $\{L_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ be a sequence of PL curves parametrized on $[0,1]$ and $L$ be a PL curve parametrized on $[0,1]$. If $\{L_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ pointwise converges to $L$, then for $\forall \epsilon>0$, there exists an integer $N$ such that $T_{\kappa}(L_i)> T_{\kappa}(L)-\epsilon$ for all $i \geq N$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For an arbitrary vertex $v$ of $L$, suppose $v=L(t_v)$ for some $t_v \in [0,1]$. Let $B_v$ be a closed ball centered at $v$. Since $L$ is a compact PL curve, we can choose the radius of $B_v$ small enough such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the ball $B_v$ contains only the single vertex $v$ of $L$; and
\item it intersects only the two line segments of $L$ which are connected at $v$. Denote these intersections as $u=L(t_u)$ and $w=L(t_w)$ for some $t_u, t_w \in [0,1]$. Then $u, w$ and $v$ together form a triangle $\triangle{uvw}$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $u_i=L_i(t_u)$, $v_i=L_i(t_v)$ and $w_i=L_i(t_w)$. Denote the exterior angle of the triangle $\triangle{uvw}$ at $v$ as $\eta(v)$, and correspondingly the exterior angle of $\triangle{u_iv_iw_i}$ at $v_i$ as $\eta(v_i)$. (Note that $\eta(v)$ is not necessarily equal to the exterior angle of $L$ at $v$. Similarly for $\eta(v_i)$.) By the pointwise convergence we have that the triangle $\triangle{u_iv_iw_i}$ converges to $\triangle{uvw}$. So $\eta(v_i)$ converges to $\eta(v)$. That is, for $\forall \epsilon'>0$ there exists an $N$ such that $\eta(v_i)> \eta(v)-\epsilon'$ for all $i \geq N$.
Consider the PL sub-curve of $L_i$ lying in $B_v$ and denote its total curvature as $T_{\kappa}(L_i \cap B_v)$. This PL sub-curve of $L_i$ can be reduced by median pushes to $\triangle{u_iv_iw_i}$. The existing result \cite[Lemma 1.1, Corollary 1.2]{Milnor1950} implies that $T_{\kappa}(L_i \cap B_v) \geq \eta(v_i)$. So for $i \geq N$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:tklcu}T_{\kappa}(L_i \cap B_v) > \eta(v)-\epsilon'.\end{align}
Denote the set of vertices of $L$ as $V$. Then $T_{\kappa}(L)=\sum_{v \in V} \eta(v)$. Note that $T_{\kappa}(L_i) \geq \sum_{v \in V} T_{\kappa}(L_i \cap B_v)$. So Inequality~\ref{eq:tklcu} implies that
$$T_{\kappa}(L_i) \geq \sum_{v \in V} T_{\kappa}(L_i \cap B_v) > \sum_{v \in V} \eta(v)-\epsilon'n = T_{\kappa}(L)-\epsilon' n$$
where $n$ is the number of vertices of $L$. Let $\epsilon'=\frac{\epsilon}{n}$, then we complete the prove.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{tim:bigcurva}
If $\{C_i\}_{1}^{\infty}$ pointwise converges to $\mathcal{C}$, then for $\forall \epsilon>0$, there exists an integer $N$ such that $T_{\kappa}(C_i)> T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C})-\epsilon$ for all $i \geq N$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:app}, we can use inscribed PL curves to approximate $\{C_i\}_{1}^{\infty}$ and $\mathcal{C}$, such that the approximations converge pointwise and in total curvature. Then apply the Lemma~\ref{lem:egre} to these inscribed PL curves. Since these inscribed PL curves converge pointwise and in total curvature to $\{C_i\}_{1}^{\infty}$ and $\mathcal{C}$ respectively, the desired conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Uniform Convergence in Total Curvature}
Convergence in total curvature is weaker than uniform convergence in total curvature. But pointwise convergence and convergence in total curvature together imply the uniform convergence, which is shown by Lemma~\ref{lem:loc-cov} below.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:loc-cov}
If $\{C_i\}_{1}^{\infty}$ converges to a $C^2$ curve $\mathcal{C}$ pointwise and in total curvature, then $\{C_i\}_{1}^{\infty}$ uniformly converges to $\mathcal{C}$ in total curvature.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume not, then there exist a subset $[t_1,t_2] \subset [0,1]$ and a $\tau>0$ such that for any integer $N$, there is a $i \geq N$ such that $|T_{\kappa}(C_{i[t_1,t_2]})-T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_1,t_2]})| > \tau$, that is $T_{\kappa}(C_{i[t_1,t_2]}) >T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_1,t_2]})+ \tau$ or $T_{\kappa}(C_{i[t_1,t_2]}) <T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_1,t_2]})- \tau$. The latter is precluded by Theorem~\ref{tim:bigcurva}. Therefore
\begin{align}\label{eq:kt} T_{\kappa}(C_{i[t_1,t_2]}) >T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_1,t_2]})+ \tau. \end{align}
Consider the sequence of the sub-curves of $\{C_i\}_{1}^{\infty}$ restricted to the complement $[t_1,t_2]^c$ of $[t_1,t_2]$, and denote it as $\{C_{i[t_1,t_2]^c}\}_{1}^{\infty}$. By theorem~\ref{tim:bigcurva}, for $\frac{\tau}{2}$, there exists an integer, say $M$ such that for all $i \geq M$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:ktc}T_{\kappa}(C_{i[t_1,t_2]^c}) > T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_1,t_2]^c})-\frac{\tau}{2}.\end{align}
Note that $T_{\kappa}(C_i) \geq T_{\kappa}(C_{i[t_1,t_2]}) + T_{\kappa}(C_{i[t_1,t_2]^c})$. So Equations~\ref{eq:kt} and~\ref{eq:ktc} imply that there is a $i \geq M$ so that
$$T_{\kappa}(C_i) \geq T_{\kappa}(C_{i[t_1,t_2]}) + T_{\kappa}(C_{i[t_1,t_2]^c}) > T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_1,t_2]}) + T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_1,t_2]^c}) +\frac{\tau}{2}.$$
Since $\mathcal{C}$ is $C^2$, $T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_1,t_2]}) + T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[t_1,t_2]^c})=T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C})$. Therefore we get
$$T_{\kappa}(C_i) \geq T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C})+\frac{\tau}{2},$$
which contradicts the convergence in total curvature.
\end{proof}
\section{Isotopic Convergence}
\label{sec:cdtc}
For a $C^2$ compact curve $\mathcal{C}$, we shall, without loss of generality (Theorem~\ref{thm:insc}), consider a sequence $\{L_i\}_1^{\infty}$ of PL curves (instead of piecewise $C^2$ curves) as its approximation. We shall divide $\mathcal{C}$ into finitely many sub-curves, and reduce the corresponding sub-curves of $L_i$ to line segments, by median pushes, so as to preserve isotopic equivalence. The line segments generated by the pushes form a polyline. We shall then prove the polyline is ambient isotopic to $\mathcal{C}$.
To get to the major theorem, we need to first establish some preliminary topological results. We use $CH(\cdot)$ to denote the convex hull of a set.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:tac}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be compact subspaces of an Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^d$. If $X \cap Y=\emptyset$, then $Y$ can be subdivided into finitely many subsets, denoted as $Y_1, \ldots Y_i, \ldots Y_m$ for some $m > 0$, such that $CH(Y_i) \cap X =\emptyset$ for each $i$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $X$ is compact, for $\forall y \in Y$, $\inf_{x\in X} ||x-y|| > 0$, and hence $\exists$ an open ball $B_y \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ of $y$ such that $B_y \cap X=\emptyset$. Since $Y$ is compact, among these open balls, there are finitely many, denoted by $B_{y_1},\cdots,B_{y_m}$ such that $Y \subset \bigcup_{i=1}^m B_{y_i}$.
Let $Y_i=Y \cap B_{y_i}$ for each $i = 1, \ldots, m$ so that
$$CH(Y_i)=CH(Y \cap B_{y_i}) \subset CH(B_{y_i})=B_{y_i}.$$
Thus, for each $i$, we have $CH(Y_i) \cap X=\emptyset$.
\end{proof}
As we mentioned before, for a simple $C^2$ curve $\mathcal{C}$, there is a non-self-intersecting tubular surface of radius $r$ (Remark~\ref{rmk:pipe}). This surface determines a tubular neighborhood of $\mathcal{C}$, denoted as $\Gamma_{\mathcal{C}}$. Denote a sub-curve of $\mathcal{C}$ as $\mathcal{C}^k$, and the corresponding tubular neighborhood of $\mathcal{C}^k$ as $\Gamma^k$.
\begin{lemma}
The compact curve $\mathcal{C}$ can be divided into finitely many sub-curves, denoted as $\mathcal{C}^1, \ldots, \mathcal{C}^k, \ldots, \mathcal{C}^n$ for some $n>0$, such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}^k) < \frac{\pi}{2}$; and
\item $CH(\mathcal{C}^k) \subset \Gamma^k$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:tac}, $\mathcal{C}$ can be partitioned into finitely many non-empty sub-curves, each which is disjoint from $S_r(\mathcal{C})$. Since $\mathcal{C}$, is also of finite total curvature, we can denote these sub-curves as $\mathcal{C}^1, \ldots, \mathcal{C}^k, \ldots, \mathcal{C}^n$ for some $n>0$, such that for each $k=1,\cdots,n$, $T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}^k) < \frac{\pi}{2}$ and $CH(\mathcal{C}^k) \cap S_r(\mathcal{C}) = \emptyset$.
Consider $\mathcal{C}^k$ for an arbitrary $k = 1, \dots, n$ and denote the distinct normal planes at the endpoints of $\mathcal{C}^k$ by $\Pi_1, \Pi_2$, respectively. Denote the closed convex subspace of $\mathbb{R}^3$ that contains $\mathcal{C}^k$ and is bounded by $\Pi_1$ and $\Pi_2$ as $H^k$. It is clear that $CH(\mathcal{C}^k) \subset H^k$, but since $CH(\mathcal{C}^k) \cap S_r(\mathcal{C}) = \emptyset$, we have that $CH(\mathcal{C}^k) \subset \Gamma^k$.
\end{proof}
For $k = 1, \ldots, n$, let $[t_{k-1}, t_k]$ be the subinterval whose image is $\mathcal{C}^k$, with corresponding $\Gamma^k$. Let $\epsilon$ be real valued such that
$$0< \epsilon < \min_{k\in \{0,\ldots,n\}} \frac{|t_k-t_{k-1}|}{2}.$$
We extend\footnote{If $\mathcal{C}$ is open and $t_{k-1}=0$ or $t_k=1$, consider $[0, t_k+\epsilon]$ or $[t_{k-1}-\epsilon, 1]$.} $[t_{k-1}, t_k]$ to $[t_{k-1}-\epsilon, t_k+\epsilon]$, and denote the tubular neighborhood corresponding to the extended subinterval as $\Gamma^k_{\epsilon}$, then $\Gamma^k_{\epsilon}$ only intersects $\Gamma^{k+1}_{\epsilon}$ and $\Gamma^{k-1}_{\epsilon}$ for each $k$.
For a sequence of PL curves $\{L_i\}_{1}^{\infty}$ converging to $\mathcal{C}$ pointwise and in total curvature, denote the sub-curve of $L_i$ corresponding (with the same parameters) to $\mathcal{C}^k$ as $L_i^k$. Denote the end points of $L_i^k$ by $u^{k-1}_i$ and $u^k_i$, with the corresponding end points of $\mathcal{C}^k$ by $v^{k-1}$ and $v^k$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:cds}
A large positive integer $N$ can be found such that whenever $i \geq N$, for each $k$, we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item $T_{\kappa}(L_i^k) < \frac{\pi}{2}$;
\item $CH(L_i^k) \subset \Gamma^k_{\epsilon}$; and
\item $|u^k_i-v^k|<\frac{r}{2}$ and $\mu(\overline{u^{k-1}_iu^k_i}, \mathcal{C}^k)<\frac{r}{2}$, where $\mu(\cdot)$ refers to the Hausdorff distance.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first condition follows from the uniform convergence in total curvature (Lemma~\ref{lem:loc-cov}), and the second and third follow from pointwise convergence.
\end{proof}
Now we are ready to reduce each $L_i^k$ to the segment $\overline{u_i^{k-1}u_i^k}$ by median pushes. In order to prove there is no self-intersection of $L_i$ during the pushes, we present two lemmas below. The following lemma was established by a recent preprint \cite{JL-ang-conv}. For the sake of completeness, we give the sketch of the proof here.
\begin{lemma}[Non-self-intersection criteria] \textup{\cite{JL-ang-conv}} \label{lem:non-int}
Let $P=(P_0,P_1,\cdots,P_n)$ be an open PL curve in $\mathbb{R}^3$. If $ T_{\kappa}(P)<\pi$, then $P$ is simple.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume to the contrary that $P$ is self-intersecting. Then there must exist at least one closed loop. Consider a closed loop. By Fenchel's theorem, the total curvature of the closed loop is at least $2\pi$. The total curvature is the sum of the exterior angles, among which at most one angle is not counted as an exterior angle of $P$. But an exterior angle is less than $\pi$. So the total curvature of $P$ is at lest $2\pi-\pi=\pi$, which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Milnor \cite{Milnor1950} showed the total curvature remains the same or decreases ``after" deforming a triangle to a line segment, and this can be trivially extended to show that the total curvature remains the same or decreases ``during" the whole process of deforming a triangle to a line segment, as expressed in Lemma~\ref{lem:dec-angles}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:dec-angles}
If a vertex of a PL curve in $\mathbb{R}^3$ undergoes a median push, then the total curvatures of new open PL curves formed during the push remain the same or decrease\footnote{This holds not only for the median push, but also for any push with a trace lying on the interior of a triangle indicated in Definition~\ref{def:mp}. }.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:dtel}
For each $k = 1, \ldots, n$, use median pushes to reduce $L_i^k$ to the line segment $\overline{u_i^{k-1}u_i^k}$. Then during these pushes, $L_i$ remains simple, and hence the resultant PL curve $\bigcup_{k=1}^n \overline{u_i^{k-1}u_i^k}$ is ambient isotopic to the original PL curve $L_i$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that the condition (1) in Lemma~\ref{lem:cds} implies that $T_{\kappa}(L_i^{k-1} \cup L_i^k) < \pi$ and $T_{\kappa}(L_i^k \cup L_i^{k+1}) < \pi$. Lemma~\ref{lem:non-int} and~\ref{lem:dec-angles} show that the pushed $L_i^k$ does not intersect its neighbors $L_i^{k+1}$ or $L_i^{k-1}$. Since $CH(L_i^k) \subset \Gamma^k_{\epsilon}$ (Condition (2)), and $\Gamma^k_{\epsilon}$ does not intersect $\Gamma^j_{\epsilon}$ for $j\neq k-1$ or $k+1$, the perturbed $L_i^k$ stays inside $\Gamma^k_{\epsilon}$ and does not intersect $L_i^j$ for $j\neq k-1$ or $k+1$. Then the conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
For each $k=1,\ldots,n$, connecting the end points $v^{k-1}$ and $v^k$ of $\mathcal{C}^k$, we obtain the polyline $\bigcup_{k=1}^n \overline{v^{k-1}v^k}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:tpbk}
The polyline $\bigcup_{k=1}^n \overline{v^{k-1}v^k}$ is ambient isotopic to $\bigcup_{k=1}^n \overline{u_i^{k-1}u_i^k}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Perturb $u_i^k$ to $v^k$, and the line segments move linearly from $\overline{u_i^{k-1}u_i^k}$ to $\overline{u_i^{k-1}v^k}$, and from $\overline{u_i^ku_i^{k+1}}$ to $\overline{v^ku_i^{k+1}}$. Since $|u^k_i-v^k|<\frac{r}{2}$ and $\mu(\overline{u^{k-1}_iu^k_i}, \mathcal{C}^k)<\frac{r}{2}$ (Condition (3) in Lemma~\ref{lem:cds}), the perturbation stays inside $\Gamma^k_{\epsilon}$ which has a radius $r$. So during the perturbation, $\overline{u^{k-1}_i,u^k_i}$ and $\overline{u^k_i,u^{k+1}_i}$ do not intersect any line segments of $L_i$, possibly except their consecutive segments. But note that for each $k$, $u_i^k, v^k \in \Gamma_{\epsilon}^k \cap \Gamma_{\epsilon}^{k+1}$. An easy geometric analysis shows that this restricted area of the perturbation precludes the possibility for $\overline{u^{k-1}_i,u^k_i}$ and $\overline{u^k_i,u^{k+1}_i}$ intersecting their consecutive segments. So the perturbation does not cause intersections, and hence preserves the ambient isotopy.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}[Isotopic Convergence Theorem]\label{thm:distcurv}
If $\{C_i\}_{1}^{\infty}$ converges to $\mathcal{C}$ pointwise and in total curvature, then there exists an integer $N$ such that $C_i$ is ambient isotopic to $\mathcal{C}$ for all $i \geq N$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For each $C_i$ and $\epsilon>0$, there exists an inscribed PL curve $L_i$ of $C_i$ such that $L_i$ is sufficiently close (bounded by $\epsilon$) to $C_i$ pointwise and in total curvature by Lemma~\ref{lem:app}, and ambient isotopic to $C_i$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:insc}. Since ambient isotopy is an equivalence relation \cite{Livingston1993}, we now rely on Theorem~\ref{thm:insc} to consider, without loss of generality, a sequence of PL curves $\{L_i\}_1^{\infty}$ instead of $\{C_i\}_{1}^{\infty}$.
Note that $T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}^k) < \frac{\pi}{2}$ and the polyline $\bigcup_{k=1}^n \overline{v^{k-1}v^k}$ lies inside of the tubular neighborhood (since $CH(\mathcal{C}^k) \subset \Gamma_{\mathcal{C}}$). By the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:insc} we know that these are sufficient conditions for $\mathcal{C}$ being ambient isotopic to $\bigcup_{k=1}^n \overline{v^{k-1}v^k}$. By the equivalence relation of ambient isotopy, Lemma~\ref{lem:tpbk} implies that $\mathcal{C}$ is ambient isotopic to $\bigcup_{k=1}^n \overline{u_i^{k-1}u_i^k}$, and Lemma~\ref{lem:dtel} further implies that $\mathcal{C}$ is ambient isotopic to $L_i$.
\end{proof}
\section{Some Conceptual Algorithms and Potential Applications}
\label{ssec:alg}
The Isotopic Convergence Theorem has both theoretical and practical applications. Theoretically, it formulates criteria to show the same knot type in knot theory. Practically, it provides rigorous theoretical foundations to extend current algorithms in computer graphics and visualization to much richer classes of curves than the splines already investigated \cite{TJP08}.
The following are the general procedures derived from our Theorem~\ref{thm:insc} and Theorem~\ref{thm:distcurv}. For a specific problem, further algorithmic development will depend upon characteristics of the class of curves. If the curve is ``nice" in the sense that the total curvature and the radius of a tubular surface is easy to compute, then it is easy to develop an algorithm. Such ``nice" curves include a rational cubic spline parameterized by arc length, for which the total curvatures can be easily computed, and the radius of a tubular surface can be found according to an existing result \cite{Maekawa_Patrikalakis_Sakkalis_Yu1998}. Otherwise, for some other curves, the computation of the total curvatures and the radius of a tubular neighborhood may be difficult and is beyond the scope of the details considered here, even while the theorems provide a broad framework within which these subtleties can be considered.
\subsection{Using PL knots to represent smooth knots}\label{ssec:pkrsk}
Based on Lemma~\ref{lem:app} and Theorem~\ref{thm:insc}, a procedure can be designed such that it takes a smooth knot as input and picks finitely many points on it to form an ambient isotopic PL knot. We call this a \textit{PL representation} of the smooth knot.
Recall that two criteria are sufficient for the isotopy between a compact $C^2$ curve $\mathcal{C}$ and its inscribed PL curve $\mathcal{L}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Each sub-curve of $\mathcal{C}$ determined by two consecutive vertices of $\mathcal{L}$ has a total curvature less than $\frac{\pi}{2}$.
\item The PL curve $\mathcal{L}$ lies inside of the tubular surface for $\mathcal{C}$ with radius $r$. (This can be achieved by making the Hausdorff distance between $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{C}$ less than $r$.)
\end{enumerate}
\noindent {\it \large The Outline of Forming PL Representations:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Select $\mathcal{C}(0)$ as the initial vertex of $\mathcal{L}$, denoted as $v_0$.
\item Set\footnote{This $\epsilon$ value is not unique. Many others also work.} $\epsilon=0.1$. Select\footnote{It is not necessary for $T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[0,t_1]})$ to be exactly $\frac{\pi}{2}-\epsilon$. For efficiency, it is fine to end up with a value not equal to $\frac{\pi}{2}-\epsilon$ as long as it is less than $\frac{\pi}{2}$. This aspect will require a subroutine to be developed that will likely vary over the class of curves considered and this detail is beyond the scope of the current investigation.} $t_1 \in [0,1]$ such that $T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_{[0,t_1]})=\frac{\pi}{2}-\epsilon$. Let the second vertex of $\mathcal{L}$ be $\mathcal{C}(t_1)$, denoted as $v_1$.
\item Similarly pick $t_2$ to obtain $v_2$. Continue until we reach the end point $\mathcal{C}(1)$, denoted as $v_n$. This process terminates because $\mathcal{C}$ is compact. In the end, we obtain an $\mathcal{L}$, and sub-curves of $\mathcal{C}$ with total curvatures being less than $\frac{\pi}{2}$.
\item Verify if the Hausdorff distance between $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{C}$ is less than $r$; If not, then select midpoints: $\mathcal{C}(\frac{t_j+t_{j+1}}{2})$ for $j\in \{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$, denoted as $v_{\frac{2j+1}{2}}$, to form a new inscribed PL curve determined by vertices: $$\{v_0, v_{\frac{1}{2}}, v_1, v_{\frac{3}{2}},v_2, \ldots, v_{n-1}, v_{\frac{2n-1}{2}},v_n\}.$$
\item Repeat 4 until the Hausdorff distance between $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{C}$ is less than $r$. This process of selecting midpoints implies the pointwise convergence. So this process terminates.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Testing isotopic convergence}
For a $C^2$ curve $\mathcal{C}$ and a sequence $\{C_i\}_1^{\infty}$ of piecewise $C^2$ curves, where $\{C_i\}_1^{\infty}$ converges to $\mathcal{C}$ pointwise and in total curvature, we shall design a procedure to determine a positive integer $N$ such that whenever $i \geq N$, $C_i$ is ambient isotopic to $\mathcal{C}$. Use $T_{\kappa}(\cdot)$ to denote the total curvature, $CH(\cdot)$ the convex hull, and $\mu(\cdot)$ the Hausdorff distance. \\
\\
\noindent {\it \large The Outline of Testing Isotopic Convergence:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Divide $\mathcal{C}$ into sub-curves $\mathcal{C}^k$ for $k=1,\cdots,n$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $T_{\kappa}(\mathcal{C}^k) < \frac{\pi}{2}$; and
\item $CH(\mathcal{C}^k) \subset \Gamma^k$.
\end{itemize}
\item Set $i : =1$.
\item Use the above technique to form a \textit{PL Representation} $L_i$ for the piecewise $C^2$ curve $C_i$ such that $L_i$ is ambient isotopic to $C_i$.
\item Let $L_i^k$ be the sub-curve of $L_i$ corresponding to $\mathcal{C}^k$. Denote the end points of $L_i^k$ as $u^{k-1}_i$ and $u^k_i$, and the corresponding end points of $\mathcal{C}^k$ as $v^{k-1}$ and $v^k$.Verify three criteria:
\begin{itemize}
\item $T_{\kappa}(L_i^k) < \frac{\pi}{2}$;
\item $CH(L_i^k) \subset \Gamma^k_{\epsilon}$; and
\item $|u^k_i-v^k|<\frac{r}{2}$ and $\mu(\overline{u^{k-1}_iu^k_i}, \mathcal{C}^k)<\frac{r}{2}$.
\end{itemize}
\item If these criteria are satisfied, then let $N:=i$ and stop. Otherwise let $i:=i+1$ and go to (3).
\end{enumerate}
We know that $\{C_i\}_1^{\infty}$ pointwise converges to $\mathcal{C}$ and uniformly converges to $\mathcal{C}$ in total curvature (Lemma~\ref{lem:loc-cov}), so there exists a finite $i$ such that these three criteria are achieved, which means the above process terminates. By Isotopic Convergence Theorem, we obtain the ambient isotopy.
\subsection{A potential application for molecular simulations}\label{sec:avs}
It is often of interest to consider geometric models that are perturbed over time. For chemical simulations of macro-molecules, the algorithms in high performance computing (HPC) environments will produce voluminous numerical data describing how the molecule twists and writhes under local chemical and kinetic changes. These are reflected in changed co-ordinates of the geometric model, called perturbations. To produce a scientifically valid visualization, it is crucial that topological artifacts are not introduced by the visual approximations \cite{TJP08}. A primary distinction between the approximations created here in Section~\ref{ssec:pkrsk} and those based on Taylor's Theorem \cite{TJP08} is the expression here of the upper bound for total curvature to be less than $\frac{\pi}{2} - \epsilon$.
An earlier perturbation result is limited to PL curves \cite{L.-E.Andersson2000}. Other ambient isotopic approximation methods rely upon the curve being a spline \cite{JL-bez-iso, Moore_Peters_Roulier2007}. The example in the next section needs not be a spline. Our approach provides a more general result of sufficient conditions for both approximation and perturbations which do not change topological features. Precisely, our Isotopic Convergence Theorem implies that as long as the convergence criterion of pointwise convergence and convergence in total curvature is satisfied, then ambient isotopy is preserved.
\subsection{A representative example of offset curves}\label{sec:reoc}
Offset curves are defined as locus of the points which are at constant distant along the normal from the generator
curves \cite{Maekawa1999}. It is well-known \cite[p.~553 ]{Piegl} that offsets of spline curves need not be splines. They are widely used in various applications, and the related approximation problems were frequently studied. A literature survey on offset curves and surfaces prior to 1992 was conducted by Pham \cite{Pham1992}, and another such survey between 1992 and 1999 was given by Maekawa \cite{Maekawa1999}. Here we show a representative example as a catalyst to ambient isotopic approximations of offset curves.
Let $\mathcal{C}(t)$ be a compact, regular, $C^2$, simple, space curve parametrized on $[a,b]$, whose curvature $\kappa$ never equals $1$. Then define an offset curve by
$$\Omega(t) = \mathcal{C}(t) + N(t),$$
where $N(t)$ is the normal vector at $t$, for $t \in [a,b]$.
For example, let $\mathcal{C}(t)=(2\cos t, 2\sin t, t)$ for $t\in[0,2\pi]$ be a helix, then it is an easy exercise for the reader to verify that the above assumptions of $\mathcal{C}$ are satisfied, with $\kappa=\frac{2}{5}$. Furthermore, it is straightforward to obtain the offset curve $\Omega(t) = (\cos t, \sin t, t)$.
We first show that $\Omega(t)$ is regular. Let $s(t)=\int_{a}^t |\mathcal{C}'(t)| dt$ be the arc-length of $\mathcal{C}$. Then by Frenet-Serret formulas \cite{DoCarmo1976} we have
$$\Omega'(t)=\mathcal{C}'(t)+N'(t)$$
$$=\frac{ds}{dt}T + (-\kappa T+\tau B)\frac{ds}{dt}=(1-\kappa)\frac{ds}{dt} T+\tau \frac{ds}{dt} B,$$
where $T$ and $B$ are the unit tangent vector and binormal vector respectively.
Since $T \perp B$, if $(1-\kappa)\frac{ds}{dt} \neq 0$ then $\Omega'(t) \neq 0$. But $(1-\kappa)\frac{ds}{dt} \neq 0$ because $\kappa \neq 1$ and $\mathcal{C}(t)$ is regular by the assumption. Thus $\Omega(t)$ is regular.
Now we define a sequence $\{ \Omega_i(t) \}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ to approximate $\Omega(t)$ by setting
$$\Omega_i (t) = \mathcal{C}(t) + \frac{i-1}{i}N(t).$$
It is obvious that $\{ \Omega_i(t) \}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ pointwise converges to $\Omega(t)$. For the convergence in total curvature, note that $\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} \Omega'_i(t) = \Omega'(t)$, $\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} \Omega''_i(t) = \Omega''(t)$, and $|\Omega'(t)| \neq 0$ due to the regularity of $\Omega(t)$. Therefore
$$\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} \frac{ \Omega'_i(t) \times \Omega''_i(t)}{|\Omega'_i(t)|^3}= \frac{ \Omega'(t) \times \Omega''(t)}{|\Omega'(t)|^3}.$$
The convergence in total curvature follows.
Consequently, by\footnote{Since the example satisfies $C^0$ and $C^1$ convergence and the paper \cite{Sullivan2008} shows ambient isotopy under $C^0$ and $C^1$ convergence, the ambient isotopy for this example also follows from the previous result \cite{Sullivan2008}. Here our purpose is to use it as a representation to show how the Isotopic Convergence Theorem can be applied.} the Isotopic Convergence Theorem (Theorem~\ref{thm:distcurv}), we conclude that there exists a positive integer $N$ such that $\Omega_i(t)$ is ambient isotopic to $\Omega(t)$ whenever $i > N$.
\section{Conclusion}
We derived the Isotopic Convergence Theorem by topological and geometric techniques, as motivated by applications for knot theory, computer graphics, visualization and simulations.
Future research may use the Isotopic Convergence Theorem in knot classification, since it provides a method to pick finitely many points from a given knot, where the set of finitely many points determines the same knot type.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank Professor Maria Gordina, Professor John M Sullivan, Dr. Chen-yun Lin and the referee for stimulating questions and insightful comments about this manuscript.
The authors express their appreciation for partial funding from the National Science Foundation under grants CMMI 1053077 and CNS 0923158. All expressions here are of the authors, not of the National Science Foundation. The authors also express their appreciation for support from IBM under JSA W1056109, where statements in this paper are the responsibility of the authors, not of IBM.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
The dynamics of interacting multi-agent or swarming systems in various
biological and engineering fields is actively being studied. These systems
are remarkable for their ability to self-organize into very diverse, complex
spatio-temporal patterns. These studies have numerous biological applications
with widely varying spatial and temporal scales. Among them are bacterial
colonies, schooling fish, flocking birds, swarming locusts, ants, and
pedestrians \cite{Budrene95, Toner95, Parrish99, Topaz04, hebling1995,
Farrell12, Mishra12, Xue12}. In engineering, these studies have investigated systems of communicating robots \cite{Leonard02,Justh04, Morgan05, chuang2007} and mobile sensor networks \cite{lynch2008}.
A fundamental problem for the engineering of systems of autonomous, communicating agents is the
design of agent-interaction protocols to achieve robotic space-time path
planning, consensus and cooperative functions, and other forms of
spatio-temporal organization. A fruitful approach has resulted from applying
the tools developed in the study of swarms in various biological and physical
contexts to aid in the design of algorithms for systems of communicating robots. This has led to the successful use of a combination of inter-agent and external
potentials to obtain agent organization and cooperation; however, it must be
ensured that the results from these methods are scalable with respect to the
number of agents. Important applications
comprise the following: obstacle avoidance \cite{Morgan05}, boundary tracking
\cite{hsieh2005,Triandaf05}, environmental sensing \cite{lynch2008,lu2011},
decentralized target tracking \cite{chung2006}, environmental consensus estimation \cite{lynch2008,Jad2006} and task allocation \cite{mather2011}.
An important aspect that must be accounted for in the design of algorithms for
the spatio-temporal organization of communicating robotic systems is that of
time delay. Time delay arises in latent communication between agents,
information processing times, hardware malfunction, as well as actuation lag
times due to inertia. Time delays in robotic systems are important in the
areas of consensus estimation \cite{Jad2006} and task allocation, where, for
example, there is a time delay as a consequence of the time required to switch
between different tasks \cite{mather2011}. Previous work has shown the big
impact that time delays may have in the dynamics of a system, such as
destabilization and synchronization \cite{Englert11, Zuo10}. Moreover, time
delays have been used with success for control purposes \cite{Konishi10}. The
initial studies considered at most a few discrete time delays that are constant in time. Recent studies have extended the aforementioned investigations to
consider randomly selected time delays \cite{Ahlborn07, Wu09, Marti06} and
distributed time delays, i.e., when the time evolution of the system is
affected by its history over an extended time interval in its past, instead of at a discrete instants \cite{Omi08,Cai07, Dykman12}.
Robust algorithms for task planning with inter-agent and environmental
interactions need to account for the presence of noise at all levels in the
system. Noise in the swarm's dynamics introduces higher complexity in the
behavior and may produce transitions from one coherent pattern to another,
something that may be detrimental to the algorithm's purposes or, to the
contrary, that may be exploited to escape unwanted states \cite{vicsek95,Erdmann05, Forgoston08,MierTRO12}.
Here, we investigate a swarming model where the coupling between agents occurs
with randomly distributed time delays. We show that the attractive coupling,
non-uniform, random time delays and external noise intensity combine to produce
transitions between different coherent patterns. Remarkably, we show that
under certain conditions, noise produces transitions that increase the phase
space coherence of the particles.
\section{Swarm Model}\label{sec:swarm_model}
We study the spatio-temporal dynamics of a two dimensional system of $N$
agents under the effects of two forces: self-propulsion and mutual
attraction. We consider that the attraction between agents occurs in a time
delayed fashion due to finite communication speeds and processing times. The dynamics of
the particles is described by the following governing dimensionless equations:
\begin{align}\label{swarm_eq}
\ddot{\mathbf{r}}_i =& \left(1 - |\dot{\mathbf{r}}_i|^2\right)\dot{\mathbf{r}}_i -
\frac{a}{N}\mathop{\sum_{j=1}^N}_{i\neq j}(\mathbf{r}_i(t) -
\mathbf{r}_j(t-\tau_{ij}))+ \boldsymbol{\eta}_i(t),
\end{align}
for $i =1,2\ldots,N$. The 2D position and velocity vectors of particle $i$ at
time $t$ are
denoted by $\mathbf{r}_i(t)$ and $\dot{\mathbf{r}}_i(t)$,
respectively. The self-propulsion of agent $i$ is modeled by the term
$\left(1 - |\dot{\mathbf{r}}_i|^2\right)\dot{\mathbf{r}}_i$. The quantity $a$
is called the coupling constant and measures the strength of attraction between agents. At time $t$, agent $i$ is attracted to the position of agent $j$
at the past time $t-\tau_{ij}$. The $N(N-1)$ different time delays
$0<\tau_{ij}$ are distributed according to a distribution $\rho(\tau)$ whose
mean is $\mu_\tau$ and whose standard deviation is $\sigma_\tau$. In contrast
to some of our recent work, here we allow that
$\tau_{ij}\neq\tau_{ji}$; i.e., time delays are not symmetric among pairs of
agents \cite{Lindley12,MierPRL12}. The form of our model is based on the normal form for particles near a
supercritical bifurcation corresponding to the onset of coherent motion
\cite{Mikhailov99}. In addition, the functional form of the attractive terms may be thought of
as representing the first term in a Taylor series around a stable equilibrium
point of a more general time-delayed potential. Various models of this form have been extensively used
to study the motion of swarms \cite{Dorsogna06,Erdmann05, Strefler08,
Forgoston08,Mikhailov99,MierTRO12}. Lastly, the term
$\boldsymbol{\eta}_i(t) = (\eta_i^{(1)}, \eta_i^{(2)})$ is a two-dimensional
vector of stochastic white noise with intensity equal to $D$ and such that
$\langle \eta_i^{(\ell)}(t)\rangle=0$ and $\langle \eta_i^{(\ell)}(t)
\eta_j^{(k)}(t') \rangle = 2D\delta(t-t')\delta_{ij}\delta_{\ell k}$ for $i,j=1,2,\ldots N$ and $\ell, k = 1,2$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm,height=3.0cm]{fig0a.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm,height=3.0cm]{fig0b.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{A selection of the bifurcation curves of the mean field model
Eq. \eqref{mean_field} in the parameter space of coupling strength $a$ and
mean time delay $\mu_\tau$ for different values of the time delay standard
deviation $\sigma_\tau = 0.2$ (a) and 0.6 (b). In region A (a) the
stationary state of the mean field is stable; this state corresponds to the
ring state (see text) of the full swarm system Eq. \eqref{swarm_eq}. The swarm moves
uniformly in region C (a), this `translating state' disappears by merging
with the stationary state along the curve $a\mu_\tau=1$ (red). The
stationary state undergoes a first Hopf bifurcation along the curve above
region A (a), making the mean field adopt a `rotating state' in region B (a). The
stationary state has an infinite series of higher order Hopf bifurcations;
the first few members are shown in dashed curves (green, cyan and
magenta). Comparing (a) and (b), we see how sensitive these additional Hopf
curves are with respect to $\sigma_\tau$. The marker at $a=2$ and
$\mu_\tau=2$ denotes the parameter values used for our numerical
investigations. (Color online).}\label{fig0}
\end{figure}
A mean field approximation of the swarm dynamics may be obtained by using
coordinates relative to the center of mass $\mathbf{r}_i = \mathbf{R} + \delta
\mathbf{r}_i$, for $i =1,2\ldots,N$, where $\mathbf{R}(t) =
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N\mathbf{r}_i(t)$. Following \cite{Lindley12}, we use
the following distributed delay equation to describe the mean field of the swarm:
{\normalsize
\begin{align}\label{mean_field}
\ddot{\mathbf{R}}=& \left(1 - |\dot{\mathbf{R}}|^2 \right)\dot{\mathbf{R}}
-a\left(\mathbf{\
R}(t) - \int_0^\infty \mathbf{R}(t-\tau)\rho(\tau)d\tau \right).
\end{align}}
For Eq. \eqref{mean_field} to be accurate, we require that
$N$ be sufficiently large so that $\frac{1}{N(N-1)}\sum_{i=1}^N
\mathop{\sum_{j=1}^N}_{i\neq j}\mathbf{R}(t-\tau_{ij}) \approx
\int_0^\infty \mathbf{R}(t-\tau)\rho(\tau)d\tau$ and
that the swarm particles remain relatively close together. However, since
the proximity of the particles is not controlled directly by any parameter,
one must rely on numerical simulations of finite swarm populations to
establish the parameter regimes where the approximation holds.
\section{Results}\label{sec:results}
In the absence of noise, Eqs. \eqref{swarm_eq} have been shown to possess a
rich bifurcation structure, elucidated by the use of the mean field
approximation Eq. \eqref{mean_field} (Figure \ref{fig0}) \cite{Lindley12}. In contrast to the mean field, the full system displays bistability of
several coherent patterns. In particular, in wide portions of region B in
Fig. \ref{fig0}a, Eqs. \eqref{swarm_eq} possesses bistability of two different patterns: (\emph{i}) a `ring state', where the
center of mass of the swarm is at rest and the agents rotate both clockwise
and counterclockwise at a constant speed and radius $1/\sqrt{a}$; (\emph{ii})
a `rotating state', where the particles form a fairly dense clump and move
along a circular arc at constant speed, with all velocity vectors
approximately aligned. The initial alignment of the particle velocities and
the width of the time delay distribution are instrumental in determining what
pattern is adopted after the decay of transients. Specifically,
decreasing
initial velocity alignment and increasing width of the delay distribution
results in a higher liklihood of convergence to the ring state.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm,height=3.0cm]{fig11.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm,height=3.0cm]{fig12.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm,height=3.0cm]{fig13.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm,height=3.0cm]{fig14.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm,height=3.0cm]{fig15.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm,height=3.0cm]{fig16.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Snapshots of the swarm agents at different times, illustrating the
transition from the ring state to the rotating state. Here $\sigma_\tau$=0.2 and $D=$0.23. The circle in the different panels is simply
shown as a guide to the eye.}\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
When noise is introduced, the combination of the coupling strength,
the time delay and noise produces interesting pattern transitions due to the
fluctuations of the agent's alignment. Specifically, we find that when there
is bistability of the ring and rotating state, there is a critical value of
the noise intensity, $D_{crit}$, above which the swarm transitions from the
ring state to the rotating state. In contrast, noise intensities below that
critical value do not produce such a transition; that is, no such transition has been observed within
the limits of our long-time numerical simulations. Figure
\ref{fig1} shows snapshots of the swarm, illustrating this transition. Here,
and the rest of the simulations discussed below, the initial state of the
particles is considered to be at rest and the particles are randomly
distributed on the unit square. The new state of the swarm at each time
step is found by updating the stochastic system \eqref{swarm_eq} using
Heun's Method. In all simulations we assume the delays $\tau$ are uniformly
distributed with a mean delay of $\mu_\tau$ and a standard deviation
of $\sigma_\tau$. The noise is assumed to be Gaussian with intensity
$D$. For all of our numerical studies, we use the values $N=50$, $a=2$ and $\mu_\tau = 2$.
A remarkable fact is that noise
intensities $D > D_{crit}$ produce a transition
from a less coherent state into another with higher coherence. This is because the ring state is a disorganized state with both position and velocity vectors adopting wide probability distributions. In contrast, the rotating state is highly coherent, with particles
having nearby locations (high density swarms) and almost perfect velocity alignment.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm,height=3.0cm]{fig21.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm,height=3.0cm]{fig22.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm,height=3.0cm]{fig23.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm,height=3.0cm]{fig24.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Time series showing the mean particle alignment as a function of
time, for different parameter values. The top row has time delay standard deviation $\sigma_\tau=$0.2
and noise intensities $D=$0.25 (a) and 0.4 (b). The bottom row has time
delay standard deviation $\sigma_\tau=$0.6 and noise intensities $D=$0.25
(c) and 0.4 (d). Please note the different scales on the abcissa axis. }\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
In order to properly quantify the time required by the swarm to make this
transition, we use a quantity called the mean alignment, which has been used
in the past to describe the pattern adopted by the swarm as a whole \cite{MierTRO12}. This quantity is defined as
follows. If the velocity of particle $j$ makes an angle $\theta_j$ with the
velocity of the center of mass, then the mean alignment is simply the ensemble
average of the cosines of all of the angles $\theta_j$, for $j=1,2\ldots
N$. That is,
\begin{align}
\textrm{Mean swarm alignment} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N\cos\theta_j = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N\frac{\dot{\mathbf{r}}_j \cdot \dot{\mathbf{R}}}{|\dot{\mathbf{r}}_j| |\dot{\mathbf{R}}|},
\end{align}
which ranges from -1 to 1. When all particles have perfectly aligned
velocities, the mean alignment is equal to 1, regardless of their location
in space or the magnitude of the individual particles' speeds.
Figure \ref{fig2} shows the mean particle alignment as a function of time, for
different values of the noise intensity and the time delay standard
deviation. The four panels show how the swarm starts with very low values of
the mean alignment, since it initially adopts the ring state. After some
dwell time in the ring state, the noise causes the swarm depart from that
state and converge to the rotating state, where the mean alignment is almost
1.0. Once the agents begin to depart from the ring state, the transition time required to
complete the transition is very short compared to the dwell time. For the
simulations shown, the dwell time decreases with
increasing noise intensity (Fig. \ref{fig2}a to \ref{fig2}b and Fig. \ref{fig2}c to
\ref{fig2}d) and increases with increasing time delay standard deviation
(Fig. \ref{fig2}a to \ref{fig2}c and Fig. \ref{fig2}b to
\ref{fig2}d).
To better understand the onset of alignment due to noise, we probe different noise intensities for various choices of $\sigma_\tau$, with $\mu_\tau$ fixed, and then plot their asymptoptic mean alignment Figure
\ref{fig3}. Each of the numerical experiments in Figure \ref{fig3} was
started in an initial state that, outside of the presence of noise, will
stay indefinitely in the ring formation (unaligned). The simulation was run
out to $t=2500$, in order to allow transients to pass, and to ensure we
capture any transition between the two states. As reported in
\cite{MierTRO12}, we do see a critical value of the noise intensity $D$ at
which the noise drives the particles into the highly aligned rotating state. Interestingly, as $\sigma_\tau$
is increased, the location of the $D_{crit}$ shifts so that a larger noise
intensity is required to observe this transition. Thus, we observe a
dependence of the critical noise threshold on the distribution width of the
delays.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{0.65\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=5.0cm,height=3.50cm]{Alignment.eps}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\caption{Asymptotic mean particle alignment as a function of the noise
intensity parameter, $D$, and for different values of the time delay
standard deviation $\sigma_\tau$. Each curve (labeling different
values of the standard deviation of the time delay) has an extremely sharp
transition that occurs at a critical value of the noise intensity $D_{crit}$
($0.2<D_{crit}<0.25$). Below the transition point the swarm converges to the
ring state and remains there for times as long as our simulations permit. In
contrast, above the critical noise value, the swarm transitions to the more
coherent, rotating sate. }\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
Further, as observed in Fig. \ref{fig2}, increasing $\sigma_\tau$ also
increases the amount of time the particles remain in the ring state before
finally transitioning to the rotating state (assuming $D$ is large enough
for such a transition to occur). To better understand this observation, we
do single runs for various values of $\sigma_\tau$ and $D$. For each simulation, we monitor when a threshold value of the mean
alignment is reached, and then record that time as the `dwell time'. While
these dwell time values, shown in figure \ref{fig4}, record only single
events, they do indicate that, generally speaking, below the threshold value
$D<D_{crit}(\sigma_\tau)$, we do not observe a transition out of the ring state,
but for $D\geq D_{crit}(\sigma_\tau)$, we observe that the dwell time is
highest near the threshold, and then rapidly decreases as $D$ is
increased. As one continues to increase $D$ even further, the rotating state
will gradually become more disorganized until noise dominates the entire
system.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{0.65\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=5.0cm,height=3.50cm]{dwelltime_new.eps}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\caption{Dwelling time in the ring state, as a function of noise intensity,
$D$, and the time delay standard deviation, $\sigma_\tau$. Below the
$\sigma_\tau$-dependent, critical value of noise intensity, $D_{crit}$, the
transition times diverge from the perspective of our long-time numerical
simulations (white region). Above the value $D_{crit}$, the transition times
become finite and accessible to computation from numerical simulations. }\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
We have considered the general problem of multi-agent swarms of particles
where the communication is governed by a delay coupled potential field. In
particular, we have considered the case where the delay coupling is fixed in
time but randomly distributed from a chosen probability density. This corresponds to the
fact that in many cases the delays in signal transmission and/or reception
are caused by finite transmission times, processing and control delays, and the
probability of dropped packets. Modeling the swarm as a globally coupled
delay system, we have considered the role of temporal noise due to
fluctuations from external forces which occur when the swarm is operating in
a random field. In particular, we have considered parameters of the
distributed delay system in which there exists bi-stability; i.e., there
co-exists both a ring state and a rotating state.
For a given noise density and delay distribution, we have characterized the observation that a specific range of noise
intensities forces a swarm from a disordered ring state, to a more
ordered rotating state. By probing
the effects of noise intensity along with the delay distribution width, we
see a two parameter set which describes fluctuations which cause switching
between disordered and ordered states. In particular, fluctuations due to
sufficient noise intensities are observed to produce highly coherent and
compact structures, which is clearly a non-intuitive result. We
note once more that the patterns and the transitions between them, do not fundamentally change
with the addition of small, local repulsive forces between particles.
Stronger repulsion can, however, destabilize the coherent structures.
Understanding these types noise-induced transitions is key to preventing
coherence collapse in delay-coupled autonomous systems, as well as
formulating control strategies. In particular, the idea of a critical noise
threshold which can serve to facilitate transitions between different
dynamic patterns is very interesting and powerful, and understanding its
dependence on the structure of delay-coupled systems is an area of ongoing
interest.
\addtolength{\textheight}{-10.80cm}
We note that in the future, more work is required to understand the role of
fluctuations on delay coupled systems. Towards this end, a general theory of
switching for non-Gaussian noise is needed. In addition, more systematic numerical simulations will allow sufficient
averaging to refine our understanding of the transitions discussed here. In addition, realistic networks
of communication need to be considered beyond the globally coupled system
modeled here.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Office of Naval Research for their
support through ONR contract no. N0001412WX2003 and the Naval Research
Laboratory 6.1 program contract no.
N0001412WX30002. LMR and IBS are supported by Award Number R01GM090204 from the
National Institute Of General Medical Sciences. The content is solely the
responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official
views of the National Institute Of General Medical Sciences or the National
Institutes of Health. {BSL is currently supported by a National Research
Council fellowship.}
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
|
\section{Introduction}
In 1953 Roth~\cite{Roth} proved his famous theorem about arithmetic progressions of length~$3$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{roth}
Let $0 < \alpha < 1$. Any subset of $\{1, \dots, N \}$ of size $\alpha N$ with $N \geq N_0(\alpha)$ contains a non-trivial arithmetic progression of length $3$.
\end{theorem}
A \emph{$d$-configuration} is a set of the form $\{n_i + n_j + a\}_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$ with $a, n_1, ..., n_d \in \field{N}$. The $d$-configuration is \emph{non-trivial} if for all $i \neq j$, $n_i \neq n_j$.
Our aim is to prove the following generalisation of Roth's theorem:
\begin{theorem}
\label{th1}
Let $0 < \alpha < 1$ and $d \geq 1$. Any subset of $\{1, \dots, N \}$ of size $\alpha N$ with $N \geq N_0(\alpha,d)$ contains a non-trivial $d$-configuration.
\end{theorem}
If $d=2$, this is equivalent to Roth's theorem because $2$-configurations are exactly arithmetic progressions of length $3$.
Theorem~\ref{th1} can be proved easily by using Szemer\'edi's theorem~\cite{Sze75}, presented here in a quantitative version due to Gowers~\cite{Gowers}.
We write $p \uparrow q$ for $p^q$, with the convention that $p \uparrow q \uparrow r$ stands for $p \uparrow (q \uparrow r)$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{szeme}
Let $0 < \alpha < 1$, and $k$ be a positive integer. Let $N \geq 2 \uparrow 2 \uparrow (\alpha)^{-1} \uparrow 2 \uparrow 2 \uparrow (k+9)$ and let $A$ be a subset of $[N]$ with cardinality $\alpha N$. Then $A$ contains a non-trivial arithmetic progression of length $k$.
\end{theorem}
Now to prove Theorem~\ref{th1} we can locate in $A$ a progression $P$ of length $2d-1$, set the $2 n_i + a$'s to be the elements with odd indices of $P$, and notice that $P$ is a $d$-configuration. By Theorem~\ref{szeme}, this is possible if $N \geq 2 \uparrow 2 \uparrow (\alpha)^{-1} \uparrow 2 \uparrow 2 \uparrow (2d+8)$, but this bound is very unsatisfactory. Therefore we give a proof that does not involve such a deep theorem as Szemer\'edi's, and show that Theorem~\ref{th1} is true for $N \geq \exp \left(\exp \left( \left(\frac{C}{\alpha}\right)^{d(d+1)-1}\right)\right),$ where $C$ is some absolute constant.
\
In the second part of this paper we use Theorem~\ref{th1} to prove a result about sum-free subsets.
For two finite sets of real numbers $A$ and $B$, one says that $B$ is \emph{sum-free} with respect to $A$ if the set $\{b + b' | b,b' \in B, b \neq b' \}$ is disjoint from $A$. Let $\phi (n)$ denote the largest integer such that any set $A$ of size $n$ contains a subset of cardinality $\phi (n)$ which is sum-free with respect to A. An interesting question is to find a lower bound for $\phi(n)$. Erd\mathbb{H}{o}s first mentioned in~\cite{Erdos} that $\phi(n) \geq c \log n$ for some constant $c$, and the first published proof of this result was done by Choi~\cite{Choi} who proved that $\phi (n) \geq \log_2 n$. Then Ruzsa~\cite{Ruzsa} improved this result slightly by showing that $\phi (n) \geq 2\log_3 n -1$. Recently Sudakov, Szemer\'edi and Vu~\cite{Sudakov} gave the first superlogarithmic bound by showing that $\phi(n) \geq \log n \left(\log ^{(5)} n \right)^{1- o(1)}$, where $\log^{(i)}n$ denotes the iterate logarithm ($\log^{(1)}x =x$, $\log^{(i+1)}x = \log(\log^{(i)}x)$). By modifying a small part of their proof using Theorem~\ref{th1}, we prove that $\phi(n) \geq \log n \left(\log ^{(3)} n \right)^{1/32772 - o(1)}$.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th1}}
As in several proofs of Roth's theorem~\cite{Roth,Green,Heath,Sze2}, we use the density increment strategy to prove Theorem~\ref{th1}.
It consists in showing that either $A$ contains a non-trivial $d$-configuration or it has increased density on some arithmetic progression
In the following, we will use the notations $[N]:= \{1,...,N\}$ and $e(\theta):= e^{2i\pi \theta}.$
\subsection{Complexity and Gowers uniformity norms
Gowers' uniformity norms play an important role in his proof of Szemeredi's theorem~\cite{Gowers}, and therefore in the particular case of Roth's theorem, as explained in Green's course notes~\cite{Green}.
We will use these norms in our proof too, but we first need the notion of complexity, introduced by Green and Tao in \cite{GreenTao}.
\begin{definition}
Let $\Psi =(\psi_1,...,\psi_t)$ be a system of affine-linear forms. If $1 \leq i \leq t$ and $s \geq 0$, we say that $\Psi$ has $i$-complexity at most $s$ if one can cover the $t-1$ forms $\{\psi_j : j \in [t]\setminus \{i\} \}$ by $s+1$ classes, such that $\psi_i$ does not lie in the affine-linear span of any of these classes. The \emph{complexity} of $\Psi$ is defined to be the least $s$ for which the system has $i$-complexity at most $s$ for all $1 \leq i \leq t$, or $\infty$ if no such $s$ exists.
\end{definition}
We will now define the Gowers uniformity norms.
Let $f$ be a function from $\field{Z}/N\field{Z}$ to $\field{C}$. The \emph{expectation} of $f$ is defined to be the quantity $$ \mathbb{E}_{x \in \field{Z}/N\field{Z}} f(x) := \frac{1}{N} \sum_{x \in \field{Z}/N\field{Z}} f(x).$$
\begin{definition} Suppose that $f : \field{Z}/N\field{Z} \rightarrow \field{C}$ is a function. Let $k \geq 2$ be an integer. The \emph{Gowers $U^k$-norm} is defined by $$ \| f \|_{U^k} := \left(\mathbb{E}_{x,h_1,...,h_k \in \field{Z}/N\field{Z}} \prod_{(\omega_{1},...,\omega_k) \in \{0,1\}^k} C^{| \omega_1 | + ... + |\omega_k|} f(x + \omega_1 h_1 +...+ \omega_k h_k) \right)^{1/2^k},$$
where we use the notation $Cf := \overline{f}.$
\end{definition}
In particular the Gowers $U^2$-norm which we will use later is defined by $$ \| f \|_{U^2} := \left(\mathbb{E}_{x,h_1,h_2 \in \field{Z}/N\field{Z}} f(x) \overline{f(x+h_1)} \overline{f(x+h_2)} f(x+h_1+h_2) \right)^{1/4}.$$
To establish a link between complexity and Gowers uniformity norms, we will use the following theorem \cite{GreenTao}, which allows to control systems of complexity $s$ by the Gowers $U^{s+1}$-norm.
\begin{theorem}
\label{neumann}
Let $f_1,...,f_t : \field{Z}/N\field{Z} \rightarrow \field{R}$ be functions such that $|f_i(x)| \leq 1$ for all $i \in [t]$ and all $x \in \field{Z}/N\field{Z}$. Suppose that $\Psi =(\psi_1,...,\psi_t)$ is a system of affine-linear forms of complexity $s$ consisting of $t$ forms in $d$ variables. Then
\begin{equation*}
\mid \mathbb{E}_{x_1,...,x_d \in \field{Z}/N\field{Z}} \prod_{i=1}^{t} f_i(\psi_i(x_1,...,x_d)) \mid \leq \min_{1 \leq i \leq t} \| f_i \| _{U^{s+1}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
We will now show that $d$-configurations have complexity $1$, in order to be able to control averages using the Gowers $U^2$-norm.
\begin{lemma}
Let $(n_i + n_j + a)_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$ be a $d$-configuration. Then it has complexity $1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $i_0, j_0 \in [d]$ such that $i_0 < j_0$. We take the first class to consist of all forms involving $n_{i_0}$, and the second one to consist of all other forms. Then the form $n_{i_0} + n_{j_0}+ a$ is in the linear span of neither of those classes, because the first one does not involve $n_{j_0}$ at all, and the second one does not involve $n_{i_0}$.
Let us now consider the form $2 n_{i_0} +a$. As in the previous case, we take the first class to consist of all forms involving $n_{i_0}$, and the second one to consist of all other forms. Clearly $2 n_{i_0} +a$ is not in the linear span of the second class because it does not involve $n_{i_0}$ at all. And it is also not in the linear span of the first class, because in each of its forms, $n_{i_0}$ appears with a different $n_j$, and we cannot cancel them to obtain $2 n_{i_0} +a$.
Therefore the system has $(i_0,j_0)$-complexity $1$ for all $1 \leq i_0 \leq j_0 \leq d$, so the $d$-configuration has complexity at most $1$.
It does not have complexity $0$ because if we consider the form $n_{i_0} + n_{j_0}+ a$ and put all other forms in the same class, it is in its linear span. Indeed for example $2(n_{i_0}+n_{j_0}+a)=(2n_{i_0}+a)+(2n_{j_0}+a)$.
So the $d$-configuration has complexity $1$.
\end{proof}
As a particular case of Theorem~\ref{neumann}, using the fact that $d$-configurations have complexity $1$, we have the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}
\label{config}
Let $f_{ij}: \field{Z}/N\field{Z} \rightarrow \field{R}$ be functions such that $|f_{ij}(x)| \leq 1$ for all $1 \leq i \leq j \leq d$, and $a$ be an integer. Then
\begin{equation*}
\mid \mathbb{E}_{n_1,...,n_d \in \field{Z}/N\field{Z}} \prod_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d} f_{ij}(n_i + n_j +a) \mid \leq \min_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d} \| f_{ij} \| _{U^{2}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Obtaining a large Gowers $U^2$-norm}
In this subsection, we prove that either $A$ contains non-trivial $d$-configurations or a particular function $f_A$ has a large Gowers $U^2$-norm.
Let $P$ be an arithmetic progression of length $N$, and $A \subseteq P$ a set of size $\alpha N$.
By linear rescaling, we may assume that $P= [N]$, because it does not change either the density $\alpha$ or the number of $d$-configurations in $A$. Indeed let us assume that the forms $(n_i + n_j + a)_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$ are located in the progression $P$. Adding some constant to each element of $P$, and changing $a$ accordingly, we may assume that $P$ is equal to $\{k,2k,...,Nk\}$ for some integer $k$ and that for every $1 \leq i \leq j \leq d$, $n_i + n_j + a = y_{i,j}k$. By linearly rescaling $P$ to $[N]$, our $d$-configuration becomes $(y_{i,j})_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$. Let us show that this is still a $d$-configuration. We have for every $1 \leq i \leq d-1$, $n_{i+1} - n_i = (y_{i,i+1} - y_{i,i})k$, which means that the $n_i$'s are also inside an arithmetic progression with common difference $k$. Let us write $n_i = \beta_i k +b$ where $\beta_i \in \field{N}$ for all $1 \leq i \leq d$. Then we have $n_i + n_j + a = \beta_i k + \beta_j k + 2b + a = y_{i,j}k$, so if we set $a':= \frac{2b+a}{k}$, we have $\beta_i + \beta_j + a'=y_{i,j}$ for all $1 \leq i \leq j \leq d$, which means that we still have a $d$-configuration.
Conversely if $(m_i+m_j+a)_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$ is a $d$-configuration in $[N]$, then the linear system $(k(m_i + m_j +a) + b)_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d} =(k m_i + k m_j + (ak + b))_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$ is a $d$-configuration located in the progression $\{k+b,...,Nk+b\}$.
\ \\
Let us set $N':= 2N +1$ and let $\tilde{A}$ denote $A$ considered as a subset of $\field{Z} / N'\field{Z}$. The number of $d$-configurations in $\tilde{A}$ is the same as that in $A$, so we will identify $\tilde{A}$ and $A$.
Let us also note that to count once and only once each $d$-configuration $(n_i + n_j + a)_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$ we shall assume that $a$ is equal either to $0$ or $1$.
Given functions $(f_{ij})_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$, set
\begin{equation*}
\Pi_d ((f_{ij})_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}) := \mathbb{E}_{n_1,...,n_d \in \field{Z} / N'\field{Z}} \prod_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d} f_{ij}(n_i +n_j) + \mathbb{E}_{n_1,...,n_d \in \field{Z} / N'\field{Z}} \prod_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d} f_{ij}(n_i +n_j+1).
\end{equation*}
The quantity $\Pi_d(1_A,...,1_A)$, where $1_A$ is the characteristic function of $A$ ($1_A(x)=1$ if $x \in A$, $0$ otherwise), is equal to $1/N'^d$ times the number of $d$-configurations in $A$, including the trivial ones.
We shall compare this with $\Pi_d(\alpha 1_{[N]},...,\alpha 1_{[N]})$, where $\alpha 1_{[N]}(x)$ is defined to be $\alpha$ if $x \in [N]$ and $0$ if $x \in \field{Z} / N'\field{Z} \setminus [N]$.
To compute the difference between the two we introduce the \emph{balanced function} of $A$, defined by $$f_A:= 1_A - \alpha 1_{[N]}.$$
Let us note that the expectation of $f_A$ is equal to $0$. This property will be useful later in the proof.
Since $\Pi_d$ is multilinear, we may expand $\Pi_d(1_A,...,1_A)$ as a main term $\Pi_d(\alpha 1_{[N]},...,\alpha 1_{[N]}) = \alpha^{d(d+1)/2} \Pi_d(1_{[N]},...,1_{[N]})$ plus $2^{d(d+1)/2}-1$ other terms $\Pi_d ((g_{ij})_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d})$ where at least one the $g_{ij}$'s is equal to $f_A$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma1}
Suppose that $N > 16^d \alpha^{-\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}$ and that $A$ contains fewer than $\frac{\alpha^{d(d+1)/2} N^d}{2^{d-1} + 1}$ non-trivial $d$-configurations. Then there are $1$-bounded functions $(g_{ij})_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$, at least one of which being equal to $f_A$, such that $$\mid \Pi_d((g_{ij})_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}) \mid \geq \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}$$ for some absolute constant $C>0$, where $\Pi_d((g_{ij})_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d})$ is one of the $2^{d(d+1)/2}-1$ other terms.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{equation*}
\alpha^{\frac{d(d+1)}{2}} \Pi_d(1_{[N]},...,1_{[N]}) \geq \alpha^{\frac{d(d+1)}{2}} \times \frac{1}{N'^d} \times 2\left(\frac{N}{2}\right)^d,
\end{equation*}
because if we choose $1 \leq n_i \leq N/2$ for all $1 \leq i \leq d$, then for all $1 \leq i \leq j \leq d$, $1 \leq n_i + n_j \leq N$, giving at least $\left( \frac{N}{2} \right)^d$ $d$-configurations of the form $(n_i+n_j)_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$, and if we choose $0 \leq n_i \leq N/2 -1$ for all $1 \leq i \leq d$, then for all $1 \leq i \leq j \leq d$, $1 \leq n_i + n_j +1 \leq N$, giving at least $\left( \frac{N}{2} \right)^d$ $d$-configurations of the form $(n_i+n_j+1)_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$. Therefore we have at least $2\left(\frac{N}{2}\right)^d$ $d$-configurations in total (including trivial ones).
Recall that a $d$-configuration $(n_i + n_j)_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$ is trivial if at least two of the $n_i$'s are equal. Let us find an upper bound for the number of trivial $d$-configurations of the form $(n_i+n_j)_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$ in $A$. First, we have $d \choose 2$ ways to choose $i_0$ and $j_0$ for which we set $n_{i_0}=n_{j_0}$. We know that $2n_i$ must be in $A$ for all $i$, so there are at most $|A|=\alpha N$ choices for $n_{i_0}$ (we have an equality here if $A$ only contains even integers). Then $n_{j_0}$ is forced to be equal to $n_{i_0}$, and we have at most $|A|=\alpha N$ choices for each one the $d-2$ other $n_i$'s too, giving at most ${d \choose 2}(\alpha N)^{d-1}$ trivial $d$-configurations of the form $(n_i+n_j)_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$ in $A$. Note that we may have counted some $d$-configurations that are not fully contained in $A$, but we only want an upper bound so this is not a problem here.
The $d$-configurations of the form $(n_i+n_j+1)_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}$ work exactly in the same way, and in total we have at most $2 {d \choose 2}(\alpha N)^{d-1} = d(d-1) (\alpha N)^{d-1}$ trivial $d$-configurations in $A$. Therefore, using the fact that $A$ contains fewer than $\frac{\alpha^{d(d+1)/2} N^d}{2^{d-1} + 1}$ non-trivial $d$-configurations, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\Pi_d(1_A,...,1_A) \leq \frac{\alpha^{\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}}{2^{d-1} + 1} \left(\frac{N}{N'}\right)^d + d(d-1)\frac{(\alpha N)^{d-1}}{N'^d}.
\end{equation*}
After some calculation we find that if $N$ satisfies the condition $N > 16^d \alpha^{-\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}$ then the second term is negligible and we obtain $$\Pi_d(1_A,...,1_A) \leq \frac{2}{2^{d}+1} \alpha^{\frac{d(d+1)}{2}} \left(\frac{N}{N'}\right)^d.$$
Note that the bound we chose for $N$ is not optimal, but it has the advantage of not being too complicated and does not change the final bound in Theorem~\ref{th1}.
Therefore the sum of the $2^{d(d+1)/2}-1$ other terms involving $f_A$ must have magnitude at least $$\left(\frac{1}{2^{d-1}} - \frac{2}{2^{d}+1} \right) \alpha^{\frac{d(d+1)}{2}} \left(\frac{N}{N'}\right)^d.$$
Since $N' \leq 3N$, one of those terms must have magnitude larger than $$\frac{1}{3^d \times 2^{\frac{d(d+1)}{2} +2d}} \alpha^{\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}.$$ To avoid heavy expressions, we will say that $\mid \Pi_d((g_{ij})_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}) \mid \geq \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}$ for some absolute constant $C>0$.
\end{proof}
Now we will use Lemma~\ref{lemma1} and Theorem~\ref{config} to establish the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor1}
Let $\alpha$, $0< \alpha < 1$, be a real number. Suppose that $N > 16^d \alpha^{-\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}$ and that $A$ is a subset of $[N]$ with $|A|=\alpha N$ containing fewer than $\frac{\alpha^{d(d+1)/2} N^d}{2^{d-1} + 1}$ non-trivial $d$-configurations.
Let $f_A: \field{Z} / N' \field{Z} \rightarrow \field{R}$ be the balanced function of $A$.
Then $$\parallel f_A \parallel_{U^2} \geq \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}$$ for some constant $C>0$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Pi_d((g_{ij})_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d})$ be the same term as in Lemma~\ref{lemma1}.
By Theorem~\ref{config}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\mid \Pi_d((g_{ij})_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d}) \mid &= \mid \mathbb{E}_{n_1,...,n_d \in \field{Z} / N'\field{Z}} \prod_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d} g_{ij}(n_i + n_j) + \mathbb{E}_{n_1,...,n_d \in \field{Z} / N'\field{Z}} \prod_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d} g_{ij}(n_i + n_j+1) \mid
\\&\leq \mid \mathbb{E}_{n_1,...,n_d \in \field{Z} / N'\field{Z}} \prod_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d} g_{ij}(n_i + n_j) \mid + \mid \mathbb{E}_{n_1,...,n_d \in \field{Z} / N'\field{Z}} \prod_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d} g_{ij}(n_i + n_j+1) \mid
\\&\leq 2\min_{1\leq i \leq j \leq d} \| g_{ij} \| _{U^{2}} \leq 2\parallel f_A \parallel_{U^{2}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
And by Lemma~\ref{lemma1}, we have $$\left|\Pi_d((g_{ij})_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d})\right| \geq \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}$$ for some constant $C>0$.
Therefore $$2\parallel f_A \parallel_{U^{2}} \geq |\Pi_d((g_{ij})_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq d})| \geq \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}.$$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Inverse results for the Gowers $U^2$-norm}
In this subsection, we use the fact that $f_A$ has a large Gowers $U^2$-norm to show that it also has a large Fourier coefficient.
Let $f$ be a function from $\field{Z}/N\field{Z}$ to $\field{C}$. The \emph{Fourier transform} $\hat{f}$ of $f$ is defined, for all $\xi \in \field{Z}/NZ$, by the formula:
\begin{equation*}
\hat{f}(\xi) := \mathbb{E}_{x \in \field{Z}/N\field{Z}} f(x) e(-\xi x/N).
\end{equation*}
Let us recall the following theorem proved in~\cite{Green}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th2}
Suppose that $f: \field{Z} / N' \field{Z} \rightarrow \field{C}$ is a $1$-bounded function with $\parallel f \parallel_{U^{2}} \geq \delta$.
Then there is some $r \in \field{Z}/N'\field{Z}$ such that $$| \hat{f}(r)| \geq \delta^2.$$
\end{theorem}
By Corollary~\ref{cor1} and Theorem~\ref{th2}, we have the following result.
\begin{proposition}
\label{large}
Let $\alpha$, $0< \alpha < 1$, be a real number. Suppose that $N > 16^d \alpha^{-\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}$ and that $A$ is a subset of $[N]$ with $|A|=\alpha N$ containing fewer than $\frac{\alpha^{d(d+1)/2} N^d}{2^{d-1} + 1}$ non-trivial $d$-configurations.
Let $f_A: \field{Z} / N' \field{Z} \rightarrow \field{R}$ be the balanced function of $A$.
Then there is some $r \in \field{Z}/N'\field{Z}$ and some constant $C>0$ such that $$| \hat{f}_A(r) | \geq \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{d(d+1)}.$$
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Obtaining a density increment
In this subsection, we will use the fact that $f_A$ has a large Fourier coefficient to find a density increment on some arithmetic progression and thus complete the proof of Proposition~\ref{keyprop}.
Since $f$ is supported on $[N]$ and $N'=2N+1$, Proposition~\ref{large} immediately implies the next proposition.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop2}
Let $\alpha$, $0< \alpha < 1$, be a real number. Suppose that $N > 16^d \alpha^{-\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}$ and that $A$ is a subset of $[N]$ with $|A|=\alpha N$ containing fewer than $\frac{\alpha^{d(d+1)/2} N^d}{2^{d-1} + 1}$ non-trivial $d$-configurations.
Let $f_A$ be the balanced function of $A$, considered now as a function on $[N]$.
Then there is some $\theta \in [0,1]$ and some constant $C>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1}
\left|\sum_{x \in [N]} f_A(x) e(\theta x) \right| \geq \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{d(d+1)} N.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
Let us recall a lemma proved in~\cite{TaoVu}, adapted from Roth's original argument~\cite{Roth}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{roth_tao}
Let $f: \field{Z} \rightarrow \field{R}$ be a function supported on $[N]$ such that $|f(n)| \leq 1$ for all $n$, $\sum_n f(n) =0$ and $$\left|\mathbb{E}_{x \in [N]} f(x) e(\theta x)\right| \geq \sigma$$ for some $\theta \in [0,1]$ and $\sigma > 0$.
Then there exists a non-trivial arithmetic progression $P \subseteq [N]$ with $|P| \geq c \sigma^2 \sqrt{N}$ and $$\mathbb{E}_{x \in P} f(x) \geq \frac{\sigma}{4}.$$
\end{lemma}
We have $ -\alpha \leq f_A (n) \leq 1- \alpha$ for all $n$, so $|f_A(n)| \leq 1$ for all $n$. We also have $\sum_n f_A(n) =0$. Therefore, using the conclusion of Proposition~\ref{prop2}, we can apply Lemma~\ref{roth_tao} with $f = f_A$ and $\sigma = \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{d(d+1)}$. We obtain an arithmetic progression $P \subseteq [N]$ of length $|P| \geq \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{2d(d+1)} \sqrt{N}$ and $$\mathbb{E}_{x \in P} f_A(x) \geq \frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{d(d+1)} \geq \left(\frac{\alpha}{C'}\right)^{d(d+1)},$$
which means that $$\frac{|A \cap P|}{|P|} \geq \alpha + \left(\frac{\alpha}{C'}\right)^{d(d+1)}.$$
We obtain the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}
\label{keyprop}
Suppose that $0 < \alpha < 1$ and $N > 16^d \alpha^{-\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}$. Suppose that $P \subseteq \field{Z}$ is an arithmetic progression of length $N$ and that $A \subseteq P$ is a set with cardinality $\alpha N$. Then one of the following two alternatives holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item $A$ contains at least $\frac{\alpha^{d(d+1)/2} N^d}{2^{d-1} +1}$ $d$-configurations;
\item There is an arithmetic progression $P'$ of length $\geq \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{2d(d+1)} N^{1/2}$ such that, writing $A':= A \cap P'$ and $\alpha' := |A'|/|P'|$, we have $\alpha' > \alpha + \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{d(d+1)}$ for some absolute constant $C>0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{The final bound}
Finally, using Proposition~\ref{keyprop}, we obtain the following quantitative version of Theorem~\ref{th1}:
\begin{theorem}
\label{th1_gowers}
There is an absolute constant $C$ such that any subset $A \subseteq [N]$ with cardinality at least $\frac{CN}{(\log{\log{N}})^{ \frac{1}{d(d+1)-1}} }$ contains a non-trivial $d$-configuration.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Set $P_0 := [N]$ and assume that we have a set $A \subseteq P_0$ with $|A|= \alpha N$ containing no non-trivial $d$-configuration. Then we attempt to use Proposition~\ref{keyprop} repeatedly to obtain a sequence $P_0, P_1, ...$ of progressions and sets $A_i := A \cap P_i$. The densities $\alpha_i := |A_i|/|P_i|$ will satisfy $\alpha_{i+1} > \alpha_i + \left(\frac{\alpha_i}{C}\right)^{d(d+1)}$ and the length of $P_i$ will be $$N_i \geq \left(\frac{\alpha_{i-1}}{C}\right)^{2d(d+1)} N_{i-1}^{1/2} \geq \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{2d(d+1) \sum_{k=0}^{i-1} \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^k} N^{(1/2)^i} \geq \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{4d(d+1)} N^{(1/2)^i},$$ using the fact that $\alpha_i \geq \alpha$ and $\sum_{k=0}^{i-1} \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^k \leq 2$ for all $i \geq 1$.
But this iteration cannot last too long, otherwise we would obtain a set $A_i$ with density more than $1$ over the arithmetic progression $P_i$ for some $i$, which is impossible. In particular there cannot be more than $\left(\frac{C'}{\alpha}\right)^{d(d+1)-1}$ steps in total. We conclude that the applications of Proposition~\ref{keyprop} must have been invalid, which means that the condition $N_i > 16^d \alpha_i^{-\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}$ was violated. Since
\begin{equation*}
N_i \geq \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{4d(d+1)} N^{(1/2)^{\left(\frac{C'}{\alpha}\right)^{d(d+1)-1}}}
\end{equation*}
and $\alpha_i \geq \alpha$, we infer the bound
\begin{equation*}
16^d \alpha^{-\frac{d(d+1)}{2}} \geq \left(\frac{\alpha}{C}\right)^{4d(d+1)} N^{(1/2)^{\left(\frac{C'}{\alpha}\right)^{d(d+1)-1}}}.
\end{equation*}
Rearranging leads to
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\log \log N &\leq \log\left(\log\left(16^d \alpha^{-\frac{d(d+1)}{2}}\right) + 4d(d+1) \log\left(\frac{C}{\alpha}\right)\right) + \log 2 \left(\frac{C'}{\alpha}\right)^{d(d+1)-1}
\\ &\leq \left(\frac{C''}{\alpha}\right)^{d(d+1)-1},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
for some constant $C''$.
Therefore if $\alpha \geq \frac{C''}{(\log\log N)^{\frac{1}{d(d+1)-1}}}$ (ie. $N \geq \exp{\left(\exp{\left({\left(\frac{C''}{\alpha}\right)^{(d(d+1)-1)}}\right)}\right)}$), $A$ contains a non-trivial $d$-configuration. Theorem~\ref{th1_gowers} is proved.
\end{proof}
The bound obtained with this proof is better than the one using Szemer\'edi's theorem because we only have $3$ exponentials instead of $5$.
\section{The improvement in Sudakov, Szemer\'edi and Vu's theorem}
Now that we proved Theorem~\ref{th1_gowers}, we will use it to improve Sudakov, Szemer\'edi and Vu's theorem about sum-free subsets~\cite{Sudakov}.
Let $\phi(A)$ denote the maximum cardinality of a subset of $A$ which is sum-free with respect to $A$. Let $\phi(n)$ be the minimum of $\phi(A)$ over all sets $A$ of $n$ integers. Sudakov, Szemer\'edi and Vu obtained the first superlogarithmic lower bound for $\phi(n)$ by proving the following theorem~\cite{Sudakov}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{sudakovszemeredivu}
There is a function $g(n)$ tending to infinity with $n$ such that the following holds. Any set $A$ of $n$ integers contains a subset $B$ with cardinality $g(n) \log n$ such that $B$ is sum-free with respect to $A$.
\end{theorem}
Their proof shows that we can take $g(n)$ to be of the order $(\log^{(5)}n)^{1-o(1)}$. Thus they proved that $$\phi(n) \geq \log n \left(\log^{(5)}n\right)^{1-o(1)}.$$
It is easier to describe $g(n)$ as the inverse of an iterative exponential function. They set $g(n)$ in Theorem~\ref{sudakovszemeredivu} to be $c(m/\log m)$, where $c$ is a sufficiently small positive constant, $m = F^{-1}(n^{1/2})$ and $$F(h) = \exp \left( h^{182} \times \left( 2 \uparrow \left(e^{h^{32770}} \right) \uparrow 2 \uparrow 2 \uparrow (2h +9) \right) \right).$$
We will show that, using Theorem~\ref{th1_gowers}, we can set $g(n)$ to be $c(m/\log m)$, where $m = G^{-1}(n^{1/2})$ and $$G(h) = \exp \left( h^{182} \times \left( e \uparrow \left(c e^{h^{32770}} \right) \uparrow (h(h+1)-1) \right) \right).$$
In their proof, Sudakov, Szemer\'edi and Vu deduce Theorem~\ref{sudakovszemeredivu} from the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{sudakov2}
Let $X$, $Y$ be two finite sets of positive integers with $\frac{1}{h^{29}} |Y| \geq |X| \geq F(h)$, where $F$ is the function described above and $h$ is a sufficiently large integer. Then $Y$ contains a subset $Z$ of size $h$ which is disjoint from $X$ and is sum-free with respect to $X \cup Y$.
\end{theorem}
We will show that a modification of the proof of Theorem~\ref{sudakov2} allows us to replace $F$ by $G$ and obtain the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{sudakov2_mieux}
Let $X$, $Y$ be two finite sets of positive integers with $\frac{1}{h^{29}} |Y| \geq |X| \geq G(h)$, where $G$ is the function described above and $h$ is a sufficiently large integer. Then $Y$ contains a subset $Z$ of size $h$ which is disjoint from $X$ and is sum-free with respect to $X \cup Y$.
\end{theorem}
In particular, the proof of Theorem~\ref{sudakov2} uses the following corollary, proved using Szemer\'edi's theorem.
\begin{corollary}
\label{Vu}
If $A \subseteq \{1,...,N\}$ is a set of size $\alpha N$, and if $N > 2\uparrow 2 \uparrow (\alpha)^{-1} \uparrow 2 \uparrow 2 \uparrow (2k+9)$, then there is a subset $A' \subseteq A$ of $k$ elements such that, for any two elements $x,y \in A'$, there is an element $z$ of $A$ satisfying $x+y=2z$.
\end{corollary}
But by using Theorem~\ref{th1_gowers}, we can replace Corollary~\ref{Vu} by the following corollary, which comes with a better bound.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor_meilleur}
If $A \subseteq \{1,...,N\}$ is a set of size $\alpha N$, and if $N > e \uparrow e \uparrow \left( \frac{C}{\alpha}\right) \uparrow (k(k+1)-1)$, then there is a subset $A' \subseteq A$ of $k$ elements such that, for any two elements $x,y \in A'$, there is an element $z$ of $A$ satisfying $x+y=2z$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{th1_gowers}, $A$ contains a non-trivial $k$-configuration $(n_i + n_j + a)_{1 \leq i \leq j \leq k}$. Now we can take $A'=\{2n_1 +a, ..., 2n_k+a\}$, and so for any two elements $2n_i+a$ and $2n_j +a \in A'$, $(2n_i+a) + (2n_j +a) = 2(n_i +n_j +a)$ with $n_i +n_j +a \in A$.
\end{proof}
To prove Theorem~\ref{sudakov2_mieux} we leave all Sudakov, Szemer\'edi and Vu's proof of Theorem~\ref{sudakov2} unchanged, except at the end, where we replace their bound by ours. We advise the reader to read the proof in~\cite{Sudakov}, because we won't copy the beginning of the proof here.
Thus when they need $m_1 \geq 2 \uparrow 2 \uparrow \left(e^{h^{32770}} \right) \uparrow 2 \uparrow 2 \uparrow (2h +9)$, we only need $m_1 \geq e \uparrow e \uparrow \left(C e^{h^{32770}}\right) \uparrow (h(h+1)-1)$.
As in their proof, we have $\log m_1 \geq \frac{\log |Y|}{h^{182}}.$ Then we only need to verify that $\log |Y| \geq h^{182} \times \left( e \uparrow \left(C e^{h^{32770}} \right) \uparrow (h(h+1)-1) \right).$ Since the right-hand side is equal to $\log G(h)$, this inequality follows from the assumption of Theorem~\ref{sudakov2_mieux} that $|Y| \geq |X| \geq G(h)$. This completes the proof.
Now we can derive Theorem~\ref{sudakovszemeredivu} from Theorem~\ref{sudakov2_mieux} in the same way as in~\cite{Sudakov}, except that we replace $F$ by $G$.
After some calculation, we obtain that we can take $g(n)$ to be of the order $(\log^{(3)}n)^{\frac{1}{32772} -o(1)}$.
Therefore we obtain the following stronger version of Theorem~\ref{sudakovszemeredivu}.
\begin{theorem}
There is a function $g(n)$ of the order $(\log^{(3)}n)^{\frac{1}{32772} -o(1)}$ such that any set $A$ of $n$ integers contains a subset $B$ with cardinality $g(n) \log n$ such that $B$ is sum-free with respect to $A$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Conclusion}
We generalised Roth's theorem to $d$-configurations and showed that any set $A \subseteq \{1,...,N\}$ with density $\alpha$ such that $N > e \uparrow e \uparrow \left( \frac{C}{\alpha}\right) \uparrow (d(d+1)-1)$ contains a non-trivial $d$-configuration. Then we used this result to improve Sudakov, Szemeredi and Vu's theorem about sum-free subsets and proved that $\phi(n) \geq \log n \left(\log ^{(3)} n \right)^{1/32772 - o(1)}$, which is the best lower bound known to date for $\phi(n)$.
Bourgain~\cite{Bourgain} modified Roth's original Fourier analytic proof~\cite{Roth} of Roth's theorem by increasing the density of $A$ on Bohr sets instead of arithmetic progressions. By doing so, he improved Roth's bound $N \geq \exp\left(\exp\left(\frac{C}{\alpha}\right)\right)$ and showed that $N \geq \left(\frac{C}{\alpha}\right)^{C'/\alpha^2}$ suffices. Therefore it should be possible to do a similar modification to our proof in order to obtain a stronger version of Theorem~\ref{th1} with a bound of the type $N \geq \left(\frac{c(d)}{\alpha}\right)^{\left(\frac{c'(d)}{\alpha}\right)^{d(d-1)}}.$ This would hopefully improve our result about sum-free subsets and lead to a bound of the form $\phi(n) \geq \log n (\log^{(2)}n)^{c -o(1)}.$
Even if the technical details of such a proof might be considerable, it would constitute an interesting subject for further research. However this lower bound is still far from the best upper bound currently known, $\phi(n) \leq O (e ^{ \sqrt{\log n}})$, proved by Ruzsa in~\cite{Ruzsa}, so we can assume that many interesting results about sum-free subsets are still to be found.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author would like to thank Ben Green for introducing her to this very interesting subject and for the precious advices he gave her during the elaboration of this work.
She also thanks Fernando Shao for drawing her attention to a calculation mistake in an early version of this article.
\bibliographystyle{siam}
|
\subsubsection{Finite-temperature study at physical top quark mass}
As the first step,
we investigate the case of a degenerate fermion doublet with the quark mass close to
the physical top quark mass. To this end we
fix the bare Yukawa coupling according to the tree-level
estimate of $y = m_t/v_r$, which has been shown to be a
good approximation in this region of couplings~\cite{Gerhold:2010bh}.
We perform simulations at two different temporal extents ($L_t=4,6$)
for estimating the
discretisation effects. In addition, three spatial extents,
$L_{s}=16,20,24$, are implemented in order to
perform the infinite-volume extrapolation.
The results of the magnetisation at $L_{t} = 4$ and $6$ are plotted in
Fig.~\ref{fig:finiteT_mt175_summary}(a) and
Fig.~\ref{fig:finiteT_mt175_summary}(d), respectively. It is obvious that there is a transition
from the symmetric to the broken phase for each choice of $L_{t}$. The
corresponding
susceptibilities are shown in
Figs.~\ref{fig:finiteT_mt175_summary}(b) and
\ref{fig:finiteT_mt175_summary}(e).
The $L{-}$dependence of $\kappa_c(L)$ is well described by Eq.~(\ref{eq:finite_volume_kappa_critical}),
as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:finiteT_mt175_summary}(c) and (f).
Our finite-temperature study at a fermion mass close to
physical top-quark mass is an on-going project at an early stage.
Presently, the
simulations using $L_{t}=4$ and $6$ both result in the Higgs boson mass,
$m_{H} \sim 600$GeV, and the critical temperature, $T_{c} \sim 400$GeV. Those values are obtained from $\kappa_c$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq_kc_mt175}
\kappa_c(\infty, L_t=4) = 30460(29)\quad\quad \kappa_c(\infty, L_t=6) = 0.30003(25)
\end{equation}
by a comparison with the results shown in~\cite{Gerhold:2010bh}.
To make our predictions more precise, we are performing additional
lattice computations. In
particular, we are planning zero-temperature simulations with larger
spatial extent. This will allow us to have better control of the
infinite-volume extrapolation.
\vspace{-0.0cm}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
$
\begin{array}{ccc}
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\input{figures/finiteT_2/finiteT_mt175_T4_mag.tex} &
\hspace*{-1.2cm}
\input{figures/finiteT_2/finiteT_mt175_T4_susc.tex} &
\hspace*{-1.2cm}
\input{figures/finiteT_2/finiteT_mt175_T4_kc_extra.tex} \vspace{-0.5cm} \\
\text{(a)} & \text{(b)} & \text{(c)} \\
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\input{figures/finiteT_2/finiteT_mt175_T6_mag.tex} &
\hspace*{-1.2cm}
\input{figures/finiteT_2/finiteT_mt175_T6_susc.tex} &
\hspace*{-1.2cm}
\input{figures/finiteT_2/finiteT_mt175_T6_kc_extra.tex} \vspace{-0.5cm} \\
\text{(d)} & \text{(e)} & \text{(f)} \vspace {0.4cm}\\
\end{array}
$
\end{center}
\vspace*{-1.0cm}
\caption{Results of our finite-temperature study at the physical top quark
mass with the quartic coupling $\hat{\lambda} = \infty$.
Plots (a) and (d): The magnetisation for temporal extents of $L_t=4$ and $L_t=6$.
Plots (b) and (e): The corresponding susceptibilities with the fit
function in Eq.~\eqref{eq:naive_susceptibility_fit}.
Plot (c) and (f): Infinite-volume
extrapolation of $\kappa_c$ using
Eq.~\eqref{eq:finite_volume_kappa_critical}.
Note that for the case of zero temperature $L^2$ denotes
$\sqrt{V_4}$ with $V_4=L_s^3 L_t$ and $L_t=2L_s$.}
\label{fig:finiteT_mt175_summary}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Status of finite-temperature study at a quark mass of about 700GeV}
In this section we present the status of our work on the critical
temperature in the Higgs-Yukawa model with one heavy fermion doublet with a
mass of about 700GeV.
We follow the same strategy as in the previous section.
Here
the zero-temperature simulations are still in progress. Thus,
the lattice spacings for this calculation are not yet available to us.
Results of the susceptibility, and the infinite-volume extrapolation
for $\kappa_c$ can be found in Fig.~\ref{fig:finiteT_mt675_summary}.
From the phase structure presented in
Fig.~\ref{fig:phaseDiagramSummary} and the value of
$\hat{y}\sim 2.8$, it is clear that the critical value
of $\kappa$ is in the FM phase of the zero temperature theory,
as expected. We also notice that the values of $\kappa_{c}$ in the $L_{t}=6$ calculation
are smaller than that in the $L_{t}=4$ analysis. This means that the $L_{t} = 6$
simulations are carried out closer to the FM${-}$SYM phase boundary,
and are thus performed at
larger values of the cut-off.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
$
\begin{array}{ccc}
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\input{figures/finiteT_2/finiteT_mt700_T4_susc.tex} &
\hspace*{-1.2cm}
\input{figures/finiteT_2/finiteT_mt700_T6_susc.tex} &
\hspace*{-1.2cm}
\input{figures/finiteT_2/finiteT_mt700_allT_kc_extra.tex} \vspace{-0.5cm} \\
\text{(a)} & \text{(b)} & \text{(c)} \vspace {0.4cm}\\
\end{array}
$
\end{center}
\vspace*{-1.0cm}
\caption{Plots (a) and (b) show the susceptibility as function of $\kappa$ at the
large fermion mass of about $700\mathrm{GeV}$.
Plot~(c) is the infinite-volume extrapolation for $\kappa_{c}$.}
\label{fig:finiteT_mt675_summary}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The action}
\label{sec:the_action}
The Euclidean action of the continuum Higgs-Yukawa model containing one doublet of fermions,
denoted as $t^{(c)}$ and $b^{(c)}$,
and a complex scalar doublet, $\varphi^{(c)}$, is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:action_continuum}
&&S^{\text{cont}}[\bar{\psi^{(c)}}, \psi^{(c)}, \varphi^{(c)}] = \int d^4 x \left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_{\mu} \varphi^{(c)} \right)^{\dagger}
\left(\partial^{\mu} \varphi^{(c)} \right)
+ \frac{1}{2} m_0^2 \varphi^{(c)\dagger} \varphi^{(c)} + \frac{\lambda_{0}}{4} \left(\varphi^{(c)\dagger} \varphi^{(c)} \right)^2 \right\} \nonumber\\
&& \hspace{3.5cm} +\int d^4 x \left\{\overline{t^{(c)}} \slashed \partial t^{(c)} + \overline{b^{(c)}} \slashed \partial b^{(c)} +
y_{b_0}\overline{\psi^{(c)}_{L}} \varphi^{(c)}\, {b^{(c)}_{R}} +
y_{t_0}\overline{\psi^{(c)}_{L}} \tilde \varphi^{(c)}\, {t^{(c)}_{R}}
+ h.c. \right\} , \\
&& \mathrm{where}\mbox{ } \tilde{\varphi}^{(c)}=i\tau_2 \varphi^{(c)}
\mbox{ }(\tau_{i} \mbox{ }{\rm are}\mbox{ }{\rm the} \mbox{ }{\rm
Pauli} \mbox{ }{\rm matrices}),
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{1cm} \psi^{(c)}_{L} = P_{-} \psi^{(c)} = P_{-} \left
( \begin{array}{c} t^{(c)} \\ b^{(c)} \end{array} \right ) =
\left ( \frac{1-\gamma_{5}}{2} \right )\left ( \begin{array}{c} t^{(c)} \\
b^{(c)} \end{array} \right ) , \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{1cm} t_{R}^{(c)} = P_{+} t^{(c)} = \left ( \frac{1 +
\gamma_{5}}{2} \right ) t^{(c)} , \mbox{ } {\mathrm{and}}
\mbox{ }{\mathrm{similar}}\mbox{ }{\mathrm{for}}\mbox{ } b^{(c)}_{R}
. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In the above equation, $m_0$ is the bare mass, $\lambda_0$ labels the
bare quartic coupling, and $y_{t_0/b_0}$ denote the bare Yukawa
couplings. The superscript, $(c)$, in the scalar and spinor fields indicates
that these are dimensionful variables defined in the continuum.
Here we stress that gauge fields are not included in our study, and we
perform calculations for only one doublet of fermions throughout
this work.
Moreover, if not stated otherwise, the Yukawa couplings $y_{t_0}$ and $y_{b_0}$
are set equal.
It is straightforward to discretise the pure-scalar component of the
above action to obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:scalar_action_lattice}
S_{\Phi}^{\rm latt} = \sum_{\alpha=1}^{4} \left \{ - \sum_{x,\mu}
\Phi_{x}^{\alpha} \Phi_{x+\hat{\mu}}^{\alpha} + \sum_{x} \left [
\frac{1}{2} (8+\bar{m}^{2}_{0}) \Phi^{\alpha}_{x} \Phi_{x}^{\alpha} +
\frac{\lambda_{0}}{4} \left ( \Phi^{\alpha}_{x} \Phi_{x}^{\alpha}
\right )^{2} \right ]\right \} ,
\end{equation}
where $x$ is a site on the space-time lattice.
The symbol $\hat{\mu}$ denotes the unit vector in the
space-time direction $\mu$.
The mass parameter, $\bar{m}_{0} = a m_{0}$ with $a$ being the lattice spacing, is
dimensionless. The real-valued field variables,
$\{ \Phi_{x}^{\alpha} \}$, are rendered dimensionless by a proper
rescaling with $a$, and are defined on all lattice sites.
These field variables are related to the discretised version of the
complex scalar doublet, $\varphi^{(c)}$, in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:action_continuum}) through
\begin{equation}
a \varphi^{({\rm latt})} = \left ( \begin{array}{c} \Phi^{2} + i
\Phi^{1} \\ \Phi^{4} - i \Phi^{3} \end{array} \right ) .
\end{equation}
It is convenient to rewrite the scalar action in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:scalar_action_lattice}) as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:action_lattice_bosonic}
S_{\phi}^{\rm latt} = \sum_{\alpha = 1}^{4} \left \{ - 2 \kappa
\sum_{x,\mu} \phi_{x}^{\alpha}
\phi_{x+\hat{\mu}}^{\alpha} +
\sum_{x} \left [ \phi_{x}^{\alpha}
\phi_{x}^{\alpha} + \hat{\lambda}
\left ( \phi_{x}^{\alpha}
\phi_{x}^{\alpha} - 1\right )^{2}
\right ] \right \} ,
\end{equation}
with the change of variables,
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{\alpha} = \sqrt{2 \kappa} \phi^{\alpha},\quad
\lambda_0 = \frac{\hat{\lambda}}{{\kappa^2}},\quad
\bar{m}_0^2 = \frac{1 - 2 \hat{\lambda} -8 \kappa}{\kappa}.
\end{equation}
For the fermions we use the action
\begin{equation}\label{eq:action_lattice_fermionic}
S_{f}^{\rm latt} = \sum\limits_{x} \bar{\psi}_x\left[ D^{ov} +
P_{_+} \phi^{\alpha}_{x} \theta_{\alpha}^{\dagger} \text{diag}(\hat{y}_t,\hat{y}_b)
\hat{P}_{_+} +
P_{_-}
\text{diag}(\hat{y}_t,\hat{y}_b)
\phi^{\alpha}_{x} \theta_{\alpha}
\hat{P}_{_-} \right]
\psi_x ,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{y}_{t/b} = \sqrt{2 \kappa} y_{t_0/b_0}$, and
\begin{equation}
\theta_{1,2,3} = -i \tau_{1,2,3}, \mbox{ } \theta_{4} = 1_{2\times 2}\; ,
\end{equation}
where a summation over $\alpha$ is understood.
The dimensionless
spinor field $\psi$ is,
\begin{equation}
\psi = a^{\frac{3}{2}} \left ( \begin{array}{c} t^{({\rm latt})} \\ b^{({\rm latt})} \end{array} \right ) ,
\end{equation}
with $ t^{({\rm latt})}$ and $b^{({\rm latt})}$ being the lattice
version of $t^{(c)}$ and $b^{(c)}$.
For the fermion kinetic term, we use the
overlap operator
\cite{Neuberger:1997fp, Neuberger:1998wv, Hernandez:1998et},
\begin{equation} \label{eq:DefOfNeuberDiracOp}
D^{ov} = \rho \left\{1+\frac{ A}{\sqrt{ A^\dagger A}} \right\}, \quad A = D^{W} - \rho,
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is a free, dimensionless parameter, restricted to $0 <
\rho < 2r$.
The locality properties of the overlap operator are optimal for
$\rho=1$ in the case of vanishing gauge
couplings~\cite{Hernandez:1998et}, and therefore we set it to this
value in this work.
The operator $D^{W}$ denotes the Wilson Dirac
operator defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:DefOfWilsonOperator}
D^{W} = \sum\limits_\mu \gamma_\mu \nabla^s_\mu - \frac{r}{2} \nabla^b_\mu\nabla^f_\mu,
\end{equation}
where $\nabla^{f,b,s}_\mu$ are the (respectively) forward,
backward and symmetrised lattice nearest-neighbour difference operators in
direction $\mu$, and the Wilson parameter $r$ is chosen to be $r=1$.
The modified chiral projectors are given by:
\begin{equation}
\hat{P}_{\pm} = \frac {1 \pm \hat{\gamma}^5}{2}, \quad
\hat{\gamma}^5 = \gamma^5 \left( 1 - \frac{1}{\rho} D^{ov} \right) .
\end{equation}
This action now obeys an exact global $\mbox{SU}(2)_L\times
\mbox{U}(1)_Y$ (with $Y$ being the hyper-charge)
lattice chiral symmetry with the transformations:
\begin{equation}
\psi \rightarrow U_Y \hat P_+ \psi + U_Y\Omega_L \hat P_- \psi ,\quad
\bar\psi \rightarrow \bar\psi P_+ \Omega_L^\dagger U_{Y}^\dagger + \bar\psi P_- U^\dagger_{Y}, \quad
\phi \rightarrow U_Y \phi \Omega_L^\dagger, \quad
\phi^\dagger \rightarrow \Omega_L \phi^\dagger U_Y^\dagger,
\end{equation}
for any $\Omega_L \in \text{SU}(2)_L$ and $U_Y \in \text{U}(1)_Y$.
\subsection{Implementation}
The actions in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:action_lattice_bosonic}) and
(\ref{eq:action_lattice_fermionic}) are used in our numerical
simulations.
We perform calculations on
asymmetric 4-dimensional lattice volumes
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:4V_def}
V_{4} = L_{s}^{3} \times L_{t} ,
\end{equation}
where $L_{s}$ and $L_{t}$ are dimensionless spatial and temporal
lattice sizes, respectively. In all our zero-temperature computations, we choose
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:asym_vol}
L_{t} = 2 L_{s} = 2 L ,
\end{equation}
with $L$ typically ranging from 8 to 32. We stress that it is
essential to perform computations for the Higgs-Yukawa models on large
volumes. This is because
the Goldstone bosons are (almost) massless and induce
significant finite-size effects proportional to $L^{-2}$, in contrast to the
exponential effects known for a single-particle spectrum and matrix
elements for theories such as QCD with massive quarks.
Figure~\ref{fig:finiteVolumeExamples} shows some examples of finite-volume
effects that are present in quantities investigated in this work.
It is clear from these plots that finite volume effects can be very
large in the calculation of the Higgs boson mass, while they may be
mild in other quantities.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
$
\begin{array}{ccc}
\hspace*{-0.4cm} \includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{figures/finiteSizeEffects/finiteVolumeImage_Magnetizations_cutoff1500LambdaNaN.eps} &
\hspace*{-0.3cm} \includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{figures/finiteSizeEffects/finite_volume_image_topbartop_corr_chiral_left_handed_gauged_cutoff1500_lambda_nan.eps} &
\hspace*{-0.3cm} \includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{figures/finiteSizeEffects/finiteVolumeImage_HiggsPropagator_cutoff1500LambdaNaN.eps} \\
\end{array}
$
\end{center}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption{Finite volume effects in the
magnetisation as defined in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:bare_vev_definition}) and (\ref{eq:mag})
(left), the fermion mass (middle), and the Higgs boson mass (right) at a cut-off around $1.5\mathrm{TeV}$. The data
are obtained at infinite bare scalar-quartic coupling, $\hat{\lambda}$,
and fermion masses in the range $m_{f} \approx 200 - 700\mathrm{GeV}$.
The lattice sizes used are $L=L_s=12,16,20,24,32$. We show linear (solid lines) and
quadratic (dotted lines) fits in $1/L^2$.}
\label{fig:finiteVolumeExamples}
\end{figure}
We implement the polynomial Hybrid
Monte Carlo (pHMC) algorithm~\cite{Frezzotti:1997ym, Frezzotti:1998eu, Frezzotti:1998yp}, with various improvements
(see Ref.~\cite{Gerhold:2009zf} for a summary), to perform
non-perturbative calculations of the path integral. When compared
to simulations in QCD using overlap fermions \cite{Hashimoto:2008fc},
it is the absence of gauge fields
that makes the application of the overlap operator numerically
feasible even on large lattices, as it is diagonal in momentum space.
\subsection{Basic observables}
\label{sec:basic_observables}
As described in Sec.~\ref{sec:the_action}, our simulations are
performed using only dimensionless variables in the action. This is
achieved by rescaling all the dimensionful quantities with appropriate
powers of the lattice spacing, $a$. Therefore, to make connection to
the real world and to have basic understanding of the spectrum of the
theory, it is essential to determine the lattice spacing.
This is normally carried out by computing the $vev$ of the scalar
field, and then setting it to the value of 246GeV. Before we describe
the details of this procedure, it should be noticed that the scalar
$vev$ is always zero in a finite system.
In principle, one would have to introduce an external source that couples to the
scalar field and breaks the O(4) symmetry explicitly, and perform the
infinite-volume extrapolation for every quantity computed on the lattice,
before taking the source to zero. However, this procedure is
numerically very demanding, and we resort to an alternative method in
which we ``rotate'' the complex scalar doublet in every field
configuration, such that its ensemble average is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bare_vev_definition}
\langle \hat{\phi}_{\text{rot}} \rangle = \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ v \end{array}
\right), \quad v=\sqrt{2\kappa} \langle m \rangle ,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mag}
m = \frac{1}{V_{4}} \sum_{x} \left ( \sum_{\alpha}
|\phi_{x}^{\alpha}|^{2} \right )^{1/2}
\end{equation}
defined on each configuration. It can be shown that the
magnetisation, $\langle m \rangle$, is equivalent to the scalar $vev$
in the infinite-volume limit~\cite{Hasenfratz:1989ux, Hasenfratz:1990fu, Gockeler:1991ty}.
The renormalised scalar $vev$ is given by
\begin{equation}
v_r=\frac{v}{\sqrt{Z_G}},
\end{equation}
where $Z_G$ is the Goldstone-boson wavefunction renormalisation
constant. This renormalisation constant, and the Higgs-field wavefunction
renormalisation constant $Z_H$, can be
extracted from the momentum-space Euclidean propagators of the corresponding
bosons \cite{Gerhold:2009ub,Gerhold:2010bh},
\begin{eqnarray}
&& G_{G/H}(p^{2}) = \frac{1}{L_{t}^{2}\cdot L^{6}_{s}} \sum_{t_{x}, t_{y}}
\sum_{\vec{x},\vec{y}} {\mathrm{e}}^{i \vec{p} \cdot (\vec{x} -
\vec{y}) + i p_{4} (t_{x} - t_{y}) }\mbox{ }
\left \langle {\mathcal{O}}_{G/H}(\vec{x},t_{x}) \mbox{ }
{\mathcal{O}}^{\dagger}_{G/H}(\vec{y},t_{y})\right \rangle \nonumber \\
&& \nonumber\\
\label{eq:GH_mom_prop}
&& \hspace{1.5cm} \stackrel{p^2 \ll 1}{\longrightarrow}
\frac{Z_{G/H}}{p^{2} + m^{2}_{G/H}} ,
\end{eqnarray}
with ${\mathcal{O}}_{G/H}$ being the Goldstone and Higgs fields, respectively,
and all the masses and momenta are in lattice units.
Through the investigation of the momentum dependence of the Goldstone
boson propagator, $Z_{G}$ can be determined. This procedure can be
improved by performing calculations in one-loop lattice perturbation
theory and obtaining the propagators to this order\cite{Jim:thesis}.
The lattice spacing, which is related to the inverse of the cut-off
scale, $\Lambda$, can now be obtained in natural units with,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:setting_a}
a = \Lambda^{-1},\quad \Lambda=\frac{246 \text{GeV}}{v_r} .
\end{equation}
The masses of the bosons are given by the pole of the
Euclidean propagators in Eq.~(\ref{eq:GH_mom_prop}). They can also be
extracted from the time dependence of the Euclidean correlators with
zero spatial momentum \cite{Gerhold:2009ub,Gerhold:2010bh},
\begin{eqnarray}
&& C_{G/H} (\Delta t) = \frac{1}{L_{t}\cdot L_{s}^{6}} \sum_{t}
\sum_{\vec{x},\vec{y}} \left \langle
{\mathcal{O}}_{G/H} (\vec{x}, t + \Delta t) \mbox{ }{\mathcal{O}}^{\dagger}_{G/H}(\vec{y}, t)
\right \rangle \nonumber\\
&& \nonumber\\
&& \hspace{1.5cm} \stackrel{\Delta t \gg 1}{\longrightarrow}
A_{G/H}\mbox{ }
{\mathrm{exp}} \left ( \frac{-m_{G/H} L_{t}}{2} \right )\mbox{ }
{\mathrm{cosh}}\left [ m_{G/H} \mbox{ } \left ( \frac{L_{t}}{2} -
\Delta t
\right )\right ] \nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
\label{eq:GH_corr}
\end{eqnarray}
where $A_{G/H}$ are constants that are proportional to $Z_{G/H}$.
This formula is valid when periodic boundary conditions are imposed.
Here we stress that this method is applicable only when the ground
state is the target single-particle state. Therefore, one has to be
cautious when studying the Higgs boson, since it may decay into
even number of Goldstone bosons.
The unstable nature of the Higgs boson and the calculation of its
resonance parameters
will be discussed in more detail in
Sec.~\ref{sec:Higgs_mass}.
Finally, to compute the masses of the fermions, we resort to
the correlator \cite{Gerhold:2009ub,Gerhold:2010bh}
\begin{equation}
C_f(\Delta t) = \frac{1}{L_t \cdot L_s^6} \sum_{t} \sum_{\vec{x}, \vec{y}}
\left \langle \operatorname{Tr} \left \{
\hat{P}_{-}\psi (t+ \Delta t, \vec x) \cdot \bar{\psi}(t, \vec y) P_{-}
\right\} \right \rangle,
\end{equation}
where the trace is over the spinor indices. By studying the time
dependence of this correlator,
\begin{equation}
C_f(\Delta t \gg 1) \propto {\mathrm{exp}} \left ( \frac{-m_{f} L_{t}}{2} \right )\mbox{ }
{\mathrm{cosh}}\left [ m_{f} \mbox{ } \left ( \frac{L_{t}}{2} -
\Delta t
\right )\right ] ,
\end{equation}
the fermion mass can be extracted.
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\input{introduction}
\section{Lattice setting and simulation strategy}\label{sec:lattice_setting}
\input{AHEP_lattice}
\section{Bounds on the Higgs mass}\label{sec:higgs_mass_bounds}
\input{mass_bounds}
\section{Study of the phase structure}\label{sec:phase_structure_results}
\input{phase_structure_strategy}
\subsection{Bulk phase structure at small Yukawa
couplings}\label{sec:bulk_phase_weak_y}
\input{WeakYukawaBulkPhase}
\subsection{Bulk phase transition at large Yukawa couplings}\label{sec:bulk_phase_transition}
\input{LargeYukawaCoupling}
\subsection{Finite-temperature phase transition}\label{sec:finite_t}
\input{AHEP_finiteT}
\section{Outlook}\label{sec:summary}
\input{conclusion}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\input{Acknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{Bibliography/style.bst}
\subsection{phase structure}
Before reporting the details of our on-going investigation in the bulk
phase structure of the Higgs-Yukawa model in the strong-Yukawa regime,
we briefly summarise the results obtained in the region of weak-Yukawa
coupling~\cite{Gerhold:2007gx} in this section. The order
parameters characterising the different phases are the magnetisation
defined in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:bare_vev_definition}) and (\ref{eq:mag}),
and the staggered magnetisation
\begin{equation}
\langle s \rangle = \left\langle \frac{1}{V_{4}}
\sum_{x} (-1)^{x_{1}+x_{2}+x_{3}+x_{4}} \left ( \sum_{\alpha}
|\phi_{x}^{\alpha}|^{2} \right )^{1/2} \right\rangle \; .
\end{equation}
The staggered magnetisation is relevant for the breaking of the
symmetry,
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa &\longrightarrow& -\kappa ,\nonumber\\
\label{eq:staggered_symmetry}
\phi^{\alpha}_{x} &\longrightarrow& (-1)^{x_{1}+x_{2}+x_{3}+x_{4}}
\phi_{x}^{\alpha} ,
\end{eqnarray}
in the action in Eq.~(\ref{eq:action_lattice_bosonic}).
In the Higgs-Yukawa model, four phases have been observed:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A symmetric (SYM) phase with $\langle m \rangle = \langle s
\rangle = 0$.
\item A broken, or ferromagnetic (FM), phase with $\langle m \rangle
\not= 0$ but $\langle s \rangle = 0$.
\item A staggered-broken, or anti-ferromagnetic (AFM), phase with $\langle m \rangle
= 0$ but $\langle s \rangle \not= 0$.
\item A ferrimagnetic (PI) phase with $\langle m \rangle
\not= 0$ and $\langle s \rangle \not= 0$.
\end{enumerate}
Our current knowledge of the phase structure of the Higgs-Yukawa model
in the weak-Yukawa regime is summarised in Fig.~\ref{fig:phaseDiagramSummary}.
To make it convenient in comparing results from numerical simulations
to a large${-}N_{f}$ analytic calculation~\cite{Gerhold:2007yb}, we have performed the change
of variables,
\begin{equation}
\hat y = \frac{\tilde y_N}{\sqrt{N_f}}, \quad \kappa =
\tilde{\kappa}_{N}, \quad \hat \lambda = \frac{\tilde
\lambda_N}{N_f}, \quad \Phi = \sqrt{N_f} \tilde \Phi ,
\end{equation}
in the plots in this figure. The large${-}N_{f}$ calculation was
carried out in the $N_f \rightarrow \infty$ limit while keeping
$\tilde y_N$, $\tilde \lambda_N$ and $\tilde \Phi$ fixed. The left
panel of Fig. ~\ref{fig:phaseDiagramSummary} is the result from the
large${-}N_{f}$ calculation, and the middle panel is the comparison
between this calculation and the numerical results from lattice
simulations at $N_{f} = 10$. The right panel of this figure shows the $N_{f}$
dependence on the critical values of $\kappa$ at the SYM${-}$FM and
FM${-}$AFM transitions in our numerical calculation, with the Yukawa
coupling set to $\tilde{y}_{N} = 0.1$. It is observed that the
$N_{f}$ dependence appears to be mild. This indicates that the
large${-}N_{f}$ analytic calculation may serve as a reasonable,
qualitative, guide in choosing the simulation parameters for the
numerical simulations. Although this analysis has been
performed in the weak Yukawa coupling region, the good qualitative
description makes it possible to also use the large
$N_f$ expansion also in the strong-Yukawa regime, which
was indeed observed in \cite{Gerhold:2007yb}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
$
\begin{array}{ccc}
\hspace*{-0.1cm} \includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{figures/phaseStructure/phaseDiagram_lam001.eps} &
\hspace*{-0.15cm} \includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{figures/phaseStructure/plPhaseTransKappaL6and8smallY.eps} &
\hspace*{-0.3cm} \includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{figures/phaseStructure/transPointNfDepLam001Y010.eps}
\end{array}
$
\end{center}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption{The phase structure analysis. The left panel shows analytical predictions for the case of $L_s=\infty$, $N_f =
\infty$ and $\tilde \lambda_N = 0.1$. The black line indicates a first order phase transition, while all other transitions are of
second order. The middle panel demonstrates a numerical test of the
transitions from the SYM to both FM and AFM phases with
$N_f=10$. The right panel displays the $N_f$ dependence in the
critical values of $\kappa$ for the SYM${-}$FM and SYM${-}$AFM
transitions, at $\tilde \lambda_N = 0.1$ and $\tilde y_N = 1.0$.
These critical $\kappa$ values are denoted as $\kappa_{\rm crit}^{m}$
($> 0$)
and $\kappa_{\rm crit}^{s}$ ($< 0$),
respectively. The squares and circles in
the middle and right panels of the figures come from direct
numerical simulations on the indicated lattice sizes.}
\label{fig:phaseDiagramSummary}
\end{figure}
In the weak Yukawa coupling region, we concentrated on the study of
the SYM${-}$FM phase transition, which was confirmed to be
second-order. This allowed us to study physically interesting
quantities, such as the Higgs boson mass bound presented in
Sec.~\ref{sec:higgs_mass_bounds}, near this phase-transition with good
control of the cut-off dependence.
\subsection{Calculating the Higgs boson mass}
\label{sec:Higgs_mass}
As pointed out in Sec.~\ref{sec:basic_observables},
calculating the mass of the Higgs boson is challenging because of its unstable nature, as it
decays into even numbers of Goldstone bosons. Extracting the masses
and the widths of
unstable states in lattice field theory is subtle, because the theory
is formulated in Euclidean space. It is further complicated by the
quantisation of spatial momenta in finite volume, since the kinematics
may prevent a resonance state from decaying. Therefore,
a state which is unstable in infinite volume can remain a stable
eigenstate in finite volume.
However, below the inelastic threshold, the infinite-volume
phase shift of two-particle scattering can be determined via the
investigation of finite-size effects in the energy
spectrum~\cite{Luscher:1990ux}. Such finite-volume techniques for
studying scattering states,
albeit very challenging to implement in practice,
can be used to extract resonance masses and
widths in Euclidean quantum field theory~\cite{Luscher:1991cf}.
In this work, we first compute the mass of the Higgs boson by assuming
that its width is zero, therefore it is a stable particle
in finite volume. To check this assumption, we will later use the
above-mentioned finite-volume method to obtain results of
the Higgs boson width, and confirm that the widths is in fact small thus
not affecting the results assuming a stable Higgs boson.
Under the zero width assumption,
we extract the Higgs boson mass using the two approaches described in
Sec.~\ref{sec:basic_observables}. Namely, we study the propagator in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:GH_mom_prop}), and the correlator in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:GH_corr}).
We then extract the Higgs boson mass by a fit of the propagator to a perturbation
theory inspired formula \cite{Gerhold:2009ub,Gerhold:2010bh} and by a fit
to an exponential form of the correlator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:GH_corr}).
The Higgs boson mass obtained in these two
procedures are denoted $m^{p}_{H}$ and $m^{c}_{H}$, respectively.
An example of the two methods for determining $m_{H}$ is illustrated
in Fig.~\ref{fig:fits}. We extract the fitted values $m_{H}^{p}$ and
$m_{H}^{c}$ which agree within one standard deviation and both fits provide
a suitable description of the data.
The plots in this figure are for $m_{f} = 195$GeV. We note that we
observe similar agreement between $m_{H}^{p}$ and $m_{H}^{c}$ for all
our choices of simulation parameters.
To check the validity of the assumption that the Higgs boson is
stable in our work, a calculation of the Higgs
boson resonance parameters has been performed in Ref.~\cite{Gerhold:2011mx}.
Since the finite volume techniques proposed in
Refs~\cite{Luscher:1990ux,Luscher:1991cf} are only applicable below
the inelastic threshold, external sources were introduced which give a mass to the
Goldstone bosons and break the O(4) symmetry explicitly.
In the calculation the Goldstone
boson energies were computed at non-zero momenta, using the original
center of mass frame \cite{Luscher:1990ux,Luscher:1991cf}
as well as a moving frame \cite{Rummukainen:1995vs,Feng:2010es}.
By adjusting the values of the external source and the momenta, the
Goldstone boson energies were tuned
such that
\begin{equation}
2 E_{G} < m_{H} < 4 E_{G} \; .
\end{equation}
The scattering phase shifts from
which the resonance
parameters were extracted are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phases}, along with the
position of the inelastic thresholds. These phase shifts are used to
fit the Breit-Wigner formula to determine the resonance mass and width.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{HiggsPropagator_L24x24x24x48Nf1Kap0.12245Lam0.00000Y0.40000Rho1.000R0.500PolDeg32PolAl0.500J0.00000_level14_HiggsPropagatormaxP1.00.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.52\textwidth]{HiggsCorrelator_L24x24x24x48Nf1Kap0.12245Lam0.00000Y0.40000Rho1.000R0.500PolDeg32PolAl0.500J0.00000_level14_HiggsCorrelatorSAnaLogY1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Examples of fits to the Higgs momentum space propagator and the
Higgs temporal correlation function to obtain $m_H^p$ and $m_H^c$,
respectively. The results are from a $24^{3} \times 48$ lattice with
$m_{f}=195\mathrm{GeV}$, $\Lambda=1.5\mathrm{TeV}$. The fitted values are
$m_H^{p} = 96.0(4.3)\mathrm{GeV}$ and
$m_{H}^c = 96.4(6.9)\mathrm{GeV}$ where the errors are statistical
only and do not reflect the uncertainty in the scale determination which, however,
affects both values in the same way.}
\label{fig:fits}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{plot_phases_lam001.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{plot_phases_lam10.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{plot_phases_lamInf.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Results for the scattering phase shifts at three values of $\hat{\lambda}$.
From left to right, the plots correspond to $\hat{\lambda}=0.001, 10, \infty$,
respectively. In each plot, the vertical dotted line indicates the
position of the four-Goldstone threshold, above which our analysis method is
inapplicable. Also, points obtained from both the centre of mass
system (c.o.m.) and a system with one unit of total momentum (m.f.) are shown.
Taken from Ref.~\cite{Gerhold:2011mx}.}
\label{fig:phases}
\end{figure}
The results of the Higgs boson width and mass obtained via the resonance
analysis, perturbation theory, using the time-slice correlator and
employing the momentum space Higgs boson propagator
are shown in Tab.~\ref{table:comp}. Here, the top quark
mass has been set to its physical value. It is clear that
the Higgs boson mass determined by the resonance study is
consistent with that extracted from fits to the momentum space
propagator and the temporal correlation function. Furthermore, we see that at
$m_f=m_t$, the width of the Higgs resonance is narrow, i.e. at
most $\sim 10\%$ of the
resonance mass in all cases. From the results presented in this
table, it is demonstrated that it is justifiable to assume that the
Higgs boson width is zero since it turns out to be very narrow in the resonance
analysis such that the width has no effect on the mass extraction.
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
$\hat \lambda$&
$\Lambda$ [GEV]&
$m_H^{\rm resonance}$ &
$\Gamma_H^{\rm resonance}$ &
$\Gamma_H^{\text{pert}}$ &
$m_H^p$ &
$m_H^c$ \\\hline\hline
$0.01$ & $883(1)$ & $0.278(3)$ & $0.0018(14)$ & $0.0054(1)$ & $0.278(2)$ & $0.274(4)$ \\\hline
$1.0$ & $1503(5)$ & $0.383(6) $ & $0.0169(4)$ & $0.036(8)$ & $0.386(28)$ & $0.372(4)$ \\\hline
$\infty$ & $1598(2)$ & $0.403(6) $ & $0.037(9)$ & $0.052(2)$ & $0.405(4)$ & $0.403(7)$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The results (taken from Ref.~\cite{Gerhold:2011mx}) of a
study comparing the resonance parameters of the
Higgs boson with the results of fits to the temporal correlation function and
momentum space Higgs boson propagator.
Errors are statistical only. Except for the cut-off scale, all
the results are in lattice units. The fermion mass is set to be the
physical top-quark mass. Results from three values of the quartic
coupling are presented. Also shown are the resonance mass and width
from Breit-Wigner fits to the scattering cross-section. Finally, a
perturbative estimate of the resonance width is
included. We note that because of some data losses the error on $m^{p}_{H}$ at
$\hat{\lambda}=1.0$ is larger than for the other parameters.}
\label{table:comp}
\end{table}
\subsection{Results of the Higgs boson mass bounds}
\label{sec:mass_bound_results}
We now turn to the results of the Higgs boson mass bound calculations
discussed in the previous section. We first discuss the results of
Ref.~\cite{Gerhold:2010bh}, where the upper and lower bounds were
computed at several choices of the cut-off scale, with the fermion
masses at the physical top-quark mass, and also at $m_f \sim 676$GeV.
The main result from
Ref.~\cite{Gerhold:2010bh} is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mass_bounds}. In the left
graph, the situation for a SM top quark mass is shown.
The right graph shows the situation for a fermion mass of $m_f \sim 676$GeV.
It can be clearly
seen that while the upper bound is relatively unaffected when using a heavy
fermion mass,
the lower bound increases substantially.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/InfiniteVolumeExtrapolationBothBoundsMTop175without0MH.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/InfiniteVolumeExtrapolationBothBoundsMTop700MH.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The cut-off dependence of the upper and lower Higgs boson
mass bounds for fermion mass at $\sim 173$GeV (left) and
$\sim676$GeV (right). All data have been
extrapolated to infinite volume.}
\label{fig:mass_bounds}
\end{figure}
Apart from the cut-off dependence of the bounds at a fixed value of $m_f$, the
dependence of the bounds on $m_f$ itself has also been examined at a fixed
value of the lattice cut-off~\cite{Bulava:2011ss}, the results of which are
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mb_pert} (left). We clearly observe the
increase of the lower bound with
increasing $m_f$ in this figure.
In particular,
Fig.~\ref{fig:mb_pert} suggests that with a Higgs boson mass of
$\sim125\mathrm{GeV}$,
the mass of a mass-degenerate fourth generation of quarks is
restricted to be less than $\sim 350\mathrm{GeV}$. This is clearly already
below the bounds from direct experimental searches.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Lambda1p5TeV_mhboth.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{lam6_0p01_L32.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Left: The dependence on the fermion mass of the upper and lower
Higgs boson mass bounds, at the cut-off scale $\Lambda = 1.5$TeV.
Data points from lattice calculations are
shown. Results for the lower bound without infinite-volume
extrapolation, using only $24^{3} \times 48$ lattices, are also
shown for comparison. The solid line results from
a one-loop calculation of the effective potential, as explained
in the text. Right: effects of a $\phi^{6}$ operator with
coupling $\lambda_{6}$ for the lower
bound of the Higgs boson mass, at various fermion masses and the
cut-off scale $\Lambda = 2$TeV. Three values of the coupling
constant $\lambda_{6}$ are plotted.}
\label{fig:mb_pert}
\end{figure}
In addition to the numerical results, Fig.~\ref{fig:mb_pert} also contains the
estimate of the lower bound from an effective
potential calculation, which was performed
using the same lattice regularisation as in our Monte Carlo
simulation. In this calculation, the effective potential was
computed to one-loop order in the large${-}N_{f}$ limit.
Operationally, the one-loop calculations were carried out
by numerically computing the required momentum-mode summations in a
series of finite lattice volumes, and then extrapolating to the
infinite-volume limit. From this one-loop effective potential, $V$,
the Higgs boson mass is determined by
solving for the scalar $vev$, $v$, and the Higgs boson mass in the
gap equations,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:vacuum_stab}
\frac{d}{d \phi} V(\phi)|_{\phi=v} = 0, \quad
\frac{d^2}{d \phi^{2}} V(\phi)|_{\phi=v} = m_{H}^{2}\; .
\end{align}
To compare to the numerically computed lower Higgs boson mass bound,
in the effective potential calculation the
quartic coupling has been set to zero. In addition,
the cut-off and the fermion mass were fixed to the same
values as in the simulations such that a direct comparison
is possible.
For a standard model top quark mass it has been demonstrated
in \cite{Gerhold:2009ub,Gerhold:2010wy} that the lattice effective
potential provides an excellent description for the numerical data
for the lower Higgs boson mass bound.
The left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:mb_pert} clearly demonstrates that
the trend of an increasingly higher value
of the lower bound with increasing fermion masses,
as suggested by the perturbative calculation is
realised by the data up to very large values of $m_f$, although the
quantitative agreement is better at low $m_f$.
Based on this qualitative agreement, we can examine the effect of
higher-dimensional operators in the effective potential using the same
loop and $1/N_{f}$ expansion.
To this end we include the contribution from the operator $\lambda_6\phi^6$ in
the effective potential with
$\lambda_{6}$ the coupling constant.
The addition of such an operator in the Lagrangian modifies the solution to
Eq.~(\ref{eq:vacuum_stab}), and can therefore alter the lower bounds on the
Higgs boson mass in principle.
Here we stress that the cut-off cannot be removed in the Higgs-Yukawa
model. Furthermore, any perturbative expansion in this model is
only valid in the regime where the cut-off scale,
$\Lambda = 1/a$, is large enough compared to low-energy scales
such as the Higgs boson mass and the scalar $vev$. In
Ref.~\cite{Luscher:1988uq}, it was demonstrated that $m/\Lambda < 0.5$
(with $m$ being a typical low-energy scale) is enough to ensure the
applicability of perturbation theory to the pure $\phi^{4}$ scalar
field theory. Here we impose the same condition, but
on the value of the scalar field, in our perturbative
calculation for the effective potential for the Higgs-Yukawa model
including the $\lambda_{6} \phi^{6}$ operator. This results in the
stability criterion
\begin{align}
\frac{d^2}{d \phi^{2}}V(\phi) > 0 , \quad \phi < 0.5 ,
\end{align}
where $\phi$ has been properly rescaled to be in lattice units.
In the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:mb_pert}, we show the results of
our investigation of the lower bounds on the Higgs boson mass, using
the one-loop effective potential including the contribution from the
$\lambda_{6} \phi^{6}$ operator.
It is clear that in the regime where the perturbative expansion is valid,
a wide range of values of $\lambda_{6}$ lead to qualitatively very
similar results. Finally, we also point out that exploratory numerical Monte
Carlo simulations which include the $\phi^6$ operator
agree with the perturbative results for a large range of bare
Yukawa couplings~\cite{Gerhold:2010wy}.
\subsection{Purposes and strategy of the study}
\label{sec:phase_transition_strategy}
It is an important task to explore the phase structure of the
Higgs-Yukawa model to identify the phase structure of the theory
and determine the critical coupling constant values where a
continuum limit can be performed.
In this section, we will discuss two aspects concerning the phase structure
of the Higgs-Yukawa model considered here.
The first are
the locations of second-order bulk phase transitions in
the bare parameter space which can be identified as the continuum limits of
the lattice theory.
For weak values of the bare Yukawa coupling the phase structure
has been investigated in \cite{Gerhold:2007yb,Gerhold:2007gx} and its
knowledge was very helpful to identify the simulation parameters
for the desired physical situation, i.e. a fixed value of the
cut-off and the physical values of the fermion masses.
Here we remark that
the bounds on the Higgs boson and fermion masses as presented in
Fig.~\ref{fig:mb_pert} in Sec.~\ref{sec:mass_bound_results} are
obtained in this weak bare Yukawa
coupling regime.
In this section, we focus now on the
large bare Yukawa coupling region and explore the phase structure
of the theory in this regime of the parameter space.
The aim is to investigate, whether the phase transitions at large
bare Yukawa coupling are governed by the same, Gaussian fixed point
as at small Yukawa coupling. If we would find deviations from
the Gaussian fixed point behaviour, this would open the
possibility
that the renormalised Yukawa coupling can remain
strong up to a high cut-off scale which could lead
to heavy fermion masses and even the existence of
bound states.
We
have therefore been performing simulations at large values of bare Yukawa
coupling\footnote{In Ref.~\cite{Abada:1990ds,Hasenfratz:1991it},
it was demonstrated that in the
limit where the bare Yukawa coupling becomes infinity, the
Higgs-Yukawa model is equivalent to the pure O(4) scalar model.
However, our simulations are performed away from this limit.}, and
the exploratory results will be presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:bulk_phase_transition}.
As a second aspect, we will present an
investigation of the finite-temperature phase transition in
understanding the role of, in particular, heavy fermion masses
for the
electroweak phase transition, especially with respect to questions
concerning baryogenesis~\cite{Cohen:1993nk}.
Before detailing our on-going studies of the bulk and thermal phase transitions
of the Higgs-Yukawa model in the following two sections, here we describe
the general strategy in this work.
It is natural to use the $vev$ of the scalar
field to probe the phase structure. However, a naive computation of
this $vev$ will always lead to vanishing results in lattice
calculations even in the broken phase, because of the
finite volume as used in the simulations. As discussed in the beginning of
Sec.~\ref{sec:basic_observables}, it is appropriate to replace the
scalar $vev$ with the magnetisation as defined in
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:bare_vev_definition}) and (\ref{eq:mag}).
In order to probe the nature of phase transitions, we have to determine
anomalous dimensions of the operators allowed by the symmetries.
In finite
volume, second-order phase transitions are washed out and become
cross-overs, and the correlation length cannot exceed the size of the
system. Therefore, for the study of the phase structure, we resort to finite-size
scaling techniques. These techniques were developed originally by solving the
renormalisation group equation (RGE) for finite-volume lattice systems
in condensed matter
physics~\cite{Fisher:1972zza}. To draw analogy between field theory
and statistical mechanics, we also refer to these anomalous dimensions by
calling them critical exponents in this article, as usually done in statistical
mechanics.
It is challenging to determine the anomalous dimension of the
operator corresponding to the Yukawa coupling term, because of the presence of
fermions and the flavour-changing structure of the operator.
We will postpone the discussion of this operator
for future reports. Here we focus on critical exponents in the scalar
sector. To start, we calculate the susceptibility,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:susc_def}
\chi_{m} = V_{4} \left( \left< m^2\right> - \left< m\right>^2
\right) ,
\end{equation}
which is the connected two-point function in the scalar sector. This
quantity is proportional to the square of the correlation length,
$\xi$, and diverges at second-order phase transitions in the
infinite-volume limit.
Solving the RGE for this correlator for a finite-size system at fixed
cut-off scale (lattice spacing) near a second-order phase transition,
one obtains the scaling law,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:susc_scaling}
\chi_{m}\left(t, L_s\right)\cdot L_s^{-\gamma/\nu} = g\left(t
L_s^{1/\nu}\right)\text{,\, with \,} t=\left (
T/T_{c} -1 \right )
\end{equation}
where $g$ is a universal scaling function, $L_s$ is the spatial
extent of the lattice, and $T_{c}$ is the critical temperature in the infinite-volume
limit, which could also be represented by the critical value of a particular
coupling. The critical exponents, $\gamma$ and $\nu$ are related to the
anomalous dimensions of the scalar field and the mass operator,
$\phi^{2}$. This scaling behaviour is exact near the critical point
for space-time dimension, $d < 3$. Therefore it is an appropriate
tool in our study of the finite-temperature phase transition.
However, in the investigation of the bulk phase structure,
we have a $d=4$ field theory, and the above scaling
relation should be modified because of
triviality~\cite{Brezin:1981gm,Brezin:1985xx,Bernreuther:1987hv,Kenna:1992np,Kenna:2004cm},
if the transition is governed by a Gaussian fixed point. These
modifications appear as logarithmic corrections in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:susc_scaling}). They are not included in the analysis
presented in this article, but are being considered in our on-going work.
As will be discussed in the following, the scaling tests and
the extraction of anomalous dimensions using
Eq.~(\ref{eq:susc_scaling}) are complicated because of the number of
free parameters that are involved in the methods for modelling the
unknown universal function, $g$. In particular, it is difficult to accurately
determine $\nu$ using this procedure. This complication can be reduced by
studying Binder's cumulant~\cite{Binder:1981sa},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:binders_cumulant_def}
Q_{L} = 1 - \frac{\left< m^4\right>}{3\left< m^2\right>^{2}} .
\end{equation}
This quantity is simply the connected four-point function, normalised
by the square of the two-point function, in the scalar sector. Because
of the normalisation, $Q_{L}$ is independent of the critical exponent
$\gamma$. Furthermore, it is related to the renormalised scalar
quartic coupling in the infinite-volume limit by a proportionality factor
$V_{4}/\xi^{4}$~\cite{Freedman:1982zu}. Since Binder's cumulant is
normalised to be dimensionless, its values computed on different
(dimensionless) lattice sizes with the same cut-off scale will coincide with each other at the
critical point. It is also expected to exhibit milder
scaling violations resulting from higher-dimensional
operators~\cite{Privman:1983dj, Binder:1985FSTH}.
In the next three sections, we discuss details of the investigation of the thermal
and bulk phase structures using the quantities defined in this
section. Errors on all the numerical results in this section are
statistical only.
|
\section{Introduction}
\ignore{
Much of the economic theory challenges can be view as {\em how to
allocate scarce resources}. The main goal is to show that
appropriate pricing of the resources would lead to clearing the
markets, namely, supply and demand match. This is at the core of
many of the general equilibrium theory results, such as the famous
Arrow-Debrue model.
Unfortunately, there is a hidden assumption of convexity, an
assumption that breaks down when there are indivisible good. This is
not a minor deficiency, since many of the interesting motivations
for algorithmic game theory are indeed this case. This is the case
even if we assume that the agents are quasi linear with respect to
monetary transfer.
}
Walrasian equilibrium is one of the most basic models in economic
theory. Items are priced in such a way that for each item either the
market clears (supply equals demand) or if there is an excess supply
it is priced at zero.
When there is a Walrasian equilibrium, it captures nicely the
``right'' pricing of items. Unfortunately, Walrasian equilibria are
guarantee to exists only for limited classes of agents'
valuations, namely gross-substitute valuations.
A different way of presenting the market is to
auction the items simultaneously, and analyze the resulting
equilibria. For simultaneous first price auction, the resulting pure
Nash equilibria are in one-to-one correspondence to the Walrasian
equilibria, with the same prices and allocations
\cite{HassidimKMN11,Bikhchandanil99}.
Considering the market as a simultaneous first price auction allows us
to consider it as a game, and study the
resulting equilibria. Fortunately, there is always a mixed
Nash equilibrium, with some tie breaking rule, and approximate Nash
equilibrium with any tie breaking rule \cite{HassidimKMN11}.
A typical example of a case where there are no Walrasian equilibria
is when there are two agents, one is single minded while the other
is unit demand. The {\tt AND}-{\tt OR} game is exactly this setting, with
two items. The {\tt AND} valuation is $1$ if it gets both items and zero otherwise,
while the {\tt OR} has a value of $v$ for any single item (or both) and zero otherwise.
For $v>1/2$ there is no Walrsian equilibrium (or equivalently, pure
Nash equilibrium) and this is the interesting and challenging case
we focus on in this paper. A specific mixed Nash equilibrium for the {\tt
AND}-{\tt OR} game was presented in \cite{HassidimKMN11} (we
review it in Section~\ref{section-model--and-or}).
In this work we completely characterize the resulting mixed Nash equilibria
of the {\tt AND}-{\tt OR} game.
We show that while the equilibrium is technically not unique, it is
almost unique. More precisely we show that all mixed Nash equilibria
to the {\tt AND}-{\tt OR} game have the same marginal bid
distributions for each item. The resulting prices and
utilities of the {\tt AND} and {\tt OR} agents are the same in all mixed Nash equilibria.
We complement our characterization with a study of the properties of
these equilibria.
\ignore{
The issue of uniqueness and characterization of equilibria is many times central in game
theory. One of the reasons is it predictability. If we have multiple
equilibria, we can not be certain which equilibrium would be the
outcome, in contrast to a unique equilibrium has clearly solves this
problem. The characterization of the equilibria allows us to argue regarding all the possible equilibria.}
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Related Work:}
There is a recent interest in algorithmic game theory to study
simple simultaneous and sequential auctions to allocate multiple
goods. Bhawalkar and Roughgarden \cite{BhawalkarR11} studied second
price simultaneous auctions and their Price of Anarchy (PoA). They
show that under the assumption of conservative bidding the PoA for
sub-modular valuations is a constant and for sub-additive valuations
it is logarithmic.
Hassidim et al. \cite{HassidimKMN11} studied a market which is based
on first price auctions. They show that the pure equilibria
correspond to Walarsian prices, and prove that a
mixed Nash equilibrium always exists\footnote{the issue is that the prices are
continuous.}. Similar to \cite{BhawalkarR11}, they show for
sub-modular valuations a constant PoA and for sub-additive
valuations a logarithmic PoA.
Leme at al. \cite{LemeST12soda} studied a sequential auctioning of
the items, where the solution concept is a sub-game perfect
equilibrium. They show that a pure sub-game perfect equilibrium
always exists, and that for unit demand buyers the PoA is at most
$2$ while for submodular buyers it might be unbounded.
Szentes \cite{Szentes07} studied a game with two identical bidders
and two identical items in the full information model, where both
bidders are either sub-additive or supper-additive. In addition to
simple pure Nash equilibria, he exhibits a family of symmetric mixed
Nash equilibria. This work was extended in \cite{SzentesR03a} to
three items (where each of the two agent desires at least two of the items)
and in \cite{SzentesR03} to multiple items and agents
(where again, each agent desires a strict majority of the items).
All the above works exhibit specific symmetric mixed equilibria,
and none of them address the characterization of all mixed Nash equilibria.
\ignore{ In our paper \cite{} we considered the following game
between an {\tt AND} player and an {\tt OR} player who are competing
over two items. Here is the setting:
\begin{itemize}
\item
There are two player {\tt AND} and {\tt OR} who are competing to buy
two (non-identical) items.
\item
{\tt AND} gets value 1 if he wins both items (and zero if he wins
only one or none).
\item {\tt OR} gets value
$v>1/2$ when he wins some item (and still $v$ if he wins both).
\item
Each player places bids $(x,y)$ on the two items and the highest bidder on each item wins it and pays
the amount that he bid. We denote by $H$ the maximum allowed bid in the game, so $0 \le x,y \le H$.
(Clearly it suffices
to have $H \le max(1,v)$.)
\item
When both players bid the same amount on some item a {\em tie
breaking rule} specifies who wins the item (and pays its bid); this
rule may be randomized. We make the assumption that the tie breaking
rule only depends on the bids for the tied item (and not on the bids
on the other item).
\item We are modeling this as a game of full information and are interested in its mixed-Nash equilibria $(\Fand,\For)$,
where these are the CDF's of the two players' bids.
\end{itemize}
In \cite{HassidimKMN11} we identified the following Nash
equilibrium: {\tt AND} chooses $0 \le x \le 1/2$ at random according
to CDF $(v-1/2)/(v-x)$ and bids $(x,x)$; {\tt OR} chooses $0\le x
\le 1/2$ at random according to CDF $x/(1-x)$, and bids either
$(0,x)$ or $(x,0)$ with equal probability. The two-dimensional CDFs
of their bids (for $0 \le x,y \le 1/2$) are thus:
$\Fand^*(x,y)=(v-1/2)/(v-min(x,y))$ and $\For^*(x,y) =
(x/(1-x)+y/(1-y))/2$.
In this addendum we completely characterize the set of Nash
equilibria. }
\section{The {\tt AND}-{\tt OR} Game: Model and preliminaries} \label{section-model--and-or}
We have two players an {\tt AND} player and {\tt {\tt OR}} player.
The {\tt AND} player has a value of $1$ if he gets both the items in
$M=\{1,2\}$, and the {\tt OR} player has a value of $v$ if she gets
any item in $M$. Formally, $v_{and}(M)=1$ and for $S\neq M$ we have
$v_{and}(S)=0$, also, $v_{or}(T)=v$ for $T\neq\emptyset$ and
$v_{or}(\emptyset)=0$. Both players have a quasi-linear utility with
respect to money, i.e., getting subset $S$ and paying price $p$ has
a utility of $u(S)=v(S)-p$, and are risk neutral. We assume a full
information setting, namely both players know each other's
valuation.
In the {\tt AND}-{\tt OR} game both players participate in two
simultaneous first price auctions, one for each item.
Namely, each player places bids $(x_1,x_2)$ where $x_i$ is the bid
on item $i$. The highest bidder on each item wins it and pays its
bid. We will denote by $H$ the maximum allowed bid in the game, so
$0 \le x,y \le H$. (Clearly it suffices to have $H \le max(1,v)$.)
Completely specifying a first price auction requires a {\em tie
breaking rule}, which specifies the winner in case of identical
bids.
We make the assumption that the tie breaking rule only depends on
the bids for the tied item (and not on the bids on the other item),
and allow for a randomized tie breaking rule.
When $v\leq 1/2$ there is a Walresian equilibrium for any price
$p\in[v,1/2]$ per item. This implies a pure Nash Equilibrium in
which both players bid $p$ on each item, and the {\tt AND} player
wins both items (assuming the tie breaking rule favors {\tt AND}).
For this reason we are interested in the case when
$v>1/2$. It is easy to verify that in this case is no Walresian
equilibrium. For completeness we show that there is no pure Nash
equilibrium.
\begin{claim}
There is no pure Nash equilibrium in the {\tt AND}-{\tt OR} game.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof} Assume for contradiction there was a pure Nash
equilibrium with some tie breaking rule. Let the {\tt AND} bid
$(x,y)$.
Since the {\tt AND} value is $1$, if $x+y>1$ the {\tt AND} has a
negative utility for any best response of the {\tt OR}. In the case
that $x+y\leq 1$, the best response of the {\tt OR} is to out bid
the lower bid of the {\tt AND}.
Therefore, {\tt AND} will have a non-negative utility only if it bids
$(0,0)$. In case that {\tt AND} bids $(0,0)$, the {\tt OR} wins one item at a price of at
most $\epsilon$. But then the {\tt AND} can deviate and bid
$(2\epsilon, 2\epsilon)$ and have a positive utility. Contradiction. \qed
\end{proof}
Next, we describe the mixed Nash equilibrium from
\cite{HassidimKMN11}.
\begin{itemize}
\item The {\tt {\tt AND}} player bids $(y,y)$ where $0 \le y \le 1/2$ according to cumulative distribution
$\Fand^*(y)=(v-1/2)/(v-y)$ (where $\Fand^*(y)=Pr[bid \le y]$). In
particular, There is an atom at 0: $Pr[y=0]=1-1/(2v)$.
\item The {\tt OR} player bids $(x,0)$ with probability 1/2 and $(0,x)$ with probability 1/2,
where $0 \le x \le 1/2$ is distributed according to cumulative
distribution $\For^*(x)=x/(1-x)$.
\end{itemize}
Note that since the {\tt OR} player does not have any mass points in
his distribution, the equilibrium holds for any tie breaking
rule. The proof that this is indeed an equilibrium is in
\cite{HassidimKMN11}. The main goal of this paper is to characterize
the mixed Nash equilibria of the {\tt AND}-{\tt OR} game, and to
show that this is ``essentially'' the only mixed Nash equilibrium.
\section{Characterization of the mixed Nash equilibria}
The following theorem is our main result which characterizes the
mixed Nash equilibria of the {\tt AND}-{\tt OR} game. The {\tt OR}
player has to play the mixed strategy $\For^*$. The {\tt AND} player
can play various mixed strategies, but their marginal bid
distribution on each item is identical to $\Fand^*$, and the
probability mass at $(0,0)$ is the same as of $\Fand^*$. While there
is more than a single equilibrium, they all have ``essentially'' the
same outcomes, i.e., the same expected utilities, payments, and
allocation probabilities.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main}
A pair of strategies $(\Fand,\For)$ is an
equilibrium of the {\tt AND}-{\tt OR} game if and only if
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\tt OR}'s strategy is
$\For=\For^*$.
\item {\tt AND}'s strategy has the same marginal distributions of the bids for each item as
$\Fand^*$: $\Fand(x,H)=\Fand^*(x,H)$ and $\Fand(H,y)=\Fand^*(H,y)$
for all $x,y$, and the same probability of $(0,0)$:
$\Fand(0,0)=\Fand^*(0,0)$.
\end{enumerate}
Furthermore, $\Fand$ is weakly dominated as a strategy by $\Fand^*$ and the following quantities are the same as in the equilibrium
$(\Fand^*,\For^*)$:
(1) The allocation probabilities, i.e. the probabilities of each
player winning each bundle.
(2) The expected payments, and utilities of each player.
Thus also the expected revenue and social welfare.
\end{theorem}
The proof of the above theorem is quite involved, and most of the
paper is devoted to it. In the following we give a high level view
of the proof.
We start with preliminary set-up. In Section \ref{s:interval} we
show that the support of the bids of each player for each item is
(essentially) an interval, with both players having the same upper
bound.
In Section \ref{or-positive} we observe that {\tt OR} must get non-zero utility.
In Section \ref{sim} we show that without loss of generality we can
increase the correlation between the bids of {\tt AND} on the two
items without changing its marginal distribution on each item. This
allows us to consider maximally correlated distributions for {\tt
AND}. (We formally define in Section~\ref{sim} what we mean by
maximally correlated.)
In Section \ref{or-axis} we prove that the bids of {\tt OR} must be
on the axis: i.e. either $(0,x)$ or $(x,0)$; and then in Section
\ref{and-diagonal} we show that {\tt AND} must bid on the diagonal,
i.e., $(x,x)$.
At this point we derive, in Section \ref{exact} the exact form of
the equilibrium distributions. Section \ref{thm-pf} puts everything
back together showing how the main theorem is implied.
\subsection{The Bids on Each Item form an Interval}\label{s:interval}
The results in this section apply to any equilibrium in a market
with two bidders and any number of items. We still state these
results using the names {\tt AND} and {\tt OR} for the players but
we only assume that $(\Fand,\For)$ are an equilibrium of some market
game. We do not rely in this section on the specific form of the
utilities of {\tt AND} and {\tt OR}, but only on the fact that our
game is a simultaneous first price auction. This implies that
Lemma~\ref{interval} also holds with the roles of {\tt AND} and {\tt
OR} reversed.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:high_bid}
The highest bids of the two players on a
particular item are equal. I.e. $\Fand(x,H)=1$ if and only if
$\For(x,H)=1$ (and similarly for the other items.)
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\For(x_0,H)=1$ for some $x_0$. For any bid $(x,y)$ of
{\tt AND}, with $x>x_0$, {\tt AND} gets strictly lower utility than
$(x_0+\epsilon,y)$ (for any $\epsilon<x-x_0$) since it wins in
exactly the same cases $(x,y)$ won, and always pays strictly less.
It follows that no bid with $x>x_0$ is a best-response for {\tt
AND}, thus {\tt AND} always bids at most $x_0$ on the first item,
i.e., $\Fand(x_0,H)=1$. The other direction is analogous. \qed
\end{proof}
Given Lemma \ref{lemma:high_bid} it is possible to define the
``highest bid'' on an item: $h_1=\min\{x\mid \Fand(x,H)=1\}=\min\{x
\mid \For(x,H)=1\}$ and $h_2=\min\{y\mid \Fand(H,y)=1\}=\min\{y\mid
\For(H,y)=1\}$ (where the minimum is actually achieved due to the
right-continuity of CDFs.) We will argue below that in fact
$h_1=h_2$.
\begin{lemma} \label{interval}
Let $0<b<c$ such that {\tt OR} never bids between $b$ and $c$ on an
item, i.e., $\For(b,H)=\For(c,H)$ and such that both players
sometimes bid at most $b$, i.e., $\For(b,H)>0$ and $\Fand(b,H)>0$.
Then both players always bid at most $b$, i.e.
$\For(b,H)=\Fand(b,H)=1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, if {\tt OR} never bids above $c$, i.e., $\For(c,H)=1$, then
also $\For(b,H)=\For(c,H)=1$ and by Lemma~\ref{lemma:high_bid} also
$\Fand(b,H)=1$.
Otherwise, for a contradiction, assume {\tt OR} bids above $c$.
Define $d$ to be the infimum bid of {\tt OR} above $b$: $d=\inf \{x
\mid \For(x,H) > \For(b,H)\}$. This implies that for any
$\epsilon>0$ the {\tt OR} bids in $[d,d+\epsilon)$ with positive
probability. We show a sequence of properties that
depends on $d$:\\
{\bf (I)} {\tt AND} does not bid in the range $(b,d)$ on that item
(i.e., $\Fand(x,H)=\Fand(b,H)$ for all $b \le x<d$). Assume for a
contradiction that {\tt AND} bids $(x,y)$ for some $b<x<d$. Now
consider a deviation of {\tt AND} that bids $(b+\epsilon,y)$. Both
$(x,y)$ and $(b+\epsilon,y)$ win in exactly in the same cases,
however, with the bid $(b+\epsilon,y)$ {\tt AND} pays strictly less
(for any $\epsilon< x-b$). Since this occurs with positive
probability, we have a contradiction that $(x,y)$ is a best
response of {\tt AND}.\\
{\bf (II)} Assume {\tt AND} player does not have an atom at $d$.
Consider a deviation of the {\tt OR} player switching any bid for the
first item which is in the range $(d,d+\epsilon)$ (for a small
enough $\epsilon \ge 0$), with the bid $(b+d)/2$.
The probability that {\tt AND} bids in $(d,d+\epsilon)$ goes to zero as $\epsilon$
goes to zero, since {\tt AND} does not have an atom at $d$.
This upper bounds the loss of {\tt OR} in the deviation.
On the other hand, the payments decrease by at least $(d-b)/2 >0$ and this happens with
positive probability (at least the probability that {\tt AND} bids below $b$).
Therefore we reached a contradiction to the assumption that
{\tt OR} is best responding.\\
{\bf (III)} Assume {\tt AND} has an atom at $d$ and the {\tt OR}
does not have an atom at $d$.
Consider a deviation where the {\tt AND} switches the bid of $d$ for the
first item by the bid $(b+d)/2$. Since the {\tt OR} does not have an atom at $d$,
the probability that {\tt AND} wins does not change, and the payments go down by
$(d-b)/2$ with constant probability (at least the probability that {\tt OR} bids below $b$.)
Therefore we reached a contradiction to the assumption that
{\tt AND} is best responding.\\
{\bf (IV)} Assume both {\tt AND} and {\tt OR} have an atom at $d$.
Now, look at the tie breaking rule at $d$, it gives {\tt AND } probability $q_d$ of wining the tie at $d$
and {\tt OR} a probability of $1-q_d$ winning.
At least one of the players does not always win.
\ignore{\footnote{Here we are using the fact
that the tie breaking rule does not depend on the bids of the second
item.} }
That player may want to increase its bid to $d+\epsilon$ and always
win the item -- this will be strictly beneficial unless its expected
utility from bidding $d$ is exactly zero.
But in that case reducing its bid to $b+\epsilon$ will strictly
increase its utility: winning whenever he previously did and paying
less (again, winning the item with these bids has positive
probability.)
We reached a contradiction to the assumption that {\tt OR} bids
above $c$, therefore $\For(b,H)=1$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:high_bid} we
have that $\Fand(b,H)=1$.
\qed
\end{proof}
\subsection{OR Gets Positive Utility}\label{or-positive}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:or-positive} In any mixed Nash equilibrium $(\Fand,\For)$
the expected utility of the {\tt OR} player is strictly positive.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For contradiction assume that the expected utility of the {\tt OR}
player is zero, i.e., $u_{or}(\Fand,\For)=0$. Consider the following
deviation of the {\tt OR} player. Let $\eta=(0.5+v)/2 >1/2$. The
{\tt OR} player bids with probability $1/2$ the bids $(0,\eta)$ and
with probability $1/2$ the bids $(\eta,0)$. Since we are at an
equilibrium the expected utility of this deviation is $0$. This
could happen only if
the
{\tt AND} player always bids in $\Fand$ above $\eta$ for both items,
i.e., $\Fand(\eta,H) = \Fand(H,\eta) = 0$.
If the {\tt AND} player always bids above $\eta$ for both items
then he has a non-negative utility only if he always loses both
items.
It follows that the {\tt OR} player, using $\For$, always wins both
items with a cost of at least $\eta$ for each. However, this implies
that the {\tt OR} player pays at least $v+0.5$. Since the value of
the {\tt OR} player is $v$ she has a negative utility, which is a
contradiction. \qed
\end{proof}
Let $\por(x,y)$ be the probability that the {\tt OR} wins at least
one item with the bid $(x,y)$, i.e.,
$\por(x,y)=\Fand(x,H)+\Fand(H,y)-\Fand(x,y)$. The following simple
corollary to Lemma~\ref{lem:or-positive} would be useful.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:or-positive} In any mixed Nash equilibrium
$(\Fand,\For)$, if $\For(x,y)>0$ then $\por(x,y)>0$.
\end{corollary}
Consider the highest bids $h_1$ and $h_2$. Clearly if $h_1 > h_2$
and $h_2 < v$ then the {\tt OR} can gain by deviating and bidding
$h_2 +\epsilon$ on the second item and $0$ on the first item
whenever it used to bid $y
> h_2$ on the first item. If $h_1 > h_2=v$ then {\tt OR} cannot
have positive utility contradicting Lemma \ref{lem:or-positive}. So
we have the following corollary.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:highestbid}
The highest bid of the players on the first item ($h_1$) is equal to
the highest bid of the players on the second item ($h_2$).
\end{corollary}
We let $h=h_1=h_2$.
\subsection{Identical Marginal Distributions and Correlation}
\label{sim}
It will be convenient to consider the projection of the joint bid
distribution of a player on the individual coordinates, i.e., the
single items.
\begin{definition}
Two CDF's $F$ and $F'$ are called {\em Identical Marginal
Distributions} if their marginals are identical. I.e.,
$F(x,H)=F'(x,H)$ for all $x$ and
$F(H,y)=F'(H,y)$ for all $y$.
\end{definition}
The following proposition takes advantage of the fact that the
decision of each auction depends only on the marginal distribution.
\begin{proposition} \label{equiv}
If $\Fand$ and $\Fand'$ are Identical Marginal Distributions then
against any strategy $\For$:
\begin{itemize}
\item Each item is won by each player with the same probability in $(\Fand,\For)$ and $(\Fand',\For)$.
\item The expected payments of each player are the same in $(\Fand,\For)$ and $(\Fand',\For)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
Note that the above proposition states that the probabilities of
winning any single item by any player are identical in
$(\Fand,\For)$ and $(\Fand',\For)$, but the probability of winning
both items might differ.
\begin{proposition} \label{better}
If $\Fand$ and $\Fand'$ are Identical Marginal Distributions then,
for every $\For$, the following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$u_{and}(\Fand,\For) \le u_{and}(\Fand',\For)$.
\item
$u_{or}(\Fand,\For) \ge u_{or}(\Fand',\For)$.
\item
$Pr_{(\Fand,\For)}[\textrm{{\tt AND} wins both items}] \le
Pr_{(\Fand',\For)}[\textrm{{\tt AND} wins both items}]$.
\item
$Pr_{(\Fand,\For)}[\textrm{{\tt OR} wins an item}] \ge Pr_{(\Fand',\For)}[\textrm{{\tt OR} wins an item}]$
\item
$Pr_{(\Fand,\For)}[\textrm{{\tt AND} wins no items}] \le
Pr_{(\Fand',\For)}[\textrm{{\tt AND} wins no items}]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $\Fand$ and $\Fand'$ are Identical Marginal Distributions the
expected payments are identical for both players.
This implies that the only parameter that influences the utility is
the probability of winning. (For the {\tt AND} player, winning both
items, for the {\tt OR} player, winning one of the two items.) Thus
(1) is equivalent to (3) and (2) is equivalent to (4). But notice
that always exactly one of {\tt AND} or {\tt OR} wins, and
therefore if the probability that {\tt AND} wins increases, then the
probability that {\tt OR} wins decreases. It follows that (3) and
(4) are equivalent. Finally, since $\Fand$ and $\Fand'$ are
Identical Marginal Distributions the players win each item with the
same probability. Let $p_1$ be the probability that {\tt AND} wins
item 1 and $p_2$ be the probability that {\tt AND} wins item 2 (both
with $\Fand$ and with $\Fand'$!). Then we have $Pr[{\tt
AND}\:wins\:no\:item] = 1 - p_1 - p_2 + Pr[{\tt
AND}\:wins\:both\:items]$ and thus (3) and (5) are equivalent.
\qed\end{proof}
An immediate corollary is that if the utilities of one player are identical,
then the utilities of the other player are also identical.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:eq} Assume that $\Fand$ and $\Fand'$ are Identical
Marginal Distributions. Then $u_{and}(\Fand,\For) =
u_{and}(\Fand',\For)$ iff $u_{or}(\Fand,\For) = u_{or}(\Fand',\For)$
\end{corollary}
A very important building block in our proof is the notion of {\em
maximally correlated}. Intuitively, if the support of a distribution
is on a monotone increasing line, then this distribution is
maximally correlated. Since we want to show that the {\tt AND}
player support is essentially the diagonal, this would be very
useful to characterize its bid distribution.
\begin{definition}
For a CDF $\Fand$
define $\bFand(x,y)=\min(\Fand(x,H),\Fand(H,y))$.
$\Fand$ is called {\em maximally correlated} if $\Fand=\bFand$.
\end{definition}
Note that $\bFand(x,H)=\min(\Fand(x,H),\Fand(H,H)) =
\min(\Fand(x,H),1)=\Fand(x,H)$, and therefore the following
proposition holds.
\begin{proposition} \label{bf-sim}
Every CDF $\Fand$
is Identical Marginal Distribution to $\bFand$.
\end{proposition}
The following proposition claims that $\bFand$ stochastically
dominates $\Fand$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:stoch-dominance}
For every $(x,y)$, $\Fand(x,y) \le \bFand(x,y)$. I.e. $\Fand$
stochastically dominates $\bFand$.
\end{proposition}
The following lemma shows that a maximally correlated strategy
$\bFand$ weakly dominates the original strategy $\Fand$ .
\begin{lemma} \label{weak-dom}
Every $\Fand$ is weakly dominated, as a strategy of {\tt AND}, by
$\bFand$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} \label{dom}
Fix a pure bid $(x,y)$ of {\tt OR} and let $\For$ bid $(x,y)$ with
probability 1. By Proposition \ref{better} we have that
$u_{and}(\Fand,\For) \le u_{and}(\bFand,\For)$ if and only if
$\Fand(x,y)=Pr_{(\Fand,\For)}[\mbox{{\tt AND} wins both items}] \le
Pr_{(\bFand,\For)}[\mbox{{\tt AND} wins both items}]=\bFand(x,y)$.
The latter holds, since by Proposition~\ref{prop:stoch-dominance} we
have $\Fand(x,y)\le \bFand(x,y)$.
\qed\end{proof}
The following lemma shows that if we have an equilibrium
$(\Fand,\For)$, and we replace $\Fand$ by $\bFand$, then we still
remain in an equilibrium. The main part of the proof is showing that
the {\tt OR} strategy remains a best response to $\bFand$.
\begin{lemma} \label{eqtoeq}
If $(\Fand,\For)$ is a Nash equilibrium then $(\bFand,\For)$
is a Nash equilibrium. Moreover it produces exactly the same
distribution on allocations, payments, and utilities as does
$(\Fand,\For)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{weak-dom}, $\bFand$ dominates $\Fand$ so
$u_{and}(\Fand,\For)\leq u_{and}(\bFand,\For)$. Since $(\Fand,\For)$
is an equilibrium, then $u_{and}(\Fand,\For) = u_{and}(\bFand,\For)$
and by Corollary~\ref{cor:eq} we also have that $u_{or}(\Fand,\For)
= u_{or}(\bFand,\For)$. Since $\For$ is best response to $\Fand$ we
have that $u_{or}(\Fand,\For) \geq u_{or}(\Fand,\For')$, for any
$\For'$.
Since by Lemma~\ref{weak-dom} we also have that
$u_{and}(\bFand,\For') \geq u_{and}(\Fand,\For')$ then by
Proposition~\ref{better}, $u_{or}(\bFand,\For') \leq
u_{or}(\Fand,\For')$. Thus,
\[
u_{or}(\bFand,\For') \leq u_{or}(\Fand,\For') \leq
u_{or}(\Fand,\For) = u_{or}(\bFand,\For),
\]
which implies that $\For$ is a best response to $\bFand$.
From Proposition~\ref{better} we get that the allocations, payments, and utilities are identical.
\qed\end{proof}
We will continue the analysis assuming that $\Fand=\bFand$ is
already maximally correlated and will derive the form of the
equilibrium under this assumption. By Lemma \ref{eqtoeq} this
characterization will then apply to other distributions that are
Identical Marginal Distributions to $\Fand$, and form an equilibrium
with $\For$. We will keep the notation $\bFand$ to stress that it is
maximally correlated.
\ignore{ {\bf Comment:} In a similar way that we did for {\tt AND}'s
strategies, we could show that {\tt OR}'s strategy is dominated (as
a strategy) by a similar maximally `` anti-correlated''
$\bFor(x,y)=\max(0,\For(x,H)+\For(H,y)-1)$. We will not be needing
this though and will actually show that {\tt OR} must be exactly of
a certain form. [[YM: Do we need this?!]]}
\subsection{OR Bids on the Axis}\label{or-axis}
Our approach here is to first show that {\tt OR} must always place a
certainly-loosing bid on one of the items; and then to show that
{\tt AND} bids arbitrarily low on each item, implying that
certainly-loosing bids of {\tt OR} must be 0.
We start by defining the low bids for {\tt AND} in a distribution
$\Fand$:
\begin{definition}
$\lowanda = inf \{ x \mid \Fand(x,H)>0 \}$ and $\lowandb = inf \{ y
\mid \Fand(H,y)>0 \}$.
\end{definition}
Definition~\ref{def:lowor} specifies similar quantities for {\tt OR} but in a {\em
different} way.
\begin{definition}
Given a distribution of {\tt AND}, $\Fand$, we say that a bid $x$ of
{\tt OR} for item $i$ is low, if either $x=0$ or {\tt OR} with bid
$x$ always looses item $i$ to {\tt AND}. We denote a low bid of
{\tt OR} by $\ellori$.
\end{definition}
By definition, a bid $x > 0$ of {\tt OR} is low if $x < \lowandi$ or if $x=\lowandi$ and
either {\tt AND} doesn't have an atom at $\lowandi$ or {\tt AND}
always wins the tie for item $i$ at $\lowandi$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:or-low} Assume that $(\bFand,\For)$ is an equilibrium,
then the {\tt OR} player bids a low bid on exactly one of the items.
Moreover the probability of bidding low on each one of the
items is positive.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\bFand$ is maximally correlated, we have that the probability
that the {\tt OR} wins at least one item using a bid $(x,y)$ is
$\max\{\bFand(x,H),\bFand(H,y)\}$ (this holds since the probability
of winning at least one item is
$\por(x,y)=\bFand(x,H)+\bFand(H,y)-\bFand(x,y)$, and since $\bFand$
is maximum correlated $\bFand(x,y) =
\min\{\bFand(x,H),\bFand(H,y)\}$). Assume that $\bFand(x,H)\geq
\bFand(H,y)$. Consider a deviation of the {\tt OR} where she bids
$(x,0)$ instead of $(x,y)$. The probability that {\tt OR} wins at
least one item is the same, i.e., $\por(x,y)=\por(x,0)$.
The payment decreases
by $y$ times the probability that {\tt OR} wins the second item.
This is a strict decrease unless $y$ is low. This establishes that
in each bid $(x,y)$ in the support of $\For$ at least one of $x$ or
$y$ must be low.
We now want to show that $\For(\ellora,\ellorb)=0$ for any low bids
$\ellora$ and $\ellorb$. Namely, the probability that the {\tt OR}
has both bids low is zero. Assume by contradiction that
$\For(\ellora,\ellorb)> 0$ for some low bids $\ellora$ and $\ellorb$
and consider the
following cases where {\tt OR} bids $(x,y)$ such that $x\leq \ellora$ and $y\leq \ellorb$:\\
{\bf (1)} {\tt OR} always looses both items. This implies that the
{\tt OR} has
zero utility, contradicting Lemma~\ref{lem:or-positive}. \\
{\bf (2)} {\tt OR} wins with positive probability. Since {\tt OR}
always looses with a low value which is not zero we may assume that
either $\For(\ellora,0)> 0$ or $\For(0,\ellorb)> 0$. We assume that
$\For(\ellora,0)> 0$, the case where $\For(0,\ellorb)> 0$ is
symmetric. We also denote the probability that {\tt OR} wins
with a bid $(x,0)$ where $x\le \ellora$ by $p=\por(\ellora,0)
> 0$. Consider now the a deviation for the {\tt AND} player, in which
it increases every bid on every item by $\epsilon < p/3$. This
increases its probability of winning (and its expected welfare) by
at least $p$, and increases its payments by $2p/3$, which gives a
net utility gain of at least $p/3$.
Therefore, we have established that the {\tt OR} always bids one low
value and never bids both values low.
It remains to show that {\tt OR} must place a low bid with positive
probability on each item. By contradiction, assume that the {\tt OR}
always bids low only on one of the items, say item $1$. We have two cases:\\
{\bf (1)} The {\tt AND} player always wins item $1$. Let $\bellora$
be the supermum of the (low) bids of {\tt OR} on item $1$. Then it
is clear that in equilibrium the {\tt AND} never bids above
$\bellora+\epsilon$ on item $1$,
for any $\epsilon>0$. Now consider item $2$.
We have two cases depending on the relation between $v$ and $1$:
(1a) If $v<1$ then (given that the {\tt AND} always wins item $1$
and no-matter in what price) the {\tt AND} player will win item $2$
and pay at most $v+\epsilon$. Since the {\tt AND} player wins both
items the {\tt OR} player has zero utility, contradicting
Lemma~\ref{lem:or-positive}. (1b) If $v>1$ then the {\tt OR} player
always wins item $2$. This implies that the {\tt AND} player always
loses, and has negative utility unless $\bellora=0$. However, in
this case the {\tt OR} player can deviate and bid $(2\epsilon,0)$
and always win item $1$, contradicting the assumption that we
have an equilibrium.\\
{\bf (2)} The {\tt OR} player wins item $1$ with positive
probability $p > 0$. This can happen only if $\bellora=0$. Let
$\delta$ denote the expected price of item $2$. If $\delta = 0$, the
{\tt AND} player can strictly increase its utility by bidding $(p/3,
p/3)$. If $\delta > 0$, then the auction has expected revenue at
least $\delta$, and therefore the expected utility of the {\tt OR}
player is at most $v - \eta$ for some $\eta > 0$. Since the {\tt OR}
player is always bidding $0$ on item $1$ the {\tt AND} player will
bid at most $\epsilon=\eta/3$ on item $1$ (this is true for any
$\epsilon
> 0$). But then bidding $(2\eta/3, 0)$ is a profitable deviation for
the {\tt OR} player.
We have established that the {\tt OR} player has to bid a low bid
with a positive probability on each item.
\qed\end{proof}
Now let us define for {\tt OR} $\lowori$, which is different from the definition of {\tt AND}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:lowor} $\lowora = \inf \{ x \mid \For(x,y)>0 \:\mbox{and
y is low}\}$ and $\loworb = \inf \{ y \mid \For(x,y)>0 \:\mbox{and x
is low}\}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:atom_both} Assume that $(\bFand,\For)$ is an
equilibrium and $\lowanda = \lowora=l$. Then at most one of the
players can have an atom at $l$ in the marginal distribution of item
$1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume by contradiction that they both have atoms at $l$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:or-low}, the {\tt OR} player never has both bids
low, so $\lowora$ cannot be low. Since $\lowora$ is not low, the
{\tt OR} wins the tie with non-zero probability.
Now consider the following cases depending on $\lowanda$:\\
(1) If $\lowanda < 1$ then {\tt AND} can gain by always increasing
both its bids by $\epsilon$: The payments increases by at most
$2\epsilon$ but the winning probability increases by a constant.
({\tt AND} now wins the atom.)\\
(2) Assume $\lowanda \ge 1$. The {\tt AND} must always bid $0$ on
item $2$, since if it bids higher, when {\tt OR} bids low on $2$
(which happens with positive probability by Lemma \ref{lem:or-low})
{\tt AND} has negative utility. In this case {\tt OR} gains by
bidding $\epsilon$ on item $2$ and $0$ on item $1$. It will always
win item $2$ and pay $\epsilon$ whereas previously {\tt OR} paid at
least $1$ when it won item $1$, which occurred with constant
probability.
\qed\end{proof}
We now show that the low values of {\tt AND} are indeed zero.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:lowand}
$\lowanda = \lowandb = 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume by way of contradiction that $\lowanda>0$,
and let us look at the relation between $\lowandb$ and $\loworb$.
By the previous lemma if $\lowandb = \loworb=l$ then at most one
of the players can have an atom at $l$, so we are left
with two cases.
CASE I: If $\lowandb > \loworb$ or $\lowandb = \loworb$ but {\tt
AND} has no atom at $\lowandb$. Consider the expected utility of
{\tt OR} when it bids $x\in[\loworb,\loworb+\epsilon]$ on item $2$
(with a low bid on the first item). {\tt OR} probability of winning
with such bids goes to zero as $\epsilon$ goes to zero. Therefore
{\tt OR}'s utility goes to zero, in contradiction to
Lemma~\ref{lem:or-positive}, which shows that {\tt OR} has a
strictly positive utility.
CASE II: If $\lowandb < \loworb$ or $\lowandb = \loworb$ but {\tt
OR} has no atom at $\lowandb$.
Let us consider the set $B(\epsilon)$ of all the bids of {\tt AND}
which are coordinate-wise no larger than $(\lowanda +
\epsilon,\lowandb + \epsilon)$ as $\epsilon$ approaches zero.
First note that since $\lowanda>0$ and since by
Lemma~\ref{lem:or-low} {\tt OR} bids low on item $1$ with constant
probability, the expected payment of {\tt AND} on $B(\epsilon)$ is
some positive constant which is independent of $\epsilon$.
On the other hand we show that the probability that {\tt AND} wins
with a bid in $B(\epsilon)$ approaches $0$ as
$\epsilon$ approaches
zero. This implies that there exists and $\epsilon > 0$ such that
the {\tt AND} has negative utility for $B(\epsilon)$ and hence a
contradiction.
Consider the probability of {\tt AND} winning both items with a bid
in $B(\epsilon)$. By Lemma \ref{lem:or-low} this is the sum of the
probability that {\tt AND} wins both items when {\tt OR} bids low on
item 1 and the probability that {\tt AND} wins both items when {\tt
OR} bids low on item 2. We
estimate these probabilities in the following cases.\\
(IIa) If {\tt
OR} bids low on the first item, then the probability {\tt AND} wins
the second item with a bid in $B(\epsilon)$ goes to zero with
$\epsilon$ by our assumption that $\lowandb < \loworb$ or $\lowandb
= \loworb$ but {\tt
OR} has no atom at $\lowandb$.\\
(IIb)
If {\tt OR} bids low on the second item, then it cannot bid low on
the first item so it bids at least $\lowanda$ on item $1$.
If {\tt AND} does not have an atom at $\lowanda$, then {\tt OR} bids
strictly above $\lowanda$ ($\lowanda$ is a low value), therefore,
{\tt AND}'s winning probability with $B(\epsilon)$ goes to zero
with $\epsilon$.
If {\tt AND} has an atom at $\lowanda$, by
Lemma~\ref{lemma:atom_both}, {\tt OR} cannot have an atom at
$\lowanda$ so the probability that {\tt OR} bids less than $\lowanda
+ \epsilon$ goes to zero as $\epsilon$ approaches zero, and hence
the probability of {\tt AND} winning the first item goes too zero.
Hence, we have established that the probability that {\tt AND} wins
goes to zero as $\epsilon$ approaches zero.
\qed\end{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lem:lowand}, any positive bid of {\tt OR} has a
positive probability of winning, hence the only low bids of {\tt OR}
is zero.
\begin{corollary} \label{axis}
{\tt OR} always bids either $(x,0)$ with $x>0$ or $(0,y)$ with
$y>0$. Both of these events happen with positive probability.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{{\tt AND} Bids on the Diagonal}\label{and-diagonal}
In this section we are considering an equilibrium $(\bFand,\For)$ of
the {\tt AND}-{\tt OR} game, where $\bFand$ maximally correlated.
\begin{lemma} \label{diag}
$Pr_{(x,y)\sim \bFand} [x \ne y] = 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By way of contradiction, without loss of generality assume
$Pr_{(x,y)\sim \Fand} [x < y] > 0$. So for some $0<b<c<H$ we will
have $Pr[{\tt AND}\:bids\: in\:[0,b)\times(c,H)] >0$ (since the
former event is the union over the countable choices of the latter
over all rationals $0<b<c<H$). Now since $\bFand$ is maximally
correlated, either $\bFand(b,c)=\bFand(b,H)$ or
$\bFand(b,c)=\bFand(H,c)$. However, the former possibility is in
contradiction to $Pr[{\tt AND}\:bids\: in\:[0,b)\times(c,H)] >0$ so
we must have $\bFand(b,c)=\bFand(H,c)$. This means that whenever
{\tt AND} bids at most $c$ on the second item, it also bids at most
$b$ on the first item.
In such a case, any bid $(0,y)$ for ${\tt OR}$, where $b<y<c$ is
strictly dominated the bid $(b,0)$ (since {\tt OR} wins at least
whenever $(0,y)$ wins, pays strictly less, and this happens with
positive probability since $\lowandb=0$). Therefore the {\tt OR}
never bids $(0,y)$ where $b<y<c$.
However {\tt AND} does bid at least $c$ on the second item with
positive probability. This contradicts Lemma~\ref{interval}.
\qed\end{proof}
\subsection{The exact forms}\label{exact}
In this section we show that the previous lemma imply that an equilibrium $(\bFand,\For)$
of the {\tt AND}-{\tt OR} game with $\bFand$ maximally correlated,
must have a specific form.
\begin{lemma} \label{or-form}
$\For(x,y) = \frac{1}{2} x/(1-x) + \frac{1}{2} y/(1-y)$ for $0\le
x,y\le 1/2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We know that {\tt OR} bids $0$ on exactly one of the items
(Corollary~\ref{axis}) so $\For(x,y)=\For(x,0)+\For(0,y)$. Let
$\alpha = \For(0,h)$ be the probability that {\tt OR} bids $0$ on
the first item, and let $1-\alpha = \For(h,0)$. Assume that {\tt
AND} bids $(x,y)$. With probability $\alpha$ {\tt OR} bids $0$ on
the first item and then 1) {\tt AND} wins the first item and pays
$x$ for it, and 2) {\tt AND} wins the second item with probability
$\For(0,y)$. Similarly, with probability $1-\alpha$ {\tt OR} bids
$0$ on the second item and then {\tt AND} 1) wins the second item
and pays $y$ for it, and 2) wins the first item with probability
$\For(x,0)$. So we conclude that $u_{{\tt AND}}(x,y)= \For(x,0)(1-x)
+ \For(0,y)(1-y) - \alpha x - (1-\alpha)y$.
Now notice that $u_{{\tt AND}}(x,y)$ is the sum of a function
$g_1(x)=\For(x,0)(1-x)-\alpha x$, that depends only on $x$ and a
function $g_2(y)=\For(0,y)(1-y)- (1-\alpha) y$ that depends only on $y$.
We claim that $g_1(x)$ must be a constant for all $x\in [0,h]$ and
$g_2(y)$ must be a constant for all $y\in [0,h]$. We prove this
claim for $g_1$, the proof for $g_2$ is the same. Assume for a
contradiction that $g_1(x_1)
> g_1(x_2)$ for some $x_1,x_2 \in [0,h]$. Then the bid $(x_1,x_2)$ of {\tt AND}
strictly dominates the bid $(x_2,x_2)$ in contradiction to the fact
that $(x_2,x_2)$ is a best response of {\tt AND} for $\For$ which
follows from Lemma~\ref{interval} (the support of {\tt AND} is an
interval), Lemma~\ref{lem:lowand} (the interval starts at $0$), and
Lemma~\ref{diag} ({\tt AND} bids on the diagonal).
As {\tt OR}
does not have an atom at $(0,0)$, $\For(0,y)$ and $\For(x,0)$
approach 0 as $x$ and $y$ approach 0, respectively. Therefore
$u_{{\tt AND}}(x,y)$ approaches 0 as $x$ and $y$ approach 0. It
follows that we must have that $g_1(x)=\For(x,0)(1-x)-\alpha x =
0$ for all $0 \le x \le h$, and similarly $g_2(y)=0$ for all $0 \le
y \le h$. I.e. $\For(x,0) = \alpha x/(1-x)$ and
$\For(0,y)=(1-\alpha)y/(1-y)$ for all $0 \le x,y \le h$. In
particular since $\For(h,h)=\For(0,h)+\For(h,0) = 1$, we have that
$\alpha h/(1-h)+(1-\alpha)h/(1-h)=h/(1-h)=1$ which implies that
$h=1/2$. But then substituting $h=1/2$ into the expression we get
$\For(0,h)=\For(0,1/2)=1-\alpha$. But by its definition
$\alpha=\For(0,h)$ so $\alpha=1/2$ and the lemma follows.
\qed\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{and-form}
$\bFand(x,y)= \frac{v-1/2}{v-min(x,y)}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since {\tt AND} bids on the diagonal, clearly $\bFand(x,y) =
\bFand(min(x,y),min(x,y))$, so it suffices to characterize
$\bFand(x,x)$ for all $x$. The utility for {\tt OR} for bidding
$(x,0)$ is $(v - x) \bFand(x,x)$. By Corollary \ref{axis} (lowest
bid of {\tt OR} is $0$), Corollary \ref{cor:highestbid} ({\tt OR}
and {\tt AND} have the same highest bid), Lemma \ref{or-form} (this
highest bid is $1/2$), and Lemma \ref{interval} ({\tt OR} bids in an
interval) we know that the support of {\tt OR} is the interval
$(0,1/2)$. So for every $0 < x < 1/2$, $(x,0)$ is a best response to
{\tt AND} and thus $(v - x) \bFand(x,x)$ is a constant independent
of $x$. For $x=1/2$ we know that $\bFand(1/2,1/2)=1$ and thus this
constant is $v-1/2$. It follows that $(v - x) \bFand(x,x) = v-1/2$
for all $x$, i.e., $\bFand(x,x) = (v-1/2)/(v-x)$, and the lemma
follows. \qed\end{proof}
\subsection{Completing the Proof} \label{thm-pf}
Now let us put everything together to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.
\begin{proofof}{Theorem~\ref{thm:main}}
We start by showing the necessary conditions for an equilibrium.
Take an equilibrium $(\Fand,\For)$. As Lemma~\ref{eqtoeq} shows
$(\bFand,\For)$ is also an equilibrium, with the same allocations,
payments, and utilities. From Lemmas \ref{or-form} and
\ref{and-form} we have that $\For(x,y) = (x/(1-x) + y/(1-y))/2$ and
$\bFand(x,y)= \min(\Fand(x,H),\Fand(H,y)) = (v-1/2)/(v-\min(x,y))$.
By Lemma~\ref{weak-dom}, $\Fand$ is dominated by $\bFand$.
To show that $\Fand(0,0)=\bFand(0,0)$, assume for a contradiction
that $\Fand(0,0)\neq \bFand(0,0)$. Since by definition $\bFand(x,y)
\ge \Fand(x,y)$, we have that $\Fand(0,0)<\bFand(0,0)=(v-1/2)/v$.
For $x,y >0$ the utility of {\tt OR} from the bid $(x,y)$ is
$u_{or}(x,y) = \Fand(x,H)(v-x) + \Fand(H,y)(v-y) - \Fand(x,y)\cdot
v$ (for $x=0$ or $y=0$ the atom of $\Fand$ at $x=0$ and $y=0$ may
cause the utility to be lower depending on the tie breaking rule).
Now let $x$ and $y$ approach $0$ and we get at the limit a utility
of $v \cdot (\Fand(0,H) + \Fand(H,0) - \Fand(0,0)) > v \cdot
(\bFand(0,H) + \bFand(H,0) - \bFand(0,0)) = v \cdot \bFand(0,0) =
v-1/2$ (where the inequality follows since the marginal
distributions of $\Fand$ and $\bFand$ are the same). Thus for small
enough $x$ and $y$ the utility of {\tt OR} is strictly greater than
$v-1/2$. This however contradicts our derivation of $\For$ whose
support includes the bid $(0,1/2)$ for which $u_{or}(0,1/2) =
v-1/2$, a contradiction to it being a best response to $\Fand$.
Therefore, $\Fand(0,0)=\bFand(0,0)$.
\medskip
\ignore{ It remains to show that $\Fand(x,0)=\Fand(0,0)=\Fand(0,y)$,
which follows from the fact that it is an equilibrium. For
contradiction assume that $\Fand(x,0)>\Fand(0,0)$ (the other case is
similar). Let $q_x$ be the probability that {\tt AND} wins both
items with bid $(x,0)$. If $q_x=q_0$ then
any bid $(z,0)$, where $z\in(0,x]$, is strictly dominated by
$(0,0)$, since it has a strictly higher payment since the low value
of {\tt OR} is $0$. If $q_x > q_0$ then the {\tt OR} can deviate and
always bid at least $\epsilon$ on item $2$, which will increase its
payment by at most $\epsilon$ and increase its probability of
winning by at least $q_x-q_0>0$. Therefore we reached a
contradiction.}
We now show the sufficient conditions for an equilibrium. For the
fixed distributions $\bFand(x,y)= (v-1/2)/(v-\min(x,y))$ and
$\For(x,y) = (x/(1-x) + y/(1-y))/2$ one may directly verify that
$(\bFand,\For)$ is an equilibrium (as was shown in
\cite{HassidimKMN11}). Now take $\Fand$ such that $\bFand(x,y)=
(v-1/2)/(v-\min(x,y))$, $\Fand(0,0)=(v-1/2)/v$, and
$\Fand(x,0)=\Fand(0,0)=\Fand(0,y)$.\footnote{This follows since
$\Fand^*(0,0) = \Fand(0,0) \leq \Fand(0,y) \leq \Fand(0,H) =
\Fand^*(0,H) = \Fand^*(0,0)$.} We first need to show that $\Fand$ is
also a best response to $\For$ (and not just $\bFand$), that is we
need to show that $u_{and}(\Fand,\For)=u_{and}(\bFand,\For)$. By
Proposition~\ref{better} this will happen whenever the probability
that {\tt AND} wins no item is the same in both cases. Since
$\Fand(x,0)=\Fand(0,0)=\Fand(0,y)$, the probability for {\tt AND}
winning no item is exactly the probability that it bids $(0,0)$
times the probability that {\tt OR} wins the tie at its $0$ bid,
which is the same in $\Fand$ and $\bFand$ since
$\Fand(0,0)=\bFand(0,0)$.
Finally we need to show that $\For$ is also a best response to
$\Fand$. As before, for $0 < x,y$, the utility of {\tt OR} from a
bid $(x,y)$ is $u_{or}(x,y)=\Fand(x,H)(v-x) + \Fand(H,y)(v-y)
-\Fand(x,y)v$. Notice that $\Fand(x,H)=\bFand(x,H) = (v-1/2)/(v-x)$
so the first and the second terms equal the constant $v-1/2$. It
follows that the maximum utility is obtained as $x$ and $y$ approach
$0$ (since this minimizes the last term $F(x,y)$). The utility of
{\tt OR} when $x$ and $y$ approach $0$, approaches (from below)
$2v-1-\Fand(0,0)v = 2v-1-\bFand(0,0)v = (2v-1)-(v-1/2)=v-1/2$.
Since $\Fand(x,0)=\Fand(0,0)=\Fand(0,y)$, we have that the utility
of {\tt OR} is $v-1/2$ at any point in the support of $\For^*$, and
hence it is a best response.
\end{proofof}
\section{Properties of the equilibrium}
We present few properties of the Nash equilibrium in Theorem
\ref{thm:main}. Our analysis is a function of the value $v$ (of the
{\tt OR} player). We analyze the probability that each player wins,
the expected revenue and the expected social welfare. By Theorem
\ref{thm:main} all these quantities are identical in every Nash
equilibrium. (The proofs and the figures are in the Appendix.)
First, we derive the probability that the {\tt AND} player wins
(clearly the probability that the {\tt OR} player wins is the
complement). This probability is depicted in Figure
\ref{fig-and-wins}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:prob-and}
The probability that the {\tt AND} player
wins is $\frac{\ln(2) - \frac{1}{2}}{v} +
O\left(\frac{1}{v^2}\right) $ and for $v=1$ this probability is
$1/4$.
\end{lemma}
\ignore{
\begin{proof}
If $v\not = 1$ we get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Pr[{\tt AND}\; wins] & = & \int_{0}^{1/2} \Fand'(x) \For(x) dx \\
& = & \int_{0}^{1/2} \frac{v-\frac{1}{2}}{(v-x)^2} \frac{x}{1-x} dx \\
& = & \left(v-\frac{1}{2} \right)\left[\frac{\ln \frac{v-x}{1-x}}{(v-1)^2} - \frac{v}{(v-1)(v-x)} \right]_0^{1/2} \\
& = & \left(v-\frac{1}{2} \right)\left[ \frac{\ln(2v-1)}{(v-1)^2} - \frac{v}{(v-1)(v-1/2)} - \frac{\ln v}{(v-1)^2} + \frac{1}{v-1} \right] \\
& = & \left(v-\frac{1}{2} \right) \left[ \frac{\ln(2v-1) - \ln v}{(v-1)^2} - \frac{1/2}{(v-1)(v-1/2)} \right] \\
& = & \frac{(v-{1/2})\ln(2-\frac{1}{v}) - \frac{1}{2}(v-1)}{(v-1)^2} \\
& = & \frac{\ln(2) - \frac{1}{2}}{v} + O\left(\frac{1}{v^2}\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
For $v=1$ a similar calculation shows that
$$
\Pr[{\tt AND}\; wins \mid v=1] = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^{1/2}
\frac{x}{(1-x)^3} dx = \frac{1}{2}\left[ \frac{2x-1}{2(x-1)^2}
\right]_0^{1/2} = \frac{1}{4} \ .
$$
\qed\end{proof} }
Next we compute the expected revenue. The expected utility of the {\tt AND}
player is $0$ and therefore the revenue from the {\tt AND} player
equals to the probability that it wins. It remains to compute the
revenue from the {\tt OR} player.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:rev-OR}
The expected revenue from the {\tt OR} player is
$1-\ln 2 -O(\frac{1}{v})$. For $v=1$ the expected revenue from the
{\tt OR} player is $1/4$.
\end{theorem}
\ignore{
\begin{proof}
\begin{eqnarray*}
Revenue({\tt OR}) & = & \int_{0}^{1/2}x \For'(x)\Fand(x)dx \\
& = & \int_0^{1/2} x \frac{1}{(1-x)^2}\frac{(v-\frac{1}{2})}{(v-x)} dx \\
& = & \frac{(v-\frac{1}{2})}{(v-1)^2} \left[ v \ln \left(\frac{1-x}{v-x} \right) + \frac{(v-1)}{(1-x)} \right]_0^{1/2} \\
& = & \frac{(v-\frac{1}{2})}{(v-1)^2} \left[v \ln \left(
\frac{\frac{1}{2}}{v-\frac{1}{2}} \right) + \frac{(v-1)}{1/2}
-\left(v\ln\frac{1}{v} + (v-1) \right) \right] \\
& = & \frac{(v-\frac{1}{2})}{(v-1)^2} \left[v-1 - v\ln 2 + v\ln \frac{v}{v-\frac{1}{2}} \right] \\
& = & \frac{(v-\frac{1}{2})}{(v-1)^2} \left[v-1 - v\ln 2 + v\ln(1 + \frac{\frac{1}{2}}{v-\frac{1}{2}}) \right] \\
& = & \frac{(v-\frac{1}{2})}{(v-1)^2} \left[v-1 - (v-1)\ln 2 - \ln 2 + v \ln\left(1+\frac{1}{2v-1}\right) \right] \\
& = & (1-\ln 2) \frac{v-\frac{1}{2}}{v-1} - O\left(\frac{1}{v}
\right) \\
&=& 1-\ln 2 - O\left(\frac{1}{v} \right) =0.3068-
O\left(\frac{1}{v} \right)
\end{eqnarray*}
For $v=1$ a similar calculation shows that the revenue of the {\tt
OR} player is $0.25$.
\qed
\end{proof}
}
The revenue from the {\tt OR} player is plotted in Figure
\ref{revenue-OR} as a function of the value $v$. The revenue from
the auction (i.e., sum of both players) is shown in Figure
\ref{revenue-OR-AND}.
Using the probability that each player wins, we can compute the
expected social welfare, which is $(\Pr[{\tt And}\; wins] + v\cdot
\Pr[{\tt OR}\; wins])$.
\begin{theorem}
The expected social welfare is $v-\ln(2)+1/2+\frac{\ln(2)-1/2}{v}
+O(1/v^2)$.
\end{theorem}
Figure \ref{fig:poa} shows the Price of Anarchy of the equilibrium.
That is we divide the expected social welfare in equilibrium
$(\Pr[{\tt And}\; wins] + v\cdot \Pr[{\tt OR}\; wins])$ by the
maximum social welfare, that is $\max\{v,1 \}$. The difference
$\max\{v,1\} - (\Pr[{\tt And}\; wins] + v\cdot \Pr[{\tt OR}\;
wins])$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig:loss}. The expected loss
converges to $\ln(2) - 0.5 \approx 0.19$ as the value $v$ of the
{\tt OR} player goes to infinity.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
At the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), collisions with the largest momentum
transfer typically result in final states with two jets of particles
with high transverse momentum ($p_{\rm T}$).
The study of these events tests the Standard Model (SM) at the highest
energies accessible at the LHC. At these energies,
new particles could be produced~\cite{Baur:1987ga,Baur:1989kv},
new interactions between particles could manifest
themselves~\cite{Frampton1987a,Frampton1987b,Bagger1988,Han:2010rf},
or interactions resulting from the unification of SM with gravity could
appear in the TeV range~\cite{RandallMeade,Feng:2004,StrRes1,StrRes2,StrRes3,StrRes4}.
These collisions also probe the structure of the fundamental constituents of matter at the
smallest distance scales allowing, for example, an experimental test of the size of quarks.
The models for new phenomena (NP) tested in the current studies
are described in section \ref{sec:SimulNP}.
The two jets emerging from the collision may be reconstructed to
determine the two-jet (dijet) invariant mass, $m_{jj}$, and the
scattering angular distribution with respect to the colliding beams of protons.
The dominant Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) interactions for this
high-$p_{\rm T}$\ scattering regime are \mbox{$t$-channel} processes,
leading to angular distributions that peak at small
scattering angles. Different classes of new phenomena are expected to modify dijet
mass distribution and the dijet angular distributions as a function of $m_{jj}$, creating either
a deviation from the QCD prediction above some threshold or an excess of
events localised in mass (often referred to as a ``bump'' or ``resonance'').
Most models predict that the angular distribution of the NP signal would be more isotropic
than that of QCD.
Results from previous studies of dijet mass and angular distributions
\cite{Arnison1986244,Bagnaia1984283,CDF:2009DijetSearch,DZero:2009DijetAng,
ATLAS:2010bc,ATLAS:2010eza,CMS:2010dijetmass,CMS:2010centrality,
CMS:2011DijetMassAngle,CMS:Res2011,Aad:2011aj,ATLAS:Res2011}
were consistent with QCD predictions.
The study reported in this paper is based on $pp$\ collisions at a centre-of-mass (CM)
energy of 7~TeV produced at the LHC and measured by the ATLAS detector.
The analysed data set corresponds to an integrated luminosity of
673.8~pb$^{-1}$\ collected in 2011 \cite{ATLAS-CONF-2011-116,ATLASLumiEJPC2011}, a substantial increase over
previously published ATLAS dijet analyses~\cite{Aad:2011aj,ATLAS:Res2011}.
A detailed description of the ATLAS detector has been published
elsewhere~\cite{DetectorPaper}. The detector is instrumented over almost
the entire solid angle around the $pp$\ collision point with layers of
tracking detectors, calorimeters, and muon chambers.
High-transverse-momentum hadronic jets in the analysis
are measured using a finely-segmented calorimeter system, designed to achieve a
high reconstruction efficiency and an excellent energy resolution.
The electromagnetic calorimetry is provided by
high-granularity liquid argon (LAr) sampling calorimeters, using lead as an absorber,
that are split into a barrel ($|\eta|<1.475$\footnote{
In the right-handed ATLAS coordinate system, the pseudorapidity
$\eta$\ is defined as $\eta \equiv$ $-$ln tan($\theta$/2), where the polar angle $\theta$
is measured with respect to the LHC beamline. The azimuthal angle $\phi$
is measured with respect to the $x$-axis, which points toward the centre
of the LHC ring. The $z$-axis is parallel to the anti-clockwise beam
viewed from above. Transverse momentum and energy are defined as $p_\textrm{T} = p$\,sin$\theta$
and $E_\textrm{T} = E$\,sin$\theta$, respectively.}) and end-cap ($1.375<|\eta|<3.2$) regions.
The hadronic calorimeter is divided into barrel, extended barrel ($|\eta|<1.7$)
and Hadronic End-Cap (HEC; $1.5<|\eta|<3.2$) regions. The barrel and extended
barrel are instrumented with scintillator tiles and steel absorbers,
while the HEC uses copper with liquid argon modules.
The Forward Calorimeter region (FCal; $3.1<|\eta|<4.9$)
is instrumented with LAr/copper and LAr/tungsten modules
to provide electromagnetic and hadronic energy measurements, respectively.
\section{Overview of the dijet mass and angular analyses}
\label{sec:overview}
The dijet invariant mass, $m_{jj}$, is calculated from the vectorial sum of the
four-momenta of the two highest $p_{\rm T}$\ jets in the event.
A search for resonances is performed on the $m_{jj}$ spectrum,
employing a data-driven background estimate that does not rely on QCD calculations.
The angular analyses employ ratio observables and normalised
distributions to substantially reduce their sensitivity
to systematic uncertainties, especially those associated
with the jet energy scale (JES), parton distribution functions (PDFs) and the integrated luminosity.
Unlike the $m_{jj}$ analysis, the angular analyses use a background estimate based on QCD.
The basic angular variables and distributions used in the
previous ATLAS dijet studies~\cite{ATLAS:2010eza,Aad:2011aj} are
also employed in this analysis.
A convenient variable that emphasises the central scattering region is $\chi$.
If $E$\ is the jet energy and $p_z$\ is the $z$-component of the
jet's momentum, the rapidity of the jet is given by
$y \equiv \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{E + p_z}{E - p_z})$.
In a given event, the rapidities of the two highest $p_{\rm T}$\ jets in the
$pp$ centre-of-mass frame are denoted by $y_1$\ and $y_2$, and the rapidities
of the jets in the dijet CM frame are $y^* = \frac{1}{2}(y_1 - y_2)$ and $-y^*$.
The longitudinal motion of the dijet CM system in the $pp$ frame
is described by the rapidity boost, $y_B = \frac{1}{2}(y_1 + y_2)$.
The variable $\chi$ is: $\chi \equiv \mathrm{exp}(|y_1-y_2|)=\mathrm{exp}(2|y^*|)$.
The $\chi$\ distributions predicted by QCD are relatively flat compared to
those produced by new phenomena.
In particular, many NP signals are more
isotropic than QCD, causing them to peak at low values of $\chi$.
For the $\chi$ distributions in the current studies, the rapidity coverage extends to $|y^*|<1.7$\,
corresponding to $\chi < 30.0$. This interval is divided into 11 bins, with
boundaries at $\chi_i = \mathrm{exp}(0.3 \times i)$ with $i = 0,...,11$,
where 0.3 corresponds to three times the coarsest calorimeter segmentation, $\Delta\eta$ = 0.1.
These $\chi$ distributions are measured in five dijet mass ranges with
the expectation that low $m_{jj}$ bins will be dominated by QCD processes and
NP signals would be found in higher mass bins.
The distributions are normalised to unit area, restricting the analysis to a shape comparison.
To facilitate an alternate approach to the study of dijet angular
distributions, it is useful to define a single-parameter measure of
isotropy as the fraction $F_{\chi} \equiv \frac{N_\mathrm{central}}{N_\mathrm{total}}$, where
$N_\mathrm{total}$ is the number of events containing a dijet that passes all
selection criteria, and $N_\mathrm{central}$ is the subset of these events in which
the dijet enters a defined central region. It was found that $|y^*|<0.6$, corresponding
to $\chi < 3.32$, defines an optimal central region where many new processes
would be expected to deviate from QCD predictions. This value
corresponds to the upper boundary of the fourth bin in the $\chi$
distribution.
As in previous ATLAS studies~\cite{ATLAS:2010eza}, the current angular analyses make use of
the $\mFchimjj$\ distribution, which consists of $F_{\chi}$ binned finely
in $m_{jj}$:
\begin{equation}
F_{\chi}(m_{jj}) \equiv \frac{\mathrm{d} N_\mathrm{central}/\mathrm{d}
m_{jj} } { \mathrm{d} N_\mathrm{total}/\mathrm{d} m_{jj}},
\label{eq:fchimjjdef}
\end{equation}
using the same mass binning
as the dijet mass analysis.
This distribution is more sensitive to mass-dependent changes in the rate
of centrally produced dijets than the $\chi$ distributions but is less sensitive
to the detailed angular shape.
The distribution of $\mFchimjj$\ in the central region defined above is similar to
the $m_{jj}$ spectrum, apart from an additional selection criterion on the boost
of the system (as explained in section \ref{sec:recocuts}).
Dijet distributions from collision data are not corrected (unfolded) for detector
resolution effects. Instead, the measured distributions are compared to theoretical
predictions passed through detector simulation.
\section{Jet calibration}
\label{sec:jetCalibration}
The calorimeter cell structure of ATLAS is designed to follow the
shower development of jets. Jets are reconstructed from topological
clusters (topoclusters)
\cite{ATLAS-LARG-PUB-2008-002} that
group together cells based on their signal-to-noise ratio. The default jet
algorithm in ATLAS is the anti-$k_t$ algorithm~\cite{antikT,Cacciari:2006}.
For the jet collection used in this analysis, the distance parameter of $R = 0.6$ is chosen.
Jets are first calibrated at the electromagnetic scale (EM calibration), which accounts
correctly for the energy deposited by electromagnetic showers but does
not correct the scale for hadronic showers.
The hadronic calibration is applied in steps,
using a combination of techniques based on Monte Carlo (MC) simulation
and {\it in situ} measurements \cite{JESUncertaintyR17}.
The first step is the pile-up correction which accounts
for the additional energy due to collisions in the same bunch crossing
as the signal event (in-time) or in nearby bunch crossings (out-of-time).
Since the pile-up is a combination of these effects, the net correction
may add or subtract energy from the jet.
In the second step, the position of the jet origin is corrected for differences
between the geometrical centre of the detector and the collision vertex.
The third step is a jet energy correction using factors that are functions
of the jet energy and pseudorapidity. These calibration factors are derived
from MC simulation using a detailed description of the ATLAS
detector geometry, which simulates the main detector response effects.
The EM and hadronic calibration steps above are referred to collectively
as the ``EM+JES'' scheme~\cite{JESPaper}, which restores the
hadronic jet response in MC to within 2\%.
The level of agreement between data and MC simulation is further improved by the
application of calibration steps based on {\it in situ} studies.
First, the relative response in $|\eta|$ is equalised using an inter-calibration
method obtained from balancing the transverse momenta of jets in dijet
events \cite{EtaIntercalibration}.
Then the absolute energy response is brought into closer agreement with MC
simulation by a combination of various techniques based on momentum balancing
methods between photons or $Z$ bosons and jets, and between high-momentum jets and a recoil
system of low-momentum jets. This completes all the stages of the jet calibration.
The jet energy scale uncertainty is determined for jets with transverse momenta above
20~GeV and $|\eta| <$ 4.5, based on the uncertainties of the {\it in situ} techniques
and on systematic variations in MC simulations.
For the most general case, covering all jet measurements made in ATLAS,
the correlations among JES uncertainties are described by a set of 58
sources of systematic uncertainty (nuisance parameters). Uncertainties due to pile-up, jet flavour,
and jet topology are described by five additional nuisance parameters.
The total uncertainty from {\it in situ} techniques for central jets with a transverse momentum of
100~GeV is as low as 1\% and rises to about 4\% for
jets with transverse momentum above 1~TeV.
For the high-$p_{\rm T}$\ dijet measurements made in the current analysis, the number of nuisance parameters
is reduced to 14, while keeping a correlation matrix and total magnitude
equivalent to the full configuration. This is achieved using a procedure that
diagonalises the total covariance matrix found from {\it in situ} techniques,
selects the largest eigenvalues as effective nuisance parameters,
and groups the remaining parameters into one additional term.
The jet energy resolution is estimated both in data and in simulation using transverse
momentum balance studies in dijet events,
and they are found to be in good agreement~\cite{JetResConf2012}.
Monte Carlo studies are used to assess the dijet mass resolution.
Jets constructed from final state particles are compared to the calorimeter jets
obtained after the same particles have been passed through full detector simulation.
While the dijet mass resolution is found to be 10\% at 0.20 TeV, it is reduced to
approximately 5\% within the range of high dijet masses considered in the current studies.
\section{Event selection criteria}
\label{sec:recocuts}
The triggers employed for this study select events that have at least
one large (100~GeV or more)
transverse energy deposition in the calorimeter. These triggers are also referred to
as ``single jet'' triggers.
To match the data rate to the processing and storage capacity available to ATLAS, a number
of triggers with low-$p_{\rm T}$\ thresholds were ``prescaled''.
For these triggers only a preselected fraction of all events passing
the threshold is recorded.
A single, unprescaled trigger is used for the dijet mass spectrum analysis. This single
trigger is also used for the angular analyses at high dijet mass, but in addition several
prescaled triggers are used at lower dijet masses. Each $\chi$ distribution is assigned
a unique trigger, chosen to maximise the statistics, leading to a different effective
luminosity for each distribution. Similar choices are made for the $\mFchimjj$\ distribution,
assigning triggers to specific ranges of $m_{jj}$ to maximise the statistics in each range.
In all analyses, kinematic selection criteria ensure a trigger efficiency
exceeding 99\% for the events under consideration.
Events are required to have a primary collision vertex defined by two or more charged
particle tracks. In the presence of additional $pp$ interactions, the primary collision
vertex chosen is the one with the largest scalar sum of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^2$ for its associated
tracks. In this analysis, the two highest-$p_{\rm T}$\ jets are invariably associated with this largest
sum of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^2$ collection of tracks, which ensures that the correct collision
vertex is used to reconstruct the dijet.
Events are rejected if the data from the electromagnetic calorimeter have a topology as expected
for non-collision background, or there is evidence of data corruption~\cite{JetEtMiss_Cleaning_Note}.
There must be at least two jets within $|y| < 4.4$ in the event, and
all jets with $|y| \geq 4.4$ are discarded. The highest $p_{\rm T}$\ jet is referred to as the ``leading jet'' ($j_1$),
and the second highest as the ``next-to-leading jet'' ($j_2$).
These two jets are collectively referred to as the ``leading jets''.
Following the criteria in ref.~\cite{JetEtMiss_Cleaning_Note},
there must be no poorly measured jets with $p_{\rm T}$\ greater than 30\% of
the $p_{\rm T}$\ of the next-to-leading jet for events to be retained.
Poorly measured jets correspond to energy depositions in regions where the energy
measurement is known to be inaccurate. Furthermore, if either of the leading jets is not
attributed to in-time energy depositions in the calorimeters, the event
is rejected.
A selection has been implemented to avoid a defect in the readout electronics of
the electromagnetic calorimeter in the
region from $-0.1$ to $1.5$ in $\eta$, and from $-0.9$ to $-0.5$ in $\phi$ that
occurred during part of the running period. The average response for
jets in this region is 20\% to 30\% too low.
For the $m_{jj}$ analysis, events in the affected running period with jets near this
region are rejected if such jets have a $p_{\rm T}$\ greater than
30\% of the next-to-leading jet $p_{\rm T}$.
This requirement removes 1\% of the events.
A similar rejection has been made for the angular analysis. In this case
the complete $\eta$ slice from $-0.9$ to $-0.5$ in $\phi$ is excluded in
order to retain the shape of the distributions.
The event reduction during run periods affected
by the defect is 13\%, and the overall reduction in the data set due to
this effect is 4\%.
Additional kinematic selection criteria are used to enrich the sample with events
in the hard-scattering region of phase space.
For the dijet mass analysis, events must satisfy
$|y^*| < 0.6$\, and $|\eta_{1,2}| < 2.8$ for the leading jets, and
$m_{jj} > 850$~GeV.
For the angular analyses, events must satisfy
$|y^*| < 1.7$\, and $|y_B| < 1.1$, and $m_{jj} > 800$~GeV.
The combined $y^*$ and $y_B$ criteria limit the rapidity range of the leading jets to
$|y_{1,2}| < 2.8$.
This $|y_B|$ selection does not affect events with dijet mass
above 2.8~TeV since the phase space is kinematically constrained.
The kinematic selection also restricts the minimum $p_{\rm T}$\ of jets entering the analysis
to 80~GeV.
Since at lowest order $y_B = \frac{1}{2} \ln(\frac{x_1}{x_2})$ and
$m_{jj}^2 = x_1\, x_2 \, s$, with $x_{1,2}$ the parton momentum fractions
of the colliding protons, the combined $m_{jj}$ and $y_B$
criteria result in limiting the effective $x_{1,2}$-ranges in the
convolution of the matrix elements with the PDFs.
The QCD matrix elements for dijet production lead to $\chi$ distributions that are approximately flat.
Without the selection on $y_B$, the $\chi$ distributions predicted by QCD would have
a slope becoming more pronounced for the lower $m_{jj}$ bins.
Restricting the $x_{1,2}$-ranges of the PDFs reduces this shape distortion, and also
reduces the PDF and jet energy scale uncertainties associated with each $\chi$ bin
of the final distribution.
\section {Comparing the dijet mass spectrum to a smooth background}
\label{sec:smoothfit}
In the dijet mass analysis, a search for resonances in the $m_{jj}$
spectrum is made by using a data-driven background estimate.
The observed dijet mass distribution after all selection cuts is shown
in figure \ref{fig:massdist}. Also shown in the figure are the predictions
for an excited quark for three different mass hypotheses \cite{Baur:1987ga,Baur:1989kv}.
The $m_{jj}$ spectrum is fit to a smooth functional form,
\begin{equation}
f(x) = p_1 (1 - x)^{p_2} x^{p_3 + p_4\ln x},
\label{Eq:fitfunction}
\end{equation}
where the $p_i$\ are fit parameters, and $x \equiv m_{jj}/\sqrt{s}$.
In previous studies, ATLAS and other
experiments~\cite{CDF:2009DijetSearch,ATLAS:2010bc,CMS:2010dijetmass,Aad:2011aj}
have found this ansatz to provide a satisfactory
fit to the QCD prediction of dijet production.
The use of a full Monte Carlo QCD background prediction would
introduce theoretical and systematic uncertainties of its own,
whereas this smooth background form introduces only the
uncertainties associated with its fit parameters.
A feature of the functional form used in the fitting is that it allows for
smooth background variations but does not accommodate
localised excesses that could indicate the presence of NP signals.
However, the effects of smooth deviations from QCD, such as contact
interactions, could be absorbed by the background fitting
function, and therefore the $m_{jj}$ analysis is used only to search
for resonant effects.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{fig_01.eps}
\caption{The reconstructed dijet mass distribution (filled points) fitted with
a smooth functional form (solid line).
Mass distribution predictions for three ${q^\ast}$ masses are shown above the background.
The middle part of figure shows the data minus the background fit, divided by the fit.
The bin-by-bin significance of the data-background difference is shown in the lower panel.}
\label{fig:massdist}
\end{figure}
\interfootnotelinepenalty=1000
The $\chi^2$-value of the fit is 17.7 for 22 degrees of freedom, and the reduced $\chi^2$ is 0.80. The middle part of figure \ref{fig:massdist} shows the data minus the
background fit, divided by the fit.
The lower part of figure \ref{fig:massdist} shows the significance, in standard deviations,
of the difference between the data and the fit in each bin.
The significance is calculated taking only statistical uncertainties into account, and assuming that the data follow a Poisson distribution.
For each bin a p-value is determined by assessing the probability of the background
fluctuating higher than the observed excess or lower than the observed
deficit. This $p$-value is transformed to a significance in terms of an equivalent number
of standard deviations (the $z$-value)~\cite{PlotDiffs}.
Where there is an excess (deficit) in data in a given bin, the significance is plotted as
positive (negative)\footnote{
In mass bins with small expected number of events, where the observed number of events is similar
to the expectation, the Poisson probability of a fluctuation at least as high (low) as the observed
excess (deficit) can be greater than 50\%, as a result of the asymmetry of the Poisson distribution.
Since these bins have too few events for the significance to be meaningful, the bars are not drawn for them.}.
To test the degree of consistency between the data and the fitted background, the $p$-value
of the fit is determined by calculating the $\chi^2$-value from the data and comparing this result to the
$\chi^2$ distribution obtained from pseudo-experiments drawn from
the background fit, as described in a previous
publication~\cite{Aad:2011aj}. The resulting $p$-value is 0.73,
showing that there is good agreement between the data and the fit.
As a more sensitive test, the {\sc BumpHunter}\ algorithm~\cite{Aaltonen:2008vt,Choudalakis:2011bh}
is used to establish the presence or absence of a resonance in the dijet mass spectrum,
as described in greater detail in previous publications~\cite{Aad:2011aj,ATLAS:Res2011}.
Starting with a two-bin window, the algorithm
increases the signal window and shifts its location until all possible bin ranges,
up to half the mass range spanned by the data, have been tested.
The most significant departure from the smooth spectrum (``bump'') is defined by the
set of bins that have the smallest probability of arising from a background
fluctuation assuming Poisson statistics.
The {\sc BumpHunter}\ algorithm accounts for the so-called ``look-elsewhere effect''
~\cite{lookelsefirstcite}, by performing a
series of pseudo-experiments drawn from the background estimate to determine the probability that random
fluctuations in the background-only hypothesis would create an excess
anywhere in the spectrum at least as significant as the one observed.
Furthermore, to prevent any NP signal from biasing the background estimate,
if the most significant local excess from the background fit has a $p$-value smaller than 0.01,
this region is excluded and a new background fit is performed. No such exclusion
is needed for this data set.
The most significant discrepancy identified by the {\sc BumpHunter}\ algorithm in the
observed dijet mass distribution in figure \ref{fig:massdist} is a four-bin excess in
the interval 2.21~TeV to 2.88~TeV. The probability of observing such an excess or larger
somewhere in the mass spectrum for a background-only hypothesis is 0.69.
This test shows no evidence for a resonance signal in the $m_{jj}$\ spectrum.
\section {QCD predictions for dijet angular distributions}
\label{Sec:QCDPredic}
In the dijet angular analyses, the QCD prediction is based on MC generation of
event samples which cover the kinematic range in $\chi$ and $m_{jj}$ spanned by
the selected dijet events. The QCD hard scattering interactions are simulated using
the {\sc Pythia}~6 \cite{Pythia6}
event generator with the ATLAS AUET2B LO** tune~\cite{ATLAS_MC11bc} which uses the
MRSTMCal~\cite{Sherstnev:2007nd} modified leading-order (LO) parton distribution functions (PDFs).
To incorporate detector effects, these QCD events are passed through a fast detector simulation,
ATLFAST~2.0~\cite{ATLFAST2-1998}, which employs FastCaloSim~\cite{ATLFAST2-2011} for the
simulation of electromagnetic and hadronic showers in the calorimeter.
Comparisons with detailed simulations of the ATLAS
detector~\cite{ATLSIM,Agostinelli:2002hh} using the {\sc Geant4}\
package~\cite{Agostinelli:2002hh} show no differences in the angular
distributions exceeding 5\%.
To simulate in-time pile-up, separate samples of inelastic interactions are
generated using {\sc Pythia}~8~\cite{Pythia8}, and these samples
are passed through the full detector simulation.
To simulate QCD events in the presence of pile-up, hard scattering events are overlaid
with $\mu$ inelastic interactions, where $\mu$ is Poisson distributed, and
the distribution of $\langle\mu \rangle $ is chosen to match the distribution of average number
of interactions per bunch crossings in data.
The combined MC events, containing one hard interaction and several soft interactions,
are then reconstructed in the same way as collision data and are subjected to the same event selection
criteria as applied to collision data.
Bin-by-bin correction factors (K-factors) are applied
to the angular distributions derived from MC calculations to account
for NLO contributions.
These K-factors are derived from dedicated MC samples and are defined as
the ratio $NLO_{ME}$/$PYT_{SHOW}$.
The $NLO_{ME}$ sample is produced using NLO matrix elements in {\sc NLOJET++}\
\cite{Nagy1,Nagy2,catani-1998-510}
with the NLO PDF from CT10~\cite{CTEQ10}.
The $PYT_{SHOW}$ sample is produced with the {\sc Pythia}~6 generator restricted to
leading-order matrix elements and with parton showering but with
non-perturbative effects turned off. This sample also uses the AUET2B LO** tune.
The angular distributions generated with the full {\sc Pythia}\ simulation include
various non-perturbative effects including hadronisation, underlying event,
and primordial $k_{\perp}$.
The K-factors defined above are designed to retain these effects while
adjusting for differences in the treatment of perturbative effects.
The full {\sc Pythia}\ predictions of angular distributions are multiplied by these
bin-wise K-factors to obtain reshaped spectra that include corrections
originating from NLO matrix elements.
K-factors are applied to $\chi$ distributions before normalising them
to unit area.
The K-factors change the normalised
$\chi$ distributions by 2\% at low dijet mass, by as much as 11\%
in the highest dijet mass bins, and the
effect is largest at low $\chi$.
The K-factors for $\mFchimjj$\ are close to unity for dijet masses of
around 1~TeV, but increase with dijet mass, and are as large as 20\% for dijet masses of 4~TeV.
Electroweak corrections are not included in the theoretical predictions \cite{ewcorrs}.
\section {Comparing $\chi$ distributions to QCD predictions}
\label{sec:compare:chi}
The observed $\chi$\ distributions normalised to unit area are shown
in figure \ref{fig:chisvsQCD}\ for several
$m_{jj}$\ bins, defined by boundaries at 800, 1200, 1600, 2000, and
2600~GeV.
The highest bin includes all dijet events with $m_{jj} > 2.6$~TeV.
The dijet mass bins are chosen to ensure sufficient entries in each mass
bin. From the lowest dijet mass bin to the highest bin, the number of
events are: 13642, 4132, 35250, 28462, 2706, and the corresponding
integrated luminosities are \mbox{5.6 pb$^{-1}$}, \mbox{19.2 pb$^{-1}$}, \mbox{1.2
fb$^{-1}$}, \mbox{4.8 fb$^{-1}$} and \mbox{4.8 fb$^{-1}$}.
The yield for all \mbox{$m_{jj} < 2000$~GeV} is reduced due to the usage of prescaled triggers,
and for \mbox{$m_{jj} > 2000$~GeV} by the falling cross section.
The $\chi$\ distributions are compared to the predictions from QCD,
which include all systematic uncertainties,
and the signal predictions of one particular NP model,
a quantum black hole (QBH) scenario
with a quantum gravity mass scale of 4.0~TeV and six extra dimensions \cite{RandallMeade,Feng:2004}.
Pseudo-experiments are used to convolve statistical, systematic and
theoretical uncertainties on the QCD predictions, as has been done
in previous studies of this type~\cite{ATLAS:2010eza}. The primary sources of theoretical
uncertainty are NLO QCD renormalisation and factorisation scales,
and PDF uncertainties. The QCD scales are varied by a factor of two
independently around their nominal values, which are set to the mean
$p_{\rm T}$\ of the leading jets, while the
PDF uncertainties are determined using CT10 NLO PDF error sets~\cite{LHCprimer}.
The resulting bin-wise uncertainties for the cross-section normalised $\chi$ distributions
can be as high as 8\% for the combined NLO QCD scale variations and are typically
below 1\% for the PDF uncertainties. These theoretical uncertainties are convolved
with the JES uncertainty and applied to all MC angular distributions.
Other experimental uncertainties such as those due to pile-up and
to the jet energy and angular resolutions have been investigated and found
to be negligible.
The JES uncertainties are largest at low $\chi$ and are as small as 5\% for the lowest dijet mass
bin but increase to above 15\% for the highest bin.
Variations based on the resulting systematic uncertainties are used in generating statistical ensembles
for the estimation of $p$-values when comparing QCD predictions to data.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{fig_02.eps}
\caption{The $\chi$ distributions for all dijet mass bins.
The QCD predictions are shown with theoretical and total systematic uncertainties (bands),
as well as the data with statistical uncertainties.
The dashed line is the prediction for
a QBH signal for $M_D =4.0$~TeV and $n = 6$\ in the highest mass bin.
The distributions have been offset by the amount shown in the
legend to aid in visually comparing the shapes in each mass bin.
}
\label{fig:chisvsQCD}
\end{figure}
A statistical analysis is performed on each of the five $\chi$ distributions to test
the overall consistency between data and QCD predictions.
A binned log-likelihood is calculated for each distribution assuming
that the sample consists only of QCD dijet production. The expected distribution of this
likelihood is then determined using pseudo-experiments drawn from the QCD MC sample and
convolved with the systematic uncertainties as discussed above.
Finally the $p$-value is defined as the probability of obtaining a log-likelihood value
less than the value observed in data.
The $p$-values determined from the observed likelihoods are shown in
table \ref{tab:chitoqcd}.
These indicate that there is no statistically significant evidence for new
phenomena in the $\chi$ distributions, and that these distributions are
in reasonable agreement with QCD predictions.
As with the dijet resonance analysis, the {\sc BumpHunter}\ algorithm is applied to the five $\chi$ distributions separately, in
this case to test for the presence of features that might indicate
disagreement with the QCD prediction. The results are shown in table \ref{tab:chitoqcd}.
In this particular application, the {\sc BumpHunter}\ is required to start
from the first $\chi$ bin, and the excess must be at least three bins
wide. For each of the bin combinations, the binomial $p$-value for
observing the data given the QCD-background-only hypothesis is calculated.
The bin sequence with the smallest binomial $p$-value is listed in
table \ref{tab:chitoqcd}.
Statistical and systematic uncertainties, and look-elsewhere effects, are included using
pseudo-experiments drawn from the QCD background. For each of the
pseudo-experiments the most discrepant bin combination is found and
its $p$-value is used to construct the expected binomial $p$-value distribution. The final {\sc BumpHunter}\ $p$-value is then defined as the probability of finding a binomial $p$-value as extreme as the one observed in data.
The $p$-values listed in the last column of table \ref{tab:chitoqcd}
indicate that the data are consistent with the
QCD prediction in all five mass bins.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering {
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|ll|}
\hline
$m_{jj}$ bin & LL & BH & BH \\
$[\mathrm{GeV}]$ & $p$-value & Discrep & $p$-value \\ \hline
800--1200 & 0.23 & bin 1--9 & 0.17 \\
1200--1600 & 0.31 & bin 1--7 & 0.20 \\
1600--2000 & 0.56 & bin 1--7 & 0.37 \\
2000--2600 & 0.74 & bin 1--3 & 0.38 \\
$>$ 2600 & 0.83 & bin 1--10 & 0.37 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption {Comparing $\chi$ distributions to QCD predictions. The abbreviations in the first line of the table stand for ``log-likelihood'' (LL), and ``{\sc BumpHunter}'' (BH).
The second line labels the ``$p$-values'' ($p$-value) and the ``most discrepant region'' (Discrep).}
\label{tab:chitoqcd}
\end{table}
In addition, the {\sc BumpHunter}\ algorithm is applied to all $\chi$ distributions
at once, which increases the effect of the correction for the look-elsewhere effect. The most
discrepant region in all distributions is in bins 1--9 of the 800--1200~GeV mass distribution.
The resulting $p$-value, including the look-elsewhere effect, is now 0.43,
again indicating good agreement with QCD predictions.
\section {Comparing the $\mFchimjj$\ distribution to the QCD prediction}
\label{sec:Fchimjj}
The observed $\mFchimjj$\ data distribution is shown in figure \ref{fig:fchicompQCD}, where it
is compared to the QCD prediction, which includes all systematic uncertainties.
Also shown in the figure is the expected behaviour of $\mFchimjj$\ if a contact interaction
with the compositeness scale $\Lambda=7.5$~TeV were
present \cite{Eichten:1984eu,Eichten:1995akc,Chiappetta1991}. Furthermore the predictions for an excited quark with
a mass of 2.5~TeV and a QBH signal with $M_D =4.0$~TeV are shown.
The blue vertical line at 1.8~TeV included in figure \ref{fig:fchicompQCD} indicates the mass
boundary above which the search phase of the analysis is performed, as
explained below.
The observed $\mFchimjj$\ distribution is obtained by forming the
finely-binned $m_{jj}$ distributions for $N_\mathrm{central}$ and
$N_\mathrm{total}$ --- the
``numerator'' and ``denominator'' distributions of $\mFchimjj$\ ---
separately and taking the ratio. The handling of systematic
uncertainties, including JES, PDF and scale uncertainties, uses a procedure similar to that for the $\chi$ distributions.
Two statistical tests are applied to the high-mass region to determine whether the data are
compatible with the QCD prediction.
The first test uses a binned likelihood, which includes the systematic uncertainties, and is constructed assuming the presence of QCD processes only. The $p$-value calculated from this likelihood is 0.38, indicating that these data are in agreement with the QCD prediction.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{fig_03.eps}
\caption{The $\mFchimjj$\ distribution in $m_{jj}$. The QCD prediction is shown
with theoretical and total systematic uncertainties (bands),
and data (black points) with statistical uncertainties. The blue
vertical line indicates the lower boundary of the search region for new phenomena.
Various expected new physics signals are shown: a contact interaction
with $\Lambda$ = 7.5~TeV, an excited quark with mass 2.5~TeV and a
QBH signal with $M_D =4.0$~TeV.
}
\label{fig:fchicompQCD}
\end{figure}
The second test consists of applying the {\sc BumpHunter}\ and {\sc TailHunter}\ algorithms
~\cite{Aaltonen:2008vt,Choudalakis:2011bh} to the $\mFchimjj$\
distributions, including systematic uncertainties and assuming binomial statistics.
For this test only data with dijet masses above 1.8 TeV, associated with the single unprescaled
trigger, are used to obtain a high sensitivity at high mass and to avoid diluting the
test with the large number of low-mass bins.
The test scans the data using windows of varying widths and identifies
the window with the largest excess of events with respect to the background.
The {\sc BumpHunter}\ finds the most discrepant interval to be from 1.80~TeV
to 2.88~TeV, with a $p$-value of 0.20.
The {\sc TailHunter}\ finds the most discrepant interval to be from 1.80~TeV
onwards, with a $p$-value of 0.21.
The $p$-values indicate that there is no significant excess in the data .
\section {Simulation of hypothetical new phenomena}
\label{sec:SimulNP}
In the absence of any significant signals indicating the presence of phenomena
beyond QCD, Bayesian 95\% credibility level (CL) limits are determined for a number of NP hypotheses.
The following models have been described in detail in previous ATLAS dijet studies
~\cite{ATLAS:2010bc,ATLAS:2010eza,Aad:2011aj,ATLAS:Res2011}:
quark contact interactions (CI) \cite{Eichten:1984eu,Eichten:1995akc,Chiappetta1991},
excited quarks (${q^\ast}$) \cite{Baur:1987ga,Baur:1989kv},
colour octet scalars (s8) \cite{Han:2010rf}, and
quantum black holes (QBH) \cite{RandallMeade,Feng:2004}.
Two models of new phenomena are added to the current analysis:
heavy $W$ bosons ($W'$) with SM couplings~\cite{Wprime1,Wprime2,Wprime3,Wprime4},
and string resonances (SR)~\cite{StrRes1,StrRes2,StrRes3,StrRes4}.
Contact interactions and QBH appear as slowly rising effects in $m_{jj}$, while
the other hypotheses produce localised excesses.
A number of these NP models are available in the {\sc Pythia}~6 event generator.
In these cases, the corresponding MC samples are generated using
the AUET2B LO** tune and the MRSTMCal PDF.
For NP models provided by other event generators, with other PDFs, partons
originating from the initial two-parton interaction are used as input to {\sc Pythia}\,
which performs parton showering and the remaining event generation steps.
In all cases, the renormalisation and factorisation scales are set to the mean $p_{\rm T}$\
of the leading jets.
The quark contact interaction, CI,
is used to model the appearance of kinematic properties that characterise quark compositeness.
In the current analysis, only destructive interference is
studied, but constructive interference is expected to give less conservative limits.
{\sc Pythia}~6 is used to create MC event samples for distinct values of the
compositeness scale, $\Lambda$.
Excited quarks, ${q^\ast}$ , a possible manifestation of
quark compositeness, are also simulated
in all decay modes with {\sc Pythia}~6 for selected values of the ${q^\ast}$ mass.
Excited quarks are assumed to decay to common quarks via standard model couplings,
leading to gluon emission approximately 83\% of the time.
Recent studies comparing this benchmark model to the same excited quark model
in {\sc Pythia}~8 show that the ${q^\ast}$ $m_{jj}$ distribution in {\sc Pythia}~8 is
significantly broader than that in {\sc Pythia}~6.
The {\sc Pythia}\ authors have identified a long-standing misapplication of QCD
$p_{\rm T}$-ordered final state radiation (FSR) vetoing in {\sc Pythia}~6, which is resolved
in {\sc Pythia}~8.
The ${q^\ast}$ $m_{jj}$ distributions from {\sc Pythia}~6 can be brought into close
correspondence with {\sc Pythia}~8 by setting the {\sc Pythia}~6 MSTJ(47)
parameter to zero, restoring the correct behaviour for final state radiation.
The resulting widening of the peak affects the search sensitivity and exclusion limits.
The ${q^\ast}$ MC samples used in the current studies are generated
using both the default and corrected {\sc Pythia}~6 settings, to determine the impact
on the ${q^\ast}$ exclusion limit.
The colour octet scalar model, s8, is a typical example of
possible exotic coloured resonances
decaying to two gluons.
{\sc MadGraph}~5~\cite{Alwall:2011uj} with the CTEQ6L1 PDF \cite{Pumplin:2002vw}
is employed to generate parton-level event samples at leading-order approximation
for a selection of s8 masses, which are used as input to {\sc Pythia}~6.
A model for quantum black holes, QBH,
that decay to two jets is simulated using BlackMax~\cite{Dai:2007bm}\ with the CT10 PDF
to produce a simple two-body final state scenario of quantum gravitational effects at the
reduced Planck Scale $M_D$, with $n$ = 6 extra spatial dimensions.
The QBH model is used as a benchmark to represent any quantum gravitational effect that
produces events containing dijets. Event samples for selected values of $M_D$ are
used as input to {\sc Pythia}\ for further processing.
The first new NP phenomenon used in the current dijet analysis,
the production of heavy charged gauge bosons, $W'$, has been sought
in events containing a charged lepton (electron or muon) and a
neutrino~\cite{Wprime3,Wprime4}, but no evidence has been found. In the current studies,
dijet events are searched for the decays of $W'$ to $q\bar{q}'$. The specific model
used in this study~\cite{Wprime1,Wprime2} assumes that the $W'$
has V-A SM couplings but does not include interference between the $W'$ and the $W$.
The $W'$ signal sample is generated with the {\sc Pythia}~6 event generator.
Instead of the LO cross section values, the NNLO electroweak-corrected cross section values
\cite{Wprime4,Hamberg:1990np, CarloniCalame:2006zq,CarloniCalame:2007cd} calculated using
the MSTW2008 PDF \cite{Martin:2009iq}, are used in this analysis.
For a given $W'$ mass, the width of the resonance in $m_{jj}$ is very similar to that
of the ${q^\ast}$, and the angular distribution peaks at low $\chi$.
The limit analysis for this $W'$ model includes the branching ratio to the chosen
$q\bar{q}'$ final state and, for each simulated mass, this fraction is taken from
{\sc Pythia}~6.
The second new NP model considered, string resonances (SR), results from excitations of
quarks and gluons at the string level~\cite{StrRes1,StrRes2,StrRes3,StrRes4}.
The dominant decay mode is to $qg$, and the SR model described in ref.~\cite{StrRes3}
is implemented in the CalcHEP\ generator \cite{Pukhov:2004ca} with the MRSTMCal PDF.
As with other models, MC samples are created for selected values of the mass parameter,
$m_{\textrm{SR}}$, by passing the CalcHEP\ output at parton level to {\sc Pythia}~6.
All MC signal samples are passed through fast detector
simulation using ATLFAST~2.0, except for string resonances, which
are fully simulated using {\sc Geant4}.
\section{Limits on new resonant phenomena from the $m_{jj}$ distribution}
\label{sec:mjj:reson}
For each NP process under study, Monte Carlo samples have been
simulated at a number of selected mass points, $m_{\textrm{NP}}$.
The Bayesian method documented in ref.~\cite{Aad:2011aj}
is applied to data at these same mass points to set a
95\% CL limit on the cross section times acceptance,
$\sigma\times {\cal A}$, for the NP signal as a function of
$m_{\textrm{NP}}$, using a prior constant in signal strength.
The limit on $\sigma\times {\cal A}$ from data is interpolated
between mass points to create a continuous curve in $m_{jj}$.
The exclusion limit on the mass (or energy scale) of the
given NP signal occurs at the value of $m_{jj}$ where the limit
on $\sigma\times {\cal A}$ from data is the same as the
theoretical value, which is derived by interpolation between
the generated mass values.
This form of analysis is applicable to all resonant phenomena
where the NP couplings are strong compared to the scale of perturbative QCD
at the signal mass, so that interference with QCD terms can be neglected.
The acceptance calculation includes all reconstruction steps and analysis cuts
described in section~\ref{sec:recocuts}.
For all resonant models except for the $W'$, all decay modes have been
simulated so that the branching ratio into dijets is implicitly included in
the acceptance through the analysis selection. For the $W'$
model, only dijet final states have been simulated, and the branching
ratio is included in the cross section instead of in the acceptance.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\subfigure[Excited-quark model.]{
\label{fig:limqstarmjj}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]
{fig_04a.eps}}
\subfigure[Colour scalar octet model.]{
\label{fig:lims8mjj}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]
{fig_04b.eps}}
\caption{The 95\% CL upper limits on $\sigma\times {\cal A}$ as a function of
particle mass (black filled circles) using $m_{jj}$. The black dotted curve
shows the 95\% CL upper limit expected in the absence of any
resonance signal, and the
green and yellow bands represent the 68\% and 95\% contours
of the expected limit, respectively.
Theoretical predictions of $\sigma\times {\cal A}$ are
shown (dashed) in
(a) for excited quarks, and in (b) for colour octet scalars.
For a given NP model, the observed (expected) limit occurs at
the crossing of the dashed $\sigma\times {\cal A}$ curve with the observed
(expected) 95\% CL upper limit curve.}
\label{fig:combinedfig}
\end{figure*}
The effects of systematic uncertainties due to luminosity, acceptance, and jet energy
scale are included.
The luminosity uncertainty for the 2011 data is 3.9\%~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-2011-116} and is
combined in quadrature with the acceptance uncertainty.
The correlated systematic uncertainties corresponding to the 14 JES nuisance parameters are
added in quadrature and represented by a single nuisance parameter
which shifts the resonance mass peaks by less than 4\%.
The background parameterisation uncertainty is taken from the fit results,
as described in ref.~\cite{Aad:2011aj}.
The effect of the jet energy resolution uncertainty is found to be negligible.
These uncertainties are incorporated into the fit by varying all sources according
to Gaussian probability distributions and convolving them with the
posterior probability distribution. Credibility intervals are then calculated
numerically from the resulting convolutions. No uncertainties are associated with
the theoretical model, as in each case the NP model is a benchmark that
incorporates a specific choice of model parameters, PDF set, and MC tune.
Previous ATLAS studies using the ${q^\ast}$ theoretical
prediction~\cite{Aad:2011aj} showed that the variation among three
different choices of MC tune and PDF set was less than 4\% for the
expected limits.
The resulting limits for excited quarks, based on the corrected {\sc Pythia}~6
samples (as explained in section \ref{sec:SimulNP}), are shown in
figure \ref{fig:limqstarmjj}.
The acceptance $\cal A$ ranges from 40\% to 51\% for $m_{q^\ast}$
between 1.2~TeV and 4.0~TeV, and is never lower than 46\% for masses above 1.4~\rm TeV.
The largest reduction in acceptance arises from the rapidity selection criteria.
The expected lower mass limit at 95\% CL for ${q^\ast}$ is
\MjjLimitExpectedqstar~TeV, and the observed limit is \MjjLimitqstar~TeV.
For comparison, this limit has also been determined using {\sc Pythia}~6
samples with the default ${q^\ast}$ settings, leading to narrower mass peaks.
The expected limit determined from these MC samples is 0.1~TeV higher than
the limit based on the corrected samples.
This shift is an approximate indicator of the fractional correction
that is expected when comparing the current ATLAS results to all
previous analyses that found ${q^\ast}$ mass limits
using {\sc Pythia}~6 and $p_{\rm T}$-ordered final state radiation without
corrections, including all previous ATLAS results.
The limits for colour octet scalars are shown in
figure \ref{fig:lims8mjj}.
The expected mass limit at 95\% CL is
\MjjLimitExpecteds8~TeV, and the observed limit is \MjjLimits8~TeV.
For this model the acceptance values vary between 34\% and 48\% for masses
between 1.3~TeV and 4.0~TeV.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\subfigure[Heavy charged gauge bosons, $W'$.]{
\label{fig:limwprimemjj}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]
{fig_05a.eps}}
\subfigure[String resonances, SR.]{
\label{fig:limsrmjj}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]
{fig_05b.eps}}
\caption{
In (a), 95\% CL upper limits on $\sigma\times {\cal A}$
$\times$ BR as a function of
particle mass (black filled circles) from $m_{jj}$ analysis
are shown for heavy gauge bosons, $W'$. The black dotted curve shows
the 95\% CL upper limit expected in the absence of any resonance signal, and the
green and yellow bands represent the 68\% and 95\% contours
of the expected limit, respectively. The observed (expected) limit
occurs at the crossing of the dashed theoretical $\sigma\times {\cal A}$$\times$
BR curve with the observed (expected) 95\% CL upper limit curve.
In (b), 95\% CL upper limits on $\sigma\times {\cal A}$ are shown
for string resonances, SR, with the
equivalent set of contours for this model, and the same method of
limit determination.
}
\label{fig:combinedfigW}
\end{figure*}
The limits for heavy charged gauge bosons, $W'$, are shown in figure \ref{fig:limwprimemjj}.
For this model, only final states with dijets have been simulated.
The branching ratio, BR, to the studied $q\bar{q}'$ final state varies
little with mass and is 0.75 for $m_{W'}$ values of 1.1~TeV to
3.6~TeV, and the acceptance ranges from 29\% to 36\%.
The expected mass limit at 95\% CL is \MjjLimitExpectedWprime~TeV,
and the observed limit is \MjjLimitWprime~TeV.
This is the first time that an ATLAS limit on $W'$ production
is set using the dijet mass distribution. Searches for leptonic decays
of the $W'$ are however expected to be more sensitive.
The $W'$ hypothesis used in the current study assumes SM couplings to
quarks. If a similar model were to predict stronger couplings, for example,
figure \ref{fig:limwprimemjj} could be used to estimate the new
mass limit by shifting the theoretical curve upward by the ratio of
the squared couplings.
Alternately, the current limit on $W'$ decaying to dijets could be
of interest for comparison with leptophobic $W'$ models, where all
final states would be hadronic ~\cite{Georgi1990541,Grojean:2011vu,RHW1,RHW2}.
The limits for string resonances are shown in figure \ref{fig:limsrmjj}.
The SR acceptance ranges from 45\% to 48\% for masses varying from 2.0~TeV to 5.0~TeV.
The expected mass limit at 95\% CL is
\MjjLimitExpectedStrRes~TeV, and the observed limit is \MjjLimitStrRes~TeV.
Tables with acceptance values and limits for all models discussed here
can be found in appendix \ref{sec:tablimits:mjj}.
\section{Model-independent limits on dijet resonance production}
\label{Sec:ModelIndep}
As in previous dijet resonance analyses, limits on dijet resonance production
are determined here using a Gaussian resonance shape hypothesis.
Limits are set for a collection
of hypothetical signals that are assumed to be Gaussian-distributed
in $m_{jj}$ with means ($m_{\text{G}}$) ranging from 1.0~TeV to 4.0~TeV and with
standard deviations ($\sigma_{\text{G}}$) from 7\% to 15\% of the mean.
Systematic uncertainties are treated using the same methods as applied in the
model-dependent limit setting described above.
The only difference between the Gaussian analysis and the standard
analysis is that the decay of the dijet final state is not simulated.
In place of this, it is assumed that the dijet signal mass distribution
is Gaussian in shape, and the JES uncertainty is modelled as an uncertainty
of 4\% in the central value of the Gaussian signal.
This approach has been validated by shifting the energy of all jets in {\sc Pythia}~6
signal templates by their JES uncertainty and evaluating the relative shift
of the mass peak.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{fig_06.eps}
\caption{The 95\%\ CL upper limits on $\sigma\times {\cal A}$ for a simple Gaussian
resonance decaying to dijets as a function of the mean mass, $m_{\text{G}}$, for
three values of $\sigma_{\text{G}}/m_{\text{G}}$, taking into account
both statistical and systematic uncertainties.}
\label{fig:modindeplims}
\end{figure}
The resulting limits on $\sigma\times {\cal A}$ for
the Gaussian template model are shown in figure
\ref{fig:modindeplims} and detailed in table \ref{qnum.gausslims}.
These results may be utilised to set limits on NP models beyond those
considered in the current studies, under the condition that their
signal shape approaches a Gaussian distribution after applying the
kinematic selection criteria on $y^*$, $m_{jj}$ and $\eta$ of the
leading jets (section \ref{sec:recocuts}). The acceptance should
include the branching ratio of the particle decaying into dijets and
the physics selection efficiency. The ATLAS $m_{jj}$ resolution is about 5\%,
hence NP models with a width smaller than 7\% should
be compared to the 7\% column of table \ref{qnum.gausslims}.
Models with a greater width should use the column that best matches their width.
A detailed description of the recommended procedure, including the treatment
of detector resolution effects, is given in ref.~\cite{ATLAS:Res2011}.
\begin{table}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|lll|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Observed 95\% CL upper limits on $\sigma\times {\cal A}$ [pb]} \\
$m_{\text{G}}$ [GeV] & $\sigma_{\text{G}}/m_{\text{G}} =$ 7\% & $\sigma_{\text{G}}/m_{\text{G}} =$ 10\% & $\sigma_{\text{G}}/m_{\text{G}} =$ 15\% \\
\hline
1000 & 0.66 & 0.67 & 0.61 \\
1050 & 0.56 & 0.58 & 0.57 \\
1100 & 0.44 & 0.51 & 0.41 \\
1150 & 0.28 & 0.37 & 0.26 \\
1200 & 0.18 & 0.22 & 0.21 \\
1250 & 0.14 & 0.16 & 0.18 \\
1300 & 0.11 & 0.12 & 0.16 \\
1350 & 0.093 & 0.11 & 0.16 \\
1400 & 0.083 & 0.11 & 0.15 \\
1450 & 0.084 & 0.10 & 0.17 \\
1500 & 0.090 & 0.11 & 0.17 \\
1550 & 0.087 & 0.12 & 0.20 \\
1600 & 0.090 & 0.11 & 0.18 \\
1650 & 0.082 & 0.11 & 0.17 \\
1700 & 0.079 & 0.11 & 0.17 \\
1750 & 0.078 & 0.10 & 0.15 \\
1800 & 0.069 & 0.097 & 0.13 \\
1850 & 0.066 & 0.091 & 0.12 \\
1900 & 0.061 & 0.075 & 0.11 \\
1950 & 0.054 & 0.068 & 0.095 \\
2000 & 0.049 & 0.058 & 0.085 \\
2100 & 0.035 & 0.047 & 0.073 \\
2200 & 0.029 & 0.040 & 0.066 \\
2300 & 0.027 & 0.036 & 0.054 \\
2400 & 0.024 & 0.031 & 0.044 \\
2500 & 0.020 & 0.027 & 0.032 \\
2600 & 0.017 & 0.021 & 0.021 \\
2700 & 0.014 & 0.017 & 0.013 \\
2800 & 0.012 & 0.012 & 0.0084 \\
2900 & 0.0087 & 0.0075 & 0.0063 \\
3000 & 0.0062 & 0.0052 & 0.0047 \\
3200 & 0.0030 & 0.0032 & 0.0032 \\
3400 & 0.0021 & 0.0021 & 0.0021 \\
3600 & 0.0015 & 0.0016 & 0.0016 \\
3800 & 0.0012 & 0.0012 & 0.0013 \\
4000 & 0.0010 & 0.0010 & 0.0011 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The 95\% CL upper limit on $\sigma\times {\cal A}$ [pb] for the Gaussian model.
The symbols $m_{\text{G}}$ and $\sigma_{\text{G}}$ are, respectively,
the mean mass and standard deviation of the Gaussian.}
\label{qnum.gausslims}
\end{table}
\section{Limits on CI and QBH from the $\chi$ distributions}
\label{section:chiLimit}
The $\chi$ distribution in the highest mass bin of figure \ref{fig:chisvsQCD}
is used to set 95\% CL limits on two NP hypotheses, CI and QBH.
In the contact interaction analysis, four MC samples of QCD production modified by
a contact interaction are created for values of $\Lambda$\ ranging from 4.0~TeV to 10.0~TeV.
For the CI distributions, QCD K-factors are applied to the QCD-only component of
the cross section, as follows: before normalising the $\chi$-distributions to unit
area, the LO QCD part of the cross section, determined from a QCD-only simulation
sample, is replaced by the QCD cross section corrected for NLO effects.
Using the QCD distribution and the finite set of MC CI distributions, each $\chi$-bin is
fit as function of $\Lambda$ against a four-parameter
interpolation function\footnote{The fitting function is
$f(x) = p_4 / \, \left[\mathrm{exp}\left(p_1 \, (p_2 - \mathrm{log} (x) )
\right)+1\right] +p_3$, $x = 1/\Lambda^2$.},
allowing for a smooth integration of the posterior
probability density functions over $\Lambda$.
From the signal fits, a posterior probability density
is constructed as a function of $\Lambda$.
The systematic uncertainties described in section \ref{sec:compare:chi} are convolved with the posterior distribution through
pseudo-experiments drawn from the NP hypotheses. For the expected limit,
pseudo-experiments are performed on the QCD background and used as pseudo-data.
This analysis sets a 95\%\
CL lower limit on $\Lambda $ at 7.6~TeV with an expected
limit of 7.7~TeV. The observed posterior
probability density function is shown in figure \ref{fig:chilimitCI}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{fig_07.eps}
\caption{Observed posterior probability density function as
function of $1/\Lambda^4$ for the CI model. The coloured area
shows the 95\% area, and the blue dashed line denotes the 95\% CL~limit.}
\label{fig:chilimitCI}
\end{figure}
To test the sensitivity of the CI limit to the choice of prior, this analysis is repeated for a constant prior in $1/\Lambda^2$, which has
been used in previous publications. As anticipated, the expected limit is less conservative, increasing by 0.40~TeV. Since the
constant prior in $1/\Lambda^4$ more accurately follows the cross section predicted for CI, the $1/\Lambda^2$ result is not reported in
the final results of the current studies.
The second model is QBH with $n = 6$ and with a constant prior in $1/M_D^4$,
which is for $n=6$ proportional to the cross section.
Similarly to what is done for CI, the QCD sample, together
with a set of eleven QBH samples with $M_D$ ranging from 2.0~TeV
to 6.0~TeV, is fit to the same smooth function in every $\chi$-bin
to enable integration of the posterior probability density functions
over $M_D$. The expected and observed 95\%\ CL lower limits on $M_D$ are
4.20~TeV and 4.11~TeV, respectively.
\section{Limits on new resonant phenomena from the $\mFchimjj$\ distribution}
The Bayesian approach employed to set exclusion limits on new resonant phenomena with
the dijet mass spectrum may be applied to the $\mFchimjj$\ distribution
(see figure \ref{fig:fchicompQCD}), provided
that the NP models under consideration do not include interference with QCD.
Unlike the $m_{jj}$ resonance analysis, the background prediction is based on the QCD MC
samples processed through detector simulation and corrected for NLO effects.
The likelihood is constructed from two $m_{jj}$ distributions and their associated
uncertainties, one distribution being the numerator spectrum of the $\mFchimjj$\
distribution and the other being the denominator. Here too, pseudo-experiments
are used to convolve all systematic uncertainties, which in this case include the
JES uncertainties, and the PDF and scale uncertainties associated with the QCD prediction.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{fig_08.eps}
\caption{The 95\% CL upper limits on $\sigma\times {\cal A}$ as
function of the reduced Planck mass $M_D$ of the QBH model
using $\mFchimjj$\
(black filled circles). The black dotted curve shows the 95\% CL upper limit expected from Monte Carlo, and the
green and yellow bands represent the 68\% and 95\% contours
of the expected limit, respectively. Theoretical
predictions of $\sigma\times {\cal A}$ are shown for
various numbers of extra dimensions. }
\label{fig:fchimjjbayesqbh}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:fchimjjbayesqbh} shows the limits expected and observed from data on the production
cross section $\sigma$ times the acceptance $\cal A$, along with theoretical predictions for
the QBH model \cite{RandallMeade,Feng:2004}, for $n$ ranging from two to seven.
For this model, generator-level studies have shown that the acceptance does not depend on the
number of extra dimensions within this range. Therefore
only the QBH MC sample for $n$ = 6 has been processed through the ATLFAST~2.0 detector simulation, and the acceptance calculated from this sample
is used for all values of $n$. The acceptance is close to 90\% for all $M_D$ values.
The resulting 95\% CL exclusion limits for the number of extra dimensions $n$
ranging from 2 to 7 are shown in table \ref{tab:qbhlimits}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering {
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
$n$ extra & Expected & Observed \\
dimensions & limit [TeV] & limit [TeV] \\ \hline
2 & 3.85 & 3.71 \\
3 & 3.99 & 3.84 \\
4 & 4.07 & 3.92 \\
5 & 4.12 & 3.99 \\
6 & 4.16 & 4.03\ \\
7 & 4.19 & 4.07 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption {Lower limits at 95\% CL on $M_D$ of the QBH model with $n=2$
to 7 extra dimensions.}
\label{tab:qbhlimits}
\end{table}
The same analysis is applied to detect resonances in $\mFchimjj$\ due to excited quarks.
With an acceptance close to 90\% for all masses this analysis sets a
95\%\ CL lower limit on $m_{q^\ast}$ at 2.75~TeV with an expected
limit of 2.85~TeV.
\section{Limits on CI from the $\mFchimjj$\ distribution}
As was done previously with the ATLAS 2010 data sample~\cite{Aad:2011aj},
the $\mFchimjj$\ distribution (see figure \ref{fig:fchicompQCD}) is used
in the current study to set limits on quark contact interactions.
The procedure is very similar to the one used for limits obtained with
$\chi$ discussed in section \ref{section:chiLimit}.
MC samples of QCD production modified by a contact interaction are
created for values of $\Lambda$\ ranging from 4.0~TeV to 10.0~TeV.
For the CI distributions, QCD K-factors are applied to the QCD-only
components of the numerator
and denominator of $\mFchimjj$\ separately. This is done by subtracting the
LO QCD cross section and adding the QCD cross section corrected for NLO effects.
Simulated $\mFchimjj$\ distributions are statistically smoothed by a fit in $m_{jj}$.
For the pure QCD sample (corresponding to $\Lambda = \infty$), a second-order
polynomial is used, while for the MC distributions with finite
$\Lambda$, a Fermi function is added to the polynomial, which gives a
good representation of the onset of contact interactions.
Next, all $m_{jj}$ bins of the MC $\mFchimjj$\ distributions are interpolated in $\Lambda$
using the same four-parameter interpolation function used for the $\chi$
analysis, creating a smooth
predicted
$\mFchimjj$\ surface as a function of $m_{jj}$\ and $\Lambda$. This surface
enables integration in $m_{jj}$\ vs. $\Lambda$ for continuous values of $\Lambda$.
Pseudo-experiments
are then employed to construct a posterior
probability, assuming a prior that is flat in $1/\Lambda^4$.
This analysis sets a 95\%\ CL lower limit
on $\Lambda$ at \FchimjjLimitLambdaDest~TeV with an expected limit
of \FchimjjLimitExpectedLambdaDest~TeV.
\section{Conclusions}
Dijet mass and angular distributions have been measured by the ATLAS
experiment over a large angular range and spanning dijet masses
up to approximately $4.0$~TeV, using 673.8~pb$^{-1}$\ of $pp$
collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 7$~TeV.
No resonance-like features have been observed in the dijet mass spectrum,
and all angular distributions are consistent with QCD predictions.
This analysis places limits on a variety of hypotheses for physics
phenomena beyond the Standard Model, as
summarised in table \ref{tab:Summary}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering {
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Model and Analysis Strategy \quad \quad & \multicolumn{2}{c}{95\%\ CL Limits [TeV]} \\
& Expected & Observed\\
\hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Excited quark, mass of ${q^\ast}$ } \\ \hline
Resonance in $m_{jj}$ & \MjjLimitExpectedqstar & \MjjLimitqstar \\
Resonance in $\mFchimjj$\ & 2.85 & 2.75 \\
\hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Colour octet scalar, mass of s8 } \\ \hline
Resonance in $m_{jj}$ & \MjjLimitExpecteds8 & \MjjLimits8 \\
\hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Heavy $W$ boson, mass of $W'$ } \\ \hline
Resonance in $m_{jj}$ & \MjjLimitExpectedWprime & \MjjLimitWprime \\
\hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{String resonances, scale of SR} \\ \hline
Resonance in $m_{jj}$ & \MjjLimitExpectedStrRes & \MjjLimitStrRes \\
\hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Quantum Black Hole for $n=6$, $M_D$} \\ \hline
$\mFchimjj$\ & 4.16 & 4.03 \\
$\chi$\ , $m_{jj} > 2.6$~TeV &
4.20 & 4.11 \\
\hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{ Contact interaction, $\Lambda$, destructive interference} \\ \hline
$\mFchimjj$ & \FchimjjLimitExpectedLambdaDest & \FchimjjLimitLambdaDest \\
$\chi$\ , $m_{jj} > 2.6$~TeV
& 7.7 & 7.6 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption {The 95\% CL lower limits on the masses and energy scales of the models
examined in this study.
All limit analyses are Bayesian, with statistical and systematic uncertainties
included. For each NP hypothesis, the result corresponding to the highest
expected limit is the result quoted in the abstract.
}
\label{tab:Summary}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|lll}
\hline
New Phenomenon & 36 pb$^{-1}$~\cite{Aad:2011aj} & 1.0 fb$^{-1}$~\cite{ATLAS:Res2011}
& 673.8~pb$^{-1}$ current\\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Resonance in $m_{jj}$} \\
\hline
Excited quark, mass of ${q^\ast}$ & 2.07 & 2.81 & \MjjLimitExpectedqstar \\
Colour octet scalar, mass of s8 & - & 1.77 & \MjjLimitExpecteds8\\
\hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Angular distribution in $\chi$} \\
\hline
Contact interaction, $\Lambda$ & 5.4 & - & 7.7 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ATLAS previous and current expected 95\% CL upper limits
[TeV] on new phenomena. The current expected limit for ${q^\ast}$ cannot be compared directly
to the two previous limits since they employed {\sc Pythia}~6 samples with
an error in the simulation of final state radiation. Had such samples
been used in the current analysis, the expected ${q^\ast}$ limit would be
0.10~TeV higher.}
\label{tab:complims}
\end{table}
For $\sqrt{s} = 7$~TeV $pp$ collisions at the LHC, the integrated luminosity
used in the current studies represents a substantial increase over
that available in previously published ATLAS dijet searches.
Table~\ref{tab:complims} lists the previous and current expected limits from
ATLAS studies using dijet analyses for three benchmark models:
excited quarks, colour octet scalars, and contact interactions with
destructive interference.
The increase in the excited quark mass limit would have been greater by 0.10~TeV
had there not been the long-standing problem with the default {\sc Pythia}~6
${q^\ast}$ model, discussed in earlier sections.
For 2012 running, the collision energy of the LHC has been raised from 7~TeV
to 8~TeV. The higher energy, and the associated rise in parton
luminosity, will increase search sensitivities and the
possibility of discoveries.
The current 2011 analysis provides a reference for the study of
energy-dependent effects once the 2012 data set has been analysed.
\clearpage
\acknowledgments
We thank Noriaki Kitazawa for the string resonance amplitude calculations and event samples.
We thank CERN for the very successful operation of the LHC, as well as the
support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAS could not be
operated efficiently.
We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC,
Australia; BMWF and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP,
Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC,
China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR and VSC CR, Czech Republic;
DNRF, DNSRC and Lundbeck Foundation, Denmark; EPLANET, ERC and NSRF, European Union;
IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNSF, Georgia; BMBF, DFG, HGF, MPG and AvH
Foundation, Germany; GSRT and NSRF, Greece; ISF, MINERVA, GIF, DIP and Benoziyo Center,
Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO,
Netherlands; BRF and RCN, Norway; MNiSW, Poland; GRICES and FCT, Portugal; MERYS
(MECTS), Romania; MES of Russia and ROSATOM, Russian Federation; JINR; MSTD,
Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MVZT, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa;
MICINN, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SER, SNSF and Cantons of
Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; NSC, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, the Royal
Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of
America.
The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged
gratefully, in particular from CERN and the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at
TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CC-IN2P3 (France),
KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), PIC (Spain),
ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (UK) and BNL (USA) and in the Tier-2 facilities
worldwide.
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{JHEP}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Overview}
This paper demonstrates how a particular method of machine learning can be
incorporated into hybrid system planning and control, to enable systems to accomplish complex
tasks in \emph{unknown} and \emph{adversarial} environments.
This is achieved by bringing together formal abstraction methods for
hybrid systems, grammatical inference and (infinite) game theory.
Many, particularly commercially available, automation systems
come with control user interfaces that involve continuous low-to-mid level
controllers, which are either specialized for the particular application,
or are designed with certain ease-of-use, safety, or performance specifications in mind.
This paper proposes a control synthesis method that works
with---rather than in lieu of---existing control loops. The focus here is on how
to abstract the given low-level control loops \cite{Tanner2012}
and the environment they operate in \cite{Fainekos2009},
and combine simple closed loop behaviors in an orchestrated temporal sequence.
The goal is to do so in a way that guarantees
the satisfaction of a task specification and is provably implementable
at the level of these low-level control and actuation loops.
As a field of study, grammatical inference is primarily concerned with
developing algorithms that are guaranteed to learn how to identify
any member of a collection of formal objects (such as languages or graphs) from a
presentation of examples and/or non-examples of that object, provided
certain conditions are met \cite{delaHiguera2010}. The conditions are
typical in learning research: the data presentation must be adequate,
the objects in the class must be reachable by the generalizations
the algorithms make, and there is often a trade-off between the two.
Here, grammatical inference is integrated into planning and control
synthesis using game theory. Game theory is a natural framework for
reactive planning of a system in a dynamic environment
\cite{Zielonka1998135}. A task specification becomes a winning
condition, and the controller takes the form of a strategy that
indicates which actions the system (player 1) needs to take so that
the specification is met regardless of what happens in its environment
(player 2) \cite{Ramadge1987,game-Julia97}. It turns out that
interesting motion planning and control problems can be formulated at
a discrete level as a variant of reachability games \cite{Gradel2002},
in which a \emph{memoryless} winning strategy can be computed for one
of the players, given the initial setting of the game.
In the formulation we consider, the rules of the game are assumed to
be initially unknown to the system; the latter is supposed
to operate in a potentially adversarial environment with unknown
dynamics. The application of grammatical inference algorithms to the
observations collected by the system during the course of the game
enables it to construct and incrementally update a model of this
environment. Once the system has learned the true nature of the game,
and if it is possible for it to win in this game, then it \emph{will}
indeed find a winning strategy, no matter how effectively the
adversarial environment might try to prevent it from doing so. In
other words, the proposed framework guarantees the satisfaction of the
task specification in the face of uncertainty, provided certain
conditions are met. If those conditions are not met, then the system
is no worse off than when not using grammatical inference algorithms.
\subsection{Related work}
So far, symbolic planning and control methods address problems
where the environment is either static and presumably known, or
satisfies given assumptions \cite{Piterman06synthesisof,Belta2007,Lahijanian2010}.
In cases where the environment is static and known, we see
applications of formal methods like model checking
\cite{Belta2007,Laviers11}. In other variants of this formulations,
reactive control synthesis is used to tackle cases where system
behavior needs to be re-planned based on information obtained from the
environment in real time \cite{Piterman06synthesisof}. In
\cite{Lahijanian2010} a control strategy is synthesized for maximizing
the probability of completing the goal given actuation errors and
noisy measurements from the environment. Methods for ensuring that
the system exhibits correct behavior even when there is the mismatch
between the actual environment and its assumed model are proposed in
\cite{Wongpiromsarn2010}.
\ac{ltl} plays an important role in existing approaches to
symbolic planning and control. It is being used to capture
\emph{safety}, \emph{liveness} and \emph{reachability} specifications
\cite{Tomlin2003}. A formulation of \ac{ltl} games on graphs is
used in \cite{Kloetzer2008} to synthesize
control strategies for non-deterministic transition systems.
Assuming an uncertain system model,
\cite{Wongpiromsarn2010} combines temporal logic
control synthesis with receding horizon control concepts.
Centralized control designs for groups of robots tasked with
satisfying a \ac{ltl}-formula specification are found in \cite{Hadas2009},
under the assumption that the environment in which the robots
operate in adheres to certain conditions. These methods are
extended \cite{Hadas2011} to enable the plan to
be revised during execution.
Outside of the hybrid system's area, adjusting unknown system
parameters has traditionally been done by employing
adaptive control or machine learning methods.
Established adaptive control techniques operate in a purely continuous
state regime, and most impose stringent conditions (e.g., linearity) on the
system dynamics; for these reasons they are not covered in the context of this limited scope
review---the interested reader is referred to \cite{Astrom,sastry-adaptive}.
On the other hand, machine learning is arguably a broader field.
A significant portion of existing
work is based on \emph{reinforcement learning}, which has
been applied to a variety of problems such as multi-agent control
\cite{maja97}, humanoid robots \cite{schaal03}, varying-terrain
wheeled robot navigation \cite{roy09}, and unmanned aerial vehicle
control \cite{abbeel10}. The use of grammatical inference as a
sub-field of machine learning in the context of robotics and control
is not entirely new; an example is the application of a
\ac{gim} in robotic self-assembly \cite{Hamdi-Cherif2009}.
In the aforementioned formulations there is no consideration for
dynamic adversarial environments. A notable exception is the work of
\cite{Yushan2012}, which is developed in parallel to, and in part
independently from, the one in this paper. The idea of combining
learning with hybrid system control synthesis is a natural common
theme since both methods originate from the same joint sponsored
research project. Yet, the two approaches are distinct in how they
highlight different aspects of the problem of synthesis in the
presence of dynamic uncertainty. In \cite{Yushan2012}, the learning
module generates a model for a stochastic environment in the form of a
Markov Decision Process and control synthesis is performed using model
checking tools. In this paper, the environment is deterministic, but
intelligently adversarial and with full knowledge of the system's
capabilities. In addition, the control synthesis here utilizes tools
from the theory of games on infinite words.
\subsection{Approach and contributions}
This paper introduces a symbolic control synthesis method based on the
architecture of Fig.~\ref{fig:hybrid-learning}, where a \ac{gim} is
incorporated into planning and control algorithms of a hybrid system
(a robot, in Fig.~\ref{fig:hybrid-learning}) to identify the dynamics
of an evolving but rule-governed environment. The system---its
boundaries outlined with a thick line---interacts with its environment
through sensors and actuators. Both the system as well as its
environment are dynamical systems (shown as ovals), assumed to admit
discrete abstractions in the form of transition systems (dashed
rectangles). The system is required to meet a certain specification.
Given its specification ($\mathcal{A}_s$), an abstraction of itself ($A_1$), and
its hypothesis of the dynamics of its environment ($A_2$), the system
devises a plan and implements it utilizing a finite set of low-level
concrete control loops involving sensory feedback. Using this sensory
information, the system refines its discrete environment model based
on a \ac{gim}, which is guaranteed to identify the environment
dynamics asymptotically. Figure~\ref{fig:learning} gives a general description of the
implementation of learning and symbolic planning at the high-level of
the architecture in Fig.~\ref{fig:hybrid-learning}. The hypothesis on
the environment dynamics is at the center of the system's planning
algorithm. Through interactions with the environment, the system
observes the discrete evolution $\phi(i)$ of the environment dynamics,
and uses the \ac{gim} to construct and update a hypothesized
environment model $A_2^{(i)}$. Based on the environment model, the
system constructs a hypothesis (model) $\mathcal{G}^{(i)}$ capturing
how the ``game'' between itself and the environment is played, and
uses this model to devise a winning strategy (control law)
$\mathsf{WS}_1^\ast$. As the environment model converges
asymptotically to the true dynamics $A_2$, the winning strategy
becomes increasingly more effective. In the limit, the system is
guaranteed to win the game.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering \subfigure[An overview of the architecture]{
\label{fig:hybrid-learning}
\includegraphics[width=3in]{hybrid_learning}}
\subfigure[Learning and planning with grammatical inference module
at the higher level.]{\label{fig:learning}
\includegraphics[width=3in]{learning}
}
\caption{The architecture of hybrid agentic planning and control with a
module for grammatical inference.}
\end{figure}
Definitions~\ref{def:turnbased-prod}, \ref{def:gamefsa} and
Theorem~\ref{thm:simulation} establish how a game can be constructed
from the system abstractions of the (hybrid) system dynamics ($A_1$),
the environmental dynamics ($A_2$), and the task specification
($\mathcal{A}_s$). Theorem~\ref{thm:win} proves that the hybrid agent
can determine whether a winning strategy exists, and if it does, what
it is. Grammatical inference methods yield
increasingly accurate models of environmental dynamics (assuming
adequate data presentations and reachable targets), and permit the
system to converge to an accurate model of its environment. Discrete
backward reachability calculations can be executed in a
straightforward manner and can allow the determination of winning
strategies (symbolic control laws), whenever the latter exist.
The contribution of this paper is two-fold:
\begin{inparaenum}[(i)]
\item it integrates \ac{gim}s into hybrid systems for the purpose of
identifying the discrete dynamics of the environment that evolve and
possibly interact with the system, and
\item it uses the theory of games on infinite words for symbolic control synthesis,
and discrete abstractions which ensure implementation of the symbolic
plans on the concrete hybrid system.
\end{inparaenum}
In the paper, both elements are combined, but each element has merit
even in isolation. A hybrid system equipped with \ac{gim} is still
compatible with existing symbolic control synthesis methods (including
model checking). On the other hand, the abstractions methods we
utilize here---although requiring strong properties on the continuous
components dynamics of the hybrid system---offer discrete abstract
models which are weakly simulated by the concrete systems,
irrespectively of whether the latter include a \ac{gim} or not.
\subsection{Organization}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section
\ref{section:preliminaries} introduces the technical background,
the notation, and the models used. The type of hybrid systems
considered and their discrete abstractions are presented there.
In Section \ref{section:analysis}, we show how the control
problem can be formulated as a game and employ the concept of
the attractor in games
for control synthesis. Section \ref{section:GI} describes first how
a \ac{gim} can be used to identify asymptotically the dynamics of
the system's unknown and adversarial environment, and then how
this knowledge can be utilized in planning and control synthesis.
In Section \ref{refine}, we establish the properties of the
relation between the hybrid system and its discrete abstraction,
which ensure that the strategy devised based on the discrete model
is implementable on the concrete system. Section
\ref{section:example} illustrates the whole approach through an
example robotic application. In Section
\ref{section:conclusion} we discuss possible extensions of the
proposed methodology and compare our grammatical inference
to other learning methods.
\section{Technical Preliminaries}
\label{section:preliminaries}
\subsection{Languages and Grammatical Inference}
\label{section:grinf-pre}
Let $\Sigma$ denote a fixed, finite alphabet, and $\Sigma^n$,
$\Sigma^{\leq n}$, $\Sigma^*$, $\Sigma^\omega$ be sequences over this
alphabet of length $n$, of length less than or equal to $n$, of any
finite length, and of infinite length, respectively. The \emph{empty
string} is denoted $\lambda$, and the \emph{length of string} $w$ is
denoted $|w|$. A \emph{language} $L$ is a subset of $\Sigma^*$. A
string $u$ is a prefix (suffix) of a string $w$ if and only if there
exists a string $v$ such that $w=uv$ ($w=vu$). A prefix (suffix) of
length $k$ of a string $w$ is denoted $\mathsf{Pr}^{=k}(w)$
\big(respectively, $\mathsf{Sf}^{=k}(w)$\big) and a set of prefixes
(suffixes) of a string $w$ of length $\le k$ is denoted as
$\mathsf{Pr}^{\le k}(w)$ \big(respectively, $\mathsf{Sf}^{\le
k}(w)$\big). For $w=\sigma_1\sigma_2\cdots\sigma_n\in\Sigma^*$, the
\emph{shuffle ideal} of $w$ is defined as
$\mathsf{SI}(w):=\Sigma^*\sigma_1\Sigma^*\sigma_2\cdots
\Sigma^*\sigma_n\Sigma^*$. A string $u$ is a \emph{factor} of string
$w$ iff $\exists x,y\in\Sigma^*$ such that $w=xuy$. If in addition
$|u|=k$, then $u$ is a \emph{$k$-factor} of $w$. If $E$ is a set,
$2^E$ denotes the set of all subsets and $2_\mathsf{fin}^{E}$ the set
of all finite subsets of $E$. A \ac{sef} is a total function,
$\mathfrak{f} : \Sigma^\ast \rightarrow 2_\mathsf{fin}^E$. The
\emph{k-factor} function $\mathfrak{f}_k:\Sigma^*\rightarrow
2_\mathsf{fin}^{\Sigma^{\leq k}}$ maps a word to the set of
$k$-factors within it. If $|w|\le k$, $\mathfrak{f}_k(w):=\{w\}$,
otherwise $\mathfrak{f}_k(w):=\{u \mid u\mbox{ is a }k\mbox{-factor of
}w\}$. This function is extended to languages as
$\mathfrak{f}_k(L):=\bigcup_{w\in L} \mathfrak{f}_k(w)$.
A \ac{sa} is a tuple $A= \langle Q,\Sigma,T \rangle$ where $Q$ is the
set of states, $\Sigma$ is the set of alphabet and the transition
function is $ T: Q\times \Sigma \rightarrow Q$. The elements of
$\Sigma$ are referred to as \emph{actions} and are thought to initiate
transitions at a given state according to $T$. If $T(q_1,\sigma)=q_2$
(also written as $q_1\stackrel{\sigma}{\rightarrow} q_2$) with
$\sigma \in \Sigma$, then we say that $A$ \emph{takes action} $\sigma$
on $q_1$ and moves to $q_2$. The transition function is expanded
recursively in the usual way. Note by definition, these \ac{sa}s are
deterministic in transition. For a (semi)automaton $A$, we define the
set-valued function $\Gamma:Q\rightarrow 2^\Sigma$ as
$\Gamma(q):=\{\sigma\in\Sigma\mid T(q,\sigma) \mbox{ is defined}\}$.
A \ac{fsa} is a tuple $\mathcal{A}= \langle A, I, F \rangle$ where
$A=\langle Q,\Sigma,T \rangle$ is a semiautomaton and $I,F\subseteq Q$
are the initial and final states, respectively. The language of a
\ac{fsa} is $L(\mathcal{A}):=\{w\mid T(I,w)\cap F\neq\emptyset
\}$. For a regular language $L$, deterministic \ac{fsa}s recognizing
$L$ with the fewest states are called
\emph{canonical}.
For concreteness, let grammars of languages be constructed as the set
of possible Turing machines $\mathfrak{G}$. (Other kinds of grammars
are used later, but they are translatable into Turing machines.) The
language of a particular grammar $\mathfrak{G}$ is
$L(\mathfrak{G})$. A \emph{positive presentation} $\phi$ of a language
$L$ is a total function $\phi :\mathbb{N}\rightarrow L \cup\{\#\}$
($\#$ is a `pause'\footnote{Pause $\#$ can be understood as ``non
data.''}) such that for every $w\in L$, there exists $n \in
\mathbb{N}$ such that $\phi(n)=w$. With a small abuse of notation, a
presentation $\phi$ can also be understood as an infinite sequence
$\phi(1)\phi(2)\cdots$ containing every element of $L$.
Let $\phi[i]$ denote the initial finite sequence
$\phi(1)\phi(2)\ldots\phi(i)$. Let $\mathfrak{Seq}$ denote the set of
all finitely long initial portions of all possible presentations of
all possible languages (i.e., all $\phi[i]$ for all $i\in\mathbb{N}$
and for all $L$). The \emph{content} of $\phi[i]$, written
$\textsf{content}(\phi[i])$, is the set of the elements of the
sequence, less the pauses. A \emph{learner} (\emph{learning algorithm,
or \ac{gim}}) is a program that takes the first $i$ elements of a
presentation and returns a grammar as output:
$\mathfrak{Gim}:\mathfrak{Seq}\to \mathfrak{G}$. The grammar returned
by $\mathfrak{Gim}$ is the learner's \emph{hypothesis} of the
language. A learner $\mathfrak{Gim}$ \emph{identifies in the limit
from positive presentations} of a collection of languages
$\mathcal{L}$ if and only if for all $L\in\mathcal{L}$, for all
presentations $\phi$ of $L$, there exists a $n\in \mathbb{N}$ such
that for all $m\ge n$, $\mathfrak{Gim}(\phi_m) = \mathfrak{G}$ and
$L(\mathfrak{G})=L$ \cite{gold67}. A \emph{characteristic sample} $S$
for a language $L$ and a learner $\mathfrak{Gim}$ is a finite set of
strings belonging to $L$ such that for any $\phi[i]$ such that
$\mathsf{content}(\phi[i])=S$, it is the case that for all $j\ge i$,
$\mathfrak{Gim}(\phi[j])=\mathfrak{G}$ and $L(\mathfrak{G})=L$.
\begin{definition}[String extension grammar and languages \cite{Heinz-2010-SEL}]
Let $\mathfrak{f}$ be a \ac{sef}, and $E$ be a set. A \emph{string
extension grammar} $\mathfrak{G}$ is a finite subset of $E$. The
\emph{string extension language of grammar} $\mathfrak{G}$ is
$L_{\mathfrak{f}}(\mathfrak{G})=\{w\in \Sigma^\ast:
\mathfrak{f}(w)\subseteq \mathfrak{G}\}.$ The \emph{class of string
extension languages} is $ \mathcal{L}_{\mathfrak{f}}
:=\{L_{\mathfrak{f}}(\mathfrak{G}):\mathfrak{ G}\in
2_\mathsf{fin}^E\}.$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[String Extension Learner\cite{Heinz-2010-SEL}]
Let $\mathfrak{f}$ be a \ac{sef}. For all positive presentations
$\phi$, define $\mathfrak{Gim}_{\mathfrak{f}}$ as: $ \mathfrak{Gim}_{\mathfrak{f}}(\phi[i]) = \emptyset$
if $i=0$, and
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{Gim}_{\mathfrak{f}}(\phi[i]) :=\begin{cases}
\mathfrak{Gim}_{\mathfrak{f}}(\phi[i-1]) & \text{ if } \phi(i)=\# \\
\mathfrak{Gim}_{\mathfrak{f}}(\phi[i-1])\cup \mathfrak{f}(\phi[i]) & \text{ otherwise}\enspace.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
According to \cite{gold67}, the class of regular languages is not
identifiable in the limit from positive presentation, but string
extension languages---which are subclasses of regular languages---are.
\begin{theorem}[\!\!\cite{Heinz-2010-SEL}]
Learner $\mathfrak{Gim}_{\mathfrak{f}}$ identifies $\mathcal{L}_{\mathfrak{f}}$ in the limit.
\end{theorem}
Many attractive properties of
string extension learners are established in \cite{Koetzing2010}.
A language $L$ is Strictly $k$-Local ($\text{\ac{sl}}_k$)
\cite{McNaughtonPapert1971,Luca1980} iff there exists a finite set
$S\subseteq \mathfrak{f}_k(\rtimes \Sigma^*\ltimes)$, such that $L=\{
w\in\Sigma^* : \mathfrak{f}_k(\rtimes w\ltimes)\subseteq S\}$, where
$\rtimes, \ltimes$ are the symbols indicating the beginning and end of
a string, respectively. Obviously, Strictly $k$-Local languages are
string extension languages. The following theorem follows
immediately.
\begin{theorem}[\!\!\cite{GarciaEtAl1990}]
\label{thm:sl}
For every $k$, Strictly $k$-Local languages are identifiable in
the limit from positive presentations.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[\ac{sl}-Hierarchy \!\!\cite{RogersTalk}]
\label{thm:hierarchy}
$\text{ \ac{sl}}_1\subset \text{\ac{sl}}_2 \subset \ldots \subset
\text{\ac{sl}}_i\subset \text{\ac{sl}}_{i+1}\subset \ldots
\text{\ac{sl}}$.
\end{theorem}
The implication of Theorem \ref{thm:hierarchy} is that any Strictly
$k$-Local language can be described using a \ac{sl}$_j$ grammar, where
$j\ge k$. Section \ref{section:GI} illustrates this
argument with the help of an example.
\subsection{Hybrid Systems and Abstractions}
\label{sec:hds}
A \emph{hybrid system} $H$ is defined as a tuple of objects
(for a precise definition, see \cite{LygerosTAC}) that includes
the domains of continuous and discrete variables, the subsets of
initial states in those domains, the description of the family of
continuous dynamics parametrized by the discrete states, and rules
for resetting continuous and discrete states and switching between the
members of the family of continuous dynamics.
In this paper, we restrict our attention to a specific class of hybrid
systems where the continuous dynamics have specific (set) attractors
\cite{Tanner2012}. The shape and location of these attractors are assumed
dependent on a finite set of continuous parameters that are selected
as part of closing the outer control loop. Judicious selection of the
parameters activates a specific sequence of continuous and discrete
transitions, which in turn steers the hybrid system $H$ from a given initial
state to a final desired state. This class admits purely
discrete (predicate-based) abstractions.
We call these particular types of hybrid automata \emph{hybrid agents}, to distinguish
them from general cases.
\begin{definition}[Hybrid Agent]
\label{hybrid-agent}
The hybrid agent is a tuple:
$H_a= \langle { \mathcal{Z}, \Sigma_a, \iota, \mathcal{P}, \pi_i,
\mathcal{AP}, f_\sigma, \text{\textsc{Pre}} ,\text{\textsc{Post}},
s, T_a} \rangle$.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{Z} = {\cal X} \times {\bm L}$ is a set of
\emph{composite} (continuous and Boolean) states, where ${\cal X}
\subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is a compact set, and ${\bm L }\subseteq
\left\{{\bm{0,1}}\right\}^{r}$ where $r$ is the number of Boolean
states.
\item $\Sigma_a$ is a set of finite discrete states (\emph{control modes}).
\item $\iota: \Sigma_a \to \{1,\ldots,k\}$ is a function, indexing
the set of symbols in $\Sigma_a$
\item $\mathcal{P} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^m$ is a (column) vector of continuous parameters.
\item $\pi_i: \mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R}^{m_i}$, for
$i=1,\ldots,k$ is a finite set of canonical projections,
such that $p = ( \pi_1(p)^\mathsf{T}, \ldots, \pi_k(p)^\mathsf{T} )^\mathsf{T}$.
\item $\cal{AP}$ is a set of (logical) atomic propositions over
$\mathcal{Z}\times\mathcal{P}$, denoted
$\{\alpha_h(z,p)\}_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{AP}|}$. A set of
well-formed formulae $\mathsf{WFF}$ \cite{enderton} is
defined inductively as follows:
\begin{inparaenum}[(a)]
\item if $\alpha \in \mathcal{AP}$, then $\alpha \in \mathsf{WFF}$;
\item if $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are in $\mathsf{WFF}$, then
so are $\neg \alpha_1$ and $\alpha_1 \land \alpha_2$.
\end{inparaenum}
\item $f_\sigma$: $\mathcal{Z} \times {\cal{P}} \to T{\cal{X}}$
is a finite set of families of vector fields parametrized by
$p \in \mathcal{P}$, $\ell \in \bm L$ and $\sigma \in \Sigma$,
with respect to which $\mathcal{X}$ is positively
invariant. These vector fields have limit sets\footnote{The
compactness and invariance of $\mathcal{X}$ guarantee the
existence of attractive, compact and invariant limit sets
\cite{khalil}.} parametrized by $p$ and $\sigma$, denoted
$L^+(p,\sigma)$.
\item $\text{\textsc{Pre}}$: $\Sigma_a \to \mathsf{WFF}$
maps a discrete state to a formula that needs to be satisfied whenever
$H_a$ switches to discrete state $\sigma$ from any other state.
When composite state $z$ and parameter vector $p$ satisfy this formula
we write $(z,p) \models \text{\textsc{Pre}}(\sigma)$.
\item $\text{\textsc{Post}}$: $\Sigma_a \to \mathsf{WFF}$ maps a
discrete location to a formula that is satisfied when the
trajectories of $f_\sigma$ reach an
$\epsilon$-neighborhood\footnote{Written $L^+(p,\sigma) \oplus
\mathcal{B}_\varepsilon$, where $\oplus$ denotes the Minkovski
(set) sum and $\cal B_\varepsilon$ is the open ball of radius
$\varepsilon$.} of their limit set. When composite state $z$ and
parameter vector $p$ satisfy this formula we write $(z,p) \models
\text{\textsc{Post}}(\sigma)$.
\item $s$: ${\cal Z} \times {\cal P} \rightarrow 2^{\cal P} $ is the reset
map for the parameters. It assigns to each pair of composite
state and parameter a subset of $\cal P$ which contains all
values to which the current value of $p \in \cal P$ can be reassigned to.
\item $T_a$: ${\cal Z} \times {\cal P}\times {\Sigma_a} \rightarrow {\cal
Z} \times {\cal P}\times {\Sigma_a} $ is the discrete state transition map, according
to which $\left(z,p,\sigma\right)\to \left(z,p',\sigma'\right)$ iff
$(z,p)\models \text{\textsc{Post}}(\sigma) $ and
$(z,p')\models \text{\textsc{Pre}}(\sigma')$ with $p' \in
s(z,p)$.
\end{itemize}
The \emph{configuration} of $H_a$ is denoted $h := [z,p,\sigma]$, and
for each discrete state, we define the following subsets of
$\mathcal{Z}\times \mathcal{P}$: $\overleftarrow{\sigma} := \{(z,p) :
(z,p) \models \text{\textsc{Pre}}(\sigma) \}$ and $
\overrightarrow{\sigma} := \{ (z,p) : (z,p) \models
\text{\textsc{Post}}(\sigma) \}$. A transition from $\sigma_i$ to
$\sigma_{i+1}$ (if any) is forced and occurs at the time instance when
the trajectory of $f_{\sigma_i} \left(x,\ell,p\right)$ hits a nonempty intersection
of a $\varepsilon$-neighborhood of its limit set and the region
of attraction of $\sigma_{i+1}$ parametrized by $p'$
($p'$ not necessarily equals $p$.) After a transition
$\left(z,p,\sigma\right)\to \left(z,p',\sigma'\right)$ occurs,
the composite state $z$ \emph{evolves} into
composite state $z'$ for which $(z',p') \models
\text{\textsc{Post}}(\sigma')$. The (non-instantaneous) evolution is
denoted $ z \stackrel{\sigma'[p']}{\hookrightarrow} z'$.
\end{definition}
We will use a form of predicate abstraction to obtain a coarse,
discrete representation of $H_a$. Our abstraction map is denoted $V_M
: \mathcal{Z} \times \mathcal{P} \to
\{\boldsymbol{0},\boldsymbol{1}\}^{|\mathcal{AP}|}$ and referred to as
the \emph{valuation map}:
\begin{definition}[Valuation map]
\label{def:vmap}
The valuation map $V_M$: ${\mathcal{Z} \times \cal P }\to {\cal V}
\subseteq \left\{\bm{1,0}\right\}^{|\cal{AP}|} $ is a function that
maps pairs of composite states and parameters, to a binary vector
$v\in \mathcal{V}$ of dimension $|\mathcal{AP}|$. The element at
position $i$ in $v$, denoted $v[i]$, is $\bm 1$ or $\bm 0$ if $
\alpha_i \in \mathcal{AP}$ is true or false, respectively, for a
particular pair $(z,p)$. We write $\alpha_i(z,p)=v[i]$, for $v \in
\cal V$.
\end{definition}
The purely discrete model that we use as an abstraction of $H_a$,
referred to as the \emph{induced transition system} is
defined in terms of the valuation map as follows.
\begin{definition}[Induced transition system]
\label{def:its}
A hybrid agent $H_a$ induces a semiautomaton $A(H_a) = \langle
Q,\Sigma, T\rangle$ in which
\begin{inparaenum}[(i)]\item $Q= V_M(\mathcal{Z}\times \mathcal{P})$
is a finite set of states; \item $\Sigma = \Sigma_a \cup
\{\tau_1,\ldots, \tau_m\}$, $m \le |Q\times Q|$ is a finite set of
labels; \item $T \subseteq Q\times \Sigma \times Q$ is a transition
relation with the following semantics:
$q\stackrel{\sigma}{\rightarrow}q' \in T$ iff either\end{inparaenum}
\begin{inparaenum}[(1)]
\item $\sigma \in \Sigma_a$ and
$\left(\exists p \right)\left(\forall z \in \{z\mid
V_M(z,p)=q\}\right)$ $\left(\forall z'
\in \{z'\mid (z',p) \models \text{\textsc{Post}}(\sigma)\} \right)$
$\left[(z,p) \models
\text{\textsc{Pre}} (\sigma), V_M(z',p)=q'\right]$, or
\item $\sigma \in \Sigma\setminus \Sigma_a$ and
$\left(\exists p
\right)$ $\left(\forall z \in \{z\mid V_M(z,p) =q \}\right)(\exists
p'\in s(z,p), \sigma'\in \Sigma_a) \left[V_M(z,p') = q',\,
(z,p')\models \text{\textsc{Pre}}(\sigma') \right]$.
\end{inparaenum}
\end{definition}
It will be shown in Section~\ref{refine} that $H_a$ and $A(H_a)$ are
linked through an equivalence relation -- \emph{observable (weakly)
simulation} relation. Broadly speaking, the sequences (strings in
${\Sigma_a}^\ast$) of discrete states which $H_a$ visits starting from
$[z,p,\sigma]$ can be matched by a word $w$ such that
$T\big(V_M(z,p),w\big)$ is defined in $A(H_a)$, and vice versa, modulo
symbols in $\Sigma \setminus \Sigma_a$ that are thought of as
\emph{silent}. When a \ac{sa} moves from state $q$ to state $q'$
through a series of consecutive transitions among which only one is
labeled with $\sigma \in \Sigma_a$ and all others in $\Sigma \setminus \Sigma_a$, then we say that the \ac{sa}
takes a \emph{composite} transition from $q$ to $q'$, labeled with
$\sigma$, and denoted $q \stackrel{\sigma}{\leadsto} q'$.
\begin{definition}[Weak (observable) simulation \cite{Faron96}]
Consider two (labeled) semiautomata over the same input
alphabet $\Sigma$, $A_1=\langle Q_1,\Sigma, \leadsto_1\rangle$
and $A_2=\langle Q_2,\Sigma,\leadsto_2\rangle$, and let
$\Sigma_\epsilon \subset \Sigma$ be a set of labels associated with
silent transitions. An
ordered binary relation $\mathfrak R$ on $Q_1 \times Q_2$ is a
\emph{weak (observable) simulation} if: \begin{inparaenum}[(i)]
\item $\mathfrak R$ is total,
i.e., for any $q_1 \in Q_1$ there exists $q_2 \in Q_2$ such that
$(q_1,q_2) \in \mathfrak{R}$, and \item for every ordered pair $ (q_1,q_2)
\in {\mathfrak R}$ for which there exists $q_1'$ such that
$q_1\stackrel{\sigma}{\leadsto_1} q_1' $, then
$\exists \; (q_1',q_2') \in \mathfrak R :
q_2\stackrel{\sigma}{\leadsto_2} q_2' $.
\end{inparaenum}
Then $A_2$ weakly simulates $A_1$ and we write
$A_2 \gtrsim A_1$.
\end{definition}
Task specifications for hybrid systems (and transition systems, by
extension) may be translated to a Kripke structure \cite{clarke} (see
\cite{Belta2007} for examples), which is basically a \ac{sa} with
marked initial states, equipped with a labeling function that maps a
state into a set of logic propositions that are true at that state.
In this paper we also specify final states, and allow the labeling
function to follow naturally from the semantics of the valuation map.
We thus obtain a \ac{fsa} $\mathcal{A}_s = \langle Q_s, \Sigma_s,T_s,
I_s, F_s \rangle$, where $I_s$ and $F_s$ denote
the subsets of initial and final states, respectively. Given the dynamic environment, a system \big($H_a$ or $A(H_a)$\big)
\emph{satisfies} the specification $\mathcal{A}_s$ if the interacting
behavior of the system and the environment forms a word that is
accepted in $\mathcal{A}_s$
\subsection{Games on Semiautomata}
Here, we follow for the most part the notation and terminology of
\cite[Chapter 4]{Pin}.
Let $A_1=\langle Q_1,\Sigma_1,T_1\rangle$ represents the dynamics of
player 1, and $A_2 = \langle Q_2,\Sigma_2, T_2\rangle$ those of player
2. We define the set $I_i \subseteq Q_i$ as the set of
\emph{legitimate initial states} of $A_i$, for $i=1,\,2$ respectively,
but we do not specify final states in these two \ac{sa}. The language
\emph{admissible} in $A_i$ is $\mathcal{L}(A_i)=\bigcup_{q_0\in I_i}
\bigcup_{q\in Q_i}\{w\mid T_i(q_0,w) =q\}$, which essentially includes
all possible sequences of actions that can be taken in $A_i$. Let
$\Lambda=\Sigma_1 \cup \Sigma_2$. Define an (infinite) \emph{game}
\cite{Pin} $\mathcal{G}(\Phi)$ on $\Lambda$ as a set $\Phi \subset
\Lambda^\omega$ of infinite strings consisted of symbols from the two
alphabets $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ taken in turns. A \emph{play} is
an infinite string $w = \sigma_1 \sigma_2 \cdots \in \Lambda^\omega$.
Players take turns with player 1 playing $\sigma_1$ first by default.
In this paper we assume that players can give up their turn and
``play" a generic (silent) symbol $\epsilon$, i.e.\ $\epsilon \in
\Sigma_i$ and $T_i(q,\epsilon) = q$, $\forall \,q \in Q_i$. A pair of
symbols $\sigma_{2i-1} \sigma_{2i}$ for $i = 1,\ldots$ denotes a
round, with any one of the two symbols being possibly equal to
$\epsilon$. We say that player 1 wins the game if $w \in \Phi$; if
not, then player 2 wins.
A \emph{strategy} for player $i$ in game $\mathcal{G}(\Phi)$ is a
function $\mathsf{S}_i: \Lambda^\ast \to \Sigma_i$. Player 1 (2)
\emph{follows} strategy $\mathsf{S}_1$ (respectively, $\mathsf{S}_2$)
in a play $w=\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \cdots$ if for all $n \ge 1$,
$\sigma_{2n-1} = \mathsf{S}_1(\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \cdots \sigma_{2n-2})$
\big(respectively, $\sigma_{2n} = \mathsf{S}_2(\sigma_1 \sigma_2
\cdots \sigma_{2n-1})$\big). A strategy for player 1 is a
\emph{winning strategy} $\mathsf{WS}_1$ if all strings $w = \sigma_1
\sigma_2 \cdots $ that satisfy $ \sigma_{2n-1} =
\mathsf{WS}_1(\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \cdots \sigma_{2n-2}),\, \forall n \ge
1$, belong in $\Phi$. Winning strategies for player 2 are defined
similarly. If one of the players has a winning strategy, then the game
is \emph{determined}.
\section{Game Theoretic Approach to Planning}
\label{section:analysis}
\subsection{Constructing the game}
Consider a hybrid agent having to satisfy a task specification, encoded in
a \ac{fsa} $\mathcal{A}_s$.
Assume that this agent is operating in an unknown environment.
In the worst case, this environment is controlled by an intelligent adversary
who has full knowledge of the agent's capabilities. The adversary is
trying to prevent the agent from achieving its objective. The behavior of the
environment is still rule-based, i.e.\ subject to some given dynamics, although
this dynamics is initially unknown to the agent.
Assume that the agent has been abstracted to a \ac{sa} $A_1$ (player
1) and the dynamics of the environment is similarly expressed in
another \ac{sa} $A_2$ (player 2). Without loss of generality, we
assume the alphabets of $A_1$ and $A_2$ are disjoint,
i.e.\ $\Sigma_1\ne \Sigma_2$. In this game, the agent is not allowed to
give up turns ($\epsilon \notin \Sigma_1$) but the adversary that
controls the environment can do so ($\epsilon \in \Sigma_2$). For
two-player turn-based games, the actions of one player may influence
the options of the other by forbidding the latter to initiate certain
transitions. To capture this interaction mechanism we define the
\emph{interaction functions} $U_i: Q_i\times Q_j \rightarrow
2^{\Sigma_j}, (i,j)\in\{(1,2),(2,1)\}$. An interaction function $U_i$
maps a given pair of states $(q_i,q_j)$ of players $i$ and $j$, to the
set of actions player $j$ is not allowed to initiate at state $q_j$.
We now define a \ac{sa} that abstractly captures the dynamics of interaction between
the two players, by means
of a new operation on \ac{sa} which we call the \emph{turn-based product}.
An intersection of the turn-based product with the task specification yields the
representation of the game and further allows us to compute the
strategy for the agent.
\begin{definition}[Turn-based product]
\label{def:turnbased-prod}
Given two \ac{sa}s for players $A_1 = \langle Q_1,\Sigma_1,T_1\rangle
$ and $A_2= \langle Q_2,\Sigma_2,T_2\rangle $ with the sets of
legitimate initial states $I_1, \, I_2$ and interacting functions
$U_1,\,U_2$, their turn-based product $P=\langle Q_p, \Sigma_1\cup \Sigma_2, T_p \rangle$ is
a \ac{sa} denoted $A_1 \circ A_2$, and is defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $Q_p = Q_1 \times Q_2 \times \left\{\bm 0, \bm 1\right\}$, where
the last component is a Boolean variable $c \in \left\{\bm 0, \bm
1\right\}$ denoting who's turn it is to play: $c=\bm 1$ for player
1, $c=\bm 0$ for player 2.
\item $T_p\big((q_1,q_2,c),\sigma\big) =(q_1', q_2, \bm 0)$ if
$c=\bm 1, \; q_1'= T_1(q_1,\sigma)$, with $\sigma \notin
U_2(q_2,q_1)$ and $T_p\big((q_1,q_2,c),\sigma\big)$
$=(q_1,q_2',\bm 1)$ if $c=\bm 0, \; q_2'= T_2(q_2,\sigma)$, with $\sigma \notin
U_1(q_1,q_2)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Assuming player 1 is the first one to make a move, the set of
legitimate initial states in $P$ is $I_1\times I_2\times \{\bm 1\}$
and the language \emph{admissible} in $P$ is $\mathcal{L}(P) =
\bigcup_{q_0 \in I_1\times I_2 \times \{\bm 1\}}\;\bigcup_{ q\in Q_p}
\left\{ w \mid T_p(q_0,w)=q\right\}, $ the set of all possible plays
between two players. Note that if one includes the silent action
$\epsilon$ in $\Sigma_i$ for $i=1,2$, the players may not necessarily
play in turns---as in the specific case of agent-environment
interaction considered here. The product operation is still
applicable as defined.
The turn-based product $P$ gives snapshots of different stages in a
game. It does not capture any of the game history that resulted in
this stage. Often, task specifications encoded in $\mathcal{A}_s$
involve a history of actions, and thus the winning conditions for
player 1 cannot be encoded in $P$ by simply marking some states as
final. We overcome the lack of memory in $P$ by taking its product
with $\mathcal{A}_s$. Taking the product is suggested by the fact
that player 1 can win the game (i.e.\ agent can satisfy the
specification) only if $L(\mathcal{A}_s)\cap \mathcal{L}(P) \ne \emptyset$. The technical complication is that the two
terms in this product are heterogeneous: one is a \ac{sa} and the
other is a \ac{fsa}. We resolve this by transforming the \ac{sa} into
a \ac{fsa} and applying the standard product operation; and the result
is what we call the \emph{game automaton}.
\begin{definition}[Game automaton]
\label{def:gamefsa}The game automaton is a \ac{fsa} defined as
$\mathcal{G}= \mathcal{P} \times \mathcal{A}_s = \langle Q, \Sigma,
T, Q_0,F \rangle$, where $\mathcal{A}_s = \langle
Q_s,\Sigma,T_s,I_s,F_s\rangle$ is a \ac{fsa} encoding the winning
conditions for player 1, and $\mathcal{P}$ is a \ac{fsa} obtained
from the turn-based product $P = A_1\circ A_2$ by defining the set
of initial states of $\mathcal{P}$ as the legitimate initial
states $I_1\times I_2 \times \{\bm 1\}$,
and marking all other states as final. The set of initial states
for $\mathcal{G}$ is defined as $Q_0 =\{ (q_1,q_2,\bm 1,q_{0s})\mid
q_1\in I_1, q_2 \in I_2,\; q_{0s} \in I_s \}$. The set of final
states for $\mathcal{G}$ is given by $F = \{ (q_1,q_2, \bm 0, q_s)
\mid q_s \in F_s\}$.
\end{definition}
It follows (from the fact that the language of $\mathcal{G}$ is
regular) that the game defined by $\mathcal{G}$ is a reachability game
\cite{Thomas2002}, and therefore
it is determined. Note that the final states of $\mathcal{G}$ are
exactly those in which player 1 wins the game. On \ac{fsa}
$\mathcal{G}$, we define the \emph{attractor} of $F$, denoted
$\mathsf{Attr}(F)$, which is the largest set of states $W\supseteq F$
in $\mathcal{G}$ from where player 1 can force the play into $F$. It
is defined recursively as follows. Let $W_0 = F$ and set
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:attractor}
W_{i+1} := W_i \cup \{ q \in Q \mid q = (q_1,q_2,\bm 1,q_s), \text{
and }
\exists \sigma \in \Gamma(q) : T(q,\sigma) \in W_i\} \\
\cup \{q \in Q \mid q=(q_1,q_2,\bm 0,q_s), \text{ and } \forall
\sigma \in \Gamma(q) :T(q,\sigma) \in W_i \}\enspace.
\end{multline}
The function $\rho: Q \to \mathbb{N}; \; \rho(q) \mapsto
\min\{i \ge 0 \mid q \in W_i\}$ is called the \emph{rank function} of the game.
Since $\mathcal{G}$ is finite, there exists the smallest $m\in \mathbb{N} $
such that $W_{m+1}=W_m$. Then $\mathsf{Attr}(F) = W_m$. Moreover,
because $\mathcal{G}$ is determined, the complement of
$\mathsf{Attr}(F)$ in $Q$ forms a \emph{trap} for player 1; it
contains all the states at which player 2 can prevent player 1 from
winning the game. $\mathsf{Attr}(F)$ can be computed in time
$\mathcal{O}(n_1+n_2)$ where $n_1=|Q|$ and $n_2$ is the number of
transitions in $\mathcal{G}$.
\subsection{Computing a winning strategy}
\label{section:winning}
The following statement is straightforward.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:win} Player 1 has a
winning strategy iff $ \mathsf{Attr}(F) \cap Q_0 \ne \emptyset$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $\mathsf{Attr}(F) \cap Q_0 \ne\emptyset$, the winning strategy of
player 1 can be defined as a map $\mathsf{WS}_1:Q \to
2^{\Sigma_1}$, so that for $q = (q_1,q_2,\bm 1,q_s)$, the image of
this map is
$\mathsf{WS}_1(q)=\{\sigma \mid T(q,\sigma)\in
\mathsf{Attr}(F)\}$. If the game starts at $q_0\in
\mathsf{Attr}(F) \cap Q_0 $, by exercising $\mathsf{WS}_1$, player 1
ensures that subsequent states are within its attractor.
\end{proof}
We refer to $\mathsf{Attr}(F) \cap Q_0$ as the set of \emph{winning
initial states} of $\mathcal{G}$. Notice that strategy
$\mathsf{WS}_1$ keeps player 1 in its attractor, ensuring that it can
win the game, but does not necessarily guide it into winning. To
compute an \emph{optimal} winning strategy---one that wins the game
for player 1 in the least number of turns---we partition $W_m$ into a
set of subsets $V_i$, $i=0,\ldots,m$ in the following way: let $V_0 =
W_0= F$ and set $V_i := W_i \setminus W_{i-1}$, for all $i \in
\{1,\ldots,m\}$. The sets $V_i$s partition the attractor into layers,
according to the rank of the states that are included. That is,
$\forall q \in V_i$, $\rho(q) = i$ and thus the $\{V_i\}_{i=1}^m$ partition is
the one induced by the ranking function. We can then prove the
following sequence of statements.
Once the game is in $\mathsf{Attr}(F)$, all the actions of player 2, and
some of player 1 strictly decrease the rank function:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm:Vprop}
For each $q\in V_{i+1}$, $i=0,\ldots,m-1$, if $c = \bm 1$, then
$\exists\; \sigma \in \Sigma_1 \cap \Gamma(q)$ such that
$T(q,\sigma) \in \mathsf{Attr}(F)$, it is $\rho\big(T(q,\sigma)\big)
= i$. If $c = \bm 0$, then $\forall \sigma \in \Sigma_2 \cap
\Gamma(q)$, such that $\rho\big(T(q,\sigma)\big) = i$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $q\in V_{i+1}$. According to \eqref{eq:attractor},
either \begin{inparaenum}[(a)] \item $c = \bm 1$ and so
$T(q,\sigma)\in W_i$ for some $\sigma \in \Gamma(q)$, or
\item $c = \bm 0$ and $T(q,\sigma)\in W_i$, $\forall\, \sigma \in
\Gamma(q)$ \end{inparaenum}. We show the argument for case (a)
when $c = \bm 1$ by contradiction: suppose there exists $k<i$, so
that $T(q,\sigma)\in V_k$---by construction \eqref{eq:attractor} we
already have $k\le i$. Then according to \eqref{eq:attractor}, $q$
belongs to $V_{k+1} $. But since the sets $V_i$ partition
$\mathsf{Attr}(F)$, $V_{k+1}$ and $V_{i+1}$ are disjoint. Therefore
$q$ cannot be in $V_{i+1}$ as assumed in the statement of the Lemma.
Thus, when $c = \bm 1$, all actions that enable the player to remain
in its attractor in fact move it only one (rank function value) step
closer to the winning set. A similar contradiction argument applies
to case (b) when $c = \bm 0$: Assume that all $\sigma \in \Sigma_2
\cap \Gamma(q)$ yield $T(q,\sigma) \in V_j$ for some $j < i$. Let
$k = \max_{q' \in T(q,\sigma)} \; \rho(q')$. Then $ i> k \ge j$,
which means that $k+1 < i+1$. In the same way we arrive at $q
\notin V_{i+1}$ which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Informally, actions of player 1 from $V_{i+1}$ cannot take the game
any closer to $F$ than $V_i
. This implies that the
rank of a state expresses the total number of turns in which player 1 can win the game from
that state.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:pathproperty}
For each $q\in V_i$, there exists at least one word $w\in
L(\mathcal{G})$, with $|w| = i$ such that $T(q,w)\in F$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We use induction, and we first prove the statement for $i=1$. For
each $q =\left(q_1,q_2,\bm 1,q_s\right)\in V_1$,
Lemma~\ref{lm:Vprop} suggests that at least one action of player 1
which keeps it in the attractor, actually sends it to $V_0 = F$. So
for $i=1$ the plays in which player 1 wins have length one. Now
suppose the statement holds for $i = n$; we will show that also
holds for $i=n+1$. According to Lemma \ref{lm:Vprop}, for each $q
\in V_{n+1}$, $\forall\; \sigma \in \Sigma_2 \cap \Gamma(q)$ (player 2 taking its
best action) or for at least one $\sigma \in \Sigma_1 \cap
\Gamma(q)$ (player 1 taking its best action) we will have
$T(q,\sigma)\in V_n $. In other words, if both players play their
best, the rank of the subsequent state in the game automaton will be
$n$. Inductively, we conclude the existence of a path of length $n$
in $\mathcal{G}$ starting at $q \in V_{n}$ and ending in $q' \in V_0
= F$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:optimal-moves}
Suppose $q_0= (q_1,q_2,\bm 1,q_{s0})$ and
that $\rho
(q_0) = k \le m$. Then player 1
can win the game in at most $k$ rounds following the strategy
$\mathsf{WS}^*_1$, defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:shortestws}
\mathsf{WS}_1^*(q)=\left\{\sigma
\mid T(q,\sigma) \in
V_{i-1}, \; q\in V_{i},
\; i\ge 1\right\}
\enspace.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Given a state $q = (q_1,q_2,\bm 1,q_s)\in V_i$, $\mathsf{WS}^*_1$
allows player 1 to force the game automaton to reach a state in $
V_{i-1}$ by picking action $\sigma^\ast$ such that
$T(q,\sigma^\ast)=q'$ where $q' \in V_{i-1}$
(Lemma~\ref{lm:Vprop}). At $q'$, $c = \bm 0$. Any action of player 2
takes the game automaton to a state $q''\in V_j$ for $j\le i-2$. In
fact, the best player 2 can do is to delay its defeat by selecting
an action $\sigma$ such that $j=i-2$ (Lemma~\ref{lm:Vprop}). An
inductive argument can now be used to complete the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Learning through Grammatical Inference}
\label{section:GI}
In Section~\ref{section:analysis} it was shown that the agent can
accomplish its task iff \begin{inparaenum}[(a)]
\item it has full knowledge of
the environment, and
\item the game starts at the winning initial state in
$\mathsf{Attr}(F)\cap Q_0$\end{inparaenum}. The problem to be
answered in this section is if the environment is (partially) unknown
but rule-governed, how the agent plans its actions to accomplish its
task. By assuming the language of the environment is \emph{learnable}
by some \ac{gim}, we employ a module of grammatical inference to solve
this problem.
\subsection{Overview}
The \emph{theory of mind} of an agent refers to the ability of the
agent to infer the behavior of its adversary and further its own
perception of model of the game
\cite{FrithFrith-2003,PremackWoodruff-1978}. In the context of this
paper, the agent initially has no prior knowledge of the capabilities
of its adversary and plans a strategy based on its own hypothesis for
the adversary. Therefore, although the agent makes moves which keep
it inside the \emph{hypothesized} attractor, in reality these moves might
take it outside the \emph{true} attractor. Once the agent has departed its true
attractor, then it is bound to fail since the adversary knows the true
nature of the game and can always prevent the agent from fulfilling
its task.
An agent equipped with a \ac{gim} is able to construct an increasingly
more accurate model of the behavior of its adversary through
consequent games (Fig.~\ref{fig:learning}). The expected result is
that as the agent refines the model it has for its environment and
updates its ``theory of mind,'' its planning efficacy increases. We
expect that after a sufficient number of games, the agent should be
able to devise strategies that enable it to fulfill its task
irrespective of how the adversary proceeds. This section presents the
algorithms for constructing and updating this model.
\subsection{Assumptions and Scope}
In the agent-environment game, the behavior of the unknown environment
becomes a positive presentation for the learner. The hypothesis
obtained by the learner is used for the agent to recompute
the game automaton and the attractor as described in
Section~\ref{section:analysis}. It is therefore guaranteed that the agent's
hypothesis of the unknown environment will eventually converge to the
true abstract model of the environment,
provided that \begin{inparaenum}[(i)]
\item the true model lies within the class of models inferable by the
learner from a positive presentation, and
\item the unknown environment's behavior suffices for a correct
inference to be made (for example if a characteristic sample for
the target language is observed). \end{inparaenum}
We make the following assumption on the structure of the unknown
discrete dynamics of the adversarial environment:
\begin{assumption}
The language admissible in the \ac{sa} $A_2$ of the adversarial
environment (player 2) is identifiable in the limit from
positive presentation.
\end{assumption}
Although the results we present extend to general classes of systems
generating string extension languages, for clarity of presentation we
will focus the remaining discussion on a particular subclass of string
extension languages, namely \emph{Strictly $k$-Local} languages
(\ac{sl}$_k$) \cite{Luca1980}, which has been defined in
Section~\ref{section:grinf-pre}.
\subsection{Identifying the Class of the Adversary's Behavior}
\label{subsec:characterizetheenv}
As suggested by Theorem \ref{thm:sl}, in order to identify the
behavior of the adversary, which is expressed in form of a language,
the agent must know whether this language is \ac{sl} and if it is, for
which $k$ in \ac{sl} hierarchy. We assume the information is provided
to the agent before the game starts. We employ the algorithm in
\cite{Caron1998} adapted for \ac{sa} to check whether a given
\ac{sa} admits a \ac{sl}
language.\footnote{This algorithm works with the graph representation
of a \ac{fsa} and therefore it is not necessary to designate the
initial states.} In what follows we provide a method for
determining the natural number $k$:
For some $k >0$, consider a (non)-canonical \ac{fsa} that accepts
$\Sigma^\ast$: $\mathcal{D}_k =\langle Q_D,\Sigma,T_D,\{\lambda\},
F_D \rangle$, where
\begin{inparaenum}[(i)]
\item $Q_D = \mathsf{Pr}^{\le k-1}(\Sigma^\ast)$;
\item $T_D(u,a)= \mathsf{Sf}^{= k-1}(ua)$ iff $|ua|\ge k-1$
and $ua$ otherwise;
\item $\lambda$ is the initial state, and \item $F_D=Q_D$ is the set
of final states (all states are final).
\end{inparaenum}
We refer to $\mathcal{D}_k$ as the $\text{\ac{sl}}_k$-\ac{fsa}
for $\Sigma^\ast$. It is shown \cite{Heinz-thesis} that for a
given a \ac{sl}$_k$ language with grammar $\mathfrak{G}$, a
(non)-canonical \ac{fsa} accepting $L(\mathfrak{G})$ can be obtained
by removing some transitions and the finality of some of the
states\footnote{Removing finality of a state $q$ in \ac{fsa}
$\mathcal{A}$ means to remove $q$ from the set of final states in
$\mathcal{A}$.} in $\mathcal{D}_k$. We call the \ac{fsa} of a
\ac{sl}$_k$ language $L(\mathfrak{G})$ obtained in this way, the
\ac{sl}$_k$-\ac{fsa} of $L(\mathfrak{G})$. Figure~\ref{fig:sl3}
shows a \ac{sl}$_3$-\ac{fsa} for $\Sigma^\ast$, with $\Sigma=
\{a,b\}$. Figure~\ref{fig:sl3fsa} shows another \ac{sl}$_3$ grammar
that generates the language given by the string extension grammar
$\mathfrak{G} = \{\rtimes aa, \rtimes ab, aab, aaa, aba,
ba\ltimes\}$. For example, $aaba \in L(\mathfrak{G})$ because
$\mathfrak{f}_{3}(\rtimes aaba \ltimes) = \{\rtimes aa, aab,
aba,ba\ltimes\} \subset \mathfrak{G}$. Yet $aababa \notin
L(\mathfrak{G})$ as $\mathfrak{f}_{3}(\rtimes aababa \ltimes) =
\{\rtimes aa, aab, aba,bab, ba\ltimes\} \nsubseteq \mathfrak{G}$, in
fact the $3$-factor $bab\notin \mathfrak{G}$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\subfigure[The (non)-canonical $\mathcal{D}_3$]{\label{fig:sl3}
\begin{minipage}{.45\textwidth}
\unitlength=4pt
\begin{picture}(30, 20)(-6,4)
\gasset{Nw=5,Nh=5,Nmr=2.5,curvedepth=0,loopdiam=3}
\thinlines
\node[Nmarks=ir,iangle=180,fangle=180](A0)(0,12){$\lambda$}
\node[Nmarks=r](A1)(10,8){$b$}
\node[Nmarks=r](A2)(10,16){$a$}
\node[Nmarks=r](A3)(20,21){$aa$}
\node[Nmarks=r](A4)(20,4){$bb$}
\node[Nmarks=r](A5)(30,16){$ab$}
\node[Nmarks=r](A6)(30,8){$ba$}
\drawedge(A0,A1){$b$}
\drawedge(A0,A2){$a$}
\drawedge(A2,A3){$a$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=-2](A2,A5){$b$}
\drawedge(A1,A4){$b$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=2](A1,A6){$a$}
\drawloop[loopangle=0](A3){$a$}
\drawloop[loopangle=0](A4){$b$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=2](A5,A6){$a$}
\drawedge(A6,A5){$b$}
\drawedge(A4,A6){$a$}
\drawedge(A3,A5){$b$}
\end{picture}
\vspace{0.2in}
\end{minipage}
\label{figure:D3}
}
\subfigure[\ac{sl}$_3$-\ac{fsa} for $L(\mathfrak{G})$]{\label{fig:sl3fsa}
\begin{minipage}{.45\textwidth}
\unitlength=4pt
\begin{picture}(30, 20)(-6,4)
\gasset{Nw=5,Nh=5,Nmr=2.5,curvedepth=0,loopdiam=3}
\thinlines
\node[Nmarks=i,iangle=180,fangle=180](A0)(0,12){$\lambda$}
\node(A2)(10,16){$a$}
\node(A3)(20,21){$aa$}
\node(A5)(30,16){$ab$}
\node[Nmarks=r](A6)(30,8){$ba$}
\node(A6)(30,8){$ba$}
\drawedge(A0,A2){$a$}
\drawedge(A2,A3){$a$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=-2](A2,A5){$b$}
\drawloop[loopangle=0](A3){$a$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=2](A5,A6){$a$}
\drawedge(A3,A5){$b$}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{The (non)-canonical \ac{fsa} $\mathcal{D}_3$ accepting
$\Sigma^\ast$ for $\Sigma = \{a,b\}$ (left) and the
\ac{sl}$_3$-\ac{fsa} obtained for $L(\mathfrak{G})$, where
$\mathfrak{G} = \{\rtimes aa, \rtimes ab, aab,aaa, aba,
ba\ltimes\}$, after removing transitions and the finality of some
states (right).}
\vspace*{-5ex}
\end{figure}
In a \ac{fsa}, we say $q\in Q$ is at level $i$ iff $i=\min \{|w|\mid
w\in \Sigma^\ast, T(q_0,w)=q\}$, where $q_0$ is an initial state. The
function $\gamma : Q\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ maps a state $q$ to its
level. Now we can state the following.
\begin{lemma}
If a canonical \ac{fsa} $\mathcal{C}= \langle Q_c,\Sigma, T_c,q_{0c},
F_c\rangle$ accepts a \ac{sl} language $L$ for some $k$ where $k$ is the
smallest number such that $L(\mathcal{C})\in \text{\ac{sl}}_k$, then $k \le
\max_{q\in F_c} \gamma(q) +1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathfrak{G}$ be a \ac{sl}$_k$ grammar that generates $L$.
Then we can generate a
(non)-canonical \ac{fsa} $\mathcal{B} = \langle Q_b,\Sigma, T_b, \{\lambda\},
F_b\rangle$ by removing transitions and finality of nodes from $\mathcal{D}_k$.
Let $q^\ast = \arg \max_{q\in F_c} \gamma(q)$ be a state in $\mathcal{C}$
furthest from the initial state, let $n = \gamma(q^\ast)$ be its level,
and $w = w_1w_2\cdots w_n$ be a word that brings $\mathcal{C}$ to
state $q^\ast = T(q_{0c},w)$. \ac{fsa}s $\mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{C}$
accept the same languages, so $w\in
L(\mathcal{C})$ iff $w\in L(\mathcal{B})$. In $\mathcal{B}$, however,
we can compute a $k$, because
$T_b(\lambda,w) = \mathsf{Sf}^{=k-1}(w)\in F_b$
with $k-1 \le n$, i.e.\ $k \le n+1$.
\end{proof}
Though we can only obtain an upper bound $k_{\max}=\max_{q\in F_c}
\gamma(q) +1$ on the smallest $k$ (in the worst case this bound is
$|Q_c|$), the hierarchy of \ac{sl} language class given by
Theorem~\ref{thm:hierarchy} guarantees that this upper bound
$k_{\max}$ is sufficient for us to obtain a correct
\ac{sl}$_{k_{\max}}$ grammar that generates the exact language
presented to the learner, irrespectively if this language can also be
generated by a \ac{sl}$_k$ grammar for some $k \le k_{\max}$. For example, for the
language accepted by the \ac{fsa} in Fig.~\ref{fig:sl3fsa}, we can
also obtain a \ac{sl}$_4$ grammar $\mathfrak{G}'= \left\{\rtimes a a
a, \rtimes a ba, \rtimes aab, aaba, aaab, aba\ltimes\right\}$ and it
can be verified that $L(\mathfrak{G}') = L(\mathfrak{G})$.
\subsection{Learning the Adversary's Dynamics}
\label{section:learning-the-sw}
Before the game starts, player 1 is informed that the behavior of its
adversary is a \ac{sl}$_k$ language for some known $k$ and the
adversary can always give up a turn, i.e. $\epsilon \in \Sigma_2$.
With this knowledge, player 1 builds a \ac{sl}$_k$-\ac{fsa} for
$\left\{\Sigma_2\setminus \{ \epsilon\} \right\}^\ast$. Then, by
unmarking initial and final states and adding a self-loop labeled
$\epsilon$ at each state, it obtains an initial model of its adversary
$A_2^{(0)} = \langle Q_2,\Sigma_2 ,T_2\rangle$.
In the course of game, player 1 (agent) records the continuous
sequence of actions of player 2 (the environment). This amounts to a
presentation $\phi$ of the form: $ \phi(0)= \lambda, \,
\phi(i+1)=\phi(i)\sigma,\, i\ge 1, i\in \mathbb{N},$ for some $\sigma
\in \Gamma\big(T(q_{0},w) \big)\cap \Sigma_2 \ne \emptyset$ where $q_0
\in Q_0$ and $w\!\downharpoonright_{\Sigma_2}\; =
\phi(i)$.\footnote{This is a map $\downharpoonright_{\Sigma_2} :
\Sigma^\ast \rightarrow \Sigma_2^\ast $. The image
$w\downharpoonright_{\Sigma_2}$ is the string after removing all
symbols in $w$ which are not in $\Sigma_2$.} The learning algorithm
is applied by player 1 to generate and refine the hypothesized model
of its adversary from the presentation $\phi$.
Since a \ac{fsa} for any \ac{sl}$_k$ grammar can be generated by
removing edges and finality of nodes in the \ac{sl}$_k$-\ac{fsa} for
$\Sigma^\ast$, then the \ac{sa} for player 2 can be obtained by just
removing edges in $A_2^{(0)}$. Due to this special property, we can
use an instrument with which the agent encodes new knowledge into the
hypothesized model for the adversary, namely, a \emph{switching
function} $\mathrm{sw}$, which operates on a \ac{sa} (or \ac{fsa})
and either blocks or allows certain transitions to take place:
$\mathrm{sw}: Q_2\times \Sigma_2 \to \{0,1\}$, so that for $q \in
Q_2$, $\sigma \in \Gamma(q)$ only if $\mathrm{sw}(q,\sigma) = 1$.
Consequently, at round $i+1$, the incorporation of new knowledge for
$A_2$ obtained at round $i$ redefines
$\mathrm{sw}$. We assume a naive agent that starts its interaction
with the environment believing that the latter is static (has no
dynamics). That hypothesis corresponds to having
$\mathrm{sw}^{(0)}(q,\sigma) = 0$, $\forall \sigma \in
\Sigma_2\setminus \{\epsilon\}$ and
$\mathrm{sw}^{(0)}(q,\epsilon)=1,\forall q\in Q_2$.
Note that $\phi(i)$ denotes the presentation up to round $i$. The
initialization of the game can be considered as a single round played
blindly by both players (without any strategy). Hence, if the game
starts with $\big((q_1,q_2,\bm 1) ,q_{0s}\big)$, it is equivalent to
have $\phi(1)= \sigma$, for which $T_2(\lambda,\sigma)=q_2$. Let
$\mathrm{sw}^{(i)}$ denote the refinement of $\mathrm{sw}$ made at
round $i$, suppose that at round $i+1$, the adversary plays
$\sigma'$. This suggests $\phi(i+1) = \phi(i) \sigma'$. Suppose $q_2 =
T_2(\lambda,\phi(i))$, then for all $q\in Q_2$ and
$\sigma\in\Sigma_2$, $\mathrm{sw}^{(i+1)}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:updatesw}
\mathrm{sw}^{(i+1)}(q,\sigma) = \begin{cases} \mathrm{sw}^{(i)}(q,\sigma)
&\text{if } (q,\sigma) \neq (q_2,\sigma') \\
1 & \text{if } (q,\sigma) = (q_2,\sigma')
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
meaning that the transition from $q_2$ on input $\sigma'$ in $A_2$ is
now enabled. With a small abuse of notation, we denote the pair
$\left(A_2^{(0)}, \mathrm{sw}^{(i)}\right) = A_2^{(i)}$, read as the
\ac{sa} $A_2^{(0)}$ with switching function
$\mathrm{sw}^{(i)}$. Pictorially, $A_2^{(i)}$ is the \ac{sa} obtained
from $A_2^{(0)}$ by trimming the set of transitions which are switched
off ($\mathrm{sw}(\cdot)=0$).
Correspondingly, the game automaton in the initial theory of mind of
the agent is constructed as $\mathcal{G}^{(0)} =\langle
\mathcal{P}^{(0)} \times \mathcal{A}_s\rangle$ where
$\mathcal{P}^{(0)}$ is the \ac{fsa} obtained by $P^{(0)}= A_1 \circ
A_2^{(0)}$ after setting $ I_1 \times I_2 \times \{\bm 1\}$ as the set
of legitimate initial states, where $I_2=\{q\mid
T_2(\lambda,\sigma)=q,\sigma\in \Sigma_2\setminus \{\epsilon\}\}$, and
all other states in $P^{(0)}$ as final. By the construction of game,
the switching function associated with $A_2^{(i)}$ can be extended
naturally to $\mathcal{G}^{(i)} =
\left(\mathcal{G}^{(0)},\mathrm{sw}^{(i)} \right)$ by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:extendsw}
\enspace \forall q=(q_1,q_2,\bm{0},q_s), \sigma \in \Sigma_2,
\mbox{sw}^{(i)} (q,\sigma) = 1 \text{ (or } 0)
\text{ in $\mathcal{G}^{(i)}$ iff } \mbox{sw}^{(i)}
(q_2,\sigma) = 1 \text{ (or } 0) \text{ in } A_2^{(i)} .
\end{equation}
With the extension of switching function, one is able to update the
game automaton without computing \emph{any} product during
runtime. This is because the structure of the game has essentially
been pre-compiled. This results in significant computational savings
during runtime, depending on the size of $A_2^{(0)}$.
This switching mechanism along with the extension from $A_2^{(i)}$ to
$\mathcal{G}^{(i)}$ can be applied to other classes of string
extension languages, in particular any class of languages describable
with \ac{fsa}s obtainable by removing edges and finality of states
from some deterministic \ac{fsa} accepting $\Sigma^\ast$.
\subsection{Symbolic Planning and Control}
With the theory of mind as developed in round $i$, and with the game
automaton at state $q$, the agent computes an optimal winning strategy
$\mathsf{WS}_1^\ast$ based on \eqref{eq:shortestws}, by setting $W_0 =
V_0 = F$ and iteratively evaluating \eqref{eq:attractor}, where
$\mathrm{sw}^{(i)}$ defined in $\mathcal{G}^{(i)}$ has to be taken
account of: for all $(q,\sigma) \in Q\times \Sigma$, if
$\mathrm{sw}^{(i)}(q,\sigma)=0$, then $\sigma \notin \Gamma(q)$. The
computation terminates when the following condition is satisfied:
\begin{align} \label{eq:termination}
\exists \, m \in \mathbb{N} :& & q \in W_m & & \lor & &
q \notin W_m = W_{m+1} \enspace.
\end{align}
When $q \in W_m$, $\mathsf{WS}_1^\ast$ can be computed at $q$. Then
based on Proposition~\ref{prop:optimal-moves}, the strategy ensures
victory in at most $m$ turns. The agent implements this strategy as
long as its theory of mind for the adversary remains valid, in other
words, no new transition has been switched on. In the absence of new
information, the plan computed is optimal and there is no need for
adjustment. If in the course of the game an action of the adversary,
which the current model cannot predict, is observed, then that model
is refined as described in Section~\ref{section:learning-the-sw}.
Once the new game automaton is available,
\eqref{eq:attractor}-\eqref{eq:shortestws} are recomputed, and
\eqref{eq:termination} is satisfied.
If instead $q \notin W_m = W_{m+1}$, then the agent thinks that $q \in
\mathsf{Attr}(F)^c$: the agent is in the trap of its adversary. If
the adversary plays its best, the game is lost. It should be noted
that this attractor is computed on the hypothesized game and may not be
the true attractor. Assuming that the adversary will indeed play
optimally, the agent loses its confidence in winning and resigns.
In our implementation, when the agent resigns the game is restarted at
a random initial state $q_0\in Q_0$, but with the agent
\emph{retaining} the knowledge it has previously obtained about its
adversary. The guaranteed asymptotic convergence of a string extension
learner ensures that in each subsequent game, the agent increases its
chances of winning when initialized at configurations from which
winning strategies exist. The adversary can always choose to prevent
the agent from learning by not providing new information, but by doing
so it compromises its own strategy.
The following section illustrates how the methodology outlined can be
implemented on a simple case study, and demonstrates the effectiveness
of the combination of planning with string extension learning. As it
turns out, the identification of the adversary's dynamics is quite
efficient in relation to the size of $A_2$.
\section{Refinement on Hybrid Dynamics}
\label{refine}
Section~\ref{section:GI} established a methodology based on which the agent
can concurrently learn and (re)plan an optimal strategy for achieving its objective,
in a partially known and adversarial environment. This section addresses the problem
of implementing the optimal strategy on the concrete dynamics of the hybrid
agent $H_a$ as given in Definition~\ref{hybrid-agent}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:pair}
Every transition labeled with $\tau \in \Sigma \setminus \Sigma_a$
must be followed by a transition labeled with some $\sigma \in \Sigma_a$,
i.e., every silent transition in $A(H_a)$ must be followed by an observable one.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume, without loss of generality that the $\tau$ transition
appears somewhere between two observable transitions $\sigma_1$,
$\sigma_2$ $\in \Sigma_a$. We will show that $\tau$ is the only
silent transition that can ``fit'' between $\sigma_1$ and
$\sigma_2$, in other words we can only have $q
\stackrel{\sigma_1}{\to} q_1 \stackrel{\tau}{\to} q_2
\stackrel{\sigma_2}{\to} q'$ for some $q$, $q_1$, $q_2$, and $q'$
$\in Q$. For that, note that by definition, $q$ must be such that
for all $(z,p)$ giving $V_M(z,p) = q$, $(z,p) \models
\text{\textsc{Pre}}(\sigma_1)$; similarly $q_1$ must be such that
for all $(z',p)$ giving $V_M(z',p) = q_1$ we should have $(z',p)
\models \text{\textsc{Post}}(\sigma_1)$. Now suppose that there is
another silent transition $\tau'$, in addition to $\tau$ between
$\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ and for the sake of argument assume that
it comes right after $\tau$: $q \stackrel{\sigma_1}{\to} q_1
\stackrel{\tau}{\to} q'' \stackrel{\tau'}{\to} q''' \cdots q_2
\stackrel{\sigma_2}{\to} q'$. With the $\tau$ transition following
$\sigma_1$ we have by definition that there exists a $p'$ such that
once the $\tau$ transition is completed it is $ (z',p') \models
\text{\textsc{Pre}}(\sigma')$ for some $\sigma'$ $\in \Sigma_a$.
Since $(z',p) \models \text{\textsc{Post}}(\sigma_1)$ and $ (z',p')
\models \text{\textsc{Pre}}(\sigma')$, we have by
Definition~\ref{hybrid-agent} that $H_a$ makes a transition from
$(z',p',\sigma_1)$ to $(z',p',\sigma')$, and then the continuous
component dynamics $f_{\sigma'}$ is activated yielding $z'
\stackrel{\sigma'[p']}{\hookrightarrow} z''$ for some $(z'',p')
\models \text{\textsc{Post}}(\sigma')$. This time, with $ (z',p')
\models \text{\textsc{Pre}}(\sigma')$ and $(z'',p') \models
\text{\textsc{Post}}(\sigma')$, it follows that there is a $\sigma'$
transition in $A(H_a)$ taking $q'' \stackrel{\sigma'}{\to} q'$, and
$\sigma' = \sigma_2$ because there cannot be more than two
observable transitions between $q$ and $q'$ by assumption.
Therefore, $\tau$ is the only silent transition that must have
occurred while $A(H_a)$ moved from $q$ to $q'$.
\end{proof}
Due to Proposition~\ref{prop:pair}, without loss of generality we will
assume that a composite transition consists of a silent transition followed
by an observable transition, $q \stackrel{\sigma}{\leadsto} q'$
$\Longleftrightarrow$ $q \stackrel{\tau}{\to} q'' \stackrel{\sigma}{\to} q'$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:simulation}
Let $\Sigma_\epsilon = \Sigma \setminus \Sigma_a$, the hybrid agent
$H_a$ weakly simulates its induced semiautomaton $A(H_a)$ ($H_a
\gtrsim A(H_a)$) in the sense that there exists an ordered total
binary relation $\mathfrak{R}$ such that whenever $(q,z) \in
\mathfrak{R}$ and $q \stackrel{\sigma}{\leadsto}q'$ for some $q' \in
Q$, then $\exists z'\in \mathcal{Z}:
z\stackrel{\sigma[p]}{\hookrightarrow}z'$ such that $ (q',z')\in
\mathfrak{R}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $(q,z) \in \mathfrak{R}$, then there exists $p^0 \in \mathcal{P}$
such that $V_M(z,p^0) = q$. In general, $p^0 \neq p$. Using the
convention adopted above for the composite transition, we write
$q
\stackrel{\sigma}{\leadsto} q'$ $\Longleftrightarrow$ $q
\stackrel{\tau}{\to} q'' \stackrel{\sigma}{\to} q'$ with $\sigma \in
\Sigma_a$ and $\tau \in \Sigma\setminus \Sigma_a$. The transition
$q \stackrel{\tau}{\to} q''$, by definition, implies that for all
$z$ such that $V_M(z,p^0) = q$, there exists $p\in s(z,p^0)$ and
$\sigma' \in \Sigma_a$ such that $V_M(z,p) = q''$ with $(z,p)
\models \text{\textsc{Pre}}(\sigma')$. With $q''
\stackrel{\sigma}{\to} q'$ assumed, we have by definition that for
all $z$ such that $V_M(z,p) = q''$ it should be $V_M(z',p) = q'$ for
all $z'$ satisfying $(z',p) \models \text{\textsc{Post}}(\sigma)$.
(Note that this is the same $p \in s(z,p^0)$ that appeared before,
because there can only be one silent transition before an observable
one and only silent transitions change the parameters.) From
Definition~\ref{hybrid-agent} we then have that $z
\stackrel{\sigma[p]}{\hookrightarrow} z'$, and $(z',q') \in
\mathfrak{R}$ because $V_M(z',p) = q'$.
\end{proof}
We have thus shown that whatever sequence of labels is observed in a
run of $A(H_a)$, a succession of continuous component dynamics with this same
sequence of subscript indices
can be activated in $H_a$. Thus, whatever strategy is devised in $A(H_a)$,
has a guaranteed implementation in the concrete dynamics of the hybrid
agent. The issue of selecting the parameters so that the implementation
is realized is not treated here. This subject is addressed, using slightly different
discrete models, in \cite{acc12}.
\section{Case Study}
\label{section:example}
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
To demonstrate the efficacy of our methodology, we consider a game,
played between a robot and an intelligent adversary. The purpose of
the robot (hybrid agent) is to visit all four rooms in the triangular
``apartment'' configuration of Fig.~\ref{fig:game}. The four rooms in
this triangular apartment are connected through six doors, which an
intelligent adversary can close almost at will, trying to prevent the
robot from achieving its goal. Table~\ref{tab:rules} shows three
possible rule regimes that the adversary could use. Initially the robot is
capable of distinguishing closed from open doors, but it does not know
which doors can be closed simultaneously. In fact, it assumes that
only the initially closed doors are ones that can be closed.
\begin{table}[h!]\normalsize
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ l l }
\toprule
Rules & Description \\
\midrule
\texttt{Opposite} & Only one pair of doors opposite to each other can be closed at any time:
\\
& $\{a,d\},\, \{a,e\},\, \{a,f\},\, \{b,f\},\,\{c,e\},\, \{e,f\}$ \\
\addlinespace[5pt]
\texttt{Adjacent} & Only one pair of doors adjacent to each other can be closed at any time:
\\
& $\{a,b\},\, \{a,c\},\, \{b,c\},\, \{b,d\},\, \{b,e\},\, \{c,d\},\,
\{c,f\},\, \{d,e\},\, \{d,f\}$ \\ \addlinespace[5pt]
\texttt{General} & Any pair of doors can be closed at any time. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Some possible rules for the adversary (controlling the doors): at each round,
the environment either keeps static or opens exactly one door in the
closed pair of doors and closes exactly one, which results in
another pair of closed doors.\label{tab:rules}}
\vspace{-5ex}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\subfigure[The triangle room game representation.]{
\label{fig:sketch}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{triangle_room.eps}}
\subfigure[A physical implementation of the game.]{
\label{fig:testbed}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{room_picture.eps}}
\hfill
\caption{The non-cooperative game used in this case study.
Figure~\ref{fig:sketch} is a graphical depiction of the triangular
apartment game, while Fig.~\ref{fig:testbed} shows a physical
realization of the scenario, with a \texttt{Khepera II} miniature
mobile robot in the role of the hybrid agent. The robot localizes
itself and observes which doors are closed (door closure implemented
manually using the yellow caution cones) through a
\textsc{vicon}\texttrademark~motion capture system. The grammatical
inference module and the strategy computation algorithm have been
implemented in python, which communicates with the control for the
robot (through Matlab{\texttrademark}) over a serial
link.\label{fig:game}}
\vspace*{-5ex}
\end{figure}
The \texttt{Khepera II}, manufactured by K-Team Inc., is a
differential-drive mobile robot, with two actuated wheels and
kinematics that are accurately represented by the equations of a
unicycle. Motion control is achieved through \textsc{pid} loops that
independently control either angular displacement or speed of the two
wheels. These \textsc{pid} loops can support the development of
mid-level motion planning controllers. For example, input-output
feedback linearization of the unicycle dynamics \cite{vijay-korea}
leads to a fully actuated reduced system of the form $\dot{q} = u$,
where the sequential composition flow-through approach of
\cite{conner} can be applied to produce controllers that steer the
robot from room $i$ to a neighboring room $j$. This same approach has
been used in \cite{waldo} to generate discrete abstractions for the
purpose of finding Waldo; details on how the sequential composition
approach can give rise to finite state automata abstractions are found
in \cite{conner-phd}.
For the case at hand, we can use the flow-through strategies
to generate potential field-based velocity controllers to realize
transitions from room $i$ to room $j$ in a way compatible to the
requirements on the continuous dynamics of the hybrid agent of
Definition~\ref{hybrid-agent}, that is, ensure that $\text{\textsc{Pre}}(\sigma)$
is positively invariant for $f_\sigma$,
and that trajectories converge to
$L^+(p,\sigma) \oplus \mathcal{B}_\varepsilon$ in finite time (see \cite{conner-phd}).
The latter set is in fact the formula for $\text{\textsc{Post}}(\sigma)$:
$x \in L^+(p,\sigma) \oplus \mathcal{B}_\varepsilon$.
In the context of the flow-through navigation strategy of
\cite{conner}, a transition from, say, room 1 to room 2 (see
Fig.~\ref{fig:game}) would involve a \emph{flow-through vector field}
\cite{conner} by which the robot exits the polygon outlining room 1
from the edge corresponding to door $a$ (slightly more sophisticated
behavior can be produced by concatenating the flow-through policy with
a \emph{convergent} \cite{conner} one that ``centers'' the robot in
room 2.)
The hybrid agent that is obtained by equipping the robot with these
flow-through policies can be defined as a tuple
$H_a= \langle { \mathcal{Z}, \Sigma_a, \iota, \mathcal{P}, \pi_i,
\mathcal{AP}, f_\sigma, \text{\textsc{Pre}} ,\text{\textsc{Post}}, s, T_a} \rangle$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{Z}$ is the triangular sector of $\mathbb{R}^2$ consisted of the
union of the areas of the four rooms.
\item $\Sigma_a = \{(1,2),\, (1,3), \,(1,4), \,(2,1), \,(2,3), \,(2,4), \,(3,1), \,(3,2),
\,(3,4), \,(4,1), \,(4,2), \,(4,3)\}$, with each element associated with a single flow-through
policy: $(i,j)$ denotes a flow-through policy from room $i$ to room $j$.
\item $\iota : \Sigma_a \to \{1,\, 2,\, 3,\, 4\}$ where we slightly abuse notation and
define $\iota$ not as a bijection but rather a surjection, where we abstract away the
room of origin and we maintain the destination, for simplicity.
\item $\pi_i = \pi = I$ (the identity), $\mathcal{P} = \mathcal{Z}$, and
$s(z,p) = \mathcal{P}$, $\forall (z,p) \in \mathcal{Z} \times \mathcal{P}$;
in this case we do not have to use parameters
explicitly---they are hard-wired in the flow-through policies.
\item $\mathcal{AP}=$ $\{\alpha_i: \text{ robot in room } i\}$, $i=1,2,3,4$.
\item $f_\sigma = K (X_\sigma - \dot{q})$, $K >0$, a simple proportional controller on velocity
intended to align the system's vector field with the flow-through field $X_\sigma$.
\item $\text{\textsc{Pre}}\big( (i,\cdot) \big) = \alpha_i$, $i \in
\{1,\ldots,4\}$ and $\text{\textsc{Post}}\big( (\cdot,j) \big) =
\alpha_j$, $j \in \{1,\ldots,4\}$.
\item $T_a$ following Definition~\ref{hybrid-agent}, once all other components
are defined.
\end{itemize}
One can verify by inspection when constructing $A(H_a)$, that the
first element of $\sigma = (i,j)$ is encoded in the label for the
discrete state, $\alpha_i$, from which the transition $\alpha_i
\stackrel{(i,j)}{\to} \alpha_j$. Thus, to simplify notation, we
change the label of a state from $\alpha_i$ to $i$, and the label of
the transition from $(i,j)$ to just $j$---the destination state. We
write $i \stackrel{j}{\to} j$ instead. Figure~\ref{fig:SAs} (left)
gives a graphical representation of $A(H_a)$ after the
state/transition relabeling, basically expressing the fact that with
all doors open, the robot can move from any room to any other room by
initiating the appropriate flow-through policy.
\subsection{Results}
Suppose the adversarial environment adheres to the \texttt{Opposite}
rule in Table~\ref{tab:rules}. The
\ac{sa} $A_1$ for the agent (player 1) and a fragment of \ac{sa} $A_2$
modeling the environment (player 2) are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:SAs}.\footnote{SAs $A_1$ and $A_2$ happen to be Myhill graphs,
but the analysis presented applies to general \ac{sa}s.}
By assigning $I_1 = Q_1$ and $I_2=Q_2$, the game
can start with any state in $Q_1\times Q_2\times \{\bm 1\}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{.3\textwidth}
\unitlength=4pt
\begin{picture}(20, 20)(0,-2)
\gasset{Nw=5,Nh=5,Nmr=2.5,ELside=r,curvedepth=0}
\thinlines
\node(A0)(0,13){$1$}
\node(A1)(13,13){$2$}
\node(A2)(13,0){$3$}
\node(A3)(0,0){$4$}
\drawedge[ELside=l](A0,A1){$2$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=-3](A1,A0){$1$}
\drawedge[ELpos=25,curvedepth=-1](A2,A0){$1$}
\drawedge[ELpos=25](A0,A2){$3$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=-3](A0,A3){$4$}
\drawedge[ELside=l](A3,A0){$1$}
\drawedge[ELside=l](A1,A2){$3$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=-3](A2,A1){$2$}
\drawedge[ELpos=25,curvedepth=-1](A1,A3){$4$}
\drawedge[ELpos=25](A3,A1){$2$}
\drawedge[ELside=l](A2,A3){$4$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=-3](A3,A2){$3$}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}\hspace{1cm}
\begin{minipage}{.5\textwidth}
\unitlength=4pt
\begin{picture}(50, 20)(0,0)
\gasset{Nw=5,Nh=5,Nmr=2.5,curvedepth=0,loopdiam=2} \thinlines
\node(A0)(0,8){$ad$} \node(A1)(20,8){$af$}
\node(A2)(40,16){$bf$} \node(A3)(40,0){$ef$}
\drawloop(A0){$\epsilon$} \drawloop(A1){$\epsilon$}
\drawloop[loopangle=0](A2){$\epsilon$}
\drawloop[loopangle=0](A3){$\epsilon$}
\node[Nframe=n](B)(-10,20){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n](B0)(10,0){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n](B2)(50,10){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n](B3)(50,5){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n](B4)(10,20){$\ldots$} \drawedge(A0,A1){$af$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=2](A1,A0){$ad$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=-3](A1,A3){$ef$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=4](A3,A1){$af$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=4](A1,A2){$bf$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=-3](A2,A1){$af$}
\drawedge[curvedepth=2](A2,A3){$ef$} \drawedge(A3,A2){$bf$}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A0,B0){} \drawedge[dash={1.0}0](B,A0){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A2,B2){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A3,B3){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](B4,A1){}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\caption{Semiautomata for the agent (left) and for a fragment of
the environment (right). In $A_1$, the states are the rooms and the transitions are labeled
with the rooms that the agent is to enter. For $A_2$, the states
represent the pairs of doors that are currently closed and a
transition $xy$ indicates the pair of doors $x,y$ are to be closed. \label{fig:SAs}}
\vspace*{-2ex}
\end{figure}
The goal of the agent in this example is to visit all four rooms (in
any order). Therefore, the specification can be described by the union of shuffle ideals of the permutations of $1234$. In this special case,
since the robot occupies one room when game starts, $\mathcal{A}_s=
\langle Q_s,\Sigma_s = \Sigma_1\cup \Sigma_2, T_s, I_s=\{1,2,3,4\},
F_s =\{1234\}\rangle$. A fragment of $\mathcal{A}_s$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:taskfsa}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{center}
\unitlength=4pt
\begin{picture}(60, 20)(10,0)
\gasset{Nw=5,Nh=5,Nmr=2.5,loopdiam=3,curvedepth=0}
\thinlines
\node[Nmarks=i](A1)(15,10){1}
\node(A13)(30,0){13}
\node(A12)(30,12){12}
\node(A134)(45,0){134}
\node(A123)(45,7){123}
\node(A124)(50,17){124}
\node[Nframe=n](B1)(20,0){$\ldots$}
\node[Nmarks=r,Nw=7](A1234)(60,7){1234}
\drawedge(A1,A13){3}
\drawedge(A1,A12){2}
\drawedge[curvedepth=2](A12,A124){4}
\drawedge(A12,A123){3}
\drawedge(A13,A134){4}
\drawedge(A13,A123){2}
\drawedge(A124,A1234){3}
\drawedge(A123,A1234){4}
\drawedge(A134,A1234){2}
\drawloop(A1){$x$,1}
\drawloop(A12){$x$,1,2}
\drawloop(A13){$x$,1,3}
\drawloop(A123){$x$,1,2,3}
\drawloop[loopangle=0](A134){$x$,1,3,4}
\drawloop[loopangle=0](A124){$x$,1,2,4}
\drawloop[loopangle=10](A1234){$x$,1,2,3,4}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A1,B1){}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Fragment of $\mathcal{A}_s = \langle Q_s,\Sigma_s =
\Sigma_1\cup \Sigma_2, T_s, I_s=\{1,2,3,4\}, F_s
=\{1234\}\rangle$, where $x =\Sigma_2$.}
\label{fig:taskfsa}
\vspace*{-5ex}
\end{figure}
The interaction functions follow from obvious physical constraints:
when the environment adversary closes a door, the agent cannot then move
through it. The interaction function $U_2(d_1d_2,r)$ gives
the set of rooms the agent cannot
access from room $r$ because doors $d_1$ and $d_2$ are closed.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:testbed}, for instance,
$U_2(ab,1)=\{2,3\}$. In this example, the agent cannot enforce any constraints on
the adversary's behavior, so $U_1(q)=\emptyset,\forall q\in Q_1\times Q_2 $.
Figure~\ref{fig:tbp} shows a fragment of $A_1\circ A_2$, while
a fragment of the game automaton $\mathcal{G}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:gameboard}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{center}
\unitlength=4pt
\begin{picture}(60, 25)(40,0)
\gasset{Nw=12,Nh=4,Nmr=2.5,loopdiam=3,curvedepth=0}
\node(A1)(40,16){$(1,ad,\bm1)$}
\node(A2)(56,10){$(4,ad,\bm0)$}
\node(A3)(56,20){$(3,ad,\bm0)$}
\node(A4)(76,20){$(3,af,\bm1)$}
\node(A5)(76,5){$(4,af,\bm1)$}
\node(A7)(92,24){$(2,af,\bm0)$}
\node(A8)(92,16){$(4,af,\bm0)$}
\node(A9)(92,8){$(1,af,\bm0)$}
\node(A10)(92,0){$(3,af,\bm0)$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](B2)(70,0){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](B3)(70,15){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](B7)(104,21){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](B8)(104,13){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](B9)(104,5){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](B10)(104,-3){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](D7)(104,27){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](D8)(104,19){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](D9)(104,11){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](D10)(104,3){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](C2)(65,15){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](C3)(49,25){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](C4)(69,25){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](C5)(77,15){$\ldots$}
\drawedge(A1,A2){$4$}
\drawedge(A1,A3){$3$}
\drawedge(A2,A5){$af$}
\drawedge(A3,A4){$af$}
\drawedge(A4,A9){$4$}
\drawedge(A4,A7){$1$}
\drawedge(A4,A8){$2$}
\drawedge(A5,A9){$1$}
\drawedge(A5,A10){$3$}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A2,B2){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A3,B3){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](C2,A2){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](C3,A3){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](C4,A4){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](C5,A5){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A7,B7){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A8,B8){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A9,B9){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A10,B10){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](D7,A7){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](D8,A8){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](D9,A9){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](D10,A10){}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Fragment of turn-based product $P=A_1\circ A_2 = \langle Q_p,\Sigma_1\cup\Sigma_2,T_p\rangle$.
State $(r,d_1d_2,c)$ means the agent is in room $r$, doors
$\{d_1,d_2\}$ are closed and the Boolean variable keeping track of whose turn it
is set to $c$.
\label{fig:tbp}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\unitlength=4pt
\vspace{-0.7in}
\begin{picture}(60, 45)(0,0)
\gasset{Nw=10,Nh=3,Nmr=2.5,loopdiam=3,curvedepth=0}
\node[Nmarks=i](A1)(0,16){$\scriptstyle 1,ad,\bm{1},1$}
\node(A2)(18,10){$\scriptstyle 4,ad,\bm{0},14$}
\node(A3)(18,20){$\scriptstyle 3,ad,\bm{0},13$}
\node(A4)(36,25){$\scriptstyle 3,af,\bm{1},13$}
\node(A5)(36,5){$\scriptstyle 4,af,\bm{1},14$}
\node(A6)(54,32){$\scriptstyle 1,af,\bm{0},13$}
\node[Nw=17](A7)(54,24){$\scriptstyle 2,af,\bm{0},123$}
\node[Nw=17](A8)(54,16){$\scriptstyle 4,af,\bm{0},124$}
\node[Nw=17](A9)(54,8){$\scriptstyle 1,af,\bm{0},14$}
\node[Nw=17](A10)(54,0){$\scriptstyle 3,af,\bm{0},134$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](B2)(27,5){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](B3)(27,15){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](B6)(67,29){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](B7)(67,21){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](B8)(67,13){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](B9)(67,5){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](B10)(67,-3){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](D6)(67,35){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](D7)(67,27){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](D8)(67,19){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](D9)(67,11){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](D10)(67,3){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](C2)(17,15){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](C3)(17,25){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](C4)(37,30){$\ldots$}
\node[Nframe=n,Nw=4,Nh=4](C5)(37,10){$\ldots$}
\drawedge(A1,A2){$\scriptstyle 4$}
\drawedge(A1,A3){$\scriptstyle 3$}
\drawedge[ELpos=60](A2,A5){$\scriptstyle af$}
\drawedge[ELpos=40](A3,A4){$\scriptstyle af$}
\drawedge(A4,A6){$\scriptstyle 1$}
\drawedge(A4,A7){$\scriptstyle 2$}
\drawedge(A4,A8){$\scriptstyle 4$}
\drawedge(A5,A9){$\scriptstyle 1$}
\drawedge(A5,A10){$\scriptstyle 3$}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A2,B2){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A3,B3){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A6,B6){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](C2,A2){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](C3,A3){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](C4,A4){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](C5,A5){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A6,B6){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A7,B7){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A8,B8){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A9,B9){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](A10,B10){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](D6,A6){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](D7,A7){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](D8,A8){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](D9,A9){}
\drawedge[dash={1.0}0](D10,A10){}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Fragment of the game automaton $\mathcal{G} =\langle Q,
\Sigma_1\cup\Sigma_2, T,Q_0,F\rangle $ for the door-robot game,
where $Q_0=\left\{(q_1,q_2,\bm 1, q_s)\mid q_1\in I_1, q_2\in I_2,
q_s=q_1\in \{1,2,3,4\}\right\}$ and $F =\left\{(q_1,q_2,\bm 0,
1234)\mid (q_1,q_2,\bm 0)\in Q_p\right\}$, note that upon
initialization of a game, the state of $A_1$ (the room occupied by
the robot) determines the choice of initial state in
$\mathcal{A}_s$ (the room visited by the robot.)
\label{fig:gameboard}}
\vspace*{-5ex}
\end{figure}
Let us show how Proposition~\ref{prop:optimal-moves} applies to this
case study. The winning set of states is $F= \{\big((q_1,q_2,\bm
0),1234\big)\in Q\mid (q_1,q_2,\bm 0)\in Q_p \}$; $\mathsf{Attr}(F)$ is
obtained by computing the fixed-point of \eqref{eq:attractor}. Due to
space limitations, we only give a winning path for the robot
according to the winning strategy $\mathsf{WS}^*_1$ with the initial
setting of the game in $Q_0$.
If the agent were to have complete knowledge of the game
automaton, it could compute the set of initial states from which
it has a winning strategy:
\[
Q_0 \cap
\mathsf{Attr}(F)= \big\{ (1,ad,\bm{1},1), (1,ce,\bm{1},1),
(2,ad,\bm{1},2), (2,bf,\bm{1},2), (4,ce,\bm{1},4),
(4,bf,\bm{1},4) \big\}.
\]
Hence, with complete game information, the robot can win the game
starting from initial conditions in $Q_0\cap \mathsf{Attr}(F)$; note that
$\frac{|Q_0\cap \mathsf{Attr}(F)|}{|Q_0|}$ makes up a mere
$25\%$ of all possible initial configurations. For instance, the
agent has no winning strategy if it starts in room
$3$.\footnote{Although the construction assumes the first move of the
robot is to select a room to occupy (because it begins in state 0),
we assume the game begins after the robot has been placed and the
closed doors have been selected.}
For the sake of argument, take $q_0 = (1,ad,\bm{1},1) \in \mathsf{Attr}(F)
\cap Q_0$. Since the rank of $q_0$ is $\rho(q_0)=7$, following $\mathsf{WS}^*_1$ of \eqref{eq:shortestws} the robot's fastest winning play is
\begin{multline*}
(1,ad,\bm{1},1)
\stackrel{4}{\rightarrow}
(4,ad,\bm{0},14)
\stackrel{ae}{\rightarrow}
(4,ae,\bm{1},14)
\stackrel{2}{\rightarrow}
(2,ae,\bm{0},124)
\stackrel{ce}{\rightarrow}\\
(2,ce,\bm{1},124)
\stackrel{1}{\rightarrow}
(1,ce,\bm{0},124)
\stackrel{ef}{\rightarrow}
(1,ef,\bm{1},124)
\stackrel{3}{\rightarrow}
(3,ef,\bm{0},1234)
\enspace.
\end{multline*}
The adversary's moves, $ae$, $ce$ and $ef$, are selected such that it
can slow down the process of winning of the robot as much as possible;
there is no move the environment can make to prevent the agent from
winning since the initial state is in the agent's attractor and the
agent has full knowledge of the game. Note that in the cases where
the game rules are described by \texttt{Adjacent} and \texttt{General}
regimes (see Table~\ref{tab:rules}), the robot cannot win no matter
which initial state is in because in both cases $\mathsf{Attr}(F) \cap
Q_0 = \emptyset$. In these game automata, the agent, even with perfect
knowledge of the behavior of the environment, can never win.
Let us show how a robot, which has no prior knowledge of the game rules
but is equipped with a \ac{gim}, can start winning the game after a
point when it has observed enough to construct a correct
model of its environment. As the first game starts, the agent
realizes that the environment is not static, but is rather expressed
by some (discrete) dynamical system, a \ac{sa} $A_2$. It assumes
(rightfully so in this case) that the language admissible in $A_2$ is
strictly 2-local. With these knowledge, the robot's initial hypothesis
of the environment $A_2^{(0)} = \left(\langle Q_2,\Sigma_2,T_2\rangle,
\mbox{sw}^{(0)}\right)$ is formulated in two
steps: \begin{inparaenum}[(i)]
\item obtain the $\text{\ac{sl}}_2$-\ac{fsa} for $
\left\{\Sigma_2\setminus \{\epsilon\}\right\}^\ast$ and assign
$\mbox{sw}^{(0)}(q,\sigma)= 1,\forall \sigma \in \Sigma_2\setminus
\{\epsilon\}$;
\item add self-loops
$T_2(q,\epsilon) = q$ and let $\mathrm{sw}^{(0)}(q,\epsilon)=1$ , $\forall q \in
Q_2$.
\end{inparaenum}
In every round, the agent does the best it can: it takes the action suggested by the strategy
$\mathsf{WS}_1^\ast$ constructed based on its its current theory of mind.
Each time it observes a new action on the part of its adversary, it
updates its theory of mind using \eqref{eq:updatesw}, recomputes
$\mathsf{WS}_1^\ast$ using \eqref{eq:shortestws},
and applies the new strategy in the following round. The agent may realize that
it has lost the game if it finds its current state out of the attractor computed based
on its most recent theory of mind. In this case, the agent resigns and starts a new
game from a random initial condition, keeping the model for the environment it
has built so far and improving it as it goes.
We set an upper limit to the number of games by
restricting the total number of turns played to be less than $n$.
The following simplified algorithm illustrates
the procedure.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{initial} Let $i=0$, the game hypothesis is
$\mathcal{G}^{(0)}$. The game starts with a random
$q_0 \in Q_0$.
\item \label{computemove} At the current state $q
=(q_1,q_2,\bm{1},q_s)$, if the number of turns exceeds the upper
limit $n$, the sequence of repeated games is terminated. Otherwise,
the robot computes $\mathsf{Attr}(F)$ based on $\mathcal{G}^{(i)}$
(note that it is not necessary to compute $\mathsf{Attr}(F)$ and
$\mathsf{WS}_1^\ast(q)$ as long as there is no update in
$\mathcal{G}^{(i)}$ from the previous round.) Then, according to
$\mathsf{Attr}(F)$ and \eqref{eq:termination}, the robot either
makes a move $\sigma \in \mathsf{WS}_1^\ast(q)$ or resigns. If a
move is made and $T(q,\sigma)\in F$, the robot wins. In the case of
either winning or resigning the game, the robot restarts the game at
some $q_0\in Q_0$ with a theory of mind $A_2^{(i)}$ and a
hypothesized game automaton $\mathcal{G}^{(i)}$; then its control
goes to Step~\ref{computemove}. Otherwise, it goes to Step
\ref{update}.
\item \label{update} The adversary takes some action. The robot observes this action
and determines whether to switch on a blocked transition. If a new
transition in $A_2^{(i)}$ is observed, it updates $A_2^{(i)}$ to
$A_2^{(i+1)}$. Then $\mathcal{G}^{(i)}$ is updated to
$\mathcal{G}^{(i+1)}$ according to \eqref{eq:extendsw}. Otherwise,
$A_2^{(i+1)}= A_2^{(i)}$ and
$\mathcal{G}^{(i+1)}=\mathcal{G}^{(i)}$. The robot sets $i=i+1$
and goes to Step \ref{computemove}.
\end{enumerate}
We can measure the efficiency of the learning algorithm by computing
the ratio between transitions that are switched on during the game sequence versus
the total number of enabled transitions in the true game automaton.
The convergence of learning is shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:convergeresult} and the results show that after 125 turns
including both robot's and environment's turns (approximately 42
games), the robot's model of the environment converges to the actual one.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\subfigure[\small The convergence of learning algorithm. The
figure shows the ratio of adversary transitions that
have been identified by the agent versus
the number of turns the two players have played. In just
125 turns the hybrid agent has full
knowledge of its adversary's
dynamics.]{
\label{fig:convergeresult}
\includegraphics[width=3in]{counts-turns}
}
\subfigure[\small Comparison results with three
types of the robot. For the case of ``no learning,'' the robot eventually
moves out of its attractor and gets
trapped.]{
\label{tbl:comparison}
\begin{tabular}{ l c c c c }
\toprule
{} & \small Num of games & \small Num of wins \\
\midrule
\small No learning & \small 300 & \small 0 \\
\small With learning & \small 300 & \small 79 \\
\small Full knowledge & \small 300 & \small 82\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace*{-5ex}
\end{figure}
Table~\ref{tbl:comparison} gives outcomes of repeated games in three
different scenarios for the robot: \begin{inparaenum}[(a)] \item
Full-Knowledge: the robot knows exactly the model of the
environment; \item No Learning: the robot has no knowledge of, and
no way of identifying the environment dynamics, and \item Learning:
the robot starts without prior knowledge of environment dynamics but
utilizes a \ac{gim}.
\end{inparaenum}
The initial conditions for the game are chosen randomly.
In the absence of prior information about the environment
dynamics, and without any process for identifying it, the robot cannot win:
in 300 games, it scores no victories. If it had full knowledge
of this dynamics, it would have been able to win 82 out of the 300
times it played the game, a percentage of $27\%$, which is close to
the theoretical value of $25\%$. A robot starting with no prior
knowledge but uses its \ac{gim} performs just as well (reaching a win
ratio of $26\%$) as one with full knowledge. In
fact, as Fig.~\ref{fig:convergeresult} suggests, the robot has
recovered the performance of an ``all-knowing'' agent in less than
15\% ($\frac{42}{300}$) of the number of games played repetitively
used in Table~\ref{tbl:comparison}. We demonstrate the planning and
control of the robot using KiKS
simulation environment in
Matlab{\texttrademark}.\footnote{A simulation video is available at
\url{http://research.me.udel.edu/~btanner/Project_figs/newgame.mp4}.}
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}
\label{section:conclusion}
This paper shows how the use of grammatical inference in robotic
planning and control allows an agent to perform a task in an unknown
and adversarial environment. Within a game-theoretic framework, it is
shown that an agent can start from an incomplete model of its
environment and iteratively update that model via a string extension
learner applied to the language of its adversary's turns in the game,
to ultimately converge on the correct model. Its success is
guaranteed provided that the language being learned is in the class of
languages that can be inferred from a positive presentation and the
characteristic sample can be observed. This method leads to more
effective planning, since the agent will win the game if it is
possible for it to do so. Our primary contribution is thus a
demonstration of how grammatical inference and game theory can be
incorporated in symbolic planning and control of a class of hybrid systems
with convergent closed loop continuous dynamics.
The architecture (framework) we propose is universal and can be seen
as being composed of two distinct blocks: Control synthesis and
Learning. The contents of these blocks can vary according to the task
in consideration and the target model to be learned. The current task
is a reachability problem, and hence we utilize algorithms for
computing a winning strategy in reachability games to synthesize
symbolic controllers. However, there is nothing inherent in the
architecture that prevents synthesis of the control using winning
strategies of other types of games, such as B\"uchi
games\cite{Mazala2001,Chatterjee2006}. Similarly, as in this paper the
rules of the environment are encoded in strictly $k$-local grammar,
the learning module operates on string extension languages. However,
any language that is identifiable from positive presentation can be
considered. The main difference compared to our learning module
and other machine learning methods---such as reinforcement learning
and Bayesian inference---is that we take advantage of prior knowledge
about the structure of the hypothesis space. This assumption enables
the development of faster and more efficient learning algorithms.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Inflation~\cite{inflation}, the dominant paradigm of the early universe, successfully predicts the statistics of the primordial perturbations, within the observational limits seen today. However many fundamental questions remain, about the form of the inflation Lagrangian, how many fields were involved, etc. The upcoming large gains in sensitivity mean that there is a realistic chance to provide definite answers to some of them. In particular, non-Gaussianity contains far more information than the power spectrum. Non-Gaussianity is most commonly parametrised through the bispectrum and for a particular shape (e.g.~local or equilateral) all information is then contained in a single amplitude, ${f_{\rm NL}}$~\cite{Komatsu:2001rj}. However, just as is the case for the power spectrum, it is rather natural for ${f_{\rm NL}}$ to be scale dependent. This scale dependence is not strongly constrained and therefore could even be much stronger. Provided that the fiducial value of ${f_{\rm NL}}$ is large enough, there is a realistic chance for the Planck satellite to simultaneously provide the first measurement of both ${f_{\rm NL}}$ and its scale dependence parametrised by ${n_{f_{\rm NL}}}$ in the near future.
One of the aims of early universe physics is to test fundamental theories at far higher energy scales than can ever be reached by terrestrial experiment. High energy theories such as supersymmetry or string theory typically predict that there are multiple scalar fields, and that the kinetic term involves a non-trivial field metric determined by e.g. K\"ahler potential~\cite{Nilles:1983ge}. This field metric affects observable parameters but this topic has not been very extensively studied. Most previous work was restricted to the power spectrum, i.e.~to linear perturbations. In this case it was shown that the field metric gives rise to a new term in the spectral index which may easily be as large as the usual slow-roll terms \cite{Sasaki:1995aw,Nakamura:1996da,Gong:2002cx}. Only very recently the first detailed study of the bispectrum has been made, following the direction of~\cite{Gong:2011uw}, in the general case by Elliston et al.~\cite{Elliston:2012uy}. They provided covariant formulae for the bispectrum of the field fluctuations at horizon crossing and extended the $\delta N$ formalism~\cite{Sasaki:1995aw,Nakamura:1996da,Gong:2002cx,Starobinsky:1986fxa} to provide a generalisation of the well-known $\delta N$ result for the trivial field space metric~\cite{Lyth:2005fi} to a curved one. There have been previous studies of non-Gaussianity from a curved field space metric, but none so general or providing explicitly covariant results, see for example~\cite{curvedspaceNGprevious}.
Over the last few years, it has become clear that the scale dependence of local ${f_{\rm NL}}$ is also a sensitive probe of early universe physics, and that observations are sensitive to it. Often the scale dependence, ${n_{f_{\rm NL}}}$, is of the same magnitude as the spectral index $n_{\cal R}-1$, and in some models it may be much larger, for example the self-interacting curvaton scenario~\cite{intcurvaton}. Non-Gaussianity may also change rapidly over a short range of scales from being zero on large scales to large on smaller scales~\cite{Riotto:2010nh}. Scale dependence of equilateral ${f_{\rm NL}}$ was first considered in~\cite{Chen:2005fe} and for the local model in~\cite{Byrnes:2008zy} (for the specific case of two-field hybrid inflation), with a more general formalism developed in~\cite{more-nfNL,Byrnes:2010ft}. Numerous studies of the scale dependence have been made for a large variety of models, for an incomplete selection see~\cite{scaledepfNL}. A general lesson is: any detection of primordial local non-Gaussianity is very valuable since it can rule out all single field models which predict a value of ${f_{\rm NL}}$ in the squeezed limit proportional to the spectral index~\cite{singlefieldconsistency} (see however~\cite{Ganc:2012ae}), but for most models in which ${f_{\rm NL}}$ can be large its amplitude can be tuned. Therefore a further observable, either the trispectrum or the scale dependence of ${f_{\rm NL}}$, will still be required to help discriminate between the large number of models. In this paper we will always focus on the local model of non-Gaussianity.
Sefussati et al. have forecasted that for (local) non-Gaussianity, Planck could reach a sensitivity of $\sigma_{{n_{f_{\rm NL}}}}\sim0.1$ for a fiducial value of ${f_{\rm NL}}=50$~\cite{Sefusatti:2009xu}. This is not much larger than the currently measured central value for the deviation of the spectral index from scale invariance, $n_{\cal R}-1\sim-0.04$~\cite{Komatsu:2010fb}, and shows that there is a real possibility that Planck is able to measure both ${f_{\rm NL}}$ and ${n_{f_{\rm NL}}}$ together, provided that the fiducial values are large enough. Numerous other forecasts have been made especially for surveys including large scale structure (LSS) data~\cite{runningfNL-LSS} and of course the tightest constraints may be expected to come from combining the cosmic microwave background and LSS data~\cite{Becker:2012yr}. This is a topical field and very recently the first real constraints on ${n_{f_{\rm NL}}}$ have been made in~\cite{Becker:2012je} (see also \cite{runningfNL-CMB}).
This article is structured as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:evolution} we study the evolution of the perturbations and rederive the spectral index of the power spectrum as a warm up. In Section~\ref{sec:bispectrum} we derive a general formula for the scale-dependence of ${f_{\rm NL}}$, the main result of our paper, and we check our result by showing that it reduces to the known result in the case of a trivial field space metric. Finally we conclude in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Evolution of field fluctuations}
\label{sec:evolution}
We study a period of inflation driven by an arbitrary number of scalar fields, labeled with indices $a,b,c,\cdots$, with Lagrangian density
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}=-\frac12 \gamma_{ab}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi^a\partial_{\nu}\phi^b-V\,,
\end{equation}
where $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the usual space-time metric, and $\gamma_{ab}$ is the field metric, which is a function of the field values. In the case of a trivial field space metric, $\gamma_{ab}=\delta_{ab}$. The potential $V$ is also an arbitrary function of field values, except that we assume that it is sufficiently flat so that we may use the slow-roll approximation around the time of horizon crossing.
We take $t_i$ to be a fixed, pivot time shortly after all the modes of observational interest have crossed the horizon~\cite{Sasaki:1995aw}, while $t_0<t_i$ is the horizon crossing time of a certain mode $k=(aH)_0$, and hence $k$ dependent. Hence for each mode we find the number of $e$-folds between $t_0$ and $t_i$,
\begin{equation}
\Delta{N}_k = \log\left(\frac{a_i}{a_0}\right) \approx \log\left[\frac{(aH)_i}{k}\right] > 0 \, .
\end{equation}
This situation is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:deltaN}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(300,180)(0,0)
\Line(0,170)(75,30)
\Line(160,30)(160,170)
\Photon(280,30)(280,170){2}{5}
\Text(78,15)[]{\Large $N_0$}
\Text(160,15)[]{\Large $N_i$}
\Text(282,15)[]{\Large $N_f$}
\SetColor{Red}
\LongArrow(45,90)(157,90)
\LongArrow(157,90)(45,90)
\Text(100,105)[]{\Large $\Delta{N}_k$}
\SetColor{Blue}
\LongArrow(165,35)(275,35)
\LongArrow(165,68)(275,68)
\LongArrow(165,100)(275,100)
\LongArrow(165,132)(275,132)
\LongArrow(165,165)(275,165)
\end{picture}
\caption{Schematic display of how we use the $\delta N$ formalism. $N_0$ is the horizon crossing time of a mode, while $N_i$ is the fixed ``initial'' time, which we choose to be shortly after all modes of observational interest have crossed the horizon and hence is independent of $k$. $\Delta N_k$ is the number of $e$-foldings between these two times, which obviously depends on $k$. The final time, which we assume to be after all isocurvature modes have decayed and the curvature perturbation is conserved, is denoted by $N_f$. The two early times, $N_0$ and $N_i$ are defined on spatially flat hypersurfaces, while the final surface at $N_f$ is comoving~\cite{Sasaki:1995aw,deltaNetc}.}
\label{fig:deltaN}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
An important point to notice, in order to describe the field fluctuation on the flat slices $\delta\phi^a \equiv \phi^a(t,\mathbi{x})-\phi^a_0(t)$ covariantly, is that in general it is coordinate dependent and thus is not covariant. To keep covariance, we realise that $\phi^a$ and $\phi^a_0$ are uniquely connected by a geodesic parametrised by $\lambda$ with respect to the field space metric $\gamma_{ab}$. Then, $\delta\phi^a$ can be expressed, with $\phi^a|_{\lambda=0}$ being identified with the background field, in terms of the {\em vector} $Q^a \equiv d\phi^a/d\lambda|_{\lambda=0}$ which lives in the tangent space at $\phi^a_0$. That is,
\begin{equation}
\phi^a - \phi^a_0 \equiv \delta\phi^a = Q^a - \frac{1}{2}\Gamma^a_{bc}Q^bQ^c + \cdots \, .
\end{equation}
Thus any tensor quantity written in terms of $Q^a$ is manifestly covariant by construction~\cite{Gong:2011uw}. Then, on very large scales where the space-time metric is that of unperturbed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker one, using the $e$-folds $N$ as the time variable the equation of motion for $Q^a$ is~\cite{Elliston:2012uy}
\begin{align}\label{Qevolution}
D_N Q^a & = w^a{}_b Q^b +\frac12 w^a{}_{bc}Q^bQ^c+\cdots \, ,
\\
w_{ab} & = u_{(a;b)} + \frac{R_{c(ab)d}}{3}\frac{\dot\phi^c_0}{H}\frac{\dot\phi^d_0}{H} \, ,
\\
w_{a(bc)} & = u_{(a;bc)} + \frac{1}{3} \left[ R_{(a|de|b;c)}\frac{\dot\phi^d_0}{H}\frac{\dot\phi^e_0}{H} - 4R_{a(bc)d}\frac{\dot\phi^d_0}{H} \right] \, ,
\\
u_a & = -\frac{V_{;a}}{3H^2} \, ,
\end{align}
where $D_N$ is a covariant derivative with respect to $N$, $R^a{}_{bcd}V^b \equiv V^a{}_{;cd}-V^a{}_{;dc}$ and a semicolon denotes a covariant derivative with respect to $\gamma_{ab}$. The use of the parentheses around field indices implies symmetrisation, and any terms between vertical bars are excluded from the symmetrisation. This implies that
\begin{equation}\label{Qevolution2}
Q^a(N_i=N_0+\Delta N) = Q^a(N_0) + \Delta{N}_k \left( w^a{}_b Q^b + \frac{1}{2} w^a{}_{bc} Q^bQ^c + \cdots \right) + \cdots \, .
\end{equation}
Here as always in this text, we will work to leading order in $\Delta N$, as this is all we need in order to calculate the scale dependence of ${f_{\rm NL}}$. Note that $\Delta N$ itself is order of a few (i.e.~of order the range of scales which we can observe, which corresponds to 5 - 10 $e$-foldings), but all $(\Delta N)^2$ terms will be multiplied by a second order in slow-roll term, unless ${n_{f_{\rm NL}}}$ is not small, in which case our formalism breaks down. This is analogous to the situation with the power spectrum~\cite{Nakamura:1996da,Gong:2002cx}, one may only treat the spectral index as being small and slowly varying if its running is further suppressed.
From the covariantised version of the $\delta N$ formalism \cite{Elliston:2012uy},
the comoving curvature perturbation ${\cal R}$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{deltaNformula}
{\cal R}_k(t_f) = \delta{N} = N_a(t_i,t_f)Q_k^a(t_i) + \frac{1}{2}N_{ab}(t_i,t_f) \left[ Q^a(t_i)\star Q^b(t_i) \right]_k + \cdots \, ,
\end{equation}
where star denotes a convolution, and the final time $t_f$ is assumed to be after all the isocurvature perturbations have decayed and ${\cal R}$ is conserved, so we will drop it from future expressions. In the case of a trivial field space metric, the $\delta N$ coefficients follow from a direct Taylor series expansion, $N_a=\partial N/ \partial \phi^a$ and so on~\cite{Lyth:2005fi}. We will not consider the case of isocurvature modes which persist until today in this paper. Note that based on our definition of $t_i$, the derivatives of $N$ are scale independent. See Appendix~B of~\cite{Byrnes:2010ft} for more details, and alternative ways to use the $\delta N$ formalism.
Now with the $k$-dependent factor manifest in (\ref{Qevolution2}) that comes from the evolution from the horizon crossing, which is different for each mode $k$, to the initial time for the $\delta{N}$ formalism, we first recapitulate the calculation of the power spectrum ${\cal P}_{\cal R}$ and the spectral index $n_{\cal R}$.
For the power spectrum it is sufficient to work to linear order in $Q^a$ (in which case it reduces to $\delta\phi^a$). It is given by
\begin{align}
\left\langle {\cal R}_\mathbi{k}(t_f){\cal R}_\mathbi{q}(t_f) \right\rangle = & (2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}(\mathbi{k}+\mathbi{q}) \frac{2\pi^2}{k^3} {\cal P}_{\cal R}(k) = N_a(t_i)N_b(t_i) \left\langle Q_\mathbi{k}^a(t_i)Q_\mathbi{q}^b(t_i) \right\rangle \, .
\end{align}
Here, using (\ref{Qevolution2}) we can find
\begin{equation}\label{QQti-QQt0}
\left\langle Q_\mathbi{k}^a(t_i)Q_\mathbi{q}^b(t_i) \right\rangle = \left\langle Q_\mathbi{k}^a(t_0)Q_\mathbi{q}^b(t_0) \right\rangle + 2\Delta{N}_k w^a{}_c \left\langle Q_\mathbi{k}^b(t_0)Q_\mathbi{q}^c(t_0) \right\rangle \, ,
\end{equation}
where close to horizon crossing
\begin{equation}\label{QQ}
\left\langle Q_\mathbi{k}^aQ_\mathbi{q}^b \right\rangle = \frac{H^2}{2k^3} \delta^{(3)}(\mathbi{k}+\mathbi{q}) \left( \gamma^{ab} + \epsilon^{ab} \right) \, ,
\end{equation}
with $\epsilon^{ab}$ being first order in slow-roll and slowly varying~\cite{Sasaki:1995aw,Nakamura:1996da}, and can be found to arbitrary higher order in slow-roll using the Green's function approach~\cite{Gong:2002cx,greenfunctionsol}. Hence its derivative with respect to $\log k$ is second order in slow-roll. When taking the derivative of (\ref{QQ}) we need to take into account the scale dependence of $H^2(t_0)$ which gives rise to $-2\epsilon$ in the spectral index, but the covariant derivative of the metric is zero by definition, so this does not give rise to any scale dependence. Similarly for calculating the scale dependence, we may raise and lower indices using either $\gamma^{ab}(t_i)$ or $\gamma^{ab}(t_0)$ when working to the same level of precision. Finally notice that working to the same order, it is only necessary to specify the time dependence of background terms, and not those which are multiplied by $\Delta N$.
Hence we may straightforwardly calculate the spectral index from the above expressions, and the result is
\begin{equation}
n_{\cal R}-1 = \frac{D \log{\cal P}_{\cal R}}{d\log k} = -2\epsilon - 2\frac{N_aN_bw^{ab}}{N_cN^c} \, ,
\end{equation}
which agrees with the known result~\cite{Sasaki:1995aw}.
Notice that this result, together with the observational constraint on the spectral index does imply that at least the particular combinations of $R_{abcd}$ which appear through $w^{ab}$ in the expression for the spectral index must be small, barring a chance cancellation between this and another term. This provides some justification for our assumption that terms involving derivatives of the field metric should be slow-roll suppressed.
\section{Bispectrum and the running of ${f_{\rm NL}}$}
\label{sec:bispectrum}
The bispectrum of ${\cal R}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\left\langle {\cal R}_{\mathbi{k}_1}(t_f){\cal R}_{\mathbi{k}_2}(t_f){\cal R}_{\mathbi{k}_3}(t_f) \right\rangle \equiv (2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}(\mathbi{k}_1+\mathbi{k}_2+\mathbi{k}_3)B_{\cal R}(k_1,k_2,k_3) \, .
\end{equation}
We will make the usual assumption that the bispectrum due to the non-Gaussianity of the fields at horizon crossing~\cite{Elliston:2012uy} does not give rise to observable values of ${f_{\rm NL}}$, which may be the case for DBI fields and non-Bunch-Davies vacuum. This is generally the case~\cite{noNGcrossing}, although there can be exceptions if the third derivative of the potential is large~\cite{largeNGcrossing}. There is no analogous proof in the case of a non-trivial field metric, but since we are assuming the Riemann tensor is slow-roll suppressed this assumption is likely to remain valid, at least in the vast majority of cases.
From (\ref{deltaNformula}), the three point function consists of two terms,
\begin{align}\label{RRR}
\left\langle {\cal R}_{\mathbi{k}_1}(t_f){\cal R}_{\mathbi{k}_2}(t_f){\cal R}_{\mathbi{k}_3}(t_f) \right\rangle = & N_aN_bN_c \left\langle Q^a_{\mathbi{k}_1}Q^b_{\mathbi{k}_2}Q^c_{\mathbi{k}_3} \right\rangle + \frac{1}{2} \left\{ N_{ab}N_cN_d \left\langle \left[ Q^a\star Q^b \right]_{\mathbi{k}_1}Q^c_{\mathbi{k}_2}Q^d_{\mathbi{k}_3} \right\rangle + \text{2 perm} \right\} \, .
\end{align}
In the above, all terms on the right hand side (RHS) should be evaluated at $t_i$. We first deal with the first term on the RHS of (\ref{RRR}). Using (\ref{Qevolution2}) and (\ref{QQ}), we can easily find
\begin{align}
& N_a(t_i)N_b(t_i)N_c(t_i) \left\langle Q^a_{\mathbi{k}_1}(t_i)Q^b_{\mathbi{k}_2}(t_i)Q^c_{\mathbi{k}_3}(t_i) \right\rangle
\nonumber\\
& = N_a(t_i)N_b(t_i)N_c(t_i) \left\{ \frac{1}{2}\Delta{N}_{k_1}w^a{}_{de} \left\langle \left[ Q^d(t_0)\star Q^e(t_0) \right]_{\mathbi{k}_1}Q^b_{\mathbi{k}_2}(t_0)Q^c_{\mathbi{k}_3}(t_0) \right\rangle + \text{2 perm} \right\}
\nonumber\\
& = (2\pi)^3 \delta^{(3)}(\mathbi{k}_1+\mathbi{k}_2+\mathbi{k}_3) N_a(t_i)N_b(t_i)N_c(t_i) \frac{H^4(t_0)}{4k_1^3k_2^3k_3^3} w^{abc} \left( k_1^3\Delta{N}_{k_1} + \text{2 perm} \right) \, .
\end{align}
For the second term of the RHS of (\ref{RRR}), it is useful to use (\ref{QQti-QQt0}) so it follows that
\begin{align}
& \frac{1}{2} N_{ab}(t_i)N_c(t_i)N_d(t_i) \left\langle \left[ Q^a(t_i)\star Q^b(t_i) \right]_{\mathbi{k}_1}Q^c_{\mathbi{k}_2}(t_i)Q^d_{\mathbi{k}_3}(t_i) \right\rangle
\nonumber\\
& = (2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}(\mathbi{k}_1+\mathbi{k}_2+\mathbi{k}_3) N_{ab}(t_i)N_c(t_i)N_d(t_i) \frac{H^4(t_0)}{4k_1^3k_2^3} \left( \gamma^{ac}\gamma^{bd} + 2\Delta{N}_{k_1}w^{ac}\gamma^{bd} + 2\Delta{N}_{k_2}\gamma^{ac}w^{bd} \right) \, .
\end{align}
Putting both terms together, and specialising to an equilateral triangle, which is the only case we need to consider in order to calculate ${n_{f_{\rm NL}}}$ (for the justification see \cite{Byrnes:2010ft}), we find that ${f_{\rm NL}}$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{fNL}
\frac{6}{5}{f_{\rm NL}} = \frac{N_{ab}N^a N^b}{\left(N_cN^c\right)^2} \left[ 1 + \Delta{N}_k \left( \frac{N_dN_eN_fw^{def}}{N_{gh}N^gN^h} + 4\frac{N_{de}N^dN_fw^{ef}}{N_{gh}N^gN^h} - 4\frac{N_dN_ew^{de}}{N_gN^g} \right) \right] \, .
\end{equation}
Therefore ${n_{f_{\rm NL}}}$ is simply the term multiplying $\Delta{N}_k$ in (\ref{fNL}), i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{nfnl}
{n_{f_{\rm NL}}} \equiv \frac{1}{{f_{\rm NL}}}\frac{D{f_{\rm NL}}}{d\log{k}} = -\frac{N_aN_bN_cw^{abc}}{N_{de}N^dN^e}+4w^{ab} \left(\frac{N_aN_b}{N_dN^d} -\frac{N_{ac}N_bN^c}{N_{de}N^dN^e}\right) \, .
\end{equation}
This general formula for the observable ${n_{f_{\rm NL}}}$ is the main result of this paper. The first term in (\ref{nfnl}) is due to the non-linearity of the field fluctuations which are generated between the time $t_0$ and $t_i$, i.e.~the correlator $\langle \delta\phi^3(t_i)\rangle$. Meanwhile, the remaining term of (\ref{nfnl}) arises from the effect of multiple fields contributing to ${\cal R}$. Note that in the curved field space case, the effects of $\gamma^{ab}$ enter into both terms, which makes their separation less clear in this case than in (\ref{nfnl_flat}) below.
As can be read from the coefficients $w^{ab}$ and $w^{abc}$, naively ${n_{f_{\rm NL}}} = {\cal O}(\epsilon)$. However since the derivative term does not appear in the formula for the spectral index, it could be larger and its value is model dependent. It is possible to have a large value of ${n_{f_{\rm NL}}}$~\cite{Kaiser:2012ak}, which should be a sharp prediction of such a model. It is estimated that for a fiducial value of ${f_{\rm NL}}=50$, Planck can reach a sensitivity of $\Delta{n_{f_{\rm NL}}}=0.05$ depending on the sky coverage~\cite{Sefusatti:2009xu}.
As a check on our result (\ref{nfnl}), and to gain intuition, we demonstrate that our result reduces to the known expression in the case of a trivial field space metric. From~\cite{Byrnes:2010ft},
\begin{equation}\label{nfnl_flat}
n_{f_\mathrm{NL}}^\mathrm{(flat)} = - \frac{F^{(2)}_{abc}N^aN^bN^c}{N_{d}N_{e}N^{de}}+ 4 \left( 2\sqrt{\epsilon_a\epsilon_b} - \eta_{ab}
\right) \left( \frac{N^aN^b}{N^dN_d} - \frac{N^aN^b_{c}N^c}{N^dN_{de}N^e} \right)\, ,
\end{equation}
where we have defined $\epsilon_a = (V_{,a}/V)^2/2$, $\eta_{ab} = V_{,ab}/V$ and
\begin{equation}
F^{(2)}_{abc} = {\sqrt{2}}\left(-4\sqrt{\epsilon_a\epsilon_b\epsilon_c}+\eta_{ab}\sqrt{\epsilon_c}
+\eta_{bc}\sqrt{\epsilon_a}+\eta_{ca}\sqrt{\epsilon_b}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{V_{,abc}}{3H^2}\right) \, .
\end{equation}
Using $w_{ab}=-(V_{,a}/V)_{,b}=2\sqrt{\epsilon_a\epsilon_d} - \eta_{ad}$ and $w_{abc}=F^{(2)}_{abc}$ it follows that (\ref{nfnl}) reduces to (\ref{nfnl_flat}).
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We have calculated a general formula for the scale dependence of ${f_{\rm NL}}$, for the first time allowing for a curved field space metric. The non-trivial field space metric, which appears in the kinetic term of the scalar field Lagrangian, gives rise to new terms in ${n_{f_{\rm NL}}}$ depending on both the Riemann curvature tensor and its derivative with respect to the fields. The derivative terms do not appear in the analogous formula for the spectral index and hence could be significantly larger, since they are not constrained by observations showing that the spectral index is close to scale invariant.
Our work is motivated by the goal of connecting fundamental, high energy theories to the rapidly improving cosmological observations. Fundamental theories often predict the existence of large numbers of scalar fields, and of a curved field space metric. In 2013 the first relevant data from the Planck satellite will be released, and it could lead to a discovery of non-Gaussianity. In this case, constraints on not only its amplitude, but also its scale dependence will go a long way towards discriminating between the many models of the early universe, especially when combined with other measurements such as the spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Joseph Elliston, Raquel Ribeiro, Misao Sasaki, David Seery and Reza Tavakol for useful discussions.
JG thanks the Aspen Center for Physics for hospitality, supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1066293, where part of this work was carried out.
CB is supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship.
JG is supported in part by a Korean-CERN Fellowship.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over a number field $F$. To any embedding $X \subset \PP_F^n$ of $X$ over $F$, we may associate a height function given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:height}
H(x)= \prod_{v \in \Val(F)}\max\{|x_0|_v,\ldots,|x_n|_v\},
\end{equation}
where $x=(x_0:\cdots:x_n) \in X(F)$ and $|\cdot|_v$ is the usual absolute value associated to a place $v$ of $F$. The product formula $\prod_{v \in \Val(F)} |\lambda|_v=1$, for any $\lambda \in F^*$, implies that this expression is independent of the choice of representation of $x$ in homogeneous coordinates. More generally, one may associate a height function $H_{\mathcal{L}}$ to any adelically metrised line bundle $\mathcal{L}=(L,||\cdot||)$ on $X$ (see Section \ref{Sec:adelic} for further details). The advantage of such a definition is that it is intrinsic, i.e it does not depend on a choice of embedding. In the case where $L$ is ample, the number of rational points of bounded height is finite and thus it makes sense to consider the counting function
$$N(\mathcal{L},U,B)=\#\{x \in U(F) : H_{\mathcal{L}}(x) \leq B\},$$
for any $B>0$ and any open subset $U \subset X$. More generally still, if $L$ is big then the number of rational points of bounded height is finite on some open subset of $X$, thus we also obtain well-defined counting functions on certain open subsets of $X$. One can even define these counting functions for arbitrary adelically metrised line bundles $\mathcal{L}$, where by convention if $U$ contains infinitely any rational points of bounded height we set $N(\mathcal{L},U,B) = \aleph_0$.
In the papers \cite{FMT89} and \cite{BM90}, Manin and his collaborators formulated various conjectures on the asymptotic behavior of these counting functions as $B \to \infty$. If we denote by $\Eff(X) \subset \NS_{\RR} X = \NS X \otimes_{\ZZ} \mathbb{R}$
the closed cone generated by the classes of effective divisors, then we define the Nevanlinna invariant of an effective line bundle $L$ on $X$ to be
\begin{equation}
a(L)=\inf \{ r \in \QQ : r[L] + [\omega_X] \in \Eff(X)\}. \label{def:a(L)}
\end{equation}
Here $[L]$ denotes the class of $L$ in $\NS_{\RR} X$ and $\omega_X$ denotes the canonical bundle of $X$. Then, Manin and his collaborators conjectured that if $L$ is ample then for any $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists an open subset $U \subset X$ such that
\begin{equation}
N(\mathcal{L},U,B) \ll_{\varepsilon,U, \mathcal{L}} B^{a(L) + \varepsilon}, \label{conj:1}
\end{equation}
as $B \to \infty$. Note that in general one needs to restrict to some open subset in order to avoid ``accumulating subvarieties". For example,
a line on a smooth cubic surface $S \subset \PP^3_F$ contains roughly $B^2$ rational points of height less than $B$, whereas one has $a(\mathcal{O}_S(1))=1$.
They also conjectured a more precise asymptotic formula in the case where $[\omega_X]$ is not effective. Namely that, possibly after a finite field extension, there exists an open subset $U \subset X$ and a positive constant $c=c(\mathcal{L},U)$ such that
\begin{equation}
N(\mathcal{L},U,B)= c B^{a(L)} (\log B)^{b(L)-1}(1 + o(1)), \label{conj:2}
\end{equation}
as $B \to \infty$, where $b(L)$ is the codimension of the minimal face of $\partial\Eff(X)$ which contains $a(L)[D] + [\omega_X]$. Note that one needs to assume that $a(L)[D] + [\omega_X]$ belongs to the polyhedral part of $\partial\Eff(X)$ for $b(L)$ to be well-defined.
The leading constant in this conjecture has also received a conjectural interpretation due to Peyre \cite{Pey95} in the case where $\omega^{-1}_X$ is ample,
in which case one has $a(\omega^{-1}_X)=1$ and $b(\omega^{-1}_X)=\rank \Pic X$.
However it turns out that this second conjecture (\ref{conj:2}) as stated is not true, and an explicit family of counterexamples over certain number fields was constructed by Batyrev and Tschinkel \cite{BT96}. Nevertheless (\ref{conj:2}) is still true in many cases, and sometimes in more generality
than originally stated (for example with $L$ big, rather than just ample). For example (\ref{conj:2}) is known for some del Pezzo surfaces (e.g. \cite{BB11} and \cite{Lou10}), flag varieties \cite{FMT89}, toric varieties \cite{BT98}, and various other equivariant compactifications of homogeneous spaces \cite{CLT02}. These conjectures have also been shown to be compatible with various geometrical constructions, such as products. However one important construction seems to have been so far overlooked, namely the \emph{Weil restriction}.
The Weil restriction (or restriction of scalars) was originally defined by Weil \cite{Wei82}, and is a way of constructing an algebraic variety
$\Res X$ over a smaller number field $E \subset F$ whose set of $E$-rational points is canonically in bijection with the $F$-rational
points of $X$ (see Section \ref{Sec:Weil} for a precise definition). In general, one expects the arithmetic properties of $X$ to be closely related to those of $\Res X$. For example if $A$ is an
abelian variety, then so is $\Res A$ and Milne \cite{Mil72} has shown that the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture holds for $A$ if and only if it
holds for $\Res A$.
In this paper we address the question of how the counting problems for $X$ and $\Res X$ compare.
The first problem is to construct a height function on $\Res X$ from one on $X$. In Section \ref{Subsec:Weil_adelic_metric} we
show that given an adelically metrised line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ on $X$,
there is a way to define an adelically metrised line bundle $\Res \mathcal{L}$ on $\Res X$ which satisfies
\begin{equation}
N(\mathcal{L},U,B)=N(\Res \mathcal{L},\Res U,B), \label{eqn:Weil_counting_functions}
\end{equation}
for any open subset $U \subset X$ and any $B>0$. Moreover this construction preserves positivity properties (such as effectiveness, ampleness and bigness) and also the canonical line bundle. This allows us to define the Weil restriction $\Res H_{\mathcal{L}}$ of the associated height function $H_{\mathcal{L}}$.
This leads to our main theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:Main}
Let $E \subset F$ be number fields. Let $(X,\mathcal{L})$ be a smooth projective variety over $F$
together with a big adelically metrised line bundle such that $X(F) \neq \emptyset$.
Let $\varepsilon > 0$ and let $U \subset X$ be an open subset.
Then (\ref{conj:1}) holds for $(X,U,\mathcal{L})$ if and only if (\ref{conj:1}) holds for $(\Res X, \Res U,\Res \mathcal{L})$.
Moreover, if $[\omega_X]$ is not effective and $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X)=0$, then (\ref{conj:2}) holds for $(X,U,\mathcal{L})$ if and only if (\ref{conj:2}) holds for $(\Res X,\Res U,\Res \mathcal{L})$.
\end{theorem}
Examples of varieties for which $[\omega_X]$ is not effective and $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X)=0$ include all rationally connected varieties \cite[Cor. 4.18]{Deb01}, in particular all geometrically rational varieties and all Fano varieties. For these latter classes of varieties we also show that the refined conjecture due to Peyre \cite{Pey95}, on the leading constant appearing in the asymptotic formula, is compatible with the Weil restriction.
An immediate corollary of Theorem \ref{thm:Main} is that if Manin's conjectures hold for $(X,\mathcal{L})$, then they also hold for $(\Res X, \Res \mathcal{L})$. The problem with the converse is that the open subset $U' \subset \Res X$ for which (\ref{conj:1}) or (\ref{conj:2}) holds might not be of the form $\Res U$ for
some open subset $U \subset X$. Nevertheless, there are many examples where this is true.
For example, for flag varieties (\ref{conj:2}) holds on the whole space, i.e. it is not necessary to
restrict to an open subset. Therefore the equivalence of Manin's conjecture for a flag variety $X$ and for its Weil restriction $\Res X$ is clear.
As the Weil restriction of a flag variety is also a flag variety, we see that Manin's conjecture for all choices of adelic metric on every big line bundle on every flag variety over $\QQ$ is equivalent to the same conjecture for all flag varieties \emph{over any number field}.
Also for toric varieties, Manin's conjecture is known to hold on the open subset given by the embedded algebraic torus $T$. As the Weil restriction $\Res X$ of such a toric variety $X$ is also a toric variety under the algebraic torus $\Res T$, we again see that one may reduce the proof of Manin's conjecture for all
toric varieties over every number field to those toric varieties which are defined over $\QQ$. Similar results hold for equivariant compactifications of other homogeneous spaces and also for varieties for which every accumulating subvariety of $\Res X$ is of the form $\Res Z$ for some subvariety $Z \subset X$.
Using Theorem \ref{thm:Main} we are also able to obtain many new cases of Manin's conjecture,
given as the Weil restrictions of suitable complete intersections in projective space.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:CI_Weil}
Let $E\subset F$ be number fields and let $X \subset \PP^n$ be a non-singular complete intersection of $m$
hypersurfaces over $F$ each of the same degree $r$. Suppose that $$n \geq (m+1)(r-1)2^{r-1} + m,$$
and $X(\mathbf{A}_F) \neq \emptyset$. Let $H$ be the height function (\ref{eq:height}) on $X$.
Then Manin's conjecture (\ref{conj:2}) with Peyre's constant holds for $\Res X$ with respect to $\Res H$.
\end{theorem}
We are in fact able to handle more general height functions than (\ref{eq:height}), namely we allow
arbitrary norms at the archimedean places, rather than simply the maximum norm (see Section \ref{Sec:CI}
for a precise statement).
The varieties $\Res X$ occurring in Theorem \ref{thm:CI_Weil} are complete intersections in the Weil
restriction $\Res \PP^n$ of projective space. This result therefore follows the philosophy
emphasised in \cite{Pey01}, namely that of studying Manin's conjecture for complete intersections
inside arbitrary Fano varieties, rather than simply complete intersections in the usual projective space.
In \cite{Ski97}, Skinner used the circle method to prove that weak approximation holds
for the complete intersections $X$ occurring in Theorem \ref{thm:CI_Weil},
by counting rational points in certain ``boxes''. Skinner's boxes are quite different
however from the regions cut out by height functions, with the outcome being that Skinner's main theorem does not directly imply Manin's conjecture.
In order to prove Theorem \ref{thm:CI_Weil}, we fill this gap in the literature by showing that Skinner's result
may indeed be used to prove Manin's conjecture for such complete intersections.
Our proof proceeds by covering the region of interest with Skinner's boxes and then applying his result to each such box.
Other new cases of Manin's conjecture may be obtained by applying Theorem \ref{thm:Main} to the
del Pezzo surfaces over imaginary quadratic fields recently considered by
Derenthal and Frei \cite{DF13a}, \cite{DF13b}, \cite{DF13c}.
As we have already noted, Manin's conjecture (\ref{conj:2}) is not true in general and a family of counterexamples
was constructed in \cite{BT96}. However these counterexamples were only constructed over those number fields
which contain $\QQ(\sqrt{-3})$, in particular the existence of counterexamples over $\QQ$ was left open.
In Section \ref{Sec:counterexample} we apply the Weil restriction to the construction of \cite{BT96} to produce counterexamples
to Manin's conjecture (\ref{conj:2}) over \emph{any} number field.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:counterexample}
Let $E$ be a number field. Then there exists a Fano variety $X$ over $E$ such that
for every number field $E \subset F$, every open subset $U \subset X_F$ and every
choice of adelic metric on $\omega_{X_F}^{-1}$ we have
$$N(\omega_{X_F}^{-1},U,B) \gg B(\log B)^{\rho(X_F)+1},$$
as $B \to \infty$, where $\rho(X_F)= \rank \Pic X_F$.
\end{theorem}
The layout of this paper is as follows. In Section \ref{Sec:Weil} we recall certain facts about the Weil restriction and also define the Weil restriction of
a line bundle. Section \ref{Sec:adelic} contains various results on adelically metrised line bundles and height functions, and we also define
the Weil restriction of an adelically metrised line bundle. We finish the paper by proving our main theorems in Section \ref{Sec:Manin}, together with the fact that
Peyre's conjectural constant is compatible with the Weil restriction.
\medskip
\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgments:}
The majority of this work was completed whilst the author was working at l'Institut de Math\'{e}matiques de Jussieu
and supported by ANR PEPR.
The author would like to thank Tim Browning, Tomer Schlank and Emmanuel Peyre for numerous useful comments and ideas.
\subsection*{Notation}
\subsubsection*{Geometry}
For a field $F$, we denote by $\PP_F^n$ and $\mathbb{A}_F^n$ projective $n$-space and affine $n$-space over $F$ respectively. We sometimes omit the subscript $F$ if the field is clear.
A variety over $F$ is a separated geometrically integral scheme of finite type over $F$. For every field, we fix a choice of algebraic closure $\overline{F}$ and we denote by $G_F$ the absolute Galois group of $F$
with respect to $\overline{F}$.
By a line bundle, we mean a locally free sheaf of rank one. Given a line bundle $L$ on a scheme $X$ over a field $F$,
we denote by $\overline{X}$ and $\overline{L}$ the base change of $X$ and $L$ to $\overline{F}$, respectively. We denote by $\Pic^0 X$ the subgroup of
$\Pic X$ of line bundles which are algebraically equivalent to $\mathcal{O}_X$, and by $\Pic^L X$ the subset of $\Pic X$ consisting of those line bundles which are algebraically equivalent to a fixed line bundle $L$.
Note that $\Pic^L X$ is a torsor for $\Pic^0 X$. Given a line bundle $L$ on a variety $X$, we denote by $[L]$ the class of $L$ in $\NS_{\RR} X$ and by $\omega_X$ the canonical bundle of $X$
if $X$ is also smooth.
The symbol $\boxtimes$ is used to denote the external tensor product. Namely, given line bundles $L_i$ on varieties $X_i$ $(i=1,2)$,
we define $L_1 \boxtimes L_2 = \pi^*_1 L_1 \otimes \pi^*_2 L_2$ as a line bundle on $X_1 \times X_2$, where $\pi_i:X_1 \times X_2 \to X_i$ denote the canonical projections $(i=1,2)$.
\subsubsection*{Number theory}
For any number field $F$, we denote by $\mathcal{O}_{F}$ the ring of integers of $F$ and by $\Val(F)$ the set of valuations of $F$. For any $v \in \Val(F)$, we denote by $F_v$ (resp. $\mathcal{O}_{F_v}$) the completion of $F$ (resp. $\mathcal{O}_{F}$) with respect to $v$. Given a finite set of places $S \subset \Val(F)$ containing all archimedean places, we denote by
$\mathcal{O}_{F,S}$ the ring of $S$-integers of $\mathcal{O}_{F}$.
We choose absolute values on each $F_v$ such that $|x|_v=|N_{F_v/\QQ_p}(x)|_p$,
where $v|p \in \Val(\QQ)$ and $|\cdot|_p$ is the usual absolute value on $\QQ_p$.
The advantage of these choices is that we have the
following product formula
$$\prod_{v \in \Val(F)}|x|_v =1 , \quad \text{for all } x \in \overline{F}^\times.$$
We denote by $F_\infty = F \otimes_\QQ \RR=\prod_{v \mid \infty} F_v$.
We also choose algebraic closures $F_v \subset \overline{F}_v$ and we equip $\overline{F}_v$ with the unique
absolute value extending the absolute value on $F_v$.
We choose Haar measures $\mathrm{d}x_v$ on each $F_v$
such that $$\int_{\mathcal{O}_{F_v}}\mathrm{d}x_v = 1,$$
for all but finitely many archimedean $v$. We equip the adeles
$\mathbf{A}_F$ of $F$ with the induced Haar measure and denote by
$\mu_F$ the volume of $\mathbf{A}_F/F$ with respect to the induced quotient measure.
\section{The Weil restriction} \label{Sec:Weil}
We begin by recalling the definition of the Weil restriction. The Weil restriction was originally defined by Weil in \cite{Wei82} (which he called the restriction of scalars), however we follow a more modern approach as can be found in \cite[Ch.7.6]{BLR90}.
Let $A$ be a commutative ring and let $B$ be an $A$-algebra which as an $A$-module is finite and locally free (e.g. $A \subset B$ is a finite field extension).
For any scheme $X$ over $B$ we define the functor $\RRes{B}{A} X$, from the dual of the category of schemes defined over $A$ to the category
of sets, to be the right adjoint of base change. That is to say, we define
$$\RRes{B}{A} X (S) = X(S \times_A B),$$
for any $A$-scheme $S$. If this functor is representable by a scheme over $A$, then we call this scheme (also denoted by $\RRes{B}{A} X$) the Weil restriction of $X$.
For our purposes, it will be sufficient to know that the Weil restriction exists whenever $X$ is quasi-projective over $B$ (see \cite[Thm. 7.6.2]{BLR90}).
Moreover if $B$ is \'{e}tale (e.g. $A \subset B$ is a finite separable field extension), then the Weil restriction of an affine, projective or smooth scheme is also affine, projective or smooth, respectively
\cite[Prop. 7.6.5]{BLR90}. The assignment of the Weil restriction can be viewed as a functor $\RRes{B}{A}$ in its own right and this functor preserves open and closed immersions and fibre products \cite[Prop. 7.6.2]{BLR90}.
We shall be particularly interested in the case of a finite extension $E \subset F$ of perfect fields of degree $d$.
We denote by $\sigma_i:F \to \overline{E}$ the embeddings of $F$ into $\overline{E}$ for $i=1,\ldots,d$. Then given a scheme $X$ over $F$, the counit of the adjunction gives rise to a morphism $p: \Res X \to X$ defined over $F$ which induces an isomorphism $$P:=\prod_{\sigma}p^{\sigma}: \Res X \to \prod_{i=1}^d X^{\sigma_i},$$
over $\overline{E}$, where $X^{\sigma_i}=X \times_{\sigma_i} \overline{E} $ denotes the conjugate of $X$ with respect to $\sigma_i$.
\begin{example}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The Weil restriction of the affine line $\mathbb{A}^1_F$ over $F$ is the affine space $\mathbb{A}^d_E$ over $E$.
The morphism $p$ can be realised as
$$
\mathbb{A}^d_F \to \mathbb{A}^1_F, \qquad
(x_1,\ldots,x_d) \mapsto \sum_{i=1}^d \alpha_i x_i,
$$
where $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_d$ is a choice of basis for the field extension $E \subset F$.
Given that the functor $\Res$ preserves affine varieties, fibre products
and closed embeddings, this gives a simple way to write down equations for the Weil restrictions of affine varieties.
\item Equations for the Weil restrictions of projective varieties are not as simple in general.
For example,
if $E\subset F$ is a quadratic field extension and $X=\PP^1_F$,
then $\Res X$ can be embedded as a quadratic surface in $\PP^3_E$. Indeed, $\Res X$
is isomorphic to $\PP^1_F \times \PP_F^{1\sigma} \cong \PP^1_F \times \PP^1_F$ over $F$, where $\sigma$
is the non-trivial element of $\Gal(F/E)$. If $(x,y) \in \Res X(E)$, then the two divisors
$L_1=\PP^1_F \times \{y\}$ and $L_2=\{x\} \times \PP^{1\sigma}_F$ are swapped by $\Gal(F/E)$. Hence the divisor
$L_1 + L_2$ is defined over $E$ and moreover gives the required embedding $\Res X \hookrightarrow \PP_E^3$.
For general $d$, a similar argument shows that equations for $\Res \PP^n_F$ can be given by some appropriate twist of
the Segre embedding of $\prod_{i=1}^d \PP^n_E$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
\subsection{The norm of a line bundle}
We now recall some facts that we shall need on the norm of a line bundle (see e.g. \cite[Sec. 6.5]{EGAII} or \cite[Sec. 4.1]{Oes84}). Let $A$ be a commutative ring and let $B$ be an $A$-algebra
which as an $A$-module is finite and locally free of rank $d$ (e.g. $A \subset B$ is a finite field extension of degree $d$).
Let $X_A$ be a reduced Noetherian scheme of finite type over $A$ and let $L$ be a line bundle on $X_B=X_A \times_A B$. Then
if $f:X_B \to X_A$ denotes the base change map, it follows that $f_*L$ is a vector bundle of rank $d$ on $X_A$. We define
$$\Norm{B}{A}(L) = \Hom_{\mathcal{O}_{X_A}}(\det f_*\mathcal{O}_{X_B}, \det f_*L),$$
which is a line bundle on $X_A$. We have the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There is a canonical isomorphism $\Norm{B}{A} (\mathcal{O}_{X_B}) \cong \mathcal{O}_{X_A}$.
\item The norm functor respects base change, i.e. if $A'$ is an $A$-algebra then we have a canonical isomorphism
$$ \Norm{B}{A}( L) \otimes_A A' \cong \Norm{B'}{A'}( L), $$
where $B' = A' \otimes_A B$. In particular if $E \subset F$ is a finite field extension of perfect fields, there is a canonical isomorphism
$\overline{\Norm{F}{E}(L)} \cong \otimes_{i=1}^d L^{\sigma_i}$ over $\overline{E}$.
\item If $L_1$ and $L_2$ are two line bundles on $X_B$, then
$$\Norm{B}{A} (L_1 \otimes L_2) \cong \Norm{B}{A}( L_1) \otimes \Norm{B}{A}( L_2),$$ canonically.
\item There is also a canonical isomorphism
$$\Norm{B}{A}(\Hom_{\mathcal{O}_{X_B}}(L_1,L_2)) \cong \Hom_{\mathcal{O}_{X_A}}(\Norm{B}{A}( L_1 ),\Norm{B}{A} (L_2 )).$$
In particular we obtain an induced injective homomorphism $\Norm{B}{A}:\Pic X_B \to \Pic X_A$ of Picard groups.
\item To a local section $s$ of $L$ we may associate a section $\Norm{B}{A}(s)$ of $\Norm{B}{A}(L)$.
In the case where $L=\mathcal{O}_{X_B}$, this corresponds to the usual norm map $\Norm{B}{A}:B \to A$.
\end{enumerate}
Note that our notation differs slightly from that of \cite[Sec. 6.5]{EGAII}, where the norm is defined for more
general finite morphisms of schemes. We have used simpler notation due to the fact that we shall only be taking the norm
with respect to finite morphisms arising from base change.
\subsection{The Weil restriction of a line bundle}
We now define the Weil restriction of a line bundle. Throughout this section $E \subset F$ is a finite extension of perfect fields of degree $d$. We denote by
$\sigma_i:F \to \overline{E}$ the embeddings of $F$ into $\overline{E}$ $(i=1,\ldots,d)$.
We define the Weil restriction of a line bundle $L$ on a quasi-projective variety $X$ over $F$ to be
\begin{equation} \label{def:Weil_Res_Line_bundle}
\Res L = \Norm{F}{E} (p^* L).
\end{equation}
For any local section $s$ of $L$, we also obtain a local section $\Res s=\Norm{F}{E} (p^*s)$ of $\Res L$.
Note that over $\overline{E}$ we have isomorphisms
$$\overline{\Res L} \cong \otimes_{i=1}^d (p^* L)^{\sigma_i} \cong P^*(\boxtimes_{i=1}^d L^{\sigma_i}).$$
This construction gives rise an injective homomorphism $\Res : \Pic X \to \Pic \Res X$, which also induces
injective homomorphisms $\Res: \Pic^0 X \to \Pic^0 \Res X$ and $\Res: \NS X \to \NS \Res X.$
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:line_bundles}
Let $(X,L)$ be a smooth projective variety over $F$ together with a line bundle. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Res \omega_X \cong \omega_{\Res X}$, where $\omega_X$ denotes the canonical line bundle of $X$. \label{item:canonical}
\item $L$ is effective (resp. big, resp. ample) if and only if the same holds for $\Res L$. \label{item:positivity}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In what follows, we identify $\overline{\Res X}$ with $\prod_{i=1}^d X^{\sigma_i}$ and $\overline{\Res L}$ with $\boxtimes_{i=1}^d L^{\sigma_i}$.
To prove the first part of the lemma, we note that given non-singular varieties $X_j$ for $j=1,2$, we have $\omega_{X_1\times X_2}\cong\omega_{X_1} \boxtimes \omega_{X_2}$ \cite[Ex. II.8.3]{Har77}. Therefore, we see that the canonical line bundle of $\prod_{i=1}^d X^{\sigma_i}$ is isomorphic to $\boxtimes_{i=1}^d \omega_{X^{\sigma_i}}$ and (\ref{item:canonical}) follows.
By the K\"{u}nneth formula for coherent cohomology \cite{SW59} and flat base change \cite[Prop. III.9.3]{Har77}, we have
$$h^0(\Res X,\Res L) = h^0(X,L)^d.$$
From this, we see that $h^0(\Res X,\Res L)\neq 0$ if and only if $h^0(X,L) \neq0$, i.e. $L$ is effective if and only if $\Res L$ is effective. Similarly, as the property of being big can be defined in terms of the size of the space of global sections \cite[Thm. 2.2.26]{Lar07}, it follows that $L$ is big if and only if $\Res L$ is big.
Next, let $\varphi:X \dashrightarrow \PP_F^n$ be a rational map associated to $L$. Then, a rational map associated to $\Res L$ may be given by the composition of $\prod_{i=1}^d \varphi^{\sigma_i}$ with the Segre embedding, on choosing isomorphisms $(\PP_{\overline{E}}^n)^{\sigma_i} \cong \PP_{\overline{E}}^n$. As this map is an embedding if and only if $\varphi$ is an embedding, we see that $L$ is very ample if and only if $\Res L$ is very ample, and therefore that $L$ is ample if and only if $\Res L$ is ample. This proves (\ref{item:positivity}).
\end{proof}
We now study the relationship between $\Pic X$ and $\Pic \Res X$. For this we shall often use the following well-known result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:CMPic}
Let $X$ be a proper variety over $F$. If $X(F) \neq \emptyset$ then
the natural map
$$\Pic X \to (\Pic \overline{X})^{G_F},$$
is an isomorphism.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See \cite{CM96}, in particular \cite[Cor. 1.3]{CM96}.
\end{proof}
Throughout this paper we will often assume that our varieties have rational points in order to apply this lemma. The existence of a rational point will also be
crucial when we show that Tamagawa measures are preserved under the Weil restriction (see Lemma \ref{lem:cotangent}).
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:Pic0}
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over $F$ such that $X(F) \neq \emptyset$.
Then the map $\Res: \Pic^0 X \to \Pic^0 \Res X$ is an isomorphism.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We again identify $\overline{\Res X}$ with $\prod_{i=1}^d X^{\sigma_i}$ and $\overline{\Res L}$ with $\boxtimes_{i=1}^d L^{\sigma_i}$ for any line bundle $L$ on $X$.
First, it is well-known that for smooth projective varieties $X_1$ and $X_2$ over an algebraically closed field the natural map $\Pic^0 X_1 \bigoplus \Pic^0 X_2 \to \Pic^0(X_1 \times X_2)$
is an isomorphism (see e.g. \cite[Prop. A.4]{Diem01}). In particular the map
\begin{align*}
&\bigoplus_{i=1}^d \Pic^0 X^{\sigma_i} \to \Pic^0 \left(\prod_{i=1}^d X^{\sigma_i}\right)\\
&(L_1^{\sigma_1},\ldots,L_d^{\sigma_d}) \mapsto \boxtimes_{i=1}^d L_i^{\sigma_i},
\end{align*}
is an isomorphism. This map is obviously a homomorphism of $G_F$-modules and thus shows that $\Pic^0 \:\overline{\Res X}$ is the representation induced from the action of $G_F$ on
$\Pic^0 \overline{X}$. Next, by Shapiro's Lemma \cite[Prop. 1.6.3]{NSW00} we see that $(\Pic^0 \: \overline{\Res X})^{G_E} = (\Pic^0 \overline{X})^{G_F}$. As $X(F) \neq
\emptyset$ and $\Res X(E) \neq \emptyset$, we have equalities $\Pic^0 X = (\Pic \overline{X})^{G_F}$
and $\Pic^0 \Res X=(\Pic^0 \: \overline{\Res X})^{G_E}$ by Lemma \ref{lem:CMPic}, and the result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
We sketch an example to show that the map $\Res: \Pic X \to \Pic \Res X$ may not be an isomorphism in general.
If $E \subset F$ has degree two and $C$ is an elliptic curve over $E$, then $\Res C_F$ is isogenous
to $C \times C'$ over $E$, where $C'$ denotes the quadratic twist of $C$ with respect to
$E \subset F$. In particular, the pull-back of $C \times {0}$ and ${0} \times C'$ give two linearly independent curves in $\NS(\Res C_F)$.
Thus clearly $\Pic C \not \cong \Pic \Res C$; indeed $C$ has Picard number one whereas $\Res C_F$ has Picard number at least two.
\end{example}
However in the case where $X$ is Fano, or more generally when $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X)=0$, the map $\Res: \Pic X \to \Pic \Res X$ \emph{is} an isomorphism as soon as there is a rational point.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Picard}
Let $X$ be a projective variety over $F$
such that $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X)=0$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $H^1(\Res X, \mathcal{O}_{\Res X})=0$. \label{h^1_structure_sheaf}
\item There is an isomorphism $\Pic \overline{X} \otimes_{G_F} G_E \cong \Pic \: \overline{\Res X}$ of Galois modules. i.e. $\Pic \:\overline{\Res X}$ is the representation induced from the action of $G_F$ on $\Pic \overline{X}$. \label{Picinduced}
\end{enumerate}
If in addition $X(F) \neq \emptyset$, then
\begin{enumerate}[resume]
\item The map $\Res: \Pic X \to \Pic \Res X$ is an isomorphism. \label{Picisom}
\item The induced map on effective cones $\Res: \Eff(X) \to \Eff(\Res X)$ is an isomorphism. \label{Effisom}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In what follows we identify $\overline{\Res X}$ with $\prod_{i=1}^d X^{\sigma_i}$ and $\overline{\Res L}$
with $\boxtimes_{i=1}^d L^{\sigma_i}$ for any line bundle $L$ on $X$.
As in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:line_bundles}, we see that the K\"{u}nneth formula for coherent sheaves and flat base change imply
that $h^1(\Res X, \mathcal{O}_{\Res X})=h^1(X, \mathcal{O}_{X})^d=0$, thus proving (\ref{h^1_structure_sheaf}).
As $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X)=0$, it follows from \cite[Ex. III.12.6]{Har77} that the map
\begin{align*}
&\bigoplus_{i=1}^d \Pic X^{\sigma_i} \to \Pic \left(\prod_{i=1}^d X^{\sigma_i}\right)\\
&(L_1^{\sigma_1},\ldots,L_d^{\sigma_d}) \mapsto \boxtimes_{i=1}^d L_i^{\sigma_i},
\end{align*}
is an isomorphism. This map is obviously a homomorphism of $G_F$-modules and thus proves (\ref{Picinduced}). As in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:Pic0}, the fact that
$X(F) \neq \emptyset$ implies (\ref{Picisom}). Finally note that $\Pic^0 X = 0$ by \cite[Thm. 8.4.1]{BLR90} as $H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X)=0$.
Therefore $\NS X = \Pic X$, and so (\ref{Effisom}) follows from (\ref{Picisom}), Lemma \ref{lem:line_bundles} and Lemma \ref{lem:Pic0}
\end{proof}
\section{Adelically metrised line bundles} \label{Sec:adelic}
The aim of this section is to define the Weil restriction of an adelically metrised line bundle. We begin by recalling
various facts about height functions and adelically metrised line bundles, which can be found for example in \cite{CLT10}, \cite{Pey03} or \cite{BG06}.
Throughout this section $F$ is a number field.
\begin{definition}
Let $(X,L)$ be a variety over $F$ together with a line bundle. For a place $v \in \Val(F)$,
a $v$-adic metric on $L$ is a map which associates to every point $x_v \in X(F_v)$ a function $||\cdot||_v:L(x_v) \mapsto \RR_{\geq 0}$ on the fibre of $L$ above $x_v$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item For all $\ell \in L(x_v)$, we have $||\ell||_v =0$ if and only if $\ell=0$.
\item For all $\lambda \in F_v$ and $\ell \in L(x_v)$, we have $||\lambda \ell||_v=|\lambda|_v ||\ell||_v$.
\item For any open subset $U \subset X$ and any local section $s \in \Gamma(U,L)$, the function given by $x_v \mapsto ||s(x_v)||_v$ is continuous in the $v$-adic topology.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
One important way of constructing metrics at non-archimedean places is given as follows.
\begin{example}
Choose a non-archimedean place $v \in \Val(F)$ and let $(X,L)$ be a projective variety over $F_v$ together with a line bundle.
Let $(\mathscr{X},\mathscr{L})$ be a model of $(X,L)$ over $\mathcal{O}_{F_v}$,
i.e. a flat projective morphism $\mathscr{X} \to \mathcal{O}_{F_v}$ whose generic fibre is isomorphic
to $X$ and a line bundle $\mathscr{L}$ on $\mathscr{X}$ such that $\mathscr{L}|_X \cong L$.
Since $X$ is projective, any point $x_v \in X(F_v)$ extends to a unique point $\overline{x_v} \in \mathscr{X}(\mathcal{O}_{F_v})$.
The pull-back $\overline{x_v}^{*}\mathscr{L}$ is a projective $\mathcal{O}_{F_v}$-submodule of rank one inside
the one dimensional $F_v$-vector space $x_v^*L=L(x_v)$. For a generator $\ell_0$ of $\overline{x_v}^{*}\mathscr{L}$
and any $\ell \in L(x_v)$, there exists a unique $\lambda \in F_v$ such that $\ell= \lambda\ell_0$. We therefore define
a $v$-adic metric on $L$ by $||\ell||_v=|\lambda|_v$. Note that this
definition is independent of the choice of generator $\ell_0$; indeed
any two generators must differ by a unit and units have absolute value $1$.
\end{example}
\begin{definition}
Let $(X,L)$ be a projective variety over $F$ together with a line bundle. An adelic metric on $L$ is a collection
$||\cdot||=\{||\cdot||_v\}_{v \in \Val(F)}$ of $v$-adic metrics for each place $v \in \Val(F)$, such that all
but finitely many of the $||\cdot||_v$ are defined by a single model of $(X,L)$ over $\mathcal{O}_F$.
We denote the associated adelically metrised line bundle by $\mathcal{L}=(L,||\cdot||)$.
\end{definition}
An important feature of adelically metrised line bundles is that they have an associated height function.
\begin{definition} \label{def:heights}
Let $(X,\mathcal{L})$ be a projective variety over $F$ together with an adelically metrised line bundle.
Then we define the height function $H_{\mathcal{L}}$ associated to $\mathcal{L}$ to be
$$H_{\mathcal{L}}(x) = \prod_{v \in \Val(F)}||s(x)||^{-1}_v,$$
where $s$ is any local section of $L$ which is defined and non-zero at $x \in X(F)$. The fact that this definition is independent of $s$ follows from
the product formula.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Examples and properties}
We now give some standard examples and properties of adelically metrised line bundles. In what follows
$X$ is a projective variety over a number field $F$ and $\mathcal{L}=(L,||\cdot||), \mathcal{L}_1=(L_1,||\cdot||_1)$ and $\mathcal{L}_2=(L_2,||\cdot||_2)$ are adelically metrised line bundles on $X$.
\subsubsection{The structure sheaf}
There exists a natural choice of adelic metric on the line bundle $\mathcal{O}_X$ given by $||\ell||_v=|\ell|_v$ for any place $v \in \Val(F)$.
It follows from the product formula that the associated height function is the constant
function $1$.
\subsubsection{Tensor products}
\label{Ex:tensor_product}
There is an adelically
metrised line bundle $\mathcal{L}_1 \otimes \mathcal{L}_2=(L_1\otimes L_2, ||\cdot||)$ which for any place $v \in \Val(F)$ satisfies
$$||(s_1 \otimes s_2)(x_v)||_v=||s_1(x_v)||_{1,v} \: ||s_2(x_v)||_{2,v},$$
for local sections $s_1$ and $s_2$ of $L_1$ and $L_2$ respectively defined at $x_v \in X(F_v)$. On the level of heights,
one has $H_{\mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{L}'}(x)=H_{\mathcal{L}}(x)H_{\mathcal{L}'}(x)$ for all $x \in X(F)$.
\subsubsection{Isometries} \label{Ex:Isometry}
We say that $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_2$ are \emph{isometric} if there exists an isomorphism of line bundles $\varphi:L_1 \to L_2$
and constants $\lambda_v \in \RR_{>0}$ for each $v \in \Val(F)$ such that $\prod_{v \in \Val(F)}\lambda_v =1$ with the property that
for all $x_v \in X(F_v)$ and for all local sections $s$ of $L_2$ defined at $x_v$ we have
$$||\varphi^* s (x_v)||_{1,v}=\lambda_v||s(x_v)||_{2,v}.$$
It is simple to see that isometric adelically metrised line bundles give rise to the same height function.
As an example of an isometry, note that since $X$ is projective any automorphism of a line bundle is given by multiplication by a non-zero scalar
in $F$. It follows from the product formula that such a map is an isometry.
\subsubsection{Duals}
One may define the dual $\mathcal{L}^{-1}$ of an adelically metrised line bundle in such a way that the natural map
$\mathcal{L}^{-1} \otimes \mathcal{L} \to \mathcal{O}_X$ is an isometry. One has $H_{\mathcal{L}^{-1}}(x)=H_{\mathcal{L}}(x)^{-1}$ for all $x \in X(F)$.
\subsubsection{The adelic Picard group}
Given these choices, the set of adelically metrised line bundles up to isometry forms a group $\Pichad X$ under
the tensor product, the adelic Picard group of $X$.
We have a natural surjective morphism $\Pichad(X) \to \Pic(X)$ given by forgetting the adelic metric, and the
theory of height functions can be viewed as a group homomorphism
$$H_{(\cdot)}:\Pichad(X) \to \mathrm{Fun}(X(F),\RR^*).$$
\subsubsection{Pull-backs}
\label{Ex:pull-backs}
Given a morphism of projective varieties $f:Y \to X$
we may define the pull-back adelically metrised line bundle $f^*\mathcal{L}$ on $Y$. For any
local section $s$ of $L$ defined at $y_v \in Y(F_v)$ this satisfies $$||f^*s(y_v)||_v = ||s(f(y_v))||_v.$$
One obtains the equality $H_{f^*\mathcal{L}}(y) = H_{\mathcal{L}}(f(y))$ for all $y \in Y(F)$.
\subsubsection{Projective space}
The standard example of an ample adelically metrised line bundle is given by the line bundle $\mathcal{O}_{\PP^n}(1)$
on $\PP^n$. Here for each set of generating global sections $s_0,\ldots,s_n$ of $\mathcal{O}_{\PP^n}(1)$ we may define an adelic metric on $\mathcal{O}_{\PP^n}(1)$
such that for any local section $s$ of $\mathcal{O}_{\PP^n}(1)$ which is non-zero at $x_v \in \PP^n(F_v)$, the $v$-adic metric is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:proj_metric}
||s(x_v)||_v = \left( \max_{0 \leq i \leq n} \left|\frac{s_i(x_v)}{s(x_v)}\right|_v\right)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Note that if $s_i=x_i$ for each $i=0,\ldots,n$, the height function associated this adelically metrised line
bundle is exactly the height function (\ref{eq:height}) given in the introduction.
Also if $X\subset\PP^n$, then by pulling-back we obtain an adelic metric on $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ which
gives rise to the same height function (\ref{eq:height}). We may obtain other metrisations of $\mathcal{O}_{\PP^n}(1)$ by allowing
arbitrary $F_v$-vector space norms for a finite collection of places $v$ of $F$ in (\ref{eqn:proj_metric}),
instead of the usual maximum norm.
\subsubsection{Heights associated to the same line bundle}
\label{Ex:height_equivalence}
If $L_1\cong L_2$, then $H_{\mathcal{L}_2}/H_{\mathcal{L}_1}$
is a bounded function on $X(F)$.
\subsubsection{Effective line bundles}
\label{Ex:height_lower_bound}
If $L$ is effective, then there exists a constant $c>0$ such that
$$H_\mathcal{L}(x) \geq c,$$
for all $x \in X(F)$ not in the base locus of $L$
\subsubsection{Ample and big line bundles}
If $L$ is ample, then the number of rational points on $X$ of bounded height
is finite. More generally if $L$ is \emph{big}, then there exists an open subset $U \subset X$ with this property.
\subsection{The Weil restriction of an adelically metrised line bundle}
\label{Subsec:Weil_adelic_metric}
Throughout this section $E \subset F$ is an extension of number fields. Recall (\ref{def:Weil_Res_Line_bundle}) that given a projective variety $X$ over $F$ and
a line bundle $L$ on $X$, we defined $\Res L = \Norm{F}{E}(p^* L)$. In order to extend this definition to adelically metrised line bundles,
it suffices to define the norm of an adelically metrised line bundle.
\begin{example}
\label{Ex:norms}
Given a projective variety $Y$ over $E$ and an adelically metrised line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ on $Y_F$, we shall now define the norm $\Norm{F}{E}(\mathcal{L})=(\Norm{F}{E}(L),||\cdot||)$ of $\mathcal{L}$.
For any place $v \in \Val(E)$ and any $y_v \in Y(E_v)$ there is a unique $v$-adic norm on $\Norm{F}{E}(L)$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{def:norm_adelic_line_bundle}
||\Norm{F}{E} (s) (y_v)||_v = \prod_{w|v} ||s(y_v)||_w,
\end{equation}
for any local section $s$ of $L$ defined at $y_v$.
To see that this indeed comes from a model for all but finitely many places,
we proceed as follows. Choose a finite set of places $S \subset \Val(E)$ containing all archimedean places and let $T \subset \Val(F)$ be the places of $F$ lying above those
in $S$. Let $(\mathscr{Y}',\mathscr{L})$ be a model of $(Y_F,L)$ over $\mathcal{O}_{F,T}$ and let $\mathscr{Y}$ be a model
of $Y$ over $\mathcal{O}_{E,S}$. Taking $S$ sufficiently large, we may assume that the identity map $Y_F \to Y_F$ extends to an
isomorphism $\mathscr{Y}' \cong \mathscr{Y}_{\mathcal{O}_{F,T}}$. Hence by taking the norm
of $\mathscr{L}$ we obtain a model $(\mathscr{Y},\Norm{\mathcal{O}_{F,T}}{\mathcal{O}_{E,S}}(\mathscr{L}))$ of $(Y,\Norm{F}{E}(L))$
over $\mathcal{O}_{E,S}$. In particular, we see that the above $v$-adic metrics (\ref{def:norm_adelic_line_bundle})
do indeed come from a model for all but finitely many places.
As for the height functions, one has $H_{\Norm{F}{E}\mathcal{L}}(y)=H_{\mathcal{L}}(y)$ for all $y \in Y(E)$.
Indeed, choose a local section $s$ of $L$ which is defined and non-zero at $y$. Then by (\ref{def:norm_adelic_line_bundle}) we have
\begin{align} \label{eqn:norm_height}
H_{\Norm{F}{E}(\mathcal{L})}(y) = \prod_{v \in \Val(E)}||\Norm{F}{E}(s) (y)||_v^{-1}
= \prod_{v \in \Val(E)} \prod_{w|v} ||s(y)||_w^{-1}
= H_{\mathcal{L}}(y),
\end{align} as required.
\end{example}
We therefore define an adelic metric on $\Res L$ by $\Res \mathcal{L} = \Norm{F}{E}(p^* \mathcal{L})$. This construction gives
rise to a homomorphism $\Res: \Pichad X \to \Pichad \Res X$. The following lemma relates the height function $H_{\mathcal{L}}$ to $H_{\Res \mathcal{L}}$ and establishes (\ref{eqn:Weil_counting_functions}).
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:heights}
Let $X$ be a projective variety over $F$ together with an adelically metrised line bundle $\mathcal{L}$. Then we have
$$H_{\Res \mathcal{L}}(x) = H_{\mathcal{L}}(p(x)),$$
for all $x \in \Res X(E)$. In particular,
$$N(\mathcal{L},U,B)=N(\Res \mathcal{L},\Res U,B),$$
for any open subset $U \subset X$ and any $B > 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows from immediately from the height equalities in Example \ref{Ex:pull-backs} and (\ref{eqn:norm_height})
that we have
$$H_{\Res \mathcal{L}}(x)=H_{\Norm{F}{E}(p^*\mathcal{L})}(x)=H_{p^* \mathcal{L}}(x)=H_{\mathcal{L}}(p(x)),$$
as required.
The equality of counting functions follows from the fact that by definition, we have a bijection
$p:\Res U (E) \to U(F)$
induced by $p$. This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{Manin's conjectures}\label{Sec:Manin}
In this section we prove Theorem \ref{thm:Main}, Theorem \ref{thm:CI_Weil} and Theorem \ref{thm:counterexample}.
We also show that Peyre's refined conjecture
on the leading constant in the asymptotic formula is well-behaved under the Weil restriction (see Lemma \ref{lem:alpha_beta} and Theorem \ref{thm:Tamagawa}).
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Main}}
Throughout this section $E \subset F$ is a finite extension of perfect fields of degree $d$ (assumed to be number fields
from Section \ref{sec:Tamagawa} onwards).
Let $(X,L)$ be a non-singular projective variety over $F$ together with a big line bundle such that $X(F) \neq \emptyset$.
In the light of Lemma~\ref{lem:heights}, to prove Theorem \ref{thm:Main} it suffices to show that the equalities
$a(L)=a(\Res L)$ and $b(L)=b(\Res L)$ hold. Here $a(L)$ is given by (\ref{def:a(L)}) and $b(L)$ is the codimension of the minimal face of $\partial\Eff(X)$ which contains $a(L)[D] + [\omega_X]$. Note that one needs to assume that $a(L)[D] + [\omega_X]$ belongs to the polyhedral part of $\partial\Eff(X)$ for $b(L)$ to be well-defined.
\begin{lemma}
We have
$$a(L)=a(\Res L).$$
If moreover $[\omega_X]$ is not effective and $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X)=0$, then $b(L)$ is defined
if and only if $b(\Res L)$ is defined.
In which case we have
$$b(L)=b(\Res L).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall from Lemma \ref{lem:line_bundles} that the map $\Res : \Pic X \to \Pic \Res X$ preserves the canonical bundle and that a line bundle $L$ on $X$ is effective if and only if
$\Res L$ is effective. Moreover as $\Pic^L X$ is a torsor for $\Pic^0 X$, it follows from Lemma \ref{lem:Pic0} that $\Pic^L X$ contains an effective line bundle if and only if $\Pic^{\Res L} \Res X$ does.
Hence with respect to the induced injective linear map $\Res: \NS_{\RR} X \to \NS_{\RR} \Res X$, we see that $[L] \in \Eff(X)$ if and only if $\Res[L] \in \Eff(\Res X)$.
It follows that
\begin{align*}
a(L)=&\inf \{ r \in \QQ : r[L] + [\omega_X] \in \Eff(X)\} \\
=&\inf \{ r \in \QQ : \Res ( r[L] + [\omega_X]) \in \Eff(\Res X)\} \\
=&\inf \{ r \in \QQ : r[\Res L] + [\omega_{\Res X}] \in \Eff(\Res X)\} \\
=&a(\Res L),
\end{align*}
as required. Now assume that $[\omega_X]$ is not effective and that $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X)=0$. Then by Lemma \ref{lem:Picard}, we see that we have an isomorphism of effective cones $\Res : \Eff(X) \to \Eff(\Res X)$ which preserves the canonical bundle. In particular as $a(L)=a(\Res L)$, we see that $a(L)[L] + [\omega_X]$ belongs to the polyhedral part of $\partial\Eff(X)$ if and only if the corresponding statement holds for $a(\Res L)[\Res L] + [\omega_{\Res X}]$, and moreover that $b(L)=b(\Res L)$.
\end{proof}
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Main}.
\subsection{Peyre's constant}
In \cite{Pey95}, Peyre gave a refinement of Manin's original conjecture which predicts the form of the leading constant in the asymptotic formula (\ref{conj:2}) for Fano varieties. Namely, after fixing a choice of adelic metric on the anticanonical line bundle $\omega_X^{-1}$, he conjectured that the leading constant $c_{\omega_X^{-1}}$
should satisfy
$$c_{\omega_X^{-1}}=\alpha(X)\beta(X)\tau(X).$$
Here $\alpha(X)$ is defined to be
$$\alpha(X)= \frac{1}{(\rho - 1)!}\int_{\Eff(X)^{\vee}} e^{-\langle \omega_X^{-1},x\rangle} \mathrm{d}x,$$
where $\rho=\rank \Pic X$ and $\mathrm{d}x$ is the Haar measure on the dual vector space $(\Pic X \otimes_{\ZZ} \RR)^{\vee}$ normalised
so that $(\Pic X)^{\vee}$ has covolume $1$. Also $\beta(X)=\# H^1(G_F, \Pic \overline{X})$ and $\tau(X)$ is the ``Tamagawa number" of $X$ with respect to the choice of adelic metric on $\omega_X^{-1}$.
The main result of this section is that this refined conjecture is compatible with the Weil restriction, i.e. we have
an equality $c_{\omega_X^{-1}} = c_{\omega_{\Res X}^{-1}}$.
We begin with $\alpha(X)$ and $\beta(X)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:alpha_beta}
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over $F$ such that $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X)=0$, $X(F)\neq \emptyset$
and such that $\Pic X$ is a free abelian group of finite rank.
Then
$$\beta(X)=\beta(\Res X).$$
If $\omega_X^{-1}$ is big then
$$\alpha(X)=\alpha(\Res X).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lem:Picard} we know that $\Pic \overline{\Res X}$ is an induced representation of $\Pic \overline{X}$.
Therefore Shapiro's lemma \cite[Prop. 1.6.3]{NSW00} implies that we have an isomorphism
$H^1(G_F, \Pic \overline{X}) \cong H^1(G_E, \Pic \overline{\Res X})$, hence $\beta(X)=\beta(\Res X)$.
Next assume that $\omega_X^{-1}$ is big (this assumption is needed to make sure that $\alpha(X)$ is well-defined).
By Lemma \ref{lem:line_bundles} and Lemma \ref{lem:Picard} we have an
isomorphism $\Res : \Pic X \otimes_\ZZ \RR \to \Pic \Res X \otimes_\ZZ \RR $ which preserves the canonical bundle
and induces an isomorphism of the Picard lattices and effective cones. As $\alpha(X)$ is defined purely in terms of this data and its dual, we see that $\alpha(X)=\alpha(\Res X).$
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Tamagawa numbers} \label{sec:Tamagawa}
We next address the Tamagawa numbers, so we assume that $E \subset F$ are number fields.
Weil \cite{Wei82} was the first to define Tamagawa numbers of \emph{linear algebraic groups}, and he also showed
\cite[Thm. 2.3.2]{Wei82} that they are preserved under the Weil restriction for finite separable extensions of global fields.
Weil's proof was however lacking in certain details, and a complete proof for all linear algebraic groups, including the
non-separable case, was given by Oesterl\'{e} \cite[Thm. II.1.3]{Oes84}.
Throughout this section $X$ is a smooth projective variety of dimension $n$ over $F$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:Tamagawa_conditions}
\begin{array}{ll}
\Pic \overline{X} \text{ is a free abelian group of finite rank}.\\
H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X)=H^2(X,\mathcal{O}_X)=0.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
We also fix a choice of adelic metric on the canonical line bundle $\omega_X$. For example $X$ could be a Fano variety with
the adelic metric coming from a choice of anticanonical embedding. We now recall the definition of the Tamagawa measure on
$X (\mathbf{A}_F)$ associated to this choice of adelic metric. Such measures were originally defined by
Peyre \cite{Pey95} in the case where $X$ is Fano, however his construction also works in the slightly more general setting of
(\ref{eqn:Tamagawa_conditions}) (see \cite{CLT10}).
For inspiration with the definition to come, let $K$ be a local field and $V$ a $K$-vector space of dimension $n$. Then a choice of norm $|| \cdot ||$ on $\det(V)=\bigwedge^n V$ determines a measure on $V$.
Indeed, choosing an isomorphism $\phi:V \cong K^n$ we have the measure
$$\frac{\phi^*(|\mathrm{d}x_{1}|\cdots|\mathrm{d}x_n|)}
{||\phi^*(e_{1}\wedge\ldots\wedge e_{n})||},$$
on $V$, where $e_1,\ldots,e_n$ are the standard basis vectors on $K^n$ and
$|\mathrm{d}x_{1}|\cdots|\mathrm{d}x_n|$ denotes the product of the Haar
measures on $K^n$. It is easy to see that this is independent of the choice of $\phi$. To define measures on varieties
over local fields, we essentially apply this
construction to the cotangent space of each point on the variety.
For each place $v$ of $F$, choose a differential form $\omega_v$ of top degree defined on some open subset $U_v \subset X(F_v)$.
Then in a choice of local coordinates $x_{v,1},\ldots,x_{v,n}$ we may write $\omega_v$ as
$$\omega_v = f(x_{v,1},\ldots,x_{v,n})\mathrm{d}x_{v,1}\wedge\ldots\wedge\mathrm{d}x_{v,n}.$$
We define the measure $|\omega_v|_v$ associated to $\omega_v$ to be
$$|\omega_v|_v = |f(x_{v,1},\ldots,x_{v,n})_v|_v|\mathrm{d}x_{v,1}|_v\cdots|\mathrm{d}x_{v,n}|_v.$$
This measure is independent of the choice of local coordinates, however it depends on the choice of $\omega_v$. We therefore
consider instead the measure on $U_v$ given by
$|\omega_v|_v/||\omega_v||_v,$
which is independent of $\omega_v$. By gluing these measures, we obtain a measure $\tau_{X,v}$ on $X(F_v)$.
The product of these measures does not converge in general, so we need to introduce convergence factors to get a measure on
$X(\mathbf{A}_F)$. Since $\Pic \overline{X}$ is a free abelian group of finite rank and moreover is a $G_F$-module, we may define the corresponding
Artin L-function $L(s,\Pic \overline{X})$ as a product of local factors $L_v(s,\Pic \overline{X})$ for each finite place $v \in \Val(F)$
(see e.g. \cite[Sec. 5.13]{IK04}). This L-function is holomorphic on $\re s >1$ and admits a meromorphic continuation to
$\CC$ with a pole of order $\rho=\rank \Pic X$ at $s=1$. For each place $v \in \Val(F)$ we define
$$ \lambda_v = \left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
L_v(1,\Pic \overline{X}),& \quad v \text{ non-archimedean}, \\
1,& \quad v \text{ archimedean}. \\
\end{array}\right.$$
The condition $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X)=H^2(X,\mathcal{O}_X)=0$ implies (see \cite[Thm. 1.1.1]{CLT10}) that these are a family of ``convergence factors'', i.e.
the measure
\begin{equation} \label{def:Tamagawa}
\tau_X = \mu_F^{-n}\lim_{s \to 1}( (s-1)^{\rho} L(s,\Pic \overline{X}) ) \prod_{v \in \Val(F)} \lambda_v^{-1} \tau_{X,v},
\end{equation}
is a well-defined measure on $X(\mathbf{A}_F)$, called the \emph{Tamagawa measure} of $X$.
Here $\mu_F$ denotes the volume of $\mathbf{A}_F/F$ with respect to our choice of Haar measure
(Peyre \cite[def. 2.1]{Pey95} includes instead a discriminant factor due to his specific choice of Haar measure).
We define the \emph{Tamagawa number} $\tau(X)$ of $X$ to be
$$\tau(X)=\tau_X(\overline{X(F)}),$$
where $\overline{X (F)}$ denotes the closure of $X (F)$ in $X (\mathbf{A}_F)$ with respect to the adelic topology.
This construction depends on the choice of the adelic metric on the canonical line bundle $\omega_X$, but is independent
of the choice of Haar measure on $\mathbf{A}_F$.
We now consider the associated Tamagawa measure on $\Res X$. In order to get an adelic metric on $\omega_{\Res X}$, we need to choose an isomorphism of line bundles
$\phi:\omega_{\Res X} \to \Res \omega_X$. As $\Res \omega_X$ comes equipped with an adelic metric coming from $\omega_X$, by transport of structures
we obtain an adelic metric on $\omega_{\Res X}$. Firstly note that this adelic metric is independent of the choice of $\phi$, up to isometry.
Indeed, the choice of the isomorphism $\phi$ depends only on the choice of a non-zero global section $\varphi$ of $\omega_{\Res X} \otimes \Res \omega_X^{-1}$.
As $\Res X$ is projective, any other choice of global section must differ from $\varphi$ by a non-zero scalar, and hence defines an isometric adelic
metric on $\omega_{\Res X}$ (see Example \ref{Ex:Isometry}).
Next note that we deduce from (\ref{eqn:Tamagawa_conditions}) and Lemma \ref{lem:Picard}
that $\Pic \overline{\Res X}$ is free of finite rank and that $H^1(\Res X, \mathcal{O}_{\Res X})=0$. Also using the K\"{u}nneth formula as in the proof of
Lemma \ref{lem:Picard}, we find that $H^2(\Res X, \mathcal{O}_{\Res X})=0$. Hence $\Res X$ also
satisfies the conditions (\ref{eqn:Tamagawa_conditions}) and we have constructed a well-defined Tamagawa measure $\tau_{\Res X}$.
As isometric adelic metrics clearly give rise to the same Tamagawa measure, we see that $\tau_{\Res X}$ is independent of the choice of $\phi$.
Note that there is another natural way to define a measure on $\Res X(\mathbf{A}_E)$.
Namely, we may simply pull-back the Tamagawa measure $\tau_X$ on $X(\mathbf{A}_F)$
via the homeomorphism $p:\Res X(\mathbf{A}_E) \to X(\mathbf{A}_F)$. Our main result of
this section is that these two constructions coincide.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:Tamagawa}
Suppose that $X(F) \neq \emptyset$. Then we have $p^*\tau_X = \tau_{\Res X}$, i.e. the map
$$p: \Res X (\mathbf{A}_E) \to X (\mathbf{A}_F),$$
is an isomorphism of measure spaces. In particular there is an equality
$\tau(X)=\tau(\Res X)$
of Tamagawa numbers.
\end{theorem}
We begin the proof of the theorem by considering the L-functions and convergence factors.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:Lfunctions}
There is an equality
$$L(s,\Pic \overline{X}) = L(s,\Pic \overline{\Res X}),$$
of L-functions and for any place $v \in \Val(E)$ an equality
$ \lambda_v = \prod_{w|v} \lambda_w$
of convergence factors.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Lemma \ref{lem:Picard} implies that $\Pic \overline{\Res X}$ is the induced representation of $ \Pic \overline{X}$ with respect to the field extension $E \subset F$.
This gives the equality of L-functions and an equality $$ L_v(s,\Pic \overline{X}) = \prod_{w|v} L_w(s,\Pic \overline{\Res X})$$ of local factors for
each non-archimedean place $v \in \Val(E)$ (see e.g. \cite[Sec. 5.13]{IK04}). This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Next we consider the local measures. Recall that we have chosen a non-zero global section $\varphi$
of $\omega_{\Res X} \otimes \Res \omega_X^{-1}$, which induces an isomorphism $\phi:\omega_{\Res X} \to \Res \omega_X$
of line bundles, and also that we have a homeomorphism $p_v: \Res X(E_v) \to \prod_{w|v} X(F_w)$ for any place $v \in \Val(E)$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:local_measures}
For each place $v \in \Val(E)$ there exists a constant $A_v$ depending on $\varphi$ and $v$, such that
$$p_v^* \left( \prod_{w|v} \tau_{X,w}\right) = A_v \cdot \tau_{\Res X,v}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\omega$ be a local algebraic differential form of top degree on $X$. To prove the lemma, it suffices to show that
there exists a constant $A_v$, depending on $\varphi$ and $v$, such that
$p_v^* \prod_{w|v}|\omega|_w/||\omega|_w = A_v|\phi^* \Res \omega|_v/||\phi^* \Res \omega||_v$.
Note that such a constant is necessarily independent of $\omega$; indeed these measures are independent of $\omega$.
Also as by definition we have an equality $ \prod_{w|v}||\omega||_w = ||\phi^* \Res \omega||_v$,
we only need to show that $p_v^* \prod_{w|v}|\omega|_w = A_v|\phi^* \Res \omega|_v$.
To do this we work locally near each point $x_v \in \Res X(E_v)$, following a similar approach to Oesterl\'{e} (cf. \cite[Lem. II.5.2]{Oes84}
and \cite[Ex. II.4.3]{Oes84}).
Note that by the definition of the Weil restriction, for any $E$-algebra $R$ we have a canonical bijection
$\Hom(\Spec R[\varepsilon]/(\varepsilon^2),\Res X) \to \Hom(\Spec (R \otimes_E F) [\varepsilon]/(\varepsilon^2),X)$.
In particular, the cotangent space $T_{x_v}^*$ of a point $x_v \in \Res X(E_v)$ is canonically identified
with the space $\prod_{w|v} T^*_{x_w}$ considered as an $E_v$-vector space, where we write $p_v(x_v)=(x_w)_{w|v}$.
If we let $L=\omega_{\Res X} \otimes \Res \omega_X^{-1}$, then under this correspondence
we have isomorphisms
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:cotangent_isometry}
\textstyle{\det_{E_v}T_{x_v}^* \cong L(x_v) \bigotimes \Norm{F \otimes E_v}{E_v} \det_{F \otimes E_v} T^*_{p_v(x_v)}
\cong L(x_v) \bigotimes_{w|v} \Norm{F_w}{E_v} \det_{F_w} T^*_{x_w}},
\end{equation}
where $\phi^* \Res \omega(x_v)$ is identified with $\varphi(x_v) \otimes_{w|v} \Norm{F_w}{E_v} \omega(x_w)$.
Next, for each $w|v$ choose an isomorphism $f_w:T^*_{x_w} \to F_w^n$ such that $\det f_w(\omega(x_w)) = e_1\wedge\ldots\wedge e_n$.
It follows that the map $f_w$ is measure preserving and moreover we may identify $T_{x_v}^*$ with $V=\prod_{w|v}F_w^n$
considered as an $E_v$-vector space. As there are canonical isomorphisms $\Norm{F_w}{E_v} \det_{F_w}F_w^n \cong E_v$,
the isomorphism (\ref{eqn:cotangent_isometry}) simply becomes $\det_{E_v} V \cong L(x_v)$. In particular we see that the
two different measures on $V$, being both Haar measures on the same locally compact topological group, differ
by a constant $A_v(x_v)$, which depends only on $\varphi(x_v)$ and the field $E_v$.
But as $L$ is isomorphic to the trivial line bundle, it has constant fibres and in particular $\varphi(x_v)$, and hence $A_v(x_v)$,
is in fact independent of $x_v$. This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
In order to use Lemma \ref{lem:local_measures} to deduce a global result, we shall need the following.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:A_v=1}
For all but finitely many $v \in \Val(E)$ we have $A_v=1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To prove the lemma, it suffices to compare the measures of two measurable sets inside $\Res X(E_v)$ and $\prod_{w|v}X(F_w)$
which are identified by $p_v$. In particular it is sufficient to show that for all but finitely many $v \in \Val(E)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:points_mod_p}
\tau_{\Res X,v}(\Res X(E_v))=\prod_{w|v}\tau_{X,w}(X(F_w)).
\end{equation}
First choose a model $\mathscr{X}$ of $X$ over $\mathcal{O}_F$. In which case $\RRes{\mathcal{O}_F}{\mathcal{O}_E}\mathscr{X}$ is also a model
of $\Res X$ over $\mathcal{O}_E$. It then follows from \cite[Sec. 2.4.1]{CLT10} that for all but finitely many non-archimedean places $v \in \Val(E)$
we have
$$\tau_{\Res X,v}(\Res X(E_v)) = \frac{\#\RRes{\mathcal{O}_F}{\mathcal{O}_E}\mathscr{X}(\mathcal{O}_E/\mathfrak{p}_v)}{N(\mathfrak{p}_v)^{dn}}, \quad
\prod_{w|v}\tau_{X,w}(X(F_w)) = \prod_{w|v}\frac{\#\mathscr{X}(\mathcal{O}_F/\mathfrak{p}_w)}{N(\mathfrak{p}_w)^{n}},$$
where $\mathfrak{p}_v$ and $\mathfrak{p}_w$ denote the prime ideals corresponding to the places $v$ and $w$ respectively. However, by the definition
of the Weil restriction we have an equality of sets $\RRes{\mathcal{O}_F}{\mathcal{O}_E}\mathscr{X}(\mathcal{O}_E/\mathfrak{p}_v)=
\prod_{w|v}\mathscr{X}(\mathcal{O}_F/\mathfrak{p}_w)$. Also, as $N(\mathfrak{p}_v)^{d}=\prod_{w|v}N(\mathfrak{p}_w)$ for unramified primes $\mathfrak{p}_v$ (in particular for all but finitely many $v$), this shows that
(\ref{eqn:points_mod_p}) holds for all but finitely many places and completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Hence from Lemma \ref{lem:Lfunctions}, Lemma \ref{lem:local_measures}, Lemma \ref{lem:A_v=1} and the definition (\ref{def:Tamagawa}) of the Tamagawa measures, we see that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:A}
\mu_F^{n}\cdot p^*\tau_X = A\cdot \mu_E^{nd}\cdot \tau_{\Res X},
\end{equation}
where $A=\prod_{v \in \Val(E)} A_v$.
Our next aim is to calculate $A$, which we may do by working locally near a single rational point.
The following lemma will assist with this calculation.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:cotangent}
Let $x \in X(F)$ and consider the adelic cotangent space $T^*_x \otimes_F \mathbf{A}_F$ equipped with the
measure induced by the adelic metric on $\omega_X$. Then
$$\vol\left((T^*_x \otimes_F \mathbf{A}_F)/T^*_x\right) = \mu_F^{n}\cdot H_{\omega_X}(x).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Choose algebraic local coordinates $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ near $x$ defined over $F$ and let
$\omega=\mathrm{d}x_1\wedge\ldots\wedge\mathrm{d}x_n$. Then these local coordinates give an isomorphism
$T^*_x \cong F^n$ with respect to which we have $|\omega|_v=|\mathrm{d}x_{v,1}|_v\cdots|\mathrm{d}x_{v,n}|_v$ for each place $v \in \Val(F)$.
Therefore the measure $\prod_v|\omega|_v$ on $T^*_x \otimes_F \mathbf{A}_F$ is identified with the product measure on $\mathbf{A}_F^n$ (note that
we do not require convergence factors). Also, by Definition \ref{def:heights} we have $\prod_v||\omega||^{-1}_v=H_{\omega_X}(x)$.
Therefore the measure $\prod_v|\omega|_v/||\omega||_v^{-1}$ on $T^*_x \otimes_F \mathbf{A}_F$
is identified with $H_{\omega_X}(x)$ times the product measure on $\mathbf{A}_F^n$, and the result follows.
\end{proof}
On choosing a rational point $x \in \Res X(E)$ we have an induced map $T^*_{p(x)} \to T^*_x$
of $E$-vector spaces which induces a homeomorphism
$T^*_{p(x)} \otimes_F \mathbf{A}_F \to T^*_x \otimes_E \mathbf{A}_E$. Therefore by the definition of $A$ we have
$$\vol((T^*_{p(x)} \otimes_F \mathbf{A}_F)/T^*_{p(x)})=A\cdot \vol((T^*_x \otimes_E \mathbf{A}_E)/T^*_x),$$
with respect to the associated measures.
However, on applying Lemma \ref{lem:cotangent} we see that
\begin{align*}
\vol((T^*_{p(x)} \otimes_F \mathbf{A}_F)/T^*_{p(x)})&=\mu_F^{n}\cdot H_{\omega_{X}}(p(x)), \\
\vol((T^*_x \otimes_E \mathbf{A}_E)/T^*_x)&=\mu_E^{nd}\cdot H_{\Res \omega_{X}}(x).
\end{align*}
As $H_{\Res \omega_{X}}(x) = H_{\omega_{X}}(p(x))$ by Lemma \ref{lem:heights},
we obtain $A=\mu_F^{n}/ \mu_E^{nd}$. Combining this calculation with (\ref{eq:A}) proves that $p^*\tau_X = \tau_{\Res X}$.
As for the equality of Tamagawa numbers, we note that $p: \Res X (\mathbf{A}_E) \to X (\mathbf{A}_F)$ is continuous and restricts to a bijection
$p: \Res X (E) \to X (F)$. It therefore induces a measure preserving bijection $p:\overline{\Res X (E) } \to \overline{X (F)}$
and hence $\tau(X)=\tau(\Res X)$. This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Tamagawa}.
\subsection{Complete intersections} \label{Sec:CI}
We now prove Theorem \ref{thm:CI_Weil}. As noted in the introduction,
we are able to handle more general height functions than simply the height function (\ref{eq:height}).
By Theorem \ref{thm:Main}, Lemma \ref{lem:alpha_beta} and Theorem \ref{thm:Tamagawa},
it suffices to show the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:CI}
Let $F$ be a number field and let $X \subset \PP^n$ be a non-singular complete intersection of $m$
hypersurfaces over $F$ each of the same degree $r$. Suppose that $$n + 1 - \dim X^* > m(m+1)(r-1)2^{r-1}$$
and $X(\mathbf{A}_F) \neq \emptyset$. For each archimedean place $v$ of $F$, choose an arbitrary $F_v$-vector space norm $||\cdot||_v$
on $F_v^{n+1}$ and for each non-archimedean place $v$ let $||\cdot||_v$ be the usual maximum norm.
Let $\mathcal{L}=(\mathcal{O}_X(1),||\cdot||)$ denote the associated adelically metrised line bundle.
Then
$$N(\mathcal{L},X,B) \sim c B^{n+1 - mr}, \quad \text{as } B \to \infty,$$
where $c=c(\mathcal{L},X)>0$ agrees with Peyre's prediction.
\end{theorem}
Note that this result does indeed confirm (\ref{conj:2}), as $\omega_X^{-1} \cong \mathcal{O}_X(n+1-mr)$
for such complete intersections (see \cite[Prop. 4]{FMT89}).
In the statement of the theorem $X^*$ denotes the ``Birch singular locus'' of X (see \cite{Ski97}).
Even though $X$ is non-singular this is non-empty. We have the upper bound
$\dim X^* \leq m$ (we have used this bound to simplify the statement of Theorem \ref{thm:CI_Weil}).
As explained in the introduction, our proof hinges on the results of \cite{Ski97}.
Peyre describes in great detail in \cite[Sec. 5]{Pey95} the relationship between the circle
method and Manin's conjecture, and we follow his ideas closely. Peyre works over general
number fields and only specialises to the case where $F=\mathbb{Q}$ at the end of his discussion,
presumably because Skinner's result came after Peyre's paper.
We begin with some notation.
For each ideal $\mathfrak{a}$ of $\mathcal{O}_F$, we denote its norm by $\mathcal{N}(\mathfrak{a})$
and we denote by $\mathfrak{a}_v = \mathfrak{a} \otimes_{\mathcal{O}_F} \mathcal{O}_v$
for each non-archimedean place $v$ of $F$.
We also choose representatives $\mathfrak{c}_1,\ldots,\mathfrak{c}_h$ for the class group of $\mathcal{O}_F$
and let $\mathfrak{c}=\{\mathfrak{c}_1,\ldots,\mathfrak{c}_h\}$.
For each ideal $\mathfrak{a}$, we choose some $\lambda_\mathfrak{a} \in F^*$ such that
$\mathfrak{a} = \lambda_{\mathfrak{a}}\mathfrak{c}_{\mathfrak{a}}$
for some $\mathfrak{c}_{\mathfrak{a}}\in \mathfrak{c}$.
By changing the $\mathfrak{c}_i$ if necessary, we may assume that $\lambda_\mathfrak{a} \in \mathcal{O}_F$
for each $\mathfrak{a}$. The first step of the proof is to lift the counting problem to one of counting integral
points on the affine cone of $X$. Choosing the coefficients of the equations of $X$ to lie inside $\mathcal{O}_F$,
we obtain a model for $X$ over $\mathcal{O}_F$. We denote the affine cone of this model by $W \subset \mathbb{A}^{n+1}_{\mathcal{O}_F}$.
In what follows we shall identity $W(F)$ with its image in $F_\infty^{n+1}$.
For any bounded subset $O \subset F_\infty^{n+1}$ and any
ideal $\mathfrak{a}$ of $\mathcal{O}_F$ we define
$$N(O,\mathfrak{a},B) = \#\{x \in W(\mathfrak{a}) \cap B^{1/d}O\}.$$
Here we write $W(\mathfrak{a}) = W(F) \cap \mathfrak{a}^{n+1}$ and $d=[F:\QQ]$.
We also let $\omega_L=\mu_F^{-\dim X}\prod_{v \in \Val(F)} \omega_{L,v}$ denote the Leray form on $W(\mathbf{A}_F)$ (see \cite[Sec. 5.2]{Pey95}).
The following lemma is an application of the main result of \cite{Ski97}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Balls}
Let $O \subset F_\infty^{n+1}$
be a bounded open subset such that the boundary of $O \cap W(F_\infty)$ has zero
measure with respect to $\prod_{v \mid \infty}\omega_{L,v}$.
Then
$$N(O,\mathfrak{a},B) = c(O,\mathfrak{a}) B^{n+1 - mr}
+ o_{O,\mathfrak{a}}(B^{n+1 - mr}), \quad \text{ as } B \to \infty,$$
where $$c(O,\mathfrak{a}) = \int_{O \times \prod_{v \nmid \infty} \mathfrak{a}_v} \omega_L.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Choose an integral basis $\omega_1,\ldots,\omega_d$ for $\mathfrak{a}$.
We shall work with the ``boxes'' inside $F_\infty^{n+1}$ given by the translates of
$$\mathscr{B}_k=\{(r_0,\ldots,r_{n}) \in F_\infty^{n+1} : -(1/2)^k \leq r_{ij} < (1/2)^k, \quad 0 \leq i \leq n, 1 \leq j \leq d\},$$
where $k \in \NN$ and we write $r_i = \omega_1 r_{i1} + \cdots + \omega_d r_{id}.$
Let $O_{k,-}$ be the union of all non-overlapping translates of $\mathscr{B}_k$ strictly contained in $O$
and let $O_{k,+}$ be the union of
all non-overlapping translates of $\mathscr{B}_k$ which strictly contain $O$.
The assumption that $O$ is bounded implies that there are only finitely many such boxes.
Clearly
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:O}
N(O_{k,-},\mathfrak{a},B)\leq N(O,\mathfrak{a},B) \leq N(O_{k,+},\mathfrak{a},B).
\end{equation}
Let $$c(O_{k,\pm},\mathfrak{a}) = \lim_{B \to \infty} \frac{N(O_{k,\pm},\mathfrak{a},B)}{B^{n+1-mr}}.$$
Skinner's result \cite{Ski97} implies that $c(O_{k,\pm},\mathfrak{a})$ exists, is finite and non-zero.
The constants $c(O_{k,\pm},\mathfrak{a})$ are given by the product of the usual singular series and singular integral,
which by a standard argument (see e.g. \cite[Sec. 5]{Pey95} or \cite[Sec. 3.4]{SS13}) may be written as
$$c(O_{k,\pm},\mathfrak{a}) = \int_{O_{k,\pm} \times \prod_{v \nmid \infty} \mathfrak{a}_v} \omega_L.$$
Let
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:c_O}
c(O,\mathfrak{a}) = \liminf_{B \to \infty} \frac{N(O,\mathfrak{a},B)}{B^{n+1-mr}}.
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{eqn:O}) we obtain
$$
c(O_{k,-},\mathfrak{a}) \leq c(O,\mathfrak{a}) \leq c(O_{k,+},\mathfrak{a}).
$$
In particular $c(O,\mathfrak{a})$ is finite and non-zero.
Our assumptions on $O$ imply that $$\lim_{k \to \infty} (c(O_{k,+},\mathfrak{a}) - c(O_{k,-},\mathfrak{a})) = 0.$$
The dominated convergence theorem therefore implies that
$$c(O,\mathfrak{a}) = \int_{O \times \prod_{v \nmid \infty} \mathfrak{a}_v} \omega_L.$$
The result is proved on applying the same argument again with the $\liminf$ in (\ref{eqn:c_O}) replaced by a $\limsup$.
\end{proof}
We now define the M\"{o}bius function multiplicatively on ideals of $\mathcal{O}_F$ via
$$\mu(\mathfrak{p}) = -1, \qquad \mu(\mathfrak{p}^\nu) = 0, \quad \nu > 1,$$
for any prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ of $\mathcal{O}_F$.
Applying M\"{o}bius inversion (see \cite[Prop. 5.4.1]{Pey95} or \cite[Prop. 2.4.2]{Pey01}), we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:Mobius}
N(\mathcal{L},X,B) = \frac{1}{w}\sum_{i = 1}^h \sum_{\mathfrak{a}} \mu(\mathfrak{a})N(O_{\mathfrak{c}_{i}\mathfrak{a}},\mathfrak{c}_i \mathfrak{a},\mathcal{N}(\mathfrak{c}_i)B),
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all ideals $\mathfrak{a}$ of $\mathcal{O}_F$ and $w$ denotes the number of roots of unity in $\mathcal{O}_F^*$.
Here
$$O_{\mathfrak{a}} = (\lambda_{\mathfrak{a}} \Delta_F) \cap \left\{ x \in W(F_\infty): \prod_{v \mid \infty} ||(x_{0,v},\ldots,x_{n,v})||_v < 1\right\},$$
where $\Delta_F$ denotes the fundamental domain for the action of $\mathcal{O}_F^*$ on $F_\infty^{n+1}$
as constructed by Schanuel (see \cite{Sch79} or \cite[Sec. 5.1]{Pey95}).
Note that in \cite[Prop. 5.4.1]{Pey95}, Peyre uses the same fundamental domain
for each ideal $\mathfrak{a}$, whereas here it is more convenient for us to allow different fundamental domains for
different ideals (the same proof also works in this case).
By \cite[Prop. 2]{Sch79}, the set $O_\mathfrak{a}$ is bounded. Moreover, its boundary clearly
has zero measure with respect to $\prod_{v \mid \infty}\omega_{L,v}$ (it is contained in
$\{x \in W(F_\infty): \prod_{v \mid \infty} ||(x_{0,v},\ldots,x_{n,v})||_v = 1\}$). Hence
$O_\mathfrak{a}$ satisfies the conditions of Lemma \ref{lem:Balls},
though there is a slight problem as the error term in Lemma \ref{lem:Balls} is not uniform with respect $\mathfrak{a}$.
We shall get around this by using a trick,
which was also used by Schanuel in \cite{Sch79}.
Namely, we have chosen the regions $O_\mathfrak{a}$ in such a manner that
$N(O_\mathfrak{a},\mathfrak{a},B) = N(O,\mathfrak{c}_\mathfrak{a},B/\mathcal{N}(\lambda_{\mathfrak{a}}))$
where $O = O_{(1)}$.
Therefore, applying Lemma \ref{lem:Balls} to (\ref{eqn:Mobius}) we obtain
$$N(\mathcal{L},X,B) = B^{n+1 - mr} \cdot \frac{1}{w}\sum_{i = 1}^h
\sum_{\mathfrak{a}} \mu(\mathfrak{a})c(O_{\mathfrak{c}_i\mathfrak{a}},\mathfrak{c}_i\mathfrak{a}) \mathcal{N}(\mathfrak{c}_i)^{n+1 - mr}
+ o_{O,\mathfrak{c}}\left(\sum_{\mathfrak{a}}\left(\frac{B}{\mathcal{N}(\mathfrak{a})}\right)^{n+1-mr}\right).$$
By \cite[Prop. 5.4.1]{Pey95}, the sum in the main term converges and agrees with Peyre's prediction.
The convergence of the sum in the error term follows from the fact that the
Dedekind zeta function $\zeta_F(s)= \sum_{\mathfrak{a}} \mathcal{N}(\mathfrak{a})^{-s}$ is absolutely convergent for $\re s >1$.
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:CI}, hence also the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:CI_Weil}.
\subsection{Counterexamples to Manin's conjecture}
\label{Sec:counterexample}
We now finish off our paper by proving Theorem \ref{thm:counterexample}.
We begin by recalling a special case of the counterexamples constructed by Batyrev and Tschinkel \cite{BT96}.
Let $X$ be the hypersurface in $\PP^3 \times \PP^3$ defined by the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:BT}
x_0y_0^3 + x_1y_1^3 + x_2y_2^3 + x_3y_3^3=0.
\end{equation}
Then Batyrev and Tschinkel \cite[Thm. 3.1]{BT96} have show that for any number field $F$ containing $\QQ(\sqrt{-3})$, any choice of adelic metric on $\omega_{X_F}^{-1}$ and any non-empty open subset $U \subset X_{F}$,
there exists a constant $c>0$ such that
$$N(\omega_{X_F}^{-1},U,B) \geq cB(\log B)^{3},$$
for any $B >0$. As $X$ is a smooth Fano variety with $\Pic X \cong \ZZ^2$, this
provides a counterexample to Manin's conjecture (\ref{conj:2}) over such fields $F$.
Our counterexamples will be Weil restrictions of (\ref{eqn:BT}). To begin with, we need lower bounds on the number
of rational points of bounded height on the Weil restrictions of certain cubic surfaces. In what follows, we use various standard facts
about del Pezzo surfaces which can be found for example in \cite{Man86} or \cite[Ch. V.4]{Har77}. Recall also that we say
that a del Pezzo surface $S$ over a field $F$ is \emph{split} if the natural map $\Pic S \to \Pic \overline{S}$
is an isomorphism. In particular, a smooth cubic surface is split if and only if all of its lines are defined over the ground field.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:split_cubic}
Let $E \subset F$ be a quadratic extension of number fields,
let $S$ be a smooth split cubic surface over $F$ and let $S'=\Res S$.
Let $E \subset F'$ be a finite field extension and choose an adelic metric on $\omega_{S'_{F'}}^{-1}$. Let
$U \subset S'_{F'}$ be an open subset and let $B>0$. Then there exists a constant $c>0$
such that
$$N(\omega_{S'_{F'}}^{-1},U,B) \geq cB(\log B)^{7},$$
if $F \subset F'$ and
$$N(\omega_{S'_{F'}}^{-1},U,B) \geq cB(\log B)^{3},$$
otherwise.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As all the lines in $S$ are defined over $F$, we may contract any three non-intersecting lines $L_1,L_2$ and
$L_3$ to obtain a morphism $\pi:S \to Y$ defined over $F$, where $Y$ is a split del Pezzo surface of degree six.
Let $Y'=\Res Y$ and let $\pi':S' \to Y'$ be the induced map. Note that since $Y$ is toric by \cite[Thm. 30.3.1]{Man86}, we deduce that $Y'$ is
also toric under the torus $T=\Res \Gm^2$. Choose an adelic metric on $\omega_{Y'_{F'}}^{-1}$.
It follows from \cite[Prop. V. 3.3]{Har77} that $K_S -\pi^*(K_{Y}) \sim L_1 + L_2 + L_3 \geq 0$, where $K_S$ denotes a canonical divisor of $S$.
Hence, we see from Lemma~\ref{lem:line_bundles} that $K_{S'} -\pi'^*(K_{Y'})$ is also linearly equivalent to an effective divisor.
If we choose an open subset $U' \subset U$ such that $\pi'(U') \subset T$ and such that $U'$ does not intersect the base locus of $K_{S'} -\pi'^*(K_{Y'})$,
it follows from Example~\ref{Ex:height_equivalence} and Example~\ref{Ex:height_lower_bound} that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:split_cubic}
N(\omega_{S'_{F'}}^{-1},U,B) \geq N(\omega_{S'_{F'}}^{-1},U',B) \geq N(\omega_{Y'_{F'}}^{-1},\pi'(U'),CB).
\end{equation}
Thus we have managed to reduce the counting problem to one on $Y'_{F'}$.
As $Y'_{F'}$ is toric, by the main theorem of \cite{BT98} we see that there exists a constant $c_0>0$ such that
$$N(\omega_{Y'_{F'}}^{-1},T,B) = c_0B(\log B)^{\rho(Y'_{F'})}(1+o(1)),$$
as $B \to \infty$, where $\rho(Y'_{F'})= \rank \Pic Y'_{F'}$. Moreover Chambert-Loir
and Tschinkel \cite{CLT13} have proved this asymptotic formula with respect to \emph{all} choices of adelic metric
on the anticanonical bundle, in particular the rational points on $T$ are equidistributed with respect to the associated
Tamagawa measure, in the sense defined by Peyre (see \cite[Sec. 3]{Pey95}).
It therefore follows from \cite[Prop. 3.3]{Pey95} that we also have the asymptotic formula
$$N(\omega_{Y'_{F'}}^{-1},\pi'(U'),CB) = c_0CB(\log B)^{\rho(Y'_{F'})}(1+o(1)),$$
as $B \to \infty$, since $T(\mathbf{A}_{F'})$ and $\pi'(U')(\mathbf{A}_{F'})$ have equal Tamagawa measures
(the complement of $\pi'(U')$ in $T$ being a proper closed subvariety).
Therefore, to finish the proof the lemma is suffices to compute $\rho(Y'_{F'})$.
As $Y$ is a split del Pezzo surface of degree six, we have $\Pic \overline{Y} \cong \ZZ^4$ with trivial Galois action.
Therefore by Lemma \ref{lem:Picard}, we know that $\Pic \overline{Y}'$ as a Galois module is the induced representation
of $\ZZ^4$ with respect to the field extension $E \subset F$. In particular we have
$\Pic \overline{Y}' \cong \ZZ^4 \oplus \ZZ^4$, with an element $\sigma \in G_{E}$ having non-trivial action
(given by swapping the two factors of $\ZZ^4$) if and only if it has non-trivial image under the map $G_E \to \Gal(F/E)$.
Hence if $F \subset F'$, then $G_{F'}$ acts
trivially and we have $\rho(Y'_{F'}) = 8$ as $\Pic Y'_{F'} \cong (\Pic \overline{Y}')^{G_{F'}}$ by
Lemma \ref{lem:CMPic}. Otherwise $G_{F'}$ acts non-trivially and so $\rho(Y'_{F'}) = 4$. This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{thm:counterexample} is a consequence of the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let $E$ be any number field and let $X$ be given by (\ref{eqn:BT}).
Let $F=E(\sqrt{-3})$ and put $X'=\Res X_F$.
Let $E \subset F'$ be a finite field extension and choose an adelic metric on $\omega^{-1}_{X'_{F'}}$. Let
$U \subset X'_{F'}$ be an open subset and let $B>0$. Then there exists a constant $c'>0$
such that
$$N(\omega_{X'_{F'}}^{-1},U,B) \geq c'B(\log B)^{\rho(X'_{F'})+3},$$
if $F \subset F'$ and
$$N(\omega_{X'_{F'}}^{-1},U,B) \geq c'B(\log B)^{\rho(X'_{F'})+1},$$
otherwise, where $\rho(X'_{F'}) = \rank \Pic X'_{F'}$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We begin by noting that as $\Pic \overline{X} \cong \ZZ^2$
with trivial Galois action, it follows as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:split_cubic}
that $\rho(X'_{F'}) = 4$ if $F \subset F'$ and that $\rho(X'_{F'}) = 2$ otherwise.
Next, consider the projection map
\begin{align*}
&\pi:X \to \PP^3, \qquad (x,y) \mapsto x.
\end{align*}
The fibres over those points with $x_0\cdots x_3 \neq 0$ are smooth diagonal cubic surfaces,
and moreover the anticanonical bundle of these surfaces is isomorphic to the restriction of the anticanonical
bundle on $X$. If we let
\begin{align*}
&\varphi:\PP^3 \to \PP^3 , \qquad (x_0:x_1:x_2:x_3) \mapsto (x_0^3:x_1^3:x_2^3:x_3^3),
\end{align*}
then the set $\varphi(\PP^3(F))$ is Zariski dense in $\PP^3(F)$. Moreover,
as in the proof of \cite[Thm. 3.1]{BT96}, we see that since
$\QQ(\sqrt{-3}) \subset F$, the fibres over those points in $\varphi(\PP^3(F))$
with $x_0\cdots x_3 \neq 0$ are \emph{split} cubic surfaces, i.e. a Zariski dense
set of the fibres of $\pi$ are split cubic surfaces. We want an analogous statement
for the corresponding map $\pi'=\Res \pi: X' \to \Res \PP^3$.
Let $\varphi'= \Res \varphi: \Res \PP^3 \to \Res \PP^3$ be the map induced by $\varphi$
and let $p:\Res \PP^3 \to \PP^3$ be the usual universal morphism. We
have the following commutative diagram
\begin{equation}\label{diag:commute}
\begin{split}
\xymatrix{
\Res \PP^3 \ar[d]^p \ar[r]^{\varphi'} & \Res \PP^3 \ar[d]^p \\
\PP^3 \ar[r]^{\varphi} & \PP^3 }
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that the fibre of $\pi'$ over a point $ x \in \Res \PP^3(E)$ is the Weil restriction of the
fibre of $\pi$ over the point $p(x) \in \PP^3(F)$. Also, we claim that
$p^{-1}(\varphi(\PP^3(F)))$ is Zariski dense in $\Res \PP^3(E)$. Indeed, by the commutivity of
(\ref{diag:commute}) we have the equality
$p^{-1}(\varphi(\PP^3(F)))=\varphi'(\Res \PP^3(E))$.
This later set is Zariski dense in $\Res \PP^3$ as $\varphi'$ is dominant.
In particular, we see that there is a Zariski dense set of points in $\Res \PP^3$ whose fibres with respect to
$\pi'$ are Weil restrictions of split cubic surfaces.
The result therefore follows on combining Lemma \ref{lem:split_cubic} with the above calculation of $\rho(X'_{F'})$.
\end{proof}
We finish by remarking that by applying the same method to the varieties
$$
X_{n+2}: x_0y_0^3 + x_1y_1^3 + x_2y_2^3 + x_3y_3^3=0 \subset \PP^{n+2} \times \PP^3 ,
$$
considered in \cite{BT96}, one may construct counterexamples to
Manin's conjecture with arbitrary large dimension over any number field.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The satellite \textsl{CoRoT}\, \citep{baglin2006} was launched on 27th December
2006 with a double scientific purpose: the analysis of stellar
seismology and the detection of extrasolar planets by the method of
transits. So far, 7 transits have been published (see Jean Schneider's
Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia\footnote{\rm http://exoplanet.eu}),
but more will come in the near future. Table \ref{tabla:planetas}
gathers the data from these six planets and one brown dwarf. \textsl{CoRoT}'s
photometric precision is below $8\cdot 10^{-4}$ in 2h at $R=15$ \citep{aigrain2009} and candidates are found
with transit depths of $0.034\%$ \citep{leger2009}. Neptune size planets seem to be
common \citep{gould2006} and, there is something even more interesting: they don't
come alone \citep{mayor2008}. Super Earths, which should also be
numerous, are in the range of detectability of \textsl{CoRoT}
\citep{leger2009,queloz2009}. In the near future the number of
candidates will increase and we will find ourselves with a collection
of planets whose diversity we can only start to imagine.
Section \ref{sec:corot} is a short introduction to the
\textsl{CoRoT}\, mission. Section \ref{sec:ttv} gives a short overview of
different sources of transit timing variations which could allow the
detection of Super Earths with the satellite \textsl{CoRoT}.
\section{CoRoT}
\label{sec:corot}
\textsl{CoRoT}\, is an afocal telescope with a 27~cm diameter pupil,
equipped with 4 CCDs ($2048 \times 2048$ pixels each); the pixel scale is
$2.32''$ and the field of view is $3.05^{\circ}\times2.8^{\circ}.$ The
selection of observational targets follows two different strategies: the
seismology channel observes a small number (10) of bright stars
($6<m_v<9$) with a cadence of 32s whereas the exoplanet channel
observes a large number ($\sim 11\,000$) of faint stars ($12<m_v<16$)
every 512s (although a limited number of targets is measured every
32s). \textsl{CoRoT}\, is placed in a polar low Earth orbit which determines the
observational scheme. The satellite continuously monitors the same
region of the sky during 150 days; but then it has to turn around to
avoid the Sun entering the field of view: these are the \emph{long
runs}. Immediately before or after the turnaround, the satellite is
pointed during roughly 20 days to perform a \emph{short run} in a
different direction. Every year, \textsl{CoRoT}\, observes 2 long runs and 2
short runs providing roughly $40\,000$ light curves. These light
curves are narrowed down in the search for transits and a list of
candidates is built. The most promising candidates are followed up
photometrically and spectroscopically from the ground.
The photometric follow-up attempts to discover if the transit is on
target or, on the contrary, if it is produced by a background
binary. The PSF of \textsl{CoRoT}\, is quite large: the flux for each star is
calculated on-board in masks of size 60 pixels on average. In front of
the CCD there is a prism used to produce chromatic light curves with
the aim of distinguishing between stellar (coloured) activity and
(achromatic) transits. However, for faint stars it is not possible
to make this distinction. Large masks raise the probability of
observing background binaries, which are a major source of confusion
\citep{pont2005}.
Spectroscopic follow-up measures the mass of the transiting
object. There is a degeneracy between the mass and the radius of low
mass stellar objects, brown dwarfs and planets (see
Fig.~\ref{fig:massradius}); to confirm the nature of a transiting
object it is mandatory to perform radial velocity measurements and
calculate the object's mass. This can become a bottleneck for the
characterization because the measurement of faint candidates is
challenging.
\citet{deleuil2008b} is a very interesting short summary of
\textsl{CoRoT}\, and its achievements. Fully detailed recent information about
the technical characteristics of the mission can be found in
\citet{fridlund2006,barge2008b} and \citet{drummond2008}.
\begin{table*}
\begin{minipage}[t]{\textwidth}
\caption[]{5 transits found by \textsl{CoRoT}.}
\label{tabla:planetas}
\centering
\renewcommand{\footnoterule}{}
\begin{tabular}{*{8}{c}}
& 1b\footnote{\citet{barge2008a}.}
& 2b\footnote{\citet{alonso2008a,bouchy2008,alonso2008c}.}
& 4b\footnote{\citet{aigrain2008,moutou2008}.}
& 5b\footnote{\citet{rauer2009}.}
& 6b\footnote{\citet{fridlund2009}.}
& 7b\footnote{\citet{leger2009,queloz2009}.}
& 3b\footnote{\citet{deleuil2008a}.} \\
\hline
radius & 1.49 & 1.47 & 1.19 & 1.39 & 1.15 & 0.15 & {\it 1.01} \\
{\small (Jupiter's radii)} & & & & & & & \\
\hline
mass & 1.03 & 3.31 & 0.72 & 0.47 & 3.3 & 0.015 & {\it 21.66} \\
{\small (Jupiter's masses)} & & & & & & & \\
\hline
period & 1.51 & 1.74 & 9.20 & 4.04 & 8.89 & 0.85 & {\it 4.25} \\
{\small (days)} & & & & & & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[%
keepaspectratio,%
totalheight=0.5\textheight,%
width=\linewidth]{massradius}
\end{center}
\caption{Figure from \citet{deleuil2008a} showing the mass--radius
diagram for planets and low mass M stars. CoRoT-3b is
highlighted. The theoretical isochrones at 10 and 1 Gyr are from
\citet{baraffe2003}.}
\label{fig:massradius}
\end{figure}
\section{Transit Timing Variations}
\label{sec:ttv}
Kepler's laws of motion assign periodical orbits to planets. However,
there are numerous sources of perturbations which produce deviations
from the periodicity. Not only are there differences in the observed minus
calculated (O$-$C) epochs of transits, but also in their durations and
depths. Some possible sources are general relativity effects, the
quadrupolar moment of the gravitational potential of the star, tidal
interaction or even the proper motion of the star
\citep{miralda2002,jordan2008,pal2008,rafikov2008}. But all these
perturbations act on timescales much longer than the baseline of
\textsl{CoRoT}\, observations and so, in spite of their interest, are beyond the scope of this study.
However, there are still several other sources of perturbations acting
on shorter timescales, such us those produced by other planets
\citep{schneider2004,holman2005,agol2005,nesvorny2008}, Trojan planets
\citep{laughlin2002,dvorak2004,ford2007}, moons
\citep{doyle2004,kipping2008b,kipping2009}, orbital eccentricity \citep{kipping2008a}
and the light time effect, the so-called LITE (widely studied in
binary systems, see \citealt{irwin1952,mayer1990,borkovits2003}). In
addition to these, \citet{winn2008} contains a very interesting list
of the information that can be obtained from transits.
\subsection{Photometric Precision}
\label{subsec:prec}
From \citet{doyle2004}, we can calculate the maximal accuracy of
$\delta t_0$ that one can achieve when determining the position of a
transit of length $T_{tr}$ and depth $\Delta L$; the photometric
accuracy is $\delta L$ and the number of observations is $N$. This
accuracy is:
\begin{equation*}
\delta t_0 = \delta_L \frac{T_{tr}}{2 \Delta L \sqrt{N}}.
\end{equation*}
In \textsl{CoRoT}, with a photometric accuracy of $0.1\%$, measuring a
transit of depth $1\%$ at the observing cadence of 32s, we can
achieve a timing accuracy on the order of seconds.
\subsection{Multiple Systems}
\label{subsec:sistmult}
On the day this manuscript was submitted, there were \nropl\,extrasolar
planets known, among which most are isolated. But there are already
\nrosistplmult\, known multiple planet systems and in the future, as
Dr. Udry pointed out in this conference, probably more and more
planets will be found in multiple systems. See also the work by
Dr. Wright in this volume.
We can calculate the perturbations in the time of arrival of the
transit signal of a planet if there is another planet in the system in
an interior orbit. Rigorous calculations are done in
\citet{agol2005}, but we can estimate $\delta t$, the amplitude of
this perturbation, with the expression:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:agol}
\delta t = \frcn{P_e}{2 \pi} \frcn{m_i}{m_*+m_i} \frcn{a_i}{a_e};
\end{equation}
where $P$ stands for period, $m$ for masses, $a$ for the semi-major axis
of the orbits and the subscripts $i$ and $e$ refer to the inner and
outer (exterior) planet respectively. For a Jupiter outer planet
with a period of 20 days around a star of one solar mass, an interior
Super Earth of 11 terrestrial masses would produce a perturbation of 3
seconds, which is within the limits of \textsl{CoRoT}.
Dynamics in multiple planets systems is a complicated matter
(for example see, in this volume, the work by Dr. Michtchenko)
and resonances are one of the most important features
because they enhance the amplitude of these perturbations and could
open the door to the discovery of low mass planets
\citep{holman2005,haghighipour2007}.
In 2008 alone, at least 8 publications have seen the light on the
detection of this kind of perturbation:
\citet{agol2008,alonso2008c,diaz2008,hrudkov2008,irwin2008,miller2008b,miller2008a,shporer2008}.
\subsection{Trojan planets}
\label{subsec:troyanos}
In our Solar System, Trojan satellites are a group of asteroids moving
close to the Lagrange points L4 and L5 in 1:1 mean-motion resonance
with Jupiter's orbit. Many efforts have been done in the search for
these kind of objects in extrasolar systems (see for example
\citealt{moldovan2008} and \citealt{madhusudhan2008}). Bodies in these
orbits are stable \citep{ford2006,dvorak2004} and can be found
not only photometrically or by radial velocity, but also by the
timing variations that they produce in the transits of the planet
whose orbit they share. We can estimate the amplitude of this
perturbation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:troyano}
\delta t = \frac{M_{Trojan}}{M_{planet}} \frac{ {\alpha} }{2 \pi} P_{planet};
\end{equation}
for a Trojan object with the mass of the Moon and a transiting planet
with the mass of Jupiter in a 20 day orbit,
$\alpha$ being the typical angle
involved in the calculation, with $\alpha \sim 30$ degrees (see the references given above
for justification), the amplitude of the perturbation is about 5
seconds. Needless to say, if the transiting planet is a Super Earth,
this perturbation is far more important. Another speculative hypothesis
is the existence of massive Trojan planets. If the ratio between the
mass of the transiting planet plus the mass of the Trojan over the
mass of the star is below $\sim 1/27,$ the system can be stable; this
opens the possibility of Trojan Super Earths (see
\citealt{nauenberg2002,schwarz2007} and references therein).
\subsection{LITE}
\label{subsec:c4_roemer}
LITE was first used by the astronomer Ole R{\"o}mer, working in Paris
Observatory with Jean-Dominique Cassini, to measure the speed of light
\citep{roemer1676}. Nowadays it is used to find hidden companions to
binary systems, even those of planetary mass
\citep{deeg2008,lee2008}. But we can find the same effect in multiple
planet systems \citep{schneider2005}. The reflex motion induced in
our Sun by Jupiter has an amplitude of one solar radius, which light
covers in 2 seconds. If we observe the transits of an inner planet and
there is an outer planet in the system, the amplitude of the LITE
perturbation is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:c4_roemer}
\delta t = 2 \frac{m_e}{M_*} \frac{a_e}{c};
\end{equation}
which is of the order of 0.1 seconds for the time baselines of
\textsl{CoRoT}\, (and in this case, we must concede that this favors
the detection of high mass companions and not of Super Earths).
\subsection{Moons}
\label{subsec:c4_satelites}
No moon has yet been detected around any extrasolar planet, although
their existence is expected \citep{sartoretti1999}. However, their
detection is difficult \citep{brown2001}.
In general, it
is not an easy task to
estimate the magnitude of the perturbation because it depends on the
orbit of the satellite around the planet; and
for planets within the specific period range detectable by \textsl{CoRoT},
we don't yet have any
clue as to how much this estimate may be.
Nevertheless, reasonable assumptions in the general case give
perturbations under 1~s, which is below \textsl{CoRoT}\, limits.
However, we point out the possibility of finding binary planets
\citep{cabrera2007}. Binarity is common among stars, from bright
massive objects down to brown dwarfs; and we can also find binary
objects from the size of trans-neptunian objects down to
asteroids. Binarity should be possible among planets and those
systems will produce peculiar transit signals.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
The photometric precision achieved by \textsl{CoRoT}\,allows the detection of
Super Earth planets in transit; but here we have shown that also
non-transiting Super Earths could be detected in multiple systems by
the perturbations they might produce in transiting planets. We have
shown several possible scenarios and discussed their limitations.
\bibliographystyle{astron}
|
\section{Introduction to Theta Functions of Curves}
Let $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ be an irreducible, smooth, projective curve of genus $g \geq 2$ defined over the complex field $\mathbb C.$ We denote
the moduli space of genus $g$ by ${\mathcal M}_g$ and the hyperelliptic locus in ${\mathcal M}_g$ by $\mathcal H_g.$ It is well known that dim
${\mathcal M}_g = 3g-3$ and $\mathcal H_g$ is a $(2g-1)$ dimensional subvariety of ${\mathcal M}_g.$ Choose a symplectic homology basis for $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$,
say
\[ \{ A_1, \dots, A_g, B_1, \dots , B_g\}\]
such that the intersection products $A_i \cdot A_j = B_i \cdot B_j =0$ and $A_i \cdot B_j= {\delta }_{i j}$.
We choose a basis $\{ w_i\}$ for the space of holomorphic 1-forms such that $\int_{A_i} w_j = {\delta }_{i j},$ where ${\delta }_{i
j}$ is the Kronecker delta. The matrix $\Omega= \left[ \int_{B_i} w_j \right] $ is the \textbf{period matrix} of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ .
The columns of the matrix $\left[ I \ | \Omega \right]$ form a lattice $L$ in $\mathbb C^g$ and the Jacobian of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ is $\mbox{Jac }(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)
= \mathbb C^g/ L$. Let $$\mathfrak H_g =\{\tau : \tau \,\, \textit{is symmetric}\,\, g \times g \, \textit{matrix with positive definite
imaginary part} \}$$ be the \textbf{Siegel upper-half space}. Then $\Omega \in \mathfrak H_g$. The group of all $2g \times 2g$
matrices $M \in GL_{2g}(\mathbb Z)$ satisfying
\[M^t J M = J \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \textit{with} \, \,\,\,\,\,\, J = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & I_g \\ -I_g & 0 \end{pmatrix} \]
is called the \textbf{symplectic group} and denoted by $Sp_{2g}(\mathbb Z)$.
Let $M = \begin{pmatrix} R & S \\ T & U
\end{pmatrix} \in Sp_{2g}(\mathbb Z) $ and $\tau \in \mathfrak H_g$ where $R,$ $S,$ $T$ and $U$ are $g \times g$ matrices. $Sp_{2g}(\mathbb Z) $ acts transitively on $\mathfrak H_g$ as
\[ M(\tau) = (R \tau + S)(T \tau + U)^{-1}. \]
\noindent Here, the multiplications are matrix multiplications. There is an injection
\[ {\mathcal M}_g \hookrightarrow \mathfrak H_g/ Sp_{2g}(\mathbb Z) =: \mathcal A_g \] where each curve $C$ (up to isomorphism) goes to its Jacobian in $\mathcal A_g.$
If $\ell$ is a positive integer, the principal congruence group of degree $g$ and of level $\ell$ is defined as a
subgroup of $Sp_{2g}(\mathbb Z)$ by the condition $M \equiv I_{2g} \mod \ell.$ We shall denote this group by
$Sp_{2g}(\mathbb Z)(\ell).$
For any $z \in \mathbb C^g$ and $\tau \in \mathfrak H_g$ the \textbf{Riemann's theta function} is defined as
\[ \theta (z , \tau) = \sum_{u\in \mathbb Z^g} e^{\pi i ( u^t \tau u + 2 u^t z ) }\]
where $u$ and $z$ are $g$-dimensional column vectors and the products involved in the formula are matrix products. The
fact that the imaginary part of $\tau$ is positive makes the series absolutely convergent over every compact subset of
$\mathbb C^g \times \mathfrak H_g$.
The theta function is holomorphic on $\mathbb C^g\times \mathfrak H_g$ and has quasi periodic properties,
$$\theta(z+u,\tau)=\theta(z,\tau)\quad \textit{and}\quad
\theta(z+u\tau,\tau)=e^{-\pi i( u^t \tau u+2z^t u )}\cdot \theta(z,\tau)$$
where $u\in \mathbb Z^g$; see \cite{Mu1} for details.
The locus $ \Theta: = \{ z \in \mathbb C^g/L : \theta(z, \Omega)=0 \}$ is called the \textbf{theta divisor} of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$.
Any point $e \in \mbox{Jac } (\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ can be uniquely written as $e = (b,a) \begin{pmatrix} 1_g \\ \Omega \end{pmatrix}$ where $a,b
\in \mathbb R^g$ are the characteristics of $e.$
We shall use the notation $[e]$ for the characteristic of $e$ where $[e] = \ch{a}{b}.$ For any $a, b \in \mathbb Q^g$, the
theta function with rational characteristics is defined as a translate of Riemann's theta function multiplied by an
exponential factor
\begin{equation} \label{ThetaFunctionWithCharac} \theta \ch{a}{b} (z , \tau) = e^{\pi i( a^t \tau a + 2 a^t(z+b))} \theta(z+\tau a+b ,\tau).\end{equation}
\noindent By writing out Eq.~\eqref{ThetaFunctionWithCharac}, we have
\[ \theta \ch{a}{b} (z , \tau) = \sum_{u\in \mathbb Z^g} e^{\pi i ( (u+a)^t \tau (u+a) + 2 (u+a)^t (z+b) ) }. \]
The Riemann's theta function is $\theta \ch{0}{0}.$ The theta function with rational characteristics has the following
properties:
\begin{equation}\label{periodicproperty}
\begin{split}
& \theta \ch{a+n} {b+m} (z,\tau) = e^{2\pi i a^t m}\theta \ch {a} {b} (z,\tau),\\
&\theta \ch{a} {b} (z+m,\tau) = e^{2\pi i a^t m}\theta \ch {a} {b} (z,\tau),\\
&\theta \ch{a} {b} (z+\tau m,\tau) = e^{\pi i (-2b^t m -m^t \tau m - 2m^t z)}\theta \ch {a} {b} (z,\tau)\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $n,m \in \mathbb Z^n.$ All of these properties are immediately verified by writing them out.
A scalar obtained by evaluating a theta function with characteristic at $z=0$ is called a \emph{theta constant} or
\emph{thetanulls}. When the entries of column vectors $a$ and $b$ are from the set $\{ 0,\frac{1}{2}\}$, then the
characteristics $ \ch {a}{b} $ are called the \emph{half-integer characteristics}. The corresponding theta functions
with rational characteristics are called \emph{theta characteristics}.
Points of order $n$ on $\mbox{Jac }(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ are called the $\frac 1 n$-\textbf{periods}. Any point $p$ of $\mbox{Jac }(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ can be written
as $p = \tau \,a + b. $ If $\ch{a}{b}$ is a $\frac 1 n$-period, then $a,b \in (\frac{1}{n}\mathbb Z /\mathbb Z)^{g}.$ The $\frac 1
n$-period $p$ can be associated with an element of $H_1(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X,\mathbb Z / n\mathbb Z)$ as follows: Let $a = (a_1,\cdots,a_g)^t,$ and $b
= (b_1,\cdots,b_g)^t.$ Then
\[
\begin{split}
p & = \tau a + b \\
& = \big(\sum a_i \int_{B_i} \omega_1,\cdots, \sum a_i \int_{B_i} \omega_g \big)^t + \big(b_1 \int_{A_1} \omega_1,\cdots,b_g
\int_{A_g} \omega_g \big) \\
\end{split}
\]
\[
\begin{split}
& = \big(\sum (a_i \int_{B_i} \omega_1 + b_i\int_{A_i} \omega_1) ,\cdots, \sum (a_i \int_{B_i} \omega_g + b_i\int_{A_i} \omega_g) \big)^t\\
& = \big( \int_C \omega_1, \cdots, \int_C \omega_g \big)^t
\end{split}
\]
where $C = \sum a_i B_i + b_i A_i. $ We identify the point $p$ with the cycle $\bar{C} \in H_1(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X,\mathbb Z / n\mathbb Z)$ where
$\bar{C} =\sum \bar{a_i} B_i + \bar{b_i} A_i,$ $\bar{a_i} = n a_i$ and $\bar{b_i} = n b_i$ for all $i.$
\subsection{Half-Integer Characteristics and the G\"opel Group} In this section we study groups of
half-integer characteristics. Any half-integer characteristic $\mathfrak m \in\frac{1}{2}\mathbb Z^{2g}/\mathbb Z^{2g}$ is given by
\[
\mathfrak m = \frac{1}{2}m = \frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix} m_1 & m_2 & \cdots & m_g \\ m_1^{\prime} & m_2^{\prime} & \cdots & m_g^{\prime} \end{pmatrix},
\]
where $m_i, m_i^{\prime} \in \mathbb Z.$ For $\mathfrak m = \ch{m ^\prime}{m^{\prime \prime}} \in \frac{1}{2}\mathbb Z^{2g}/\mathbb Z^{2g},$ we
define $e_*(\mathfrak m) = (-1)^{4 (m^\prime)^t m^{\prime \prime}}.$ We say that $\mathfrak m$ is an \emph{even} (resp. \emph{odd})
characteristic if $e_*(\mathfrak m) = 1$ (resp. $e_*(\mathfrak m) = -1$). For any curve of genus $g$, there are $2^{g-1}(2^g+1)$ (resp.,
$2^{g-1}(2^g-1)$ ) even theta functions (resp., odd theta functions). Let $\mathfrak a$ be another half-integer characteristic.
We define
\[
\mathfrak m \, \mathfrak a = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix} t_1 & t_2 & \cdots & t_g \\ t_1^{\prime} & t_2^{\prime} & \cdots &
t_g^{\prime}
\end{pmatrix}
\]
where $t_i \equiv (m_i\, + a_i) \mod 2$ and $t_i^{\prime} \equiv (m_i^{\prime}\, + a_i^{\prime} ) \mod 2.$
For the rest of the thesis we only consider characteristics $\frac{1}{2}q$ in which each of the elements
$q_i,q_i^{\prime}$ is either 0 or 1. We use the following abbreviations:
\[
\begin{split}
&|\mathfrak m| = \sum_{i=1}^g m_i m_i^{\prime}, \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad
|\mathfrak m, \mathfrak a| = \sum_{i=1}^g (m_i^{\prime} a_i - m_i a_i^{\prime}), \\
& |\mathfrak m, \mathfrak a, \mathfrak b| = |\mathfrak a, \mathfrak b| + |\mathfrak b, \mathfrak m| + |\mathfrak m, \mathfrak a|, \quad \quad {\mathfrak m\choose \mathfrak a} = e^{\pi i \sum_{j=1}^g m_j
a_j^{\prime}}.
\end{split}
\]
\indent The set of all half-integer characteristics forms a group $\Gamma$ which has $2^{2g}$ elements. We say that two
half integer characteristics $\mathfrak m$ and $\mathfrak a$ are \emph{syzygetic} (resp., \emph{azygetic}) if $|\mathfrak m, \mathfrak a| \equiv 0 \mod
2$ (resp., $|\mathfrak m, \mathfrak a| \equiv 1 \mod 2$) and three half-integer characteristics $\mathfrak m, \mathfrak a$, and $\mathfrak b$ are syzygetic if
$|\mathfrak m, \mathfrak a, \mathfrak b| \equiv 0 \mod 2$.
A \emph{G\"opel group} $G$ is a group of $2^r$ half-integer characteristics where $r \leq g$ such that every two
characteristics are syzygetic. The elements of the group $G$ are formed by the sums of $r$ fundamental characteristics;
see \cite[pg. 489]{Baker} for details. Obviously, a G\"opel group of order $2^r$ is isomorphic to $C^r_2$. The proof of
the following lemma can be found on \cite[pg. 490]{Baker}.
\begin{lem}The number of different G\"opel groups which have $2^r$ characteristics is
\[
\frac{(2^{2g}-1)(2^{2g-2}-1)\cdots(2^{2g-2r+2}-1)}{(2^r-1)(2^{r-1}-1)\cdots(2-1)}.
\]
\end{lem}
If $G$ is a G\"opel group with $2^r$ elements, it has $2^{2g-r}$ cosets. The cosets are called \emph{G\"opel systems}
and are denoted by $\mathfrak a G$, $\mathfrak a \in \Gamma$. Any three characteristics of a G\"opel system are syzygetic. We can find a
set of characteristics called a basis of the G\"opel system which derives all its $2^r$ characteristics by taking only
combinations of any odd number of characteristics of the basis.
\begin{lem}
Let $g \geq 1$ be a fixed integer, $r$ be as defined above and $\sigma = g-r.$ Then there are
$2^{\sigma-1}(2^\sigma+1)$ G\"opel systems which only consist of even characteristics and there are
$2^{\sigma-1}(2^\sigma-1)$ G\"opel systems which consist of odd characteristics. The other $2^{2\sigma}(2^r-1)$ G\"opel
systems consist of as many odd characteristics as even characteristics.
\end{lem}
\proof The proof can be found on \cite[pg. 492]{Baker}. \qed
\begin{cor}\label{numb_systems}
When $r=g,$ we have only one (resp., 0) G\"opel system which consists of even (resp., odd) characteristics.
\end{cor}
Let us consider $s=2^{2\sigma}$ G\"opel systems which have distinct characters. Let us denote them by
\[\mathfrak a_1 G,\mathfrak a_2 G,\cdots,\mathfrak a_s G.\] We have the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
It is possible to choose $2\sigma+1$ characteristics from $\mathfrak a_1, \mathfrak a_2,\cdots, \mathfrak a_s,$ say $\bar{\mathfrak a}_1,$
$\bar{\mathfrak a}_2,$ $\cdots,$ $\bar{\mathfrak a}_{2\sigma+1}$, such that every three of them are azygetic and all have the same
character. The above $2\sigma+1$ fundamental characteristics are even (resp., odd) if $\sigma \equiv 1,0 \mod 4$
(resp.,$\equiv 2,3 \mod 4$).
\end{lem}
\noindent The proof of the following lemma can be found on \cite[pg. 511]{Baker}.
\begin{lem}
For any half-integer characteristics $\mathfrak a$ and $\mathfrak h,$ we have the following:
\begin{equation}\label {Bakereq1}
\theta^2[\mathfrak a](z_1,\tau) \theta^2[\mathfrak a \mathfrak h](z_2,\tau) = \frac{1}{2^{g}} \sum_\mathfrak e e^{\pi i |\mathfrak a \mathfrak e|} { \mathfrak h \choose \mathfrak a \mathfrak e}
\theta^2[\mathfrak e](z_1,\tau)\theta^2[\mathfrak e \mathfrak h](z_2,\tau).
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
We can use this relation to get identities among half-integer theta constants. Here $\mathfrak e$ can be any half-integer
characteristic. We know that we have $2^{g-1}(2^g+1)$ even characteristics. As the genus increases, we have multiple
choices for $\mathfrak e.$ In the following, we explain how we reduce the number of possibilities for $\mathfrak e$ and how to get
identities among theta constants.
First we replace $\mathfrak e$ by $\mathfrak e \mathfrak h$ and $z_1=z_2= 0$ in Eq.~\eqref{Bakereq1}. Eq.~\eqref{Bakereq1} can then be written
as follows:
\begin{equation}\label {Bakereq2}
\theta^2[\mathfrak a] \theta^2[\mathfrak a \mathfrak h] = 2^{-g} \sum_\mathfrak e e^{\pi i |\mathfrak a \mathfrak e \mathfrak h|} { \mathfrak h \choose \mathfrak a \mathfrak e \mathfrak h} \theta^2[\mathfrak e] \theta^2[\mathfrak e \mathfrak h].
\end{equation}
We have $e^{\pi i |\mathfrak a \mathfrak e \mathfrak h|}{ \mathfrak h \choose \mathfrak a \mathfrak e \mathfrak h} = e^{\pi i |\mathfrak a \mathfrak e|}{ \mathfrak h \choose \mathfrak a \mathfrak e} e^{\pi i |\mathfrak a
\mathfrak e, \mathfrak h|}.$ Next we put $z_1=z_2= 0$ in Eq.~\eqref{Bakereq1} and add it to Eq.~\eqref{Bakereq2} and get the following
identity:
\begin{equation}\label {Bakereq3}
2\theta^2[\mathfrak a] \theta^2[\mathfrak a \mathfrak h] = 2^{-g} \sum_\mathfrak e e^{\pi i |\mathfrak a \mathfrak e|} (1 + e^{\pi i|\mathfrak a \mathfrak e, \mathfrak h|}) \theta^2[\mathfrak e] \theta^2[\mathfrak e \mathfrak h].
\end{equation}
If $|\mathfrak a \mathfrak e, \mathfrak h| \equiv 1 \mod 2$, the corresponding terms in the summation vanish. Otherwise $1 + e^{\pi i|\mathfrak a \mathfrak e,
\mathfrak h|} = 2.$ In this case, if either $\mathfrak e$ is odd or $\mathfrak e \mathfrak h$ is odd, the corresponding terms in the summation vanish
again. Therefore, we need $|\mathfrak a \mathfrak e, \mathfrak h| \equiv 0 \mod 2$ and $|\mathfrak e| \equiv |\mathfrak e \mathfrak h| \equiv 0 \mod 2,$ in order to
get nonzero terms in the summation. If $\mathfrak e^*$ satisfies $|\mathfrak e^*| \equiv |\mathfrak e^* \mathfrak h^*| \equiv 0 \mod 2$ for some
$\mathfrak h^*,$ then $\mathfrak e^*\mathfrak h^*$ is also a candidate for the left hand side of the summation. Only one of such two values
$\mathfrak e^*$ and $\mathfrak e^* \mathfrak h^*$ is taken. As a result, we have the following identity among theta constants
\begin{equation}\label {eq1}
\theta^2[\mathfrak a] \theta^2[\mathfrak a \mathfrak h] = \frac{1}{2^{g-1}} \sum_\mathfrak e e^{\pi i |\mathfrak a \mathfrak e|} { \mathfrak h \choose \mathfrak a \mathfrak e} \theta^2[\mathfrak e]\theta^2[\mathfrak e
\mathfrak h],
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak a, \mathfrak h$ are any characteristics and $\mathfrak e$ is a characteristics such that $|\mathfrak a \mathfrak e, \mathfrak h| \equiv 0 \mod 2,$
$|\mathfrak e| \equiv |\mathfrak e \mathfrak h| \equiv 0 \mod 2$ and $\mathfrak e \neq \mathfrak e \mathfrak h.$
By starting from the Eq.~\eqref{Bakereq1} with $z_1 = z_2$ and following a similar argument to the one above, we can
derive the identity,
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
\theta^4[\mathfrak a] + e^{\pi i |\mathfrak a, \mathfrak h|} \theta^4[\mathfrak a \mathfrak h] = \frac{1}{2^{g-1}} \sum_\mathfrak e e^{\pi i |\mathfrak a \mathfrak e|} \{ \theta^4[\mathfrak e] + e^{ \pi
i |\mathfrak a, \mathfrak h|} \theta^4[\mathfrak e \mathfrak h]\}
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak a, \mathfrak h$ are any characteristics and $\mathfrak e$ is a characteristic such that $|\mathfrak h| + |\mathfrak e, \mathfrak h| \equiv 0 \mod 2,$
$|\mathfrak e| \equiv |\mathfrak e \mathfrak h| \equiv 0 \mod 2$ and $\mathfrak e \neq \mathfrak e \mathfrak h.$
\begin{rem}
$|\mathfrak a \mathfrak e ,\mathfrak h| \equiv 0 \mod 2$ and $|\mathfrak e \mathfrak h| \equiv |\mathfrak e| \equiv 0 \mod 2$ implies $|\mathfrak a, \mathfrak h| + |\mathfrak h| \equiv 0 \mod
2.$
\end{rem}
We use Eq.~\eqref{eq1} and Eq.~\eqref{eq2} to get identities among thetanulls in Chapter 2 and in Chapter 3.
\subsection{Hyperelliptic Curves and Their Theta Functions}
A hyperelliptic curve $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X,$ defined over $\mathbb C,$ is a cover of order two of the projective line $\mathbb P^1.$ Let $z$ be the
generator (the hyperelliptic involution) of the Galois group $Gal(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X / \mathbb P^1).$ It is known that $\langle z \rangle $ is
a normal subgroup of the $\mbox{Aut}(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ and $z$ is in the center of $\mbox{Aut}(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$. A hyperelliptic curve is ramified in $(2g
+2)$ places $w_1, \cdots, w_{2g+2}.$ This sets up a bijection between isomorphism classes of hyperelliptic genus g
curves and unordered distinct (2g+2)-tuples $w_1,\cdots,w_{2g+2} \in \mathbb P^1$ modulo automorphisms of $\mathbb P^1.$ An unordered
$(2g+2)$-tuple $\{w_i\}_{i=1}^{2g+2}$ can be described by a binary form (i.e. a homogenous equation $f(X,Z)$ of degree
$2g+2$). To describe $\mathcal H_g,$ we need rational functions of the coefficients of a binary form $f(X,Z),$ invariant under
linear substitutions in X and Z. Such functions are called absolute invariants for $g = 2$; see \cite{S7} for their
definitions. The absolute invariants are $GL_2(\mathbb C)$ invariants under the natural action of $GL_2(\mathbb C)$ on the space of
binary forms of degree $2g + 2.$ Two genus $g$ hyperelliptic curves are isomorphic if and only if they have the same
absolute invariants. The locus of genus $g$ hyperelliptic curves with an extra involution is an irreducible
$g$-dimensional subvariety of $\mathcal H_g$ which is denoted by $\mathcal L_g.$ Finding an explicit description of $\mathcal L_g$ means
finding explicit equations in terms of absolute invariants. Such equations are computed only for $g = 2;$ see \cite{S7}
for details. Writing the equations of $\mathcal L_2$ in terms of theta constants is the main focus of Chapter 2. Computing
similar equations for $g \geq 3$ requires first finding the corresponding absolute invariants. This is still an open
problem in classical invariant theory even for $g = 3.$
Let $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X \longrightarrow \mathbb P^1$ be the degree 2 hyperelliptic projection.
We can assume that $\infty$ is a branch point.
Let
\[ B := \{\alpha_1,\alpha_2, \cdots ,\alpha_{2g+1} \}\]
be the set of other branch points. Let $S = \{1,2, \cdots, 2g+1\}$ be the index set of $B$ and $\eta : S \longrightarrow
\frac{1}{2}\mathbb Z^{2g}/\mathbb Z^{2g}$ be a map defined as follows:
\[
\begin{split}
\eta(2i-1) & = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \cdots & 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
\frac{1}{2} & \cdots & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
\end{bmatrix}, \\
\eta(2i) & =\begin{bmatrix}
0 & \cdots & 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
\frac{1}{2} & \cdots & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{split}
\]
where the nonzero element of the first row appears in $i^{th}$ column.
We define $\eta(\infty) $ to be $
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & \cdots & 0 & 0\\
0 & \cdots & 0 & 0\\
\end{bmatrix}$.
For any $T \subset B $, we define the half-integer characteristic as
\[ \eta_T = \sum_{a_k \in T } \eta(k) .\]
Let $T^c$ denote the complement of $T$ in $B.$ Note that $\eta_B \in \mathbb Z^{2g}.$ If we view $\eta_T$ as an element of
$\frac{1}{2}\mathbb Z^{2g}/\mathbb Z^{2g}$ then $\eta_T= \eta_{T^c}.$ Let $\triangle$ denote the symmetric difference of sets, that is $T
\triangle R = (T \cup R) - (T \cap R).$ It can be shown that the set of subsets of $B$ is a group under $\triangle.$ We
have the following group isomorphism:
\[ \{T \subset B\, |\, \#T \equiv g+1 \mod 2\} / T \sim T^c \cong \frac{1}{2}\mathbb Z^{2g}/\mathbb Z^{2g}.\]
For $\gamma = \ch{\gamma ^\prime}{\gamma^{\prime \prime}} \in \frac{1}{2}\mathbb Z^{2g}/\mathbb Z^{2g}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{parityIdentity}
\theta [\gamma] (-z , \tau) = e_* (\gamma) \theta [\gamma] (z , \tau).\end{equation}
It is known that for hyperelliptic curves, $2^{g-1}(2^g+1) - {2g+1 \choose g}$ of the even theta constants are zero.
The following theorem provides a condition for the characteristics in which theta characteristics become zero. The
proof of the theorem can be found in \cite{Mu2}.
\begin{thm}\label{vanishingProperty}
Let $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ be a hyperelliptic curve, with a set $B$ of branch points. Let $S$ be the index set as above and $U $ be the
set of all odd values of $S$. Then for all $T \subset S$ with even cardinality, we have $ \theta[\eta_T] = 0$ if and only if
$\#(T \triangle U) \neq g+1$, where $\theta[\eta_T]$ is the theta constant corresponding to the characteristics $\eta_T$.
\end{thm}
When the characteristic $\gamma$ is odd, $e_* (\gamma)=1.$ Then from Eq.~\eqref{parityIdentity} all odd theta constants
are zero. There is a formula which satisfies half-integer theta characteristics for hyperelliptic curves called
Frobenius' theta formula.
\begin{lem} [Frobenius]
For all $z_i \in \mathbb C^g$, $1\leq i \leq 4$ such that $z_1 + z_2 + z_3 + z_4 = 0$ and for all $b_i \in \mathbb Q^{2g}$, $1\leq i
\leq 4$ such that $b_1 + b_2 + b_3 + b_4 = 0$, we have
\[ \sum_{j \in S \cup \{\infty\}} \epsilon_U(j) \prod_{i =1}^4 \theta[b_i+\eta(j)](z_i) = 0, \]
where for any $A \subset B$,
\[
\epsilon_A(k) =
\begin{cases}
1 & \textit {if $k \in A$}, \\
-1 & \textit {otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
\end{lem}
\proof See \cite[pg. 107]{Mu1}. \qed
A relationship between theta constants and the branch points of the hyperelliptic curve is given by Thomae's formula.
\begin{lem}[Thomae]\label{Thomae}
For all sets of branch points $B=\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2, \cdots ,\alpha_{2g+1} \},$ there is a constant $A$ such that for all $T\subset B,$ $\# T$ is even, \\
\[\theta[\eta_T](0;\tau)^4 =(-1)^{\#T \cap U} A \prod_{i<j \atop i,j \in T \triangle U} (\alpha_{i} - \alpha_{j}) \prod_{i<j \atop i,j \notin T \triangle U} (\alpha_{i} -
\alpha_{j}) \] \\
\noindent where $\eta_T$ is a non singular even half-integer characteristic corresponding to the subset $T$ of branch
points.
\end{lem}
See \cite[pg. 128]{Mu1} for the description of $A$ and \cite[pg. 120]{Mu1} for the proof. Using Thomae's formula and
Frobenius' theta identities we express the branch points of the hyperelliptic curves in terms of even theta constants.
\subsection{Cyclic Curves and Their Theta Functions}
A cyclic cover $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X \longrightarrow \mathbb P^1$ is defined to be a Galois cover with cyclic Galois group $C.$ We call it a
normal cyclic cover of $\mathbb P^1$ if $C$ is normal in $G=Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ where $Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ is the automorphism group of the curve
$\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X.$ Then $\bar{G} = G/C$ embeds as a finite subgroup of $PGL(2,\mathbb C)$ and it is called the reduced automorphism group
of $G.$
\noindent An affine equation of a cyclic curve can be given by the following:
\begin{equation}\label{cyclic}
y^m = f(x) = \prod_{i=1}^s (x-\alpha_i)^{d_i} , \, m = |C|, \,\, 0 < d_i < m.
\end{equation}
Note that when $d_i>0$ for some $i$ the curve is singular.
Hyperelliptic curves are cyclic curves with $m=2$. After Thomae, many mathematicians, for example Fuchs, Bolza, Fay,
Mumford, et al., gave derivations of Thomae's formula in the hyperelliptic case. In 1988 Bershdaski and Radul found a
generalization of Thomae's formula for $Z_N $ curves of the form
\begin{equation} \label{Nakayashiki}
y^N = f(x) = \prod_{i=1}^{Nm}(x-a_i).
\end{equation}
In 1988 Shiga showed the representation of the Picard modular function by theta constants. He considered the algebraic
curve in the $(x,y)$ plane which is given by
\begin{equation}\label{picardcurve}
C(\epsilon) : y^3 = x (x-a_0) (x-a_1) (x-a_2)
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon = [a_0, a_1,a_2]$ is a parameter on the domain
$$\Lambda = \{ \epsilon : a_0 a_1 a_2 (a_0-a_1) (a_0-a_2) (a_1-a_2) \neq 0 \}.$$
He gave a concrete description of the Picard work \cite{picard}. His result can be considered an extension of the
classical Jacobi representation $\lambda = \frac{\theta_2^4}{\theta_3^4}$, where $\theta_i(z,\tau)$ indicates Jacobi's theta function
and $\theta_i$ is the convention for $\theta_i(0,\tau)$, for the elliptic modular function $\lambda(\tau)$ to the special case of
genus 3.
In 1991, Gonzalez Diez studied the moduli spaces parameterizing algebraic curves which are Galois covering of $\mathbb P^1$
with prime order and with given ramification numbers. These curves have equation of the form
\begin{equation}\label{Gabino}
y^p = f(x) = \prod_{i=1}^{r}(x-a_i)^{m_i} ; \textit {p prime and } p \nmid \sum m_i.
\end{equation}
He expresses $a_i$ in terms of functions of the period matrix of the curve.
Farkas (1996) gave a procedure for calculating the complex numbers $a_i$ which appear in the algebraic equation
\begin{equation}\label{Farkas}
y^p = \prod_{i=1}^{k}(x-a_i) \, \, \, \, \textit{with} \,\,\, p|k
\end{equation}
in terms of the theta functions associated with the Riemann surface of the algebraic curve defined by the
Eq.~\eqref{Farkas}. He used the generalized cross ratio of four points according to Gunning. Furthermore he considered
the more general problem of a branched two-sheeted cover of a given compact Riemann surface and obtained the relations
between the theta functions on the cover and the theta function to the original surface.
Nakayashiki, in 1997, gave an elementary proof of Thomae's formula for $Z_N$ curves which was discovered by Bershadsky
and Radul.
Enolski and Grava, in 2006, derived the analogous generalized Thomae's formula for the $Z_N$ singular curve of the form
\begin{equation} \label{Enolski}
y^N = f(x) = \prod_{i=1}^{m}(x-\lambda_{2i})^{N-1} \prod_{i=1}^{m} ( x-\lambda_{2i+1}).
\end{equation}
\noindent We summarize all the results in the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{CyclicCurvesThm}
Consider the algebraic curve $ \mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X : y^n = f(x)$ defined over the complex field $\mathbb C.$
\noindent\textbf{Case 1:} If $\triangle_f \neq 0,$ say $f(x) = \prod_{i=1}^k (x- \lambda_i)$ then,
\underline {i)} If $n | k,$ say $k = mn$ for some $m \in \mathbb N$ then,
for an ordered partition $\Lambda = (\Lambda_0, \cdots, \Lambda_{n-1})$ of $\{1,2,\cdots, nm\},$ we have
\[ \theta[e_\Lambda](0)^{2n} = C_\Lambda (det A)^n \prod_{i<j}(\lambda_i -
\lambda_j)^{2 n \sum_{\ell \in L} q_\ell(k_i) q_{\ell}(k_j) + \frac{(n-1)(2n-1)}{6}}\]
where $k_i = j$ for $i \in \Lambda_j$ and $e_\Lambda \equiv \Lambda_1 + 2 \Lambda_2 +\cdots + (n-1)\Lambda_{n-1} - D -
\varsigma$ is the associated divisor class of the partition $\Lambda,$ $L = \big\{-\frac{N-1}{2}, -\frac{N-1}{2} +1,
\cdots, \frac{N-1}{2}\big\},$ $q_\ell(i) = \frac{1-N}{2N} +\,\, \textit{fraction part of}\,\,\big(\frac { \ell + i +
\frac{N-1}{2}}{N}\big) \, \, \, \, \textit{for} \, \, \ell \in L,$ $\varsigma$ is Riemann's constant and $C_\Lambda$
depends on the partition $\Lambda$ having the property that for two different partitions $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda^\prime$
we have $C_\Lambda ^{2N} =C_{\Lambda ^\prime} ^{2N}.$
Moreover if $n $ is a prime $p,$ the branch points $\lambda_i$ of the curve $y^n = x(x-1)(x-\lambda_1) \cdots
(x-\lambda_{k-3})$ can be given by
\[ E_i^n \lambda_i = (\lambda(P_k, Q_0, Q_1, Q_\infty))^n\]
where
$\lambda(P_k, Q_0, Q_1, Q_\infty) = \frac{\theta(e+\phi_{Q_0}(P_k))\theta(e+\phi_{Q_{\infty}}(Q_1))}
{\theta(e+\phi_{Q_\infty}(P_k))\theta(e+\phi_{Q_{0}}(Q_1))},$ while $Q_0,$ $Q_1,$ and $Q_\infty$ denote the points in
the curve corresponding to the points $0,$ $1,$ and $\infty$ in $\mathbb P^1$ respectively, $P_i$'s are points in the curve
corresponding to the points $\lambda_i,$ $E_i$ is a constant depending on the point $P_i$
and $\phi_P $ is an injective map from $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ to $\mathbb C^g/G.$
\underline {ii)} If $ n \nmid k,$ then,
if $n=3$ and $k=4$, then the parameters $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3$ can be given as follows:
$$\lambda_1 = \theta^3 \chs{0}{\frac{1}{6}}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{6}}{0}, \quad \quad \lambda_2 = \theta^3
\chs{0}{\frac{1}{6}}{0}{\frac{1}{3}}{\frac{1}{6}}{\frac{1}{3}}, \quad \quad \lambda_3 = \theta^3
\chs{0}{\frac{1}{6}}{0}{\frac{2}{3}}{\frac{1}{6}}{\frac{2}{3}}.$$
\noindent \textbf{Case 2:} If $\triangle_f = 0,$ let $f(x) = \prod_{k=0}^m (x- \lambda_{2k+1})\prod_{k=1}^m (x-
\lambda_{2k})^{n-1}.$ Then,
\[
\begin{split}
\theta[e_m] (0; \Omega)^{4N} = &\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{N-1} \mbox{det } A_i^{2N}}{(2 \pi i )^{2mN(N-1)} } \prod_{1 \leq i < k \leq m
}(\lambda_{2i}-\lambda_{2k})^{N(N-1)} \\
& \times \prod_{0 \leq i < k \leq m
}(\lambda_{2i+1}-\lambda_{2k+1})^{N(N-1)} \\
& \times (\frac{\prod_{i \in I_1 , j \in J_1 }(\lambda_i - \lambda_j) \prod_{i \in I_2 , j \in J_2 }(\lambda_i - \lambda_j)}
{\prod_{i \in I_1 , k \in I_2 }(\lambda_i - \lambda_k) \prod_{j \in J_1 , k \in J_2 }(\lambda_i -
\lambda_j)})^{2(N-1)},
\end{split}
\]
where
$e_m = \nu ((N-1) \sum_{i \in I_1}P_i +(N-1) \sum_{j \in J_1} P_j - D- \triangle )$ is a nonsingular
$\frac{1}{N}$ characteristic,
$J_1 \subset J_0 = \{2,4,\cdots,2m+2\}$ and $I_1 \subset I_0 =
\{1,3,\cdots,2m+1\}$ with
$|J_1| + |I_1| = m+1$ and $I_2 = I_0 - I_1 , J_2 = J_0 - J_1 - 2m+2,$ and
$\triangle = (N-1) \sum_{k=1}^m P_{2k} - P_{\infty}$ is the Riemann divisor of the curve $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X.$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For proof of the part $i)$ of case 1, see \cite{NK}. When $n$ is prime, the proof can be found in \cite{Farkas}. The
main point of \cite{SHI} is to prove part $ii)$ of case 1. The proof of case 2 can be found in \cite{Enolski}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Relations Among Theta Functions for Algebraic Curves with Automorphisms}
In this section we develop an algorithm to determine relations among theta functions of a cyclic curve $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ with
automorphism group $\mbox{Aut} (\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$. The proof of the following lemma can be found in \cite{RF}.
\begin{lem}\label{Shiga}
Let $f$ be a meromorphic function on $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X,$ and let $$(f) = \sum_{i=1}^{m}b_i - \sum_{i=1}^{m}c_i $$ be the divisor
defined by $f.$ Take paths from $P_0$ (initial point) to $b_i$ and $P_0$ to $c_i$ so that $\sum_{i=1}^{m}
\int_{P_0}^{b_i} \omega = \sum_{i=1}^{m} \int_{P_0}^{c_i} \omega .$
For an effective divisor $P_1 + \cdots + P_g,$ we have
\begin{equation}
f(P_1) \cdots f(P_g) = \frac{1}{E} \prod_{k=1} \frac{\theta(\sum_{i} \int_{P_0}^{P_i} \omega - \int_{P_0}^{b_k} \omega -
\triangle , \tau )} {\theta(\sum_{i} \int_{P_0}^{P_i} \omega - \int_{P_0}^{c_k} \omega - \triangle , \tau )}
\end{equation}
where $E$ is a constant independent of $P_1, \dots , P_g,$ the integrals from $P_0$ to $P_i$ take the same paths both
in the numerator and in the denominator, $\triangle$ denotes the Riemann's constant, and $\int_{P_0}^{P_i} \omega = \left(
\int_{P_0}^{P_i} \omega_1, \dots, \int_{P_0}^{P_i} \omega_g \right)^t.$
\end{lem}
This lemma gives us a tool that can be used to find branch points in terms of theta constants. By considering the
meromorphic function $f = x$ on $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ and suitable effective divisors, we can write branch points as ratios of
thetanulls. We present some explicit calculations using the Lemma ~\ref{Shiga} in Chapter 3 and 4. The hard part of
this
\noindent method is the difficulty of writing complex integrals in terms of characteristics.
\begin{alg}
Input: A cyclic curve $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ with automorphism group $G$, $\sigma \in G$ such that $| \sigma| =n$, $g (\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X^\sigma)
=0$ and $\< \sigma \> \triangleleft G$. \\
Output: Relations among the theta functions of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$\\
Step 1: Let $\Gamma = G/\<\sigma\>$ and pick $\tau \in \Gamma$ such that $\tau$ has the largest order $m$.
Step 2: Write the equation of the curve in the form \[ y^n = f(x^m) \,\,\, \textit{or} \,\,\, y^n = x f(x^m).\]
Step 3: Determine the roots $\lambda_1, \dots , \lambda_r$ of $f(x^\tau)$ in terms of the theta functions.
Step 4: Determine relations on theta functions using Gr\"obner basis techniques.
\end{alg}
For step 3, we can use Lemma ~\ref{Shiga}. If the curve in step 3 falls into one of the categories given in Theorem
~\ref{CyclicCurvesThm}, we can use the corresponding equation to invert the period map without worrying about the
complex integrals.
\section{Genus 2 curves}
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero and $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ be a genus 2 curve defined over $k$. Consider
a binary sextic, i.e. a homogeneous polynomial $f(X,Z)$ in $k[X,Z]$ of degree 6:
$$f(X,Z)=a_6 X^6+ a_5 X^5Z+\dots +a_0 Z^6.$$ The polynomial functions of the coefficients of a binary sextic $f(X,Z)$ invariant under
linear substitutions in $X,Z$ of determinant one. These invariants were worked out by Clebsch and Bolza in the case of
zero characteristic and generalized by Igusa for any characteristic different from 2.
{\it Igusa $J$-invariants} $\, \, \{ J_{2i} \}$ of $f(X,Z)$ are homogeneous polynomials of degree $2i$ in $k[a_0,
\dots , a_6]$, for $i=1,2,3,5$; see \cite{S7} for their definitions. Here $J_{10}$ is the discriminant of $f(X,Z)$.
It vanishes if and only if the binary sextic has a multiple linear factor. These $J_{2i}$ are invariant under the
natural action of $SL_2(k)$ on sextics. Dividing such an invariant by another invariant with the same degree, gives an
invariant (eg. absolute invariant) under $GL_2(k)$ action. The absolute invariants of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ are defined in terms of
Igusa invariants as follows: \[ i_1 := 144 \frac{J_4}{J_2^2}, \quad \quad i_2:= -1728 \frac{J_2 J_4 - 3 J_6}{J_2^3},
\quad \quad i_3:= 486 \frac{J_{10}}{J_2 ^5}. \]
Two genus 2 fields (resp., curves) in the standard form $Y^2=f(X,1)$ are isomorphic if and only if the corresponding
sextics are $GL_2(k)$ conjugate.
\subsection{Half Integer Theta Characteristics} For genus two curve, we have six odd theta
characteristics and ten even theta characteristics. The following are the sixteen theta characteristics where the first
ten are even and the last six are odd. For simplicity, we denote them by $\theta_i(z)$ instead of $\theta_i \ch{a} {b} (z ,
\tau)$ where $i=1,\dots ,10$ for the even functions and $i=11, \dots, 16$ for the odd functions.
\[
\begin{split}
\theta_1(z) &= \theta_1 \chr {0}{0}{0}{0} (z , \tau), \qquad \qquad \theta_2(z) = \theta_2 \chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_3(z) &= \theta_3 \chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0}(z , \tau), \qquad \qquad
\theta_4(z) = \theta_4 \chr {0}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_5(z) &= \theta_5 \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {0}{0}(z , \tau), \qquad \qquad
\theta_6(z) = \theta_6 \chr {\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_7(z) &= \theta_7 \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0} (z , \tau), \qquad \qquad
\theta_8(z) = \theta_8 \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0} (z , \tau)\\
\end{split}
\]
\[
\begin{split}
\theta_9(z) &= \theta_9 \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{0}(z , \tau), \qquad \qquad
\theta_{10}(z) = \theta_{10} \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{11}(z) &= \theta_{11} \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau), \qquad \qquad
\theta_{12}(z) = \theta_{12} \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{13}(z) &= \theta_{13} \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {\frac{1}{2}}{0} (z , \tau), \qquad \qquad
\theta_{14}(z) = \theta_{14} \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{0} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{15}(z) &= \theta_{15} \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau), \qquad \qquad
\theta_{16}(z) = \theta_{16} \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\end{split}
\]
\begin{rem}
All the possible half-integer characteristics except the zero characteristic can be obtained as the sum of not more
than 2 characteristics chosen from the following 5 characteristics:
\[ \left\{\chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}, \chr {\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0}
{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}},\chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{\frac{1}{2}} \right\}.\] The sum of all 5 characteristics in the
set determines the zero characteristic.
\end{rem}
Take $\sigma = g - r =0 $. Then a G\"opel group $G$ contains four elements. The number of such G\"opel groups is 15.
Let $G = \{0, \mathfrak m_1, \mathfrak m_2, \mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2\}$ be a G\"opel group of even characteristics (we have six such groups). Let
$\mathfrak b_1, \mathfrak b_2, \mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2 $ be the characteristics such that the $G , \mathfrak b_1 G , \mathfrak b_2 G , \mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2 G $ are all the
cosets of the group $G.$ Then each of the systems other than $G$ contains two odd characteristics and two even
characteristics. Consider equations given by Eq.~\eqref{eq1} and Eq.~\eqref{eq2}. If $\mathfrak h$ denotes any one of the 3
characteristics $\mathfrak m_1,\mathfrak m_2,\mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2$, then we have 6 possible characteristics for $\mathfrak e$, which satisfy $|\mathfrak e,\mathfrak h|
\equiv | \mathfrak h| \equiv 0$. They are $0, \mathfrak n, \mathfrak b, \mathfrak h, \mathfrak n \mathfrak h, \mathfrak b \mathfrak h$ where $\mathfrak n$ is a characteristic in the G\"opel
group other than $\mathfrak h$, and $\mathfrak b$ is an even characteristic chosen from one of the systems $\mathfrak b_1 G, \mathfrak b_2 G, \mathfrak b_1
\mathfrak b_2 G$. The following three cases illustrate the possible values for characteristic $\mathfrak h$ and for characteristic
$\mathfrak e$. Without loss of generality, we can take only three values for $\mathfrak e$ which give rise to different terms on the
right hand side of Eq.~\eqref{eq1} and Eq.~\eqref{eq2}.
\noindent \textbf{Case 1:} $\mathfrak h= \mathfrak m_1.$
Take $\mathfrak e \in \{ 0, \mathfrak m_2, \mathfrak b_1 \}$ and take $\mathfrak a = \mathfrak b_1$. Then from Eq.~\eqref{eq1} and Eq.~\eqref{eq2} we have
\[
\begin{split}
&{ \mathfrak m_1 \choose \mathfrak b_1} \theta^2[ 0] \theta^2[ \mathfrak m_1] + e^{\pi i |\mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak m_2|} { \mathfrak m_1 \choose \mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak m_2} \theta^2[\mathfrak m_2] \theta^2[\mathfrak m_1
\mathfrak m_2] -
\theta^2[\mathfrak b_1] \theta^2[\mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak m_1] = 0, \, \, \\
&\theta^4[ 0] + \theta^4[ \mathfrak m_1] + e^{\pi i |\mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak m_2|} [ \theta^4[ \mathfrak m_2] + \theta^4[ \mathfrak m_2 \mathfrak m_1]] - [ \theta^4[ \mathfrak b_1] + \theta^4[
\mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak m_1]] = 0. \\
\end{split}
\]
\noindent \textbf{Case 2:} $\mathfrak h= \mathfrak m_2.$
Take $\mathfrak e \in \{ 0, \mathfrak m_1, \mathfrak b_2 \}$ and take $\mathfrak a = \mathfrak b_2$. Then from Eq.~\eqref{eq1} and Eq.~\eqref{eq2} we have
\[
\begin{split}
&{ \mathfrak m_2 \choose \mathfrak b_2} \theta^2[ 0] \theta^2[ \mathfrak m_2] + e^{pi i |\mathfrak b_2 \mathfrak m_1|} { \mathfrak m_2 \choose \mathfrak b_2 \mathfrak m_1} \theta^2[ \mathfrak m_1] \theta^2[\mathfrak m_1
\mathfrak m_2] -
\theta^2[ \mathfrak b_2] \theta^2[\mathfrak b_2 \mathfrak m_2] = 0, \,\, \\
&\theta^4[ 0] + \theta^4[ \mathfrak m_2] + e^{pi i |\mathfrak b_2 \mathfrak m_2|} [ \theta^4[ \mathfrak m_1] + \theta^4[ \mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2]] - [ \theta^4[ \mathfrak b_2] + \theta^4[
\mathfrak b_2 \mathfrak m_2]] = 0. \\
\end{split}
\]
\vspace*{.4cm}
\noindent \textbf{Case 3:} $\mathfrak h= \mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2.$
Take $\mathfrak e \in \{ 0, \mathfrak m_1, \mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2 \}$ and take $\mathfrak a = \mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2$. Then from Eq.~\eqref{eq1} and Eq.~\eqref{eq2}
we have
\[
\begin{split}
&{ \mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2 \choose \mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2} \theta^2[ 0] \theta^2[ \mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2] + e^{pi i |\mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2 \mathfrak m_1|} { \mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2 \choose \mathfrak b_1
\mathfrak b_2 \mathfrak m_1} \theta^2[ \mathfrak m_1] \theta^2[ \mathfrak m_2] -\\
&\theta^2[ \mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2] \theta^2[ \mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2 \mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2] = 0, \,\, \\
&\theta^4[ 0] + \theta^4[ \mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2] + e^{pi i |\mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2 \mathfrak m_1|} [ \theta^4[ \mathfrak m_1] + \theta^4[ \mathfrak m_2]] - [ \theta^4[ \mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2] +
\theta^4[ \mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2 \mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2]] = 0. \\
\end{split}
\]
The identities above express the even theta constants in terms of four theta constants; therefore, we may call them
fundamental theta constants,
$$\theta[0] ,\theta[ \mathfrak m_1], \theta[ \mathfrak m_2], \theta[\mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2].$$
\subsection{Identities of Theta Constants}
We have only six G\"opel groups such that all characteristics are even. The following are such G\"opel groups and
corresponding identities of theta constants.
\begin{description}
\item [i)] $G = \left\{0 = \chr{0}{0}{0}{0}, \mathfrak m_1 = \chr {0}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \mathfrak m_2 = \chr
{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0}, \mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2 = \chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} \right\}$ is a G\"opel group. If $\mathfrak b_1 =
\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {0}{0}, \mathfrak b_2 = \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{0}$, then the corresponding G\"opel systems are
given by the following:
\[
\begin{split}
G &= \left\{ \chr{0}{0}{0}{0}, \chr {0}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0},
\chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} \right\}, \\
\mathfrak b_1 G &= \left\{\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {0}{0}, \chr {\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}},
\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {\frac{1}{2}}{0}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} \right\}, \\
\mathfrak b_2 G &= \left\{\chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{0}, \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}},
\chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0},
\chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{\frac{1}{2}} \right\}, \\
\end{split}
\]
\[
\begin{split}
\mathfrak b_3 G &= \left\{\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{0}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{\frac{1}{2}}
\right\}.
\end{split}
\]
Notice that from all four cosets, only $G$ has all even characteristics as noticed in Corollary~\ref{numb_systems}.
Using Eq.~\eqref{eq1} and Eq.~\eqref{eq2}, we have the following six identities for the above G\"opel group:
\[
\left \{ \begin{array}{lll}
\theta_5^2 \theta_6^2 & = & \theta_1^2 \theta_4^2 - \theta_2^2 \theta_3^2 ,\\
\theta_5^4 + \theta_6^4 & =& \theta_1^4 - \theta_2^4 - \theta_3^4 + \theta_4^4, \\
\theta_7^2 \theta_9^2 & = & \theta_1^2 \theta_3^2 - \theta_2^2 \theta_4^2, \\
\theta_7^4 + \theta_9^4 &= & \theta_1^4 - \theta_2^4 + \theta_3^4 - \theta_4^4, \\
\theta_8^2 \theta_{10}^2 & = & \theta_1^2 \theta_2^2 - \theta_3^2 \theta_4^2, \\
\theta_8^4 + \theta_{10}^4 & = & \theta_1^4 + \theta_2^4 - \theta_3^4 - \theta_4^4. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\]
These identities express even theta constants in terms of four theta constants. We call them fundamental theta
constants $\theta_1, \, \theta_2, \, \theta_3, \, \theta_4$.
Following the same procedure, we can find similar identities for each possible G\"opel group.
\item [ii)] $G = \left\{0 = \chr {0}{0}{0}{0}, \mathfrak m_1 = \chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0}, \mathfrak m_2 = \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}},
\mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2 = \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0}\right\}$
is a G\"opel group. If $\mathfrak b_1 = \chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0} , \mathfrak b_2 =
\chr {\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} $, then the corresponding G\"opel systems are given by the following:
\[
\begin{split}
G &= \left\{ \chr {0}{0}{0}{0}, \chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0}\right\}, \\
\mathfrak b_1 G &= \left\{\chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0}, \chr {0}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}
{0}{\frac{1}{2}},
\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{0} \right\}, \\
\end{split}
\]
\[
\begin{split}
\mathfrak b_2 G &= \left\{\chr {\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {\frac{1}{2}}{0}, \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}}{0}
, \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{\frac{1}{2}} \right\}, \\
\mathfrak b_3 G &= \left\{\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {0}{0}, \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}}
{0}{0} \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} \right\}.
\end{split}
\]
We have the following six identities for the above G\"opel group:
\[
\left \{ \begin{array}{lll}
\theta_3^2 \theta_4^2 & =& \theta_1^2 \theta_2^2 - \theta_8^2 \theta_{10}^2, \\
\theta_3^4 + \theta_4^4 & = &\theta_1^4 + \theta_2^4 - \theta_8^4 - \theta_{10}^4, \\
\theta_6^2 \theta_9^2 & = & -\theta_1^2 \theta_{10}^2 + \theta_2^2 \theta_8^2, \\
\theta_6^4 + \theta_9^4 & = & \theta_1^4 - \theta_2^4 - \theta_8^4 + \theta_{10}^4, \\
\theta_5^2 \theta_7^2 & = & \theta_1^2 \theta_8^2 - \theta_2^2 \theta_{10}^2, \\
\theta_5^4 + \theta_7^4 & = & \theta_1^4 - \theta_2^4 + \theta_8^4 - \theta_{10}^4. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\item [iii)] $G = \left\{0 = \chr {0}{0}{0}{0}, \mathfrak m_1 = \chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0}, \mathfrak m_2 = \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0},
\mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2 = \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{0} \right\}$ is a G\"opel group. If $\mathfrak b_1 = \chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}} , \mathfrak b_2 = \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0} $, then the corresponding G\"opel systems are given by
the following:
\[
\begin{split}
G &= \left\{ \chr {0}{0}{0}{0}, \chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0}, \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0},
\chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{0} \right\}, \\
\mathfrak b_1 G &= \left\{\chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}, \chr {0}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}},
\chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{\frac{1}{2}} \right\}, \\
\mathfrak b_2 G &= \left\{\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{0},
\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {0}{0},
\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {\frac{1}{2}}{0} \right\}, \\
\mathfrak b_3 G &= \left\{\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}
{0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr {\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} \right\}.
\end{split}
\]
We have the following six identities for the above G\"opel group:
\[
\left \{ \begin{array}{lll}
\theta_2^2 \theta_4^2 & = &\theta_1^2 \theta_3^2 - \theta_7^2 \theta_{9}^2, \\
\theta_2^4 + \theta_4^4 & = & \theta_1^4 + \theta_3^4 - \theta_7^4 - \theta_{9}^4, \\
\theta_8^2 \theta_5^2 & = & \theta_1^2 \theta_{7}^2 - \theta_3^2 \theta_9^2, \\
\theta_8^4 + \theta_5^4 & = & \theta_1^4 - \theta_3^4 + \theta_7^4 - \theta_{9}^4, \\
\theta_6^2 \theta_{10}^2 & = & -\theta_1^2 \theta_9^2 + \theta_3^2 \theta_{7}^2, \\
\theta_6^4 + \theta_{10}^4 & = & \theta_1^4 - \theta_3^4 - \theta_7^4 + \theta_{9}^4. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\medskip
\item [iv)] $G = \left\{0 = \chr {0}{0}{0}{0}, \mathfrak m_1 = \chr {0}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \mathfrak m_2 = \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {0}{0},
\mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2 = \chr {\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} \right\}$ is a G\"opel group. If $\mathfrak b_1 = \chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}}, \mathfrak b_2 = \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0}$, then the corresponding G\"opel systems are given by the
following:
\[
\begin{split}
G &= \left\{ \chr {0}{0}{0}{0}, \chr {0}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {0}{0},
\chr {\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} \right\},\\
\mathfrak b_1 G &= \left\{\chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}, \chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0}
{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}},
\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {\frac{1}{2}}{0} \right\}, \\
\mathfrak b_2 G &= \left\{\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}
{0}{\frac{1}{2}},\chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0},
\chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{\frac{1}{2}} \right\}, \\
\mathfrak b_3 G &= \left\{\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} ,\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}}{0}, \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{0} \right\}.
\end{split}
\]
We have the following six identities for the above G\"opel group:
\[
\left \{ \begin{array}{lll}
\theta_2^2 \theta_3^2 & = & \theta_1^2 \theta_4^2 - \theta_5^2 \theta_{6}^2, \\
\theta_2^4 + \theta_3^4 & = & \theta_1^4 + \theta_4^4 - \theta_5^4 - \theta_{6}^4, \\
\theta_8^2 \theta_7^2 & = & \theta_1^2 \theta_{5}^2 - \theta_4^2 \theta_6^2, \\
\theta_8^4 + \theta_7^4 & = & \theta_1^4 - \theta_4^4 + \theta_5^4 - \theta_{6}^4, \\
\theta_9^2 \theta_{10}^2 & = & -\theta_1^2 \theta_6^2 + \theta_4^2 \theta_{5}^2, \\
\theta_9^4 + \theta_{10}^4 & = & \theta_1^4 - \theta_4^4 - \theta_5^4 + \theta_{6}^4. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\medskip
\item [v)] $G = \left\{0 = \chr {0}{0}{0}{0}, \mathfrak m_1 = \chr {\frac{1}{2}}{0} {0}{0}, \mathfrak m_2 = \chr {0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0},
\mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2 = \chr {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0} \right\}$ is a G\"opel group. If $\mathfrak b_1 = \chr {\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} , \mathfrak b_2 =
\chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0} $, then the corresponding G\"opel systems are given by the following:
\[
\begin{split}
G &= \left\{ \chr {0}{0}{0}{0}, \chr {\frac{1}{2}}{0} {0}{0}, \chr {0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0},
\chr {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0} \right\}, \\
\mathfrak b_1 G &= \left\{\chr {\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr {0}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}
{0}{\frac{1}{2}},
\chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{\frac{1}{2}} \right\}, \\
\end{split}
\]
\[
\begin{split}
\mathfrak b_2 G &= \left\{\chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0},\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {\frac{1}{2}}{0}, \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}}{0},
\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{0} \right\}, \\
\mathfrak b_3 G &= \left\{\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}},
\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}\right\}.
\end{split}
\]
We have the following six identities for the above G\"opel group:
\[
\left \{ \begin{array}{lll}
\theta_4^2 \theta_6^2 & = & \theta_1^2 \theta_5^2 - \theta_7^2 \theta_{8}^2, \\
\theta_4^4 + \theta_6^4 & = & \theta_1^4 + \theta_5^4 - \theta_7^4 - \theta_{8}^4, \\
\theta_3^2 \theta_9^2 & = & \theta_1^2 \theta_{7}^2 - \theta_5^2 \theta_8^2, \\
\theta_3^4 + \theta_9^4 & = & \theta_1^4 - \theta_5^4 + \theta_7^4 - \theta_{8}^4, \\
\theta_2^2 \theta_{10}^2 & = & \theta_1^2 \theta_8^2 - \theta_5^2 \theta_{7}^2, \\
\theta_2^4 + \theta_{10}^4 & = & \theta_1^4 - \theta_5^4 - \theta_7^4 + \theta_{8}^4. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\medskip
\item [vi)] $G = \left\{0 = \chr {0}{0}{0}{0}, \mathfrak m_1 = \chr {\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \mathfrak m_2 = \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{0},
\mathfrak m_1 \mathfrak m_2 = \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} \right\}$ is a G\"opel group. If $\mathfrak b_1 =
\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {0}{0} , \mathfrak b_2 = \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0}$, then the corresponding G\"opel systems are given by
the following:
\[
\begin{split}
G &= \left\{ \chr {0}{0}{0}{0}, \chr {\frac{1}{2}}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{0},
\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} \right\}, \\
\mathfrak b_1 G &= \left\{\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {0}{0}, \chr {0}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} , \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}}{0},
\chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} \right\}, \\
\mathfrak b_2 G &= \left\{\chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr
{0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}}{0},
\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0} {\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}\right\}, \\
\mathfrak b_3 G &= \left\{\chr{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{0}, \chr{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {0}{\frac{1}{2}}, \chr{\frac{1}{2}}{0}
{\frac{1}{2}}{0}, \chr {0}{0}{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} \right\}.
\end{split}
\]
We have the following six identities for the above G\"opel group:
\[
\left \{ \begin{array}{lll}
\theta_2^2 \theta_3^2 & = & \theta_1^2 \theta_4^2 - \theta_5^2 \theta_{6}^2, \\
\theta_2^4 + \theta_3^4 & = & \theta_1^4 + \theta_4^4 - \theta_5^4 - \theta_{6}^4, \\
\theta_8^2 \theta_7^2 & = & \theta_1^2 \theta_{5}^2 - \theta_4^2 \theta_6^2, \\
\theta_8^4 + \theta_7^4 & = & \theta_1^4 - \theta_4^4 + \theta_5^4 - \theta_{6}^4, \\
\theta_9^2 \theta_{10}^2 & = & -\theta_1^2 \theta_6^2 + \theta_4^2 \theta_{5}^2, \\
\theta_9^4 + \theta_{10}^4 & = & \theta_1^4 - \theta_4^4 - \theta_5^4 + \theta_{6}^4. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\end{description}
From now on, we consider $\theta_1, \, \theta_2, \, \theta_3,$ and $\theta_4$ as the fundamental theta constants.
\medskip
\subsection{Inverting the Moduli Map} Let $\lambda_i,$ $i=1, \dots, n,$ be branch points of the genus
$g$ smooth curve $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X.$ Then the moduli map is a map from the configuration space $\Lambda$ of ordered $n$ distinct
points on $\mathbb P^1$ to the Siegel upper half space $\mathfrak H_g.$ In this section, we determine the branch points of genus 2
curves as functions of theta characteristics. The following lemma describes these relations using Thomae's formula. The
identities are known as Picard's formulas. We will formulate a somewhat different proof for Picard's lemma.
\begin{lem}[Picard] Let a genus 2 curve be given by
\begin{equation} \label{Rosen2}
Y^2=X(X-1)(X-\lambda)(X-\mu)(X-\nu).
\end{equation} Then, $\lambda, \mu, \nu$ can be written as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{Picard}
\lambda = \frac{\theta_1^2\theta_3^2}{\theta_2^2\theta_4^2}, \quad \mu = \frac{\theta_3^2\theta_8^2}{\theta_4^2\theta_{10}^2}, \quad \nu =
\frac{\theta_1^2\theta_8^2}{\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2}.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
There are several ways to relate $\lambda, \mu, \nu$ to theta constants, depending on the ordering of the branch points
of the curve. Let $B = \{\nu, \mu,\lambda, 1,0\}$ be the branch points of the curve in this order and $U = \{\nu,
\lambda, 0\}$ be the set of odd branch points. Using Lemma~\ref{Thomae}, we have the following set of equations of
theta constants and branch points:
\begin{equation}\label{Thomaeg=2}
\begin{array}{ll}
\theta_1^4 = A \, \nu \lambda (\mu -1) (\nu - \lambda), &
\theta_2^4 = A \, \mu (\mu -1) ( \nu - \lambda), \\
\theta_3^4 = -A \, \mu \lambda (\mu - \lambda) (\nu - \lambda), &
\theta_4^4 = -A\, \nu (\nu - \lambda) (\mu - \lambda), \\
\theta_5^4 = A \, \lambda \mu (\nu - 1) ( \nu - \mu),&
\theta_6^4 = -A \, (\nu - \mu) (\nu -\lambda) ( \mu -\lambda),\\
\theta_7^4 = -A \, \mu (\nu -1) ( \lambda -1) (\nu - \lambda), &
\theta_8^4 = -A \, \mu \nu (\nu - \mu) (\lambda -1), \\
\theta_9^4 = A \, \nu ( \mu -1) (\lambda - 1) (\mu - \lambda), &
\theta_{10}^4 = -A \, \lambda ( \lambda - 1) (\nu - \mu) \\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $A$ is a constant.
By choosing appropriate equations from the set Eq.~\eqref{Thomaeg=2} we have the following:
\[ \lambda^2 =\left(\frac{\theta_1^2\theta_3^2}{\theta_2^2\theta_4^2}\right)^2, \quad \mu^2 = \left(\frac{\theta_3^2\theta_8^2}{\theta_4^2\theta_{10}^2}\right)^2, \quad \nu^2
=\left(\frac{\theta_1^2\theta_8^2}{\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2}\right)^2.
\]
Each value for $(\lambda, \mu, \nu )$ gives isomorphic genus 2 curves. Hence, we can choose
\[ \lambda = \frac{\theta_1^2\theta_3^2}{\theta_2^2\theta_4^2}, \quad \mu = \frac{\theta_3^2\theta_8^2}{\theta_4^2\theta_{10}^2}, \quad \nu =
\frac{\theta_1^2\theta_8^2}{\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2}.\]
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Automorphism Groups of Curves}
Let $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ be a genus 2 curve defined over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic zero. We denote its
function field by $K:=k (\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ and $Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)=Aut(K/k)$ is the automorphism group of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$. In any characteristic different
from 2, the automorphism group $Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ is isomorphic to one of the groups given by the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{thm1} The automorphism group $G$ of a
genus 2 curve $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ in characteristic $\ne2$ is isomorphic to \ $C_2$, $C_{10}$, $V_4$, $D_8$, $D_{12}$, $C_3 \rtimes D_8$,
$ GL_2(3)$, or $2^+S_5$. The case $G {\, \cong\, } 2^+S_5$ occurs only in characteristic 5. If $G {\, \cong\, } \mathbb Z_3 \rtimes D_8$ (resp., $
GL_2(3)$), then $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ has equation $Y^2=X^6-1$ (resp., $Y^2=X(X^4-1)$). If $G {\, \cong\, } C_{10}$, then $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ has equation
$Y^2=X^6-X$.
\end{lem}
For the proof of the above lemma and the description of each group see \cite{S7}. For the rest of this chapter, we
assume that $char(k)=0.$
One of the main goals of Section 2.4 is to describe each locus of genus 2 curves with fixed automorphism group in terms
of the fundamental theta constants.
We have the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{possibleCurve}
Every genus two curve can be written in the form:
\[
y^2 = x \, (x-1) \, \left(x - \frac {\theta_1^2 \theta_3^2} {\theta_2^2 \theta_4^2}\right)\, \left(x^2 \, - \frac{\theta_2^2 \, \theta_3^2 +
\theta_1^2 \, \theta_4^2} { \theta_2^2 \, \theta_4^2} \cdot \alpha \, x + \frac {\theta_1^2 \theta_3^2} {\theta_2^2 \theta_4^2} \, \alpha^2 \right),
\]
where $\alpha = \frac {\theta_8^2} {\theta_{10}^2}$ can be given in terms of $\, \, \theta_1, \theta_2, \theta_3,$ and $\theta_4$,
\[
\alpha^2 + \frac {\theta_1^4 + \theta_2^4 - \theta_3^4 - \theta_4^4}{\theta_3^2 \theta_4^2 - \theta_1^2 \theta_2^2 } \, \alpha + 1 =0.
\]
Furthermore, if $\alpha = {\pm} 1$ then $V_4 \hookrightarrow Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$.
\end{lem}
\proof Let us write the genus 2 curve in the following form: $$Y^2 = X (X-1) (X-\lambda) (X-\mu) (X-\nu)$$ where $\lambda ,\mu
,\nu$ are given by Eq. \eqref{Picard}. Let $\alpha := \frac {\theta_8^2} {\theta_{10}^2}$. Then,
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
\mu = \frac{\theta_3^2}{\theta_4^2}\, \alpha, & \nu = \frac{\theta_1^2}{\theta_2^2} \, \alpha.
\end{array}
\]
Using the following two identities,
\begin{equation}\label{Frobenius}
\begin{split}
\theta_8^4 + \theta_{10}^4 &= \theta_1^4+\theta_2^4-\theta_3^4-\theta_4^4, \\
\theta_8^2 \theta_{10}^2 &= \theta_1^2 \theta_2^2 - \theta_3^2 \theta_4^2
\end{split}
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}\label{rootof}
\alpha^2 + \frac {\theta_1^4 + \theta_2^4 - \theta_3^4 - \theta_4^4}{\theta_3^2 \theta_4^2 - \theta_1^2 \theta_2^2 } \, \alpha + 1 = 0.
\end{equation}
If $\alpha=\pm 1$ then $\mu \nu = \lambda$. It is well known that this implies that the genus 2 curve has an elliptic
involution. Hence, $V_4 \hookrightarrow Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$.
\endproof
\begin{rem} {i)} From the above we have that $\theta_8^4=\theta_{10}^4$ implies that $V_4 \hookrightarrow Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$. Lemma \ref{lemma1}
determines a necessary and equivalent statement when $V_4 \hookrightarrow Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$.
{ii)} The last part of Lemma 2.4 shows that if $\theta_8^4=\theta_{10}^4$, then all coefficients of the genus 2 curve are
given as rational functions of the four fundamental theta functions. Such fundamental theta functions determine the
field of moduli of the given curve. Hence, the curve is defined over its field of moduli.
\end{rem}
\begin{cor}
Let $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ be a genus 2 curve which has an elliptic involution. Then $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ is defined over its field of moduli.
\end{cor}
This was the main result of \cite{Ca}.
\subsection{Describing the Locus of Genus Two Curves with Fixed Automorphism Group by Theta Constants}
The locus $\mathcal L_2$ of genus 2 curves $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ which have an elliptic involution is a closed subvariety of $\mathcal M_2$. Let
$W= \{\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \beta_1, \beta_2, \gamma_1, \gamma_2 \}$ be the set of roots of the binary sextic, and $A$ and $B$ be
subsets of $W$ such that $W=A \cup B$ and $| A \cap B | =2$. We define the cross ratio of the two pairs $z_1,z_2 ;
z_3,z_4 $ by
$$(z_1,z_2 ; z_3,z_4) = \frac{z_1 ; z_3,z_4}{z_2 ; z_3,z_4} = \frac{z_1-z_3}{z_1-z_4} : \frac{z_2-z_3}{z_2-z_4}.$$
Take $ A = \{ \alpha_1, \alpha_2, \beta_1 , \beta_2\}$ and $B = \{ \gamma_1, \gamma_2, \beta_1, \beta_2\}$.
Jacobi \cite{Krazer} gives a description of $\mathcal L_2$ in terms of the cross ratios of the elements of $W$:
$$ \frac {\alpha_1-\beta_1} {\alpha_1-\beta_2} : \frac {\alpha_2-\beta_1} {\alpha_2-\beta_2}= \frac {\gamma_1-\beta_1} {\gamma_1-\beta_2} : \frac
{\gamma_2-\beta_1} {\gamma_2-\beta_2}.
$$
We recall that the following identities hold for cross ratios:
\[
(\alpha_1,\alpha_2\,;\beta_1,\beta_2)=(\alpha_2,\alpha_1;\beta_2,\beta_1)=(\beta_1,\beta_2;\alpha_1,\alpha_2)=(\beta_2,\beta_1;\alpha_2,\alpha_1)
\]
and
\[
(\alpha_1,\alpha_2;\infty,\beta_2)=(\infty,\beta_2;\alpha_1,\alpha_2)=(\beta_2;\alpha_2,\alpha_1).
\]
Next, we use this result to determine relations among theta functions for a genus 2 curve in the locus $\mathcal L_2$. Let $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$
be any genus 2 curve given by the equation
$$Y^2=X(X-1)(X-a_1)(X-a_2)(X-a_3).$$
We take $\infty \in A \cap B$. Then there are five cases for $\alpha \in A \cap B $, where $\alpha $ is an element of the set $
\{0,1, a_1, a_2, a_3\}$. For each of these cases there are three possible relationships for cross ratios as described below:\\
\noindent {i)} $A \cap B = \{ 0, \infty\}$: The possible cross ratios are
\begin{description}
\item $(a_1,1;\infty,0) = (a_3,a_2;\infty,0), \quad \quad (a_2,1;\infty,0) = (a_1,a_3;\infty,0),$ \\
\item $(a_1,1;\infty,0) =(a_2,a_3;\infty,0).$
\end{description}
\noindent {ii)} $A \cap B = \{ 1, \infty\}$: The possible cross ratios are
\begin{description}
\item $(a_1,0;\infty,1)=(a_2,a_3;\infty,1),\quad \quad (a_1,0;\infty,1)=(a_3,a_2;\infty,1),$\\
\item $(a_2,0;\infty,1)=(a_1,a_3;\infty,1).$
\end{description}
\noindent {iii)} $A \cap B = \{ a_1, \infty\}$: The possible cross ratios are
\begin{description}
\item $(1,0;\infty,a_1)=(a_3,a_2;\infty,a_1),\quad \quad (a_2,0;\infty,a_1)=(1,a_3;\infty,a_1),$\\
\item $(1,0;\infty,a_1)=(a_2,a_3;\infty,a_1).$
\end{description}
\noindent {iv)} $A \cap B= \{ a_2, \infty\}$: The possible cross ratios are
\begin{description}
\item $(1,0;\infty,a_2)=(a_1,a_3;\infty,a_2),\quad \quad (1,0;\infty,a_2)=(a_3,a_1;\infty,a_2),$\\
\item $(a_1,0;\infty,a_2)=(1,a_3;\infty,a_2).$
\end{description}
%
\noindent {v)} $A \cap B = \{ a_3, \infty\}$: The possible cross ratios are
\begin{description}
\item $(a_1,0;\infty,a_3)=(1,a_2;\infty,a_3),\quad \quad (1,0;\infty,a_3)=(a_2,a_1;\infty,
a_3),$\\
\item $(1,0;\infty,a_3)=(a_1,a_2;\infty,a_3).$
\end{description}
We summarize these relationships in Table 2.1.
\begin{lem}\label{lemma1}
Let $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ be a genus 2 curve. Then $Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X){\, \cong\, } V_4$ if and only if the theta functions of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{V_4locus1}
\begin{split}
(\theta_1^4-\theta_2^4)(\theta_3^4-\theta_4^4)(\theta_8^4-\theta_{10}^4)
(-\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2-\theta_1^2\theta_2^2\theta_4^2\theta_{10}^2+\theta_1^4\theta_3^2\theta_{10}^2+ \theta_3^2\theta_2^4\theta_{10}^2)\\
(\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_4^2-\theta_2^2\theta_4^4\theta_{10}^2+\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_4^2\theta_{10}^2-\theta_3^4\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2)
(-\theta_8^4\theta_3^2\theta_2^2+\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2\theta_4^2\\
+\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_{10}^2
-\theta_3^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^4)(-\theta_1^2\theta_8^4\theta_4^2-\theta_1^2\theta_{10}^4\theta_4^2+\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2\theta_4^2+\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_{10}^2)\\
(-\theta_1^2\theta_8^2\theta_3^2\theta_4^2+\theta_1^2\theta_{10}^2\theta_4^4
+\theta_1^2\theta_3^4\theta_{10}^2-\theta_3^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2\theta_4^2)(-\theta_1^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_4^2+\theta_1^4\theta_{10}^2\theta_4^2\\
-\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2+\theta_2^4\theta_4^2\theta_{10}^2) (-\theta_8^4\theta_2^2\theta_4^2
+\theta_1^2\theta_8^2\theta_{10}^2\theta_4^2-\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^4\theta_4^2+\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2)\\
(\theta_1^4\theta_8^2\theta_4^2-\theta_1^2\theta_2^2\theta_4^2\theta_{10}^2-\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2+\theta_8^2\theta_2^4\theta_4^2)
(\theta_1^4\theta_3^2\theta_8^2-\theta_1^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_4^2\\
%
-\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2+\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^4)(\theta_1^2\theta_8^4\theta_3^2-\theta_1^2\theta_8^2\theta_{10}^2\theta_4^2+\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_{10}^4
-\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2)\\
(\theta_1^2\theta_8^2\theta_4^4-\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_4^2\theta_{10}^2+\theta_1^2\theta_3^4\theta_8^2-\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_4^2)
=0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
However, we are unable to determine a similar result for cases $D_8$ or $D_{12}$ by this argument. Instead, we will
use the invariants of genus 2 curves and a more computational approach. In the process, we will offer a different proof
for the lemma above.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}\label{tab_1}
\caption{Relation of theta functions and cross ratios}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline & Cross ratio & $f(a_1,a_2,a_3)=0$ & theta constants \tabularnewline[8pt]
\hline
1& $(1,0;\infty,a_1)=(a_3,a_2;\infty,a_1)$ & $a_1a_2+a_1-a_3a_1-a_2$ &
$-\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2-\theta_1^2\theta_2^2\theta_4^2\theta_{10}^2+$\\
& & &$\theta_1^4\theta_3^2\theta_{10}^2+ \theta_3^2\theta_2^4\theta_{10}^2$ \tabularnewline[4pt]
\hline
2 & $(a_2,0;\infty,a_1)=(1,a_3;\infty,a_1)$ & $a_1a_2-a_1+a_3a_1-a_3a_2$ &
$\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_4^2-\theta_2^2\theta_4^4\theta_{10}^2+$\\
& && $\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_4^2\theta_{10}^2-\theta_3^4\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2$ \tabularnewline[4pt]
\hline
3& $(1,0;\infty,a_1)=(a_2,a_3;\infty,a_1)$ & $a_1a_2-a_1-a_3a_1+a_3$ & $-\theta_8^4\theta_3^2\theta_2^2+\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2\theta_4^2+$ \\
& &&$\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_{10}^2-\theta_3^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^4$ \tabularnewline[4pt]
\hline
4& $(1,0;\infty,a_2)=(a_1,a_3;\infty,a_2)$ & $a_1a_2-a_2-a_3a_2+a_3$ & $-\theta_1^2\theta_8^4\theta_4^2-\theta_1^2\theta_{10}^4\theta_4^2+$ \\
& &&$\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2\theta_4^2+\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_{10}^2$ \tabularnewline[4pt]
\hline
5& $(1,0;\infty,a_2)=(a_3,a_1;\infty,a_2)$ & $a_1a_2-a_1+a_2-a_3a_2$&$-\theta_1^2\theta_8^2\theta_3^2\theta_4^2+\theta_1^2\theta_{10}^2\theta_4^4+$\\
&&&$\theta_1^2\theta_3^4\theta_{10}^2-\theta_3^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2\theta_4^2$ \tabularnewline[4pt]
\hline
6 & $(a_1,0;\infty,a_2)=(1,a_3;\infty,a_2)$ & $a_1a_2-a_3a_1-a_2+a_3 a_2$ &
$-\theta_1^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_4^2+\theta_1^4\theta_{10}^2\theta_4^2-$ \\
& &&$\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2+\theta_2^4\theta_4^2\theta_{10}^2$ \tabularnewline[4pt]
\hline
7&$(a_1,0;\infty,a_3)=(1,a_2;\infty,a_3)$ & $a_1a_2-a_3a_1-a_3a_2+a_3$ &
$-\theta_8^4\theta_2^2\theta_4^2+\theta_1^2\theta_8^2\theta_{10}^2\theta_4^2-$ \\
&&&$\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^4\theta_4^2+\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2$ \tabularnewline[4pt]
\hline
8&$(1,0;\infty,a_3)=(a_2,a_1;\infty, a_3)$&$a_3a_1-a_1-a_3a_2+a_3$ & $\theta_8^4-\theta_{10}^4$\tabularnewline[4pt]
\hline
9&$(1,0;\infty,a_3)=(a_1,a_2;\infty,a_3)$ &$ a_3a_1+a_2-a_3-a_3a_2$ &
$\theta_1^4\theta_8^2\theta_4^2-\theta_1^2\theta_2^2\theta_4^2\theta_{10}^2-$ \\
&&&$\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2+\theta_8^2\theta_2^4\theta_4^2$ \tabularnewline[4pt]
\hline
10&$(a_1,0;\infty,1)=(a_2,a_3;\infty,1)$ & $-a_1+a_3a_1+a_2-a_3 $&$\theta_1^4\theta_3^2\theta_8^2-\theta_1^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_4^2-$\\
&&&$\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2+\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^4$ \tabularnewline[4pt]
\hline
11& $(a_1,0;\infty,1)=(a_3,a_2;\infty,1)$ &$ a_1a_2-a_1-a_2+a_3$&$\theta_1^2\theta_8^4\theta_3^2-\theta_1^2\theta_8^2\theta_{10}^2\theta_4^2+$\\
&&&$\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_{10}^4-\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_{10}^2$ \tabularnewline[4pt]
\hline
12& $(a_2,0;\infty,1)=(a_1,a_3;\infty,1)$&$a_1-a_2+a_3a_2-a_3$&$\theta_1^2\theta_8^2\theta_4^4-\theta_1^2\theta_3^2\theta_4^2\theta_{10}^2+$ \\
&&&$\theta_1^2\theta_3^4\theta_8^2-\theta_3^2\theta_8^2\theta_2^2\theta_4^2$ \tabularnewline[4pt]
\hline
13&$(a_1,1;\infty,0) = (a_3,a_2;\infty,0)$ & $a_1a_2-a_3$ & $\theta_8^4-\theta_{10}^4 $ \tabularnewline[4pt]
\hline
14& $(a_2,1;\infty,0) = (a_1,a_3;\infty,0)$ & $a_1-a_3a_2$ &$ \theta_3^4-\theta_4^4$ \tabularnewline[4pt]
\hline
15&$(a_1,1;\infty,0) = (a_2,a_3;\infty,0)$ & $a_3a_1-a_2$ & $ \theta_1^4-\theta_2^4 $ \tabularnewline[4pt] \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{center}
\begin{lem}
{i)} The locus $\mathcal L_2$ of genus 2 curves $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ which have a degree 2 elliptic subcover is a closed subvariety of
$\mathcal M_2$. The equation of $\mathcal L_2$ is given by
\[
\begin{split}\label{eq_L2_J}
8748J_{10}J_2^4J_6^2- 507384000J_{10}^2J_4^2J_2-19245600J_{10}^2J_4J_2^3-6912J_4^3J_6^{34}\\
-592272J_{10}J_4^4J_2^2 +77436J_{10}J_4^3J_2^4 -3499200J_{10}J_2J_6^3+4743360J_{10}J_4^3J_2J_6\\
-870912J_{10}J_4^2J_2^3J_6
+3090960J_{10}J_4J_2^2J_6^2 -78J_2^5J_4^5-125971200000J_{10}^3\\
-81J_2^3J_6^4+1332J_2^4J_4^4J_6 +384J_4^6J_6+41472J_{10}J_4^5+159J_4^6J_2^3 &\\
-47952J_2J_4J_6^4
+104976000J_{10}^2J_2^2J_6-1728J_4^5J_2^2J_6+6048J_4^4J_2J_6^2\\
\end{split}
\]
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
%
-9331200J_{10}J_4^2J_6^2 -J_2^7J_4^4 +12J_2^6J_4^3J_6+29376J_2^2J_4^2J_6^3-8910J_2^3J_4^3J_6^2\\
%
-2099520000J_{10}^2J_4J_6+31104J_6^5 -5832J_{10}J_2^5J_4J_6 -54J_2^5J_4^2J_6^2 \\
%
-236196J_{10}^2J_2^5-80J_4^7J_2 +108J_2^4J_4J_6^3 +972J_{10}J_2^6J_4^2 = & 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
{ii)} The locus of genus 2 curves $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ with $Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X){\, \cong\, } D_8$ is given by the equation of $\mathcal L_2$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{D_8_locus} 1706J_4^2J_2^2+2560J_4^3+27J_4J_2^4-81J_2^3J_6-14880J_2J_4J_ 6+28800J_6^2 =0.
\end{equation}
{iii)} The locus of genus 2 curves $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ with $Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X){\, \cong\, } D_{12}$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{D_12_locus}
\begin{split}
-J_4J_2^4+12J_2^3J_6-52J_4^2J_2^2+80J_4^3+960J_2J_4J_6-3600
J_6^2 &=0, \\
864J_{10}J_2^5+3456000J_{10}J_4^2J_2-43200J_{10}J_4J_2^3-
2332800000J_{10}^2\\
-J_4^2J_2^6 -768J_4^4J_2^2+48J_4^3J_2^4+4096J_4^5 &=0.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
Our goal is to express each of the above loci in terms of the theta characteristics. We obtain the following result.
\begin{thm}\label{theorem1}
Let $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ be a genus 2 curve. Then the following hold:
{i)} $Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X){\, \cong\, } V_4$ if and only if the relations of theta functions given Eq.~\eqref{V_4locus1} holds.
{ii)} $Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X){\, \cong\, } D_8$ if and only if the Eq. I in \cite{web} is satisfied.
{iii)} $Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X){\, \cong\, } D_{12}$ if and only if the Eq. II and Eq. III in \cite{web} are satisfied.
\end{thm}
\proof Part {i)} of the theorem is Lemma~\ref{lemma1}. Here we give a somewhat different proof. Assume that $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ is a
genus 2 curve with equation
$$Y^2=X(X-1)(X-a_1)(X-a_2)(X-a_3)$$
whose classical invariants satisfy Eq.~\eqref{eq_L2_J}. Expressing the classical invariants of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ in terms of $a_1,
a_2, a_3$, substituting them into \eqref{eq_L2_J}, and factoring the resulting equation yields
\medskip
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}\label{L2_factored}
(a_1a_2-a_3)^2 (a_1-a_3a_2)^2 (a_3a_1-a_2)^2 (a_1a_2-a_2-a_3a_2+a_3)^2\\
(a_3a_1+a_2-a_3-a_3a_2)^2(-a_1+a_3a_1+a_2-a_3)^2(a_1a_2-a_1-a_2+a_3)^2\\
(a_1a_2-a_1+a_3a_1-a_3a_2)^2(a_1a_2-a_3a_1-a_3a_2+a_3)^2\\
(a_3a_1-a_1-a_3a_2+a_3)^2(a_1a_2+a_1-a_3a_1-a_2)^2\\
(a_1a_2-a_1-a_3a_1+a_3)^2 (a_1a_2-a_1+a_2-a_3a_2)^2\\
(a_1-a_2+a_3a_2-a_3)^2(a_1a_2-a_3a_1-a_2+a_3 a_2)^2 =&\, 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
It is no surprise that we get the 15 factors of Table 2.1. The relations of theta constants follow from Table 2.1.
{ii)} Let $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ be a genus 2 curve which has an elliptic involution. Then $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ is isomorphic to a curve with the
equation
$$Y^2=X(X-1)(X-a_1)(X-a_2)(X-a_1 a_2).$$
If $\mbox{Aut} (\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X) {\, \cong\, } D_8$ then the $SL_2 (k)$-invariants of such curve must satisfy Eq.~\eqref{D_8_locus}. Then, we get
the equation in terms of $a_1$ and $a_2$.
By writing the relation $a_3 = a_1 a_2$ in terms of theta constants, we get $\theta_4^4 = \theta_3^4$. All the results above
lead to part ii) of the theorem.
{iii)} The proof of this part is similar to part ii).
\endproof
We express the conditions of the previous lemma in terms of the fundamental theta constants only.
\begin{lem}
Let $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ be a genus 2 curve. Then we have the following:
\noindent {i)} $V_4 \hookrightarrow Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ if and only if the fundamental theta constants of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{V_4locus2}
\begin{split}
( \theta_{{3}}^4-\theta_{{4}}^4 ) (\theta_{{1}}^4 -\theta_{{3}}^4 ) ( \theta_{{2}}^4-\theta_{{4}}^4 ) ( \theta_{{1}}^4
-\theta_{{4}}^4 ) ( \theta_{{3}}^4-\theta_{{2}}^4 ) ( \theta_{{1}}^4- \theta_{{2}}^4 ) \\
( -\theta_{{4}}^2+\theta_{{3}}^2 +\theta_{{1}}^2-\theta_{{2}}^2 )(
\theta_{{4}}^2-\theta_{{3}}^2+\theta_{{1}}^2-\theta_{{2}}^2
) ( -\theta_{{4}}^2-\theta_{{3}}^2+\theta_{{2}}^2+\theta_{{
1}}^2 ) \\
( \theta_{{4}}^2+\theta_{{3}}^2+\theta_{{2}}^2+\theta_ {{1}}^2 ) ( {\theta_{{1}}}^{4}{\theta_{{2}}}^{4}+
{\theta_{{3}}}^{4}{\theta_{{2}}}^{4} +{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}{\theta_{{3}}}^{4} -2\,\theta_{{1}}^2\theta_{{2}}^2\theta
_{{3}}^2\theta_{{4}}^2 )\\
\left( -{\theta_{{3}}}^{4}{\theta_{{2}}}^{4}-{
\theta_{{2}}}^{4}{\theta_{{4}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{3}}}^{4}{\theta_{{4}}}^{4} + 2\,\theta_{{1}}^2\theta_{{2}}^2\theta_
{{3}}^2\theta_{{4}}^2 \right)( {\theta_{{2}}}^{4}{\theta_{{4}}}^{4} +{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}{\theta _{{2}}}^{4} +{
\theta_{{1}}}^{4}{\theta_{{4}}}^{4}\\
-2\,\theta_{{1}}^2\theta_{{2}}^2\theta_{{3}}^2\theta_{{4}}^2 ) \left(
{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}{\theta_{{4}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{3}}}^{4}{\theta_{{4}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}{\theta_{ {3}}}^{4}
-2\,\theta_{{1 }}^2\theta_{{2}}^2\theta_{{3}}^2\theta_{{4}}^2\right) = & \, 0.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent {ii)} $D_8 \hookrightarrow Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ if and only if the fundamental theta constants of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ satisfy Eq.(3) in
\cite{Sh}.
\noindent {iii)} $D_6 \hookrightarrow Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ if and only if the fundamental theta constants of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ satisfy Eq.(4) in
\cite{Sh}.
\end{lem}
\proof Notice that Eq.~\eqref{V_4locus1} contains only $\theta_1, \theta_2, \theta_3, \theta_4, \theta_8$ and $\theta_{10}.$ Using
Eq.~\eqref{Frobenius}, we can eliminate $\theta_8$ and $\theta_{10}$ from Eq.~\eqref{V_4locus1}.
The $J_{10}$ invariant of any genus two curve is given by the following in terms of theta constants:
\[ J_{10} = \frac{\theta_1^{12} \theta_3^{12}}{\theta_2^{28} \theta_4^{28} \theta_{10}^{40}} \, (\theta_1^2\theta_2^2 - \theta_3^2 \theta_4^2)^{12} (\theta_1^2\theta_4^2 - \theta_2^2
\theta_3^2)^{12} (\theta_1^2\theta_3^2 - \theta_2^2 \theta_4^2)^{12}.\] Since $J_{10} \neq 0,$ the factors $(\theta_1^2\theta_2^2 - \theta_3^2 \theta_4^2),
(\theta_1^2\theta_4^2 - \theta_2^2 \theta_3^2)$ and $(\theta_1^2\theta_3^2 - \theta_2^2 \theta_4^2)$ cancel in the equation of the $V_4$ locus. The
result follows from Theorem ~\ref{theorem1}. The proof of part ii) and iii) is similar and we avoid details.
\endproof
\begin{rem}
For part ii) and iii), the equations are lengthy and we don't show them here. But by using the extra conditions $\theta_4^2
= \theta_3^2$ or $\theta_4^2 = - \theta_3^2$, we could simplify the equation of the $D_8$ locus as follows:
\noindent {i)}When $\theta_4^2 = \theta_3^2$, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
( \theta_{{1}}^4-\theta_{{2}}^4 ) ( \theta_{{1}}^2\theta_{{2}}^2-{\theta_{{3}}}^{4} ) ( {
\theta_{{2}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}+2\,{\theta_{{3}}}^{2} ) (
{\theta_{{2}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}-2\,{\theta_{{3}}}^{2}
) (
2\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{4} \\
-2\,{ \theta_{{1}}}^{2}{\theta_{{2}}}^{2} +{\theta_{{3}}}^{4} )
( -2\,{\theta_{{ 2}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{3}}}^{4}+2\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}{\theta_{{2}}}^{2}
) ( -10\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}{\theta_{{2}}}^{12}{\theta
_{{3}}}^{8}\\
+206\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}{\theta_{{2}}}^{4}{\theta_{{3}}}^{ 16} +8\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{8}{ \theta_{{2}}}^{16}
-34\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}{\theta_{{2}}}^{8}{\theta_{{3}}}^{12} -126\,{
\theta_{{1}}}^{2}{\theta_{{2}}}^{6}{\theta_{{3}}}^{16}\\
+18\,{\theta_{{1 }}}^{2}{\theta_{{2}}}^{10}{\theta_{{3}}}^{12}+27\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{8}{\theta_{{3}}}^{16}
-132\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{8}{\theta_{{2}}}^{8}{\theta_{{3}}}^{8}
-34\,{\theta_{{1}
}}^{8}{\theta_{{2}}}^{4}{\theta_{{3}}}^{12}\\
-16\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{8}{ \theta_{{3}}}^{4}{\theta_{{2}}}^{12} -16\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{6}{\theta_{{2
}}}^{14}{\theta_{{3}}}^{4} -126\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{6}{\theta_{{2}}}^{2}{ \theta_{{3}}}^{16}
+24\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{6}{\theta_{{2}}}^{6}{\theta_{{3 }}}^{12}\\
+68\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{6}{\theta_{{2}}}^{10}{\theta_{{3}}}^{8} -
24\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{12}{\theta_{{2}}}^{12}+8\,{\theta_{{2}}}^{8}{\theta _{{1}}}^{16} -10\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{12}{
\theta_{{3}}}^{8}{\theta_{{2}}}^{4} \\
-16\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{12}{\theta_{{3 }}}^{4}{\theta_{{2}}}^{8} +88\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{10}{\theta_{{3}}}^{4}{
\theta_{{2}}}^{10} +18\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{10}{\theta_{{2}}}^{2}{\theta_{{ 3}}}^{12}
+68\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{10}{\theta_{{3}}}^{8}{\theta_{{2}}}^{6} \\
+27\,{\theta_{{2}}}^{8}{\theta_{{3}}}^{16}
-16\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{14}{\theta_{{2}}}^{6}{\theta_{{3}}}^{ 4} ) = & 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent {ii)} When $\theta_4^2 = -\theta_3^2$, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
( \theta_{{1}}^4-\theta_{{2}}^4 ) ( {\theta _{{3}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}{\theta_{{2}}}^{2} ) (
-{\theta_{{2}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}-2\,{\theta_{{3}}}^{2} ) (
-{\theta_{{2}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}+2\,{\theta_{{3}}}^{2 } )\\
({\theta_{{3}}}^{ 4} +2\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}{\theta_{{2}}}^{2} +2\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{4} )
( 2\,{ \theta_{{2}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{3}}}^{4}+2\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}{\theta_{{2} }}^{2}) (
206\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}{\theta_{{2}}}^{4}{\theta_{{3
}}}^{16}\\
-10\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}{\theta_{{2}}}^{12}{ \theta_{{3}}}^{8}+27\,{\theta_{{2}}}^{8}{\theta_{{3}}}^{16}
-34\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}{\theta_{{2}}}^{8}{\theta_{{3}}}^{12}
+ 126\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}{\theta_{{2}}}^{6}{\theta_{{3}}}^{16}\\
-18\,{ \theta_{{1}}}^{2}{\theta_{{2}}}^{10}{\theta_{{3}}}^{12} -68\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{10}{\theta_{{3}}}^{8}{\theta_{{
2}}}^{6} +8\,{\theta_{{1 }}}^{8}{\theta_{{2}}}^{16} +27\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{8}{\theta_{{3}}}^{16} \\
-132\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{8}{\theta_{{2}}}^{8}{\theta_{{3}}}^{8}-34\,{
\theta_{{1}}}^{8}{\theta_{{2}}}^{4}{\theta_{{3}}}^{12} -16\,{\theta_{{1 }}}^{8}{\theta_{{3}}}^{4}{\theta_{{2}}}^{12}
+16\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{6}{ \theta_{{2}}}^{14}{\theta_{{3}}}^{4} \\
+126\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{6}{\theta_{{ 2}}}^{2}{\theta_{{3}}}^{16} -24\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{6}{\theta_{{2}}}^{6}{
\theta_{{3}}}^{12} -68\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{6}{\theta_{{2}}}^{10}{\theta_{{
3}}}^{8}-24\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{12}{\theta_{{2}}}^{12} \\
+16\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{14}{\theta_{{2}}}^{6}{\theta _{{3}}}^{4} -10\,{\theta_{{1}}}
^{12}{\theta_{{3}}}^{8}{\theta_{{2}}}^{4} -16\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{12}{ \theta_{{3}}}^{4}{\theta_{{2}}}^{8}
-88\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{10}{\theta_{{3 }}}^{4}{\theta_{{2}}}^{10}\\
-18\,{\theta_{{1}}}^{10}{\theta_{{2}}}^{2}{ \theta_{{3}}}^{12} +8\,{\theta_{{2}}}^{ 8}{\theta_{{1}}}^{16} ) = & 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{rem}
Define the following as\\
\[A = (\frac{\theta_2}{\theta_1})^4, \quad B = (\frac{\theta_3}{\theta_1})^4, \quad C=(\frac{\theta_4}{\theta_1})^4,
\quad D = (\frac{\theta_8}{\theta_1})^4, \quad E =(\frac{\theta_{10}}{\theta_1})^4.
\]
Using the two identities given by Eq.~\eqref{Frobenius}, we have
\[
\begin{split}
1+A-B-C-D-E & = 0, \\
{A}^{2}-2\, D EA+2\,BCA+{C}^{2}{B}^{2}-2\, D ECB+{D}^{2}{E}^{2} & =0.
\end{split}
\]
Then we formulate the following lemma.
\def\hookrightarrow{\hookrightarrow}
\begin{lem}
Let $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ be a genus 2 curve. Then $V_4 \hookrightarrow Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ if and only if the theta constants of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
( B-A ) ( A-C ) ( B-C ) ( 1-A ) ( 1-B )( 1-C )( 1-2\,C+2\,A +{A}^{2}{C}^{2}
\\
%
-4\, D E
-AC -2\,{A}^{2}BC
+2\,A D EBC+A{B}^{2}+ D EBC +AD EB -{A}^{2}\\
%
+4\,ABC
-2\,A{B}^{2}{C}^{2}
-{A}^{2}B+A D E
-{B}^{2}{C}^{2}-2\,B{C}^{2}+{B}^{2}C ) ( - D EBC\\
%
-4\,ABC
+{B}^{2}{C}^{2} +AC+A{B}^{2}C -A DEB
+{A}^{2}
+{A}^{2}C
+AB{C}^{2}\\
%
- D EC
-2\,A DEC-{A}^{2}{C}^{2}-{A}^{2}BC-A{C}^{2} -A D E ) =& 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\section{Genus 3 curves}
\subsection{Introduction to Genus 3 Curves} In this section, we focus on genus 3 cyclic curves. The
locus $\mathcal L_3$ of genus $3$ hyperelliptic curves with extra involutions is a $3$-dimensional subvariety of $\mathcal H_3.$ If $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X
\in \mathcal L_3$ then $V_4 \hookrightarrow Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X).$ The normal form of the hyperelliptic genus $3$ curve is given by $$y^3 =
x^8 + a_3 X^6+a_2 x^4 + a_1 x^2 + 1$$ and the dihedral invariants of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X_3$ are $u_1 = a_1^4 + a_3 ^4, u_2 =(a_1^2 +
a_3^2) a_2 , u_3 = 2 a_1 a_3.$ The description of the locus of genus $3$ hyperelliptic curves in terms of dihedral
invariants or classical invariants is given in \cite{S2}. We would like to describe the locus of genus $3$
hyperelliptic curves with extra involutions and all its sub loci in terms of theta functions.
The list of groups that occur as automorphism groups of genus $3$ curves has been computed by many authors. We denote
the following groups by $G_1$ and $G_2$: $$G_1 = \langle x,y | x^2, y^6 ,x y x y^4 \rangle, \quad \quad \quad G_2 =
\langle x,y |x^4, y^4, (xy)^2, (x^{-1} y)^2 \rangle .$$
In Table 2, we list all possible hyperelliptic genus 3 algebraic curves; see \cite{MS} for details. In this case
$\mbox{Aut}(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ has a central subgroup $C$ of order 2 such that the genus of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X^C$ is zero. In the second column of the
table, the groups which occur as full automorphism groups are given, and the third column indicates the reduced
automorphism group for each case. The dimension $\delta$ of the locus and the equation of the curve are given in the
next two columns. The last column is the GAP identity of each group in the library of small
groups in GAP. Note that $C_2, C_4$ and $C_{14}$ are
the only groups which don't have extra involutions. Thus, curves with automorphism group $C_2, C_4$ or $C_{14}$ do not
belong to the locus $\mathcal L_3$ of genus 3 hyperelliptic curves with extra involutions.
In Table 3, we list the automorphism groups of genus $3$ nonhyperelliptic curves. In the table, the second column
represents the normal cyclic subgroup $C$ such that $g(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X^C) = 0.$ For the last 3 cases in the table, the automorphism
groups of the curves are not normal homocyclic covers of $\mathbb P^1.$ The only cyclic curves are curves with automorphism
groups $C_4^2 \rtimes S_3,$ $C_3,$ $C_6,$ $C_9$ and two other groups given by $(16,13)$ and $(48,33)$ in GAP identity.
In this chapter we write the equations of the cyclic curves of genus 3 by using theta constants.
\medskip
\begin{center}
\begin{table}[t!]\label{tablehyperelliptic}
\caption{Genus 3 hyperelliptic curves and their automorphisms}
\begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c|c|c||}
\hline \hline & & & & &\\
&$\mbox{Aut}(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ & $\mbox{$\overline{Aut}$ } (\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ & $\, \delta \, $ &equation $y^2= f(x) $ & Id.\\
& & & & &\\
\hline \hline &&&& & \\
1 & $C_2$ &$\{1\}$ & 5&$x(x-1)(x^5+ax^4+bx^3+cx^2+dx+e)$& $(2,1)$ \\
& & & & &\\
2 & $C_2 \times C_2$ &$C_2$& 3&$ x^8 + a_3 x^6 + a_2 x^4 + a_1 x^2 + 1$ & $(4,2)$\\
3 & $C_4$ & $C_2$ &2&$x(x^2-1)(x^4+ax^2+b)$& $(4,1)$\\
4 & $C_{14}$ &$C_7$ &0&$x^7-1$ & $(14,2)$ \\
& & & & &\\
5 & $C_2^3$ &$D_4$ &2&$(x^4+ax^2+1)(x^4+bx^2+1)$ &$(8,5)$\\
6 & $C_2 \times D_8$ &$D_8$ &1&$x^8+ax^4+1$ & $(16,11)$ \\
7 & $C_2\times C_4$ &$D_4$ & 1&$(x^4-1)(x^4+ax^2+1)$& $(8,2)$\\
8 & $D_{12}$ &$D_6$ &1&$x(x^6+ax^3+1)$ &$(12,4)$\\
9 & $G_1$ &$D_{12}$ & 0&$x(x^6-1)$ & $(24,5)$\\
10 & $G_2$ &$D_{16}$ &0& $x^8-1$& $(32,9)$\\
& & & & &\\
11 & $C_2 \times S_4$ & $S_4$ &0 & $x^8+14x^2+1$ & $(48,48)$ \\
& & & & &\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{table}[h!]\label{tableNonHyper}
\caption{Genus 3 non hyperelliptic curves and their automorphisms}
\begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c|c|c||}
\hline \hline
&&& &&\\
$\#$ & $Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ & $C$ & $Aut(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)/C$& equation & Id. \\
&&&&& \\
\hline \hline
&&&&&\\
1& $V_4$ & $ V_4$ & $\{1\}$& $x^4+y^4+ax^2y^2+bx^2+cy^2+1=0$&(4,2) \\
2& $D_8$ & $ V_4$ & $C_2$& take\ $b=c$& (8,3)\\
3 & $S_4$ & $ V_4$ & $S_3$& take\ $a=b=c$ &(24,12) \\
4& $C_4^2 {\Bbb o} S_3$ & $ V_4$ & $S_4$& \ take \, $a=b=c=0$ \, or\, $y^4=x(x^2-1)$ & (96,64) \\
\hline
5 & $16$ & $C_4$& $V_4$& $y^4=x(x-1)(x-t)$&(16,13) \\
6& $48$ & $C_4$& $A_4$& $y^4=x^3-1$ &(48,33) \\
\hline
7& $C_3$ & $C_3$& $\{1\}$& $y^3=x(x-1)(x-s)(x-t)$&(3,1) \\
8& $C_6$ & $C_3$& $C_2$& take\ $s=1-t$& (6,2) \\
9& $C_9$ & $C_3$& $C_3$ & $y^3=x(x^3-1)$&(9,1)\\
\hline &&&&&\\
10& $L_3(2)$ & & & $x^3y+y^3z+z^3x=0$ &(168,42) \\
\hline
& &&&&\\
11& $S_3$ & & & $a(x^4+y^4+z^4)+b(x^2y^2+x^2z^2+y^2z^2)+$&(6,1)\\
& & & &$c(x^2yz+y^2xz+z^2xy)=0$&\\
\hline& && &&\\
12& $C_2$ & & & $ x^4+x^2(y^2+az^2) + by^4+cy^3z+dy^2z^2$&(2,1)\\
&&&& $ +eyz^3+gz^4=0$, \ \ either $e=1$ or $g=1$ &\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{center}
Figure ~\ref{figgenus=3} describes the inclusions among all subloci for genus 3 curves. In order to study such
inclusions, the lattice of the list of automorphism groups of genus 3 curves needs to be determined. Let's consider the
locus of the hyperelliptic curve whose automorphism group is $V_4 = \{1,\alpha,\beta,\alpha \beta\}.$ Suppose $\alpha$
is the hyperelliptic involution. Since the hyperelliptic involution is unique, the genus of the quotient curve
$\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X^{\langle \beta \rangle}$ is 1. Also we have $\langle \alpha \rangle \cong C_2 \hookrightarrow V_4$ and $\langle
\beta \rangle \cong C_2 \hookrightarrow V_4.$ Therefore the locus of the hyperelliptic curve with automorphism group
$V_4$ can be embedded into two different loci with automorphism group $C_2.$ One comes from a curve that has
hyperelliptic involution and the other comes from a curve which does not have hyperelliptic involution. Similarly we
can describe the inclusions of each locus. The lattice of the automorphism groups for genus 3 curves is given Figure
1.
\subsection{Theta Functions for Hyperelliptic Curves} For genus three hyperelliptic curves, we have 28
odd theta characteristics and 36 even theta characteristics. The following shows the corresponding characteristics for
each theta function. The first 36 are for the even functions and the last 28 are for the odd functions. For simplicity,
we denote them by $\theta_i(z)$ instead of $\theta_i \ch {a} {b} (z , \tau)$ where $i=1,\dots ,36$ for the even functions and
$i=37, \dots, 64$ for the odd functions.
\[
\begin{split}
\theta_1(z) &= \theta_1 \chs {0}{0}{0}{0} 0 0 (z , \tau), \qquad \qquad
\theta_2(z) = \theta_2 \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_3(z) &= \theta_3 \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 (z , \tau), \qquad \qquad
\theta_4(z) = \theta_4 \chs 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 (z , \tau)\\
\theta_5(z) &= \theta_5 \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau), \qquad \qquad
\theta_6(z) = \theta_6 \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_7(z) &= \theta_7 \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 (z , \tau), \qquad \qquad
\theta_8(z) = \theta_8 \chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau)\\
\theta_9(z) &= \theta_9 \chs 0 0 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}}(z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{10}(z) = \theta_{10} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 0 0 (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{11}(z) &= \theta_{11} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{12}(z) = \theta_{12} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{13}(z) &= \theta_{13} \chs 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{14}(z) = \theta_{14} \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 0 (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{15}(z) &= \theta_{15} \chs 0{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{16}(z) = \theta_{16} \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{17}(z) &= \theta_{17} \chs 0 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{18}(z) = \theta_{18} \chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 (z , \tau)\\
\end{split}
\]
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(485,410)(-65,-50)
\thicklines
\qbezier(-10,-40)(-10,150)(40,315)
\put(40,185){\line(0,1){130}}
\qbezier(40,185)(115,213)(190,241)
\dashline{4}[1](190,241)(298,190)
\dashline{4}[1](300,168)(290,110)
\dashline{4}[1](190,240)(240,110
\qbezier(40,315)(77,211)(115,110)
\qbezier(35,165)(44,137)(53,110)
\qbezier(35,165)(35,100)(35,35)
\qbezier(35,165)(95,130)(100,35)
\qbezier(115,93)(133,64)(151,35)
\dashline{4}[1](159,93)(210,35
\qbezier(57,93)(104,64)(151,35)
\dashline{4}[1](159,93)(100,35
\dashline{4}[1](240,93) (100,35)
\dashline{4}[1](288,93) (151,35)
\dashline{4}[1](190,240)(210,35)
\dashline{4}[1](255,35)(288,93)
\dashline{4}[1](288,93)(310,35)
\dashline{4}[1](240,93)(310,35)
\qbezier(35,18)(48,-11)(61,-40)
\qbezier(100,18)(80,-11)(61,-40)
\qbezier(100,18)(120,-11)(140,-40)
\qbezier(90,-40)(120,-11)(151,18)
\dashline{4}[1](151,18)(140,-40)
\dashline{4}[1](310,18)(140,-40)
\dashline{4}[1](189,-40)(159,93
\dashline{4}[1](232,-40)(210,18)
\dashline{4}[1](232,-40)(255,18)
\dashline{4}[1](277,-40)(310,18)
\dashline{4}[1](325,-40)(310,18)
\put(30,175){\small{$ V_4$}}
\put(30,325){\small{ $C_2$}}
\put(185,250){\small{ $C_2$}}
\put(295,175){\small{$V_4$}}
\put(285,100){\small{$D_8$}
\put(235,100){\small{$S_3$}}
\put(154,100){\small{$C_3$}
\put(110,100){\small{$C_4$}}
\put(48,100){\small{$(C_2)^2$}}
\put(18,25){\small{$C_2 \times C_2$}}
\put(95,25){\small{$D_{12}$}}
\put(133,25){\small{$C_2 \times D_8$}}
\put(205,25){\small{$C_6$}}
\put(250,25){\small{$16$}}
\put(305,25){\small{$S_4$}}
\put(-15,-50){\small{$C_{14}$}
\put(56,-50){\small{$G_1$}}
\put(85,-50){\small{$G_2$}}
\put(125,-50){\small{$C_2 \times S_4$}}
\put(184,-50){\small{$C_{9}$}}
\put(227,-50){\small{$48$}}
\put(272,-50){\small{$96$}}
\put(315,-50){\small{$L_3(2)$}}
\put(-40,-50){\small{0}}
\put(-40,25){\small{1}}
\put(-40,100){\small{2}}
\put(-40,175){\small{3}}
\put(-40,250){\small{4}}
\put(-40,325){\small{5}}
\put(-50,355){{Dimension}} \put(-50,340){ of Loci}
\qbezier(205,328)(175,328)(245,328) \put(250,325){{hyperelliptic}}
\dashline{4}[1](199,313)(245,313) \put(250,310){{non hyperelliptic}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Inclusions among the loci for genus $3$ curves with automorphisms.} \label{figgenus=3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\[
\begin{split}
\theta_{19}(z) &= \theta_{19} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau),\qquad
\qquad
\theta_{20}(z) = \theta_{20} \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{21}(z) &= \theta_{21} \chs 0 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{22}(z) = \theta_{22} \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{23}(z) &= \theta_{23} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau),\qquad
\qquad
\theta_{24}(z) = \theta_{24} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\end{split}
\]
\[
\begin{split}
\theta_{25}(z) &= \theta_{25} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}}(z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{26}(z) = \theta_{26} \chs 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{27}(z) &= \theta_{27} \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{28}(z) = \theta_{28} \chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{29}(z) &= \theta_{29} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{30}(z) = \theta_{30} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{31}(z) &= \theta_{31} \chs{\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{32}(z) = \theta_{32} \chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{33}(z) &= \theta_{33} \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau),\qquad
\qquad
\theta_{34}(z) =\theta_{34}\chs 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau) \\
\theta_{35}(z) &= \theta_{35} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{36}(z) = \theta_{36}\chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 0 (z , \tau) \\
\theta_{37}(z) &= \theta_{37} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{38}(z) = \theta_{38}\chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau) \\
\theta_{39}(z) &= \theta_{39} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{40}(z) = \theta_{40} \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau) \\
\theta_{41}(z) &= \theta_{41} \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{42}(z) = \theta_{42}\chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}(z , \tau) \\
\theta_{43}(z) &= \theta_{43} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{44}(z) =\theta_{44} \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z ,\tau) \\
\theta_{45}(z) &= \theta_{45} \chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{46}(z) = \theta_{46} \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau) \\
\theta_{47}(z) &= \theta_{47} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{48}(z) = \theta_{48} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{49}(z) &= \theta_{49} \chs{\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{50}(z) = \theta_{50}\chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau) \\
\theta_{51}(z) &= \theta_{51} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}(z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{52}(z) = \theta_{52}\chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau) \\
\theta_{53}(z) &= \theta_{53} \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}}(z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{54}(z) = \theta_{54}\chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau) \\
\theta_{55}(z) &= \theta_{55} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{56}(z) = \theta_{56} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{57}(z) &= \theta_{57} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{58}(z) = \theta_{58} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{59}(z) &= \theta_{59} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{60}(z) = \theta_{60} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\theta_{61}(z) &= \theta_{61} \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{62}(z) = \theta_{62} \chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}}(z , \tau)\\
\theta_{63}(z) &= \theta_{63} \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 (z , \tau),\qquad \qquad
\theta_{64}(z) = \theta_{64} \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} (z , \tau)\\
\end{split}
\]
\begin{rem}
Each half-integer characteristic other than the zero characteristic can be formed as a sum of not more than 3 of the
following seven characteristics:
\[
\begin{split}
& \left\{ \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0, \chs
{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}}, \chs
0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}},\right.\\
& \left. \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0, \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}\right\}.\\
\end{split}
\]
The sum of all characteristics of the above set gives the zero characteristic. The sums of three characteristics give
the rest of the 35 even characteristics and the sums of two characteristics give 21 odd characteristics.
\end{rem}
It can be shown that one of the even theta constants is zero. Let's pick $S = \{1,2,3,4,5,6,7\}$ and $U = \{1,3,5,7\}.$
Let $T = U.$ Then By Theorem ~\ref{vanishingProperty} the theta constant corresponding to the characteristic $\eta_T
=\chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} $ is zero. That is $\theta_{12} = 0.$ Next,
we give the relation between theta characteristics and branch points of the genus 3 hyperelliptic curve in the same
way we did in the genus 2 case. Once again, Thomae's formula is used to get these relations. We get 35 equations with
branch points and non-zero even theta constants. By picking suitable equations, we were able to express branch points
in terms of thetanulls similar to Picard's formula for genus $2$ curves. Let $ B = \{a_1 , a_2 , a_3 , a_4 , a_5 , 1 ,
0\}$ be the finite branch points of the curves and $U = \{a_1, a_3, a_5, 0\}$ be the set of odd branch points.
\begin{thm}
Any genus 3 hyperelliptic curve is isomorphic to a curve given by the equation
\[Y^2=X(X-1)(X-a_1)(X-a_2)(X-a_3)(X-a_4)(X-a_5), \] where
\[ a_1 =\frac{\theta_{31}^2\theta_{21}^2}{\theta_{34}^2\theta_{24}^2}, \, \, a_2=
\frac{\theta_{31}^2\theta_{13}^2}{\theta_{9}^2\theta_{24}^2}, \, \, a_3 = \frac{\theta_{11}^2\theta_{31}^2}{\theta_{24}^2\theta_{6}^2}, \, \, a_4 =
\frac{\theta_{21}^2\theta_{7}^2}{\theta_{15}^2\theta_{34}^2}, \, \, a_5= \frac{\theta_{13}^2\theta_{1}^2}{\theta_{26}^2\theta_{9}^2}.
\]
\end{thm}
\proof Thomae's formula expresses the thetanulls in terms of branch points of hyperelliptic curves. To invert the
period map we are going to use Lemma~\ref{Thomae}. For simplicity we order the branch points in the order of $a_1,
a_2, a_3, a_4, a_5, 0, 1,$ and $\infty$. Then the following set of equations represents the relations of theta
constants and $a_1,$ $\dots,$ $a_5.$ We use the notation $(i,j)$ for $(a_i-a_j)$.
\[
\begin{split}
{\theta_{{1}}}^{4} & = A \,\left(1,6 \right) \left(3,6 \right) \left(5,6 \right) \left( 1 ,3 \right) \left( 1 ,5 \right)
\left( 3, 5 \right) \left( 2 ,4
\right) \left( 2 ,7 \right) \left( 4 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{2}}}^{4} & =- A \, \left( 3,6 \right) \left( 5,6 \right) \left( 3 ,5 \right) \left( 1 , 2 \right) \left( 1 ,4
\right) \left(2 ,4 \right) \left( 3 , 7 \right) \left( 5 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{3}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 3,6 \right)\left( 4,6 \right) \left( 3 , 4 \right) \left( 1, 2 \right) \left( 1 , 5
\right) \left( 2 ,5 \right) \left( 1 ,7 \right) \left( 2,7 \right) \left( 5 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{4}}}^{4} & = -A \, \left( 2,6 \right)\left( 3,6 \right)\left(5,6 \right) \left( 2 ,3 \right) \left( 2 ,5 \right)
\left( 3 ,5 \right) \left(1, 4 \right) \left( 1 ,7 \right) \left( 4 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{5}}}^{4} & = A \, \left(4,6 \right)\left( 5,6 \right) \left( 4,5 \right) \left( 1 ,2 \right) \left(1, 3 \right)
\left( 2 ,3\right) \left( 1 , 7 \right) \left( 2 ,7 \right) \left( 3 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{6}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 1,6 \right) \left( 2,6 \right) \left( 3 ,4 \right) \left( 3 ,5 \right) \left( 4 ,5
\right) \left( 1 ,2
\right) \left( 1 , 7 \right) \left( 2 ,7 \right) \\
\end{split}
\]
\[
\begin{split}
{\theta_{{7}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 2,6 \right)\left( 3,6 \right)\left( 4,6 \right) \left( 1 ,5 \right) \left( 2 ,3 \right)
\left( 2 ,4 \right) \left( 3 ,4
\right) \left( 1 , 7 \right) \left( 5 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{8}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 2,6 \right)\left( 3,6 \right) \left( 2 ,3 \right) \left( 1 , 4 \right) \left( 1 ,5
\right) \left( 4 ,5
\right) \left( 1 ,7 \right) \left( 4 , 7 \right) \left( 5 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{9}}}^{4} & = -A \, \left( 1,6 \right)\left( 3,6 \right) \left( 1 ,3 \right) \left( 2 ,4 \right) \left( 2 ,5
\right) \left( 4 ,5
\right) \left( 1, 7 \right) \left( 3 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{10}}}^{4} & = -A \,\left( 3,6 \right) \left( 5,6 \right) \left( 3 ,5 \right) \left( 1 ,2 \right) \left( 1, 4
\right) \left( 2 ,4
\right) \left( 1 ,7 \right) \left( 2 ,7 \right) \left( 4 , 7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{11}}}^{4} & = -A \, \left(3,6 \right)\left( 4,6 \right) \left( 5,6 \right) \left( 3 ,4 \right)
\left( 3 ,5 \right) \left( 4 ,5 \right) \left(
1 ,2 \right) \left( 1, 7 \right) \left( 2 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{13}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 2,6 \right)\left( 4,6\right)\left( 5,6\right) \left( 1 ,3 \right) \left( 2 ,4 \right)
\left( 2 ,5 \right) \left( 4 ,5
\right) \left( 1 ,7 \right) \left( 3 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{14}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 2,6 \right)\left( 5,6 \right) \left( 2 ,5 \right) \left( 1 ,3 \right) \left( 1 , 4
\right) \left( 3 ,4
\right) \left( 1 ,7 \right) \left( 3 ,7 \right) \left( 4 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{15}}}^{4} & = -A \, \left( 1,6 \right) \left( 5,6 \right) \left( 1 ,5 \right) \left( 2 ,3 \right) \left( 2 ,4
\right) \left( 3 ,4
\right) \left( 1 , 7 \right) \left( 5 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{16}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 1,6 \right) \left( 2 ,3 \right) \left( 2 ,4 \right) \left( 2 ,5 \right) \left( 3 ,4
\right) \left( 3 ,5 \right) \left( 4 , 5 \right) \left( 1 ,7 \right)
\\
{\theta_{{17}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 1,6 \right) \left( 4,6 \right) \left( 2 ,3 \right) \left( 2 ,5 \right) \left( 3 ,5
\right) \left( 1 , 4
\right) \left( 1 ,7 \right) \left( 4 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{18}}}^{4} & = -A \, \left(2,6 \right) \left( 4,6 \right) \left( 1 ,3 \right) \left( 1 ,5 \right) \left( 3 ,5
\right) \left( 2 ,4
\right) \left( 1 ,7 \right) \left( 3 ,7 \right) \left( 5, 7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{19}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 3,6 \right)\left( 4,6 \right) \left( 1 ,2 \right) \left( 1 ,5 \right) \left( 2 ,5
\right) \left( 3 ,4
\right) \left( 3 , 7 \right) \left( 4 , 7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{20}}}^{4} & = -A \, \left( 2,6\right) \left( 1 ,3 \right) \left( 1 , 4 \right) \left( 1 , 5 \right) \left( 3 ,4
\right) \left( 3 ,5 \right) \left( 4 , 5 \right) \left( 2 , 7 \right)
\\
{\theta_{{21}}}^{4} & = -A \, \left( 1,6 \right)\left( 4,6 \right)\left( 5,6 \right) \left( 1 ,4 \right) \left( 1 ,5
\right) \left( 4 ,5 \right) \left( 2 ,3
\right) \left( 2 , 7 \right) \left( 3 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{22}}}^{4} & = -A \, \left( 1,6 \right)\left( 3,6 \right)\left( 4,6 \right) \left( 1 , 3 \right) \left( 1 , 4
\right) \left( 3 ,4 \right) \left( 2 ,5
\right) \left( 2 , 7 \right) \left( 5 , 7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{23}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 1,6 \right)\left( 2,6 \right) \left(3 ,4 \right) \left( 3 ,5 \right) \left( 4 , 5
\right) \left( 1 ,2
\right) \left( 3 , 7 \right) \left( 4, 7 \right) \left( 5, 7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{24}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 4,6 \right)\left( 5,6 \right) \left( 1 ,2 \right) \left( 1 ,3 \right) \left( 2, 3
\right) \left( 4 ,5
\right) \left( 4 , 7 \right) \left( 5 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{25}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 3,6 \right) \left( 1 ,2 \right) \left( 1 ,4 \right) \left( 1 ,5 \right)
\left( 2 ,4 \right) \left( 2 ,5 \right) \left( 4 ,5 \right) \left( 3 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{26}}}^{4} & = -A \, \left( 2,6 \right)\left( 4,6 \right) \left( 1 ,3 \right) \left( 1 ,5 \right) \left( 3 ,5
\right) \left( 2 ,4
\right) \left( 2 ,7 \right) \left( 4 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{27}}}^{4} & = -A \, \left( 1,6 \right)\left( 5,6 \right) \left( 1 ,5 \right) \left( 2 ,3 \right) \left( 2 ,4
\right) \left( 3 ,4
\right) \left( 2 ,7 \right) \left( 3 ,7 \right) \left( 4 , 7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{28}}}^{4} & = -A \, \left( 1,6 \right)\left( 3,6 \right) \left( 1 ,3 \right) \left( 2 ,4 \right) \left( 2 ,5
\right) \left( 4 ,5
\right) \left( 2 ,7 \right) \left( 4 ,7 \right) \left( 5 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{29}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 1,6 \right)\left( 2,6 \right)\left( 4,6 \right) \left( 3 ,5 \right) \left( 1 ,2 \right)
\left( 1 ,4 \right) \left( 2, 4
\right) \left( 3, 7 \right) \left( 5 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{30}}}^{4} & = A \, \left(5,6 \right) \left( 1 ,2 \right) \left( 1,3 \right) \left( 1 ,4 \right) \left(
2, 3 \right) \left( 2 ,4 \right) \left( 3,4 \right) \left( 5 , 7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{31}}}^{4} & = -A \, \left( 1,6 \right)\left( 2,6 \right)\left( 3,6 \right) \left( 1, 2 \right) \left( 1 ,3
\right) \left( 2 ,3 \right) \left( 4 ,5
\right) \left( 4 ,7 \right) \left( 5 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{32}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 1,6 \right)\left( 4,6 \right) \left( 2 ,3 \right) \left( 2, 5 \right) \left( 3 ,5
\right) \left( 1 , 4
\right) \left( 2 , 7 \right) \left( 3, 7 \right) \left( 5 , 7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{33}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 2,6 \right)\left( 5,6 \right) \left( 1 ,3 \right) \left( 1 ,4 \right) \left( 3, 4
\right) \left( 2 ,5
\right) \left( 2 , 7 \right) \left( 5 ,7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{34}}}^{4} & = A \, \left( 2,6\right)\left( 3,6 \right) \left( 1 ,4 \right) \left( 1 , 5 \right) \left( 4, 5
\right) \left( 2 ,3
\right) \left( 2 ,7 \right) \left( 3 , 7 \right) \\
{\theta_{{35}}}^{4} & = -A \, \left( 4,6 \right) \left( 1 ,2 \right) \left( 1 ,3 \right) \left( 1, 5 \right) \left( 2, 3
\right) \left( 2 ,5 \right) \left( 3, 5 \right) \left( 4 ,7 \right)
\\
{\theta_{{36}}}^{4} & = -A \, \left( 1,6\right)\left( 2,6 \right)\left( 5,6 \right) \left( 1 ,2 \right) \left( 1 ,5
\right) \left( 2 ,5 \right) \left( 3 ,4
\right) \left( 3, 7 \right) \left( 4 ,7 \right) \\
\end{split}
\]
\noindent Our expectation is to write down the branch points as quotients of thetanulls. By using the set of equations
given above we have several choices for $a_1,\dots,a_5$ in terms of theta constants.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
Branch Points & \multicolumn {3}{c} {Possible Ratios}\\[5pt]
$a_1^2$ & $\left(\frac{\theta_{36}^2\theta_{22}^2}{\theta_{33}^2\theta_{19}^2}\right)^2$, &
$\left(\frac{\theta_{31}^2\theta_{21}^2}{\theta_{34}^2\theta_{24}^2}\right)^2$, &
$\left(\frac{\theta_{29}^2\theta_{1}^2}{\theta_{26}^2\theta_{2}^2}\right)^2$ \\
$a_2^2$ & $\left(\frac{\theta_{4}^2\theta_{29}^2}{\theta_{2}^2\theta_{17}^2}\right)^2$, &
$\left(\frac{\theta_{36}^2\theta_{7}^2}{\theta_{15}^2\theta_{19}^2}\right)^2$,
&
$\left(\frac{\theta_{31}^2\theta_{13}^2}{\theta_{9}^2\theta_{24}^2}\right)^2$ \\
$a_3^2$ & $\left(\frac{\theta_{4}^2\theta_{22}^2}{\theta_{33}^2\theta_{17}^2}\right)^2$, &
$\left(\frac{\theta_{11}^2\theta_{31}^2}{\theta_{24}^2\theta_{6}^2}\right)^2$, &
$\left(\frac{\theta_{7}^2\theta_{1}^2}{\theta_{26}^2\theta_{15}^2}\right)^2$ \\
$a_4^2$ & $\left(\frac{\theta_{11}^2\theta_{29}^2}{\theta_{2}^2\theta_{6}^2}\right)^2$, &
$\left(\frac{\theta_{21}^2\theta_{7}^2}{\theta_{15}^2\theta_{34}^2}\right)^2$, &
$\left(\frac{\theta_{22}^2\theta_{13}^2}{\theta_{9}^2\theta_{33}^2}\right)^2$ \\
$a_5^2$ & $\left(\frac{\theta_{4}^2\theta_{21}^2}{\theta_{34}^2\theta_{17}^2}\right)^2$, &
$\left(\frac{\theta_{11}^2\theta_{36}^2}{\theta_{19}^2\theta_{6}^2}\right)^2$, &
$\left(\frac{\theta_{13}^2\theta_{1}^2}{\theta_{26}^2\theta_{9}^2}\right)^2$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Let's select the following choices for $a_1, \cdots, a_5$:
\[
a_1 = \frac{\theta_{31}^2\theta_{21}^2}{\theta_{34}^2\theta_{24}^2}, \, \,
a_2=
\frac{\theta_{31}^2\theta_{13}^2}{\theta_{9}^2\theta_{24}^2}, \, \, a_3 =\frac{\theta_{11}^2\theta_{31}^2}{\theta_{24}^2\theta_{6}^2}, \, \, a_4 =
\frac{\theta_{21}^2\theta_{7}^2}{\theta_{15}^2\theta_{34}^2}, \quad a_5= \frac{\theta_{13}^2\theta_{1}^2}{\theta_{26}^2\theta_{9}^2}.
\]
This completes the proof.
\endproof
\begin{rem}
{i)} Unlike the genus 2 case, here only $\theta_1,$ $ \theta_6,$ $ \theta_7,$ $\theta_{11},$ $ \theta_{15},$ $ \theta_{24},$ $ \theta_{31}$ are
from the same G\"opel group.
{ii)} For genus 2 case such relations are known as Picard's formulae. The calculations proposed by Gaudry on genus 2
arithmetic on theta function in cryptography is mainly based on Picard's formulae.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Theta Identities for Hyperelliptic Curves}
Similar to the genus 2 case we can find identities that hyperelliptic theta constants are satisfied. We would like to
find a set of identities that contains all possible even theta constants. A G\"opel group, Eq.~\eqref{eq1} and
Eq.~\eqref{eq2} all play a main role in this task. Now consider a G\"opel group for genus 3 curves. Any G\"opel group
$G$ contains $2^3=8$ elements. The number of such G\"opel groups is $135.$ We have $24$ G\"opel groups such that all of
the characteristics of the groups are even. The following is one of the G\"opel groups which has only even
characteristics:
\[
\begin{split}
G = & \left\{ c_1 = \chs {0}{0}{0}{0} 0 0, c_2 = \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0,c_3 \chs
{\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 0 0, c_4 = \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 0, c_5 = \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0, \right. \\
& \left.c_6 = \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0, c_7 = \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 0 , c_8 = \chs 0 0
{\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 \right\}.
\end{split}
\]
\noindent By picking suitable characteristics $\mathfrak b_1,$ $\mathfrak b_2,$ and $\mathfrak b_3$ we can find the G\"opel systems for group
$G.$ Let's pick $\mathfrak b_1 = \chs 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0,$ $\mathfrak b_2 = \chs 0 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0,$ and $\mathfrak b_3
= \chs 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}},$ then the corresponding G\"opel systems are given by the following:
\[
\begin{split}
G = & \left\{ \chs {0}{0}{0}{0} 0 0, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0, \chs
{\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 0 0, \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 0, \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0, \right. \\
& \left.\chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 0 , \chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0
0 \right\},\\
\mathfrak b_1 G = & \left\{ \chs 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}
0,\chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0,\chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0,
\chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0, \right.\\
%
& \left. \chs{\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}
0, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0, \chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 \right\},\\
%
\mathfrak b_2 G = & \left\{ \chs 0 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 ,\chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}}
0, \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0, \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0,\right.\\
%
& \left.\chs{\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}}
0,\chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0, \chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 \right\},\\
\mathfrak b_3 G = & \left\{\chs 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0
{\frac{1}{2}},\chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0
{\frac{1}{2}}, \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}}, \right.\\
%
& \left.\chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0
{\frac{1}{2}}, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}}\right\},\\
\mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2 G = & \left\{\chs 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0
0, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0, \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0, \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 , \right.\\
%
& \left.\chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0, \chs {\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 , \chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 \right\},\\
\mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_3 G = & \left\{\chs 0 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0
{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0
{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs 0{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}, \right.\\
%
& \left.\chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0
{\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} , \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs 0
0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}\right\},\\
\mathfrak b_2 \mathfrak b_3 G = & \left\{ \chs 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}}, \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}},\right.\\
%
& \left. \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}}, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}\right\},\\
\mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2 \mathfrak b_3 G = & \left\{ \chs 0 0 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0
{\frac{1}{2}}, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs 0 {\frac{1}{2}}
{\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}}, \right.\\
& \left.\chs {\frac{1}{2}} 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}}
0 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}}, \chs 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 {\frac{1}{2}}\right\}.\\
\end{split}
\]
The above G\"opel systems contain all 64 characteristics for genus 3. Except for the G\"opel group, each of the systems
contains 4 odd characteristics and 4 even characteristics. If $\mathfrak h$ denotes one of the characteristics from the G\"opel
group other than $\chs {0}{0}{0}{0} 0 0,$ then $|\mathfrak e \mathfrak h| \equiv |\mathfrak e| \equiv 0 \mod 2$ has $20$ solutions.
\begin{exa}
If $\mathfrak h = \chs {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} {\frac{1}{2}} 0 0 0 $, then all the characteristics of $G$ and all the even
characteristics of the G\"opel systems of $\mathfrak b_1 G,$ $\mathfrak b_3 G$ and $\mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_3 G$ are the possible characteristics for
$\mathfrak e.$ There are 20 of them.
\end{exa}
Without loss of generality, take the $10$ possible choices for $\mathfrak e$ which give rise to different terms in the series
Eq.~\eqref{eq1} and Eq.~\eqref{eq2}. For each $\mathfrak h$ in the G\"opel group other than $\chs {0}{0}{0}{0} 0 0,$ we can
choose $\mathfrak a$ such that $|\mathfrak a,\mathfrak h| + |\mathfrak h| \equiv 0 \mod 2.$ Take $\mathfrak a$ to be respectively $\mathfrak b_1,$ $\mathfrak b_2,$ $\mathfrak b_3,$
$\mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2,$ $\mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_3,$ $\mathfrak b_2 \mathfrak b_3,$ and $\mathfrak b_1 \mathfrak b_2 \mathfrak b_3$ to the cases when $\mathfrak h$ is equal to the
characteristics $c_2,$ $c_3,$ $c_4,$ $c_5,$ $c_6,$ $c_7,$ and $c_8$ respectively. By picking $\mathfrak a$ and $\mathfrak h$ with
these characteristics, we can obtain formulas which express the zero values of all the even theta functions in terms of
8 theta nulls: $\theta_1,$ $\theta_3,$ $\theta_{10},$ $\theta_{14},$ $\theta_{18},$ $\theta_{22},$ $\theta_{29},$ $\theta_{36}.$
We obtain the following 14 equations. The first set is obtained by using Eq.~\eqref{eq1}; all the computations are done
by using Maple 10,
\[
\begin{split}
& 3\,{\theta_{{13}}}^{2}{\theta_{{23}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{28}}}^{2}{\theta_{{11}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{34}}}^{2}{\theta_{{12}
}}^{2}+{\theta_{{35}}}^{2}{\theta_{{15}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{
24}}}^{2}{\theta_{{16}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{30}}}^{2}{\theta_{{17}}}^{2}={\theta_{{3}}}^{2}{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}\\
&-{\theta_{{22}}}
^{2}{\theta_{{10}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{29}}}^{2}{\theta_{{14}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{36}}}^{2}{\theta_ {{18}}}^{2},\\
&3\,{\theta_{{21}}}^{2}{\theta_{{5}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{20}}}^{2}{\theta_{{6}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{31}}}^{2}{\theta_{{8}}}^
{2}-{\theta_{{25}}}^{2}{\theta_{{9}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{30}}
}^{2}{\theta_{{15}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{35}}}^{2}{\theta_{{17}}}^{2}={\theta_{{10}}}^{2}{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}\\
& -{\theta_{{22}}}
^{2}{\theta_{{3}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{36}}}^{2}{\theta_{{14}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{29}}}^{2}{\theta_{{18 }}}^{2},\\
&3\,{\theta_{{34}}}^{2}{\theta_{{16}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{27}}}^{2}{\theta_{{4}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{25}}}^{2}{\theta_{{6}}}
^{2}+{\theta_{{32}}}^{2}{\theta_{{7}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{20}}}^{2}{\theta_{{9}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{24}}}^{2}{\theta_{{12}}}^{2}={\theta_{{14}}}^{2}{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}\\
&+{\theta_{{29}} }^{2}{\theta_{{3}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{36}}
}^{2}{\theta_{{10}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{22}}}^{2}{\theta_{{18 }}}^{2},\\
&3\,{\theta_{{4}}}^{2}{\theta_{{32}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{31}}}^{2}{\theta_{{5}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{27}}}^{2}{\theta_{{7}}}^
{2}-{\theta_{{21}}}^{2}{\theta_{{8}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{23}}
}^{2}{\theta_{{11}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{28}}}^{2}{\theta_{{13}}}^{2}={\theta_{{18}}}^{2}{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}\\
&-{\theta_{{36}}}
^{2}{\theta_{{3}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{29}}}^{2}{\theta_{{10}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{22}}}^{2}{\theta_{{14 }}}^{2},\\
&3\,{\theta_{{17}}}^{2}{\theta_{{15}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{19}} }^{2}{\theta_{{2}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{7}}}^{2}{\theta_{{4}}}^
{2}-{\theta_{{33}}}^{2}{\theta_{{26}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{32} }}^{2}{\theta_{{27}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{35}}}^{2}{\theta_{{
30}}}^{2}={\theta_{{22}}}^{2}{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}\\
&+
{\theta_{{10}}}^{2}{\theta_{{3}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{18}}}^{2}{\theta_{{14}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{36}}}^{2}{\theta_{{29}}}^{2},\\
&3\,{\theta_{{26}}}^{2}{\theta_{{2}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{8}}}^{2}{\theta_{{5}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{16}}}^{2}{\theta_{{12}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{33}}}^{2}{\theta_{{19}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{31}
}}^{2}{\theta_{{21}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{34}}}^{2}{\theta_{{ 24}}}^{2}={\theta_{{29}}}^{2}{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}\\
&-{\theta_{{14}}}
^{2}{\theta_{{3}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{18}}}^{2}{\theta_{{10}}}^ {2}+{\theta_{{36}}}^{2}{\theta_{{22}}}^{2},\\
&3\,{\theta_{{9}}}^{2}{\theta_{{6}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{33}}}^
{2}{\theta_{{2}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{13}}}^{2}{\theta_{{11}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{26}}}^{2}{\theta_{{19}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{25}
}}^{2}{\theta_{{20}}}^{2}+{\theta_{{28}}}^{2}{\theta_{{ 23}}}^{2}={\theta_{{36}}}^{2}{\theta_{{1}}}^{2}\\
&+{\theta_{{14}}}^{2}{\theta_{{10}}}^ {2}-{\theta_{{18}}}^{2}{\theta_{{3}}}^{2}-{\theta_{{29}}}^{2}{\theta_{{22}}}^{2}.\\
\end{split}
\]
By using Eq.~\eqref{eq2} we have the following set of equations:
\[
\begin{split}
&3\,{\theta_{{13}}}^{4}+3\,{\theta_{{23}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{28}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{11}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{34}}}^{4}-
{\theta_{{12}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{35}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{15}}}
^{4}+{\theta_{{24}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{16}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{30}}}^{4}\\
&-{\theta_{{17}}}^{4}={\theta_{{3}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{
22}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{10}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{29}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{14}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{ 36}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{18}}}^{4},\\
&3\,{\theta_{{21}}}^{4}+3\,{\theta_{{5}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{20}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{6}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{31}}}^{4}-{\theta
_{{8}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{25}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{9}}}^{4}
+{\theta_{{30}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{15}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{35}}}^{4}\\
&-{\theta_{{17}}}^{4}={\theta_{{10}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{
22}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{3}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{36}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{14}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{29}} }^{4}+{\theta_{{18}}}^{4},\\
\end{split}
\]
\[
\begin{split}
&3\,{\theta_{{34}}}^{4}+3\,{\theta_{{16}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{27}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{4}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{25}}}^{4}+{
\theta_{{6}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{32}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{7}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{20}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{9}}}^{4}
-{\theta_{{24}}}^{4}\\
& -{\theta_{{12}}}^{4}={\theta_{{14}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}+{\theta_{
{29}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{3}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{36}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{10}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{22}} }^{4}-{\theta_{{18}}}^{4},\\
&3\,{\theta_{{4}}}^{4}+3\,{\theta_{{32}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{31}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{5}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{27}}}^{4}-{\theta
_{{7}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{21}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{8}}}^{4}
+{\theta_{{23}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{11}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{28}}}^{4}\\
&-{\theta_{{13}}}^{4}={\theta_{{18}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{
36}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{3}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{29}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{10}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{22}} }^{4}+{\theta_{{14}}}^{4},\\
&3\,{\theta_{{17}}}^{4}+3\,{\theta_{{15}}}^{4}+{\theta_{ {19}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{2}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{7}}}^{4}-{\theta
_{{4}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{33}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{26}}}^{4 }+{\theta_{{32}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{27}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{35}
}}^{4}\\
&-{\theta_{{30}}}^{4}={\theta_{{22}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}
+{\theta_{{10}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{3}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{18}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{14}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{36}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{29}}}^{4},\\
&3\,{\theta_{{26}}}^{4}+3\,{\theta_{{2}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{8}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{5}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{16}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{12}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{33}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{19}}}^{4
}-{\theta_{{31}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{21}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{34} }}^{4}\\
& -{\theta_{{24}}}^{4}={\theta_{{29}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{ 14}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{3}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{18}}}^{4}-{\theta_
{{10}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{36}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{22}}}^{4},\\
&3\,{\theta_{{9}}}^{4}+3\,{\theta_{{6}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{
33}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{2}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{13}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{11}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{26}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{19}}}^{
4}-{\theta_{{25}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{20}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{28
}}}^{4}\\
&+{\theta_{{23}}}^{4}={\theta_{{36}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{1}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{18}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{3}}}^{4}+{\theta_{{14}}}^{4}+{\theta
_{{10}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{29}}}^{4}-{\theta_{{22}}}^{4}.
\end{split}
\]
\begin{rem}
Similar to the genus 2 case we can consider all the G\"opel groups and obtain all possible relations among thetanulls
by following the above procedure. It is tedious and quite long so we don't do it here.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Genus 3 Non-Hyperelliptic Cyclic Curves} Using formulas similar to Thomae's formula for
each family of cyclic curve $y^n=f(x),$ one can express the roots of $f(x)$ in terms of ratios of theta functions as in
the hyperelliptic case. In this section we study such curves for $g=3$. We only consider the families of curves with
positive dimensions since the curves which belong to 0-dimensional families are well known.
Notice that the definition of thetanulls is different in this
part from the definitions of thetanulls in the hyperelliptic case. We define the following three theta constants:
\[
\theta_1 = \theta\chs{0}{\frac{1}{6}}{0}{\frac{2}{3}}{\frac{1}{6}}{\frac{2}{3}}, \quad \theta_2 = \theta
\chs{0}{\frac{1}{6}}{0}{\frac{1}{3}}{\frac{1}{6}}{\frac{1}{3}}, \quad \theta_3 = \theta
\chs{0}{\frac{1}{6}}{0}{0}{\frac{1}{6}}{0}.
\]
Next we consider the cases 7, 8 and 5 from Table 3.2.
\noindent \textbf{Case 7:} If the group is $C_3$, then the equation of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ is given by $$y^3=x(x-1)(x-s)(x-t).$$ Let
$Q_i$ where $i= 1..5$ be ramifying points in the fiber of $0,1,s,t,\infty$ respectively. Consider the meromorpic
function $f = x$ on $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ of order 3. Then we have $(f) = 3 Q_1 - 3 Q_5.$ By applying the Lemma~\ref{Shiga} with $P_0 =
Q_5$ and an effective divisor $2Q_2 + Q_3,$ we have the following:
\begin{equation} \label{Shiga1}
E s = \prod_{k=1}^3 \frac{\theta( 2\int_{Q_5}^{Q_2} \omega + \int_{Q_5}^{Q_3} \omega - \int_{Q_5}^{b_k} \omega - \triangle , \tau
)} {\theta( 2\int_{Q_5}^{Q_2} \omega + \int_{Q_5}^{Q_3} \omega - \triangle , \tau )}.
\end{equation}
Once again, we apply Lemma~\ref{Shiga} with an effective divisor $Q_2 + 2Q_3$ and we have the following:
\begin{equation} \label{Shiga2}
E s^2 = \prod_{k=1}^3 \frac{\theta( \int_{Q_5}^{Q_2} \omega + 2\int_{Q_5}^{Q_3} \omega - \int_{Q_5}^{b_k} \omega - \triangle ,
\tau )} {\theta( \int_{Q_5}^{Q_2} \omega + 2\int_{Q_5}^{Q_3} \omega - \triangle , \tau )}.
\end{equation}
By dividing Eq.~\eqref{Shiga2} by Eq.~\eqref{Shiga1} we have
\begin{equation} \label{s}
\begin{split}
s =& \prod_{k=1}^3 \frac{\theta( \int_{Q_5}^{Q_2} \omega + 2\int_{Q_5}^{Q_3} \omega - \int_{Q_5}^{b_k} \omega - \triangle
, \tau )} {\theta( \int_{Q_5}^{Q_2} \omega + 2\int_{Q_5}^{Q_3} \omega - \triangle , \tau )} \\
& \times \prod_{k=1}^3 \frac {\theta( 2\int_{Q_5}^{Q_2} \omega + \int_{Q_5}^{Q_3} \omega - \triangle , \tau )}{\theta( 2\int_{Q_5}^{Q_2} \omega
+ \int_{Q_5}^{Q_3} \omega - \int_{Q_5}^{b_k} \omega - \triangle
, \tau )}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By a similar argument, we have
\begin{equation} \label{t}
\begin{split}
t =& \prod_{k=1}^3 \frac{\theta( \int_{Q_5}^{Q_2} \omega + 2\int_{Q_5}^{Q_4} \omega - \int_{Q_5}^{b_k} \omega - \triangle
, \tau )} {\theta( \int_{Q_5}^{Q_2} \omega + 2\int_{Q_5}^{Q_4} \omega - \triangle , \tau )} \\
& \times \prod_{k=1}^3 \frac {\theta( 2\int_{Q_5}^{Q_2} \omega + \int_{Q_5}^{Q_4} \omega - \triangle , \tau )}{\theta( 2\int_{Q_5}^{Q_2} \omega
+ \int_{Q_5}^{Q_4} \omega - \int_{Q_5}^{b_k} \omega - \triangle , \tau )}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Computing the right hand side of Eq.~\eqref{s} and Eq.~\eqref{t} was one of the main points of \cite{SHI}. As a result
we have $s = \frac{\theta_2^3}{\theta_1^3}$ and $ r = \frac{\theta_3^3}{\theta_1^3}.$
\noindent \textbf{Case 8:} If the group is $C_6$, then the equation is $y^3=x(x-1)(x-s)(x-t)$ with $s = 1-t.$ By using
the results from Case 7, we have $\theta_2^3 = \theta_1^3 - \theta_3^3.$
\noindent \textbf{Case 5:}
If $\mbox{Aut} (\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X){\, \cong\, } (16, 13)$, then the equation of $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ is given by $$y^4=x(x-1)(x-t).$$ This curve has 4 ramifying
points $Q_i$ where $i= 1..4$ in the fiber of $0,1,t,\infty$ respectively. Consider the meromorpic function $f = x$ on
$\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ of order 4. Then we have $(f) = 4 Q_1 - 4 Q_4.$ By applying Lemma~\ref{Shiga} with $P_0 = Q_4$ and an effective
divisor $2Q_2 + Q_3$, we have the following:
\begin{equation} \label{Shiga3}
E t = \prod_{k=1}^4 \frac{\theta( 2\int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + \int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \int_{Q_4}^{b_k} \omega - \triangle , \tau
)} {\theta( 2\int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + \int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \triangle , \tau )}.
\end{equation}
Once again, we apply Lemma~\ref{Shiga} with an effective divisor $Q_2 + 2Q_3$ and we have the following:
\begin{equation} \label{Shiga4}
E t^2 = \prod_{k=1}^4 \frac{\theta( \int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + 2\int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \int_{Q_4}^{b_k} \omega - \triangle ,
\tau )} {\theta( \int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + 2\int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \triangle , \tau )}.
\end{equation}
We have the following by dividing Eq.~\eqref{Shiga4} by Eq.~\eqref{Shiga3}:
\begin{equation}\label{GP16}
\begin{split}
t =& \prod_{k=1}^4 \frac{\theta( \int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + 2\int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \int_{Q_4}^{b_k} \omega -
\triangle , \tau )} {\theta( \int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + 2\int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \triangle , \tau )} \\
& \times \prod_{k=1}^4 \frac{\theta( 2\int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + \int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \triangle , \tau )} {\theta( 2\int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega
+ \int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \int_{Q_4}^{b_k} \omega - \triangle
, \tau )}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In order to compute the explicit formula for $t,$ one has to find the integrals on the right-hand side. Such
computations are long and tedious and we intend to include them in further work.
\begin{rem}
In case 5 of Table 3, the parameter $t$ is given by $$\theta[e]^4 = A (t-1)^4 t^2,$$
where $[e]$ is the theta characteristic corresponding to the partition $(\{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\}, \{4\})$ and $A$ is a
constant; see \cite{NK} for details. However, this is not satisfactory since we would like $t$ as a rational function
in terms of theta constants. The method in \cite{NK} does not lead to another relation among $t$ and the thetanulls,
since the only partition we could take is the above.
\end{rem}
Summarizing all of the above, we have
\begin{thm}
Let $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ be a non-hyperelliptic genus 3 curve. The following statements are true:
\begin{description}
\item [i)] If $\mbox{Aut} (\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X) {\, \cong\, } C_3$, then $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ is isomorphic to a curve with equation
\[ y^3 = x (x-1) \left(x-\frac{\theta_2^3}{\theta_1^3}\right) \left(x- \frac{\theta_3^3}{\theta_1^3}\right).\]
\item [ii)] If $\mbox{Aut} (\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X) {\, \cong\, } C_6$, then $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ is isomorphic to a curve with equation
\[ y^3 = x (x-1) \left(x-\frac{\theta_2^3}{\theta_1^3}\right) \left(x- \frac{\theta_3^3}{\theta_1^3}\right) \,\,\textit{with}\,\, \theta_2^3 = \theta_1^3 -
\theta_3^3.\]
\item [iii)] If $\mbox{Aut} (\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X)$ is isomorphic to the group with GAP identity (16, 13), then $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ is isomorphic to a curve with equation
\[y^4 = x (x-1)(x-t)\,\, \]
where $t$ is given by Eq.~\eqref{GP16}.
\end{description}
\end{thm}
\section{Genus 4 curves}
In this section we focus on genus 4 curves. For the genus 4 curves, the complete set of all possible full
automorphism groups and the corresponding equations are not completely calculated yet. In this chapter we consider a
few of the cyclic curves of genus 4. Let us first consider the genus 4 hyperelliptic algebraic curves. For these
curves, we have $2^{g-1} (2^g +1) = 136$ even half-integer characteristics and $2^{g-1} (2^g -1) = 120$ odd
half-integer characteristics. Among the even thetanulls, 10 of them are 0. We won't show the exact information here.
Following the same procedure as for $g=3,$ the branch points of genus 4 hyperelliptic curves can be expressed as
ratios of even theta constants and identities among theta constants can be obtained. The following Table ~\ref{tab_4}
gives some genus 4 non-hyperelliptic cyclic curves; see Table 2 of \cite{SH-KM} for the complete list.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}[h]\label{tab_4}
\caption{Some genus 4 non hyperelliptic cyclic curves and their automorphisms} \centering
\begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c||}
\hline \hline
$\#$ & dim & Aut($\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$) & Equation\\
\hline \hline
1 & 3 & $C_2$ & $y^3 = x(x-1)(x-a_1)(x-a_2)(x-a_3)$\\
2 & 2 &$C_3 \times C_2$ & $y^3 = (x^2-1)(x^2 - \alpha_1)(x^2- \alpha_2)$\\
3 & 1 & $C_5$ & $y^5 = x(x-1)(x-\alpha)$\\
4 & 1& $C_3 \times C_2 $ & $y^3 = (x^2-1)(x^4 - \alpha x^2 +1)$ \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{center}
The Figure ~\ref{figg=4} shows the inclusions of loci of the genus 4 curves.
\subsection{Inverting the Moduli Map} In this section we will express branch points of each cyclic curve
in Table 4.1
as ratios of theta nulls.
\noindent\textbf{Case 1:} $C : y^3 = x (x-1) (x-a_1) (x-a_2) (x-a_3).$ In this curve $\infty$ is a branch point. We can
use result of \cite{NK} to find out $a_1, a_2, a_3$ in terms of thetanulls. First we need to find the partitions of
the set $\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}.$ The Table 5 shows all possible partitions of $\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$ into 3 sets and the labeling
of the corresponding thetanulls.
For each partition we can apply the generalized Thomae's formula to obtain an identity. According to this labeling of
theta constants and the generalized Thomae's formula we have the following relations:
\[
\begin{split}
&{\theta_{{1}}}^{6} = c_1 \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{2}} \right) ^{3} \left( a_{{1} }-a_{{3}} \right) \left( a_{{2}}-a_{{3}}
\right) a_{{1}}a_{{2}}a_{{3} } \left( a_{{1}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{2}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{3}}-1
\right) ^{3},\\
%
&{\theta_{{2}}}^{6} = c_2 \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{2}} \right) ^{3}
\left( a_{{1}}-a_{{3}} \right) \left( a_{{2}}-a_{{3}} \right) a_{{1}
}a_{{2}}{a_{{3}}}^{3} \left( a_{{1}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{2}}-1
\right) \left( a_{{3}}-1 \right), \\
&{\theta_{{3}}}^{6} =c_3 \left( a_{{1}} -a_{{2}} \right) ^{3} \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{3}} \right) \left( a_{{2}}-a _{{3}}
\right) a_{{1}}a_{{2}}a_{{3}} \left(
a_{{1}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{2}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{3}}-1 \right), \\
&{\theta_{{4}}}^{6} = c_4 \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{2}} \right) \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{3}} \right) ^{3} \left( a_{{2}}-a_{{3}}
\right)
a_{{1}}a_{{2}}a_{{3}} \left( a_{{1}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{2}}-1 \right) ^{3} \left( a_{{3}}-1 \right), \\
&{ \theta_{{5}}}^{6} = c_5 \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{2}} \right) \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{ 3}} \right) ^{3} \left( a_{{2}}-a_{{3}}
\right) a_{{1}}{a_{{2}}}^{3}a_ {{3}} \left( a_{{1}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{2}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{3 }}-1 \right),\\
&{\theta_{{6}}}^{6} = c_6 \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{2}} \right) \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{3}} \right) ^{3} \left( a_{{2}}-a_{{3}}
\right)
a_ {{1}}a_{{2}}a_{{3}} \left( a_{{1}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{2}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{3}}-1 \right),\\
%
\end{split}
\]
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Partitions of $\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$ into 3 sets}
\begin{tabular}{||c|c||}
\hline \hline
Theta constant & Corresponding partition\\
\hline \hline
$\theta_1$ & $[1,2],[3,4],[5,6]$\\
$\theta_2$ & $[1,2],[3,5],[4,6]$\\
$\theta_3$ & $[1,2],[3,6],[4,5]$\\
$\theta_4$ & $[1,3],[2,4],[5,6]$\\
$\theta_5$ & $[1,3],[2,5],[4,6]$\\
$\theta_6$ & $[1,3],[2,6],[4,5]$\\
$\theta_7$ & $[1,4],[2,3],[5,6]$\\
$\theta_8$ & $[1,4],[2,5],[3,6]$\\
$\theta_9$ & $[1,4],[2,6],[3,5]$\\
$\theta_{10}$ & $[1,5],[2,3],[4,6]$\\
$\theta_{11}$ & $[1,5],[2 ,4],[3,6]$\\
$\theta_{12}$ & $[1,5],[2,6],[3,4]$\\
$\theta_{13}$ & $[1,6],[2,3],[4,5]$\\
$\theta_{14}$ & $[1,6],[2,4],[3,5]$\\
$\theta_{15}$ & $[1,6],[2,5],[3,4]$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\[
\begin{split}
&{\theta_{{7}}}^{6} = c_7 \left( a_{{1}} -a_{{2}} \right) \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{3}} \right) \left( a_{{2}}-a_{{3 }}
\right)
^{3}a_{{1}}a_{{2}}a_{{3}} \left( a_{{1}}-1 \right) ^{3} \left( a_{{2}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{3}}-1 \right),\\
&{\theta_{{8}}}^{6 } = c_8 \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{2}} \right) \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{3}} \right) \left( a_{{2}}-a_{{3}}
\right)
a_{{1}}{a_{{2}}}^{3}a_{{3}} \left( a_{ {1}}-1 \right) ^{3} \left( a_{{2}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{3}}-1 \right),\\
&{\theta_{{9}}}^{6} = c_9 \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{2}} \right) \left( a _{{1}}-a_{{3}} \right) \left( a_{{2}}-a_{{3}}
\right)
a_{{1}}a_{{2}}{ a_{{3}}}^{3} \left( a_{{1}}-1 \right) ^{3} \left( a_{{2}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{3}}-1 \right),\\
&{\theta_{{10}}}^{6} = c_{10} \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{2}} \right) \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{3}} \right) \left( a_{{2}}-a_{{3}}
\right) ^{3}{a_{{1}}}^{3}a_{{2}}a_{{3}} \left( a_{{1}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{2}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{3}}-1 \right), \\
%
&{\theta_{{11}}}^{6} = c_{11} \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{2}} \right) \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{3}} \right) \left( a_{{2}}-a_{{3}} \right)
{a_{{1}}}^{3}a_{{2}}a_{{3}} \left( a_{{1}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{2}}-1 \right) ^{3} \left( a_{{3}}-1 \right),\\
&{\theta_{{12}}}^{6} = c_{12} \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{2}} \right) \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{3}} \right) \left( a_{{2}}-a_{{3}}
\right) {a_{{1}}}^{3}a _{{2}}a_{{3}} \left( a_{{1}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{2}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{3}}-1
\right)^{3},\\
&{\theta_{{13}}}^{6} = c_{13} \left( a_{{1}}-a_{ {2}} \right) \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{3}} \right) \left( a_{{2}}-a_{{3}}
\right)
^{3}a_{{1}}a_{{2}}a_{{3}} \left( a_{{1}}-1 \right) \left( a_ {{2}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{3}}-1 \right),\\
&{\theta_{{14}}}^{6} = c_{14} \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{2}} \right) \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{3}} \right) \left( a_{{2}}-a_{{3}}
\right)
a_{{1}}a_{{2}}{a_{{3}}}^{3} \left( a_{ {1}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{2}}-1 \right) ^{3} \left( a_{{3}}-1 \right),\\
&{\theta_{{15}}}^{6} = c_{15} \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{2}} \right) \left( a_{{1}}-a_{{3}} \right) \left( a_{{2}}-a_{{3}}
\right) a_{{1}}{a_{{2} }}^{3}a_{{3}} \left( a_{{1}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{2}}-1 \right) \left( a_{{3}}-1 \right) ^{3}
\end{split}
\]
where $c_i$'s are constants and depend on the partition $\Lambda_i.$ From the above set of equations we can write
$a_1,a_2,a_3$ in terms of theta constants:
\begin{equation}\label{case1_g4}
a_1 ^2 = \delta_1(\frac{\theta_{10}}{\theta_{13}})^6, \quad \quad a_2 ^2 = \delta_2(\frac{\theta_{5}}{\theta_{6}})^6, \quad \quad
a_3^2 = \delta_3 (\frac{\theta_{2}}{\theta_{3}})^6
\end{equation}
where $\delta_1 = \frac{c_{10}}{c_{13}}, \quad \quad \delta_2 =\frac{c_{5}}{c_{6}}, \quad \quad \delta_3 =
\frac{c_{2}}{c_{3}}.$
Using the result of case 1 we can write the equations of cases 2 and case 4 in terms of thetanulls.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.2\textwidth]{wijesiri_fig4.pdf}
\caption{Inclusions among the loci for genus 4 curves.}
\label{figg=4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\noindent\textbf{Case 2:} In this case the curve can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{case3}
y^3 = (x-1)(x+1)(x - \sqrt{\alpha_1})(x + \sqrt{\alpha_1})(x- \sqrt{\alpha_2})(x+ \sqrt{\alpha_2}).
\end{equation}
Consider the transformation given by $$ x \longrightarrow \frac{x-1}{2x-1}.$$
Under this transformation we obtain a curve that is isomorphic to the given curve and
\noindent the new curve is given by the equation $$y^3 = x(x-\frac{2}{3})(x - \gamma_1)(x - \gamma_2)(x - \gamma_3)(x -
\gamma_4)$$
where $\gamma_1 = \frac{\sqrt{\alpha_1} -1 }{2\sqrt{\alpha_1} -1 },$ $\gamma_2 = \frac{-\sqrt{\alpha_1} -1
}{-2\sqrt{\alpha_1} -1 },$ $\gamma_3 = \frac{\sqrt{\alpha_2} -1 }{2\sqrt{\alpha_2} -1 }$, and $\gamma_4 =
\frac{-\sqrt{\alpha_2} -1 }{-2\sqrt{\alpha_2} -1 }.$ Using this transformation we map the branch point 1 of the curve
given by the Eq.~\eqref{case3} to 0.
Again by using the transformation $$x \longrightarrow \frac {-2x +1 } {3x -2}, $$ we can find another curve isomorphic
to the above two curves. This transformation maps $\frac{2}{3}$ to $\infty.$ With this transformation the curve is
given by the equation
$$y^3 = x(x - \delta_1)(x - \delta_2)(x - \delta_3)(x-\delta_4)$$
where $\delta_i = \frac{-2\gamma_i + 1}{3 \gamma_i-2}.$ By using the transformation given by $$x \longrightarrow
\frac {x+1} {\frac{\delta_1}{\delta_1+1}x+ \frac{2\delta_1 +1}{\delta_1+1}},$$
we can find the curve $$y^3 = x(x-1)(x - \beta_1)(x - \beta_2)(x - \beta_3)$$
where $\beta_i =\frac{(\delta_1+1)(\delta_{i+1}+1)}{\delta_1 \delta_{i+1} +2 \delta_1 +1},$ which is isomorphic to the previous 3
algebraic curves. Now we are in case 1. From the result of case 1, we can write the $\beta_i,$ $i=1,2,3$ as ratios of
thetanulls. But we like to have $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ as functions of theta constants. Notice that we have the
following 3 relations on $\alpha_1,$ $\alpha_2,$ $\beta_1,$ $\beta_2,$ and $\beta_3$:
\[
\begin{split}
\beta_1 & = \frac{\alpha_1}{\alpha_1 -2 -2(\sqrt{\alpha_1} -1)},\\
\beta_2 & = \frac{\sqrt{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}} {\sqrt{\alpha_1 \alpha_2} + \sqrt{\alpha_1} - \sqrt{\alpha_2}}, \\
\end{split}
\]
\[
\begin{split}
\beta_3 & = \frac{\sqrt{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}} {\sqrt{\alpha_1 \alpha_2} - \sqrt{\alpha_1} - \sqrt{\alpha_2}}. \\
\end{split}
\]
Using these relations, $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ can be written as rational functions of $\beta_1,$ $\beta_2,$ and
$\beta_3$ given by the following:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{\alpha_1} &= \frac { 2\, \beta_{{1}}\beta_{ {2}}\left( -\beta_{{3}}+\beta_{{2}} \right)
}{2\,\beta_{{1}}\beta_{{3}}+2\,\beta_{{1}}\beta_{{2}}+{\beta_{{2}}
}^{2}\beta_{{3}}-6\,\beta_{{1}}\beta_{{2}}\beta_{{3}}-2\,\beta_{{1}}{
\beta_{{2}}}^{2}+3\,\beta_{{1}}{\beta_{{2}}}^{2}\beta_{{3}}},\\
{\alpha_2}& = {\frac {2\,\beta_{{1}}(\beta_{{3}}-\beta_{{2}})}{-4\,\beta
_{{1}}-\beta_{{2}}\beta_{{3}}+4\,\beta_{{1}}\beta_{{3}}+4\,\beta_{{1}}
\beta_{{2}}-3\,\beta_{{1}}\beta_{{2}}\beta_{{3}}}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent with the condition of $\beta_1, \beta_2$ and $\beta_3$
\[
\begin{split}
( \beta_{{1}}{\beta_{{3}}}^{2}+2\,\beta_{{1}}\beta_{{2}
}\beta_{{3}}+\beta_{{1}}{\beta_{{2}}}^{2}+{\beta_{{2}}}^{2}{\beta_{{3}
}}^{2}-4\,\beta_{{1}}\beta_{{2}}{\beta_{{3}}}^{2}-4\,\beta_{{1}}{\beta
_{{2}}}^{2}\beta_{{3}}+3\,\beta_{{1}}{\beta_{{2}}}^{2}{\beta_{{3}}}^{2 } ) \\
( -\beta_{{3}}-\beta_{{2}}+2\,\beta_{{2}}\beta_{{3}}
) &=0.
\end{split}
\]
The branch points of the curve given by Eq.~\eqref{case3} can be expressed as ratios of theta constants by using all of
the above information.
\noindent\textbf{Case 4:} In this case the curve is given by
\begin{equation}\label{case1}
y^3 = (x^2-1)(x^4 - \alpha x^2 +1).
\end{equation}
This is a special case of case 2. By writing out the equation of case 2, we have $y^3 = (x^2-1)(x^4 - (\alpha_1
+\alpha_2) x^2 + \alpha_1 \alpha_2).$ Take $\alpha = \alpha_1 +\alpha_2 $ and $\alpha_1 \alpha_2 = 1.$
\noindent\textbf{Case 3:} In this case, the equation is given by $y^5 = x(x-1)(x-\alpha).$ This curve has 4 ramifying
points $Q_i$ where $i= 1..4$ in the fiber of $0,1,t,\infty$ respectively. The meromorpic function $f = x$ on $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ of
order 4 has $(f) = 4 Q_1 - 4 Q_4.$ By applying Lemma~\ref{Shiga} with
\noindent $P_0 = Q_4$ and an effective divisor $4Q_2 + Q_3,$ we have the following:
\begin{equation} \label{case2-1}
E \alpha = \prod_{k=1}^5 \frac{\theta( 4\int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + \int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \int_{Q_4}^{b_k} \omega - \triangle ,
\tau )} {\theta( 4\int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + \int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \triangle , \tau )}.
\end{equation}
Again by applying Lemma~\ref{Shiga} with an effective divisor $3Q_2 + 2Q_3,$ we have the following:
\begin{equation} \label{case2-2}
E \alpha^2 = \prod_{k=1}^5 \frac{\theta(3 \int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + 2\int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \int_{Q_4}^{b_k} \omega - \triangle
, \tau )} {\theta( 3\int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + 2\int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \triangle , \tau )}.
\end{equation}
We have the following by dividing Eq.~\eqref{case2-2} by Eq.~\eqref{case2-1}:
\begin{equation}\label{case3_g4}
\begin{split}
\alpha =& \prod_{k=1}^5 \frac{\theta(3 \int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + 2\int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \int_{Q_4}^{b_k} \omega -
\triangle , \tau )} {\theta( 3\int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + 2\int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \triangle , \tau )} \\
& \times \prod_{k=1}^5 \frac{\theta( 4\int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + \int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \triangle , \tau )} {\theta( 4\int_{Q_4}^{Q_2} \omega + \int_{Q_4}^{Q_3} \omega - \int_{Q_4}^{b_k} \omega - \triangle
, \tau )}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By calculating integrals on the right-hand side in terms of thetanulls, we can write the branch point $\alpha$ as a
ratio of thetanulls. Summarizing all of the above, we have
\begin{thm}
\begin{description}
\item [i)] If $\mbox{Aut}(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X) \cong C_3,$ then $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ is isomorphic to a curve with equation $$y^3 =
x(x-1)(x-a_1)(x-a_2)(x-a_3),$$ where $a_1$, $a_2,$ and $a_3$ are given in case (1) in terms of thetanulls.
\item [ii)] If $\mbox{Aut}(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X) \cong C_3 \times C_2,$ then $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ is isomorphic to a curve with equation $$y^3 = (x^2-1)(x^2 - \alpha_1)(x^2-
\alpha_2),$$ where $\alpha_1,$ and $\alpha_2$ are given in case (2) in terms of thetanulls.
\item [iii)] If $\mbox{Aut}(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X) \cong C_5,$ then $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ is isomorphic to a curve with equation $$y^5 = x(x-1)(x-\alpha),$$ where
$\alpha$ is given in case (4) in terms of thetanulls.
\item [iv)] If $\mbox{Aut}(\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X) \cong C_6 \times C_2,$ then $\mathcal X}%\def\X{\mathfrak X$ is isomorphic to a curve with equation $$y^3 = (x^2-1)(x^4 - \alpha x^2
+1),$$ where $\alpha$ is given in case (3) in terms of thetanulls.
\end{description}
\end{thm}
\section{Concluding Remarks}
In Sections 2, 3, and 4, the main idea was to write down the branch points as quotients of thetanulls explicitly for
cyclic curves of genus 2, 3, and 4 with extra automorphisms. For hyperelliptic algebraic curves, we can use Thomae's
formula to express branch points as ratios of thetanulls. We used Maple 10 for all computations. For non-hyperelliptic
cyclic curves, we used various methods in order to invert the period map. The method described in Lemma ~\ref{Shiga} in
Chapter 1 gives the general method to find branch points in terms of thetanulls. The main drawback of this method is
the difficulty of writing complex integrals as functions of theta characteristics. Some of the results in Chapter 2 and
Chapter 3 already appeared in \cite{Previato}.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}\label{intro}
Very massive stars will be subject to dynamical instability triggered
by the formation of electron positron pairs (Rakavy \& Shaviv 1967;
Barkat, Rakavy \& Sack 1967; Fraley 1968). In some circumstances,
this instability will lead to violent contraction of the oxygen core,
ignition of the oxygen and total disruption of the star as a
Pair-Instability Supernova (PISN). At somewhat more modest mass, the
collapse and burning will lead to the ejection of a shell of matter,
but not total disruption, a Pulsational Pair Instability Supernova (PPISN; Barkat, Rakavy \& Sack
1967; Heger \& Woosley 2002; Woosley, Blinnikov \& Heger 2007, hereafter WBH07).
In the case of zero rotation, WBH07
determined that stars with Zero Age Main Sequence (ZAMS)
masses in the range 95-130~$M_{\odot}$ become PPISN.
Chatzopoulos \& Wheeler (2012; hereafter CW12)
explored the boundary between core collapse, PPISN, and PISN for the case of zero metallicity, as a
function of the rate of rotation of the progenitor (see also
Yoon, Dierks \& Langer 2012). CW12 checked the dynamics
of their rotating stellar evolution models by computing one-dimensional,
non-rotating hydrodynamic models to confirm that they underwent core
collapse, PPISN, or PISN. These models are not completely self-consistent
since they ignore the dynamical effects of rotation, but are reasonably
self-consistent in the sense that they map the structure of nominally
rotating but ``shellular" stellar models into spherically-symmetric
dynamic models.
The masses of the PPISN progenitors are sensitive to
the effect of mass loss. Mass loss is a rather uncertain process in the case of very massive stars
and can happen continuously in the form of radiatively-driven winds or gravity waves (Quataert \& Shiode 2012),
episodically via shell ejections
and mechanically due to rapid rotation. Furthermore, mass loss is a strong function of metallicity
and higher metallicities will prevent initially massive stars from encountering pair-instability in
the core (Yoon, Langer \& Norman 2006; Langer et al. 2007). Langer et al. (2007) estimate that rapidly
rotating PISN progenitors may be possible for metallicities $Z <$~10$^{-5}$~$Z_{\odot}$ and less likely
in the local universe. Despite the small expected rate of PISN and PPISN events in the local universe,
the possibility of those events taking place in metal-poor environments is non-zero
and potential candidates have been discussed (SLSN~2007bi; Gal-Yam et al. 2009).
In addition, we note that chemical mixing induced by rapid rotation is not the only way to make
hydrogen-poor PPISN progenitors. Hydrogen envelope stripping via stellar winds from very massive stars
is another possibility that has been discussed, although it might also require low metallicity
(Langer et al. 2007; Yoshida \& Umeda 2011). The results
presented here may be more relevant to early universe population III PPISN progenitors, but may be
used as a guideline for potentially similar local universe, low-metallicity events (Neill et al. 2011).
The dynamics can give insight into the
expected behavior of the resulting configuration that may have direct
implications for observations of the first stars by the {\it James Webb Space
Telescope}. In addition, the dynamical ejection of shells may
be related to the observed impulsive mass ejection associated with
luminous blue variables (Smith \& Owocki 2006; Smith et al. 2007).
The PPISN phenomenon
may also be relevant to various manifestations of superluminous
supernovae (SLSNe; see Gal-Yam 2012 for a review).
Some of these events display the characteristics
of Type IIn supernovae and are clearly the result of the collision
of an underlying explosion with a dense, optically-thick
circumstellar medium (CSM; Chevalier 1982; Chevalier \& Fransson 1984; Ofek et al. 2010;
Moriya et al. 2011; Chevalier \& Irwin 2012; Chatzopoulos, Wheeler \& Vinko 2012).
Other SLSNe show little or no hydrogen (Quimby, et al. 2011) and
little sign of circumstellar interaction. An outstanding issue
is whether a rapidly expanding hydrogen-deficient CSM would
suppress the narrow lines normally thought to accompany CSM
interaction (Blinnikov \& Sorokina 2010; Quimby 2012, private communication). Yet other
SLSNe show no hydrogen or helium, evidence for nickel and cobalt and
a light curve (LC) that could be powered by radioactive decay and
hence might be candidates for full-fledged PISN. An example is SLSN~2007bi
(Gal Yam et al. 2009).
While the ejecta mass for SLSN~2007bi seems adequate to
conform to predictions for PISN, the ejecta mass of the otherwise similar SLSN~2010kd (Vinko et al. 2012, in preparation)
seems too low to satisfy this criterion. If SLSN~2010kd cannot
be a PISN, then some question arises as to whether or not
there are alternative explanations for SLSN~2007bi, for instance
the collision of a supernova with a hydrogen and helium-deficient
CSM that, as above, might be expanding sufficiently rapidly
to broaden and mute narrow emission lines. SLSN~2006oz
shows evidence for such a hydrogen-deficient CSM (Leloudas et al.
2012).
There is thus considerable interest in understanding the
mass, dynamics, and composition of the matter that might
be ejected in PPISN events. In this paper, we present the
details of the dynamics of some PPISN events computed by
CW12. Section 2 describes our assumptions and models,
section 3 gives the results. Finally, section 4 discusses our conclusions.
\section{MODELS}\label{mods}
To study the dynamics of PPISN events we select some of the zero metallicity models
studied by CW12 plus a 110~$M_{\odot}$ with $Z =$~10$^{-3}$~$Z_{\odot}$.
We concentrate on the CW12 models with masses 60, 75 and 80~$M_{\odot}$
with ZAMS rotation 50\%, 50\% and 30\% the critical value, $\Omega_{crit}$, respectively,
where $\Omega_{crit} =$~$(g(1-\Gamma)/R)^{1/2}$ and $g =$~$GM/R^{2}$ is the gravitational
acceleration at the ``surface" of the star, $G$ the gravitational constant, $M$ the
mass, $R$ the radius of the star and $\Gamma=L/L_{Ed}$ the Eddington factor where
$L$ and $L_{Ed}$ are the total radiated luminosity and the Eddington luminosity, respectively.
All of the models were evolved from the ZAMS up to the time of maximum compression with radiatively and mechanically-driven mass loss included, right
before the core density and temperature enter the $\Gamma<$~4/3 dynamically unstable regime, with
the Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics stellar evolution code (MESA version 4298; Paxton et al. 2011).
MESA accounts for the effects of angular momentum transport and chemical mixing due to rotation
and magnetic fields as parameterized by Heger, Woosley \& Spruit (2005) based on the prescriptions
of Spruit (1999, 2002). For more details on the physics employed in the MESA models used here
see CW12.
Although CW12 considered both models without mass loss and models with mass loss included,
we note that the neglect of the effects of mass loss in the evolution of some PPISN and PISN progenitor models will
lead to super-critical rotation and improper treatment of angular momentum transport that would affect our results on the composition and properties
of the ejected PPISN shells.
All zero metallicity models presented here were considered in CW12 to estimate the effect of mass loss on the
minimum ZAMS mass of rotating PISN and PPISN progenitors (dashed lines in their Figure 5).
In addition to those models, we also considered the evolution of a 110~$M_{\odot}$ star rotating at 30\% the critical value
with metallicity 1/1000 that of the sun in order to investigate the characteristics of PPISN in low, but non-zero, metallicity environments which
could be relevant to some SLSNe observed in metal poor galaxies.
For radiatively-driven mass loss we used the prescirptions of Glebbeek et al. (2009) and de Jager, Nieuwenhuijzen \& van der Hucht (1988).
Rotationally-induced mass loss is equal to $\dot{M}_{rot}=\dot{M}_{no-rot}/(1-\Omega/\Omega_{crit})^{0.43}$ where $\dot{M}_{no-rot}$ is
the mass loss rate in the case of zero rotation, due to the effect of radiatively driven winds (Heger, Langer \& Woosley 2000).
The characteristics of all evolved MESA progenitor models such as the final (pre-PPISN) rotation rate ($\Omega/\Omega_{crit,f}$),
radius ($R_{f}$), carbon-oxygen core gravitational binding energy ($-E_{B,f}$)
and carbon-oxygen core mass ($M_{CO,f}$) are summarized in Table 1.
The nearly hydrostatic MESA models were then mapped into the multi-dimensional, adaptive mesh refinement (AMR)
hydrodynamics code {\it FLASH} (Fryxell et al. 2000) in order to perform one-dimensional (1-D) simulations
to follow the dynamical collapse and subsequent pulse and ejection of material as well as nucleosynthesis.
The transition from MESA to {\it FLASH} is an operationally smooth one because the two codes employ the same
equation of state (HELM EOS; Timmes \& Swesty 2000) and the same nuclear reaction network. In addition,
appropriate mesh refinement selections at initialization were made in {\it FLASH} in order to achieve the desired resolution
for accurate calculation of the core compression and subsequent shock formation and core oxygen burning. The simulation
box size for all {\it FLASH} simulations was chosen to be $\sim$~10 times larger than the stellar radius of the relevant
model in order to sufficiently follow the ejected shell and determine the mass of the unbound material after the pulse
is complete.
We limited our study to ZAMS rotation rates $\leq$~50\%~$\Omega_{crit}$ because the effects of higher rotation
in the hydrodynamic equilibrium of the models mapped to {\it FLASH} become especially important.
The equation for hydrostatic equilibrium for rotating stars (Lebovitz 1967; Maeder \& Meynet 2011 and
references therein) can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\rho}\overrightarrow{\nabla}P = -\overrightarrow{\nabla}\Phi+\frac{1}{2}\Omega^{2}\overrightarrow{\nabla}(r\sin\theta)^{2},
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the local density, $P$ the local pressure, $\Phi$ the gravitational potential, $\Omega$ is the local angular velocity,
$r$ is the distance from the center of the star and $\theta$ the colatitude (angular distance from the pole of the star).
Equation 1 can be re-written as follows in the case of one dimension and across the equator ($\theta =$~$\pi/2$) and by changing
variable from $dr$ to fluid element mass $dm_{r} =$~$4\pi r^{2} dr$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{dP}{dm_{r}}= -\frac{G m_{r}}{4 \pi r^{4}}+\frac{\Omega^{2}}{4 \pi r},
\end{equation}
where we have used $-\overrightarrow{\nabla}\Phi =$~$(G m_{r}/r^{2})\overrightarrow{r}/r$.
Now we can consider the following ratio in order to assess the effects of rotation in hydrostatic equilibrium:
\begin{equation}
\ell=\frac{\frac{\Omega^{2}}{4 \pi r}}{\mid\frac{dP}{dm_{r}}+\frac{G m_{r}}{4 \pi r^{4}}\mid}.
\end{equation}
For zero rotation ($\Omega =$~0), $\ell=$~0. A case of $\ell$ close to unity would imply that the effects of rotation are
comparable to the combined effects of gravity and internal pressure, therefore rotation should not be ignored in the hydrodynamic
calculations. In general, the larger the value of $\ell$ the more important the effects of rotation to hydrostatic equilibrium
become. For the MESA models mapped to {\it FLASH} in the cases of ZAMS rotation of
30\% and even 50\% the critical rotation, $\ell$ in the core was limited to
less than 0.05, with $\ell =$~0.05 the peak value for ZAMS $\Omega/\Omega_{crit} =$~0.5 and $\ell = 2 \times 10^{-4}$ representative for ZAMS
$\Omega/\Omega_{crit} =$~0.3. In more extreme cases of rotation (ZAMS $\Omega/\Omega_{crit} =$~0.8, also presented in CW12), $\ell$ becomes
close to unity and the effects of rotation cannot be ignored. Models with this very high rate of rotation collapse in a dynamical time-scale when mapped
into {\it FLASH}. The models with ZAMS rotation 30\% and 50\% the critical value that were
mapped to {\it FLASH} within the scope of this project remain stable over long time-scales
(greater than their corresponding free-fall dynamical collapse time-scales) before a significant fraction of their cores
encounters the pair-formation regime of $\Gamma<$~4/3 and collapse leading to PPISN shell ejection.
In this project we study only the first shell ejections due to PPISNe. As WBH07 discussed, subsequent pulses may be encountered
by a massive star depending on its initial carbon/oxygen core mass. Multiple shell ejections will interact with each other
and ultimately the ejecta of the final supernova (SN) explosion will interact with them, too, resulting in several
luminous transient events over the duration of decades up to centuries before stellar death. Since we are just performing
1-D hydrodynamic simulations, we ignore the effect of rotation on the shape of the ejected shell.
\section{RESULTS}\label{results}
We post-processed the {\it FLASH} simulation files for the three models from CW12 discussed above as well as the 110~$M_{\odot}$,
$Z =$~10$^{-3}$~$Z_{\odot}$ model in order to get measures
of the mass lost due to the violent PPISN as well as to determine the physical characteristics of the shells ejected
as a function of increasing ZAMS mass and rotational velocity as well as metallicity.
Figure 1 presents the distributions of density,
velocity and chemical composition for all models. Details
of the characteristics of the shells ejected by the first pulse in each case are given in Table 2 where
the shell mass ($M_{sh}$), shell kinetic energy ($E_{K,sh}$), typical shell velocity ($v_{sh} =$~$(2E_{K,sh}/M_{sh})^{1/2}$)
and the total masses of
helium ($M_{He,sh}$), carbon ($M_{C,sh}$) and oxygen ($M_{O,sh}$) within the ejected shells are presented.
The masses and kinetic energies of
the shells were calculated by determining how much mass is gravitationally unbound after the pulse was complete. We considered
the matter to be gravitationally unbound above radii for which $E_{K}+E_{int}-U_{G} >$~0, where $E_{K}$ is the kinetic,
$E_{int}$ the internal and $U_{G}$ the gravitational binding energy of the simulated material.
We see from Table 2 that for fixed initial ZAMS rotational velocity and increasing mass, the ejected PPISN shells are more massive and have
higher kinetic energies. On the other hand, increasing rotation leads to the ejection of shells of lower mass:
$\sim$~7~$M_{\odot}$ in the case of ZAMS $\Omega/\Omega_{crit} =$~0.3 (for the 80~$M_{\odot}$ model) and 2-4~$M_{\odot}$ in the case of ZAMS $\Omega/\Omega_{crit} =$~0.5
(for the 60 and 70~$M_{\odot}$ models).
WBH07 calculated an ejected shell of 17.6~$M_{\odot}$ in the case of a non-rotating
60~$M_{\odot}$ oxygen core. This shell mass is larger than that of
our 30\% critically rotating 80~$M_{\odot}$ model (which forms a 55~$M_{\odot}$
oxygen core mass) and much larger than that of our 50\% critically rotating 70~$M_{\odot}$ model (which forms
a 56~$M_{\odot}$ oxygen core).
Pre-SN mass loss lead to almost entirely stripped carbon-oxygen cores for the zero metallicity CW12 models with
70~$M_{\odot}$, $\Omega/\Omega_{crit} =$~0.5 and
80~$M_{\odot}$, $\Omega/\Omega_{crit} =$~0.3. Mass loss results in differences in the overall rotationally-induced mixing efficiency, which is affected
by angular momentum loss, and differences in the final structure and composition of the progenitor star and the PPISN shell.
The typical mass of helium within the ejected PPISN shell ranges between 0.3-1.3~$M_{\odot}$ (Table 2),
a value that is in good agreement with the results presented in Table 5 of Yoon et al. (2012).
In accordance,
the oxygen and carbon abundances in the PPISN shells are generally enhanced since the shell now probes deeper layers in the star that extend to the carbon-oxygen core.
In Figure 1 (lower panels, horizontally) we illustrate the composition of the ejected shells. In the case of moderate rotation
(ZAMS $\Omega/\Omega_{crit} =$~0.3) the outer regions of the progenitor stars are helium rich, with
traces of oxygen and carbon present in deeper layers.
As a result, the composition of the ejected PPISN shells is predominantly He with small traces of oxygen present
in their inner parts.
In the case of the 70~$M_{\odot}$, $\Omega/\Omega_{crit} =$~0.5 model
the PPISN shell, though still helium rich, is significantly enriched mainly
with oxygen but also with some carbon. In some cases, the oxygen mass fractions can be up to 0.5 or more. In all rotating cases, the shells
are hydrogen-poor. The outer layers of the stars after their first PPISN are even more enhanced in oxygen and carbon, therefore subsequent
shell ejections are expected to be even more oxygen-rich, potentially leading to shell collisions of oxygen-rich material.
The luminous output from this kind of CSM interaction is not necessarily going to be similar to that observed in cases of hydrogen-rich
CSM interaction. Emission lines of hydrogen and, in some cases, of helium will be absent in the spectrum of oxygen-rich events.
The 110~$M_{\odot}$ model, with $Z =$~10$^{-3}$~$Z_{\odot}$ and ZAMS rotation 30\% the critical value, lost the larger fraction of its initial
mass to strong radiatively driven winds combined with rotationally-induced mass loss, which left it with a completely stripped $\sim$~41~$M_{\odot}$ C/O
core, right within the range of PPISN. The PPISN pulse was followed hydrodynamically in FLASH and the relevant dynamics are detailed in Table 2
and in Figure 2 where the density, velocity and chemical composition of the unbound PPISN shell are shown at time $t \simeq$~31000~s after the pulse.
In reality, the ejected PPISN shell from this model would collide with the previously-expelled 69~$M_{\odot}$ hydrogen/helium shell from the progenitor star leading
to a potentially long-lasting SN ejecta - CSM interaction and an associated long LC duration.
The effect of progenitor metallicity in the final ejected PPISN can be seen by comparing the zero metallicity 60~$M_{\odot}$,
$\Omega/\Omega_{crit} =$~0.5 model with the $Z =$~10$^{-3}$~$Z_{\odot}$, 110~$M_{\odot}$, $\Omega/\Omega_{crit} =$~0.3 model since both models
make C/O cores of the same mass (41~$M_{\odot}$). We find that the PPISN shell of the $Z =$~10$^{-3}$~$Z_{\odot}$ model is more significantly
enhanced in carbon and oxygen and more depleted in helium
than the zero metallicity model mainly due to the fact that deeper layers are probed as a result
of extreme mass loss for the 10$^{-3}$~$Z_{\odot}$ model. In addition, we find a larger PPISN shell with a smaller kinetic energy
associated with the ~10$^{-3}$~$Z_{\odot}$ model. The fact that the PPISN phenomenon is possible for non-zero metallicities that
may be relevant to metal-poor dwarf galaxies means that these brilliant events may be related to some nearby,
hydrogen-poor SLSNe such as SN~2007bi.
\section{DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS}\label{disc}
In this paper we have discussed the properties of shells ejected by massive (60-80~$M_{\odot}$), rotating (30\%-50\% the critical
value on the ZAMS), stars with zero (and one case of 10$^{-3}$~$Z_{\odot}$) metallicity encountering PPISNe for the first time.
We find that for increasing PPISN progenitor
rotational velocities the resulting pulses are less energetic and shells of smaller masses but rich in helium, carbon and oxygen are ejected.
For the range of models considered here, the masses of the ejected shells vary from
$\sim$~2~$M_{\odot}$ for higher rotation values all the way up to $\sim$~7~$M_{\odot}$ for lower rotation. We find that the shells from
the first PPISN ejections are all rich in helium, oxygen and carbon in constrast to hydrogen-rich shells ejected in non-rotating cases
(WBH07). We note, however, that subsequent pulses in the case of zero rotation might also lead to helium-rich shells, since
deeper layers of the star are probed. Zero rotation models
are not expected to lead to shells with significantly enhanced carbon and oxygen as is the
case for rotating progenitors. The ejection of hydrogen-poor shells from massive population III stars in the early universe might have
important implications for the composition of the interstellar medium in these epochs.
Our results imply that rotationally-induced chemical mixing (mainly due to meridional circulation and the Spruit-Tayler mechanism
for the effects of magnetic fields) in zero metallicity massive stars leads to homogeneous evolution
and larger carbon/oxygen core masses before encountering pair-instability than do non-rotating models of the same mass,
as shown in CW12 (see also Yoon, Dierks \& Langer 2012).
We also examined the case of a low metallicity ($Z =$~10$^{-3}$~$Z_{\odot}$), 110~$M_{\odot}$ star which produces an entirely stripped
(41~$M_{\odot}$) C/O core and encounters PPISN which leads to the ejection of a $\sim$~3~$M_{\odot}$ shell that is significantly enhanced in carbon and oxygen.
This model was run to indicate that the PPISN phenomenon leading to hydrogen poor ejected shells might also be relevant to low metallicity
environments such as dwarf galaxies that seem to be the host environments for some hydrogen-poor SLSNe.
The strong chemical mixing initially stirs
helium and later oxygen and carbon to the outer layers while dredging hydrogen inward to the core.
When the
carbon/oxygen cores of those stars encounter PPISN they eject those helium and metal-enriched outer layers therefore chemically enriching
the surrounding circumstellar medium.
Subsequent pulses may be even richer in carbon and oxygen since they probe the inner regions of the star, leading
to collisions of hydrogen-poor shells. Ultimately, the final SN explosion takes placed embedded within this chemically enriched CSM
and the SN ejecta interact with it.
This kind of hydrogen-poor CSM interaction is not necessarily going to possess the same observational characteristics as
hydrogen-rich CSM interaction. Hydrogen-rich CSM interaction seems to be related to Type IIn SNe, the spectra of which show narrow
emission lines of hydrogen and, sometimes, weaker emission lines of helium.
SLSN events such as
SLSN~2006tf (Smith et al. 2008), SLSN~2006gy (Smith et al. 2007, 2010)
and SLSN~2008es (Gezari et al. 2009; Miller et al. 2009)
seem to fall into this category. On the other hand, recent discoveries of
SLSNe with no signs of hydrogen in their spectrum (Quimby et al. 2011; Leloudas et al. 2012)
might indicate that not all CSM interaction involves hydrogen-rich material.
Additionally, some of those hydrogen-poor events show an early precursor plateau in their LCs
(Blinnikov \& Sorokina 2010; Dessart et al. 2011; Leloudas et al. 2012).
In this context, a hydrogen-poor CSM interaction might also be an alternative explanation for the nature of SLSN~2007bi (Gal-Yam et al. 2009), which
is considered the strongest observed candidate for PISN. At first, the CSM interaction model for this event was ruled out due its spectral
characteristics showing no typical signs of hydrogen-rich interaction, given the absence of narrow hydrogen lines from any of the spectra
obtained. The optical spectrum predicted for helium/carbon/oxygen-rich CSM interaction, which could result from PPISNe with rapidly rotating
progenitors, is unexplored, but it must, perforce, be free of hydrogen features. For this reason,
Chatzopoulos et al. (2012, in preparation) will present a semi-analytical CSM interaction model fit
to the observed LC of SLSN~2007bi considering this to be a possible alternative model.
Future multi-group radiation hydrodynamics simulations of such events are expected to shed more light on the issue.
\acknowledgments
We wish to thank the anonymous referee for valuable comments and suggestions
that helped significantly improve this paper.
We thank the MESA team for making this valuable tool readily available
and especially thank Bill Paxton for his ready advice and council
in running the code. We thank Volker Bromm and Milos Milosavljevic
for discussions on the topic and Sean Couch and Christopher Lindner
for offering advice on {\it FLASH} dynamics.
This research is supported in part by NSF AST-1109801. EC wishes to thank
the University of Texas Graduate School for the William C. Powers fellowship given in support
of his studies.
|
\section{introduction}
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig1.pdf}}
\caption {Kinetic ($K$), potential ($\delta U$) and total ($E$) energies in $meV$ per atom
versus reduced temperature in the model of hole superconductivity. The model parameters correspond to the
case of Ref. \cite{99} figure 1, for hole concentration $n=0.045$ corresponding to a $T_c$ of $85K$.
For the potential energy ($\delta U$) the Hartree contribution $Un^2/4$, with $U$ the on-site Coulomb repulsion, which is independent of temperature, has been substracted.
}
\label{figure2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig2.pdf}}
\caption {Kinetic ($K$, dashed line upper panel), potential ($U$, full line upper panel) and total ($E$, lower panel) energies in $^o K$ per $^4He$ atom versus temperature
computed using path integral Monte Carlo by D. Ceperley\cite{ceperley}. The points in the lower panel are experimental data, see Ref. \cite{ceperley}.
}
\label{figure2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig3.pdf}}
\caption {Same as Fig. 1 for an attractive Hubbard model representative of conventional BCS. The $T_c$ and band filling are the same as in Fig. 1. $U=-0.4$.
}
\label{figure2}
\end{figure}
That superconductivity and superfluidity have many common elements is certainly well known\cite{london12,tilley}. An indication of this is
that the terms ``superfluid electrons''
and ``superfluid condensate'' are commonly used to refer to the charge carriers in the superconducting state of a metal. However I propose that a deep commonality between
superconductors and superfluid $^4He$ has been overlooked until now: that both phenomena are
{\it kinetic energy driven}.
Figures 1 and 2 show kinetic, potential and total energies versus temperature for the model of hole superconductivity\cite{99} and for superfluid $^4He$ computed
through Monte Carlo simulations by
D. Ceperley\cite{ceperley} (direct experimental data on kinetic and potential energies separately do not exist). The similarity
in the two figures is very apparent. The potential energy increases
as the system enters the superfluid or superconducting state, while the kinetic energy decreases, hence the ``super'' state is
``kinetic energy driven'' in both cases.
In contrast, within conventional BCS theory the kinetic energy of the carriers always increases upon entering the superconducting state and the interaction
energy decreases by a larger amount overcompensating the kinetic energy increase, as shown in Figure 3,
hence superconductivity is ``potential energy driven''. The physics displayed in Figure 3 is $qualitatively$ different from the physics
shown in Figures 1 and 2. I argue that the Meissner effect results from the physics shown in Fig. 1 and would not occur if the physics was as in Fig. 3, for reasons explained below.
That superfluidity in $^4He$ is kinetic energy driven is clear from a variety of experimental data that we will review in the next section.
That superconductivity is kinetic energy driven is predicted by the model of hole superconductivity, introduced in 1989\cite{holesc}.
The pairing interaction was denoted by $\Delta t$ to indicate its kinetic origin, and its effect on the kinetic energy was discussed in Ref. \cite{apparent}. However it was only much later that the
fundamental physics of kinetic energy lowering, which is completely analogous to the physics taking place in $^4He$, and its role in the Meissner effect, was understood in this model.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig4.pdf}}
\caption {Four experimental properties of $^4He$. (a) Density versus temperature at constant pressure. (b) Difference between liquid and solid molar volumes
at the liquid-solid transition as function temperature. (c) Heat capacity versus temperature at constant volume.
The dashed lines show schematically the contribution of kinetic energy only to the total heat capacity. (d) Pressure versus temperature at
constant density (isopycnals). }
\label{figure2}
\end{figure}
\section{superfluid $^4He$ and wavefunction expansion}
Figure 4 shows four properties of $^4He$ that illustrate the physics of interest here. (a) shows the density versus temperature at constant pressure.
Below the superfluid transition, there is a slight $decrease$ in the density, which is clearly $not$ driven by potential energy: the $^4He$ atoms are spherical, so there
is no directionality to the interatomic forces, and the average distance between atoms in the liquid is $4 \AA$, while the minimum in the potential energy curve between
$He$ atoms is at distance $3\AA$\cite{londonbook}. If the density decreases, the interatomic distance increases and the potential energy increases. Hence the decrease in
density seen below the $\lambda$ point has to be associated with lowering of kinetic energy, i.e. is kinetic energy driven.
We can think of the $^4He$ atoms as being confined in a box of size determined by the interatomic distance. The kinetic energy of quantum confinement will
decrease when the density decreases and the interatomic distances increase.
Similarly Figure 4(b) shows the increase in volume as $^4He$ goes from
the solid to the liquid state. It becomes markedly larger at temperatures below the superfluid transition. At low temperatures the entropy of both states is zero\cite{londonbook}, so the expansion is not entropy-driven as in an ordinary solid-liquid transition
but energy-driven. Once again, since the potential energy increases upon expansion and the total energy decreases in going from the solid to the superfluid state this is direct evidence that the transition
from the solid into the superfluid state is
kinetic-energy driven.
Figure 4(c) shows the heat capacity versus temperature, the characteristic shape that gives the $\lambda$ transition its name (it should really be
called `inverted lambda' transition. The heat capacity is given by
\begin{equation}
C=\frac{d<K>}{dT}+\frac{d<U>}{dT}
\end{equation}
with $<K>$ and $<U>$ the average kinetic and potential energies. The second term in this equation is positive above
$T_\lambda$, since the system expands as $T$ increases and hence the potential energy increases, and is negative below $T_\lambda$ since the
system expands as $T$ decreases. Thus, the first term in Eq. (1) is even larger below $T_\lambda$ and even smaller above
$T_\lambda$ than the full line in Fig. 4(c) shows \cite{goldstein}, as indicated by
the dashed lines in Fig. 4(c),
hence the jump at $T_\lambda$ for the change in kinetic energy with $T$ is even larger. The fact that the rate of decrease of the kinetic energy as the temperature is lowered is so much larger below $T_\lambda$ than above $T_\lambda$
is clear evidence that the transition from the normal liquid into the superfluid state is kinetic energy driven\cite{goldstein}.
Finally, Figure 4(d) shows the pressure versus temperature at constant density\cite{isopyc}. Below $T_\lambda$, the pressure $increases$ as the temperature is lowered.
This is qualitatively different from what occurs in ordinary Bose condensation: in that case, the condensate exerts $no$ pressure, hence
the pressure decreases rapidly as the temperature is lowered and the condensate fraction increases. In $^4He$ instead, the pressure increases as the condensate
forms, indicating that it exerts more quantum pressure than the normal fluid, causing the liquid to expand.
This physics of $^4He$ is qualitatively different from Bose condensation physics. In a Bose gas, increasing the external pressure and hence the density at a fixed temperature will eventually lead to
Bose condensation as the interatomic distances become of the order of the de Broglie wavelength. Instead, in $^4He$,
increasing the pressure and density at fixed temperature will $never$ lead from the normal liquid into the superfluid state, nor from the solid into the
superfluid state. The superfluid transition involves $expansion$, hence application of pressure or increase in density can only lead $out$ of the superfluid state (either into the solid or into
the normal fluid state), never $into$ it.
This is clearly seen in the phase diagram of $^4He$.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig5.pdf}}
\caption {Electronic states in an energy band. The states near the top of the band (antibonding states) have high kinetic energy and short wavelength. Electrons in those states
exert strong quantum pressure outward and tend to break the lattice apart. In superconducting materials those states are occupied by electrons (the Fermi energy is close to
the top of the band), in non-superconductors they are empty according to the theory of
hole superconductivity.}
\label{figure2}
\end{figure}
The properties of $^4He$ just summarized indicate that the transition into the superfluid state is associated with wavefunction expansion,
kinetic energy lowering and enhanced quantum pressure originating in quantum zero-point motion\cite{simon}.
We propose that exactly the same is true for superconductors and that this is the physics responsible for the Meissner effect.
\section{Hole superconductivity and wavefunction expansion}
The theory of hole superconductivity predicts that superconductivity occurs when electronic energy bands are almost full, hence the carriers in the normal state are holes.
When a band is almost full, there are a lot of {\it antibonding electrons}, as shown schematically in Fig. 5. They would like to break the solid apart, hence their name, ``antibonding''.
Their wavefunction is confined over a small spatial dimension, their wavelength $k_F^{-1}$ is short ($k_F$ is the Fermi wavevector),
and they exert ``quantum pressure'' outward. They have highly oscillating wavefunctions and hence high kinetic energy.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig6.pdf}}
\caption {Explanation of the Meissner effect. An electron in an expanding orbit with fixed angular momentum
lowers its kinetic energy ($K_1<K_0$), increases its Larmor diamagnetic susceptibility and causes expulsion of negative charge.
The top orbit represents the normal state, with $r_0=k_F^{-1}$, the bottom one the
superconducting state, with $r_1=2\lambda_L$.}
\label{figure2}
\end{figure}
Within the theory of hole superconductivity\cite{website}, pairing of holes occurs at the critical temperature because it gives rise to kinetic energy lowering\cite{holesc,apparent}. When holes pair, the band becomes locally less full, hence the kinetic energy
should decrease according to Figure 5. In addition, the pairing interaction $\Delta t$ gives rise to kinetic energy lowering for the pair.
The transition
to superconductivity is associated with expansion of the electronic wavefunction and expulsion of negative
charge from the interior of the superconductor to a region within a London penetration depth of the surface, $\lambda_L$\cite{electronhole2,chargeexpulsion}.
The expansion of the wavefunction and negative charge expulsion results from an expansion of electronic orbits from microscopic radius $k_F^{-1}$
to mesoscopic radius $2\lambda_L$\cite{sm}, which lowers the quantum kinetic energy, and changes the diamagnetic susceptibiliy from the Landau free electron value to the value appropriate for perfect
diamagnetism, $\chi=-1/4\pi$, as shown schematically in Figure 6. The expansion of electronic orbits and associated outward motion of negative charge provides a dynamical
explanation of the Meissner effect\cite{meissner}: in the presence of a magnetic field, the Lorentz force on the radially outgoing electrons deflects them in the azimuthal direction giving rise to the
Meissner current that expels the magnetic field from the interior. In other words, the outflowing charge carries with it the magnetic field lines, as in a classical plasma\cite{plasma}.
Instead, if there is no radial motion of charge, as expected within BCS theory, magnetic field lines would not move out, there would be no Meissner effect, and the material would not
become a superconductor\cite{japan}.
The fact that superfluid electrons in the superconducting state reside in orbits of radius $2\lambda_L$ can be seen from the fact that
the total angular momentum of electrons in such orbits equals the angular
momentum of the Meissner current circulating within a London penetration depth of the surface in a cylindrical geometry, as shown by the
following equation:
\begin{equation}
L_{total}=[m_e v (2\lambda_L)]n_s[ \pi R^2 h]=[m_e v R] n_s [2\pi R \lambda_L]
\end{equation}
where $R$ and $h$ are the radius and height of the cylinder and $n_s$ is the superfluid density.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig7.pdf}}
\caption { The left side shows electronic orbits of radius $2\lambda_L$, with electrons with spin pointing into the paper (out of the paper) circulating in counterclockwise (clockwise) direction.
The orbits are highly overlapping.
The superposition of these motions (right side)
gives rise to a spin current circulating in a layer of thickness $\lambda_L$ near the surface in the ground state of the superconductor, and no net currents in the interior.}
\label{figure2}
\end{figure}
Electrons in the $2\lambda_L$ orbits traverse these orbits with speed given by\cite{sm}
\begin{equation}
v_\sigma^0= \frac{\hbar}{4m_e\lambda_L} .
\end{equation}
in opposite direction for opposite spin. The superposition of these motions gives rise to a macroscopic spin current of carrier density $n_s/2$ for each spin direction flowing within a London penetration depth of the
surface with speed Eq. (3), a macroscopic
zero point motion of the superfluid.\cite{electrospin} This is shown schematically in Figure 7.
As a result of this orbit expansion, the electronic density in the interior of the superconductor is
slightly smaller than in the normal state. This is entirely analogous to the density decrease that occurs in $^4He$ upon the onset of superfluidity.
The excess negative charge near the surface has density $\rho_-$, related to the speed of the spin current Eq. (3) through the equation\cite{electrospin}
\begin{equation}
\rho_-=en_s\frac{v_\sigma^0}{c} .
\end{equation}
Thus, we can think equivalently of the entire superfluid charge density $en_s$ flowing with speed Eq. (3) (half in each direction) or just the excess charge density $\rho_-$ flowing at the speed of light.
The orbital angular momentum of superfluid electrons in the $2\lambda_L$ orbits is
\begin{equation}
L_{orb}=m_e v_\sigma^0 (2\lambda_L) =\hbar/2 .
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig8.pdf}}
\caption { The expulsion of charge from the interior of the superconductor (a) has as counterpart the expulsion of mass from the superfluid $^4He$ container (b), climbing the lateral surfaces and escaping to
the exterior (``Onnes effect'').}
\label{figure2}
\end{figure}
The question arises whether the electronic orbit expansion will give rise to a lower density for the solid as a whole when it becomes superconducting. This is indeed seen in many superconductors\cite{thexp1,thexp2} but not
in all. The situation is more complicated than in $^4He$ because of the presence of electronic and ionic degrees of freedom.
\section{zero point motion in superfluid $^4He$ and in superconductors}
The fact that we have found charge expulsion and macroscopic zero point motion in the superconductor, resulting from expansion of the electronic wavefunction, suggests that similar effects should occur in superfluid $^4He$.
Remarkably, such behavior has been known for a long time: the `Onnes effect'\cite{onnes}, the flow of superfluid films (Rollin films)\cite{rollin} along surfaces
without any driving force\cite{films}. A superfluid container will expel mass, just like the
superconductor expels charge, as shown schematically in Figure 8. $^4He$ atoms flow in the Rollin film defying the force of gravity, just as electrons develop the Meissner current defying the
Faraday electromotive force\cite{emf}.
The close connection between superconductors and superfluid $^4He$ becomes even more apparent when we consider superfluid flow under zero potential difference.
This is achieved in a superconducting wire inserted between normal conductors, and in the $^4He$ double beaker experiment of Daunt and Mendelssohn\cite{beaker}, designed specifically for this purpose, as
shown schematically in Figure 9.
Mendelssohn\cite{mendel,mendel2} pointed out the clear analogy between the phenomena shown in Figures 9 (a) and (b) and asked the question, what is the dynamical origin of these motions that occur without
potential drop, i.e. without a force? He proposed that they are evidence for {\it zero point motion} of the condensed particles in the superfluid and in the superconductor. He points out that
``neither case corresponds to a Bose-Einstein condensation since both have an appreciable zero-point energy''.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=7cm]{fig9.pdf}}
\caption {(a) Current flow in a superconducting wire which is fed by normal conducting leads.
There is no electric potential difference between both ends
of the superconductor ($\Delta V=0$). (b) Flow of superfluid $^4He$ along surfaces in double beaker experiment.
There
is flow of superfluid from the inner to the outer beaker and from the outer beaker to the exterior, gradually emptying
both beakers. The levels in the inner and outer beaker are always identical throughout this
process, so there is no gravitational potential difference
between them ($\Delta V_{grav}=0$).
}
\label{figure1}
\end{figure}
Furthermore, Daunt and Mendelssohn\cite{daunt} as well as London\cite{londontransfer} and Bilj et al\cite{bilj} pointed out that the measured speed of $^4He$ in the films obeys the relation
\begin{equation}
v=\frac{\hbar}{2m_{He} d}
\end{equation}
where $d$ is the thickness of the film, typically $\sim 300 \AA$, giving a speed $v\sim 26 cm/s$. This relation can be interpreted as arising from Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle for a particle confined to a linear dimension $d$. Similarly, the critical magnetic field for a superconductor is given by\cite{tinkham}
\begin{equation}
H_{c1}=-\frac{\hbar c }{4e\lambda_L^2}
\end{equation}
and the critical velocity by
\begin{equation}
v=\frac{e}{m_e c} \lambda_L H_{c1}=\frac{\hbar}{4m_e \lambda_L}
\end{equation}
which can be interpreted as the speed of an electron confined to linear dimension $2\lambda_L$ arising from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Mendelssohn argues\cite{mendel} that these speeds, Eqs. (6) and (8), are the speeds of ``zero point diffusion'' of particles in the condensate, and that this explains why the transport rate is
independent of external forces: the transport occurs because if at one end particles of the condensate are removed, zero point diffusion will give rise to flow in that direction.
He furthermore stresses that ``the momentum of frictionless transport is not dissipated because it is zero-point energy''.
However, Mendelssohn's interpretation, even though it reveals very deep intuition, is not internally consistent. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle predicts that the momentum associated with spatial confinement should be in the same direction of the coordinate that is confined.
Instead, both in the superfluid and superconductor the transport with speeds given by Eqs. (6) and (8) is parallel to the surface, i.e. perpendicular to the direction of confinement. It is clear that Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle is $not$ the explanation for superfluid film and superconducting current flow under zero potential difference. So what is it?
Superconductors give us the answer. The London-Mendelssohn transfer speed for superconductors Eq. (8) is nothing other than the speed Eq. (3) of electrons in $2\lambda_L$ orbits giving rise to the spin current near
the surface. The motion described by the speed Eq. (3) is $rotational$ (Fig. 7, left side). Thus we conclude that both superconductors and superfluid $^4He$ must possess
{\it rotational zero point motion} in their ground states.\cite{heliumsc}
If the zero-point motion is rotational, it is easy to understand why spatial confinement in direction perpendicular to the surface gives rise to flow along the surface. Furthermore it is easy to understand the
magnitude of the flow velocity, arising from quantization of angular momentum
\begin{equation}
L=mvd=\frac{\hbar}{2}
\end{equation}
for both Eq. (6) and Eq. (8). It is also easy to understand the origin of quantum pressure in these systems: the kinetic energy of rotational zero point motion decreases as the
radius of the motion increases:
\begin{equation}
E_{kin}=\frac{L^2}{2MR^2}
\end{equation}
for particles of mass $M$ in orbits of radius $R$ with angular momentum $L$. Thus, a rotating particle with fixed quantized angular momentum exerts quantum pressure to lower its kinetic
energy by expanding its orbit, and does so in the transition to the superfluid or superconducting state. The expanded orbits overlap, hence phase coherence is required to avoid collisions of particles in
different orbits, which is clearly a lower entropy state than when the phases are incoherent in the normal state, hence the transition will occur at sufficiently low temperatures where
the energy decrease dominates over the entropy loss.
\section{conclusion}
In summary, we conclude that in both superconductors and superfluid $^4He$ the transition to the superconducting or superfluid state is driven by quantum pressure originating in rotational zero point motion,
i.e. the drive of a rotating system to lower its kinetic energy by expansion. This explains a variety of properties of $^4He$ like the decrease in density below the superfluid transition, the shape
of the heat capacity curve versus temperature that gives the $\lambda-$transition its name, and the flow of Rollin films,
as well as the most fundamental property of superconductors, the Meissner effect.
We should point out that there have been several proposals in the literature that $^4He$ possesses macroscopic quantum zero point motion in the ground state\cite{zero1,zero2,zero3,zero4},
and that superconductors possess macroscopic zero point motion in the form
of charge currents over domains\cite{curr1}.
These workers arrived at these conclusions
through arguments different from ours.
Finally, the facts that superconductors and superfluid $^4He$ are macroscopic quantum systems and they both display quantum pressure
originating in rotational zero point motion at the macroscopic level leads us to conclude that quite generally $microscopic$ quantum systems, which also
exhibit quantum pressure, {\it must acquire this quantum pressure through rotational zero point motion}. In other words, that the
origin of the ubiquitous quantum pressure is not Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as generally believed but instead rotational zero point motion.
Since Schr\"{o}dinger's equation does not predict rotational zero point motion, this implies that
Schr\"{o}dinger's equation needs to be modified. The constant $\hbar$ in Schr\"{o}dinger's
equation presumably represents the angular momentum of this ubiquitous rotational zero point motion
rather than the quantum of action as in the conventional understanding of quantum mechanics.
|
\section{#1}}
\newcommand{\subsect}[1]{\subsection{#1}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{free text}[theorem]{}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\newcommand{\dbend} {$ {}^{\hbox{\manual \char127}} $}
\newcommand \gere {\mathfrak e}
\newcommand \gerg {\mathfrak g}
\newcommand \gerh {\mathfrak h}
\newcommand \gerk {\mathfrak k}
\newcommand \gerl {\mathfrak l}
\newcommand \gert {\mathfrak t}
\newcommand \gerf {\mathfrak f}
\newcommand \gerb {\mathfrak b}
\newcommand\gern {\mathfrak n}
\newcommand \gerI {{\mathfrak I}}
\newcommand \gerC {{\mathfrak C}}
\newcommand \calI {{\mathcal I}}
\newcommand \calC {{\mathcal C}}
\newcommand \calP {{\mathcal P}}
\newcommand \calH{{\mathcal H}}
\newcommand \gersl {\mathfrak{sl}}
\newcommand \gergl {\mathfrak{gl}}
\newcommand \gersln {\mathfrak{sl}_{\,n}}
\newcommand \gergln {\mathfrak{gl}_{\,n}}
\newcommand \gerso {\mathfrak{so}}
\newcommand \HA{{\mathcal {HA}}}
\newcommand \Hpicc {{\scriptscriptstyle \Cal{H}}}
\newcommand \U {\mathbb U}
\newcommand \F {\mathbb F}
\newcommand \N {\mathbb N}
\newcommand \Z {\mathbb Z}
\newcommand \C {\mathbb C}
\newcommand \Cq {\C (q)}
\newcommand \Cqqm {{\C\big[q, q^{-1}\big]}}
\newcommand \id {\text{\rm id}}
\newcommand \Ker {\text{\sl Ker}}
\newcommand \QUEA {\Cal{Q{\hskip0,7pt}UE{\hskip-1,1pt}A}}
\newcommand \QFA {\Cal{QF{\hskip-1,7pt}A}}
\newcommand \? {{\bf (???)}}
\newcommand \ideal{\trianglelefteq}
\newcommand\coideal {\dot{\trianglelefteq}}
\newcommand\coleq {\dot{\leq}}
\newcommand\fidi{\hskip5pt \vrule height4pt width4pt depth0pt \par}
\newcommand\Hh{\stackrel{\circ}{\text{H}}}
\newcommand\Kk{\stackrel{\circ}{\text{K}}}
\newcommand\gerho{\stackrel{\circ}{\gerh}}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
{\ }
\vskip-33pt
\centerline{\smallrm Documenta Mathematica {\smallbf 19} (2014), 333--380.
}
\vskip1pt
\centerline{\smallrm {\smallsl The original publication is available at\/}
\ http://www.math.uni-bielefeld.de/documenta/vol-19/vol-19.html}
\phantom{\centerline{preprint {\sl arXiv:1210.1597 [math.QA]\/} (2012)}}
\vskip45pt {\ }
\centerline{\Large \bf A GLOBAL QUANTUM DUALITY}
\vskip9pt
\centerline{\Large \bf PRINCIPLE FOR SUBGROUPS}
\vskip9pt
\centerline{\Large \bf AND HOMOGENEOUS SPACES}
\vskip39pt
\centerline{ Nicola CICCOLI${}^\flat$, Fabio GAVARINI${}^\#$ }
\vskip9pt
\centerline{\it ${}^\flat$ Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Universit\`a di Perugia }
\centerline{\it via Vanvitelli 1 --- I-06123 Perugia, Italy}
\centerline{{\footnotesize e-mail: <EMAIL>}}
\vskip5pt
\centerline{\it ${}^\#$ Dipartimento di Matematica, Universit\`a di Roma ``Tor Vergata'' }
\centerline{\it via della ricerca scientifica 1 --- I-00133 Roma, Italy}
\centerline{{\footnotesize e-mail: <EMAIL>}}
\vskip57pt
\begin{abstract}
{\footnotesize
For a complex or real algebraic group $ G $, with $ \, \gerg := \mathrm{Lie}(G) \, $, quantizations of {\sl global\/} type are suitable Hopf algebras $ F_q[G] $ or $ U_q(\gerg) $ over $ \Cqqm \, $. Any such quantization yields a structure of Poisson group on $ G $, and one of Lie bialgebra on $ \gerg \, $: correspondingly, one has dual Poisson groups $ G^* $ and a dual Lie bialgebra $ \gerg^* \, $. In this context, we introduce suitable notions of {\sl quantum subgroup\/} and, correspondingly, of {\sl quantum homogeneous space}, in three versions: {\sl weak}, {\sl proper\/} and {\sl strict\/} (also called {\sl flat\/} in the literature). The last two notions only apply to those subgroups which are coisotropic, and those homogeneous spaces which are Poisson quotients; the first one instead has no restrictions whatsoever.
\par
The global quantum duality principle (GQDP), as developed in \cite{Ga3}, associates with any global quantization of $ G \, $, or of $ \gerg \, $, a global quantization of $ \gerg^* $, or of $ G^* $. In this paper we present a similar GQDP for quantum subgroups or quantum homogeneous spaces. Roughly speaking, this associates with every quantum subgroup, resp.~quantum homogeneous space, of $ G \, $, a quantum homogeneous space, resp.~a quantum subgroup, of $ G^* \, $. The construction is tailored after four parallel paths --- according to the different ways one has to algebraically describe a subgroup or a homogeneous space --- and is ``functorial'', in a natural sense.
\par
Remarkably enough, the output of the constructions are always quantizations of {\sl proper\/} type. More precisely, the output is related to the input as follows: the former is the {\it coisotropic dual\/} of the coisotropic interior of the latter --- a fact that extends the occurrence of Poisson duality in the original GQDP for quantum groups. Finally, when the input
is a strict quantization then the output is strict as well --- so the special r{\^o}le of strict quantizations is respected.
\par
We end the paper with some explicit examples of application of our recipes.
\footnote{\ Keywords: \ {\sl Quantum Groups, Poisson Homogeneous Spaces, Coisotropic Subgroups}.
\par
\quad \hskip-3pt 2010 {\it Mathematics Subject Classification:} \
Primary 17B37, 20G42, 58B32; Secondary 81R50. }
}
\end{abstract}
\vfill
\eject
\section{Introduction}
In this paper we work with quantizations of (algebraic) complex and real groups, their subgroups and homogeneous spaces, and a special symmetry among such quantum objects which we refer to as the ``Global Quantum Duality Principle''. This is just a last step in a process, which is worth recalling in short.
\vskip5pt
In any possible sense, quantum groups are suitable deformations of some algebraic objects attached with algebraic groups, or Lie groups. Once and for all, we adopt the point of view of algebraic groups: nevertheless, all our analysis and results can be easily converted in the language of Lie groups.
\vskip5pt
The first step to deal with is describing an algebraic group $ G $ via suitable algebraic object(s). This can be done following two main approaches, a {\sl global\/} one or a {\sl local\/} one.
\vskip5pt
In the {\sl global geometry\/} approach, one considers $ U(\gerg) $ --- the universal enveloping algebra of the tangent Lie algebra $ \, \gerg := \mathrm{Lie}(G) \, $ --- and $ F[G] $ --- the algebra of regular functions on $ G \, $. Both these are Hopf algebras, and there exists a non-degenerate pairing among them so that they are dual to each other. Clearly, $ U(\gerg) $ only accounts for the local data of $ G $ encoded in $ \gerg \, $, whereas $ F[G] $ instead totally describes $ G \, $: thus $ F[G] $ yields a global description of $ G \, $, which is why we speak of ``global geometry'' approach.
\par
In this context, one describes (globally) a subgroup $ K $ of $ G $ --- always assumed to be Zariski closed --- via the ideal in $ F[G] $ of functions vanishing on it; alternatively, an infinitesimal description is given taking in $ U(\gerg) $ the subalgebra $ U(\gerk) \, $, where $ \, \gerk := \mathrm{Lie}(K) \, $.
\par
For a homogeneous $ G $--space, say $ M $, one describes it in the form $ \, M \cong G\big/\!K \, $ --- which amounts to fixing some point in $ M $ and its stabilizer subgroup $ K $ in $ G \, $. After this, a local description of $ \, M \cong G\big/\!K \, $ is given by representing its left-invariant differential operators as $ \, U(\gerg) \big/ U(\gerg)\,\gerk \, $: therefore, we can select $ \, U(\gerg)\,\gerk \, $ --- a left ideal, left coideal in $ U(\gerg) $ --- as algebraic object to encode $ \, M \cong G\big/\!K \, $, at least infinitesimally. For a global description instead, obstructions might occur. Indeed, we would like to describe $ \, M \cong G\big/\!K \, $ via some algebra $ \, F[M] \cong F\big[G\big/\!K\big] \, $ strictly related with $ F[G] \, $. This varies after the nature of $ \, M \cong G\big/\!K \, $ --- hence of $ K $ --- and in general might be problematic. Indeed, there exists a most natural candidate for this job, namely the set $ \, {F[G]}^K \, $ of $ K $--invariants of $ F[G] \, $, which is a subalgebra and left coideal. The problem is that $ {F[G]}^K $ permits to recover exactly $ G\big/\!K $ if and only if $ \, M \cong G\big/\!K \, $ is a quasi-affine variety (which is not always the case). This yields a genuine obstruction, in the sense that this way of (globally) encoding the space $ \, M \cong G\big/\!K \, $ only works with quasi-affine $ G $--spaces; for the other cases, we just drop this approach --- however, for a complete treatment of the case of {\sl projective} $ G $--spaces see \cite{CFG}.
\vskip5pt
In contrast, the approach of {\sl formal geometry\/} is a looser one: one replaces $ F[G] $ with a topological algebra $ \, F[[G]] = F\big[\!\big[G_{\!f}\big]\!\big] \, $ --- the algebra of ``regular functions on the formal group $ G_{\!f} $'' associated with $ G $ --- which can be realized either as the suitable completion of the local ring of $ G $ at its identity or as the (full) linear dual of $ U(\gerg) \, $. In any case, both algebraic objects taken into account now only encode the local information of $ G \, $.
\par
In this formal geometry context, the description of (formal) subgroups and (formal) homogeneous spaces goes essentially the same. However, in this case no problem occurs with (formal) homogeneous space, as any one of them can be described via a suitably defined subalgebra of invariants $ \, {F\big[\!\big[G_{\!f}\big]\!\big]}^{K_{\!f}} $: in a sense, ``all formal homogeneous spaces are quasi-affine''. As a consequence, the overall description one eventually achieves is entirely symmetric.
\vskip5pt
When dealing with quantizations, Poisson structures arise (as semiclassical limits) on groups and Lie algebras, so that we have to do with Poisson groups and Lie bialgebras. In turn, there exist distinguished subgroups and homogeneous spaces --- and their infinitesimal counterparts --- which are ``well-behaving'' with respect to these extra structures: these are {\sl coisotropic subgroups\/} and {\sl Poisson quotients}. Moreover, the well-known Poisson duality --- among Poisson groups $ G $ and $ G^* $ and among Lie bialgebras $ \gerg $ and $ \gerg^* $ --- extends to similar dualities among coisotropic subgroups (of $ G $ and $ G^* $) and among Poisson quotients (of $ G $ and $ G^* $ again). It is also useful to notice that each subgroup contains a maximal coisotropic subgroup (its ``coisotropic interior''), and accordingly each homogeneous space has a naturally associated Poisson quotient.
\par
As to the algebraic description, all properties concerning Poisson (or Lie bialgebra) structures on groups, Lie algebras, subgroups and homogeneous spaces have unique characterizations in terms of the algebraic codification one adopts for these geometrical objects. Details change a bit according to whether one deals with global or formal geometry, but everything goes in parallel in either context.
\vskip5pt
By (complex) ``quantum group'' of {\sl formal type\/} we mean any topological Hopf algebra $ H_\hbar $ over the ring $ \C[[\hbar]] $ whose semiclassical limit at $ \, \hbar = 0 \, $ --- i.e., $ \, H_\hbar \big/ \hbar\,H_\hbar \, $ --- is of the form $ F\big[\!\big[G_{\!f}\big]\!\big] $ or $ U(\gerg) $ for some formal group $ G_{\!f} $ or Lie algebra $ \gerg \, $. Accordingly, one writes $ \, H_\hbar := F_\hbar\big[\!\big[G_{\!f}\big]\!\big] \, $ or $ \, H_\hbar := U_\hbar(\gerg) \, $, calling the former a QFSHA and the latter a QUEA. If such a quantization (of either type) exists, the formal group $ G_{\!f} $ is Poisson and $ \gerg $ is a Lie bialgebra; accordingly, a dual formal Poisson group $ G_{\!f}^{\,*} $ and a dual Lie bialgebra $ \gerg^* $ exist too.
\par
In this context, as formal quantizations of subgroups or homogeneous spaces one typically considers suitable subobjects of either $ F_\hbar\big[\!\big[G_{\!f}\big]\!\big] $ or $ U_\hbar(\gerg) $ such that: {\it (1)\/} with respect to the containing formal Hopf algebra, they have the same relation as a in the ``classical'' setting --- such as being a one-sided ideal, a subcoalgebra, etc.; {\it (2)\/} taking their specialization at $ \, \hbar = 0 \, $ is the same as restricting to them the specialization of the containing algebra (this is typically mentioned as a ``flatness'' property). This second requirement has a key consequence, i.e.~the semiclassical limit object is necessarily ``good'' w.r.~to the Poisson structure: namely, if we are quantizing a subgroup, then the latter is necessarily coisotropic, while if we are quantizing a homogeneous space then it is indeed a Poisson quotient.
\vskip5pt
In the spirit of global geometry, by (complex) ``quantum group'' of {\sl global type\/} we mean any Hopf algebra $ H_q $ over the ring $ \Cqqm $ whose semiclassical limit at $ \, q = 1 \, $ --- i.e., $ \, H_q \big/ (\,q\!-\!1)\,H_q \, $ --- is of the form $ F[G] $ or $ U(\gerg) $ for some algebraic group $ G $ or Lie algebra $ \gerg \, $. Then one writes $ \, H_q := F_q[G] \, $ or $ \, H_q := U_\hbar(\gerg) \, $, calling the former a QFA and the latter a QUEA. Again, if such a quantization (of either type) exists the group $ G $ is Poisson and $ \gerg $ is a Lie bialgebra, so that dual formal Poisson groups $ G^* $ and a dual Lie bialgebra $ \gerg^* $ exist too.
\par
As to subgroups and homogeneous spaces, global quantizations can be defined via a sheer reformulation of the same notions in the formal context: we refer to such quantizations as {\sl strict}. In this paper, we introduce two more versions of quantizations, namely {\sl proper\/} and {\sl weak\/} ones, ordered by increasing generality, namely $ \, \{\text{\sl strict\/}\} \subsetneq \{\text{\sl proper\/}\} \subsetneq \{\text{\sl weak\/}\} \, $. This is achieved by suitably weakening the condition {\it (2)\/} above which characterizes a quantum subgroup or quantum homogeneous space. Remarkably enough, one finds that now the existence of a {\sl proper\/} quantization is already enough to force a subgroup to be coisotropic, or a homogeneous space to be a Poisson quotient.
\vskip5pt
The {\sl Quantum Duality Principle\/} (=QDP) was first developed by Drinfeld (cf.~\cite{Dr}, \S 7) for formal quantum groups (see \cite{Ga1} for details). It provides two functorial recipes, inverse to each other, acting as follows: one takes as input a QFSHA for $ G_{\!f} $ and yields as output a QUEA for $ \gerg^* \, $; the other one as input a QUEA for $ \gerg $ and yields as output a QFSHA for $ G_{\!f}^{\,*} \, $.
\par
The {\sl Global Quantum Duality Principle\/} (=GQDP) is a version of the QDP tailored for global quantum groups (see \cite{Ga2,Ga3}): now one functorial recipe takes as input a QFA for $ G $ and yields a QUEA for $ \gerg^* \, $, while the other takes a QUEA for $ \gerg $ and provides a QFA for $ G^* \, $.
\vskip5pt
An appropriate version of the QDP for formal subgroups and formal homogeneous spaces was devised in \cite{CiGa}. Quite in short, the outcome there was an explicit recipe which taking as input a formal quantum subgroup, or a formal quantum homogeneous space, respectively, of $ G_{\!f} $ provides as output a quantum formal homogeneous space, or a formal quantum subgroup, respectively, of $ G_{\!f}^{\,*} \, $. In short, these recipes come out as direct ``restriction'' (to formal quantum subgroups or formal quantum homogeneous spaces) of those in the QDP for formal quantum groups. This four-fold construction is fully symmetric, in particular all duality or orthogonality relations possibly holding among different quantum objects are preserved. Finally, Poisson duality is still involved, in that the semiclassical limit of the output quantum object is always the coisotropic dual of the semiclassical limit of the input quantum object.
\vskip7pt
The main purpose of the present work is to provide a suitable version of the GQDP for global quantum subgroups and global quantum homogeneous spaces --- extending the GQDP for global quantum groups --- as much general as possible. The inspiring idea, again, is to ``adapt'' (by restriction, in a sense) to these more general quantum objects the functorial recipes available from the GQDP for global quantum groups. Remarkably enough, this approach is fully successful: indeed, it does work properly not only with {\sl strict\/} quantizations (which should sound natural) but also for {\sl proper\/} and for {\sl weak\/} ones. Even more, the output objects always are global quantizations (of subgroups or homogeneous spaces) of {\sl proper\/} type --- which gives an independent motivation to introduce the notion of proper quantization.
\par
Also in this setup, Poisson duality, in a generalized sense, shows up again as the link between the input and the output of the GQDP recipes: namely, the semiclassical limit of the output quantum object is always the coisotropic dual of the coisotropic interior of the semiclassical limit of the input quantum object.
\par
Besides the wider generality this GQDP applies to (in particular, involving also non-coisotropic subgroups, or homogeneous spaces which are not Poisson quotients), we pay a drawback in some lack of symmetry for the final result --- compared to what one has in the formal quantization context. Nevertheless, such a symmetry is almost entirely recovered if one restricts to dealing with {\sl strict\/} quantizations, or to dealing with ``double quantizations'' --- involving simultaneously a QFA and a QUEA in perfect (i.e.\ non-degenerate) pairing.
\vskip9pt
At the end of the paper (Section \ref{examples}) we present some applications of our GQDP: this is to show how it effectively works, and in particular that it does provide explicit examples of global quantum subgroups and global quantum homogeneous spaces. Among these, we also provide an example of a quantization which is {\sl proper\/} but is {\sl not strict} --- which shows that the former notion is a non-trivial generalization of the latter.
\bigskip
\section{General Theory}
The main purpose of the present section is to collect some classical material about Poisson geometry for groups and homogeneous spaces. Everything is standard, we just need to fix the main notions and notations we shall deal with.
\medskip
\subsection{Subgroups and homogeneous spaces} \label{subgrps-homspaces}
Let $G$ be a complex affine algebraic group and let $\mathfrak g$ be its tangent Lie algebra. Let us denote by $F[G]$ its algebra of regular functions and by $U(\gerg)$ its universal enveloping algebra. Both such algebras are Hopf algebras, and there exists a natural pairing of Hopf algebras between them, given by evaluation of differential operators onto functions. This pairing is perfect if and only if $G$ is connected, which we will always assume in what follows.
\par
A \emph{real form} of either $G$ or $\mathfrak g$ is given once a Hopf $*$--algebra structure is fixed on either $F[G]$ or $U(\mathfrak g) $ --- and in case one take such a structure on both sides, the two of them must be dual to each other. Thus by \emph{real algebraic group} we will always mean a complex algebraic group endowed with a suitable $*$--structure.
\par
A subgroup $K$ of $G$ will always be considered as Zariski--closed and algebraic. For any such subgroup, the quotient $G\big/K$ is an algebraic left homogeneous $G$--space, which is quasi-projective as an algebraic variety. Given an algebraic left homogeneous $G$--space $M$ and choosing $m\in M$, the stabilizer subgroup $K_m$ will be a closed algebraic subgroup of $G$ such that $ \, G\big/K_m \simeq M \, $; changing point will change the stabilizer within a single conjugacy class.
\par
We shall describe the subgroup $K\,$, or the homogeneous space $G\big/K$, through either an algebraic subset of $F[G]$ --- to which we will refer as a \emph{global} coding --- or an algebraic subset of $U(\gerg)$ --- to which we will refer as a \emph{local} coding. The complete picture is the following:
\begin{description}
\item[--- subgroup] $K\;$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\it (local)}] \, letting $\gerk=\mathrm{Lie}(K)$ we can consider its enveloping algebra $U(\gerk)$ which is a Hopf subalgebra of $U(\gerg)\,$; we then set $\;\gerC\equiv\gerC(K):=U(\gerk)\;$;
\item[{\it (global)}] \, functions which are $0$ on $K$ form a Hopf ideal $ \, \calI \equiv \calI(K) \, $ inside $F[G]\,$, such that $ \, F[K] \simeq F[G]\big/\calI \; $.
\end{itemize}
\item[--- homogeneous space] $G\big/K\;$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\it (local)}] \, let $ \; \gerI \equiv \gerI(K) = U(\gerg) \cdot \gerk \; $: this is a left ideal and two-sided coideal in $U(\gerg)\,$, and $ \, U(\gerg) \big/ \gerI \, $ is the set of left--invariant differential operators on $ G \big/ K \, $.
\item[{\it (global)}] \, regular functions on the homogeneous space $G\big/K$ may be identified with $K$--invariant regular functions on $G\,$. We will let $ \, \calC = \calC(K) = {F[G]}^K \, $; this is a subalgebra and left coideal in $F[G]\,$.
\par
\quad {\sl $ \underline{\text{Warning}} \, $:\/} this needs clarification! The point is: can one recover the homogeneous space $ G\big/K $ from $ \, \calC(K) = {F[G]}^K \, $? The answer depends on geometric properties of $ G\big/K $ itself --- or (equivalently) of $ K $ --- which we explain later on.
\end{itemize}
\end{description}
\vskip7pt
For any Hopf algebra $\calH$ we introduce the following notations: $\le^1$ will stand for ``unital subalgebra'', $\trianglelefteq$ for ``two-sided ideal'', $\trianglelefteq_l$ for ``left ideal'' and similarly $\dot{\le}$ will stand for ``subcoalgebra'', $\coideal$ for ``two-sided coideal'' and $\coideal_\ell$ for ``left coideal''. When the same symbols will be decorated by a subindex referring to a specific algebraic structure their meaning should be modified accordingly, e.g.~$\trianglelefteq_\calH$ \hbox{will stand for ``Hopf ideal'' and $\le_\calH$ for ``Hopf subalgebra''.}
\par
With such notations, with any subgroup $K$ of $G$ there is associated one of the following algebraic objects:
\begin{equation}\label{subgroup}
(a) \;\; \calI\trianglelefteq_{\cal H}F[G] \qquad\;\;
(b) \;\; \calC \le^1\coideal_\ell\, F[G] \qquad\;\;
(c) \;\; \gerI\trianglelefteq_l\,\coideal\, U(\gerg) \qquad\;\;
(d) \;\; \gerC\le_{\cal H}U(\gerg) \;\;\;
\end{equation}
\noindent In the real case, one has to consider, together with (\ref{subgroup}), additional requirements involving the $*$ structure and the antipode $S\,$, namely
\begin{equation}\label{realsubgroup}
(a) \;\;\; \calI^*=\calI \qquad\;\;
(b) \;\;\; S(\calC)^*=\calC \qquad\;\;
(c) \;\;\; S(\gerI)^*=\gerI \qquad\;\;
(d) \;\;\; \gerC^*=\gerC
\end{equation}
In the connected case algebraic objects of type $\calI\,$, $\gerI$ and $\gerC$ in (\ref{subgroup}) are enough to reconstruct either $K$ or $G\big/K\,$:
$$ K \, = \, \mathrm{Spec}\big( F[G]/\calI\big) \, = \, \mathrm{exp}\big(\mathrm{Prim}(\gerC)\big)
\, = \, \mathrm{exp}\big(\mathrm{Prim}(\gerI)\big) $$
where $\mathrm{Prim}(X)$ denotes the set of primitive elements of a bialgebra $X\,$.
\par
In contrast, $ \, \calC(K) = {F[G]}^K \, $ might be not enough to reconstruct $K\,$, due to lack of enough global algebraic functions; this happens, for example, when $G\big/K$ is projective and therefore $\,\calC(K)=\mathbb{C}\,$. Any group $ K $ which can be reconstructed from its associated $\calC$ is called {\it observable\/}: we shall now make this notion more precise.
\vskip5pt
Let us call $\tau$ the map that to any subgroup $K$ associates the algebra of invariant functions $F[G]^K$ and let us call $\sigma$ the map that to any subalgebra $A$ of $F[G]$ associates its stabilizer $ \, \sigma(A)=\left\{\, g \in G\,\big|\, g\cdot f=f\,\,\, \forall \, f \in A \,\right\} \, $. These two maps are obviously inclusion--reversing. Furthermore they establish what is also known as a \emph{simple Galois correspondence\/}: namely, for any subgroup $K$ and any subalgebra $A$ one has
$$ (\sigma\circ\tau)(K) \supseteq K \; , \qquad (\tau\circ\sigma)(A) \supseteq A $$
so that $\left(\tau\circ\sigma\circ\tau\right)(K)=\tau(K)$, $\left(\sigma\circ\tau\circ\sigma\right)(A)=\sigma(A)$. A subgroup $K$ of $G$ such that $\left(\sigma\circ\tau\right)(K)=K$ is said to be \emph{observable\/}: this means exactly that such a subgroup can be fully recovered from its algebra of invariant functions $\tau(K)$. If $K$ is any subgroup, then $\,\widehat{K}:=\left(\sigma\circ\tau\right)(K)\,$ is the smallest observable subgroup containing $K$; we will call it the \emph{observable hull } of $K$. Remark then that $\,\calC(K)=\calC\big(\widehat{K}\big)\,$.
\par
The following fact (together with many properties of observable subgroups), which gives a characterization of observable subgroups in purely geometrical terms, may be found in \cite{Gro}:
\vskip11pt
\noindent{\bf Fact}: {\sl a subgroup $K$ of $G$ is observable if and only if $ \, G\big/K \, $ is quasi--affine}.
\vskip11pt
Let us now clarify how to pass from algebraic objects directly associated with subgroups to those corresponding to homogeneous spaces. Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra, with counit $ \, \varepsilon \, $ and coproduct $ \Delta\, $. For any submodule $M\subseteq H$ define
\begin{equation}
\label{coinvariants}
M^+:=M\cap \Ker(\varepsilon) \;\; , \qquad
H^{{\mathrm co} M}:=\left\{\, y\in H\,\big|\, \left(\Delta(y)-y\otimes 1\right)\in H\otimes M \,\right\}
\end{equation}
Let $C$ be a (unital) subalgebra and left coideal of $H$ and define $\Psi(C)=H\cdot C^+$. Then $\Psi(C)$ is a left ideal and two-sided coideal in $H$. Conversely, let $I$ be a left ideal and two-sided coideal in $H$ and define $\, \Phi(I) := H^{{\mathrm co}I} \, $. Then $\Phi(I)$ is a unital subalgebra and left coideal in $H$. Also, this pair of maps $(\Phi,\Psi)$ defines a simple Galois correspondence, that is to say
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\it (a)}] \qquad $ \Psi $ and $\Phi$ are inclusion-preserving;
\item[{\it (b)}] \qquad $\left(\Phi\circ\Psi\right)(C)\supseteq C \; $, \quad $\left(\Psi\circ\Phi\right)(I)\subseteq I \; $;
\item[{\it (c)}] \qquad $\Phi\circ\Psi\circ\Phi=\Phi\;$, \quad $\Psi\circ\Phi\circ\Psi=\Psi \; $.
\end{itemize}
(where the third property follows from the previous ones; see \cite{Mo, Sch, Ta} for further details).
\vskip7pt
Let now $K$ be a subgroup of $G$ and let $\calI$, $\cal C$, $\gerI$, $\gerC$ the corresponding algebraic objects as described in (\ref{subgroup}).
We can thus establish the following relations among them:
\begin{description}
\item[subgroup vs. homogeneous space:] objects directly related to the subgroup (namely, $\calI$ and $\gerC$) and objects directly related to the homogeneous space (namely, $\calC$ and $\gerI$) are linked by $ \Psi $ and $ \Phi $ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{correK}
\gerI \, = \, \Psi(\gerC) \; , \qquad \gerC \, = \, \Phi(\gerI) \; , \qquad
\calI \, \supseteq \, \Psi(\calC) \; , \qquad \calC \, = \, \Phi(\calI)
\end{equation}
In particular, $K$ is observable if and only if $\,\calI=\Psi(\calC)\,$; on the other hand, we have in general $\,\Psi(\calC(K))=\calI(\widehat{K})\;$.
\item[orthogonality] with respect to the natural pairing between $F[G]$ and $U(\gerg)\,$: this is expressed by the relations
\begin{equation}
\label{orthoK}
\calI \, = \, \gerC^\bot \; , \qquad \gerC \, = \, \calI^\bot \; , \qquad \calC \, = \, \gerI^\bot \; , \qquad \gerI \, \subseteq \, \calC^\bot
\end{equation}
In particular, $K$ is observable if and only if $\,\gerI=\calC^\bot\,$; on the other hand, we have in general $\,\calC(K)^\bot=\gerI\big(\widehat{K}\big)\;$.
\par
Let us also remark that orthogonality intertwines the local and global description.
\end{description}
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf The ``formal'' vs.~``global'' geometry approach.} In the present approach we are dealing with geometrical objects --- groups, subgroups and homogeneous spaces --- which we describe via suitably chosen algebraic objects. When doing that, universal enveloping algebras or subsets of them only provide a {\sl local\/} description --- around a distinguished point: the unit element in a (sub)group, or its image in a coset (homogeneous) space. Instead, function algebras yield a {\sl global\/} description, i.e.~they do carry information on the whole geometrical object; for this reason, we refer to the present approach as the ``global'' one.
\par
The ``formal geometry'' approach instead only aims to describe a group by a topological Hopf algebra, which can be realized as an algebra of formal power series; in short, this is summarized by saying that we are dealing with a ``formal group''. Subgroups and homogeneous spaces then are described by suitable subsets in such a formal series algebra (or in the universal enveloping algebra, as above): this again yields only a local description --- in a formal neighborhood of a distinguished point --- rather than a global one.
\vskip4pt
Now, the analysis above shows that an asymmetry occurs when we adopt the global approach. Indeed, we might have problems when describing a homogeneous space by means of (a suitably chosen subalgebra of invariant) functions: technically speaking, this shows up as the occurrence of {\sl inclusions} --- rather than identities! --- in formulas \ref{correK} and \ref{orthoK}. This is a specific, unavoidable feature of the problem, due to the fact that homogeneous spaces (for a given group) do not necessarily share the same geometrical nature --- beyond being all quasi-projective --- in particular they are not necessarily quasi-affine.
\par
The case of those homogeneous spaces which are {\sl projective\/} is treated in \cite{CFG}, where their quantizations are studied; in particular, there a suitable method to solve the problematic ``$ \calC $--side'' of the QDP in that case is worked out, still in terms of ``global geometry'' but with a different tool (semi-invariant functions, rather than invariant ones).
\vskip4pt
In contrast, in the formal geometry approach such a lack of symmetry does not occur: in other words, it happens that {\it every {\sl formal} (closed) subgroup is observable}, or {\it every {\sl formal} homogeneous space is quasi-affine}. This means that there is no need of worrying about observability, and the full picture --- for describing a subgroup or homogeneous space, in four different ways --- is entirely symmetric. This was the point of view adopted in \cite{CiGa}, where this complete symmetry of the formal approach is exploited to its full extent.
\medskip
\subsection{Poisson subgroups and Poisson quotients} \label{Pois-sgrs_Pois-quots}
Let us now assume that $G$ is endowed with a complex Poisson group structure corresponding to a Lie bialgebra structure on $\mathfrak g\,$, whose Lie cobracket is denoted $ \, \delta : \gerg \longrightarrow \gerg \wedge \gerg \, $. At the Hopf algebra level this means that $F[G]$ is a Poisson--Hopf algebra and $U(\mathfrak g)$ a co-Poisson Hopf algebra, in such a way that the duality pairing is compatible with these additional structures (see \cite{CP} for basic definitions). Let us recall that the linear dual $ \gerg^*$ inherits a Lie algebra structure;
on the other hand, it has a natural Lie coalgebra structure, whose cobracket $ \, \delta : \gerg^* \longrightarrow \gerg^* \wedge \gerg^* \, $ is the dual map to the Lie bracket of $ \gerg \, $. Altogether, this makes $ \gerg^* $ into a Lie bialgebra, which said to be {\sl dual\/} to $ \gerg \, $.
Therefore, there exist Poisson groups whose tangent Lie bialgebra is $\mathfrak g^*\,$; we will assume one such connected group is fixed, we will denote it with $G^*$ and call it the dual Poisson group of $G$. In the real case the involution in $F[G]$ is a Poisson algebra antimorphism and the one in $U(\gerg)$ is a co-Poisson algebra antimorphism.
A closed subgroup $K$ of $G$ is called \emph{coisotropic} if its defining ideal $\calI(K)$ is a Poisson subalgebra, while it is called a \emph{Poisson subgroup} if $\calI(K)$ is a Poisson ideal, the latter condition being equivalent to $K\hookrightarrow G$ being a Poisson map. Connected coisotropic subgroups can be characterized, at an infinitesimal level, by one of the following conditions on $\,\gerk\subseteq\gerg\,$:
$$ \displaylines{
\qquad \text{\it (C-i)} \qquad \delta(\gerk) \, \subseteq \, \gerk \wedge \gerg \; , \quad \text{that is $ \gerk $ is a Lie coideal in $ \gerg \; $}, \hfill \cr
\qquad \text{\it (C-ii)} \qquad \text{$ \gerk^\bot $ is a Lie subalgebra of $\gerg^*\;$,} \hfill } $$
while analogous characterizations of Poisson subgroups correspond to $\gerk$ being a Lie subcoalgebra or $\gerk^\bot$ being a Lie ideal.
The most important features of coisotropic subgroups, in this setting, is the fact that $G\big/K$ naturally inherits a Poisson structure from that of $G$. Actually, a Poisson manifold $(M\,,\omega_M)$ is called a {\it Poisson homogeneous $G$--space\/} if there exists a smooth, homogeneous $G$--action $ \, \phi : G \times M \longrightarrow M \, $ which is a Poisson map (w.r.~to the product Poisson structure on the domain). In particular, we will say that $(M,\omega_M)$ is a {\it Poisson quotient\/} if it verifies one of the following equivalent conditions (cf.~\cite{Zak}):
$$ \displaylines{
\;\quad \text{\it (P-i)} \quad \text{ there exists $x_0\in M$ whose stabilizer $G_{x_0}$ is coisotropic in $G$ }; \hfill \cr
\;\quad \text{\it (P-ii)} \quad \text{ there exists $x_0\in M$ such that $\; \phi_{x_0}:G\to M \, $, $\, \phi(x_0,g)=\phi(x,g) \, $, } \hfill \cr
\;\quad \phantom{\text{\it (P-ii)}} \quad \text{ is a Poisson map }; \hfill \cr
\;\quad \text{\it (P-iii)} \quad \text{ there exists $x_0\in M$ such that $\,\omega_M(x_0)=0\,$ }. \hfill } $$
It is important to remark here that inside the same conjugacy class of subgroups of $G$ there may be subgroups which are Poisson, coisotropic, or non coisotropic. Therefore, on the same homogeneous space there may exist many Poisson homogeneous structures, some of which make it into a Poisson quotient while some others do not.
\par
For a fixed connected subgroup $K$ of a Poisson group $G$, with Lie algebra $\gerk$, one can consider the following descriptions in terms of the Poisson Hopf algebra $F[G]$ or of the co-Poisson Hopf algebra $U(\gerg)\,$:
\begin{align}
\calI\le_{\calP}F[G] \; , & \qquad \calC\le_{\calP}F[G]\\
\gerI \, \coideal_{\cal P} \; U(\gerg) \; , & \qquad \gerC \, \coideal_{\calP} \; U(\gerg)
\end{align}
where on first line we have global conditions and on second line local ones. Conversely each one of these conditions imply coisotropy of $G$ with the exception of the condition on $\calC$, which implies only that the observable hull $\widehat{K}$ is coisotropic. Therefore a connected, observable, coisotropic subgroup of $G$ is identified by one of the following algebraic objects:
\begin{align}
\calI\trianglelefteq_{\cal H}\,\le_{\calP}F[G] \; , & \qquad \calC\le^1 \coideal_\ell \le_{\calP} F[G]\\
\gerI\trianglelefteq_l \coideal \, \coideal_{\cal P}\; U(\gerg) \; , & \qquad \gerC \le_{\calH} \coideal_{\cal P} \; U(\gerg)
\end{align}
\noindent
(still with the usual, overall restriction on the use of $\calC$, which in general only describes the observable hull $\widehat{K}\,$).
\par
Thanks to self-duality in the notion of Lie bialgebra, with any Poisson group there is associated a natural \emph{Poisson dual}, which is fundamental in the QDP; note that a priori many such dual groups are available, but when dealing with the QDP such an (apparent) ambiguity will be solved. As we aim to extend the QDP to coisotropic subgroups, we need to introduce a suitable notion of (Poisson) duality for coisotropic subgroups as well.
\smallskip
\begin{definition}\label{coisotropic duality}
Let $G$ be a Poisson group and $\,G^*$ a fixed Poisson dual.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\,K$ is coisotropic in $G$ we call {\sl complementary dual} of $ K $ the unique connected subgroup $K^\bot$ in $G^*$ such that $\,\mathrm{Lie}(K^\bot)=\gerk^\bot\,$.
\item If $M$ is a Poisson quotient and $\,M\simeq G\big/K_M\,$ we call {\sl complementary dual} of $M$ the Poisson $G^*$--quotient $\,M^\bot:=G^*\!\big/K_M^\bot\,$.
\item For any subgroup $H$ of $\,G$ we call {\sl coisotropic interior} of $H$ the unique maximal, closed, connected, coisotropic subgroup $\Hh$ of $G$ contained in $H\,$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\eject
\noindent{\bf Remarks:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The complementary dual of a coisotropic subgroup is, trivially, a coisotropic subgroup whose complementary dual is the connected component of the one we started with:. Similarly, the complementary dual of a Poisson quotient is a Poisson quotient, and if we start with a Poisson quotient whose coisotropy subgroup (w.r.~to any point) is connected then taking twice the complementary dual brings back to the original Poisson quotient.
\item The coisotropic interior may be characterized, at an algebraic level, as the unique closed subgroup whose Lie algebra is maximal between Lie subalgebras of $\gerh$ which are Lie coideals in $\gerg\,$.
\end{enumerate}
\medskip
\begin{proposition}\label{bot-pro}
Let $K$ be any subgroup of $G$ and let $K^{\langle\bot\rangle}:=\big\langle \mathrm{exp}(\gerk^\bot)\big\rangle$ be the closed, connected, subgroup of $G^*$ generated by $\mathrm{exp}(\gerk^\bot)\,$. Then:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] \, the Lie algebra $\gerk^{\langle\bot\rangle}$ of $K^{\langle\bot\rangle}$ is the Lie subalgebra of $\gerg^*$ generated by $\gerk^\bot$;
\item[(b)] \; $\gerk^{\langle\bot\rangle}$ is a Lie coideal of $\gerg^*$, hence $K^{\langle\bot\rangle}$ is a coisotropic subgroup of $\,G^*$;
\item[(c)] $\;K^{\langle\bot\rangle}=(\Kk\,)^\bot\,$; in particular if $K$is coisotropic then $\,K^{\langle\bot\rangle}=K^\bot\,$;
\item[(d)] $ \; (K^{\langle\bot\rangle})^{\langle\bot\rangle} = \, \Kk \, $ and $ K $ is coisotropic if and only if $ \, (K^{\langle\bot\rangle})^{\langle\bot\rangle} = K \, $.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Part {\it (a)} is trivial. As for {\it (b)}, since $\gerk=(\gerk^\bot)^\bot$ is a Lie subalgebra of $\gerg\,$, we have that $\gerk^\bot$ is a Lie coideal in $\gerg^*\,$: therefore, due to the identity
$$ \delta\big([x,y]\big) \, = \, {\textstyle \sum\limits_{[y]}} \big( [x,y_{[1]}] \otimes y_{[2]} + y_{[1]} \otimes [x,y_{[2]}] \big) + {\textstyle \sum\limits_{[x]}} \big( [x_{[1]},y] \otimes x_{[2]} + x_{[1]} \otimes [x_{[2]},y] \big) $$
(where $\delta(z)=\sum_{[z]}z_{[1]}\otimes z_{[2]}$ for $z\in\gerg^*$), the Lie subalgebra $\langle\gerk^\bot\rangle$ of $\gerg^*$ generated by $\gerk^\bot$ is a Lie coideal too.
It follows then by claim {\it (a)} that $K^{\langle\bot\rangle}$ is coisotropic. Thus {\it (b)} is proved.
As for part {\it (c)} we have
$$ \left(\gerk^{\langle\bot\rangle}\right)^\bot \; = \; \langle\gerk^\bot\rangle^\bot \; = \;
\Bigg(\, {\textstyle \bigcap\limits_{\substack{\gerh\le_{\cal L}\,\gerg^*\\ \gerh\supseteq \gerk^\bot}}} \gerh \Bigg)^{\!\!\bot}
\; = \; {\textstyle \sum\limits_{\substack{\gerh\le_{\cal L}\,\gerg^*\\ \gerh\supseteq \gerk^\bot}}} \gerh \; = \;
{\textstyle \sum\limits_{\substack{\gerf\coideal_{\cal L}\gerg \\ \gerf\supseteq \gerk}}} \gerf
\; = \; \stackrel{\circ}{\gerk} $$
(with $\le_{\cal L}$ meaning ``Lie subalgebra'' and $\coideal_{\cal L}$ meaning ``Lie coideal'') where
$\stackrel{\circ}{\gerk}$ is exactly the maximal Lie subalgebra and Lie coideal of $\gerg$ contained in $\gerk\,$. To be precise, this last statement follows from the above formula for $ \delta\big([x,y]\big) \, $, since that formula implies that the Lie subalgebra generated by a family of Lie coideals is still a Lie coideal.
Now $\;\stackrel{\circ}{\gerk}\,=\mathrm{Lie}(\Kk)\,$, so $\,\mathrm{Lie}(K^{\langle\bot\rangle})=
\gerk^{\langle\bot\rangle}=\left(\left(\gerk^{\langle\bot\rangle}\right)^\bot\right)^\bot\!=
\big(\stackrel{\circ}{\gerk}\big)^\bot\!=\mathrm{Lie}(\Kk)^\bot\,$ implies $\,K^{\langle\bot\rangle}=
(\stackrel{\circ}{\gerk})^\bot\,$ as we wished to prove.
If, in addition, $K$ is coisotropic then, obviously, $\,K^{\langle\bot\rangle}=K\,$. All other statements follow easily.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\section{Strict, proper, weak quantizations} \label{quantizations}
The purpose of this section is to fix some terminology concerning the meaning of the word ``quantization'' and to describe some possible ways of quantizing a (closed) subgroup, or a homogeneous space. We set the algebraic machinery needed for talking of ``quantization'' and ``specialization'':
these notions must be carefully specified before approaching the
construction of Drinfeld's functors.
\smallskip
Let $ q $ be an indeterminate, $ \, \Cqqm \, $ the ring of
complex-valued Laurent polynomials in $ q \, $, and $ \, \C(q)
\, $ the field of complex-valued rational functions in $ q \, $.
Denote by $ \HA $ the category of all Hopf algebras over
$ \Cqqm $ which are torsion-free as $ \Cqqm $--modules.
\par
Given a Hopf algebra $ H $ over the field $\C(q) \, $, a subset $ \overline{H} \subseteq H$
is called {\it a $ \Cqqm $--integral form} (or
simply {\it a\/ $ \Cqqm $--form}) if it is
a $ \Cqqm $--Hopf subalgebra of $ \, H \, $ and $ \; H_F
:= \C(q) \otimes_{\C[q,q^{-1}]} \overline{H} = H \, $. Then $ \, \overline{H} \, $ is torsion-free as a
$ \Cqqm $--module, hence $ \, \overline{H} \in \HA \, $.
\par
For any $ \Cqqm $--module $ M $, we set \hbox{$ \, M_1 := M \big/
(q-1) M = \C \otimes_{\C[q,q^{-1}]} M \, $:} this is a $ \C $--module
(via $ \, \Cqqm \rightarrow \Cqqm \Big/ (q-1) = \C \, $), called
{\sl specialization of $ M $ at $ \, q = 1 \, $}.
\par
Given two $ \C(q) $--modules $ A $ and $ B $ and a
$ \C(q) $--bilinear pairing \hbox{$ \, A \times B \longrightarrow F\, $,} for any $ \Cqqm $--submodule $ \, A_\times \subseteq A \, $
we set:
\begin{equation} \label{dual}
{A_\times\phantom{\big)}}^{\hskip-8pt\bullet} \; := \;
\Big\{\, b \in B \,\Big\vert\; \big\langle A_\times, \, b \big\rangle
\subseteq \Cqqm \Big\}
\end{equation}
\noindent
In such a setting, we call $ {A_\times\phantom{\big)}}^{\hskip-8pt
\bullet} $ {\sl the $ \Cqqm $--dual of} $ A_\times \, $.
\medskip
We will call \emph{quantized universal enveloping algebra} (or, in short, QUEA) any $U_q\in\HA$ such that $U_1:=(U_q)_1$ is isomorphic to $U(\gerg)$ for some Lie algebra $\gerg\,$, and we will call \emph{quantized function algebra} (or, in short, QFA) any $\,F_q\in\HA\,$ such that $ \; F_1:={(F_q)}_1 \; $ is isomorphic to $F[G]$ for some connected algebraic group $G$ and, in addition, the following technical condition holds:
$$ {\textstyle \bigcap\limits_{n \geq 0}}{(q-1)}^n F_q \,\; = \;\, {\textstyle \bigcap\limits_{n \geq 0}} {\big( (q-1) F_q \, + \, \Ker(\epsilon_{{}_{F_q}}) \big)}^n $$
\indent We will add the specification that such quantum algebras are \emph{real} whenever the starting object is a $*$--Hopf algebra. As a matter of notation, we write
$$ \U_q \; := \; \C(q) \otimes_{\C[q,q^{-1}]} U_q \quad , \qquad \F_q \; := \; \C(q)\otimes_{\C[q,q^{-1}]} F_q \quad . $$
When $U_q$ is a (real) QUEA, its specialization $U_1$ is a (real) co--Poisson Hopf algebra so that $\gerg$ is in fact a (real) Lie bialgebra. Similarly, for any (real) QFA $F_q$ the specialization $F_1$ is a (real) Poisson-Hopf algebra and therefore $G$ is a (real) Poisson group (see \cite{CP} for details).
\par
On occasions it is useful to consider simultaneous quantizations of both the universal enveloping algebra and the function algebra, or, in a larger generality, of a pair of dual Hopf algebra. Let $ \, H \, , K \in \HA \, $ and assume that there exists a pairing of Hopf algebras $ \, \langle\,\ ,\ \rangle : H \times K \longrightarrow \Cqqm \, $. If the pairing is such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\it (a)}] $ \; H = K^\bullet \, $, $ \, K = H^\bullet \, $
(notation of (\ref{dual})) w.r.t.~the pairing $ \, \mathbb{H} \times \mathbb{K}
\rightarrow \Cq \, $, for $ \, \mathbb{H} := \C(q) \otimes_{\C[q,q^{-1}]} H \, $, $ \, \mathbb{K} := \C(q) \otimes_{\C[q,q^{-1}]} K \, $, induced from $ \, H \times K \rightarrow \Cq \, $
\item[{\it (b)}] \; the Hopf pairing $ H_1 \times K_1 \rightarrow
\C$ given by specialization at $ q = 1$ is perfect (i.e.\ non-degenerate)
\end{itemize}
then we will say that {\it $H$ and $K$ are dual to each other}. Note that all these assumptions imply that the initial pairing between $ H $ and $ K $ is perfect. When $ \, H = U_q(\mathfrak g) \, $ is a QUEA and $ \, K = F_q[G] \, $ is a QFA, if the specialized pairing at $1$ is the natural pairing between $U(\mathfrak g)$ and $F[G]$ we will say that {\it the pair $(U_q(\mathfrak g)\,,F_q[G])$ is a double quantization of $\,(G,\mathfrak g)\,$}.
\bigskip
Let us now move to the case in which $G$ is a Poisson group and $K$ a subgroup. We want to define a reasonable notion of ``quantization'' of $K$ and of the corresponding homogeneous space $G\big/K\,$. There is a standard way to implement this, which actually implies --- cf.~Lemma \ref{strictisproper} and Proposition \ref{coisotropic creed} later on --- the additional constraint that $K$ be {\sl coisotropic}.
\medskip
\begin{definition} \label{def_strict-quant}
Let $ F_q[G] $ and $ U_q(\gerg) $ be a QFA and a QUEA for $ G $ and $ \, \gerg $ and let
$$ \displaylines{
\pi_{F_q} \colon \, F_q[G] \relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow F_q[G] \Big/ \! (q\!-\!1) F_q[G] \, \cong \, F[G] \cr
\pi_{U_q} \colon U_q(\gerg) \relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow U_q(\gerg)\! \Big/ \! (q-\!1) \, U_q(\gerg) \cong U(\gerg) } $$
be the specialization maps. Let $ \calI $, $ \calC $, $ \gerI $ and
$ \gerC $ be the algebraic objects associated with the subgroup $ K $
of $ G $ (see \ref{subgroup}). We call {\sl ``strict quantization''\/}
(and sometimes we shall drop the adjective {\sl ``strict''\/}) of each
of them any object $ \calI_q \, $, $ \calC_q \, $, $ \gerI_q $ or
$ \gerC_q $ respectively, such that
\begin{equation} \label{strictquant}
\begin{array}{ccc}
{\it (a)} \qquad \calI_q \ideal_\ell \coideal \; F_q[G] \;\; ,
& \quad \pi_{F_q}(\calI_q) \, = \, \calI \;\; ,
& \quad \pi_{F_q}(\calI_q) \, \cong \, \calI_q \big/ (q\!-\!1) \, \calI_q \\
{\it (b)} \qquad \calC_q \leq^1 \coideal_\ell \, F_q[G] \;\; ,
& \quad \pi_{F_q}(\calC_q) \, = \, \calC \;\; ,
& \quad \pi_{F_q}(\calC_q) \, \cong \, \calC_q \big/ (q\!-\!1) \, \calC_q \\
{\it (c)} \qquad \gerI_q \ideal_\ell \coideal \;\; U_q(\gerg) \;\; ,
& \quad \pi_{U_q}(\gerI_q) \, = \, \gerI \;\; ,
& \quad \pi_{U_q}(\gerI_q) \, \cong \, \gerI_q \big/ (q\!-\!1) \, \gerI_q \\
{\it (d)} \qquad \gerC_q \leq^1 \coideal_\ell \, U_q(\gerg) \;\; ,
& \quad \pi_{U_q}(\gerC_q) \, = \, \gerC \;\; ,
& \quad \pi_{U_q}(\gerC_q) \, \cong \, \gerC_q \big/ (q\!-\!1) \, \gerC_q
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\medskip
In order to explain this definition let us start by considering the first two conditions in each line of (\ref{strictquant}).
\begin{itemize}
\item[a)] A left ideal and two-sided coideal in a QFA quantizes the Hopf ideal of functions which are zero on a (closed) \emph{subgroup};
\item[b)] a left coideal subalgebra in a QFA quantizes the algebra of invariant functions on a \emph{homogeneous space};
\item[c)] a left ideal and two-sided coideal in a QUEA quantizes the infinitesimal algebra on a \emph{homogeneous space};
\item[d)] a left coideal subalgebra in a QUEA quantizes the universal enveloping subalgebra of a \emph{subgroup}.
\end{itemize}
Once again, we must stress the fact that $\calC_q\,$, as was explained in Proposition \ref{correK}, has to be seen as a quantization of the observable hull $\widehat{K}$ rather than of $K$ itself.
\bigskip
Let us now be more precise about the last condition in the previous definition. By asking $ \; \calI_q \big/ (q-1) \calI_q \cong \pi_{F_q}(\calI_q) = \calI \; $ we mean the following: the specialization map sends $\calI_q$ inside $F[G]$. This map factors through $ \, \calI_q \big/ (q-1) \calI_q \, $; in addition, we require that the induced map $ \, \calI_q \big/ (q-1) \calI_q \longrightarrow F[G] \, $ be a bijection on $ \cal I \, $. Of course this bijection will respect the whole Hopf structure, since $\pi_{F_q}$ does. Now, since
$$ \pi_{F_q}(\calI_q) \, = \, \calI_q \Big/ \big( \calI_q \cap (q-1)F_q[G] \big) $$
this property may be equivalently rephrased by saying that $ \; \calI_q \cap(q\!-\!1)\,F_q[G] = (q\!-\!1) \, \calI_q \; $ as well. The previous discussions may be repeated unaltered for all four algebraic objects under consideration. {\sl An equivalent definition of strict quantizations is therefore the following:}
\begin{equation} \label{strictquant2}
\begin{array}{ccc}
\hskip-11pt (a) \qquad \calI_q \ideal_\ell \coideal \; F_q[G] \;\; ,
& \pi_{F_q}(\calI_q) \, = \, \calI \;\; ,
& \calI_q\cap(q-1)F_q[G] \, = \, (q-1) \, \calI_q \hskip5pt \\
\hskip-11pt (b) \qquad \calC_q \leq^1 \coideal_\ell \, F_q[G] \;\; ,
& \pi_{F_q}(\calC_q) \, = \, \calC \;\; ,
& \calC_q\cap(q-1)F_q[G] \, = \, (q-1) \, \calC_q \hskip5pt \\
\hskip-11pt (c) \qquad \gerI_q \ideal_\ell \coideal \;\; U_q(\gerg) \;\; ,
& \pi_{U_q}(\gerI_q) \, = \, \gerI \;\; ,
& \gerI_q\cap(q-1)U_q(\gerg) \, = \, (q-1) \, \gerI_q \hskip5pt \\
\hskip-11pt (d) \qquad \gerC_q \leq^1 \coideal_\ell \, U_q(\gerg) \;\; ,
& \pi_{U_q}(\gerC_q) \, = \, \gerC \;\; ,
& \gerC_q\cap(q-1)U_q(\gerg) \, = \, (q-1) \, \gerC_q \hskip5pt
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The purpose of the last condition --- which is often mentioned by saying that $ \gerC_q $ is a {\sl flat\/} quantization (typically, in the literature on deformation quantization) --- should be clear: indeed, removing it means losing any control on what is contained, in quantization, inside the kernel of the specialization map.
\smallskip
Although the just mentioned notion of quantization appears to be, in many respect, the ``correct'' one --- and indeed is typically the one considered in literature --- another notion of quantization naturally appears when one has to deal with quantum duality principle.
\smallskip
\begin{definition}\label{properq}
Let $ F_q[G] $ and $ U_q(\gerg) $ be a QFA and a QUEA for $G$ and $\gerg$ and let
$$ \displaylines{
\pi_{F_q} \colon \, F_q[G] \relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow F_q[G] \Big/ \! (q\!-\!1) F_q[G] \; \cong \; F[G] \cr
\pi_{U_q} \colon U_q(\gerg) \relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow U_q(\gerg)\! \Big/ \! (q-\!1) \, U_q(\gerg) \; \cong \; U(\gerg) } $$
be the specialization maps. Let $\nabla := \Delta - \Delta^{{\mathrm op}}$. Let $ \calI $, $ \calC $, $ \gerI $ and $\gerC$ be the algebraic objects associated with the subgroup $ K $
of $G$ (see \ref{subgroup}). We call {\sl ``proper quantization''\/}
of each of them any object $ \calI_q \, $, $ \calC_q \, $, $ \gerI_q $ or
$ \gerC_q $ respectively, such that
\begin{equation}\label{properquant}
\begin{array}{ccc}
(a) \qquad \calI_q \ideal_\ell \coideal \; F_q[G] \;\; ,
& \pi_{F_q}(\calI_q) \, = \, \calI \;\; ,
& \big[ \calI_q \, , \calI_q \big] \, \subseteq \, (q-1) \, \calI_q \hskip5pt \\
(b) \qquad \calC_q \leq^1 \coideal_\ell \, F_q[G] \;\; ,
& \pi_{F_q}(\calC_q) \, = \, \calC \;\; ,
& \big[ \calC_q \, , \calC_q \big] \, \subseteq \, (q-1) \, \calC_q^{\phantom{|}} \hskip5pt \\
(c) \qquad \gerI_q \ideal_\ell \coideal \;\; U_q(\gerg) \;\; ,
& \pi_{U_q}(\gerI_q) \, = \, \gerI \;\; ,
& \; \nabla(\,\gerI_q) \, \subseteq \, (q\!-\!1) \, U_q(\gerg) \wedge \gerI_q \hskip5pt \\
(d) \qquad \gerC_q \leq^1 \!\coideal_\ell \; U_q(\gerg) \;\; ,
& \pi_{U_q}(\gerC_q) \, = \, \gerC \;\; ,
& \; \nabla(\gerC_q) \, \subseteq \, (q\!-\!1) \, U_q(\gerg) \wedge \gerC_q \hskip5pt
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\vskip9pt
The link between these two notions of quantization is the following:
\vskip15pt
\begin{lemma}\label{strictisproper}
Any strict quantization is a proper quantization.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is an easy consequence of definitions. Indeed, let $K$ be a subgroup of $G\,$. If $ \calI_q := \calI\big(\widehat{K}\big)$ is any strict quantization of $ \calI(K)$, we have
$$ \calI_q \cap (q-1) \, F_q \, = \, (q-1) \, \calI_q $$
by assumption, and moreover $ \; \big[ F_q \, , F_q \big] \, \subseteq \, (q-1) \, F_q \; $. Then
$$ \big[\calI_q \, , \calI_q \big] \; \subseteq \; \calI_q \cap \big[ F_q \, , F_q \big] \; \subseteq \; \calI_q \cap (q-1) \, F_q \; = \; (q-1) \, \calI_q $$
thus $ \big[\calI_q \, , \calI_q \big] \subseteq (q-1) \, \calI_q \, $, \; i.e.~$ \calI_q $ is proper. A similar argument works for quantizations of type $ \calC_q(K) \, $. Also, if $ \gerI_q(K) $ is any strict quantization of $ \gerI(K) \, $, then we have
$ \; \gerI_q \cap (q-1) \, U_q \, = \, (q-1) \, \gerI_q \; $ by assumption, and moreover
$\nabla(U_q) \, \subseteq \, (q-1) \, U_q^{\,\wedge 2} \, $. Then
$$ \nabla(\,\gerI_q) \; \subseteq \; \big( U_q \wedge \gerI_q \big) \cap \nabla(U_q) \; \subseteq \; \big( U_q \wedge \gerI_q \big) \cap (q-1) \, U_q^{\,\wedge 2} \; \subseteq \; (q-1) \, U_q \wedge \gerI_q $$
so that $ \gerI_q $ is proper. A similar argument works for quantizations of type $\gerC_q(K)\,$.
\end{proof}
\smallskip
\begin{remark}
{\it The converse to Lemma \ref{strictisproper} here above is false}.
\vskip4pt
Indeed, there exist quantizations (of subgroups / homogeneous spaces) which are proper but {\sl not\/} strict: we present an explicit example --- of type $ \calC_q $ --- in Subsection \ref{non-coiso} later on.
\par
This means that giving two different versions of ``quantization'' does make sense, in that they actually capture two {\sl inequivalent\/} notions --- hierarchically related via Lemma \ref{strictisproper}.
\end{remark}
\medskip
The following statement clarifies why such definitions actually apply only to the (restricted) case of coisotropic subgroups (this result can be traced back to \cite{Lu}, where it is mentioned as \emph{coisotropic creed}).
\medskip
\begin{proposition}\label{coisotropic creed}
Let $K$ be a subgroup of $G$ and assume a proper quantization of it exists. Then $K$ is coisotropic or, in case the quantization is $\calC_q\,$, its observable hull $\widehat{K}$ is coisotropic.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume $ \, \calI_q $ exists. Let $ \, f, g \in \calI\, $, and let $ \, \varphi, \gamma \in \calI_q \, $ with $ \,
\pi_{F_q}(\varphi) = f \, $, $ \, \pi_{F_q}(\gamma) = g \, $. Then by
definition $ \, \{f,g\} = \pi_{F_q}\big( (q-1)^{-1} [\varphi,\gamma] \big)
\, $. But
$$ [\varphi,\gamma] \in \big[\calI_q \, , \calI_q \big] \subseteq(q-1) \, \calI_q $$
\noindent by assumption, hence $ \, (q-1)^{-1} [\varphi,\gamma] \in
\calI_q \, $, thus $ \, \{f,g\} = \pi_{F_q} \big( (q-1)^{-1} [\varphi,\gamma]
\big) \in \pi_{F_q}(\calI_q) = \calI \, $, which means that $ \, \calI \, $
is closed for the Poisson bracket. Thus (see (2.6)) $ K$ is coisotropic.
\par
Similar arguments work when dealing with $ \calC_q \, $, $ \gerI_q $
or $ \gerC_q \, $. We shall only remark that working with $ \calC_q $
we end up with $ \, \calC\big(\widehat{K}\big) = \calC(K) \leq_{\cal P}
F[G] \, $, whence $\widehat{K}$ is coisotropic.
\end{proof}
\vskip5pt
Since we would like to show also what happens in the non coisotropic case, we will consider, also, the weakest possible --- na{\"\i}ve --- version of quantization.
\medskip
\begin{definition}\label{weakq}
Let $ F_q[G] $ and $ U_q(\gerg) $ be a QFA and a QUEA for
$ G $ and $ \gerg \, $ and let
$$ \displaylines{
\pi_{F_q} \colon \, F_q[G] \relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow F_q[G] \Big/ \! (q\!-\!1) F_q[G] \; \cong \; F[G] \cr
\pi_{U_q} \colon U_q(\gerg) \relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow U_q(\gerg)\! \Big/ \! (q-\!1) \, U_q(\gerg) \; \cong \; U(\gerg) } $$
be the specialization maps. Let $ \calI $, $ \calC $, $ \gerI $ and
$ \gerC $ be the algebraic objects associated with the subgroup $ K $
of $ G $ (see \ref{subgroup}). We call {\sl ``weak quantization''\/} of each
of them any object $\calI_q\,$, $\calC_q\,$, $\gerI_q$ or
$\gerC_q$ respectively, such that
\begin{equation} \label{weakquant}
\begin{array}{ccc}
(a) \qquad \calI_q \ideal_\ell \coideal \; F_q[G] \;\; ,
& \;\; \pi_{F_q}(\calI_q) \, = \, \calI \\
(b) \qquad \calC_q \leq^1 \coideal_\ell \, F_q[G] \;\; ,
& \;\; \pi_{F_q}(\calC_q) \, = \, \calC \\
(c) \qquad \gerI_q \ideal_\ell \coideal \;\; U_q(\gerg) \;\; ,
& \;\; \pi_{U_q}(\gerI_q) \, = \, \gerI \\
(d) \qquad \gerC_q \leq^1 \coideal_\ell \, U_q(\gerg) \;\; ,
& \;\; \pi_{U_q}(\gerC_q) \, = \, \gerC
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\smallskip
It is obvious that strict or proper quantizations are weak. Let us remark that every subgroup of $ G $ is quantizable in the weak sense, since we may just consider e.g.~$ \, \calI_q := \pi_{F_q}^{-1}(\calI) \, $ to be a quantization of $ \calI \, $. As na{\"\i}f as it may seem, this remark will play a r{\^o}le in what follows.
\smallskip
Let us lastly remark how the real case should be treated.
\medskip
\begin{definition}\label{realq}
Let $( F_q[G]\,,*) $ and $ (U_q(\gerg)\,,*) $ be a real QFA and a real QUEA for
$ G $ and $ \gerg \, $. Let $\calI_q\,$, $\calC_q\,$, $\gerI_q$ and $\gerC_q$ be subgroup quantizations (either strict, proper or weak). Then such quantizations are called {\sl real} if
\begin{equation}\label{realquant}
{\big( S(\calI_q) \big)}^\star \, = \, \calI_q \; , \qquad \calC_q^\star \, = \, \calC_q \; , \qquad
{\big( S(\gerI_q) \big)}^\star \, = \, \gerI_q \; , \qquad \gerC_q^\star \, = \, \gerC_q
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\medskip
\begin{free text}
{\bf The formal quantization approach.} {\rm In the present work we are dealing with global quantizations. In \cite{CiGa} instead we treated {\sl formal quantizations\/}: these are topological Hopf $ \C[[h]] $--algebras which for $ \, h = 0 \, $ yield back the (formal) Hopf algebras associated with a (formal) group. In this case, such objects as $ \calI_q \, $, $ \calC_q \, $, $ \gerI_q $ and $ \gerC_q $ are defined in the parallel way. However, in \cite{CiGa} we did {\sl not\/} consider the notions of {\sl proper\/} nor {\sl weak\/} quantizations but only dealt with strict quantizations. Actually, one can consider the notions of proper or weak quantizations in the formal quantization setup as well; then the relation between these and strict quantizations will be again the same as we showed here above.
\par
We point out also that the semiclassical limits of formal quantizations are just formal Poisson groups, or their universal enveloping algebras, or subgroups, homogeneous spaces, etc. In any case, this means --- see the end of Subsection \ref{subgrps-homspaces} --- that no restrictions on subgroups apply (all are ``observable'') nor on homogeneous spaces (all are ``quasi-affine'').}
\end{free text}
\bigskip
\section{Quantum duality principle}
Drinfeld's quantum duality principle (cf.~\cite{Dr}, \S 7; see also \cite{Ga1} for a proof) has a stronger version (see \cite{Ga3}) best suited for {\sl our\/} quantum groups --- in the sense of Section \ref{quantizations}.
\medskip
Let $ H $ be any Hopf algebra in $\mathcal{HA}$ and let
\begin{equation}\label{kernelI}
I \; := \; \Ker\, \Big( H \, {\buildrel \epsilon \over {\relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow}}
\; \Cqqm \,{\buildrel {ev}_1 \over {\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow}}\,
\C \,\Big) \; = \; \Ker\,\Big( H \,{\buildrel {ev}_1 \over
{\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow}}\, H \big/ (q\!-\!1) \, H \,{\buildrel
\bar{\epsilon} \over {\relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow}}\; \C \,\Big)
\end{equation}
Then $I$ is a Hopf ideal of $ H $. We define
\begin{equation}\label{check}
H^\vee \; := \; {\textstyle \sum_{n \geq 0}}
\, {(q-1)}^{-n} I^n \; = \;
{\textstyle \bigcup_{n \geq 0}} \, {\big(
{(q-1)}^{-1} I \, \big)}^n \;\; \Big( \subseteq \C(q) \otimes_{\C[q,q^{-1}]} H \Big)
\end{equation}
Notice that, setting $ \, J := \Ker\, \Big( H \,{\buildrel
\epsilon \over {\relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow}}\; \Cqqm \Big) \, $, one has $ \, I = (q-1) \cdot 1_{\scriptscriptstyle H} + J \, $, so that
\begin{equation}\label{check2}
H^\vee \; = \; {\textstyle \sum_{n \geq 0}} \,
{(q-1)}^{-n} J^n \; = \; {\textstyle \sum_{n \geq 0}}
\, {\big( {(q-1)}^{-1} J \, \big)}^n
\end{equation}
Consider, now, for every $n \in \N$ the iterated coproduct
$\Delta^n \colon H \rightarrow H^{\otimes n} \; $ where
\[
\Delta^0:= \epsilon \qquad \Delta^1 :={ \mathrm id}_H \qquad
\Delta^n := \big( \Delta \otimes \id_H^{\otimes (n-2)} \big) \circ \Delta^{n-1}\quad {\mathrm if}\,\, n \ge 2 \; .
\]
For any ordered subset $ \, \Sigma = \{i_1, \dots, i_k\} \subseteq
\{1, \dots, n\} \, $ with $ \, i_1 < \dots < i_k \, $, \, define
the morphism $ \; j_{\mathrm \Sigma} : H^{\otimes k}
\longrightarrow H^{\otimes n} \; $ by
\[
j_{\mathrm\Sigma} (a_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes a_k) :=
b_1 \otimes \cdots\otimes b_n\,\,\mathrm{where}\,\, \left\{\begin{array}{ccc} b_i := 1 &\mathrm{ if} &\, i \notin \Sigma \\
b_{i_m} := a_m &\mathrm{if} & 1 \leq m \leq k
\end{array}\right.
\]
then set $ \, \Delta_\Sigma := j_{\mathrm \Sigma} \circ \Delta^k \, $, $ \, \Delta_\emptyset := \Delta^0 \, $, and $ \, \delta_\Sigma := \sum_{\Sigma' \subset \Sigma} {(-1)}^{n- \left| \Sigma' \right|} \Delta_{\Sigma'} \, $, $ \, \delta_\emptyset := \epsilon \, $. By the inclusion-exclusion principle, the inverse formula
$\Delta_\Sigma = \sum_{\Psi\subseteq \Sigma} \delta_\Psi$ holds. We shall use notation
$ \, \delta_0 := \delta_\emptyset \, $, $ \, \delta_n :=
\delta_{\{1, 2, \dots, n\}} \, $, and the key identity $ \;
\delta_n = {(\id_{\mathrm H} - \epsilon)}^{\otimes n}
\circ \Delta^n \, $, \, for all $ \, n \in \N_+ \, $. Given
$H \in {\mathcal H}$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{prime}
H' := \big\{\, a \in H \,\big\vert\, \delta_n(a) \in
{(q-1)}^n H^{\otimes n} , \; \forall \,\, n \in \N \, \big\}
\quad \big( \! \subseteq H \, \big) \, .
\end{equation}
\smallskip
\begin{theorem}[Global Quantum Duality Principle]\label{GQDP}
(cf.~\cite{Ga3}) For any $ \, H \in \HA \,$ one has:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $H^\vee$ is a QUEA and $H'$ is a QFA. Moreover the following inclusions hold:
\begin{equation}\label{GQDP-incl}
H \subseteq {\big( H^\vee \big)}' \,\; , \quad H \supseteq {\big( H' \big)}^{\!\vee} \; , \quad H^\vee \! = \! \big( \! \big(H^\vee\big)' \,\big)^{\!\vee} \; , \quad H' \! = \! \big( \! \big(H'\big)^{\!\vee} \big)'
\end{equation}
\item[(b)] $H=\big(H^\vee\big)'\iff H$ is a QFA, \; and \; $ H = \big(H'\big)^\vee\iff H$ is a QUEA;
\item[(c)] If $\,G$ is a Poisson group with Lie bialgebra $ \gerg \, $, then
\[
F_q[G]^\vee\Big/(q-1)F_q[G]^\vee=U(\mathfrak g^*)\,\qquad U_q(\mathfrak g)^\prime\big/ (q-1)U_q(\mathfrak g)^\prime= F[G^*]
\]
where $G^*$ is some connected Poisson group dual to $ G $;
\item[(d)] Let $F_q[G]$ and $U_q(\gerg)$ be dual to each other w.r.~to some perfect Hopf pairing. Then ${F_q[G]}^\vee$ and ${U_q(\gerg)}^\prime$ are dual to each other w.r.~to the same pairing.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\bigskip
A number of remarks are due, at this point:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The Poisson group $G^*$ dual to $G$ appearing in {\it (c)\/} of Theorem \ref{GQDP} does depend on $U_q(\gerg)$ which is given as a data. Different choices of $U_q(\gerg)$, though associated with the same Lie bialgebra $\gerg$ may give rise to a different connected Poisson dual group $G^*$.
\item For all Hopf $ \Cq $--algebra $\mathbb H$ the existence of a $\Cqqm$-integral form $H_f$ which is a QUEA at $q=1$ is equivalent to the existence of a $\Cqqm$--integer form $H_u$ which is a QFA at $q=1\,$.
\item All claims above have obvious analogues in the real case.
\item If $H$ is a Hopf algebra and $\Phi\subseteq\mathbb N$ is a finite subset, then (\cite{KT}, Lemma 3.2)
\begin{equation}
\label{deltaone}
\delta_\Phi(ab) \; = {\textstyle \sum\limits_{\Lambda\cup Y=\Phi}} \delta_\Lambda(a) \, \delta_Y(b) \qquad \forall \;\; a, b \in H
\end{equation}
furthermore, if $ \, \Phi \ne \emptyset \, $ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{deltatwo}
\delta_\Phi(ab - ba) \; =
{\textstyle \sum\limits_{\substack{\Lambda \cup Y = \Phi \\ \Lambda \cap Y \not= \emptyset}}}
\big( \delta_\Lambda(a) \, \delta_Y(b) - \delta_Y(b) \,
\delta_\Lambda(a) \big) \qquad \forall \;\; a, b \in H
\end{equation}
The above formulas will be used frequently in what follows
\end{enumerate}
Having clarified the exact statement of quantum duality principle that we have in mind, let us extend it to objects of subgroup type as in Definition \ref{weakq}, i.e.~to left coideal subalgebras and to left ideals and two-sided coideals --- either in $F_q[G]$ or in $U_q(\gerg)\,$. This was already done in \cite{CiGa} where we only considered {\sl local\/} (i.e.~over $\mathbb C[[h]]$) quantizations. Let us remark that the quantum duality principle we have in mind not only exchanges the r{\^o}le of algebras of functions with that of universal enveloping algebras, but also exchanges the r{\^o}le of subgroups with that of homogeneous spaces. At the semiclassical level, the pair of dual objects is given by a coisotropic subgroup $H$ and a Poisson quotient $G^*\!\big/H^\bot\,$. When $H$ is a Poisson subgroup, its orthogonal $H^\bot$ turns out to be normal in $G^*$ and $G^*\!\big/H^\bot \cong H^*$ as a Poisson group, thus recovering the usual quantum duality principle. In particular, we will consider a process moving along the following draft:
$$ \begin{array}{cccccccc}
\hbox{\it (a)} \quad & \calI \; \big( \! \subseteq \! F[G] \, \big) &
\hskip-3pt {\buildrel (1) \over \longrightarrow} \hskip-3pt & \calI_q \; \big( \! \subseteq \!
F_q[G] \, \big) & \hskip-3pt {\buildrel (2) \over \longrightarrow} \hskip-3pt &
{\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \; \big( \! \subseteq \! {F_q[G]}^\vee \, \big) &
\hskip-3pt {\buildrel (3) \over \longrightarrow} \hskip-3pt & {\calI_1}^{\!\curlyvee}
\; \big( \! \subseteq \! U(\gerg^*) \big)
\\
\hbox{\it (b)} \quad & \calC \; \big( \! \subseteq F[G] \, \big) &
\hskip-3pt {\buildrel (1) \over \longrightarrow} \hskip-3pt & \calC_q \; \big( \!
\subseteq \! F_q[G] \,\big) & \hskip-3pt {\buildrel (2) \over \longrightarrow} \hskip-3pt
& {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \; \big( \! \subseteq \! {F_q[G]}^\vee \,\big)
& \hskip-3pt {\buildrel (3) \over \longrightarrow} \hskip-3pt &
{\calC_1}^{\!\!\triangledown} \; \big( \! \subseteq \!
U(\gerg^*) \big) \\
\hbox{\it (c)} \quad & \gerI \; \big( \! \subseteq \! U(\gerg) \,\big) &
\hskip-3pt {\buildrel (1) \over \longrightarrow} \hskip-3pt & \gerI_q \; \big( \! \subseteq
\! U_q(\gerg) \, \big) & \hskip-3pt {\buildrel (2) \over \longrightarrow} \hskip-3pt &
{\gerI_q}^{\! !} \; \big( \! \subseteq \! {U_q(\gerg)}' \,\big) &
\hskip-3pt {\buildrel (3) \over \longrightarrow} \hskip-3pt & {\gerI_1}^{\! !} \;
\big( \! \subseteq \! F[G^*] \big) \\
\hbox{\it (d)} \quad & \gerC \; \big( \! \subseteq \! U(\gerg) \,\big) &
\hskip-3pt {\buildrel (1) \over \longrightarrow} \hskip-3pt & \gerC_q \; \big( \!
\subseteq \! U_q(\gerg) \,\big) & \hskip-3pt {\buildrel (2) \over \longrightarrow} \hskip-3pt
& {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \; \big( \! \subseteq \! {U_q(\gerg)}' \,\big) &
\hskip-3pt {\buildrel (3) \over \longrightarrow} \hskip-3pt & {\gerC_1}^{\!\!\Lsh} \;
\big( \! \subseteq \! F[G^*] \big)
\end{array} $$
\noindent
where arrows $(1)$ are quantizations, arrows $(3)$ are specializations at $q=1$ and the definition of arrows $(2)$ will be the core of what follows. It will turn out that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item each one of the
right-hand-side objects above is one of the four algebraic
objects which describe a closed connected subgroup of $ G^* \, $:
namely, the correspondence is
\vskip1pt
\centerline{ $
\text{\it (a)} \, =\joinrel\Longrightarrow \, \text{\it (c)}
\; , \hskip17pt
\text{\it (b)} \, =\joinrel\Longrightarrow \, \text{\it (d)}
\; , \hskip17pt
\text{\it (c)} \, =\joinrel\Longrightarrow \, \text{\it (a)}
\; , \hskip17pt
\text{\it (d)} \, =\joinrel\Longrightarrow \, \text{\it (b)}
\; . $ }
\item the four quantizations of subgroups of $ G^* $
so obtained are always {\sl proper} --- hence the subgroups of $ G^* $
associated with them are {\sl coisotropic}.
\item if we begin with {\sl
strict\/} quantizations, and we start from a subgroup $K$, then the quantization of the unique
coisotropic closed connected subgroup of $G^* $ mentioned above
is {\sl strict\/} as well, and the subgroup itself is $ K^\perp $
(cf.~Definition \ref{coisotropic duality}), with some care in case {\it (b)}, i.e.~if we
start from $ \calC(K)$. This will partially generalize to {\sl weak\/}
quantizations, for which, starting from a subgroup $K$ of $G$, the unique
coisotropic closed connected subgroup of $G^*$ obtained above is
$ K^{\langle \perp \rangle} $ (cf.~Proposition ~\ref{bot-pro}).
\end{enumerate}
\medskip
Let us fix, in what follows, quantizations $U_q(\mathfrak g)$ and $F_q[G]$ as in Section \ref{quantizations}. Unless explicitly mentioned we will not assume that this is a double quantization. To simplify notations, let us set
$$ \displaylines{
\U_q \, := \, \U_q(\gerg) \quad , \qquad U_q \, := \, U_q(\gerg) \quad ,
\qquad {U_q}' \, := \, {U_q(\gerg)}' \cr
\F_q \, := \, \F_q[G] \quad , \qquad F_q \, := \, F_q[G] \quad , \qquad {F_q}^\vee \, := \, {F_q[G]}^\vee } $$
As mentioned in the first remark after Theorem \ref{GQDP}, this implies that a specific connected Poisson dual $G^*$ of $G$ is selected (it depends on the choice of $ \, U_q := U_Q(\gerg) \, $, not only on $ \gerg $ itself). Let us consider quantum subgroups $ \; \calI_q \, $, $ \, \calC_q\, $, $ \, \gerI_q \, $ and $ \, \gerC_q \, $ as defined in \ref{weakq}.
\eject
\begin{definition}\label{maps}
Using notations as in (\ref{kernelI}) we define:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] \hskip7pt $ \displaystyle{ {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee}
\; := \; {\textstyle \sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty} \, {(q-1)}^{-n} \cdot
I^{\,n-1} \cdot \calI_q \; = \; {\textstyle \sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty}
\, {(q-1)}^{-n} \cdot J^{\,n-1} \cdot \calI_q } $
\item[(b)] \hskip7pt $ \displaystyle{ {\calC_q}^{\!\!
\triangledown} \; := \; {\textstyle \sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty}
{(q-1)}^{-n} \cdot {\big( \calC_q \cap I \,\big)}^n \, = \;
{\textstyle \sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty} \, {(q-1)}^{-n} \cdot
{\big( \calC_q \cap J \big)}^n } $
\item[(c)] \hskip7pt $ \displaystyle{ {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \; :=
\; \Big\{\, x \in \gerI_q \;\Big\vert\; \delta_n(x) \in {(q-1)}^n \,
{\textstyle \sum_{s=1}^n} \, {U_q}^{\otimes (s-1)} \! \otimes \gerI_q
\otimes {U_q}^{\otimes (n-s)} \! , \; \forall\; n \in \N_+ \Big\} } $
\item[(d)] \hskip7pt $ \displaystyle{ {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh}
\; := \; \Big\{\, x \in \gerC_q \;\Big\vert\; \delta_n(x) \in {(q-1)}^n
\, {U_q}^{\otimes (n-1)} \! \otimes \gerC_q \, , \; \forall\; n \in \N_+
\,\Big\} } $
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\smallskip
Let us remark that the following inclusions hold directly by definitions:
\begin{equation}
\label{easy-incl}
(i) \quad {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \supseteq \calI_q \; , \!\!\qquad
(ii) \quad {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \supseteq \calC_q \; ,
\!\!\qquad (iii) \quad {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \subseteq \gerI_q \; ,
\!\!\qquad (iv) \quad {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \subseteq \gerC_q \; .
\end{equation}
\bigskip
\section{Duality maps}
In the present section we will prove properties of the four Drinfeld--type maps defined in the previous section, namely the maps $ \, \calI_q \mapsto {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \, $, $ \, \calC_q \mapsto {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \, $,
$ \, \gerI_q \mapsto {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $ and $ \, \gerC_q \mapsto {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, $.
Let us recall that such maps do not change, as we will see, the algebraic properties of subobjects, but interchanges quantized function algebra with quantum enveloping algebra and therefore quantizations of coisotropic subgroups will be sent to quantizations of (embeddable) homogeneous spaces --- of the dual quantum group --- and viceversa.
\par
Let us start by considering the map $ \, \calI_q \mapsto {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \, $.
\smallskip
\begin{proposition}\label{curlyvee} Let $ \, \calI_q = \calI_q(K) \, $ be
a left ideal and two-sided coideal in $F_q[G]\,$, that is a weak quantization (of type $ \calI \, $) of some subgroup $ K $ of $ G \, $. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item \; $ {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee}$ is a left ideal and two-sided coideal in ${F_q[G]}^\vee$;
\item \; if $ \, \calI_q $ is {\sl strict}, then $ {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} $ is strict too, i.e.~$ \;\; {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \! \bigcap \, (q-1) \,
{F_q[G]}^\vee \, = \; (q-1) \, {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \;\, $;
\item \; there exists a coisotropic subgroup $L$ of $G^*$ such that $ {\calI_q(K)}^{\!\curlyvee} \! = \gerI_q(L) \; $: namely, $ {\calI_q(K)}^{\!\curlyvee} $ is a {\sl proper} quantization, of type $ \gerI $, of some coisotropic subgroup $ L $ of $ \, G^* \, $;
\item \; in the {\sl real case}, i.e.~if the quantization $ \calI_q $ is a real one, $ {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} $ is real too, i.e.~$ \, {\big( S \big(
{\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big) \big)}^* \! = {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee}\,$. Therefore claims (1--3) still hold in the framework of {\sl real} quantum subgroups.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
{\it (1)} \, Consider that $ \, {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \, $
is the left ideal of $ {F_q}^{\!\vee} $
generated by $ \, {(q-1)}^{-1} \, \calI_q \; $; therefore, in
order to prove $ \, {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \coideal\, {F_q}^{\!\vee}
\, $ it is enough to show that $ \, \Delta \big( {(q\!-\!1)}^{-1} \,
\calI_q \big) \, \subseteq \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} \!\otimes {\calI_q}^{\!
\curlyvee} + \, {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \!\otimes {F_q}^{\!\vee} \, $. Since $ \calI_q $ is a coideal of $ F_q \, $, we have
\begin{equation}\label{coideal}
\Delta \big(\! {(q\!-\!1)}^{-1} \, \calI_q \,\big) \, \subseteq \,
F_q \otimes {(q\!-\!1)}^{-1} \, \calI_q + {(q\!-\!1)}^{-1} \, \calI_q
\otimes F_q \, \subseteq \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} \!\otimes {\calI_q}^{\!
\curlyvee} + {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \!\otimes {F_q}^{\!\vee}
\end{equation}
whence $ \, {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \coideal\, {F_q}^{\!\vee} \, $
follows, and the first claim is proved.
\vskip5pt
{\it (2)} \, Assume $ \calI_q $ to be a {\sl strict} quantization, so that $ \, \calI_q \bigcap \, (q-1) \, F_q \, = \,(q-1) \, \calI_q \; $.
\par
Let $\, J := \Ker\, \big(\epsilon \, \colon \, F_q
\longrightarrow \Cqqm \,\big) \; $. Then
\[
J \! \mod (q \!- \! 1) F_q = \Ker\,(\epsilon){\big|}_{F[G]} \; = \; \mathfrak{m}_e
\]
and $\mathfrak{m}_e\Big/ {\mathfrak{m}_e}^{\!2} = \gerg^*$,
the cotangent Lie bialgebra of $ G \, $. Let $ \, \{y_1,\dots,y_n\}$ be a subset of
$ \mathfrak{m}_e $ whose image in the local ring of $ G $ at the identity $ e$
is a local system of parameters, and pull it back to a subset $\{j_1,\dots,j_n\}$
of $J$. Let $ \widehat{F}_q $ be the $ J $--adic completion
of $ F_q$. From \cite{Ga3}, Lemma 4.1, we know that the set of ordered
monomials $\big\{ j^{\,\underline{e}} \;\big|\; \underline{e} \in
\N^{\,n} \big\}$ (where hereafter $ \, j^{\,\underline{e}} :=
\prod_{s=1}^n j_s^{\,\underline{e}(i)} \, $, \, for all $ \,
\underline{e} \in \N^{\,n} \, $) is a $ \Cqqm $--pseudobasis
of $ \widehat{F}_q \, $,
which means that each element of $ \widehat{F}_q $ has a unique
expansion as a formal infinite linear combination of the $ j^{\,
\underline{e}} $'s. In a similar way, the $ (q-1) $--adic
completion of $ {F_q}^{\!\vee} $ admits $ \, \big\{ {(q -
1)}^{-|\underline{e}|} j^{\,\underline{e}} \;\big|\; \underline{e}
\in \N^{\,n} \big\} \, $ as a $ \Cqqm $--pseudobasis, where
$ \, |\underline{e}| := \sum_{i=1}^n \underline{e}(i) \, $.
\par
For our purposes we need a special choice of the set $ \{j_1,\dots, j_n\}$ adapted to the smooth subvariety
$K$ of $ G $. By general theory we can choose $ \{y_1, \dots, y_n\} $ so that $ \; y_1 $, $ \dots $,
$ y_k \in \mathfrak{m}_e \; $ and $ \; y_{k+1} , \dots , y_n \in
\calI(K) \, $, where $ \, k = \text{\it dim}\,(K) \, $.
We can also choose the lift $ \{j_1, \dots, j_n\} $ of $ \{y_1,
\dots, y_n\} $ inside $ J $ so that $ j_s $ is a lift of
$ y_s $, for all $ \, s = 1, \dots, k \, $, \, and $ \,
j_{k+1}, \dots, j_n \in \calI_q \, $. With these assumptions,
it's easy to see that
$$ \varphi\in {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, (q-1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} \;\;\Longrightarrow\;\;
{(q-1)}^n \, \varphi \in \big( J^{n-1} \cdot \calI_q\big) \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, (q-1) \, J^n $$
\noindent for some $n \in \N $, which in turn yields $ \; {(q-1)}^n \varphi \in J^{n-1} \cdot
\big( \calI_q \, \bigcap \, (q-1) \, J \big) \, $. Since
$$ \calI_q \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, (q-1) \, J \; \subseteq \; \calI_q \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, (q-1) \, F_q \; = \; (q-1) \, \calI_q $$
we conclude that $ \; {(q-1)}^n \, \varphi \in (q-1) \, J^{n-1} \cdot \calI_q \, $,
\, whence $ \; \varphi \in (q-1) \, {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \, $.
The converse inclusion $ \, {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \bigcap \,
(q-1) \, {F_q}^\vee \, \supseteq \, (q-1) \, {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \, $ is obvious, hence claim {\it (2)\/} is proved.
\vskip5pt
{\it (3)} \, It is an obvious statement that $ {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} $ is a weak quantization of its image $ \, \pi_{{F_q}^{\!\vee}} \big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big) \, $: in particular,
$ \pi_{{F_q}^{\!\vee}} \big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big) \ideal_\ell \! \coideal \; \pi_{{F_q}^{\!\!\vee}} \big( {F_q}^{\!\vee} \big) = U\big(\gerg^*\big) \, $ implies that
$\pi_{{F_q}^{\!\vee}} \big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big) = \gerI(L) \, $ for some subgroup $L$ of $G^* $. Thus $ {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} $ is a weak quantization, to be called $ \gerI_q(L) $, of $ \gerI(L) \, $, and it is even strict if $ \calI_q $ itself is strict, as we've just seen. Now we show that such quantization $ \gerI_q(L) $ turns out to be always {\sl proper}.
\par
In fact, (\ref{coideal}) implies $\nabla \big( {(q-1)}^{-1} \, \calI_q \big) \, \subseteq \, {(q-1)}^{-1} \, \big( F_q \wedge \calI_q \big) \, $. On the other hand $F_q \wedge \calI_q \, \subseteq \, J \wedge \calI_q \, \subseteq \,
{(q-1)}^2 \, {F_q}^\vee \!\wedge {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee}$, thus, finally,
$\nabla\big({\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee}\big) \in (q-1) \, {F_q}^\vee \!\wedge {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee}$, which means that $ {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} $ is proper and {\it (3)\/} holds.
\vskip5pt
{\it (4)} \, This is an obvious consequence of definitions.
\end{proof}
\smallskip
\begin{remark}
In functorial language we may say that the map
$\calI_q \mapsto {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee}$ establishes a functor between quantizations of coisotropic subgroups of $G$ and quantizations of (embeddable) homogeneous spaces of $G^*$, moving from a global to a local description, sending each type of quantization in a proper one and preserving strictness. Indeed, we should make precise what are the ``arrows'' in our categories of ``quantum subgroups'' or ``quantum homogeneous spaces'', and how the functor acts on these: we leave these details to the interested reader.
\end{remark}
\medskip
Let us move on to properties of the map $ \; \calC_q \mapsto
{\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \; $.
\smallskip
\begin{proposition}\label{triangledown} Let $ \, \calC_q = \calC_q(K) \, $ be a left coideal subalgebra in $F_q[G]$.
Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item \; $ {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown}$ is a left coideal subalgebra in ${F_q[G]}^\vee$;
\item \; if $ \, \calC_q $ is {\sl strict}, then $ {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} $ is strict too, i.e.~$ \,\; {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \bigcap \, (q-1) \, {F_q[G]}^\vee \, = \; (q-1) \, {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \;\, $.
\item \; there exists a coisotropic subgroup $L$ of $G^*$ such that $ {\calC_q(K)}^{\!\triangledown} \! = \gerC_q(L) \, $: namely, $ {\calC_q(K)}^{\!\triangledown} $ is a {\sl proper} quantization, of type $ \gerC \, $, of some coisotropic subgroup $ L $ of $ \, G^* \, $;
\item \; in the {\sl real case}, i.e.~if the quantization $ \calC_q $ is a real one, $ {\calC_q(K)}^{\!\triangledown} $ is real too, i.e.~$ \, {\big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big)}^* \! = {\calC_q}^{\!\!
\triangledown} \, $. Therefore claims (1--3) still hold in the framework of {\sl real} quantum subgroups.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof uses essentially the same arguments as the previous one.
\vskip5pt
{\it (1)} \, By the very definitions $ \; {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown}
\! \leq^1 \! {F_q}^{\!\vee} := {F_q[G]}^\vee \, $. More precisely, $ \,
{\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \, $ is (by construction) the unital
$ \Cqqm $--subalgebra of $ {F_q}^{\!\vee} $ generated by $ \,
{(q-1)}^{-1} \, {(\calC_q)}^+ \, $, \, where $ \, {(\calC_q)}^+
:= \calC_q \bigcap\, J \, $. So to get $ \, {\calC_q}^{\!\!
\triangledown} \coideal_\ell \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} \, $ we must
only prove $ \, \Delta \big( {(q\!-\!1)}^{-1} {(\calC_q)}^+
\big) \! \subseteq {F_q}^{\!\vee} \!\otimes {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown}
\, $. But $ \, \calC_q \, \coideal_\ell \, F_q \, $, so:
\begin{equation}\label{coideal2}
\Delta \big( {(q-1)}^{-1} {(\calC_q)}^+ \big) \, \subseteq \, F_q
\otimes {(q-1)}^{-1} {(\calC_q)}^+ \, \subseteq \, {F_q}^{\!\vee}
\!\otimes {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown}
\end{equation}
therefore $ \,{\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \, \coideal_\ell \, {F_q}^{\!\vee}$, and claim {\it (1)\/} is proved.
\vskip5pt
{\it (2)} \, Now suppose $ \calC_q $ to be a {\sl strict\/}
quantization, i.e. $ \; \calC_q \bigcap \, (q-1) \, F_q \, =
\, (q-1) \, \calC_q \; $. We need an explicit description of $ {F_q}^{\!\vee} $
and of $ {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \, $. This goes along the
same lines followed to describe $ {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} $ in the
proof of Proposition \ref{curlyvee}: but now the choice of the subset $ \{ j_1,
\dots, j_n\} $ of $ J $ is different.
\par
First, since $ \, \calC(K) = \calC\big(\widehat{K}\big) \, $
we can assume that $ \, K = \widehat{K} \, $, \, i.e.~$ K $ is
observable. Then we can choose $ \big\{ j_1, \dots, j_n \big\} $
so that $ \, j_{k+1}, \dots, j_n \in J \, \bigcap \, \calC_q =
{\calC_q}^{\!+} \, $ (where again $ \, k = \text{\it dim}\,(K)
\, $) and, letting $ \; y_s := j_s \! \mod (q-1) \, F_q \; $,
the set $ \big\{ y_1, \dots, y_n \big\} $ yields a local system
of parameters at $ \, e \in G \, $ (in the localized ring), as
before; now in addition we have $ \, y_{k+1}, \dots, y_n \in
\mathfrak{m}_e \, \bigcap \, \calC(K) =: {\calC(K)}^+ \, $. With
these assumptions, the $ (q-1) $--adic completion of
$ {F_q}^{\!\vee} $ admits $ \, \big\{ {(q-1)}^{-|\underline{e}|}
j^{\,\underline{e}} \;\big|\; \underline{e} \in \N^{\,n} \big\} \, $
as a $ \Cqqm $--pseudobasis, like before, but in addition the
same analysis can be done for the $ (q-1) $--adic completion
of $ {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} $ (just because $ \calC_q $
is {\sl strict\/}), which then has $ \Cqqm $--pseudobasis $ \,
\big\{ \prod_{s=k+1}^n j_s^{\,e_s} \,\big|\, (e_{k+1},\dots,e_n) \in
\N^{\,n-k} \big\} \, $. From these description of the completions,
and comparing the former with $ {F_q}^{\!\vee} $ and $ \calC_q
\, $, we easily see that $ \; {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown}
\, \bigcap \, (q-1) \, {F_q}^\vee \, \subseteq \, (q-1) \,
{\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \, $. The converse is trivial,
hence claim {\it (1)\/} is proved.
\vskip5pt
{\it (3)} \, It follows directly from {\it (1)\/} that
$ {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} $ is a weak quantization
of its image $ \, \pi_{{F_q}^{\!\vee}} \big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown}
\big) \, $: \, in particular, $ \, \pi_{{F_q}^{\!\vee}} \big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!
\triangledown} \big) \leq^1 \! \coideal_\ell \; \pi_{{F_q}^{\!\!\vee}} \big(
{F_q}^\vee \big) = U \big( \gerg^* \big) \, $ means that $ \, \pi_{{F_q}^{\!\vee}}
\big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big) = \gerC(L) \, $ for some subgroup
$ L$ of $G^*$. Thus $ {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} $ is a weak quantization --- to be called $ \gerC_q(L) $ --- of $ \gerC(L)$, and it is even strict if $ \calC_q $ itself is strict, by claim {\it (1)}. Now in addition we show that, in any case, such a quantization $ \gerC_q(L) $ is always {\sl proper}.
\par
From (\ref{coideal2}) we have
$$ \nabla \big( {(q-1)}^{-1} \, {(\calC_q)}^+ \big) \, \subseteq
\, {(q-1)}^{-1} J \wedge {(\calC_q)}^+ \subseteq \, {(q-1)}^{-1+2}
\, {F_q}^\vee \!\wedge {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \, = \, (q-1)
\, {F_q}^\vee \!\wedge {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} $$
which implies exactly that $ {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} $ --- which by definition is the unital subalgebra generated by ${(q-1)}^{-1} \, {(\calC_q)}^+$ --- is proper.
\vskip3pt
{\it (4)} \, This follows directly from definitions and from
${\calC_q}^{\!*} = \, \calC_q$, which holds
by assumption.
\end{proof}
\smallskip
\begin{remark}
In functorial language we may say that the map $\calC_q\mapsto {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown}$ establishes a functor between quantized homogeneous spaces of $G$ and quantizations of coisotropic subgroups of $G^*$, moving from a global to a local description, sending each type of quantization in a proper one and preserving strictness. Again, to be precise, several details need to be fixed, and are left to the reader.
\end{remark}
\medskip
The third step copes with the map $ \, \gerI_q \mapsto
{\gerI_q}^{\! !} \; $.
\smallskip
\begin{proposition}\label{esclamativo}
Let $ \, \gerI_q = \gerI_q(K) \, $ be a left ideal and two-sided coideal in $U_q(\gerg)\,$, weak quantization (of type $ \gerI $) of some coisotropic subgroup $ K $ of $G\,$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \; $ \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !}$ is a left ideal and two-sided coideal in ${U_q(\gerg)}' $;
\item \; if $ \, \gerI_q $ is {\sl strict}, then $ {\gerI_q}^{\! !} $ is strict too, i.e.~$ \,\; {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \bigcap \, (q-1) \, {U_q(\gerg)}'
\, = \; (q-1) \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \;\, $;
\item \; there exists a coisotropic subgroup $L$ in $G^*$ such that $ {\gerI_q(K)}^! \! = \calI_q(L) \, $: namely, $ {\gerI_q(K)}^! $ is a {\sl proper} quantization, of type $ \calI \, $, of some coisotropic subgroup $ L $ of $ \, G^* \, $;
\item \; in the {\sl real case}, i.e.~if the quantization $ \gerI_q $ is a real one, $ {\gerI_q}^{\! !} $ is real too, i.e.~$ \, {\big(S \big( {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \big) \big)}^* \! = {\gerI_q}^{\! !} $. Therefore claims (1--3) still hold in the framework of {\sl real} quantum subgroups.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
{\it (1)} \, Let $ a \in {U_q}' $ and $b \in{\gerI_q}^{\! !}\, $: by definition of ${\gerI_q}^{\! !}$,
from $ \, \gerI_q \ideal_\ell U_q \, $ and from (\ref{deltaone}) we get
$$ \delta_n(a b) \, \in \, {(q-1)}^n {\textstyle \sum\limits_{s=1}^n} {U_q}^{\otimes (s-1)} \!
\otimes \gerI_q \otimes {U_q}^{\otimes (n-s)} $$
so $ \; a \, b \in {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $, thus $ \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \ideal_\ell {U_q}' \, $.
\par
As to the coideal property, it is proven resorting to $ (q-1) $--adic
completions, arguing as in the proof of Proposition 3.5 in \cite{Ga3}, and basing on the fact that $ \gerI_q
\coideal \; U_q \, $. Details are left to the reader.
\vskip5pt
{\it (2)} \, Assume now $ \gerI_q $ to be {\sl strict}. The
inclusion
$$ {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, (q-1) \, {U_q(\gerg)}' \; \supseteq \; (q-1) \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} $$
\noindent is trivially true, and we must prove the converse. Let $ \, \eta \in {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, \bigcap \, (q-1) \, {U_q(\gerg)}' \, $. We have
$$ \delta_n(\eta) \; \in \; {(q-1)}^n \left( \left( {\textstyle
\sum_{s=1}^n} {U_q}^{\otimes (s-1)} \otimes \gerI_q \otimes
{U_q}^{\otimes (n-s)} \right) {\textstyle \bigcap} \, (q-1)
\, {U_q}^{\otimes n} \right) $$
\noindent for all $ \, n \in \N_+ \, $. But then our assumption gives
$$ \displaylines{
\left(\, {\textstyle \sum\limits_{s=1}^n} \; {U_q}^{\otimes (s-1)}
\otimes \gerI_q \otimes {U_q}^{\otimes (n-s)} \right) \, {\textstyle
\bigcap} \; (q-1) \, {U_q}^{\otimes n} = \hfill \cr
\hfill = {\textstyle \sum\limits_{s=1}^n} \; {U_q}^{\otimes
(s-1)} \otimes \Big( \gerI_q \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \, (q \! - \! 1)
\, U_q \Big) \otimes {U_q}^{\otimes (n-s)} = \, {(q \! - \! 1)}^{n+1}
{\textstyle \sum\limits_{s=1}^n} {U_q}^{\otimes (s-1)} \otimes \gerI_q
\otimes {U_q}^{\otimes (n-s)} \cr } $$
which, in turn, means $ \, \eta \in (q-1) \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $. Thus
$ \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, \bigcap \, (q-1) \, {U_q(\gerg)}' \, \subseteq
(q-1) \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $, as expected.
\vskip5pt
{\it (3)} Claim {\it (1)\/} implies that $ {\gerI_q}^{\! !} $ is a weak quantization
of its image, therefore there exists a subgroup $L$ of $G^*$ such that
$ \; \pi_{{U_q}^{\!\prime}} \big( {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \,\big) = \calI(L) \, $ . This quantization is even strict if $ \gerI_q $ itself is strict, by the previous. Now we show that this quantization $ \calI_q(L) $ is always {\sl proper\/} --- hence the subgroup $L$ is coisotropic, by Lemma \ref{coisotropic creed}.
\vskip3pt
Recall that, by definition, $ \calI_q(L) $ is proper if and only if $ \, [x,y] \in (q-1) \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $ for all $ \, x, y \in {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $. From definitions we have
$$ [x,y] \in (q \! - \! 1) \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \; \Longleftrightarrow \; \delta_n \big( [x,y] \big) \in
{(q \! - \! 1)}^{n+1} \, {\textstyle \sum_{s=1}^n} \, {U_q}^{\otimes (s-1)} \otimes \gerI_q \otimes
{U_q}^{\otimes (n-s)} \quad \forall\; n \! \in \! \N $$
Then by formula (\ref{deltatwo}) we have (for all $n \in \N$)
\begin{equation}\label{quarantuno}
\delta_n \big([x,y]\big) \; = \; {\textstyle \sum_{\substack{ \Lambda
\cup Y = \{1,\dots,n\} \\ \Lambda \cap Y \not= \emptyset }}}
\hskip-1pt \big( \, \delta_\Lambda(x) \, \delta_Y(y) \, - \,
\delta_Y(y) \, \delta_\Lambda(x) \, \big)
\end{equation}
while (with notation of \S 4)
$$ \displaylines{
\delta_\Lambda(x) \in {(q-1)}^{\vert \Lambda \vert} \cdot
j_\Lambda \left( {\textstyle \sum_{s=1}^{\vert \Lambda \vert}}
\, {U_q}^{\otimes (s-1)} \otimes \gerI_q \otimes {U_q}^{\otimes
(\vert \Lambda \vert -s)} \right) \, , \cr
\delta_Y(y) \in {(q-1)}^{\vert Y \vert} \cdot j_Y \left(
{\textstyle \sum_{s=1}^{\vert Y \vert}} \, {U_q}^{\otimes (s-1)}
\otimes \gerI_q \otimes {U_q}^{\otimes (\vert Y \vert -s)} \right)
\, ; \cr } $$
since $\Lambda \cup Y = \{1, \dots, n\}$ and
$\Lambda \cap Y \not= \emptyset \, $ we have $ \, \vert \Lambda
\vert + \vert Y \vert \geq n + 1 \, $; moreover, for each index
$ \, i \in \{1, \dots, n \} \, $ we have $ \, i \in \Lambda \, $
(and otherwise $ \, \text{\sl Im}\,(j_\Lambda) \, $ has $ 1 $ in
the $ i $--th spot) or $ \, i \in Y$ (with the like remark
on $\text{\it Im}\,(j_Y)$ if not). As $ \gerI_q $ is a
left ideal of $ U_q$, we conclude
$$ \displaylines{
\quad \delta_\Lambda(x) \cdot \delta_Y(y) \, , \; \delta_Y(y)
\cdot \delta_\Lambda(x) \, \in \, {(q-1)}^{\vert \Lambda \vert +
\vert Y \vert} \, {\textstyle \sum_{s=1}^n} \, {U_q}^{\otimes (s-1)}
\otimes \gerI_q \otimes {U_q}^{\otimes (n-s)} \hfill \cr
\hfill \subseteq {(q-1)}^{n+1} \, {\textstyle \sum_{s=1}^n} \,
{U_q}^{\otimes (s-1)} \otimes \gerI_q \otimes {U_q}^{\otimes (n-s)}
\quad \cr } $$
so that (\ref{quarantuno}) gives $\displaystyle{ \delta_n \big( [x,y] \big) \in
{(q\!-\!1)}^{n+1} \, {\textstyle \sum_{s=1}^n} \, {U_q}^{\otimes (s-1)}
\otimes \gerI_q \otimes {U_q}^{\otimes (n-s)} } $, as expected.
\vskip5pt
{\it (4)} \, In the real case, $ \, \big( S \big( {\gerI_q}^{\! !\,} \big) \big)^* \! = {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $ follows at once from definitions and from the identity $ \, \big( S(\gerI_q) \big)^{\!*} \! = \gerI_q \; $.
\end{proof}
\smallskip
\begin{remark}
In functorial language we may say that the map $ \gerI_q \mapsto
{\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $ establishes a functor between quantized homogeneous spaces of $G$ and quantizations of coisotropic subgroups of $G^*$, moving from a local to a global description, sending each type of quantization in a proper one and preserving strictness. Once more, details are left to the interested reader.
\end{remark}
\medskip
The fourth and last step is devoted to the map $ \, \gerC_q\mapsto {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, $.
\smallskip
\begin{proposition}\label{Lsh}
Let $\gerC_q = \gerC_q(K)$ be a subalgebra and left coideal in $U_q(\gerg)\,$, weak quantization (of type $ \gerC $) of some subgroup $ K $ of $ G \, $. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \; ${\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh}$ is a subalgebra and left coideal in $U_q(\gerg)^\prime$;
\item \; if $\gerC_q $ is {\sl strict}, then $ {\gerI_q}^{\! !} $ is strict too, i.e.~$ \,\; {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \bigcap \, (q-1) \, {U_q(\gerg)}^\prime\, = \; (q-1) \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \;\, $;
\item \; there exists a coisotropic subgroup $L$ in $G^*$ such that $ {\gerC_q(K)}^{\!\Lsh} \! = \calC_q(L) \, $: namely, $ {\gerC_q(K)}^{\!\Lsh} $ is a {\sl proper} quantization, of type $ \calC \, $, of some coisotropic subgroup $ L $ of $ G^* \, $;
\item \; in the {\sl real case}, i.e.~if the quantization $ \gerC_q $ is a real one, $ {\gerC_q(K)}^{\!\Lsh} $ is real too, i.e.~$ \, {\big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \,\big)}^* \! = {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, $. Therefore claims (1--3) still hold in the framework of {\sl real} quantum subgroups.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The whole proof is very similar to that of Proposition \ref{esclamativo}.
\vskip5pt
{\it (1)} \, By definitions, $1 \in \gerC_q$ and $\delta_n(1) = 0$ for all $n \in \N$, so $1 \in {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} $. Let $ \, x, y \in {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh}
\, $ and $ \, n \in \N \, $; by (\ref{deltaone}) we have $ \delta_n(x y) =
\sum_{\Lambda \cup Y = \{1,\dots,n\}} \delta_\Lambda(x) \, \delta_Y(y)
\, $. Each of the factors $ \, \delta_\Lambda(x) \, $ belongs to a
module $ \, {(q-1)}^{\vert \Lambda \vert} \, {U_q}^{\otimes ( \vert
\Lambda \vert - 1 )} \! \otimes X \, $ where the last tensor factor
is either $ \, X = \gerC_q \, $ (if $ \, n \in \Lambda \, $) or $ \,
X = \{1\} \subset \gerC_q \, $ (if $ \, n \not\in \Lambda \, $), and
similarly for $\delta_Y(y)$; in addition $ \, \Lambda \cup Y
= \{1,\dots,n\} \, $ implies $ \, \vert \Lambda \vert + \vert Y \vert
\geq n \, $, \, and summing up $ \, \delta_n(x y) \in {(q \! - \! 1)}^n
{U_q}^{\otimes (n-1)} \! \otimes \gerC_q \, $, whence $ \, x \, y \in
{\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh}$. Thus $ {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh}$ is a subalgebra of ${U_q}' $.
\par
In order to prove that $ \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh}$ is a left coideal in ${U_q}^{\!\prime}$, one can again resort to $ (q-1) $--adic
completions, with exactly the same arguments as in the proof of Proposition
3.5 in \cite{CiGa}, starting from the fact that $\gerC_q \, \coideal_\ell\, U_q $. Details are left to the reader.
\vskip5pt
{\it (2)} \, Assume, now, that $ \gerC_q $ is a {\sl strict\/} quantization, i.e.
$ \gerC_q \bigcap \, (q-1) \, F_q \, = \, (q-1) \, \gerC_q$. Then
clearly ${\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, \bigcap \, (q-1) \, {U_q(\gerg)}'
\, \supseteq \, (q-1) \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, $, and we must prove
the converse inclusion. Let $ \; \kappa \in {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, \bigcap \, (q-1) \, {U_q(\gerg)}' \, $. Then:
$$ \displaylines{
\delta_n(\kappa) \, \in \, {(q-1)}^n \left( \left( {U_q}^{\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \gerC_q \right) {\textstyle \bigcap} \, (q-1) \, {U_q}^{\otimes n} \right) \; = \hfill \cr
\hfill = \; {(q-1)}^n \Big( {U_q}^{\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \big( \gerC_q \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \, (q \! - \! 1) \, U_q \big) \Big)
\, = \; {(q-1)}^{n+1} \cdot {U_q}^{\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \gerC_q
\cr } $$
which means $ \, \kappa \in (q-1) \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, $. Therefore
$ \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, \bigcap \, (q-1) \, {U_q(\gerg)}' \subseteq (q-1) \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} $, as claimed.
\vskip5pt
{\it (3)} \, The above algebraic properties show that $ {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} $ is a weak quantization of its image $ \pi_{{U_q}^{\!\prime}} \big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \,\big)$; thus there exists a coisotropic subgroup $L$ of $G^*$ such that: $ \pi_{{U_q}^{\!\prime}} \big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \,\big) = \calC(L) $. Thus $ {\gerI_q}^{\! !} $ is a weak quantization --- to be called $ \calI_q(L) $ --- of $ \calI(L) \, $, and it is even strict if $ \gerI_q $ itself is strict, by the previous. Now we show first that this quantization $ \calI_q(L) $ is always {\sl proper} --- hence the subgroup $ L $ is coisotropic, by Lemma \ref{coisotropic creed}.
\vskip2pt
Proving that $ \calI_q(L) $ is proper amounts to show that $ [x,y] \in (q-1) \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh}$ for all $ x, y \in {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh}$. By definition we have
$$ [x,y] \, \in \, (q \! - \! 1) \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \;\;
\Longleftrightarrow \;\; \delta_n \big( [x,y] \big) \, \in
\, {(q \! - \! 1)}^{n+1} {U_q}^{\otimes (n-1)} \otimes
\gerC_q \quad \forall\; n \! \in \! \N $$
and formula (\ref{deltatwo}) gives, for all $ n \in \N$,
\begin{equation}\label{quarantadue}
\delta_n \big([x,y]\big) \, = \, {\textstyle \sum_{\substack{ \Lambda
\cup Y = \{1,\dots,n\} \\ \Lambda \cap Y \not= \emptyset }}}
\hskip-1pt \big( \, \delta_\Lambda(x) \, \delta_Y(y) \, - \,
\delta_Y(y) \, \delta_\Lambda(x) \, \big)
\end{equation}
while
$$ \delta_\Lambda(x) \, \in \, {(q \! - \! 1)}^{\vert \Lambda \vert} \,
j_\Lambda \Big( {U_q}^{\otimes (|\Lambda|-1)} \otimes \gerC_q \Big) \; ,
\quad \delta_Y(y) \, \in \, {(q \! - \! 1)}^{\vert Y \vert} \,
j_Y \Big( {U_q}^{\otimes (|Y|-1)} \otimes \gerC_q \Big) \; . $$
Now, $\Lambda \cup Y = \{1, \dots, n\} $ and $\Lambda \cap Y \not= \emptyset$
give $\vert \Lambda\vert + \vert Y \vert \geq n + 1 $, and since $ \gerC_q $
is a subalgebra of $ U_q $ we get
$$ \delta_\Lambda(x) \, \delta_Y(y) \, , \; \delta_Y(y)
\, \delta_\Lambda(x) \, \in \, {(q \! - \! 1)}^{\vert \Lambda \vert
+ \vert Y \vert} \, {U_q}^{\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \gerC_q \subseteq
{(q \! - \! 1)}^{n+1} {U_q}^{\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \gerC_q $$
so that (\ref{quarantadue}) yields
$$ \delta_n \big([x,y] \big) \, \in \, {(q \! - \! 1)}^{n+1} {U_q}^{\otimes (n-1)}\otimes \gerC_q $$
thus $ \; [x,y] \in (q-1) \,{\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \; $.
\vskip5pt
{\it (4)} \, In the real case $ \, {(\gerC_q)}^* = \gerC_q \, $: this and the very definitions imply the claim.
\end{proof}
\smallskip
\begin{remark}
In functorial language we may say that the map $ \, \gerC_q
\mapsto {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh}$ establishes a functor between quantization of coisotropic subgroups of $G$ and quantizations of Poisson homogeneous spaces of $G^*$, moving from a local to a global description, sending each type of quantization in a proper one and preserving strictness. We leave to the interested reader all details which still need to be fixed.
\end{remark}
\vskip9pt
We now move to connectedness properties of the coisotropic subgroup $L$ identified in Propositions \ref{esclamativo} and \ref{Lsh}.
\smallskip
\begin{proposition}\label{connection}
{\ }
\par
\begin{enumerate}
\item \; Let $\,\gerI_q(K)$ \ be a {\sl strict} quantization (of type $ \gerI $) of a (coisotropic) subgroup $K$ in $G\,$. Then the subgroup $ L$ of $ G^* $ such that $ \, {\gerI_q(K)}^! = \calI_q(L) \, $ is {\sl connected}.
\item \; Let $ \, \gerC_q(K) $ be a {\sl strict} quantization of type $ \gerC$ of a (coisotropic) subgroup $K$ of $G\,$. Then the subgroup $ L $ of $ G^* $ such that $ \, {\gerC_q(K)}^! = \calC_q(L) \, $ is {\sl connected}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
{\it (1)} \, Saying that the (closed) subgroup $ L $ is connected is equivalent to saying that its function algebra $ \, F[L] = F\big[G^*\big] \Big/ \calI(L) \, $ has no non-trivial idempotents.
Note that, since $ F\big[G^*\big] $ is the specialization of ${U_q}^{\!\prime} $ at $ q = 1$ and $ \calI(L) $ is the similar specialization of ${\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $, the quotient $ F[L] = F \big[ G^* \big] \Big/ \calI(L)$ is canonically isomorphic to the specialization at $ \, q = 1 \, $ of $ \, {U_q}^{\!\prime} \!\Big/ \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $. Let $\overline{a}$ be an idempotent in $F[L]$: if we take any lift of it in ${U_q}^{\!\prime} \! \Big/ \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $, \, i.e.~any $a \in {U_q}^{\!\prime} \! \Big/ \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} $ such that $\overline{a} = a \! \mod (q\!-\!1) \, {U_q}^{\!\prime} \! \Big/ \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $. We must prove:
\begin{equation}
\label{idempotent}
a^2 \, \equiv \, a \mod (q\!-\!1) \, {U_q}^{\!\prime} \! \Big/ \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad a \! \mod (q\!-\!1) \, {U_q}^{\!\prime} \! \Big/ \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, \in \, \big\{ 0, 1 \big\}
\end{equation}
We can clearly reduce to the case when $\epsilon (\overline{a}) = 0$: in fact, if $\overline{a}^{\,2} = \overline{a} $ then $ \epsilon(\overline{a}) $ is necessarily $ 0 $ or $ 1 $ (for it is unipotent too), and in the latter case we then find that $\overline{a}_0 := 1 - \overline{a}$ is idempotent and $\epsilon(\overline{a}_0) = 0$. Also the lift $a \in {U_q}^{\!\prime} \! \Big/ {\gerI_q}^{\! !} $ can be chosen, in this case, such that: $\epsilon(a) = 0$.
To simplify notation, we set $ H := U_q \! \Big/ \gerI_q $ and $ H{\text{\bf '}} := {U_q}^{\!\prime} \! \Big/ {\gerI_q}^{\! !} $. We shall prove that, if $ a \in H{\text{\bf '}}$,
$\epsilon(a) = 0$ and $ a^2 \equiv a \mod (q\!-\!1) \, H{\text{\bf '}}$, then $a \equiv 0 \mod (q\!-\!1) \, H{\text{\bf '}}$, i.e.~$ a \in (q\!-\!1) \, H{\text{\bf '}} \, $; in fact, this will give (\ref{idempotent}).
\par
Having assumed that $ \gerI_q $ to be strict, $H{\text{\bf '}}$ identifies with
a $ \Cqqm $--submodule of $H$ given in terms of the coalgebra structure of the latter: the embedding is the one canonically induced by the maps $ {U_q}^{\!\prime}
\lhook\joinrel\longrightarrow \, U_q \relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow
U_q \Big/ \, \gerI_q $. In fact, the kernel of the latter map is
$ {U_q}^{\!\prime} \, \bigcap \, \gerI_q $ (by strictness assumption). It is easy to see from definitions that ${U_q}^{\!\prime} \, \bigcap \, \gerI_q = {\gerI_q}^{\! !}$.
Thus $H{\text{\bf '}}$ does embed into $H$:
\begin{equation}\label{quarantaquattro}
H{\text{\bf '}}=
\bigg\{\, \eta \in H \,\;\bigg|\;\, \delta_n(\eta)
\in {(q\!-\!1)}^n \, H^{\! \otimes \,n}\, , \; \forall \; n \in \N \;\bigg\} \, .
\end{equation}
\indent Now, $a^2 \, \equiv \, a \mod (q\!-\!1)H{\text{\bf '}}$ means $ a = a^2 + (q\!-\!1) \, c$ for some $ \, c \in H{\text{\bf '}} $; since $\epsilon(a) =0$, we have $\epsilon(c) = 0$ as well. Applying $\delta_n $ to the identity $ a = a^2 + (q\!-\!1) \, c$ and using formula (\ref{deltaone}) we get
\[
\delta_n(a) \; = \; \delta_n\big(a^2\,\big) \, + \, (q\!-\!1) \,
\delta_n(c) \; = \hskip-1pt {\textstyle \sum\limits_{\Lambda \cup Y
= \{1,\dots,n\}}} \hskip-11pt \delta_\Lambda(a) \; \delta_Y(a) \; +
\; (q-1) \; \delta_n(c)
\]
for all $n \in \N$, which --- noting that $\delta_0(a) := \epsilon(a) = 0$
yields:
\begin{equation}\label{quarantacinque}
\delta_n(a) \;\; = {\textstyle \sum\limits_{\substack{\Lambda \cup Y = \{1,\dots,n\} \\ \Lambda, Y \not= \emptyset}}} \hskip-3pt \delta_\Lambda(a) \; \delta_Y(a) \; + \; (q-1) \;
\delta_n(c)
\end{equation}
Since $c \in H{\text{\bf '}} \, $, the last summand $(q\!-\!1) \, \delta_n(c) $ in right-hand side of (\ref{quarantacinque}) belongs to $ \, (q\!-\!1)^{n+1} \, H^{\otimes n}$, thanks to (\ref{quarantaquattro}).
Similarly, since $a \in H{\text{\bf '}}$ we have $ \delta_k(a) \in (q\!-\!1)^k \, H^{\otimes k}$ for all $k \in \N$, by (\ref{quarantaquattro}) again: therefore each summand
$\delta_\Lambda(a) \; \delta_Y(a)$ in right-hand side of (\ref{quarantacinque}) belongs to
$ (q-1)^{n+1} \, H^{\otimes n} $ as well. But then (\ref {quarantacinque}) yields
$ \delta_n(a) \, \in \, {(q-1)}^{n+1} H^{\otimes n}$ for all $n \in \N$, which, again by (\ref{quarantaquattro}), means exactly that $ \, a \in (q\!-\!1) \, H{\text{\bf '}}$. This ends the proof of the first claim.
\vskip5pt
{\it (2)} \, We will use similar arguments to show this claim: $ F[L] = F\big[G^*\big] \Big/ \calI(L)$ has no non-trivial idempotents. Since ${\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} = \calC_q(L)$ and $\calC(L) = \calC \big(\widehat{L}\,\big)$, we can assume $L = \widehat{L}$, i.e.~$ L $ is observable. This implies $\calI(L) = \Psi\big(\calC(L)\big)$, which is clearly the specialization at $q = 1$ of
$\Psi\big(\calC(L)\big) = {U_q}^{\!\prime} \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh}$; therefore,
$ F[L] = F\big[G^*\big] \Big/ \calI(L) \, $ is canonically isomorphic to the specialization at
$q = 1$ of $ {U_q}^{\!\prime} \! \Big/ \, {U_q}^{\!\prime} \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \; $.
\par
From now on, one can mimic step by step the proof of part {\it (1)}.
The only detail to modify is that one must take $U_q \, {\gerC_q}^{\!+} =:
\Psi(\gerC_q)$ in place of $ \gerI_q\, $, \, and ${U_q}^{\!\prime} \, \big({\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh}\big)^{\!+} =: \Psi \big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \big)$ in place of $ {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $. Letting $H := U_q \Big/ \Psi(\gerC_q) \, $, and
$ \, H{\text{\bf '}} := {U_q}^{\!\prime} \! \Big/ \Psi \big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh}
\big) \, $, the thesis amounts to prove that
\[
a \in H{\text{\bf '}}\, ,\quad a^2 \equiv a \mod (q\!-\!1) \, H{\text{\bf '}} \Rightarrow
a \equiv 0 \mod (q\!-\!1) \, H{\text{\bf '}}
\]
(In fact also $a \equiv 1 \mod (q\!-\!1) \, H{\text{\bf '}}$ would be ok, but, arguing as before, we'll restrict to the case $\epsilon(a) = 0$).
\par
As $ \gerC_q $ is strict, it is easy to see from definitions that
${\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} = {U_q}^{\!\prime} \, \bigcap \, \gerC_q$, hence $\Psi \big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \big) := {U_q}^{\!\prime} \, \big({\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh}\big)^{\!+} = {U_q}^{\!\prime} \big( {U_q}^{\!\prime}
\cap \gerC_q \big)^{\!+} $: the latter is the kernel of the map
$ {U_q}^{\!\prime} \lhook\joinrel\longrightarrow U_q
\relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow U_q \Big/ U_q \, \gerC_q^{\;+}$, so
$H{\text{\bf '}}$ embeds as a $ \Cqqm $--submodule of $ H$, namely
\[
H{\text{\bf '}}= \bigg\{\, \eta \in H \;
\bigg| \, \delta_n(\eta) \in {(q\!-\!1)}^n \, H^{\! \otimes \,n} \, , \; \forall \; n \in
\N \,\bigg\} \, .
\]
With this description at hand, computations are as in the proof of claim {\it (1)}.
\end{proof}
\vskip7pt
Our next results are about the behavior of quantum subgroups under composition of Drinfeld-like maps.
\vskip13pt
\begin{proposition}\label{reciprocity}
Let $\,\calI_q\,$, $ \calC_q \, $, $ \gerI_q \, $, $ \gerC_q \, $ be weak quantizations of a subgroup $K$ of $G\,$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \;\qquad $ \calI_q \subseteq \big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big)^! \;\; , \quad \calC_q \subseteq \big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \,\big)^{\!\Lsh} \;\; $;
\item \;\qquad $ \gerC_q \supseteq \big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \big)^{\!\triangledown} \;\; , \quad \gerI_q \supseteq \big( {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \,\big)^{\! \curlyvee} \;\; $.
\end{enumerate}
\eject
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
{\it (1)} \, By the very definitions, for any $n \in \N$ we have
\[ \displaylines{
\delta_n\big(\calI_q\big) \, \subseteq \, {J_{\scriptscriptstyle F_q}}^{\!\!\otimes n} \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, \Big( {\textstyle \sum_{s=0}^n} \, {F_q}^{\!\otimes s} \otimes \calI_q \otimes {F_q}^{\!\otimes (n-s-1)} \Big) = {\textstyle \sum_{s=0}^n} \, {J_{\scriptscriptstyle F_q}}^{\!\!\otimes s} \otimes \calI_q \otimes {J_{\scriptscriptstyle F_q}}^{\!\!\otimes (n-s-1)} \subseteq \hfill \cr
\hfill \subseteq \, {(q-1)}^n \cdot {\textstyle \sum_{s=0}^n} \, {\big( {F_q}^{\!\vee} \big)}^{\otimes s} \! \otimes {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \!\otimes {\big( {F_q}^{\!\vee} \big)}^{\otimes (n-s-1)} \cr }
\]
which means exactly $ \, \calI_q \subseteq {\big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big)}^! \; $. Similarly we can remark that:
\[
\delta_n\big(\calC_q\big) \, \subseteq \, {J_{\scriptscriptstyle F_q}}^{\!\!\otimes n} \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, \big( {F_q}^{\!\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \calC_q \big) \, = \, {J_{\scriptscriptstyle F_q}}^{\!\!\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \big( \calC_q \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, J_{\scriptscriptstyle F_q} \big) \, \subseteq \, {(q \! - \! 1)}^n {\big( {F_q}^{\!\vee} \big)}^{\!\otimes (n-1)} \!
\otimes {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown}
\]
which means $\calC_q \subseteq \big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big)^{\!\Lsh}$. Therefore claim {\it (1)\/} is proved.
\vskip5pt
{\it (2)} \, As $ \big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \big)^{\!\triangledown} $ is generated --- as an algebra --- by $ \, {(q \! - \! 1)}^{-1} {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \, J_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}$, it is enough to show that the latter space is contained in $ \gerC_q \, $. Let, then, $x' \in {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \, J_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}} \, $. Surely $\delta_1\big(x'\big) \in (q-1) \, \gerC_q$, hence $x' = \delta_1\big(x'\big) + \epsilon\big(x'\big) \in (q-1) \, \gerC_q$. Therefore
$ {(q-1)}^{-1} x' \in \gerC_q \, $, q.e.d. Similarly, $ \big( {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \big)^{\! \curlyvee}$ is the left ideal of $ {U_q}^{\!\prime} $ generated by ${(q \! - \! 1)}^{-1} \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \, J_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}$, thus --- since $ \, {U_q}^{\!\prime} \subseteq U_q \, $ --- we must only prove that ${(q \! - \! 1)}^{-1} \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \, J_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}$ is contained in $ U_q$. Again, if
$ y' \in {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \, J_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}} \, $ then $ \, y'
= \delta_1\big(y'\big) + \epsilon\big(y'\big) \in (q-1) \, \gerI_q $. Thus we get $ \, {(q-1)}^{-1} y' \in \gerI_q \, $, and {\it (2)\/} is proved.
\end{proof}
\vskip7pt
\noindent {\bf Remarks:}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] \, By repeated applications of the previous proposition it is easily proved that:
\[
{\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} = \Big(\! \big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big)^! \Big)^{\!\!\curlyvee} \;\; , \quad {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} = \Big(\! \big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big)^{\!\Lsh} \Big)^{\!\!\triangledown} \;\; , \quad {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} = \Big(\! \big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \,\big)^{\!\triangledown} \Big)^{\!\!\Lsh} \;\; , \quad {\gerI_q}^{\! !} = \Big(\! \big( {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \,\big)^{\! \curlyvee} \Big)^{\! !}
\]
\item[(b)] \, Since we proved that Drinfeld-like maps always produce {\sl proper\/} quantizations, and that proper quantizations specialize to {\sl coisotropic\/} subgroups (cf.~Proposition \ref{coisotropic creed}), the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \; if $ \, \calI_q = \big( \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \big)^! \, $ then $\calI_q$ is a proper quantization (of type $\calI$) of a coisotropic subgroup of $G\,$;
\item \; if $ \, \calC_q = {\big( \calC_q^{\,\triangledown} \big)}^{\!\Lsh} \, $ then $\calC_q$ is a proper quantization (of type $\calC$) of a coisotropic subgroup of $G\,$;
\item \; if $ \, \gerI_q = {\big( \gerI_q^{\;!} \big)}^{\!\curlyvee} \, $ then $\gerI_q$ is a proper quantization (of type $\gerI$) of a coisotropic subgroup of $G\,$;
\item \; if $ \, \gerC_q = \big( \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,} \big)^{\!\triangledown} \, $ then $\gerC_q$ is a proper quantization (of type $\gerC$) of a coisotropic subgroup of $G\,$.
\end{enumerate}
\item[(c)] \, Since the whole construction is independent of the existence of real structures all the above claims hold true in the {\sl real} framework as well.
\end{itemize}
\vskip7pt
Next result reads as a converse of the previous one, holding for Drinfeld maps applied to {\sl strict\/} quantizations:
\vskip17pt
\begin{theorem}\label{converse}
{\ }
\par
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] \; if $\,\calI_q$ is a strict quantization of a coisotropic subgroup of $G$ then $ \, \calI_q = \big( \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \big)^! \, $;
\item[(b)] \; if $\,\calC_q$ is a strict quantization of a coisotropic subgroup of $G$ then $\,\calC_q = {\big( \calC_q^{\,\triangledown} \big)}^{\!\Lsh}\,$;
\item[(c)] \; if $\,\gerI_q$ is a strict quantization of a coisotropic subgroup of $G$ then $\,\gerI_q = {\big( \gerI_q^{\;!} \big)}^{\!\curlyvee}\,$;
\item[(d)] \; if $\,\gerC_q$ is a strict quantization of a coisotropic subgroup of $G$ then $\,\gerC_q = \big( \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,} \big)^{\!\triangledown}\,$;
\item[(e)] \; The above claims hold true in the {\sl real} framework as well.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
{\it (a)} \, Let $\calI_q$ be a strict quantization; by Proposition \ref{reciprocity}{\it (1)}, it is enough to prove $ \, \calI_q \supseteq \big( \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \big)^! \, $. For this we apply the argument used in \cite{Ga3}, Proposition 4.3, to prove that $ \, F_q \supseteq {\big({F_q}^{\!\vee}\big)}' \, $.
\par
We denote by $L$ the closed, coisotropic, connected subgroup of $ G^* $ such that
$ \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} = \gerI_q(L) \, $, as in Proposition \ref{curlyvee}, and with $\gerl $ its Lie algebra.
\par
Let $ \, y' \in \big( \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \big)^! \, $. Then there is $ \, n \in \N \, $ and $ \, y^\vee \in \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \setminus (q-1) \, \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \, $ such that $ \, y' = {(q-1)}^n y^\vee \, $.
As we have seen strictness of $\calI_q$ implies strictness of $\calI_q^{\,\curlyvee}$ and therefore
$ \, y^\vee \not\in (q-1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} \, $, and so for $ \, \overline{y^\vee} := y^\vee \! \mod (q-1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee}$ we have $ \, \overline{y^\vee} \not= 0 \in {F_q}^{\!\vee}{\Big|}_{q=1} \!\! = \, U\big(\gerg^*\big) \, $.
\par
As $ {F_q}^{\!\vee} $ is a quantization of $ U \big( \gerg^* \big)$, we can pick an ordered basis
$ \, {\{b_\lambda\}}_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \, $ of $ \gerg^*$, and a subset $ \, {\big\{ x^\vee_\lambda \big\}}_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \, $ of $ \, {(q-1)}^{-1} J_{\scriptscriptstyle F_q} \, $ so that $ \, x^\vee_\lambda \hskip-1,4pt \mod (q-1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} = b_\lambda \, $ for all $\lambda \in \Lambda\,$;
therefore $ \, x^\vee_\lambda = {(q-1)}^{-1} x_\lambda \, $ for some $ \, x_\lambda \in J_{\scriptscriptstyle F_q} \, $,
for all $ \lambda$ (like in the proof of \cite{Ga3} Proposition 4.3). In addition, we choose now the basis and its lift so that a subset $ \, {\{b_\theta\}}_{\theta \in \Theta} \, $ (for some suitable $ \, \Theta \subseteq \Lambda \, $) is a basis of $ \gerl \, $, and, correspondingly, ${\big\{ x^\vee_\theta \big\}}_{\theta \in \Theta} \subseteq \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \, $. Since
$\overline{y^\vee} \not= 0 \in {F_q}^{\!\vee}{\big|}_{q=1} \!\! = \, U\big(\gerg^*\big) \, $, by the Poincar\'e-Birkhoff-Witt theorem there is a non-zero polynomial $ \, P \big( {\{ b_\theta \}}_{\theta \in \Theta} \big) \, $ in the $ b_\theta $'s such that $ \; \overline{y^\vee} = P \big( {\{ b_\theta \}}_{\theta \in \Theta} \big) \, $, hence
\[
y^\vee - P \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\theta \big\}}_{\theta \in \Theta} \big) \; \in \; \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\; (q-1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} \, = \, (q-1) \; \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \quad .
\]
This implies $y^\vee = P \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\theta \big\}}_{\theta \in \Theta} \big) + {(q-1)}^\nu \, y^\vee_1 \,$ for some $\nu \in \N_+ $ where $y^\vee_1 \in \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \setminus (q-1) \, \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee}$.
\par
One can see, like in \cite{EK}, Lemma 4.12, that the polynomial $ P $ has degree not greater than $ n \, $. Thus
$y' = {(q \! - \! 1)}^n y^\vee = {(q \! - \! 1)}^n P \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\theta \big\}}_{\theta \in \Theta} \big) + {(q \! - \! 1)}^{n+\nu} y^\vee_1 \, $, and
\[
{(q \! - \! 1)}^n P \big( \big\{ x^\vee_\theta \big\}_{\theta \in \Theta} \big) = {(q \! - \! 1)}^n P \big( {\big\{ {(q \! - \! 1)}^{-1} \, x_\theta \big\}}_{\theta \in \Theta} \big) \in \calI_q
\]
by a degree argument. But now, Proposition \ref{reciprocity} gives $ \, \calI_q \subseteq \big( \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \big)^!$. Then
\[
y'_1 \, := \, y' - {(q \! - \! 1)}^n P \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\mu \big\}}_{\theta \in \Theta} \big) \in \big( \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \big)^! \;\quad \text{and} \quad\; y'_1 \, = \, {(q \! - \! 1)}^{n+\nu} y^\vee_1 = {(q \! - \! 1)}^{n_1} y^\vee_1
\]
where $n_1 := n + \nu > n$, and $y^\vee_1 \in \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \setminus (q-1) \, \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee}$. We can then repeat the construction, with $ y'_1 $ instead of $ y' $,
$ n_1 $ instead of $ n$, etc.: iterating, we find an increasing sequence of numbers ${\big\{ n_s \big\}}_{s \in \N}$ (with $n_0 := n $) and a sequence of polynomials ${\big\{ P_s \big( {\{ X_\theta \}}_{\theta \in \Theta} \big) \big\}}_{s \in \N}$ (again $P_0 := P$) such that the degree of $ P_s \big( {\{ X_\theta \}}_{\theta \in \Theta} \big) $ is at most
$ n_s$, and the formal identity $ \, y'=\sum_{s \in \N} {(q-1)}^{n_s} P_s \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\theta \big\}}_{\theta \in \Theta} \big) \, $ holds.
\par
Now set $I_n := \sum_{k=1}^n {(q-1)}^{n-k} \, {\calI_q}^{\!k}$ (for all $ n \in \N$), and let $\widehat{\calI}_q$ be the topological completion of $\calI_q$ with respect to
the filtration provided by the $ I_n $'s. Then, by construction,
${(q \! - \! 1)}^{n_s} P_s \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\theta \big\}}_{\theta
\in \Theta} \big) \in I_n \, $ for all $ s \! \in \! \N \, $. This yields
$$ {\textstyle \sum\limits_{s \in \N}} {(q \! - \! 1)}^{n_s}
P_s \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\theta \big\}}_{\theta \in \Theta} \big)
\, \in \, \widehat{\calI}_q \qquad \text{and} \qquad
y' = {\textstyle \sum\limits_{s \in \N}} {(q \! - \! 1)}^{n_s} P_s \big({\big\{ x^\vee_\theta \big\}}_{\theta \in \Theta} \big) $$
where the last is an identity in $ \widehat{\calI}_q \, $. Thus $ \, y' \in \big(
\calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \big)^! \bigcap \, \widehat{\calI}_q \, $.
Again with the same arguments as in \cite{Ga3}, we see that $ \; \calI_q
\bigcap {(q \! - \! 1)}^\ell \, \widehat{\calI}_q = {(q \! - \! 1)}^\ell
\, \calI_q \; $ for any $\ell \in \N\,$. This together with
$ \; y' \in \big( \calI_q^{\,\curlyvee} \big)^! \bigcap \,
\widehat{\calI}_q \; $ give $ \, y' = {(q-1)}^{-m} \eta \, $
for some $ m \in \N$ and $ \, \eta \in \calI_q \,$;
thus
\[
\eta = {(q \! - \! 1)}^m \, y' \in \calI_q \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \,
{(q \! - \! 1)}^m \, \widehat{\calI}_q = {(q \! - \! 1)}^m \, \calI_q\, ,
\]
whence $y' \in \calI_q$, q.e.d.
\vskip5pt
{\it (b)} \, Assume that $ \calC_q $ is a strict quantization;
by Proposition \ref{reciprocity}{\it (2)}, it is enough to prove $ \, \calC_q \supseteq {\big( \calC_q^{\,\triangledown} \big)}^{\!\Lsh}$. To do that, we resume the argument used in \cite{Ga3}, Proposition 4.3, to show that $F_q \supseteq {\big({F_q}^{\!\vee}\big)}' $.
\par
We denote by $L$ the closed, coisotropic, connected subgroup of $ G^* $ such that
$ \calC_q^{\,\triangledown} = \gerC_q(L)$ and with $ \gerl $ its Lie algebra.
\par
Let $c' \in {\big( \calC_q^{\,\triangledown} \big)}^{\!\Lsh}$. Then there exist $n \in \N$ and $c^\vee\in \calC_q^{\,\triangledown} \setminus (q-1) \, \calC_q^{\triangledown} $ such that
$c' = {(q-1)}^n c^\vee$. Note that strictness of $\calC_q$ implies strictness of
$\calC_q^{\, \triangledown}$; hence
$ c^\vee \not\in (q-1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} $, so that for $\overline{c^\vee} := c^\vee \! \mod (q-1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee}$ we have $ \overline{c^\vee} \not= 0 \in {F_q}^{\!\vee}{\big|}_{q=1} \!\! = \, U\big(\gerg^*\big)$. Moreover, $ \; \overline{c^\vee} \in \calC_q^{\,\triangledown}{\big|}_{q=1} \! = \gerC(L) = U(\gerl) \subseteq U\big(\gerg^*\big)$.
\par
Since $ {F_q}^{\!\vee} $ is a quantization of $ U \big( \gerg^* \big)$, we can fix an ordered basis $ \, {\{ b_\lambda \}}_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \, $ of $ \gerg^* \, $, \, and a subset
$ {\big\{ x^\vee_\lambda \big\}}_{\lambda \in \Lambda} $ of
$ {(q-1)}^{-1} J_{\scriptscriptstyle F_q} $ such that \hbox{$ x^\vee_\lambda \hskip-1,4pt \mod (q-1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} = b_\lambda$} for all $\lambda \in \Lambda$; so
$ x^\vee_\lambda = {(q-1)}^{-1} x_\lambda$ for some $ x_\lambda \in J_{\scriptscriptstyle F_q}$, for all $ \lambda$ (as in the proof of \cite{Ga3} Proposition 4.3). We can choose both the basis and its lift so that a subset $ {\{b_\mu\}}_{\mu \in M} $ is a basis of $ \gerl $ (here $M \subseteq \Lambda $), and, correspondingly,
$ {\big\{ x^\vee_\mu \big\}}_{\mu \in M} \subseteq {(q \! - \! 1)}^{-1} J_{\scriptscriptstyle F_q} \bigcap \, \calC_q^{\,\triangledown}$. Since $ \overline{c^\vee} \not= 0 \in {F_q}^{\!\vee}{\Big|}_{q=1} \!\! = \, U\big(\gerg^*\big) \, $, by the Poincar\'e-Birkhoff-Witt theorem there exists a non-zero polynomial $ P \big( {\{ b_\mu \}}_{\mu \in M} \big)$ in variables
$ b_\mu $'s such that $\overline{c^\vee} = P \big( {\{b_\mu\}}_{\mu \in M} \big)$, hence:
\[
c^\vee - P \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\mu \big\}}_{\mu \in M} \big)
\; \in \; \calC_q^{\,\triangledown} \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\;
(q-1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} \, = \, (q-1) \;
\calC_q^{\,\triangledown} \, .
\]
Therefore, $ c^\vee = P \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\mu \big\}}_{\mu \in M} \big) + {(q-1)}^\nu \, c^\vee_1$ for some $\nu \in \N_+$ where $c^\vee_1 \in \calC_q^{\,\triangledown} \setminus (q-1) \, \calC_q^{\,\triangledown}$.
\par
Now, we can see --- like in \cite{EK}, Lemma 4.12 --- that the degree of $P$ is not greater than $ n \, $. Then
\[
c' = {(q-1)}^n c^\vee = {(q-1)}^n P \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\mu \big\}}_{\mu \in M} \big) + {(q-1)}^{n+\nu} c^\vee_1
\]
with $ {(q-1)}^n P \big( \big\{ x^\vee_\mu \big\}_{\mu \in M} \big) = {(q-1)}^n P \big( {\big\{ {(q-1)}^{-1} \, x_\mu \big\}}_{\mu \in M} \big) \in \calC_q$ because $ P $ has degree boun\-ded (from above) by $ n$. As $\calC_q \subseteq {\big( \calC_q^{\,\triangledown} \big)}^{\!\Lsh}$, by Proposition \ref{reciprocity}, we get
\[
c'_1 :=c' - {(q \! - \! 1)}^n P \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\mu \big\}}_{\mu \in M} \big) \in {\big( \calC_q^{\,\triangledown} \big)}^{\!\Lsh} \quad \text{and} \quad c'_1 = {(q \! - \! 1)}^{n+\nu} c^\vee_1 = {(q \! - \! 1)}^{n_1} c^\vee_1
\]
with $ n_1 := n + \nu > n$, \, and $c^\vee_1 \in \calC_q^{\,\triangledown} \setminus (q-1) \, \calC_q^{\,\triangledown}$. We can repeat this construction with $ c'_1 $ in place of $ c' $,
$ n_1 $ in place of $ n $, etc.. Iterating, we get an increasing
sequence of numbers ${\big\{ n_s \big\}}_{s \in \N}$ ($ n_0 \! := \! n \, $) and a sequence of polynomials
${\big\{ P_s \big( {\{ X_\mu \}}_{\mu \in M} \big) \big\}}_{s \in \N}$ ($ P_0 \! := \! P$) such that the degree of
$ P_s \big( {\{ X_\mu \}}_{\mu \in M} \big) $ is at most $ n_s$, and
$c' = \sum_{s \in \N} {(q-1)}^{n_s} P_s \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\mu \big\}}_{\mu \in M} \big)$.
\par
Consider
$$ I_{\calC_q} := \Ker\,\Big( \calC_q \, \stackrel{\epsilon}{\relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow} \, \Cqqm \,\stackrel{ev_1}{\relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow }\, \C \Big) = \Ker\,\Big( \calC_q \,\stackrel{ev_1}{\relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow}\, \calC_q \big/ (q-1) \, \calC_q \,\stackrel{\bar{\epsilon}}{\relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow}\, \C \Big) $$
By construction, we have $ \, {(q-1)}^{n_s} P_s \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\mu \big\}}_{\mu \in M} \big) \in {I_{\calC_q}}^{\hskip-3pt n_s} \, $ for all $ \, s \in \N \, $; in turn, this means that $ \; \sum_{s \in \N} {(q-1)}^{n_s} P_s \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\mu \big\}}_{\mu \in M} \big) \in \widehat{\calC}_q \, $, the latter being the $ I_{\calC_q} $--adic completion of $ \calC_q \, $, and the formal expression $ \, c' = \sum_{s \in \N} {(q-1)}^{n_s} P_s \big( {\big\{ x^\vee_\mu \big\}}_{\mu \in M} \big) \, $ is an identity in $ \widehat{\calC}_q \, $: therefore $c' \in {\big( \calC_q^{\,\triangledown} \big)}^{\!\Lsh} \bigcap \, \widehat{\calC}_q $. Acting as in \cite{Ga3}, again, we see that
$ \calC_q \bigcap {(q-1)}^\ell \, \widehat{\calC}_q = {(q-1)}^\ell \, \calC_q \, $ for all $ \, \ell \in \N$. Getting back
to $c' \in {\big( \calC_q^{\,\triangledown} \big)}^{\!\Lsh} \bigcap \, \widehat{\calC}_q$, we have $c' = {(q-1)}^{-m} \kappa$ for some $m \in \N$ and $\kappa \in \calC_q \; $; thus $\kappa = {(q \! - \! 1)}^m \, c' \! \in \calC_q \bigcap {(q \! - \! 1)}^m \, \widehat{\calC}_q = {(q \! - \! 1)}^m \, \calC_q$, whence $c' \in \calC_q$, q.e.d.
\vskip5pt
{\it (c)} Let $\gerI_q$ be a strict quantization: by Proposition \ref{reciprocity}{\it (2)\/} it is enough to prove $\gerI_q \subseteq {\big( \gerI_q^{\;!} \big)}^{\!\curlyvee}$; so given $y \in \gerI_q $, we must prove that $y \in {\big( \gerI_q^{\;!} \big)}^{\!\curlyvee}$. Recall that $\gerI_q \subseteq U_q = \big( {U_q}^{\!\prime} \big)^\vee$, the last identity following from Theorem \ref{GQDP}. By construction,
\[
\big( {U_q}^{\!\prime} \big)^\vee \, = \; {\textstyle \sum_{n \geq 0}} \, {(q-1)}^{-n} \, I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}^{\;n} \;\; , \qquad I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}} \, := \, \big( {U_q}^{\!\prime} \big)^+ + (q-1) \, {U_q}^{\!\prime}
\]
so for $y \in \gerI_q \subseteq U_q = \big( {U_q}^{\!\prime} \big)^\vee$ there exists $N \in \N$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{quarantasei}
y_+ \; := \; {(q-1)}^N \, y \; \in \; I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}^{\;N} \; \subseteq \; {U_q}^{\!\prime}
\end{equation}
Strictness of $ \gerI_q \,$, i.e.~$ \, \gerI_q \bigcap \, (q-1) \, U_q = (q-1) \, \gerI_q \, $, implies
$$ \Big(\, {\textstyle \sum\limits_{s=1}^n} {U_q}^{\!\otimes (s-1)} \otimes \gerI_q \otimes {U_q}^{\!\otimes (n-s)} \Big) \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, \big( {(q \! - \! 1)}^n \, {U_q}^{\!\otimes n} \big) = {(q \! - \! 1)}^n \, \Big(\, {\textstyle \sum\limits_{s=1}^n} {U_q}^{\!\otimes (s-1)} \otimes \gerI_q \otimes {U_q}^{\!\otimes (n-s)} \Big) $$
for all $n \in \N_+$; then, by the very definitions, the latter yields $ \; \gerI_q^{\;!} = \gerI_q \bigcap {U_q}^{\!\prime} \; $.
\par
\noindent If in (\ref{quarantasei}) $ N = 1$, then $y_+ = y \in {U_q}^{\!\prime}$, thus $ y \in \gerI_q \bigcap {U_q}^{\!\prime} = \gerI_q^{\;!} \, $, q.e.d. If, instead, $N > 1$ , then formula (\ref{quarantasei}), along with
$\gerI_q \,\coideal\, U_q $, yields:
\begin{equation}\label{quarantasette}
\delta_n(y_+) \in \Big( {(q-1)}^N \cdot {\textstyle \sum\limits_{s=1}^n} {U_q}^{\!\otimes (s-1)} \otimes \gerI_q \otimes {U_q}^{\!\otimes (n-s)} \Big) \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, \big( {(q-1)}^n \, {U_q}^{\!\otimes n} \big) \, , \quad \forall \,n \in \N_+
\end{equation}
and since $ \gerI_q $ is strict, from (\ref{quarantasette}) one gets
\[
\delta_n(y_+) \in {(q \! - \! 1)}^n \, {\textstyle \sum\limits_{s=1}^n} {U_q}^{\!\otimes (s-1)} \otimes \gerI_q \otimes {U_q}^{\!\otimes (n-s)}\qquad \forall\, n\in\N
\]
which means $y_+ \in \gerI_q^{\;!}$. Eventually, we have found $ \; y_+ \in \gerI_q^{\;!} \bigcap I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}^{\;N} \; $.
\par
Now look at $ \, I_{\scriptscriptstyle \gerI_{\!q}^{\,!}} := I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}} \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, \gerI_q^{\;!} \, $. Using the fact that $ \, {U_q}^{\!\prime} = {U_q(\gerg)}' = F\big[G^*\big] \, $ --- from Theorem \ref{GQDP} --- and $ \, \gerI_q^{\;!} = {\gerI_q(K)}^! = \calI_q(L) \, $ for some coisotropic subgroup $L$ in $G^*$ --- as granted by Proposition \ref{esclamativo} --- and still taking into account strictness, by an easy geometrical argument (via specialization at $q = 1$) we see that
$$ I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}^{\;n} \;{\textstyle \bigcap}\; \gerI_q^{\;!} \, \equiv \, I_{\scriptscriptstyle \gerI_{\!q}^{\,!}}^{\;n} \mod(q-1) \, {U_q}^{\!\prime} \qquad \forall \, n \in \N_+ \; . $$
This, together with $ \, \gerI_q \bigcap \, (q-1) \, U_q = (q-1) \, \gerI_q \, $, yields also
\[
I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}^{\;n} \;{\textstyle \bigcap}\; \gerI_q^{\;!} \, \equiv \, I_{\scriptscriptstyle \gerI_{\!q}^{\,!}}^{\;n} \mod(q-1) \, \gerI_q^{\;!} \qquad \forall \, n \in \N_+
\]
Finally, by suitable, iterated cancelation of factors $ (q-1) $, which is possible because of the condition $ \, \gerI_q \bigcap \, (q-1) U_q = (q-1) \, \gerI_q \, $, we eventually obtain
\[
I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}^{\;n}\; {\textstyle \bigcap}\; \gerI_q^{\;!} \, \equiv \, I_{\scriptscriptstyle \gerI_{\!q}^{\,!}}^{\;n} \mod {(q-1)}^n \, \gerI_q^{\;!} \qquad \forall \, n \in \N_+ \; .
\]
\indent To sum up, we have $y_+ \in I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}^{\;N} \;{\textstyle \bigcap}\; \gerI_q^{\;!} = I_{\scriptscriptstyle \gerI_{\!q}^{\,!}}^{\;N} \; $; therefore, by definitions,
\[
y = {(q-1)}^{-N} \, y_+ \; \in \; {(q-1)}^{-N} \, I_{\scriptscriptstyle \gerI_q^{\;!}}^{\;N} \; \subseteq \; \big( \gerI_q^{\;!} \big)^{\!\curlyvee} \, .
\]
\vskip5pt
{\it (d)} \, Let $\gerC_q$ be a strict quantization: by Proposition \ref{reciprocity}{\it (2)\/} it is enough to prove $ \gerC_q \subseteq {\big( \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,} \big)}^{\!\triangledown}$. We follow the same arguments used for claim {\it (c)}. Let
$c \in \gerC_q$, since $\gerC_q \subseteq U_q = \big( {U_q}^{\!\prime} \big)^\vee$ --- from Theorem \ref{GQDP} --- and
$\big( {U_q}^{\!\prime} \big)^\vee = \, {\textstyle \sum_{n \geq 0}} \, {(q-1)}^{-n} \, I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}^{\;n}$,
(notation as above) for $c \in \gerC_q \subseteq U_q = \big( {U_q}^{\!\prime} \big)^\vee$ there exists $N \in \N$ such that
$ \; c_+ := {(q-1)}^N \, c \, \in \, I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}^{\;N} \, \subseteq \, {U_q}^{\!\prime} \; $.
\par
Now, strictness of $ \gerC_q $ implies
\[
\big( {U_q}^{\!\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \gerC_q \big) \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, {(q-1)}^n \, {U_q}^{\!\otimes n} = {(q-1)}^n \, \big( {U_q}^{\!\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \gerC_q \big) \qquad \forall\; n\in\N_+
\]
hence $ \, \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,} = \gerC_q \bigcap {U_q}^{\!\prime} \, $. If the above $N$ is $1$, then $ \, c_+ = c \in {U_q}^{\!\prime} \, $, thus $ \, c \in \gerC_q \bigcap {U_q}^{\!\prime} = \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,} \, $, q.e.d. If instead $ \, N > 1 \, $, then
\[
\delta_n(c_+) \, \in \, \big( {(q-1)}^N \cdot {U_q}^{\!\otimes {n-1}} \otimes \gerC_q \big) \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, \big( {(q-1)}^n \, {U_q}^{\!\otimes n} \big) \qquad \forall \, n \in \N_+
\]
and, since $ \gerC_q $ is strict, $ \; \delta_n(c_+)\in \, {(q-1)}^n \cdot {U_q}^{\!\otimes {n-1}} \otimes \gerC_q \; $ for all $ \, n \in \N_+ \, $, which means $ \, c_+ \in \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,} \, $. Thus, eventually, we have $ \; c_+ \in \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,} \bigcap I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}^{\;N} \; $.
\par
Let us look, now, at $ \; I_{\scriptscriptstyle \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,}} := I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}} \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,} \; $. Again in force of strictness of $\gerC_q\,$, a geometrical argument (at $ q = 1$) as before leads us to
\[
I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}^{\;n} \;{\textstyle \bigcap}\; \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,} \, \equiv \, I_{\scriptscriptstyle \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,}}^{\;n} \mod {(q-1)}^n \, \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,} \;\; , \qquad \forall \; n \in \N_+
\]
from which we conclude that $ \; c_+ \in I_{\scriptscriptstyle {U_q}^{\!\prime}}^{\;N} \;{\textstyle \bigcap}\; \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,} = I_{\scriptscriptstyle \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,}}^{\;N} \; $. Therefore, by the very definitions,
\[
c \; = \; {(q-1)}^{-N} \, c_+ \; \in \; {(q-1)}^{-N} \, I_{\scriptscriptstyle \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,}}^{\;N} \; \subseteq \; \big( \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,} \big)^{\!\triangledown} \;\; , \qquad \text{q.e.d.}
\]
\vskip5pt
{\it (e)} \, This is a direct consequence of claims from {\it (a)\/} through {\it (d)}.
\vskip5pt
{\it (f)} \, Once again, this is true because the whole construction is independent of the existence of real structures.
\end{proof}
\smallskip
It is now time to clarify how the coisotropic subgroup $L$ of $G^*$ is linked to the coisotropic subgroup $K$ of $G\,$. We will give this relation in the weak quantization case first, and show how it improves under stronger hypothesis.
\eject
\begin{theorem} \label{complimentary} Let $K$ be a subgroup of $G$, and let
$\calI_q(K)\,$, $\calC_q(K)\,$, $\gerI_q(K)$ and $\gerC_q(K)$ be weak quantizations as in Definition \ref{weakq}. Then (with notation of Proposition \ref{bot-pro})
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] \quad $ {\calI_q(K)}^{\!\curlyvee} = \, \gerI_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big) \; $;
\item[(b)] \quad $ {\calC_q(K)}^{\!\triangledown} = \, \gerC_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big) \; $;
\item[(c)] \quad if $ \; \gerI_q(K) = {\big( {\gerI_q(K)}^! \,\big)}^{\!\curlyvee} \, $, then
$ {\gerI_q(K)}^{\,!} = \, \calI_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big)$; in particular, this holds if the quantization $\gerI_q(K)$ is {\sl strict};
\item[(d)] \quad if $ \; \gerC_q = {\big( {\gerC_q(K)}^\Lsh \,\big)}^{\!\triangledown}$, then ${\gerC_q(K)}^{\!\Lsh} = \, \calC_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big)$; in particular, this holds if the quantization $\gerC_q(K) $ is {\sl strict};
\item[(e)] \quad claims (a--d) hold as well in the framework of {\sl real} quantum subgroups.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
{\it (a)} By Proposition \ref{curlyvee} we already have ${\calI_q(K)}^{\!\curlyvee} \! = \gerI_q(L)$ for some subgroup
$ L\subseteq G^*$. In order to show that $ L = K^{\langle \perp\rangle} $, we will proceed much like in the proof of ${F_q}^{\!\vee} \Big/ (q-1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} \cong U(\gerg^*)$, as given in \cite{Ga3}, Theorem 4.7.
\par
Let us fix a subset $\{ j_1, \dots, j_n \}$ of $ J $ adapted to $K$ as in the proof of Proposition \ref{curlyvee}. Let $J^\vee := {(q\!-\!1)}^{-1} J \subset {F_q}^{\!\vee}$ and
$ j^{\,\vee} := {(q-1)}^{-1} j$ for all $ j \in J $. From the discussion in that proof, we argue also that $\big\{ {(q-1)}^{-|\underline{e}|} j^{\,\underline{e}} \mod (q-1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} \;\big|\; \underline{e} \in \N^{\,n} \,\big\}$, where $j^{\,\underline{e}} = \prod_{s=1}^n j_s^{\,\underline{e}(i)}$, is a $ \C $--basis of $ {F_1}^{\!\vee} $, and $\big\{ j_1^{\,\vee}, \dots, j_n^{\,\vee} \big\}$ is a $ \C $--basis of $\gert = J^\vee \mod (q-1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee}$.
\par
Now, $j_\mu \, j_\nu - j_\nu \, j_\mu \in (q \! - \! 1) \, J$ (for $\mu, \nu \in \{1,\dots,n\}$) implies that:
\[
j_\mu \, j_\nu - j_\nu \, j_\mu \; = \; (q - 1) \, {\textstyle \sum_{s=1}^n} \, c_s \, j_s \, + \, {(q - 1)}^2 \, \gamma_1 \, + \, (q - 1) \, \gamma_2
\]
for some $c_s \in \Cqqm$, $\gamma_1 \in J$ and $\gamma_2 \in J^2 $. Therefore
\[
\big[ j_\mu^\vee, j_\nu^\vee \,\big] := j_\mu^\vee \, j_\nu^\vee - j_\nu^\vee \, j_\mu^\vee = {\textstyle \sum_{s=1}^n} \, c_s \, j_s^\vee + \gamma_1 + {(q\!-\!1)} \, \gamma_2^\vee \equiv {\textstyle \sum_{s=1}^n} \, c_s \, j_s^\vee \mod \, (q\!-\!1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee}
\]
(where we posed $\gamma_2^\vee := {(q-1)}^{-2} \gamma_2 \in {(q-1)}^{-2} {\big( J^\vee \big)}^2 \subseteq {F_q}^{\!\vee}$) thus the subspace $\gert := J^\vee \! \mod (q-1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee}$ is a Lie subalgebra of $ {F_1}^{\!\vee}$. But then it should be ${F_1}^{\!\vee} \cong U(\gert)$ as Hopf algebras, by the above description of $ {F_1}^{\!\vee} $ and PBW theorem.
\par
Now for the second step. The specialization map $\pi^\vee \colon \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} \relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow {F_1}^{\!\vee} = U(\gert)$ actually restricts to $\eta \, \colon\, J^\vee \twoheadrightarrow \gert = J^\vee \Big/ J^\vee \bigcap {\big( (q\!-\!1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} \big)} = J^\vee \Big/ \big( J + J^\vee J \big)$, because $ J^\vee \bigcap {\big( (q\!-\!1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} \big)} = J^\vee \bigcap {(q\!-\!1)}^{-1} {I_{\scriptscriptstyle F_q}}^{\hskip-3pt 2} = J + J^\vee J $. Also, multiplication by $ {(q\!-\!1)}^{-1} $ yields a $ \Cqqm $--module isomorphism $ \mu \, \colon \, J \, {\buildrel \cong \over {\lhook\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow}} \, J^\vee $.
Let $\rho \, \colon \, \mathfrak{m}_e \relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow \mathfrak{m}_e \big/ {\mathfrak{m}_e}^{\!2} = \gerg^* $ be the natural projection map, and $\nu \, \colon \, \gerg^* \lhook\joinrel\longrightarrow \mathfrak{m}_e $ a section of $ \rho$. The specialization map $\pi \, \colon \, F_q \relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow F_1$ restricts to a map $\pi' \colon \, J \relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow J \big/ (J \bigcap \, (q-1) \, F_q) = \mathfrak{m}_e$. Let's fix a section $\gamma \, \colon \, \mathfrak{m}_e \! \lhook\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow J$ of $ \pi'$ and consider the composition $\sigma := \eta \circ \mu \circ \gamma \circ \nu \, \colon \, \gerg^* \longrightarrow \gert$: this is a well-defined Lie bialgebra morphism, independent of the choice of $ \nu $ and $ \gamma$.
\par
In the proof of Proposition \ref{curlyvee} we made a particular choice for the subset $\{ j_1, \dots, j_n \}$. As a consequence, the above analysis to prove that $ \, \sigma \, \colon \, \gerg^* \cong \gert$ shows also that the left ideal ${\calI_1}^{\!\curlyvee} := {\calI_q}^{\! \curlyvee} \! \mod (q\!-\!1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee}$ of $ U(\gert) $ is generated by
\[
\eta \big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big) = (\eta \circ \mu) \big( \calI_q \big) = (\sigma \circ \rho \circ \pi) \big( \calI_q \big) = \sigma \big( \rho(\calI\,) \big) = \sigma \big( \gerk^\perp \big) \, .
\]
So ${\calI_1}^{\!\curlyvee} = U(\gerg^*) \cdot \gerk^\perp = U(\gerg^*) \cdot \langle \gerk^\perp \rangle = \gerI\big(K^{\langle \perp \rangle}\big)$ --- where we are identifying $ \gerg^* $ with its image via $ \sigma $ --- which eventually means $\gerl = \langle \gerk^\perp \rangle$.
\vskip5pt
{\it (b)} By Proposition \ref{triangledown} we have ${\calC_q(K)}^{\!\triangledown} \! = \gerC_q(L)$ for some coisotropic subgroup $ L$ in $G^*$. We must prove that $L = K^{\langle \perp \rangle}$. Once again, we mimic the procedure of the proof of Proposition \ref{triangledown}, and we fix a subset $\big\{ j_1, \dots, j_n \big\}$ of $ J $ as in the proof of such Proposition. Then, tracking the analysis we did there to prove that $\sigma \, \colon \, \gerg^* \cong \gert$, we see also that the unital subalgebra ${\calC_1}^{\!\!\triangledown} := {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \! \mod (q\!-\!1) \, {F_q}^{\!\vee}$ of $ U\big(\gerg^*\big) $ is generated by $\eta \big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big) = (\mu \circ \eta) \big( \calC_q \big) = (\sigma \circ \rho \circ \pi) \big( \calC_q \big) = \sigma \big( \rho(\calC\,) \big) = \sigma \big( \gerk^\perp \big)$. Thus $ {\calC_1}^{\!\!\triangledown} $ is the subalgebra of $U\big(\gerg^*\big) $ generated by $ \gerk^\perp $, hence ${\calC_1}^{\!\!\triangledown} = {\big\langle \gerk^\perp \big\rangle}_{\!\text{\it Alg}} = U \big( {\big\langle \gerk^\perp \big\rangle}_{\! \text{\it Lie}} \big) = U \big( \gerk^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big) = \gerC \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big) \, $, which means $ \, \gerl = \langle \gerk^\perp \rangle \, $, q.e.d.
\vskip5pt
{\it (c)} Thanks to Proposition \ref{esclamativo} we already know that ${\gerI_q(K)}^! = \, \calI_q(L)$ for some coisotropic subgroup $L$ in $G^*$. Again, we must prove that $L = K^{\langle \perp \rangle}$. Note that we can assume $ K $ to be connected, as its relationship with $ \gerI_q(K) $ passes through $ \gerk $ alone; thus in the end we simply have to prove that $\mathfrak{l} := \text{\it Lie}\,(L) = \gerk^{\langle \perp \rangle} = \gerk^\perp$, \, taking into account that $\gerk^{\langle \perp \rangle} = \gerk^\perp$ because $ \gerk $ is coisotropic, by a remark following Proposition \ref{reciprocity}.
\par
By assumption $\gerI_q(K) = {\big( {\gerI_q(K)}^! \,\big)}^{\!\curlyvee}$; this and {\it (a)\/} together give
\[
\gerI_q(K) \; = \; {\big( {\gerI_q(K)}^! \,\big)}^{\!\curlyvee} = \; {\calI_q(L)}^\curlyvee \, = \; \gerI_q\big(L^{\langle \perp \rangle}\big) \; = \; \gerI_q\big(L^\perp\big)
\]
where $ L^{\langle \perp \rangle} = L^\perp$ because $ L $ is coisotropic as well: at $q = 1 $, this implies $\gerk = \gerl^\perp$, q.e.d.
\vskip5pt
{\it (d)} We must prove that $L = K^{\langle \perp \rangle} $: as above we can assume $K$ to be connected, so we only have to prove that $\mathfrak{l} := \text{\it Lie}\,(L) = \gerk^{\langle \perp \rangle} = \gerk^\perp$ (as $ \gerk $ is coisotropic, by Proposition \ref{converse}.
\par
By assumption $\gerC_q = {\big( {\gerC_q(K)}^\Lsh \,\big)}^{\!\triangledown}$; this along with {\it (c)\/} gives
\[
\gerC_q(K) \; = \; {\big( {\gerC_q(K)}^\Lsh \,\big)}^{\!\triangledown} = \; {\calC_q(L)}^\triangledown \, = \; \gerC_q\big(L^{\langle \perp \rangle}\big) \; = \; \gerC_q\big(L^\perp\big)
\]
with $L^{\langle \perp \rangle} = L^\perp$ since $ L $ is coisotropic too: specializing at $q = 1$, this yields $\gerk = \gerl^\perp$.
\vskip5pt
{\it (e)} This is clear again since all arguments pass through unchanged in the real setup.
\end{proof}
\smallskip
\begin{corollary}\label{coro}
Let $\calI_q(K) $ and $\calC_q(K)$ be weak quantizations of a (not necessarily) coisotro\-pic subgroup $K$ of $G$, of type $\calI$ and $\calC$ respectively. Then, with notation of Definition \ref{coisotropic duality}, we have
$$ {\big( {\calI_q(K)}^\curlyvee \big)}^! =\calI_q \big(\Kk \big) \;\; , \qquad {\big( {\calC_q(K)}^\triangledown \big)}^{\!\!\Lsh} = \, \calC_q \big(\Kk \big) \;\; . $$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Theorem \ref{complimentary}{\it(a)\/} gives $ \, {\calI_q(K)}^{\!\curlyvee} \! = \gerI_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big) \, $, and Proposition \ref{reciprocity} yields
$$ \Big( \gerI_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big)^! \Big)^{\!\curlyvee} \! = \, \Big( {\big( {\calI_q(K)}^{\!\curlyvee} \big)}^! \Big)^{\!\curlyvee} \! = \; {\calI_q(K)}^{\!\curlyvee} = \; \gerI_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big) $$
so that $\Big( \gerI_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big)^! \Big)^{\!\curlyvee} \! = \; \gerI_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big)$. Then Theorem \ref{complimentary} gives
$$ \gerI_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big)^! = \, \calI_q\big( (K^{\langle \perp \rangle})^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big) \, = \, \calI_q \big(\!\Kk \big) $$
by Proposition \ref{bot-pro}. Therefore $ {\big( {\calI_q(K)}^\curlyvee \big)}^! = \, \gerI_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big)^! = \, \calI_q \big(\!\Kk \big)$ as claimed.
\par
Similarly, Theorem \ref{complimentary}{\it (b)\/} gives $ \, {\calC_q(K)}^{\!\triangledown} \! = \gerC_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big) \, $, and the first remark after Proposition \ref{reciprocity} yields
$$ \Big( \gerC_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big)^{\!\!\Lsh} \,\Big)^{\!\triangledown} \! = \, \Big( {\big( {\calC_q(K)}^\triangledown \big)}^{\!\!\Lsh} \,\Big)^{\!\triangledown} \! = \; {\calC_q(K)}^\triangledown = \; \gerC_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big) $$
so that $ \; \Big( \gerC_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big)^{\!\!\Lsh} \,\Big)^{\!\triangledown} \! = \; \gerC_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big) \; $. Then again by Theorem \ref{complimentary}{\it (d)\/} we get
$$ \gerC_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big)^{\!\!\Lsh} = \, \calC_q\big( (K^{\langle \perp \rangle})^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big) \, = \, \calC_q \big(\! \Kk \big) $$
still by Proposition \ref{bot-pro}. Thus ${\big( {\calC_q(K)}^\triangledown \big)}^{\!\!\Lsh} = \, \gerC_q \big( K^{\langle \perp \rangle} \big)^{\!\!\Lsh} = \, \calC_q \big(\! \Kk \big)$ as claimed.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\begin{remark}
One might guess that the analogue to this Corollary holds true for weak quantizations of type $\gerI$ and $\gerC$ as well: actually, we have no clue about that, in either sense.
\end{remark}
\medskip
We now consider the ``compatibility'' among different Drinfeld-like maps acting on quantizations of different types over a single pair {\sl (subgroup, space)}. Indeed, we show that Drinfeld's functors preserve the subgroup-space correspondence --- Proposition \ref{correspondence} --- and the orthogonality correspondence --- Proposition \ref{orthogonality} --- (if either occurs at the beginning) between different quantizations as mentioned.
\medskip
\begin{proposition}\label{correspondence}
Let $K$ be a closed subgroup of $ G $, and let $\Psi $ and $ \Phi $ be the map mentioned in \S \ref{subgrps-homspaces}. Then the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] \, Let $ \, \calC_q $ and $ \calI_q $ be as in Section \ref{quantizations}. If $ \; \Psi(\calC_q) = \calI_q \, $, then $ \; \Psi \big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big) = {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \; $.
\item[(b)] \, Let $\calI_q $ and $ \calC_q $ be as in Section \ref{quantizations}. If $ \; \Phi(\calI_q) = \calC_q \, $, then $ \; \Phi \big({\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big) = {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \; $.
\item[(c)] \, Let $\gerC_q $ and $ \gerI_q $ be as in Section \ref{quantizations}. If $ \; \Psi(\gerC_q) = \gerI_q \, $, then $ \; \Psi \big({\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \big) \subseteq {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \; $.
\item[(d)] \, Let $\gerI_q $ and $ \gerC_q $ be as in Section \ref{quantizations}. If $ \; \Phi(\gerI_q) = \gerC_q \, $, then $ \; \Phi \big({\gerI_q}^{\! !} \big) = {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \; $.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Claims {\it (a)\/} and {\it (c)\/} both follow trivially from definitions.
\par
As to claim {\it (b)}, let $ \, \eta \in {\calC_q}^{\!\! +} ={\Phi(\calI_q)}^+ \, $, so that $ \, \Delta(\eta) \in \eta \otimes 1 + F_q \otimes \calI_q \, $. Then $ \, \eta^\vee := {(q-1)}^{-1} \eta \, $ enjoys
$$ \Delta\big(\eta^\vee\big) \in \eta^\vee \! \otimes 1+ F_q \otimes {(q-1)}^{-1} \, \calI_q \subseteq \eta^\vee \! \otimes 1 + {F_q}^{\!\vee} \! \otimes {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} $$
whence $ \, \eta^\vee \! \in {\big({F_q}^{\!\vee}\big)}^{\text{\it co}
{\calI_q}^{\!\!\curlyvee}} \! =: \Phi\big({\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee}\big)
\, $. Since $ {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} $ is generated (as a
subalgebra) by $ \, {(q-1)}^{-1} \, {\calC_q}^{\!\! +} \, $, we conclude that $ \, {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown}
\subseteq \Phi\big({\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee}\big) \, $.
\par
Conversely, let $ \, \varphi \in \Phi\big({\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee}\big) \, $. Then $ \, \Delta(\varphi) \in \varphi \otimes 1 + {F_q}^{\!\vee}\! \otimes {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \, $, and there exists
$ \, n \in \N \, $ such that $ \, \varphi_+ := {(q-1)}^n \varphi \in \calI_q \, $, so that
$ \, \Delta(\varphi_+) \in F_q \otimes \calI_q + \calI_q
\otimes F_q \, $ (since $ \, \calI_q \,\coideal\, F_q \, $). Then
$$ \Delta(\varphi_+) \in \big( \varphi_+ \otimes 1 + {(q-1)}^n
{F_q}^{\!\vee} \! \otimes {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big) \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\,
\big( F_q \otimes \calI_q + \calI_q \otimes F_q \big) $$
or equivalently
\begin{equation}
\label{quarantotto} \Delta(\varphi_+) \, - \, \varphi_+ \otimes 1 \; \in \big(
{(q-1)}^n {F_q}^{\!\vee} \! \otimes {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big)
\, {\textstyle \bigcap} \, \big( F_q \otimes \calI_q + \calI_q
\otimes F_q \big)
\end{equation}
Now, the description of $ {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} $ given in the proof of Proposition \ref{curlyvee} implies that
$$ \big( {(q-1)}^n {F_q}^{\!\vee} \! \otimes {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee}
\big) \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \, \big( F_q \otimes \calI_q + \calI_q
\otimes F_q \big) \; = \; F_q \otimes \calI_q $$
this together with (\ref{quarantotto}) yields $ \, \Delta(\varphi_+) \in \varphi_+ \otimes 1 + F_q \otimes \calI_q \, $, hence $ \, \varphi_+ \in {F_q}^{\text{\it co}\calI_q} =: \Phi(\calI_q) = \calC_q \, $ and so $ \, \varphi \in {(q-1)}^n \, \calC_q \bigcap {F_q}^{\!\vee} \, $. On the other hand, the description of $ {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} $ in the proof of Proposition \ref{triangledown} implies that $ \, {(q-1)}^{-n} \, \calC_q \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \, {F_q}^{\!\vee} \subseteq \, {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \, $, hence we get $ \, \varphi \in {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \, $, q.e.d.
\par
We finish with claim {\it (d)}. For the inclusion
$ \, \Phi \big({\gerI_q}^{\! !} \big) \supseteq {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, $, let $ \, \kappa \in {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, $. Since $ \Phi \big({\gerI_q}^{\! !} \big) $ contains the scalars, we may assume that
$ \, \kappa \in \Ker\,(\epsilon)$, thus $\Delta(\kappa) = \kappa \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes \kappa + \delta_2(\kappa) \, $. By Proposition \ref{Lsh}, we have $ \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \coideal_\ell \, {U_q}^{\!\prime} \, $; thus $ \, \Delta(\kappa) - \kappa \otimes 1 = 1 \otimes \kappa + \delta_2(\kappa) \in {U_q}^{\!\prime} \otimes {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, $, and more precisely
$$ \Delta(\kappa) - \kappa \otimes 1 = 1 \otimes \kappa + \delta_2(\kappa) \in {U_q}^{\!\prime} \otimes {\big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \,\big)}^+ \;\; . $$
Since $ \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \subseteq \Psi \big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \big) \subseteq {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $, \, by claim {\it (c)}, we get
$ \, \Delta(\kappa) - \kappa \otimes 1 \in {U_q}^{\!\prime} \otimes {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $, so $ \, \kappa \in {\big( {U_q}^{\!\prime} \big)}^{\text{\it co}{\gerI_q}^{\! !}} =: \Phi \big( {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \big) \, $. Thus $ \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \subseteq \Phi \big( {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \big) \, $. For the converse inclusion, let $ \, \eta \in \Phi\big({\gerI_q}^{\! !}\big) \, $; again, we can assume $ \, \eta \in \Ker\,(\epsilon) \, $ too. As $ \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \subseteq \gerI_q \, $, we get $ \, \eta \in \Phi\big({\gerI_q}^{\! !}\big) \subseteq \Phi\big(\gerI_q\big) = \gerC_q \, $. Then $ \, \delta_n(\eta) \in {U_q}^{\! \otimes n} \! \otimes \gerC_q \, $ for all $ \, n \in \N_+ \, $, so
$$ \delta_n(\eta) \in {(q \! - \! 1)}^n \! \left( {\textstyle
\sum\limits_{s=1}^{n-1}} \, {U_q}^{\!\! \otimes (\!s-1\!)} \! \otimes \gerI_q
\otimes {U_q}^{\!\! \otimes (n-s\!)} \!\right) \! {\textstyle \bigcap} \big( {U_q}^{\!\! \otimes (n-1\!)} \! \otimes \gerC_q \big) \subseteq {(q \! - \! 1)}^n \, {U_q}^{\!\! \otimes (n-1\!)} \! \otimes \gerC_q $$
hence $ \, \delta_n(\eta) \in {(q \! - \! 1)}^n \, {U_q}^{\! \otimes (n-1)} \! \otimes \gerC_q \, $ ($ n \! \in \! \N_+ $) and $ \, \eta \in \gerC_q \, $, which means $\eta \in {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, $.
\end{proof}
\smallskip
\begin{remark}
The inclusion $ \, \Psi \big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \big) \subseteq {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $ of Proposition \ref{correspondence}{\it (c)\/} is {\sl not\/} an identity in general --- indeed, {\sl counterexamples do exist}.
\end{remark}
\medskip
Finally, we look at what happens when our Drinfeld-like recipes are applied to a pair of quantizations associated with a same subgroup / homogeneous spaces with respect to some fixed double quantization (in the sense of Section \ref{quantizations}). The result reads as follows:
\medskip
\begin{proposition}\label{orthogonality}
Let $ \big( F_q[G] \, , U_q(\gerg)\big)$ be a double quantization of $(G,\gerg)\,$. Then:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] \, Let $\calC_q$ and $\gerI_q$ be weak quantizations and assume that $ \, \calC_q = {\gerI_q}^{\!\perp} \, $ and $ \, \gerI_q = {\calC_q}^{\!\perp} \, $. Then $ \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} = {\big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big)}^\perp \, $ and $ \, {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \subseteq {\big( {\gerI_q}^{\! ! \,} \big)}^\perp \, $. If, in addition, either one of $\,\calC_q$ or $\,\gerI_q$ is {\sl strict}, then also $ \, {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} = {\big( {\gerI_q}^{\! ! \,} \big)}^\perp \, $.
\item[(b)] \, Let $\gerC_q$ and $\calI_q$ be weak quantizations and assume that $ \, \calI_q = {\gerC_q}^{\!\perp} \, $ and $ \, \gerC_q = {\calI_q}^{\!\perp} \, $. Then $ \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} = {\big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big)}^\perp \, $ and $ \, {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \subseteq {\big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh\,} \big)}^\perp \, $. If, in addition, either one of $\,\gerC_q$ or $\,\calI_q$ is {\sl strict}, then also $ \, {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} = {\big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh\,} \big)}^\perp \, $.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Both in claim {\it (a)\/} and in claim {\it (b)\/} the
orthogonality relations between $ \gerC_q $ and $ \calI_q $ and
between $ \calC_q $ and $ \gerI_q $ are considered w.r.t.~the
pairing between $ F_q[G] $ and $ U_q(\gerg) $, and the subsequent
orthogonality relations are meant w.r.t.~the pairing between
$ {F_q[G]}^\vee $ and $ {U_q(\gerg)}' $. Indeed, by Theorem \ref{GQDP}, $ \Big( {U_q(\gerg)}' \, , {F_q[G]}^\vee \Big) $ is a double quantization of $ \big( G^*, \, \gerg^* \big)\,$.
\vskip5pt
{\it (a)} First, $ \, \epsilon(\gerI_q) = 0 \, $ because $ \gerI_q $ is a coideal. Then $ \, x = \delta_1(x) \in (q-1) \, U_q \, $ for all $ \, x \in {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $, hence $ \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \subseteq (q-1) \, U_q \, $. Thus we have
$$ \big\langle \calC_q, {\gerI_q}^{\! !\,} \big\rangle \subseteq (q-1) \, \Cqqm \;\; . $$
\indent Now let $ \, J = J_{\scriptscriptstyle F_q} \, $ be the ideal
of $ F_q $, and take $ \, c_i\in \calC_q \cap J$ ($i=1,\ldots,n$)\,; then $ \, \langle c_i, 1 \rangle = \epsilon(c_i) = 0 \, $ ($ i= 1, \dots, n$)\,. Given $ \, y \in {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $, look at
$$ \left\langle \, {\textstyle \prod\limits_{i=1}^n} c_i \, ,
\, y \right\rangle = \left\langle \, \mathop{\otimes}\limits_{i=1}^n c_i \, , \Delta^n(y) \right\rangle
= \bigg\langle \, \mathop{\otimes}\limits_{i=1}^n c_i \, , {\textstyle \sum\limits_{\Psi \subseteq \{1,\dots,n\}}} \hskip-3pt \delta_\Psi(y) \bigg\rangle = {\textstyle \sum\limits_{\Psi \subseteq \{1,\dots,n\}}} \! \bigg\langle \, \mathop{\otimes}\limits_{i=1}^n c_i \, , \delta_\Psi(y) \bigg\rangle $$
\indent Consider the summands in the last term of the above formula. Let $ \, \vert\Psi\vert = t$ ($t \leq n$)\,, then
\[
\Big\langle \mathop{\otimes}\limits_{i=1}^n c_i \, , \, \delta_\Psi(y) \Big\rangle \; = \; \Big\langle \mathop{\otimes}\limits_{i \in \Psi} c_i \, , \, \delta_t(y) \Big\rangle
\cdot {\textstyle \prod\limits_{j \not\in \Psi}} \big\langle\, c_j \, , 1 \,\big\rangle
\]
by definition of $\delta_\Psi\,$. Thanks to the previous analysis, we have $ \, \prod_{j \not\in \Psi} \langle c_j \, , 1 \rangle = 0 \, $ unless
$ \, \Psi = \{1,\dots,n\} \, $, and in the latter case
\[
\delta_\Psi(y) \, = \, \delta_n(y) \; \in \; {(q-1)}^n \, {\textstyle \sum\limits_{s=1}^n} \, {U_q}^{\!\otimes (s-1)} \! \otimes \gerI_q \otimes {U_q}^{\!\otimes (n-s)} \quad .
\]
The outcome is
\[
\left\langle\, \mathop{\otimes}\limits_{i=1}^n c_i \, ,
\, y \right\rangle = \bigg\langle \, \mathop{\otimes}\limits_{i=1}^n c_i \, , \, \delta_n(y) \bigg\rangle \in
\left\langle \, \mathop{\otimes}\limits_{i=1}^n c_i \, , \,
{(q-1)}^n {\textstyle \sum\limits_{s=1}^n} \, {U_q}^{\otimes (s-1)}
\! \otimes \gerI_q \otimes {U_q}^{\otimes (n-s)} \right\rangle = 0
\]
because $ \, y \in {\gerI_q}^{\! !}$ and $\gerI_q = {\calC_q\phantom{)}}^{\!\!\!\perp} \, $ by assumption. Thus $ \; \big\langle \! {(q\!-\!1)}^{-n} {\big( \calC_q \bigcap J \,\big)}^n , \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \,\big\rangle = 0 \, $, for all $ \, n \in \N_+ \, $. In addition, $ \, \big\langle 1 \, , \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \,\big\rangle = \epsilon\big({\gerI_q}^{\! !}\big) = 0 \, $. The outcome is $ \, \big\langle {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown}, \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \,\big\rangle = 0 \, $, whence $ \, {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \subseteq {\big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big)}^\perp \, $ , and $ \, {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \subseteq {\big( {\gerI_q}^{\! ! \,} \big)}^\perp \, $.
\par
Now we prove also $ \, {\big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big)}^\perp \subseteq {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $. Notice that $ \, {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \supseteq \calC_q \, $, whence $ \, {\big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big)}^\perp \subseteq {\calC_q \phantom{)}}^{\!\!\!\!\perp} = \gerI_q \, $; therefore $ \, {\big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big)}^\perp \subseteq \gerI_q \, $. Pick now $ \, \eta \in {\big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big)}^\perp \, $ (inside $ {U_q}'$). Since $ \, \eta \in {U_q}' \, $, for all $ \, n \in \N_+ \, $ we have $ \, \delta_n(\eta) \in {(q-1)}^n {U_q}^{\otimes n} \, $, and from $ \, \eta \in {\big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big)}^\perp \, $ we get also that $ \, \eta_+ := {(q-1)}^{-n} \delta_n(\eta) \, $ enjoys $ \, \Big\langle {\big(\, \calC_q \bigcap J_{F_q} \,\big)}^{\otimes n} , \, \eta_+ \Big\rangle = 0 \, $ --- acting as before --- so that
\[
\eta_+ \in {\Big( {\big(\, \calC_q \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, J_{F_q} \,\big)}^{\otimes n} \Big)}^{\!\perp} \; = \, {\textstyle \sum\limits_{r+s=n-1}} {U_q}^{\otimes r} \otimes {\big(\, \calC_q
\,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, J_{F_q} \,\big)}^{\!\perp} \otimes {U_q}^{\otimes s} \quad .
\]
\indent Moreover $ \, \delta_n(\eta) \in {J_{U_q}}^{\!\otimes n} \, $, hence $ \, \delta_n(\eta) \in \big( {(q \! - \! 1)}^n {U_q}^{\otimes n} \big) \bigcap {J_{U_q}}^{\!\otimes n} \! = \, {(q \! - \! 1)}^n {J_{U_q}}^{\!\otimes n} \, $, so
\[
\displaylines{
\eta_+ \in {\Big( {\big(\, \calC_q \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, J_{F_q} \big)}^{\otimes n} \Big)}^{\!\perp} \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, {J_{U_q}}^{\!\otimes n} = \Big( {\textstyle \sum\limits_{r+s=n-1}} \, {U_q}^{\otimes r} \otimes {\big(\, \calC_q \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, J_{F_q} \,\big)}^\perp \otimes {U_q}^{\otimes s} \Big) \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, {J_{U_q}}^{\!\otimes n} \, = \cr
\hfill = \, {\textstyle \sum_{r+s=n-1}} \, {J_{U_q}}^{\!\otimes r} \otimes \Big( \! {\big(\, \calC_q \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, J_{F_q} \,\big)}^\perp \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, J_{U_q} \Big) \otimes {J_{U_q}}^{\!\otimes s} \quad . \cr }
\]
Since $ \, {\big(\, \calC_q \bigcap J_{F_q} \,\big)}^\perp \bigcap \, J_{U_q} = \, {\calC_q}^{\!\perp} \bigcap J_{U_q} = \, \gerI_q \bigcap J_{U_q} = \, \gerI_q \, $, we have
\[
\eta_+ \, \in {\textstyle \sum\limits_{r+s=n-1}} \hskip-3pt {J_{U_q}}^{\!\otimes r} \! \otimes \gerI_q \otimes {J_{U_q}}^{\!\otimes s}
\]
whence
\[
\delta_n(\eta) \, \in \, {(q \! - \! 1)}^n {\textstyle \sum\limits_{r+s=n-1}} \hskip-3pt {U_q}^{\otimes r} \! \otimes \gerI_q \otimes {U_q}^{\otimes s} \qquad \forall \; n \in \N_+ \;\; .
\]
Being, in addition, $ \, \eta \in \gerI_q \, $, for we proved that
$ \, {\big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big)}^\perp \subseteq \gerI_q \, $, we get $ \, \eta \in {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $. Therefore $ \, {\big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big)}^\perp \subseteq {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $, q.e.d.
\par
Finally, assume that $\calC_q$ or $\gerI_q$ are strict quantizations. Then we must still prove that $ \, {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} = {\big( \gerI_q^{\;\,!\,} \big)}^\perp \, $. Since $ \, \calC_q = {\gerI_q}^{\!\perp} \, $ and $ \, \gerI_q = {\calC_q}^{\!\perp} \, $, it is easy to check that $ \calC_q $ is strict if and only if $\gerI_q $ is; therefore, we can assume that $\gerI_q$ is strict.
\par
The assumptions and Theorem \ref{converse} {\it (b)\/} give $ \, \gerI_q = \big( \gerI_q^{\;\,!\,} \big)^{\!\curlyvee} \, $; moreover, $ \, \calI_q := {\gerI_q}^{\! !} \, $ is strict. Then we can apply the first part of claim {\it (b)} --- which is proved, later on, in a way independent of the present proof of claim {\it (a)\/} itself --- and get $ \, \big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big)^\perp = \, \big( {\calI_q}^{\!\perp} \big)^{\!\Lsh} \, $. Therefore
\begin{equation}\label{quarantanove}
{\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \, = \; \big( {\gerI_q}^{\!\perp} \big)^{\!\triangledown} \, = \; \Big( \Big( \big( \gerI_q^{\;\,!\,} \big)^{\!\curlyvee} \Big)^{\!\perp\,} \Big)^{\!\triangledown} \, = \; \Big( \big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big)^\perp \Big)^{\!\triangledown} \, = \; \Big( \big( {\calI_q}^{\!\perp} \big)^{\!\Lsh\,} \Big)^{\!\triangledown} \quad .
\end{equation}
\indent Now, it is straightforward to prove that $\calI_q$ strict implies that ${\calI_q}^{\!\perp}$ is strict as well. Then Proposition \ref{converse}{\it (d)\/} ensures $ \, \Big(\! \big( {\calI_q}^{\!\perp} \big)^{\!\Lsh\,} \Big)^{\!\triangledown} \! = \, {\calI_q}^{\!\perp} \, $. This along with (\ref{quarantanove}) yields $ \, {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} = \Big( \big( {\calI_q}^{\!\perp} \big)^{\!\Lsh\,} \Big)^{\!\triangledown} = \, {\calI_q}^{\!\perp} = {\big( \gerI_q^{\;\,!\,} \big)}^\perp \, $, ending the proof of {\it (a)}.
\vskip5pt
{\it (b)} With much the same arguments as for {\it (a)}, we find as well that
$$ \big\langle {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee}, \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, \big\rangle \; \in \; \big\langle J^{\otimes (n-1)} \! \otimes \calI_q \, , \, {U_q}^{\otimes (n-1)} \! \otimes \gerC_q \big\rangle \; \subseteq \; \big\langle \calI_q \, , \gerC_q \big\rangle \; = \; 0 $$
because $ \, \calI_q = {\gerC_q}^{\!\perp} \, $; this means that
\begin{equation}\label{quarantadieci}
{\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \subseteq {\big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh\,}
\big)}^\perp \quad , \qquad \qquad {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \subseteq
{\big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big)}^\perp \quad .
\end{equation}
\indent Let now $ \, \kappa \in {\big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big)}^\perp_q \; \big( \! \subseteq \! {U_q}' \, \big) \, $. Since $ \, \kappa \in {U_q}' \, $, we have $ \, \delta_n(\kappa) \in {(q-1)}^n {U_q}^{\otimes n} \, $ for all $ \, n \in \N \, $; moreover, from $ \, \kappa \in {\big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big)}^\perp \, $ it follows that $ \, \kappa_+ := {(q-1)}^{-n} \delta_n(\kappa) \in {U_q}^{\otimes n} \, $ enjoys $ \, \Big\langle J^{\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \calI_q \, , \, \kappa_+ \Big\rangle = 0 \, $, so that
\[
\kappa_+ \in {\Big( J^{\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \calI_q \Big)}^{\!\perp} = \, {\textstyle \sum_{r+s=n-2}} \, {U_q}^{\otimes r} \otimes J^\perp \otimes {U_q}^{\otimes s} \otimes U_q \, + \,{U_q}^{\otimes (n-1)} \otimes {\calI_q \phantom{)}}^{\!\!\!\perp} \;\; .
\]
In addition, $ \, \delta_n(\kappa) \in {J_{U_q}}^{\!\!\otimes n} \, $, where $ \, J_{U_q} := \Ker\,\big( \, \epsilon \! : U_q \longrightarrow \Cqqm \big) \, $; therefore $ \, \delta_n(\kappa) \in \big( {(q-1)}^n {U_q}^{\otimes n} \big) \bigcap {J_{U_q}}^{\!\!\otimes n} = {(q-1)}^n {J_{U_q}}^{\!\!\otimes n} \, $, which together with the above formula yields
\[
\displaylines{
\kappa_+ \, \in \, {\Big( J^{\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \calI_q \Big)}^{\!\perp} {\textstyle \bigcap} \; {J_{U_q}}^{\!\!\otimes n} \, = \hfill \cr
= \, \bigg(\, {\textstyle \sum\limits_{r+s=n-2}} {U_q}^{\otimes r} \otimes J^\perp \otimes {U_q}^{\otimes s} \otimes U_q \bigg) \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \; {J_{U_q}}^{\!\!\otimes n} \, + \, \Big( {U_q}^{\otimes (n-1)} \otimes {\calI_q \phantom{(}}^{\!\!\!\perp} \Big) \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \; {J_{U_q}}^{\!\!\otimes n} \, = \quad \cr
\qquad = \, {\textstyle \sum\limits_{r+s=n-2}} {J_{U_q}}^{\!\!\otimes r} \otimes \Big( J^\perp \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \; J_{U_q} \Big) \otimes {J_{U_q}}^{\!\!\otimes s} \otimes J_{U_q} \, + \, {J_{U_q}}^{\!\!\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \Big( \calI_q \phantom{(}^{\!\!\!\perp} \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \; J_{U_q} \Big) \, = \cr
\hfill = \, {J_{U_q}}^{\!\!\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \Big( \calI_q \phantom{(}^{\!\!\!\perp} \, {\textstyle \bigcap} \; J_{U_q} \Big) \, = \, {J_{U_q}}^{\!\!\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \Big( \gerC_q \; {\textstyle \bigcap} \; J_{U_q} \Big) \, \subseteq \, {U_q}^{\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \gerC_q
\cr }
\]
where in the third equality we used the fact that $ \, J^\perp \bigcap J_{U_q} = \{0\} \, $. So
$ \, \kappa_+ \in {U_q}^{\!\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \, \gerC_q \, $, hence $ \, \delta_n (\kappa) \in {(q-1)}^n {U_q}^{\otimes (n-1)} \otimes \gerC_q \, $ for all $ \, n \in \N_+ \, $: thus $ \, \kappa \in {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, $. Therefore $ \, {\big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big)}^\perp \subseteq {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} \, $, which together with the right-hand side inequality in (\ref{quarantadieci}) gives $ \, {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh} = {\big( {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \big)}^\perp \, $.
\par
In the end, suppose also that one between $\gerC_q$ and $\calI_q$ is strict. As $ \, \calI_q = {\gerC_q}^{\!\perp} \, $ and $ \, \gerC_q = {\calI_q}^{\!\perp} \, $, one sees easily that $ \calI_q $ is strict if and only if $ \gerC_q $ is; then we can assume that $\gerC_q$ is strict. We want to show that $ \, {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} = {\big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\!\Lsh\,} \big)}^\perp \, $.
\par
The assumptions and Theorem \ref{converse}{\it (d)\/} give $ \, \gerC_q = \big( \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,} \big)^{\!\triangledown} \, $. Moreover, we have that $\calC_q$ is strict by Proposition \ref{triangledown}{\it (3)\/} and Proposition \ref{Lsh} {\it (3)}. Then we can apply the first part of claim {\it (a)}, thus getting $ \, \big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big)^\perp = \, \big( {\calC_q}^{\!\perp} \big)^! \, $. Therefore
\begin{equation}\label{quarantundici}
{\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \, = \; \big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\perp} \big)^{\!\curlyvee} \, = \; \Big( \Big(\! \big( \gerC_q^{\,\Lsh\,} \big)^{\!\triangledown} \Big)^{\!\perp\,} \Big)^{\!\!\curlyvee} \, = \; \Big(\! \big( {\calC_q}^{\!\!\triangledown} \big)^\perp \Big)^{\!\!\curlyvee} \, = \; \Big(\! \big( {\calC_q}^{\!\perp} \big)^{!\,} \Big)^{\!\!\curlyvee}
\end{equation}
\indent Now, one proves easily that $\calC_q$ strict implies ${\calC_q}^{\!\perp}$ strict. Then Theorem \ref{converse}{\it (c)\/} yields $ \, \Big(\! \big( {\calC_q}^{\!\perp} \big)^{!\,} \Big)^{\!\!\curlyvee} \! = \, {\calC_q}^{\!\perp} \, $. This and \eqref{quarantundici} give $ \, {\calI_q}^{\!\curlyvee} \! = \Big(\! \big( {\calC_q}^{\!\perp} \big)^{!\,} \Big)^{\!\!\!\curlyvee} \!\! = {\calC_q}^{\!\perp} \! = \! {\big( {\gerC_q}^{\!\Lsh\,} \big)}^\perp \, $, which eventually ends the proof of {\it (b)}.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\section{Examples} \label{examples}
In this last section we will give some examples showing how our general constructions may be explicitly implemented. Some of the examples may look rather singular, but our aim here is mainly to draw the reader's attention on how even badly behaved cases can produce reasonable results. It has to be remarked that a wealth of new examples of coisotropic subgroups of Poisson groups have been recently produced (\cite{Zam}), to which our recipes could be interestedly applied.
\medskip
{\sl N.B.: for the last two examples --- Subsections \ref{param-fam_cs} and \ref{non-coiso} --- one can perform the explicit computations (that we just sketch) using definitions, formulas and notations as in \cite{CiGa}, \S 6, and in \cite{Ga2}, \S 7}.
\medskip
\subsection{Quantization of Stokes matrices as a $ \text{\it GL}_{\,n}^{\;*} $--space} \label{Stokes}
As a first example, we mention the following. A well-known structure of Poisson group, typically known as the {\sl standard\/} one, is defined on $ \text{\it SL}_{\,n} \, $; then one can consider its (connected) dual Poisson group $ \text{\it SL}_{\,n}^{\;*} \, $, which in turn is a Poisson group as well. The set of {\sl Stokes matrices} --- i.e.~upper triangular, unipotent matrices --- of size $ n $ bears a natural structure of Poisson homogeneous space, and even Poisson quotient, for $ \text{\it SL}_{\,n}^{\;*} \, $. In \cite{CiGa}, Section 6, it was shown that one can find an explicit quantization, of formal type, of this Poisson quotient by a suitable application of the QDP procedure for formal quantizations developed in that paper.
\par
Now, let us look at the explicit presentation of the formal quantization $ U_\hbar(\mathfrak{sl}_n) $ considered in [{\it loc.~cit.}]. One sees easily that this can be turned into a presentation of a {\sl global\/} quantization (of $ \mathfrak{sl}_n $ again), i.e.~a QUEA $ U_q(\mathfrak{sl}_n) $ in the sense of Section \ref{quantizations}. Similarly, Drinfeld's QDP (for quantum groups) applied to $ U_\hbar(\mathfrak{sl}_n) $ provides a formal quantization $ \, F_\hbar[[\text{\it SL}_{\,n}^{\;*}]] := {U_\hbar(\mathfrak{sl}_n)}' \, $ of the function algebra over the formal group $ \text{\it SL}_{\,n}^{\;*} \, $; but then the analogous functor for the global version of QDP yields (cf.~Theorem \ref{GQDP}) a global quantization $ \, F_q[\text{\it SL}_{\,n}^{\;*}] := {U_q(\mathfrak{sl}_n)}' \, $ of the function algebra over $ \text{\it SL}_{\,n}^{\;*} \, $. In a nutshell, $ F_q[\text{\it SL}_{\,n}^{\;*}] $ is nothing but (a suitable renormalization of) an obvious $ \Cqqm $--integral form of $ F_\hbar[[\text{\it SL}_{\,n}^{\;*}]] \, $.
\par
Carrying further on this comparison, one can easily see that the whole analysis performed in \cite{CiGa} can be converted into a similar analysis for the global context, yielding parallel results; in particular, {\it one ends up with a global quantization --- of type $ \calC $, in the sense of Section \ref{quantizations} --- of the space of Stokes matrices}. More in detail, this quantization is a strict one, as such is the quantum subobject one starts with.
\par
Since all this does not require more than a word by word translation, we refrain from filling in details.
\medskip
\subsection{A parametrized family of real coisotropic subgroups} \label{param-fam_cs}
Coisotropic subgroups may come in families, in some cases inside the same conjugacy class (which is responsible for different Poisson homogeneous bivectors on the same underlying manifold). An example in the real case was described in detail in \cite{BCGST}. The setting is the one of standard Poisson $SL_2(\mathbb R)\,$, which contains a two parameter family of $1$--\,dimensional coisotropic subgroups described, globally, by the right ideal and two-sided ideal
\begin{equation}
\label{coiso-generators}
\calI_{\mu,\nu} \; := \; \left\{\, a-d+2\,q^{\frac 1 2}\mu b \; , \; q\,\nu b+c
\,\right\} \cdot F_q\big[SL_2({\mathbb R})\big]
\end{equation}
where $a,b,c,d$ are the usual matrix elements generating $\,F_q\big[SL_2(\mathbb R)\big]\,$, with $*$-- structure in which they are all real (thus $\,q^*=q^{-1}\,$) and $\,\mu,\nu\in {\mathbb R} \, $. The corresponding family of coisotropic subgroups of classical $ SL_2({\mathbb R}) $ may be described as
\[
K_{\mu,\nu} \; := \; \bigg\{\! \left(\begin{array}{cc}d-2\mu b & b\\ -\nu b&d\end{array}\right) \,\bigg|\, b,d \in {\mathbb R} \, , \, d^2+\nu b^2=1 \,\bigg\}
\]
(adapting our main text arguments to the case of {\sl right\/} quantum coisotropic subgroups, this is quite trivial and we will do it without further comments). The corresponding $SL_2({\mathbb R})$--quantum homogeneous spaces have local description given as follows: $\calC_{\mu,\nu}$ is the subalgebra generated by
\begin{equation} \label{mu-homo}
\begin{aligned}
& z_1 \, = \, q^{-\frac 1 2}(ac+\nu bd)+2\mu bc \; , \quad z_2 \, = \, c^2+\nu d^2+2\mu q^{-\frac 1 2}cd \; , \\
& z_3 \, = \, a^2+\nu b^2+2\mu q^{-\frac 1 2}ab \; .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using commutation relations --- see (12) in \cite{BCGT} --- it is easily seen that $\calC_{\mu,\nu}$ has a linear basis given by $ \; \big\{\, z_1^p z_2^q \, , \, z_1^p z_3^r \,\big|\, p, q, r \in \N \,\big\} \; $.
\medskip
\begin{proposition}
The subalgebra $\calC_{\mu,\nu}$ is a right coideal of $ F_q\big[SL_2({\mathbb R})\big] $ and is a strict quantization --- of type $ \calC $ --- of $ K_{\mu,\nu} \, $.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first statement is proven in \cite{BCGT}. As for the second we will first show that $ \, z_1^p z_2^q\,, z_1^p z_3^r \not\in (q-1) F_q\big[SL_2({\mathbb R})\big] \, $ for any $ \, p,q,r\in\N \, $. This may done by considering their expression in terms of the usual basis $ \, \big\{\, a^p b^r c^s \, , \, b^h c^k d^i \,\big\} \, $ of $F_q\big[SL_2({\mathbb R})\big]\,$. In fact we do not need a full expression of monomials $ z_1^p z_2^r $ or $ z_1^p z_3^r $ in terms of this basis, which would lead to quite heavy computations. It is enough to remark that, for example, since
\[
z_1^p z_2^r \; = \; \left(q^{-\frac 1 2}ac+b(\nu d+2\mu c)\right)^p \left(c^2+(\nu d+2\mu q^{-\frac 1 2}c)d\right)^r
\]
we can get an element multiple of $ \, a^p c^{p+2r} \, $ only from $ \, (ac)\cdot\cdots (ac)\cdot c\cdots \cdot c \, $, which is of the form $ \, q^h a^p c^{p+2r} \not\in F_q\big[SL_2({\mathbb R})\big] \, $. Since no other elements may add up with this one, we have $ \, z_1^p z_2^r \not\in (q-1) F_q\big[SL_2({\mathbb R})\big] \, $. A similar argument works for $ z_1^p z_3^r \, $.
\par
In a similar way we prove that any $ \Cqqm $--linear combination of the $ z_1^p z_2^q $'s and the $ z_1^s z_3^r $'s is in $ \, (q-1) F_q\big[SL_2({\mathbb R})\big] \, $ if and only if all coefficients are in $ \, (q-1) \Cqqm \, $. Therefore $ \calC_q $ is strict, q.e.d.
\end{proof}
\smallskip
It makes therefore sense to compute $ \, \calC_{\mu, \nu}^{\,\,\triangledown} \, $; to this end, we can resume a detailed description of $ \, U_q(\gersl_2^{\,*}) := {F_q\big[SL_2({\mathbb R})\big]}^\vee \, $ --- apart for the real structure, which is not really relevant here --- from \cite{Ga2}, \S 7.7. From our PBW-type basis we have that $ \calC_{\mu,\nu}^{\,\,\triangledown} $ is the subalgebra of $ {F_q\big[SL_2({\mathbb R})\big]}^\vee $ generated by the elements $ \, \zeta_i := {\frac{1}{\,q-1\,}} \big( z_i - \varepsilon(z_i) \big) \in {F_q\big[SL_2(\mathbb R)\big]}^\vee \, (i=1,2,3) \, $. Since we know that
$$ H_+ \, := \, \frac{\,a-1\,}{\,q-1\,} \; , \qquad E \, := \, \frac{\,b\,}{\,q-1\,} \; , \qquad
F \, := \, \frac{\,c\,}{\,q-1\,} \; , \qquad H_- \, := \, \frac{\,d-1\,}{\,q-1\,} $$
are algebra generators of $ \, U_q(\gersl_2^{\,*}) := {F_q\big[SL_2({\mathbb R})\big]}^\vee \, $, we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{dualmunu}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\,\zeta_1\,}{\,q-1\,} \,\; = & \;\;\, q^{-\frac 1 2}(F+\nu E) + (q-1) \left(q^{-\frac 1 2} H_+F+q^{-\frac 1 2} \nu E H_-+2\mu E F \right) \\
\frac{\,\zeta_2-\nu\,}{\,q-1\,} \,\; = & \;\;\, 2 \, (\nu H_- +\mu q^{-\frac 1 2}F) + (q-1) \left( F^2+\nu H_-^2+2\mu q^{-\frac 1 2} F H_- \right) \\
\frac{\,\zeta_3-1\,}{\,q-1\,} \,\; = & \;\;\, 2 \, (H_++\mu q^{-\frac 1 2}E) + (q-1) \left( H_+^2+\nu E^2+2\mu q^{-\frac 1 2} H_+ E \right)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In the semiclassical specialization $ \; U_q(\gersl_2^{\,*}) \,{\buildrel {q \longrightarrow 1} \over {\, \relbar\joinrel\longrightarrow\,}}\, U_q(\gersl_2^{\,*}) \Big/ (q-1) U_q(\gersl_2^{\,*}) \; $ one has that $ \, E \mapsto \text{\rm e} \, $, $ \, F \mapsto \text{\rm f} \, $, $ \, H_\pm \mapsto \pm \text{\rm h} \, $, where $ \, \text{\rm h}, \text{\rm e}, \text{\rm f} \, $ are Lie algebra generators of $ \gersl_2^* \, $; therefore the semiclassical limit of the right hand side of \eqref{dualmunu} is the Lie subalgebra generated by $ \, \text{\rm f} + \nu \, \text{\rm e} \, $, $ \, -\nu \, \text{\rm h} + \mu \, \text{\rm e} \, $, $ \, \text{\rm h} + \mu \, \text{\rm e} \, $, or, equivalently, the 2--dimensional Lie subalgebra generated by $ \, \text{\rm f} + \nu \, \text{\rm e} \, $ and $ \, \text{\rm h} + \mu \, \text{\rm e} \, $ (the three elements above being linearly dependent) with relation $ \, [\, \text{\rm h} + \mu \, \text{\rm e} \, , \text{\rm f} + \nu \, \text{\rm e} \,] = \text{\rm f} + \nu \, \text{\rm e} \; $.
The quantization of this coisotropic subalgebra of $\gersl_2^{\,*}$ is therefore the subalgebra generated inside $ U_q(\gersl_2^{\,*}) $ by the quadratic elements \eqref{dualmunu}.
\par
Similar computations can be performed starting from $\calI_{\mu,\nu}\,$. The transformed $\calI_{\mu,\nu}^\curlyvee$ is the right ideal generated by the image of $ \, a-d+2\,q^{\frac 1 2}\mu b \, $ and $ \, q\nu b+c \, $, i.e.~the right ideal generated by $ \, H_+-H_- + 2 \, q^{\frac 1 2} \mu E \, $ and $ \, q \, \nu E + F \, $; also, from its semiclassical limit it is easily seen that this again corresponds to the same coisotropic subgroup of the dual Poisson group $ {\text{\it SL}_{\,2}(\mathbb R)}^* \, $.
\par
All this gives a local --- i.e., infinitesimal --- description of the ($2$--dimensional) coisotropic subgroups $ K^{\,\,\bot}_{\mu,\nu} $ in $ {\text{\it SL}_{\,2}(\mathbb R)}^* \, $.
\medskip
\subsection{The non coisotropic case} \label{non-coiso}
Let us finally consider the case of a non coisotropic subgroup. We will consider the embedding of $SL_2(\C)$ into $SL_3(\C)$ corresponding to a non simple root, which easily generalizes to higher dimensions. Computations will only be sketched.
Let $\gerh$ be the subalgebra of $\gersl_3(\C)$ spanned by $E_{1,3}\,$, $F_{1,3}\,$, $ \, H_{1,3}=H_1+H_2 \, $. Easy computations show that the standard cobracket values are
\begin{equation}\label{cobracket non simple}
\begin{aligned}
\delta(E_{13}) \; = & \;\; E_{13}\wedge (H_1+H_2)+2E_{23}\wedge E_{12}\\
\delta(F_{13}) \; = & \;\; F_{13}\wedge (H_1+H_2)-2F_{23}\wedge F_{12}\\
\delta(H_1+H_2) \; = & \;\; 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and, therefore, the corresponding embedding $ \; SL_2(\C) \lhook\joinrel\longrightarrow SL_3(\C) \; $ is {\sl not\/} coisotropic. To compute the coisotropic interior $\gerho$ of $\gerh\,$, consider that $ \, \langle H_1 + H_2 \rangle \, $ is, trivially, a subbialgebra of $\gerh\,$, thus contained in $\gerho\,$. Let $ \, X := (H_1+H_2)+\alpha E_{13}+\beta F_{13} \; $:
then
\[
\delta(X) \; = \; X\wedge(H_1+H_2)+2\left(\alpha E_{23}\wedge E_{12}-\beta F_{23}\wedge F_{12}\right)
\]
shows that no such $X$ is in $\gerho\,$, unless $\,\alpha=0=\beta\,$.
The outcome is that we have
$$ \stackrel{\circ}{H} \,\; = \; \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\gamma & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \gamma^{-1}
\end{array}\right)
\; \subseteq \; SL_3(\C) $$
with $ \, \gamma \in \C^* \, $. Correspondingly
\[
\gerh^{\langle\bot\rangle} \, = \, \Big(\gerho\Big)^\bot \, = \; \big\langle\, \text{\rm e}_{1,2} \, , \, \text{\rm e}_{1,3} \, , \, \text{\rm e}_{2,3} \, , \, \text{\rm f}_{1,2} \, , \, \text{\rm f}_{1,3} \, , \, \text{\rm f}_{2,3} \, , \, \text{\rm h}_{2.2} \,\big\rangle \qquad \Big(\, \subseteq \, {\mathfrak{sl}_3(\C)}^* \,\Big)
\]
and, thus $ \, {SL_3(\C)}^* \Big/ \! H^{\langle\bot\rangle} \, $ is a $1$--\,dimensional Poisson homogeneous space --- with, of course, zero Poisson bracket.
\par
Let us consider now any weak quantization $\gerC_q(H)$ of $H$. It should certainly contain the subalgebra of $U_q(\gersl_3)$ generated by the root vectors $E_{1,3}\,$, $F_{1,3}\,$, together with $ \, K_1 K_3^{-1} \, $ and $ \, \widehat{H}_{1,3} := \big( K_1 K_3^{-1} - 1 \big) \Big/ (q-1) \; $. The equality
\[
\Delta(E_{1,3}) \; = \; E_{1,3} \otimes K_1 K_3^{-1} + 1 \otimes E_{1,3} + (q-1) E_{1,2} \otimes E_{2,3}
\]
tells us that, in order to be a left coideal, such a quantization should also contain either $ \, (q-1) E_{1,2} \, $ or $ \, (q-1) E_{2,3} \, $ (and thus, as expected, it cannot be strict). Let us try to compute some elements in ${\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh}\,$. Certainly, since
\[
\delta_2\big(\widehat{H}_{1,3}\big) \; = \; \widehat{H}_{1,3} \otimes \big( K_1 K_3^{-1} - 1 \big) \; = \; (q-1) \, \widehat{H}_{1,3} \otimes \widehat{H}_{1,3}
\]
we can conclude that $ \, (q-1) \widehat{H}_{1,3} \in {\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh} \, $. On the other hand,
\[
\delta_2(E_{1,3}) \; = \; (q-1) E_{1,3} \otimes \widehat{H}_{1,3} + (q-1) E_{1,2} \otimes E_{2,3}
\]
implies that $ \, (q-1) E_{1,3} \not\in {\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh} \, $, while $ \, (q-1)^2 E_{1,3} \in {\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh} \, $.
\vskip11pt
All this means the following.
\vskip7pt
Within $ {\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh} $ we find a non-diagonal matrix element of the form $ \, (q\!-\!1) \, t_{1,3} \, $: it belong to $ \, (q\!-\!1) {U_q(\gersl_3)}' \, $ but not to $ \, (q\!-\!1) {\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh} $, so that
$$ {\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh} \,{\textstyle \bigcap}\, (q\!-\!1) \, {U_q(\gersl_3)}' \,\; \supsetneqq \;\, (q\!-\!1) \, {\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh} $$
which means that the quantization $ {\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh} $ {\it is not strict}. On the other hand, we know by Proposition \ref{Lsh}{\it (3)\/} that $ {\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh} $ is {\sl proper}. Therefore, {\it we have an example of a quantization (of type $ \calC_q \, $, still by Proposition \ref{Lsh}{\it (3)}) which is {\sl proper}, yet it is {\sl not strict}}.
\vskip9pt
In addition, in the specialization map $ \, \pi : {U_q(\gersl_3)}' \relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\twoheadrightarrow\, {U_q(\gersl_3)}' \Big/ (q-1) {U_q(\gersl_3)}' \, $ the element $ \, (q\!-\!1) \, t_{1,3} \, $ is mapped to zero, i.e.~it yields a trivial contribution to the semiclassical limit of $ {\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh} $ --- which here is meant as being $ \; \pi\big( {\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh} \,\big) = {\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh} \! \Big/ {\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh} \bigcap \, (q-1) \, {U_q(\gersl_3)}' \; $. With similar computations it is possible to prove, in fact, that the only generating element in $ {\gerC(H)}^{\!\Lsh}$ having a non-trivial semiclassical limit is $ \, (q-1) \widehat{H}_{1,3} \, $. Therefore, through specialization at $ \, q = 1 \, $, from ${\gerC(H)}^{\!\Lsh}$ one gets only $ \, \pi\big({\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh}\big) = \C\big[t_{2,2}\big] \, $: indeed, this in turn tells us exactly that $ {\gerC_q(H)}^{\!\Lsh} $ is a quantization, of {\sl proper\/} type, of the homogeneous $ {SL_3(\C)}^* $--space $ \, {SL_3(\C)}^* \!\Big/ H^{\langle\bot\rangle} \, $ (whose Poisson bracket is trivial).
\vskip23pt
{\bf Remark.} It is worth stressing that this example --- no matter how rephrased --- could not be developed in the language of formal quantizations as a direct application of the construction in \cite{CiGa}, for only strict quantizations were taken into account there.
\bigskip
\bigskip
|
\section{Introduction}
The development of needle-free drug injection systems is an essential part of the global fight against the spread of disease \cite{Kane1999, Varmus2003, Hauri2004}. Contamination, needle-stick injuries \cite{Kermode2004}, painful injections, and needle phobia \cite{Nir2003} are issues related to traditional syringe injections with needles that demand attention. Needle-free injections systems offer the prospect of resolving these problems \cite{Mitragotri2005}. Previous studies have explored the possibilities of needle-free injections, but important limitations still need to be addressed \cite{Arora2007, Menezes2009, Stachowiak2009, Mitragotri2006, Baxter2005, Baxter2004}.
The main issue that is limiting applicability is the shape of the jets produced by the current systems.
These devices create diffusive jets, leading to a large dispersion pattern and unreliable penetration.
This in turn creates problems for patients, in the form of frequent bruising and pain \cite{Mitragotri2006}.
Another problem of conventional methods is that due to the small size of the nozzle diameter, it can easily get clogged, causing disruptions to controllability.
Very recently, we have managed to generate thin, focused microjets with velocities of up to 850 m/s by the rapid vaporization of a small mass of liquid in an open liquid-filled capillary as reported in \cite{Tagawa2012}.
Our novel method of jet creation addresses the issues mentioned above.
Ultra-high velocities (more than 200 m/s) combined with a highly-focused geometry enable one-shot penetration to the desired area and good controllability. The forces exerted on the liquid that is delivered in this way cause minor damage to the medicine that is contained in it \cite{Hogan2006}.
Due to the fine scale of the jet tip (30 $\mu$m) combined with the high velocities, we can easily adjust the penetration depth according to the requirements. This makes drug delivery efficient and as painless as possible.
In this article we study the penetration dynamics of these highly focused microjets into gelatin mixtures and artificially grown human skin using high-speed imaging.
We investigate the penetration depth as a function of the jet velocity and the capillary tube diameter.
The understanding of these dynamics will provide essential insight for the development of needle-free injection devices.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\subsection{Injection into gelatin}
In order to study the penetration of these microjets, we used gelatin 5 wt\% as a model material. This percentage simulates the properties of soft tissue in the human body \cite{Menezes2009}.
Figure~\ref{SAX} provides the first observation of the temporal evolution of the jet penetration.
This visualization is of utmost importance for studying the interaction of the microjet and the human body.
As illustrated in figure~\ref{SAX}, the sharp tip of the microjet reaches the material first.
The diameter of this tip creates an injection spot $\sim$ 30 $\mu$m, smaller than a mosquito's proboscis.
This thin part of the jet starts digging a hole into the material.
Thanks to the highly focused geometry, there is no splashing around the penetration spot, which is crucial for medical applications. This is clearly indicated in figure~\ref{SAX} for the snapshots covering 30 - 100 $\mu$s.
The snapshot at 100 $\mu$s shows a well-controlled dispersion pattern.
The width of the hole remains as small as the jet diameter.
This is in sharp contrast to the existing methods using diffusive jets, which result in scattered penetration.
The low-speed thick part of the jet utilizes the entry point created by the thin jet and is efficiently deposited into the material.
The penetration of the tip stops at about 300 $\mu$s while the thick jet part continues to make its way to the deepest part of the hole.
At the final snapshot (1.1 ms) almost all volume of the jet released by the capillary tube is deposited into the soft material.
The ultrafast jet tip guarantees a high percentage of the liquid being injected as illustrated in figure~\ref{SAX}.
The entire process is finished after 1.1 ms.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.75\textwidth]{Fig1.pdf}}
\caption{Snapshots of the jet penetration into gelatin. The laser is shot at 0 $\mu$s and the subsequent images show the jet injection process at the designated times. The jet is created in a 500$\mu$m tube.
\label{SAX}}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{fig:models} shows the penetration depth of the microjet generated in a 200 $\mu$m tube into gelatin 5 wt\% as a function of the jet velocity.
This penetration is created by a single shot.
The depth linearly increases with the jet velocity, covering depths from several hundred microns at low jet speed to $\sim$1.5 millimeter when the jet velocity approaches $\sim$250 m/s.
This highlights the versatility of this method, making it adjustable to different skin-properties (e.g. children/adults, different skin types) and to a broad range of medical applications (e.g. insulin injection \cite{Weller1966, Bremseth2004}, vaccinations \cite{Weniger2003, Giudice2005, Kendall2010}, or medical tattoos).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig2.pdf}}
\caption{The schematic sketch of the forces acting on the jet. The jet shown by the blue color region is penetrating into the gelatin. The viscous shear stress $\tau$ acts at the interface between liquid and gelatin due to the shear flow inside the jet. The repulsive force acts vertically on the projection area of the jet shown by the dashed closed line.}
\label{fig:ModelSketch}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Fig3.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:models} Injection depth as a function of the jet velocity.
Green triangles show the experimental results for the 200 $\mu$m tube.
The depth increases with the jet velocity and no saturation tendency is observed.
For comparison, the gray thin line shows the Baxter model, the blue dashed line is the repulsive force model, and the black thick line is the viscous stress model with same offset.
The experimental results agree well with this latter model.
}
\end{figure}
To get a quantitative understanding, we compare the present results with various models.
A model proposed by Baxter \textit{et al.} \cite{Baxter2005} is fitted to this experimental data and presented in the figure.
The agreement in the low velocity region is fair.
However, this model shows a saturation of the penetration depth for velocities above 200 m/s. In our experiments we did not observe this trend as can be seen in figure~\ref{fig:models}.
The difference is likely due to the shape of the jet created using our novel method.
The jet shape created by conventional methods using syringe-piston system (e.g. \cite{Arora2007, Menezes2009,Baxter2005}) is diffusive.
This shape leads to severe deceleration with jet travel distance (especially for high velocities), which is considered in the model by Baxter \textit{et al.} \cite{Baxter2005}, resulting in shallow penetration.
On the other hand, the highly focused jets in our experiments do not experience this significant deceleration.
To address this discrepancy we consider the relation between initial impact velocity of the jet and the drag force.
We observe that the gelatin does not show much deformation and the jet penetrates into gelatin with cylindrical shape (see the snapshots at 100 $\mu$s in figure~\ref{SAX}).
We model this phenomena as a cylindrical microjet, normal to the gelatin surface.
It creates a cylindrical `crack' inside the gelatin, which keeps the same circular projection area independent of the depth.
Figure~\ref{fig:ModelSketch} shows the schematic sketch of this model.
The drag forces on the jet are the viscous shear stress at the jet-gelatin interface and the repulsive force on the area of the cross-section of the jet.
We consider two basic force models, representing these two different cases: A viscous stress model and a repulsive force model.
We first introduce the viscous stress model.
The viscous shear stress $\tau_w$ at the wall is $\mu\partial{u}/\partial{r}$, where $\mu$ is the dynamic viscosity of the liquid, $u$ is the liquid velocity component in the direction parallel to the wall, and $r$ is the normal position to the wall.
In the present case, the velocity scale and the length scale for $\tau_w$ are $v$ and $D$, respectively.
In the viscous regime the relationship between the velocity and the drag force per unit mass is:
\begin{equation}
F_D = -c_{v}\cdot v,
\label{eq:F_D}
\end{equation}
where $c_{v}$ is a fitting parameter with the units of inverse time.
It is known that gentle deposition (small impact velocity) into the soft matter gives no penetration.
The penetration starts when the impact velocity $v_{jet}$ exceeds a critical velocity $v_c$.
For $v_{jet} \ge v_c$ the final penetration depth $D_p$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
D_p = \frac{1}{c_{v}}(v_{jet}-v_c).
\label{eq:D_p}
\end{equation}
The other model considers a repulsive force acting on the jet.
The repulsive force is modeled as being proportional to the inertial force of the jet ($\sim \rho v^2$).
In this inertial regime, the relationship between the velocity and the drag force per unit mass is given by:
\begin{equation}
F_D = -c_{i}\cdot v^2,
\label{eq:Repulsive}
\end{equation}
where $c_i$ is a fitting parameter with dimensions of inverse length.
Including the offset due to the critical velocity, we obtain the final penetration depth $D_p$ as:
\begin{equation}
D_p = \frac{1}{c_{i}}\ln (\frac{v_{jet}}{v_c}-1).
\label{eq:D_p_repulsive}
\end{equation}
Both models are compared with the experimental results in figure~\ref{fig:models}.
It shows that the viscous stress model gives the best agreement, indicating that the jet likely experiences shear stress in the material.
This model gives predictive power to our novel method, enabling us to link the physical parameters of our lab experiments to real world medical applications.
Figure~\ref{fig:TimeEvo} shows the penetration depth for the jets created in tubes with three different diameters.
As discussed in \cite{Tagawa2012}, tubes with larger diameters result in jets with larger diameters.
At the same time, the penetration depth increases with the diameter of the jet.
For the 500 $\mu$m tube case, the jet can penetrate up to $\sim$ 5 mm in a single shot, something that has never been achieved so far.
For the 100 $\mu$m tube case, the jet penetrates 0.5 mm at a velocity of 320 m/s, close to sonic speed.
Thanks to the large velocity range of our jets, we can achieve the same penetration depth by using different tube diameters, which enables us to control the injection volume with nano-liter precision.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig4.pdf}}
\caption{Injection depth as a function of the jet velocity for different capillary tube diameters. The data for each capillary tube are fitted by the viscous stress model, shown by the dashed line. The fitted slope $c_v$ is plotted as a function of the capillary size in the inset.
The data can be represented by $c_v \propto D^{-1.35\pm 0.48} $, shown as the black dash-dotted line in the inset. \label{fig:TimeEvo}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig5.pdf}}
\caption{
The time evolution of the penetration depth $D_p$.
The blue markers show the experimental results for the jet of $v_{jet}$ = 120 m/s for the 500 $\mu$m tube.
The red thick line shows the penetration depth from equation~(\ref{eq:D_p(t)}) with $c_v$ obtained by fitting the model by equation~(\ref{eq:D_p}) to all data for the 500 $\mu$m tube shown in figure~\ref{fig:TimeEvo}.
\label{fig:DepthTime}}
\end{figure}
All data sets show a linear relation between the penetration depth and the jet velocity.
Remarkably the viscous stress model (equation~\ref{eq:D_p}) discussed above holds for all cases.
We will now try to calculate the parameter $c_v$ in equation~(\ref{eq:D_p}) from the jet geometry:
We approximate the jet shape by a cylinder, whose mass $m_j = \pi\rho D^2 l/4$, where $l$ is the length of the jet cylinder.
The total viscous stress on the jet is $F_v = \int_{dA} \tau dA$, where $A$ is the area on which the viscous shear stress acts.
The elongated shape of the jet, i.e. the aspect ratio $D/l \ll$ 1 allows us to approximate $A\approx \pi D l$, leading to $F_v \sim \mu v l$.
Thus we obtain equation~(\ref{eq:F_D}) $F_D \sim c_v\cdot v$ with $c_v \propto D^{-2}$, meaning that $c_v$ quadratically decreases with increasing $D$.
The experimental values $c_v$ for each tube jet are shown in the inset in the figure~\ref{fig:TimeEvo}.
Indeed, larger values for $c_v$ are found for smaller $D$.
Assuming a power low $c_v\propto D^{\alpha}$ we obtain from the experimental results $\alpha$ = -1.35 $\pm 0.48$, slightly larger than the model result $\alpha$ = -2.
We also experimentally measure the time evolution of the penetration depth and compare it with the viscous stress model. The model leads to an exponential temporal evolution of the penetration depth $D_p(t)$,
\begin{equation}
D_p(t) = \frac{v_{jet}-v_c}{c_{v}}(1-e^{-c_{v}t}).
\label{eq:D_p(t)}
\end{equation}
The viscous stress model shows an agreement with the measurement within error bars as shown in figure~\ref{fig:DepthTime}.
This result provides additional support in favor of the viscous stress model for gelatin.\\
\subsection{Injection into artificially grown human skin}
In order to mimic the real human body, we have used artificially grown human skin placed on top of the gelatin 5 wt\% as a target material for our jets.
Figure~\ref{ArtificialSkin} shows snapshots of the jet penetrating into this material comprising of both the skin and the gelatin.
The tip of the jet is observed for the first time in the gelatin at 46 $\mu$s.
At this point, it is clear that the jet is able to penetrate human skin.
After this stage, the penetration dynamics are similar to those in the gelatin case shown in figure~\ref{SAX}. The jet is still focused even though the jet has to penetrate through the additional barrier of skin.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{Fig6.pdf}}
\caption{Time evolution of the jet penetration into human skin placed on gelatin. After the second snapshot, the time interval for each image is 10 $\mu$s. The laser is shot at 0 $\mu$s. The jet impact velocity is 160 m/s. Note that the dark region of the skin in the images is thicker than the actual thickness of the skin, as the skin curls up on the sides of the cuvette.
\label{ArtificialSkin}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Fig7.pdf}}
\caption{
(a) A sketch for the jet penetration into the gelatin covered with the artificially grown human skin layer (the thickness $l_s$ = 700 $\mu$m).
At $t = t_0$ the jet impacts the skin layer with the velocity $V_{jet}$.
At $t = t_1$ the jet goes through the skin layer and start penetrating the gelatin with the velocity $V_{sg}$.
At $t = t_2$ the jet stops at the final depth $D_p$.
(b) Diamonds: the final depth $D_p$ into gelatin with the skin layer as a function of the jet velocity.
The dashed line: the case for gelatin without skin attached.
The blue thick line: the results of the model represented by equation~(\ref{eq:Iskin}).
(c) The velocity reduction $\Delta V$ due to the skin layer vs. the impact velocity.
The dark green line: the viscous stress model for the skin, and the blue thick line: the repulsive force model (equation~(\ref{eq:RepulsiveSkin})).
\label{D_pSkin}}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{D_pSkin}(b) shows the penetration depth ($D_p$) into the gelatin through the skin as a function of the initial impact velocity ($V_{jet}$) of the jet.
Note that the data only represent the penetration depth ($D_p$) into the gelatin, excluding the skin thickness ($l_s$) as indicated in figure~\ref{D_pSkin}(a).
The threshold velocity for penetrating through the skin is found to be 80 m/s.
Even after the jet has penetrated an additional barrier in the form of human skin, the depth depends linearly on the initial velocity ($V_{jet}$).
This suggests an excellent controllability of this system, which is crucial for medical applications.
As seen in figure~\ref{D_pSkin}(b), the jet can penetrate more than a millimeter into the soft tissues (gelatin in the present case), after passing through the skin barrier.
This depth is sufficient for most medical applications, e.g. insulin injection or vaccinations.
When compared to the pure gelatin case (dashed line in figure~\ref{D_pSkin}(b)), the penetration depth is of course smaller with the skin layer being present.
The skin decelerates the jet until complete penetration through itself (at $t = t_1$ as shown in figure~\ref{D_pSkin}(a)), after which the jet penetrates the gelatin until complete stoppage (at $t = t_2$).
For the latter process we again adopt the viscous drag model, but with a reduced velocity $v_{sg}$ due to the additional barrier of the skin (as shown in figure~\ref{D_pSkin}(a)).
The velocity reduction by the skin layer is
\begin{equation}
\Delta V = V_{jet}-V_{sg},
\end{equation}
which, as indicated in figure~\ref{D_pSkin}(b), is equivalent to the horizontal offset between the line for the pure gelatin and the measured data with the skin layer being present.
Figure~\ref{D_pSkin}(c) shows this velocity reduction ($\Delta V$) as a function of the impact velocity ($V_{jet}$).\\ We evaluate the velocity reduction by considering the drag of the skin layer again with two different models: the viscous stress model and the repulsive force model.
The viscous stress model for the skin layer leads to a constant velocity reduction for a given skin thickness (see equation~\ref{eq:D_p}).
However, the experimental results show a different trend in figure~\ref{D_pSkin}(c).
Hence, we model the skin layer with a repulsive force (see equation~\ref{eq:Repulsive}), and the corresponding velocity reduction is
\begin{align}
\Delta V= v_{jet}-(v_{jet} - v_s)e^{-c_{i,s}l_s},
\label{eq:RepulsiveSkin}
\end{align}
with two fitting parameters: $c_{i,s}$ and $v_s$, and the skin thickness $l_s$ = 700 $\mu$m.
Figure~\ref{D_pSkin}(c) reveals that the model described by equation~(\ref{eq:RepulsiveSkin}) with $c_{i,s}$ = 1.0$\cdot10^{3}$ m$^{-1}$ and $v_s$ = 51.5 m/s shows a good agreement with the experiments, suggesting that the jet experiences the repulsive force in the skin layer.
This is probably due to the increased hardness of the skin compared to that of gelatin.
The final penetration depth inside the gelatin can be therefore obtained as
\begin{equation}
D_{p} = \frac{1}{c_{v}}( (v_{jet} - v_s)e^{-c_{i,s}l_s} - v_c),
\label{eq:Iskin}
\end{equation}
which is plotted as the thick line in figure~\ref{D_pSkin}(b).
The excellent agreement suggests that the model (equation~(\ref{eq:Iskin})) combining the repulsive force for the skin layer and the viscous drag for the gelatin, nicely describes the depth of the jet penetration.
This model is thus suited to quantitatively describe the penetration of high-speed jets into human skin enclosing soft tissue.
In this study we have shown that a novel method for needle-free injections can resolve many of the longstanding issues that have prevented largescale adaptation of needle-free injection systems.
We show that a highly-focused geometry of the jets and a wide range of velocities is essential for good controllability, versatility, and effectiveness of needle-free injection systems.
We also model the penetration of the jet into soft matter and human skin enclosing soft tissue.
The results presented here take needle-free injections a step closer to widespread use.
\begin{appendix}
\section*{Materials}
\subsection{Microjet Generation}
The highly focused high-speed microjets are generated by focusing a laser pulse into a small capillary tube filled with water-based red dye.
This leads to the abrupt vaporization of a small mass of liquid \cite{Sun2009}.
The vaporization causes a shock wave to travel through the liquid and impulsively accelerate the curved liquid interface due to kinematic focusing.
The capillary tube is connected to a syringe through micro tubing and the dye is pumped into the capillary tube using a syringe pump.
The characteristics of this jet, such as velocity and width, can be controlled by varying the laser power, the distance between the laser focus and the free surface, the liquid-glass contact angle, and the diameter of the tube \cite{Tagawa2012}. \\
\subsection{Injection Into Gelatin}
Gelatin mixtures were used to study the injection into solid substrates.
The gelatin was prepared a few hours before the experiments by dissolving 5 weight \% of gelatin in MilliQ water.
After dissolving the gelatin, the mixture was poured into small 1 cm$\times$1 cm cuvettes and put in the fridge (4\,$^{\circ}$C) for an hour. Penetration dynamics were filmed using high-speed cameras with frame rates up to 10$^6$ fps (HPV-1, Shimadzu Corporation, Japan, and FASTCAM SAX, Photron, USA). \\
\subsection{Penetration Across Human Skin In Vitro}
The artificial skin was cultured by the Department of Dermatology of the Leiden University Medical Center. The Leiden Human Epidermal (LHE) skin model used in this study has been fully characterized and shows very high similarities with native skin \cite{Ghalbzouri2008}.
The LHE represents a full-thickness model (epidermis generated onto a dermal matrix).
The skin was supplied in patches of 2.4 cm in diameter and was kept in an incubator prior to experiments. For the penetration experiments, the skin layers were placed on top of the gelatin mixtures in the small cuvettes.
Penetration dynamics were filmed using high-speed cameras (HPV-1, Shimadzu Corporation, Japan, and FASTCAM SAX, Photron, USA). \\
\subsection{Velocity and Depth Measurement}
High-speed cameras (HPV-1, Shimadzu Corporation, Japan, and FASTCAM SAX, Photron, USA) were used to record the injection process.
The velocity and depth were determined from these high-speed recordings.
\end{appendix}
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank C. Clanet, F. Dijksman, B. Hoeksma, L. Homan, Devaraj van der Meer, Vivek N. Prakash, and C.W. Visser for fruitful discussions.
We appreciate the financial support given by Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM), which is part of Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) and the European Research Council (ERC) through a Proof of Concept Grant.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
The naive discretization of the Dirac equation on the lattice~\cite{Wilson74} leads to a replication of the fermionic states, known as lattice fermion {\em doubling}~\cite{Wilson75}.
The doublers appear as spurious poles in the fermion propagator at the nonzero corners of the Brillouin zone.
The Wilson way of removing the doublers is to give them a mass which becomes infinite in the continuum limit, at the cost of an explicit breaking of chiral invariance on the lattice~\cite{Wilson75}.
In the Kogut-Susskind~\cite{KS, BKS, SS76, Susskind} lattice formulation for relativistic fermions~\cite[Chap.~4]{MM} the doublers are instead interpreted as physical fields by the introduction of additional quantum numbers. This has been done in two ways.
In the former approach, first the fermion field is reduced to a single component per site by a procedure called {\em spin diagonalization}, and, for this reason, this method is referred to as the one in the {\it spin basis}. Afterwards
spin and flavour degrees of freedom are associated to different corners of an elementary hypercube on the lattice~\cite{Kluber81, Kluber83, Gliozzi}, and therefore sometimes fermions in this formulation are said to be {\it staggered}.
In the latter approach~\cite{STW, Vandendoel, Golterman}, said in the {\em flavour basis}, the additional quantum numbers, called {\em taste}, are associated, together with the spin, with blocks corresponding to the hypercubes of the spin basis of size twice the lattice spacing.
In the absence of coupling with gauge fields these forms are changed into one another by a linear transformation on the fermion fields, but in the presence of gauge fields they are not equivalent, as we shall make clear in the following. Their difference is of consequence in the construction of the corresponding transfer matrices.
For Kogut-Susskind fermions in the flavour basis a simple operator realization of the transfer matrix is known~\cite{Fab02}. It has been built in close analogy with the case of Wilson fermions~\cite{LuscherTM, Creutz77, Creutz87, Smit, Creutz99} (see also~\cite{MP}), the only difference being that it performs time translations by one block instead of one lattice spacing.
The situation is more complex for Kogut-Susskind fermions in the spin basis~\cite{STW, Vandendoel, Banks}, because all attempts at constructing a positive definite transfer matrix that performs time translations by a single lattice spacing failed. The difficulty was circumvented by looking at time translations by two lattice spacings.
Here we meet with a subtlety. We must distinguish whether the Fock space is built on one or two time slices.
In the first case, the square root of the matrix which translates by two lattice spacings is the one that translates by one lattice spacing. In the second case, instead, translations by one lattice spacing are not defined at all.
This seems to be the case with Kogut-Susskind fermions, but the necessary construction of the Fock space on blocks, in the spin basis, has not been made explicit.
We became interested in a formulation of the transfer matrix in the spin basis in the framework of relativistic field theories of
fermions whose partition function is dominated by bosonic composites~\cite{CLP}. This subject became for us more relevant in the development of an approach to QCD hadronization (meant as the replacement of the QCD degrees of freedom by hadronic ones) that makes use of the operator form of the transfer matrix~\cite{ Palu, CPV, noi-prd, diquarks}. Using Kogut-Susskind fermions, because of the lack of a convenient formulation of the transfer matrix, we were able to express our results only in the flavour basis. Numerical simulations are, instead, usually performed in the spin basis, because they are much faster. We were thus motivated to find an operator form of the transfer matrix in this latter basis as well.
Since apparently in any case we should resign to time translations by one block, we decided to get an expression of the transfer matrix in the spin basis by a linear transformation from the flavour basis.
We deem that the question might be of more general interest, and therefore we report our results in the present paper.
In Sect.~\ref{ks} we remind for the convenience of the reader and in order to establish the notation what is relevant for the following about the Kogut-Susskind regularization. We adopt the notations of Montvay and M\"{u}nster~\cite{MM} with some minor changes that will be specified.
In Sect.~\ref{tl} we perform the transformation of the action from the flavour to the spin basis. Most of the results, with some qualification, are well known, but we think this Section is a necessary preparation for Sect.~\ref{ttm}, in which we perform the transformation of the transfer matrix.
\section{Kogut-Susskind fermions}\label{ks}
Let $x_{\mu}$ be the coordinates of hypercubic lattice sites, $0\leq x_\mu \leq L_\mu-1$ , $0\leq \mu\leq 3$ (Montvay and M\"{u}nster in~\cite{MM} use indices from 1 to 4), and $y_\mu$ the coordinates of hypercubic blocks. They are related by
\begin{equation}
x_\mu = 2 y_\mu + \eta_\mu
\end{equation}
with $0 \leq y_\mu \leq L'_\mu -1$, $L_\mu = 2 L'_\mu$, and $\eta_\mu = 0,1$ the position vectors within the block. The sum over lattice points can be split into the sum over the blocks and the sum over the sites within a block, that is
\begin{equation}
\sum_x = \sum_y \sum_\eta \,.
\end{equation}
We denote by $\psi_x$ the fermionic fields on the lattice sites, and by $q_{y}^{\alpha a}$ the fields on the blocks. The latter have Dirac spinor indices $1\leq \alpha \leq 4$, in greek letters, and taste indices $1\leq a\leq 4$, in latin letters.
It is important to remark that the gauge transformations in the first case act at the sites of the basic lattice, in the second at the coordinates of the blocks
\begin{equation}
\psi_x \, \to \, g_x \, \psi_x \, , \qquad \, q_{y}^{\alpha a}\, \to \, g_y \,q_{y}^{\alpha a}\, .
\end{equation}
While $g_y$ is the same transformation for all $x $ in a given block with coordinate $y$, $g_x$ will in general change also within the same block.
\subsection{The flavour basis}
The gauge link variables on the blocks are denoted by $U_{\mu}(y)$. Under gauge transformations they change according to the rule
\begin{equation}
U_{\mu}(y) \, \to \,
g_y\, U_{\mu}(y)\, g_{y+{\hat \mu}}^{\dagger}\,.
\end{equation}
The action of the fermion fields in the flavour basis can be written as
\begin{equation}
S(U) \, = \, 2^4 \sum_y {\mathcal L}_q(U)
\end{equation}
where the factor $16$ keeps into account the volume of the elementary cell when using variables defined on the blocks, and the Lagrangian in the flavour basis is
\begin{multline}
{\mathcal L}_q(U) := m \, {\overline q}_y (1\!\!1 \otimes 1\!\!1) q_y \\
+ \sum_{\mu=0}^3 {\overline q}_y \left \{ \left[ (\gamma_{\mu} \otimes 1\!\!1) \, \frac{1}{2} \left( \nabla_{\mu}^{(+)} + \nabla_{\mu}^{(-)} \right)
- (\gamma_5 \otimes t_5 t_{\mu}) \, \Delta_{\mu} \right] q \right\}_y
\label{Lflavour}
\end{multline}
the flavour matrices $t_\mu$ are defined for $\mu=0,\dots,3$ and $\mu=5$ by
\begin{equation}
t_\mu = \gamma_\mu^T := t_\mu^\dagger
\end{equation}
and the other operators are defined in terms of translations on the blocks
\begin{equation}
\left[ T_{\mu}^{(\pm)} f \right]_y := 2^4 \sum_{y'} \frac{1}{2^4} \, \delta_{y', y \pm \hat{\mu}} \, f(y') = f(y \pm \hat{\mu} )\,
\end{equation}
and the identity on the blocks
\begin{equation}
\left[ 1\!\!1 f \right]_y := 2^4 \sum_{y'} \frac{1}{2^4} \, \delta_{y', y} \, f(y) = f(y )\,
\end{equation}
according to
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\mu}^{(+)} & := \frac{1}{2} \left( U_{\mu} \,T^{(+)}_{\mu} - 1\!\!1 \right) \, , \qquad \,
\nabla_{\mu}^{(-)} := \frac{1}{2} \left( 1\!\!1 - T^{(-)}_{\mu} U_{\mu}^{\dagger}\right) \label{covder} \\
\Delta_{\mu} & := \frac{1}{2} \left( \nabla_{\mu}^{(+)} - \nabla_{\mu}^{(-)} \right) = \frac{1}{4} \left( U_{\mu} \,T^{(+)}_{\mu}+T^{(-)}_{\mu} U_{\mu}^{\dagger} - 2 \, 1\!\!1 \right) \, .
\end{align}
We can recognize that the projections of the fermionic field
\begin{equation}
q_{+}= P_{+}\, q\,, \qquad \, q_{-}^{\dagger} = P_{-}\, q
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
P_{\pm} = { \frac{1}{2} } ( 1\!\!1 \otimes 1\!\!1 \mp \gamma_0 \gamma_5 \otimes t_5 t_0 )
\end{equation}
propagate forward/backward in time, and therefore describe particles/antiparticles respectively. Accordingly we introduce creation and annihilation operators ${\hat q_{\pm}}^{\dagger}, {\hat q_{\pm}}$. They are defined at one and the same time, so that in addition to spin and flavour, they depend on the spatial position only, denoted by boldface letters. They satisfy canonical anticommutation relations
\begin{equation}
\{ ( {\hat q_{\pm}}^{\dagger} )_ {{\bf y}_1}^{a \alpha }, ({\hat q_{\pm}})_{{\bf y}_2}^{\beta b }\} = \frac{1}{8} \, \delta_{{\bf y}_1 {\bf y}_2}
P_\pm^{\beta b, \alpha a } \,,
\qquad \, \{( {\hat q_{\pm}}^{\dagger} )_ {{\bf y}_1}^{a \alpha }, ({\hat q_{\mp}})_{{\bf y}_2}^{\beta b}\}=0 \,.
\label{comm}
\end{equation}
As the factor $\frac{1}{8}$ accounts for the spatial volume of the blocks, the above anticommutation relations become canonical in the basis in which $P_{\pm}$ are diagonal.
The transfer matrix corresponding to the flavour-Lagrangian \reff{Lflavour} in the gauge $ U_0= 1\!\!1 $ is~\cite{Fab02, Fab02b}
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal T}_{t,t+1} = \exp \left( {\hat q_{-} } \, N_t \, {\hat q_{+} } \, \right)^{\dagger}
\exp(2\mu \, {\hat n}_B) \exp \left( {\hat q_{-} } \, N_{t +1} \, {\hat q_{+} } \, \right)\,.
\end{equation}
In the above equation $N_t$ is a matrix which depends on the time of the blocks only because it depends on the gauge link variables
\begin{equation}
N_t := N[U(t)] \,,
\end{equation}
and $\mu$ is the chemical potential
\begin{equation}
{\hat n}_B = 2^3 \, \sum_{{\bf y}} \left({\hat q}_{+}^{\dagger} {\hat q}_{+} - {\hat q}_{-}^{\dagger} {\hat q}_{-} \right)_{{\bf y}}
\end{equation}
that we omitted for simplicity in the Lagrangian.
By keeping into account the spatial volume factors
\begin{equation}
{\hat q_{-} } \, N_t \, {\hat q_{+} } = 64\, \sum_{{\bf y}',\, {\bf y}} \, (\hat q_{-} )_{{\bf y}'} ( N_t )_{{\bf y}' {\bf y}} (\hat q_{+})_{\bf y}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
N_{{\bf y}' {\bf y}} = -2 \, \Big\{ m \, (\gamma_0 \otimes 1\!\!1) \, 1\!\!1_{{\bf y}' {\bf y}}
+{ \sum_{k=1}^3} (\gamma_0 \gamma_k \otimes 1\!\!1) \left[P^{(-)}_k \nabla_k^{(+)}+ P^{(+)}_k \nabla_k^{(-)}\right]_{{\bf y}' {\bf y}} \vphantom{\sum_{j=0}^3} \Big\} \label{Nstandard}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
P_k^{(\pm)} = { \frac{1}{2} } ( 1\!\!1 \otimes 1\!\!1 \pm \gamma_k \gamma_5 \otimes t_5 t_k ) \,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
1\!\!1_{{\bf y}' {\bf y}} : = \frac{1}{8}\, \delta_{{\bf y}' {\bf y}} \, , \qquad (T_k)^{(\pm)}_{{\bf y}' {\bf y}} := \frac{1}{8}\, \delta_{{\bf y}'\pm \hat{k}, {\bf y}}
\end{equation}
enter in the definitions of $\nabla_k^{(\pm)}$.
Notice that
\begin{equation}
q_{\pm}^{\dagger} N q_{\pm} =0\,.
\end{equation}
\subsection{The spin basis}
For the sake of later comparison we report the regularization of a Lagrangian in the spin basis.
The gauge fields on the hypercubic lattice are denoted by $u_{\mu}(x)$ and transform according to
\begin{equation}
u_{\mu}(x) \, \to \, g_x \, u_{\mu}(x) \, g^{\dagger}_{x+{\hat \mu}}\,.
\end{equation}
The Lagrangian in the spin basis is
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal L}_{\psi}(u) : = m \, {\overline \psi}_x\psi_x+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\mu=0}^3 \alpha_{x\mu}
\left[ \, {\overline \psi}_x \, u_{\mu}(x)\psi_{x+ {\hat \mu}} - {\overline \psi}_{x +{\mu}} u^{\dagger}_{\mu}(x) \psi_x \right]
\label{Lspin}
\end{equation}
where the signs $\alpha_{x \mu}$ are defined for $\mu=0,\dots,3$ by
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{x \mu} := (-1)^{x_0+ \cdots + x_{\mu-1}} \,.
\end{equation}
There is no direct way of identifying forward and backward movers. This is the difficulty encountered in the construction of a transfer matrix in operator form for this Lagrangian.
Indeed, as far as we know, such a construction has been achieved only after a reduction of the Lagrangian itself, in which the fermion fields and their conjugates live on odd and, respectively, even sites \cite{STW}.
At the classical level, however, the fields in the spin and flavour basis are related according to
\begin{align}
q_{y}^{\alpha a} = &\, \frac{1}{8} \, \sum_\eta \Gamma_{\eta; \alpha a} \,\psi_{2 y + \eta} \label{defq}
\\
\bar{q}_{y}^{\,a \alpha } = &\, \frac{1}{8} \, \sum_\eta \bar{\psi}_{2 y + \eta} \,\Gamma_{\eta; a \alpha }^\dagger \label{def}
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_\eta := \gamma_0^{\eta_0} \gamma_1^{\eta_1} \gamma_2^{\eta_2} \gamma_3^{\eta_3} \label{64} \,.
\end{equation}
The matrices $\Gamma$ satisfy the relations
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{4} \mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits \left(\Gamma_\eta^\dagger \Gamma_{\eta'} \right) = & \, \delta_{\eta \eta'} \label{65} \\
\frac{1}{4} \sum_\eta \Gamma_{\eta: b\beta}^\dagger \Gamma_{\eta: \alpha a} = & \, \delta_{b a} \delta_{\beta \alpha} \label{66}
\end{align}
that allow us to invert Eqs.~\reff{def}
\begin{align}
\psi_{2 y+ \eta} = &\, 2 \mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits \left(\Gamma^\dagger_\eta q_y \right)\\
\bar{\psi}_{2 y+ \eta} = &\, 2 \mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits \left(\bar{q}_y \Gamma_\eta \right)\,.
\end{align}
We will use these relationships in order to derive an action and a transfer matrix in the spin basis from those in the flavour basis.
\section{Transformation of the Lagrangian}\label{tl}
In this Section we express the Lagrangian \reff{Lflavour} in the spin basis using the transformations \reff{def}
\begin{equation}
\sum_x\, {\mathcal L}'_\psi(U) := 2^4\, \sum_y {\mathcal L}_q(U) \, .
\end{equation}
While in the absence of gauge interaction ${\mathcal L}'_\psi$ coincides with ${\mathcal L}_{\psi}$, reported in~\reff{Lspin}, we shall see that this does not occur, in general, in the presence of gauge fields.
The mass term of the action is proportional to
\begin{equation}
2^4\, \sum_y \bar{q}_y q_y =
\frac{1}{4} \, \sum_y \sum_\eta \sum_{\eta'} \bar{\psi}_{2y+\eta} \mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits \left(\Gamma^\dagger_{\eta '} \Gamma_\eta\right) \psi_{2y + \eta'}
= \sum_x \bar{\psi}_x \psi_x \,.
\end{equation}
In order to derive the kinetic term we shall use the relations
\begin{align}
\sum_\alpha \gamma_\mu^{\alpha' \alpha} \Gamma_{\eta:\alpha a} = & \, \delta_{0 \eta_\mu} \alpha_{\eta \mu} \Gamma_{\eta+\hat{\mu}:\alpha' a} + \delta_{1\eta_\mu} \alpha_{\eta \mu} \Gamma_{\eta-\hat{\mu}:\alpha' a}\label{70}\\
\sum_{\alpha,a} \gamma_5^{\alpha' \alpha}(t_5 t_\mu)^{a' a} \Gamma_{\eta:\alpha a} = & \, - \delta_{0 \eta_\mu} \alpha_{\eta \mu} \Gamma_{\eta+\hat{\mu}:\alpha' a'} + \delta_{1\eta_\mu} \alpha_{\eta \mu} \Gamma_{\eta-\hat{\mu}:\alpha' a'}\label{71}
\end{align}
From the definition~\reff{64} soon follow the relation~\reff{70} and
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_\eta \gamma_\mu = (-1)^{ \eta_0 + \eta_1 + \eta_2 + \eta_3 } (-1)^{\eta_\mu} \gamma_\mu \Gamma_\eta
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_\eta \gamma_5 = (-1)^{ \eta_0 + \eta_1 + \eta_2 + \eta_3 } \, \gamma_5 \Gamma_\eta
\end{equation}
and therefore
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\alpha,a} \gamma_5^{\alpha' \alpha}(t_5 t_\mu)^{a' a} \Gamma_{\eta:\alpha a} = (\gamma_5 \Gamma_\eta \gamma_\mu \gamma_5)_{\alpha' a'} = - (\gamma_5 \Gamma_\eta \gamma_5 \gamma_\mu)_{\alpha' a'} = - (-1)^{\eta_\mu} (\gamma_\mu \Gamma_\eta)_{\alpha' a'} \label{rel32}
\end{equation}
which together with~\reff{70} implies the relation~\reff{71}.
The kinetic term is proportional to
\begin{multline}
\frac{16}{4} \sum_y \sum_\mu \left\{ \bar{q}_y (\gamma_\mu \otimes 1) \left[ U_\mu(y)\, q_{y+\hat{\mu}} - U_\mu^\dagger(y-\hat{\mu})\, q_{y-\hat{\mu}} \right] \right.\\
\left. - \bar{q}_y (\gamma_5 \otimes t_5)\,t_\mu \left[ U_\mu(y)\, q_{y+\hat{\mu}} + U_\mu^\dagger(y-\hat{\mu})\, q_{y-\hat{\mu}} - 2q_y\right] \right\}
\end{multline}
that is
\begin{multline}
\frac{1}{16} \sum_y \sum_\mu \sum_{\eta,\eta'} \sum_{\alpha,\alpha',a,a'} \bar{\psi}_{2y+\eta'} \Gamma^\dagger_{\eta': a' \alpha'}
\left[ U_\mu(y) \left( \gamma_\mu^{\alpha'\alpha} \delta^{a' a} - \gamma_5^{\alpha'\alpha} (t_5 t_\mu)^{a' a} \right) \Gamma_{\eta:\alpha a} \psi_{2y +2\hat{\mu}+ \eta} \right. \\
-\left. U_\mu^\dagger(y-\hat{\mu}) \left( \gamma_\mu^{\alpha'\alpha} \delta^{a' a} + \gamma_5^{\alpha'\alpha} (t_5 t_\mu)^{a' a} \right) \Gamma_{\eta:\alpha a} \psi_{2y -2\hat{\mu}+ \eta} + 2 \gamma_5^{\alpha'\alpha} (t_5 t_\mu)^{a' a} \Gamma_{\eta:\alpha a} \psi_{2y + \eta} \right]
\end{multline}
which is because of \reff{70} and \reff{71}
\begin{multline}
\frac{1}{8} \sum_y \sum_\mu \sum_{\eta,\eta'} \sum_{\alpha,\alpha',a,a'} \bar{\psi}_{2y+\eta'} \Gamma^\dagger_{\eta': a' \alpha'} \alpha_{\eta \mu} \left[ U_\mu(y) \delta_{0 \eta_\mu} \Gamma_{\eta+\hat{\mu}:\alpha' a'} \psi_{2y +2\hat{\mu}+ \eta} \right. \\
\left. - U_\mu^\dagger(y-\hat{\mu}) \delta_{1 \eta_\mu} \Gamma_{\eta-\hat{\mu}:\alpha' a'} \psi_{2y -2\hat{\mu}+ \eta} + (- \delta_{0 \eta_\mu} \Gamma_{\eta+\hat{\mu}:\alpha' a'} + \delta_{1 \eta_\mu} \Gamma_{\eta-\hat{\mu}:\alpha' a'} ) \psi_{2y + \eta} \right]
\end{multline}
and performing the trace on spinor and flavour indices~\reff{66}
\begin{multline}
\frac{1}{2}\sum_y \sum_\mu \sum_{\eta,\eta'} \bar{\psi}_{2y+\eta'} \alpha_{\eta \mu}
\left[ U_\mu(y) \delta_{0 \eta_\mu} \delta_{\eta',\eta+\hat{\mu}} \psi_{2y +2\hat{\mu}+ \eta}
\right. \\
\left. - U_\mu^\dagger(y-\hat{\mu}) \delta_{1 \eta_\mu} \delta_{\eta',\eta-\hat{\mu}} \psi_{2y -2\hat{\mu}+ \eta} + (- \delta_{0 \eta_\mu} \delta_{\eta',\eta+\hat{\mu}} + \delta_{1 \eta_\mu} \delta_{\eta',\eta-\hat{\mu}} ) \psi_{2y + \eta} \right]
\end{multline}
and performing the sum over $\eta'$
\begin{multline}
\frac{1}{2}\sum_y \sum_{\eta} \sum_\mu \alpha_{\eta \mu}
\left[ \, \delta_{0 \eta_\mu} \bar{\psi}_{2y+\eta+\hat{\mu} } \,U_\mu(y) \, \psi_{2(y +\hat{\mu})+ \eta }
+\ \delta_{1 \eta_\mu} \bar{\psi}_{2y+\eta-\hat{\mu}} \, \psi_{2y + \eta}
\right. \\
\left.- \delta_{1 \eta_\mu} \bar{\psi}_{2y+\eta-\hat{\mu}} \,U_\mu^\dagger(y-\hat{\mu})
\, \psi_{2(y-\hat{\mu}) + \eta } -\delta_{0 \eta_\mu} \bar{\psi}_{2y+\eta+\hat{\mu}} \, \psi_{2y + \eta} \right]
\,.
\end{multline}
Remark that if we increase the component $x_\mu$ of a site $x$ we jump on block different from that of $x$ if $x_\mu$ is odd. This is the case when $x=2y+\eta+\hat{\mu}$ and $\eta_\mu=0$, but not when $x=2y+\eta-\hat{\mu}$ and $\eta_\mu=1$. Similarly, if we decrease $x_\mu$ we jump on a different block only when $x_\mu$ is even. This is the case when $x=2y+\eta-\hat{\mu}$ and $\eta_\mu=1$, but not when $x=2y+\eta+\hat{\mu}$ and $\eta_\mu=0$.
And that, if $x = 2y +\eta$ then
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\eta \mu} = \alpha_{x \mu}\, .
\end{equation}
Then the kinetic term has the form as that of ${\mathcal L}_{\psi}(u')$
where
\begin{equation}
u_{\mu}'( x) = \begin{cases}
U_{\mu}(y) & \hbox{for\, } x = 2y + \eta \, \hbox{ and } \eta_\mu =1\\
1\!\!1 & \hbox{elsewhere }
\end{cases} \label{39}
\end{equation}
that is the gauge field couples only sites which belong to different blocks.
In conclusion
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal L}'_\psi( u') = m \, {\overline \psi}_x\psi_x+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\mu=0}^3 \alpha_{x\mu}
\left[ \, {\overline \psi}_x \, u_{\mu}'(x)\psi_{x+ {\hat \mu}} - {\overline \psi}_{x +{\mu}} u'^{\dagger}_{\mu}(x) \psi_x \right] \,.\label{L'}
\end{equation}
We have the constraint, however, that the fermion fields within a block should all transform in the same way under gauge transformations.
One might think that we could relax this constraint by a different transformation from the spin to the flavour basis
\begin{align}
q_{y}^{\alpha a} = &\, \frac{1}{8} \, \sum_\eta \Gamma_{\eta; \alpha a} \,{\mathcal C}_{2y +\eta}\psi_{2 y + \eta}
\nonumber\\
\bar{q}_{y}^{\,a \alpha } = &\, \frac{1}{8} \, \sum_\eta \bar{\psi}_{2 y + \eta} \,{\mathcal C}_{2y + \eta}^{\dagger}\Gamma_{\eta; \alpha a}^\dagger \, .
\end{align}
Such a generalization, however, is only apparent, because the curvature for the plaquettes with all the vertices within one and the same block vanishes. Indeed, such a generalization, as the particular ones chosen for example in~\cite[Eq.~(35)]{Kluber83}, \cite[Eq.~(56)]{Fab02b} is a pure-gauge transformation of~\reff{def}.
We conclude that, in the presence of a {\em generic} gauge-field configuration, the Lagrangian in the spin basis ${\mathcal L}'_\psi( u)$ and that in the flavor basis ${\mathcal L}_q( U)$ are not equivalent.
The transformed Lagrangian ${\mathcal L}'_\psi(u')$ could also be regarded, in the spirit of the previous quoted attempt~\cite{STW}, as a modification of
${\mathcal L}_{\psi}(u)$, defined in~\reff{Lspin}, for which a transfer matrix can be constructed.
The above construction refers to the case of vanishing chemical potential. Its inclusion is, however, straightforward~\cite{Fab02b}. We only note that, at variance with respect to the coupling with gauge fields, the chemical potential can be attached to all links in the transformed Lagrangian ${\mathcal L}'_\psi(u')$, provided its value be half the one in the flavour basis.
\section{Transformation of transfer matrix and coherent states}\label{ttm}
As a first step we must transform creation-annihilation operators from the flavour to the spin basis. To this end we must determine the expressions of the fields $q_{\pm}$ in the spin basis
\begin{equation}
(q_{+})_y= P_+ \frac{1}{8}\sum_{\eta}\Gamma_{\eta} \psi_{2 y+\eta} \, \qquad
(q_{-}^\dagger)_y= P_- \frac{1}{8}\sum_{\eta}\Gamma_{\eta} \psi_{2 y+\eta} \,.
\end{equation}
Using the relation~\reff{rel32},
we find
\begin{equation}
P_{+}\Gamma_{\eta}= \delta_{0 \eta_0} \Gamma_{\eta}\, , \qquad \, P_{-}\Gamma_{\eta}= \delta_{1 \eta_0} \Gamma_{\eta}\, \label{PGamma}
\end{equation}
and similar relations hold for $\Gamma^\dagger$.
We therefore have
\begin{equation}
(q_{+})_y= \frac{1}{8}\, \sum_{\eta} \delta_{0 \eta_0} \Gamma_\eta\psi_{2 y+\eta} \, , \qquad
(q_{-}^\dagger)_y= \frac{1}{8}\, \sum_{\eta} \delta_{1 \eta_0} \Gamma_\eta\psi_{2 y+\eta} \, .
\end{equation}
Next we define the operators corresponding to the $\psi$-fields according to
\begin{equation}
({\hat q}_{+})_y= \frac{1}{8}\, \sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}} \delta_{0 \eta_0} \Gamma_\eta {\hat \psi}_{2 y+\eta} \, , \qquad
({\hat q}_{-}^\dagger)_y= \frac{1}{8}\, \sum_{\eta} \delta_{1 \eta_0} \Gamma_\eta {\hat \psi}_{2 y+\eta} \label{52}
\end{equation}
and assume that
\begin{equation}
\{ {\hat \psi}_{2{\bf y}'+\eta'}^{\dagger}, {\hat \psi}_{2{\bf y}+\eta} \} = 2\, \delta_{{\bf y}' {\bf y}} \delta_{\eta' \eta} \,. \label{quantum number}
\end{equation}
This is obviously consistent with the second set of equations in~\reff{comm}. Consistency with the first set requires that
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{64} \, \sum_{\eta, \eta'} \delta_{\sigma \eta_0} \delta_{\tau \eta'_0} \Gamma_{\eta':b \beta}^{\dagger} \Gamma_{\eta:\alpha a}
\{ {\hat \psi}_{2 \mathbf{y}'+ \eta'}^{\dagger}, {\hat \psi}_{2 \mathbf{y} + \eta} \} = &
\frac{1}{32} \, \delta_{{\bf y}' {\bf y}} \delta_{\sigma \tau} \, \sum_{\eta} \delta_{\sigma \eta_0} \Gamma_{\eta:b \beta}^{\dagger} \Gamma_{\eta:\alpha a} \\
= & \frac{1}{8} \, \delta_{{\bf y}' {\bf y}} \delta_{\sigma \tau} P_\pm ^{\alpha a, \beta b } \,
\end{align}
where $\sigma = 0, 1$ respectively when the index of the projector is $+$ or $-$. The second equality follows from the equations
\begin{equation}
\sum_{a', \alpha'} P_\pm^{\alpha a , \alpha' a' } \, \frac{1}{4} \sum_\eta \Gamma_{\eta: b\beta}^\dagger \Gamma_{\eta: \alpha' a'} =
\frac{1}{4} \sum_\eta \delta_{\sigma \eta_0} \Gamma_{\eta: b\beta}^\dagger \Gamma_{\eta: \alpha a} =
P_\pm ^{\alpha a, \beta b }
\end{equation}
that can be proven using ~\reff{66} and \reff{PGamma}.
Some comments about our results are in order. We see that the temporal component $\eta_0$ of the fields in the spinor basis corresponds to the $\pm$ projection of the field in the flavor basis. The 8 Dirac-taste degrees of freedom of particles/antiparticles are spread on the 8 sites of the even/odd time slice in the corresponding block. In this connection, looking at Eq.\reff{quantum number}, $\eta_0$ can be regarded as a quantum number. But this quantum number changes when time increases by one unit in the original lattice, so that, unlike the $q_{\pm}$ projections, the fields $\psi_{2 \mathbf{y} + \eta}$ with $\eta_0$ respectively 1 or 0 cannot be identified as forward/backward movers. Changing time we change a particle into the hole of an antiparticle.
\subsection{Transfer matrix}
We first transform the baryon number
\begin{align}
{\hat n}_B = 2^3 \, \sum_{{\bf y}} \left({\hat q}_{+}^{\dagger} {\hat q}_{+} - {\hat q}_{-}^{\dagger} {\hat q}_{-} \right)_{{\bf y}}
= & \, \frac{1}{2} \, \sum_{{\bf y}, \eta} \left[ \left( {\hat \psi}^{\dagger} {\hat \psi} \right)_{2 {\bf y} + \eta} \delta_{0 \eta_0} - \left( {\hat \psi}\, {\hat \psi}^{\dagger} \right)_{2 {\bf y} + \eta} \delta_{1 \eta_0} ) \right]\\
= & \, \frac{1}{2} \, \sum_{{\bf x}} \left[ \left( {\hat \psi}^{\dagger} {\hat \psi} \right)_{{\bf x} 0} - \left( {\hat \psi}^{\dagger} {\hat \psi} \right)_{ {\bf x} 1} \right] \,
\end{align}
where we re-label the operators $\hat{\psi}$ with the spatial coordinates
\begin{equation}
{\bf x} = 2\, {\bf y} + \boldsymbol{\eta}
\end{equation}
and $\eta_0$ and made the identifications
\begin{equation}
\hat{\psi}_{{\bf x} 0} := \hat{\psi}_{2 {\bf y} + (0, \boldsymbol{\eta})} \, , \qquad \hat{\psi}_{{\bf x} 1} := \hat{\psi}_{2 {\bf y} + (1, \boldsymbol{\eta})} ^\dagger
\end{equation}
in agreement with the relations~\reff{52} which show that when $\eta_0=1$ the operator ${\hat \psi}_{2 {\bf y} + \eta}$ is a creation operator.
In this notation the commutation relations~\reff{quantum number} become
\begin{equation}
\{ {\hat \psi}_{{\bf x}' \eta_0'}^{\dagger}, {\hat \psi}_{{\bf x} \eta_0} \} = 2\, \delta_{{\bf x}' {\bf x}} \delta_{\eta_0' \eta_0} \,. \label{acr}
\end{equation}
Next we must determine a matrix $N_t' $ such that
\begin{align}
64\, \sum_{ {\bf y}',\, {\bf y}} (\hat q_{-})_{{\bf y}'} (N_t)_{ {\bf y}' {\bf y}} \,(\hat q_{+})_{\bf y} = & \sum_{{\bf y}',\, {\bf y}} \sum_{\eta',\, \eta}
{\hat \psi}_{2 {\bf y}' + \eta'}^{\dagger}\, \mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits \left( \Gamma_{\eta'}^\dagger (N_t)_{ {\bf y}' {\bf y}} P_+
\Gamma_{\eta} \right) \,{\hat \psi}_{2{\bf y} + \eta} \\
= & \sum_{{\bf y}',\, {\bf y}} \sum_{\eta',\, \eta}
{\hat \psi}_{2 {\bf y}' + \eta'}^{\dagger}\, (N'_t)_{{\bf y}' \eta', {\bf y} \, \eta} \, {\hat \psi}_{2{\bf y} + \eta} \,.
\end{align}
In the above equation color taste and Dirac indices have been omitted. We observe that
\begin{align}
(\gamma_0\gamma_k \otimes 1\!\!1) \, P_k^{(\pm)} P_{+} \Gamma_{\eta} & = \frac{1}{2} \delta_{0 \eta_0}
\left[ (\gamma_0 \gamma_k \otimes 1\!\!1) \pm (\gamma_0 \gamma_5 \otimes t_5 t_k) \right] \Gamma_{\eta} \\
&= \delta_{0 \eta_0}\alpha_{\eta k} \, \frac{ 1 \mp ( -1)^{\eta_k} }{2} \,
( \delta_{0\eta_k} \Gamma_{\eta+{\hat 0} + {\hat k} } + \delta_{1 \eta_k} \Gamma_{\eta+{\hat 0} - {\hat k} } )
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\eta'}^{\dagger} (\gamma_0 \otimes 1\!\!1) \, P_{+} \Gamma_{\eta} = \delta_{0 \eta_0} \delta_{1 \eta_0'} \Gamma_{\eta'}^{\dagger}\Gamma_{\eta }\,,
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}
\mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits \left[ \Gamma_{\eta'}^{\dagger} (\gamma_0\gamma_k \otimes 1\!\!1) \, P_k^{(\pm)} P_{+} \Gamma_{\eta} \right]
= 4\, \delta_{0 \eta_0} \delta_{1 \eta_0'}\alpha_{\eta k} \, \frac{ 1 \mp ( -1)^{\eta_k}} {2} \,
( \delta_{0 \eta_k} \delta_{\boldsymbol{\eta}', \boldsymbol{\eta} + {\hat k}} + \delta_{1 \eta_k} \delta_{\boldsymbol{\eta}', \boldsymbol{\eta} - {\hat k}})
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits \left[ \Gamma_{\eta'}^{\dagger} (\gamma_0 \otimes 1\!\!1) \, P_{+} \Gamma_{\eta} \right]
=4 \, \delta_{0 \eta_0} \delta_{1 \eta_0'} \delta_{\boldsymbol{\eta}' \boldsymbol{\eta}} \,.
\end{equation}
Finally we get the transformed $N$-matrix
\begin{align}
(N' )_{{\bf y}' \eta', {\bf y} \, \eta} = & - 8 \, \delta_{0 \eta_0} \, \delta_{1 \eta_0'} \left[ m \, \delta_{ \boldsymbol{\eta}' \boldsymbol{\eta}} 1\!\!1_{{\bf y}' {\bf y}}
+ \sum_{\mu=1}^3 \alpha_{\eta \mu} \left( \delta_{0\eta_\mu} \delta_{ \boldsymbol{\eta}', \boldsymbol{\eta}+{\hat \mu}} \nabla_\mu^{(+)}
+ \delta_{1\eta_\mu} \delta_{ \boldsymbol{\eta}', \boldsymbol{\eta}-{\hat \mu}} \nabla_\mu^{(-)}
\right)_{{\bf y}' {\bf y}} \right]
\nonumber\\
= & \, - \, \delta_{0 \eta_0} \, \delta_{1 \eta_0'} \left\{ m \, \delta_{ \boldsymbol{\eta}' \boldsymbol{\eta}} \delta_{{\bf y}', {\bf y}}
+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\mu=1}^3 \alpha_{\eta \mu} \left[ \vphantom{U_\mu^{\dagger}} \left(- \delta_{0\eta_\mu} \delta_{ \boldsymbol{\eta}', \boldsymbol{\eta}+{\hat \mu}} + \delta_{1\eta_\mu} \delta_{ \boldsymbol{\eta}', \boldsymbol{\eta}-{\hat \mu}} \right) \delta_{{\bf y}' {\bf y}} \right.
\right.
\nonumber\\
& \quad + \left. \left. \delta_{0\eta_\mu} \delta_{ \boldsymbol{\eta}', \boldsymbol{\eta}+{\hat \mu}} \, U_\mu({\bf y}') \delta_{{\bf y}, {\bf y}'+{\hat \mu}}
- \delta_{1\eta_\mu} \delta_{ \boldsymbol{\eta}', \boldsymbol{\eta}-{\hat \mu}} U_\mu^{\dagger}({\bf y}) \delta_{{\bf y}, {\bf y}'-{\hat \mu}}
\right] \vphantom{\sum_{j=1}^3} \right\} \,.
\end{align}
Notice that the terms that involve the gauge variables refer to sites belonging to different blocks, while in the other terms the sites belong to the same blocks.
The same operator can be re-labelled by using the coordinates $\bf x$ and $\eta_0$, then
\begin{multline}
(N' )_{{\bf x}' \eta'_0, {\bf x} \, \eta_0} = \, - \, \delta_{0 \eta_0} \, \delta_{1 \eta_0'} \\
\left\{ m \, \delta_{{\bf x}' {\bf x}} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\mu=1}^3 \alpha_{{\bf x} \mu} \left[ \delta_{{\bf x}', {\bf x} - \hat{\mu}} u'_\mu ({\bf x}') - \delta_{{\bf x}', {\bf x} + \hat{\mu}} u'^{\dagger}_{\mu} ({\bf x}) \right] \right\} \label{N'}
\end{multline}
where the values $\eta_\mu = 0,1$ simply control the presence of the gauge field according to the definition of $u'$ given in~\reff{39}.
In conclusion
\begin{equation}
{\hat q_{-} } \, N_t \, {\hat q_{+} } \, = \, {\hat \psi_{1} } \, N'_t \, {\hat \psi_{0} } \, .
\end{equation}
It should not be necessary to repeat that the expression of the transfer matrix so obtained is positive definite and performs time translations by two lattice spacings.
\subsection{Coherent states}
In order to complete our analysis we perform the transformation also on the coherent states. This will enable us to make, as a crosscheck,
the derivation of the Lagrangian~\reff{L'} starting from the transfer matrix.
Let
\begin{equation}
|\alpha, \beta \rangle := \exp \left\{ - \, 2^3 \, \sum_{\bf y} \, \sum_{\gamma, c} \, [ \alpha_{\bf y}^{\gamma c} ( \hat{q}^\dagger_+)_{\bf y}^{c \gamma} +
\beta_{\bf y}^{c \gamma} ( \hat{q}^\dagger_-)_{\bf y}^{ \gamma c} ]\right\} \, | 0 \rangle
\end{equation}
be a coherent state in the flavour basis, where $\alpha_{\bf y}^{\gamma c}$ and $\beta_{\bf y}^{\gamma c}$ are Grassmann variables, such that
\begin{equation}
(\hat{q}_+)_{\bf y}^{\gamma c}\, |\alpha, \beta \rangle = \alpha_{\bf y}^{\gamma c} \, |\alpha, \beta \rangle \, , \qquad
(\hat{q}_-)_{\bf y}^{c \gamma}\, |\alpha, \beta \rangle = \beta_{\bf y}^{c \gamma } \, |\alpha, \beta \rangle
\end{equation}
Now
\begin{align}
2^3 \, \sum_{\bf y} \, \sum_{\gamma, c} \, \alpha_{\bf y}^{\gamma c} ( \hat{q}^\dagger_+)_{\bf y}^{c \gamma} = &
\sum_{{\bf y}, \eta} \, \mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits \left( \Gamma_\eta^\dagger \alpha_{\bf y} \right) \delta_{0\eta_0} \, \hat{\psi}^\dagger_{2 {\bf y} + \eta} \\
2^3 \, \sum_{\bf y} \, \sum_{\gamma, c} \beta_{\bf y}^{c \gamma } ( \hat{q}^\dagger_-)_{\bf y}^{\gamma c} = &
\sum_{{\bf y}, \eta} \, \mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits \left( \beta_{\bf y} \Gamma_\eta \right) \delta_{1\eta_0} \, \hat{\psi}_{2 {\bf y} + \eta}
\end{align}
and therefore, because of the anti-commutation relations~\reff{acr}
\begin{align}
\hat{\psi}_{{\bf x} 0}\, |\alpha, \beta \rangle = \sum_{\eta_0} \hat{\psi}_{2 {\bf y} + \eta}\, \delta_{0\eta_0} \, |\alpha, \beta \rangle = 2 \mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits \left( \Gamma_{(0, \boldsymbol{\eta})}^\dagger \alpha_{\bf y} \right) |\alpha, \beta \rangle \\
\hat{\psi}_{{\bf x} 1}\, |\alpha, \beta \rangle = \sum_{\eta_0} \hat{\psi}_{2 {\bf y} + \eta}^\dagger\, \delta_{1\eta_0} \, |\alpha, \beta \rangle = 2 \mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits \left( \beta_{\bf y} \Gamma_{(1, \boldsymbol{\eta})} \right) |\alpha, \beta \rangle \, .
\end{align}
This means that we can define
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\bf x}' := 2 \mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits \left( \Gamma_{(0, \boldsymbol{\eta})}^\dagger \alpha_{\bf y} \right) \, , \qquad
\beta_{\bf x}' := 2 \mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits \left( \beta_{\bf y} \Gamma_{(1, \boldsymbol{\eta})} \right)
\end{equation}
and re-write
\begin{equation}
|\alpha, \beta \rangle = \exp \left[ - \frac{1}{2} \, \sum_{\bf x} \left( \alpha_{\bf x}' \hat{\psi}^\dagger _{{\bf x} 0} + \beta_{\bf x}' \hat{\psi} _{{\bf x} 1}^\dagger \right) \right] \, | 0 \rangle \, .
\end{equation}
Notice that the Grassmann variables $\alpha, \beta$ and $\alpha'$ as well are defined at even times. The variable $\beta'$ instead, because of the matrix $\Gamma_{(1, \boldsymbol{\eta})}$ in its definition, must be considered attached at odd times. This is confirmed by the evaluation of the partition function using the transformed transfer matrix and coherent states. After the identifications
\begin{eqnarray}
{\overline \psi}_{2x_0}&&=( \alpha'_{2x_0})^* \,, \,\,\, \psi_{2x_0}=( \beta'_{2x_0+1})^*
\nonumber\\
{\overline \psi}_{2x_0+1}&&= \beta'_{2x_0+3} \,, \,\,\, \psi_{2x_0+1}= \alpha'_{2x_0+2}
\end{eqnarray}
we get the Lagrangian~\reff{L'}.
\section{Conclusion}
Numerical simulations with Kogut-Susskind fermions are faster in the spin basis than in the flavor basis. Such calculations are usually performed in the lagrangian formulation, but we are interested in numerical simulations in the framework of the nilpotency expansion, that makes use of the transfer matrix. So we need an expression of the transfer matrix in the spin basis. In any case the knowledge of a positive definite transfer matrix in the spin basis is {\em per se} interesting being related to the unitarity of the theory.
We found in the literature essentially two formulations of the transfer matrix in the spin basis. In the first one the Lagrangian is reduced by defining fermion fields and their conjugates at the odd, respectively even sites, and a transfer matrix is constructed that performs time translations by 2 lattice spacings~\cite{STW,Vandendoel}. The fermion determinant even at vanishing chemical potential, is, however, not positive definite, which makes this way less suitable to numerical simulations.
In the second formulation~\cite{STW}, a positive definite transfer matrix, called $T^2$, was defined that also performs time translations by 2 lattice spacings. As a consequence the corresponding Fock space must be constructed on blocks. The explicit construction of such Fock space, however, is not given.
If the Fock space is associated to a block, we can get the transfer matrix in the spin basis by a unitary transformation from that in the flavor basis, whose expression, together with the construction of the Fock space, are known. The transfer matrix in the flavor basis is expressed in terms of a matrix $N$ , and the transformed matrix is given in terms of the matrix $N'$, given explicitly in~\reff{N'}. In order to do numerical simulations in the nilpotency expansion all we need is to replace everywhere in the equations of the nilpotency expansion $N$ by $N'$ and remember that the gauge fields are now defined on blocks.
It would be now natural to compare our result with the expression of the previously derived transfer matrix~\cite{STW}. One might expect that such a comparison should provide the definition of the Fock space in the latter. Unfortunately this is not the case. The transfer matrix of~\cite{STW} cannot be related to ours in a simple way, the most remarkable differences being that there is no requirement concerning the gauge variables which remain defined on the links of the original lattice, and creation and annihilation operators appear not only in exponential form but also as powers.
|
\section{#1\label{sec-#1}}}
\newcommand{\fig}[4]{\begin{figure}[#4]\centering\includegraphics[width=#3\textwidth]{#1}\caption{#2}\label{fig-#1}\end{figure}}
\newcommand{\refeq}[1]{eq.\ (\ref{eq-#1})}
\newcommand{\refsec}[1]{section \ref{sec-#1}}
\newcommand{\refig}[1]{figure \ref{fig-#1}}
\newcommand{\subs}[1]{_\mathrm{#1}}
\newcommand{\dd}[1]{\mathrm{d}#1}
\newcommand{M\subs{p}}{M\subs{p}}
\layoutstyle{8x11single}
\begin{document}
\title{Susy Seesaw Inflation and NMSO(10)GUT }
\classification{12.10.Dm, 98.80.Cq, 14.60.Pq} \keywords
{Inflation, Seesaw, Supersymmetry, GUTs, SO(10)}
\author{Charanjit S. Aulakh}{
address={Dept. of Physics, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India,
160014}}
\begin{abstract}
We show that Supersymmetric models with Type I seesaw neutrino
masses support slow roll inflection point inflation. The inflaton
is the D-flat direction labelled by the chiral invariant HLN
composed of the Higgs(H), slepton(L) and conjugate sneutrino(N)
superfields. The scale of inflation and fine tuning is set by the
conjugate neutrino Majorana mass $M_{\nu^c} \sim 10^6-10^{12}$
GeV. The cubic term in the (quartic) inflaton potential is
dominantly from superpotential (not soft Susy breaking) couplings.
The tuning conditions are thus insensitive to soft supersymmetry
breaking parameters and are generically much less stringent than
for previous `A-term' inflation scenarios controlled by mass
scales $\sim TeV$. WMAP limits on the ratio of tensor to scalar
perturbations limit the scale $M$ controlling inflection point
inflation: $M <7.9 \times 10^{13}$ GeV. `Instant preheating' is
operative and dumps the inflaton energy into MSSM modes giving a
high reheat temperature : $T_{rh} \approx
M_{\nu^c}^{\frac{3}{4}}\, 10^{6}$ GeV $\sim 10^{11}- 10^{15} $
GeV. A large gravitino mass $> 50 $ TeV is therefore required
to avoid over closure by reheat produced gravitinos. `Instant
preheating' and NLH inflaton facilitate production of right handed
neutrinos during inflaton decay and thus non-thermal leptogenesis
in addition to thermal leptogenesis. We show that the embedding in
the fully realistic New Minimal Supersymmetric SO(10) GUT requires
use of the heaviest righthanded neutrino mass as the controlling
scale but the possibility of a measurable tensor scalar
perturbation ratio seems marginal. We examine the parametric
difficulties remaining.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
\section{Introduction}
Primordial inflation is now generally accepted as the only viable
mechanism for setting the initial conditions for Big bang
Cosmogony in a way compatible with the extreme CMB homogeneity
observed by increasingly accurate satellite maps~\cite{COBE} of
the Microwave sky. The parameters of inflation
($P_R,n_s,{\cal{D}}_k(n_s)$) measured so far can be accounted for
by most of the many slow-roll inflation models proposed. With few
exceptions these models use inflaton(s) that have no role to play
outside of inflation since they have no connection with the known
fields of Particle Physics. Such a connection is however necessary
since the post-inflationary epoch must include reheating phases
where the inflaton energy is converted into the matter and
radiation observed today. Models driven by an inflaton composed
of SM\cite{masina},MSSM~\cite{MSSMflat} or GUT\cite{guth} fields
thus carry an obvious appeal. Models of the second type type are
typically based on slow roll inflation along ``D-flat
directions'' in the MSSM field space and these are conveniently
labelled by holomorphic gauge invariants formed from
chiral superfields.
Such models ( also called ``A-Term Inflation'' models
\cite{akm,hotchmaz,lythdimo}) typically require extreme fine
tuning between the soft terms to ensure an inflection or saddle
point of the field potential where the vacuum energy density
drives a burst of inflation but nevertheless allows ``graceful
exit'' due to the absence of a local minimum and the associated
potential barrier which would prevent exit.
Thus while they answer some of the relevant issues they have much scope for improvement.
In \cite{akm,hotchmaz} an A-term inflation model was based on
small neutrino yukawa couplings needed for realistic Dirac light
neutrino masses. The inflaton field was a gauge invariant $D$-flat
direction, $N H L$, where $N$ is the right handed sneutrino, $H $
is the MSSM Higgs doublet which gives masses to the up-type
quarks, and $L$ is the slepton field. When coupled with soft
trilinear and bilinear supersymmetry breaking terms of mass scale
$\sim 100 ~GeV$ to $10~ TeV $ the associated
{\it{renormalizable}} inflaton potential can be fine tuned to
achieve inflection point inflation consistent with
WMAP 7 year data\cite{akm,hotchmaz}.
The Type I seesaw\cite{seesaw}) mechanism
offers a more attractive explanation for small neutrino(Majorana)
masses ($m_\nu\sim (m_{\nu}^D)^2/M_{\nu^c}$)
based on large right handed neutrino masses $M_{\nu^c}>>M_S$.
It is natural to ask if theories with supersymmetric Type I seesaw
masses also support inflation. The popular
Leptogenesis\cite{leptogen} scenario as well as the realistic Susy
Minimal SO(10)GUT strongly hint at right handed neutrino masses
in the range $10^{6} $ to $10^{12}$ GeV. So for $V_{B-L}\sim M_X>
10^{16}$ GeV the superpotential couplings $f_A, A=1,2,3$ which
generate $M_{\nu^c_A}\sim f_A V_{B-L}$, are very small ($
f_{A}\sim 10^{-9}$ to $10^{-4})$ and can also give rise to a cubic
term in the quartic inflaton potential. Thus the required
ingredients for inflation are already present in Supersymmetric
Type I seesaw models.
Issues regarding natural values for superpotential couplings come
into focus when viewed in the context of the so called Minimal
Left Right supersymmetric models\cite{MSLRMs} and their embedding
in GUT models\cite{rparso10,MSGUTs}. SUSY Left-Right Models are
advantaged due to their protection of R-parity as a gauged
discrete symmetry, which provides a stable lightest supersymmetric
particle (LSP) which has the properties required to serve as WIMP
dark matter. They simultaneously and naturally implement Seesaw
mechanisms for neutrino masses\cite{MSLRMs}. Moreover such models
have also been incorporated in the realistic and predictive New
Minimal Susy SO(10) grand unified
theories(NMSGUT)\cite{NMSGUTs,nmsgut3} where all the hard
parameters of the MSSM are fitted in terms of fundamental
parameters of the GUT and soft SUSY breaking parameters (of the
Non-Universal Higgs masses (NUHM) type) defined at the Unification
scale $M_X\sim 10^{16}- 10^{18} $ GeV. Such GUTs have viable Bino
dark matter candidates and make distinctive predictions for the
type of SUSY spectra observable at the LHC. In 2008, well before
the discovery of Higgs mass of around 125 GeV
in 2011-2012 and the consequent realization that a general
framework such as the phenomenological MSSM (pMSSM) requires that
the soft trilinear couplings $A_{t,b}$ be \emph{large}, we
concluded\cite{NMSGUTs} that \emph{the NMSGUT would be falsified
} by its failure to fit the down type quark masses \emph{unless}
$A_0,\mu$ were in the tens/hundreds of TeV : leading to a mostly
decoupled mini-split supersymmetry type superspectrum with only
the LSP, gauginos and possibly a light slepton in the sub-TeV
range. The experimental data has now forced this realization on
practitioners of MSSM parametrology\cite{djouadi}. In the NMSGUT
it was a prediction.
Taken together with the possibility of small values for the light
generation Yukawa Dirac couplings it is possible to implement
viable inflection point inflation by suitable tuning
at the supersymmetric level itself. This is technically more appealing
than a tuning applied to soft susy parameters which, being
unprotected by SUSY, are unstable. We examine the reheating
dynamics briefly. We then derive derive the embedding of SSI in
the NMSO(10)GUT and the necessary tuning conditions and show how
to satisfy them explicitly.
\section{Generic properties of Renormalizable Inflection point inflation}
In this section we outline the essential features of inflection
point inflation deriving from a \emph{quartic} potential of a
single complex scalar field $\varphi$. Since the angular
degree of freedom has positive curvature
and cannot support inflation one may assumed it fixed at its minimum by relaxation and focus on the
remaining real field $\phi$ whose potential is generically
$ V= {\frac{h^2}{12}} \phi^4 - {\frac{A h}{6\sqrt{3}}} \phi^3
+ {\frac{M^2}{ 2}}\phi^2 $.
The fine-tuning $A=4M$ implies that one has a saddle point
($V'(\phi_0)=V''(\phi_0)=0$) at the field value $\phi_0= \frac{\sqrt{3} M}{h}$.
So one defines fine-tuning parameter $\Delta$ through $A=4 M{\sqrt{
1-\Delta }}$ ($\Delta=\beta^2/4$ in the notation of
\cite{hotchmaz}). The inflection point($V''(\phi_0)=0$) is at $
\phi_0 =\frac{\sqrt{3} M}{h}(1-\Delta +O(\Delta^2))$. For small
$\Delta$ \begin{eqnarray} V(\phi_0)&=&V_0=\frac{M^4}{4 h^2} (1 + 4
\Delta)\qquad;\qquad V'(\phi_0)=\alpha=\frac{\sqrt{3} M^3 \Delta}{
h} \qquad;\qquad V'''(\phi_0) = \gamma=\frac{2 M h}{\sqrt{3}}(1-2
\Delta)\label{leadingV}\end{eqnarray} If $h $ is tiny $V_0\ >> M^4$ and
$\phi_0>>M/h$; $\gamma$ is
small with $h$, while $\alpha$ is small
by tuning. Large vacuum energy and flatness around $\phi_0$ and
starting $\phi$ near $\phi_0$ with $\dot \phi<< \phi_0^2 $ imply
the universe executes slow roll inflation as $\phi$ rolls
through an interval of width $\Delta \phi \sim V_0/\gamma M_p^2$
below $\phi_0$.
The standard slow roll parameters are defined as($ M_{p }= 2.43 \times 10^{18} \,GeV$) \begin{eqnarray}
\eta(\phi) = \frac{M_p^2 V''}{V} \simeq {\frac{M_p^2}{V_0}}\gamma
(\phi-\phi_0)~~;~~
\epsilon(\phi) = \frac{M_p^2}{2} (\frac{V'}{V})^2 \simeq(\alpha
+\frac{\gamma}{2}(\phi-\phi_0)^2)^2({\frac{ M_p^2}{2V_0^2}}) ~~;~
\xi = \frac{M_p^4V' V'''}{V^2} \simeq \frac{M_p^4 \alpha \gamma}{V_0^2}
\label{slrlprm}\end{eqnarray}
The observed CMB is a combined spectrum of modes which exited
the horizon during inflation. We
approximate it as a single spectrum from a
representative(``pivot'') mode that exits the co-moving horizon
when $ \phi=\phi_{CMB}$. This is the field value near $\phi_0$
where the inflation giving rise to observable effects today kicks
in (when $N_{CMB}$ e-folds of inflation are remaining). The power
spectrum and spectral index we see today are then
$P_R(\phi(N\subs{CMB}))$ and $n_s(\phi(N\subs{CMB}))$
respectively.
The small first and third Taylor coefficients
$\alpha,\gamma$ determine\cite{lythdimo,lythstew,liddleleach} the
measured parameters of inflation ($P_R,n_s$) once the field values
($\phi_{CMB},\phi_{end}$) at the time of horizon entry of the
``pivot'' momentum scale ($k_{pivot}=0.002$ Mpc${}^{-1}$) and at
termination of the slow roll are
fixed\cite{lythdimo,liddleleach}(on the basis of an overall
cosmogonic scenario and the consistency of the slow roll
approximation ($\eta(\phi_{end})\approx 1$) respectively). The
observable number of e-folds $N_{CMB}=N(\phi_{CMB})$ is the
number of e-folds of inflation left to occur after $\phi$
crosses $\phi_{CMB}$ (the field value when the representative
primordial fluctuation length scale ($l_{pivot}=k_{pivot}^{-1}$)
becomes larger than the comoving horizon ( $1/a_k H_k$)).
Plausible inflationary cosmogonies require $ 40<N_{CMB} < 60$ and
this severely restricts the inflation exponents.
The slow roll inflation formula for the power spectrum of the mode
that is leaving the horizon when the inflaton rolls to $\phi$ and
the corresponding spectral index and it's variation with momentum
is(\cite{lythstew}) \begin{equation} P_R(\phi)=\frac{ V_0}{24 \pi^2
M\subs{p}^4\epsilon(\phi)}~~;~
n_s(\phi) \equiv
1+2\eta(\phi)-6\epsilon(\phi)~~;~
{\cal D}_k(n_s) = \frac{kdn_s(\phi)}{dk} =-16\epsilon\eta + 24
\epsilon^2 + 2 \xi^2\end{equation} In practice $\epsilon,\xi$ are so small
in the narrow region near $\phi_0$ where slow-roll inflation
occurs that their contribution to $n_s$ is negligible. ${\cal
D}_k(n_s)$ is negligible i.e. the spectral index is scale
invariant in the observed range, as is allowed by observation so
far.
The field value at the end of inflation $\phi_{end}$ is defined
by $ \eta(\phi_{end})\simeq 1$ which gives
$\phi_0-\phi_{end}=\frac{V_0}{\gamma M_p^2}$. In the slow roll
approximation $ \dot\phi=-V'(\phi)/3 H >>\ddot\phi /H$,
where $H=\sqrt{V(\phi_0)/(3 M_p^2)}$ is the (constant) inflation
rate during slow roll inflation. One has the $N-\phi$ link (which
can be exactly inverted\cite{ssi},without assuming that $\phi_{end}<<\phi(N)$
\cite{lythdimo})):
\begin{equation} N(\phi) = -3 \int_{\phi}^{\phi_{end}}\frac{H^2}{V'(\phi)}
d\phi
= \sqrt{\frac{2}{ \alpha\gamma}}\frac{V_0}{M_p^2}
\big(\arctan\sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{2\alpha}}(\phi_0-\phi_{end})-
\arctan\sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{2\alpha}}(\phi_0-\phi
)\big)\label{Nphi}\end{equation}
$N_{pivot}$ is estimated using the standard Big Bang thermal cosmogony.
giving \cite{liddleleach} $ N\subs{pivot} =
65.5+ \ln\frac{\rho_{rh}^{\frac{1}{12}}V_0^{\frac{1}{6}}}{M\subs{p} }
$ where $\rho_{rh}$ is the energy density after reheating and $V_0$
the potential value during inflation. Due to rapid thermalization
in this model(see below) the two are equal and then since the
scale is set by $V^{1/4}\sim M/\sqrt{h}$ one finds $N_{pivot}=46~$
to $~55=51\pm 5$ to be a reasonable estimate.
To search for sets of potential parameters
$M,h,\Delta$ compatible with the observed $P_R,n_S,N_{CMB} $ one uses the
definitions
\begin{equation} \epsilon_{CMB} = \frac {V_0}{24 \pi^2 M_p^4 P_R}\qquad;\qquad
\eta_{CMB} = \frac{(n_s-1)}{2}\label{epsetacmb}\end{equation}
and from these deduces
$\alpha_{CMB},\phi_{CMB}$ using the
eqns.(\ref{slrlprm}) \begin{equation} \phi_{CMB} = \phi_0 + {\frac{V_0 \eta_{CMB}}{ \gamma M_p^2}} \qquad;\qquad
\alpha_{CMB} = \sqrt{2 \epsilon_{CMB}} {\frac{V_0}{M_p}}
-{\frac{V_0^2\eta_{CMB}^2}{2 \gamma M_p^4} } \end{equation}
The required fine-tuning $\Delta$ is then \begin{equation} \Delta= {\frac{h\alpha_{CMB}}{\sqrt{3}M^3}}=(\frac{M}{4 h M_p})^4
(\frac{16 h^2 M_p}{3 \pi M {\sqrt{P_R}}}-(1-n_s)^2)\end{equation}
$\alpha_{CMB},\Delta$ should emerge real and positive
and using $\{\alpha_{CMB},\phi_{CMB}\}$ in the formula for
$N_{CMB}$ one should obtain a sensible value in the range
$N_{CMB}=51\pm 5$. Using eqns.(\ref{leadingV},\ref{epsetacmb}) in
eqn(\ref{Nphi}) we can solve accurately for the required relation
between $h,m,\Delta$ using an interpolating function \cite{ssi}.
The result is that $N_{CMB} \sim 50$, $Z_{0}\approx
\frac{1.2}{N_{CMB}}$ solves the exact equations to a good
approximation and one obtains the generic constraints : \begin{equation}
\frac{h^2}{M} \approx \frac{3 \pi}{M_{P}}
\frac{\sqrt{P_R}}{N_{CMB}^2} \approx \frac{2.75 \times
{10^{-22}}}{N_{CMB}^2} \approx 10^{-25}~GeV^{-1}\qquad;\qquad
\frac{\Delta}{M^2} \approx \frac{4.14 \times 10^{-34}}{N_{CMB}^2
P_R} \approx 10^{-28.2} GeV^{-2}\label{hsqbyM}\end{equation}
We then have viable inflation with inflaton energy and Hubble rate \begin{equation} V_0
\sim \frac{M^4}{h^2}\sim (M)^3\times 10^{25} \, GeV \sim
10^{43}-10^{61} \, GeV^4 ~~~~~~;~~~~~~ H_0 \sim
\sqrt{\frac{V_0}{M_P^2}} \sim 10^{3 }-10^{12} \, GeV \end{equation} The
fine-tuning measure grows as $M^2$ so that $\beta=\sqrt{\Delta}$
can be as large as $10^{-2}$ for $M\sim 10^{12}$ GeV. In our
scenario due to the large value of the inflaton mass parameter
$M\sim 10^6 ~ $to $~ 10^{13}$ GeV compared to $M\sim TeV$ in the
case of MSSM inflation\cite{MSSMflat} or Dirac neutrino
inflation\cite{akm,lythdimo} the fine-tuning
required is quite mild and removes much of the motivation
for complicated just so hybrid inflation scenarios.
We can also estimate the ratio $r$ of power in Tensor and Scalar
CMB fluctuations using $r=2 V_0/(3 \pi^2 P_R M_P^4)$. On using
eqn.(\ref{hsqbyM}) \begin{equation} r=\big( \frac{M}{7.95\times 10^{13} GeV}\big
)^3\end{equation}
This makes the observation of tensor perturbations in such a
scenario hard unless $M$ is near its upper limit.
\section{ Supersymmetric seesaw Inflaton model }
In this section we introduce a toy one generation Supersymmetric
seesaw inflation scenario model with gauge group $ SU(3)\times
SU(2)\times U(1)_R\times U(1)_{B-L} $ that captures the essential
features of our scenario. The essential fields beyond the MSSM
are a right handed Neutrino chiral multiplet $N [1,1,-1/2,1]$
and a field ${ S}[1,1,1,-2]$ whose vev generates the large
Majorana masses $M_\nu$ ($10^6-10^{14}$ GeV) for the conjugate
neutrinos $\nu^c_A \equiv N_A$ via a renormalizable superpotential
coupling $3 \sqrt{2} f_{AB} S \nu^c_A \nu^c_B $.
Additional superheavy fields $\Omega_i$ serve to fix
the vev of $S$ as in Minimal Supersymmetric
Left Right Models (MSLRMs)\cite{MSLRMs} and in GUTs that embed them
\cite{rparso10,MSGUTs,NMSGUTs}. Neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling is
present in the superpotential : $W=y_{\nu}N L H +...$ where
$L[1,2,0,-1],H[1,2,1/2,0]$ are the Lepton doublet and up type
Higgs respectively. The relevant D-flat direction extends out of
the minimum of the supersymmetric potential corresponding to the
breaking of the gauge group down to the MSSM symmetry \begin{eqnarray}
SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_R\times U(1)_{B-L} \rightarrow
SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_Y\end{eqnarray} This leads to a Type I seesaw
plus MSSM (SIMSSM) effective theory. After symmetry breaking the
MSSM hypercharge $Y= 2 T_{3R} + (B-L)$ where $T_{3R}$ is the
$U(1)_R$ generator. Unlike the case of the Dirac neutrino masses
scenario \cite{akm} $B-L$ is \emph{not} a gauge symmetry down to
low energies. This can have important consequences for
nucleosynthesis and matter domination since the heavy right handed
neutrinos must find a non-gauge channel to decay through. The
flat-direction associated with the gauge invariant $NLH$ is then
specified as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{N}= \tilde{\nu}=h_0=\frac{\varphi}{\sqrt{3}}=\phi
e^{i\theta};~~~\phi\geq 0,~~ \theta\in[0,2 \pi)\, \label{inflaton}
\end{equation}
The additional fields $\Omega_i$ are coupled to $S$ so that
extremization of the SUSY potential using
$F_{\Omega_i}=0,~~D_\alpha|_{\phi=0}=0 $ fixes the vev of S:
$<S>=\bar\sigma/\sqrt{2}$ without constraining the inflaton field
$\varphi$. This is as in the Minimal Susy LR models\cite{MSLRMs}
and renormalizable Susy SO(10) GUTs \cite{MSGUTs,NMSGUTs} which
are our inspiration and target.
At scales $\phi\sim \bar\sigma>>M_{S}$
where SUSY is exact the relevant superpotential is given by:
\begin{equation}
W= 3\sqrt{3} y N \nu h+ 3 f{\sqrt{2}} S NN +...= y\varphi^3 +f{\sqrt{2}}
S \varphi^2 +...
\label{WSIMSSM}\end{equation}
where $ h,f,\bar\sigma$ can be taken real without loss of
generality.The equations of motion of the unperturbed vacuum imply
$<F_S>=0, <S>= \bar\sigma/\sqrt{2}$. The right handed neutrino
Majorana mass will be $M_{\nu^c}=6f\sigb $.
This superpotential leads to an inflaton potential
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{susy}&=&|3 y \varphi^2 + 2 f\bar\sigma\varphi|^2 + 2 |f
\varphi^2|^2\nonumber\\
&=& f^2 \left[ (2+9{\tilde{y}}^2){\phi}^4 +12
{\tilde{y}}{\phi}^3 \sigb\cos\theta + 4 \sigb^2{\phi}^2\right]
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\tilde{y} =y/f$ and $f\sigb$ sets the mass scale.
Minimizing with respect to $\theta$ gives $\theta=\pi$ so we can
focus on just the real part of $\varphi$ and set
$\varphi=-\phi$ with $\phi$ real and positive near the inflection
point but free to fall into the well around $\phi=0$ and
oscillate around that value.
In addition one also expects a contribution to the potential
from the $\mu $ term for the Higgs doublets together with
SUSY breaking quadratic and cubic soft terms, which we assume to
be of the type generated by supergravity, but with non universal
Higgs masses, i.e of the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{soft} &=& \big [A_0 (y \varphi^3 + f \sqrt{2} S\varphi^2)+ h.c\big ] +m_{\tilde f}^2
\sum_{\tilde f} | {\tilde f}|^2 + m_{ H}^2 | H|^2 + m_{\bar H}^2 |\bar H|^2 \nonumber\\
&=& f^2 \left[\ytt\Azt\phi^3 \sigb \cos{3\theta} + \Azt \sigb^2{ \phi}^2
\cos{2\theta}+\mzt^2 \sigb^2 { \phi}^2 \right]
\end{eqnarray}
here $\mzt=m_0/{f\sigb}, \Azt= 2 A_0/{f\sigb} $. The soft mass
$m_0$ receives contributions from the sfermion and Higgs soft
masses as well as the $\mu$ term : $ m_0^2= ({2 m_{\tilde f}^2 +
\overline{m}_H^2})/{3}$. Here $m_{\tilde f,H}$ are the sfermion
and up type Higgs soft effective masses at the unification scale
($\overline{m}_H^2=m_H^2+|\mu|^2$). Since these masses and $A_0$
should be in the range $10^2-10^5$ GeV while the righthanded
neutrino masses lie in the range $10^{6}-10^{12}$ GeV, it is clear
that $\tilde m_0,\tilde A_0 $ are small parameters and even for
the large values of $m_0, A_0\sim 10^5$ GeV found in the NMSGUT
$\mzt,\Azt <<1 $. Thus these terms cannot significantly change
$\theta=\pi$ assumed earlier. The total inflaton potential is then
\eq{V_{tot}=f^2\left((2+9\tilde y^2) \phi^4-(\tilde A_0+12)\tilde
y\bar\sigma\phi^3 + (\tilde A_0+\tilde
m_0^2+4)\bar\sigma^2\phi^2\right).\label{eq-inf-Vtot}} Thus we
have a generic quartic inflaton potential of the same type as in
Section $\bf{2}$ but the parameter values in the case of Type I
seesaw are quite different from the light Dirac neutrino case. We
have the identification
of parameters \begin{eqnarray} h&=&f\sqrt{12(2 + 9 \ytt^2)}\nonumber\\
A&=&\frac{3 f (\Azt +12)\ytt \sigb}{\sqrt{(2 + 9
\ytt^2)}}\nonumber\\
M^2&=& 2 f^2 \sigb^2(4+\Azt +\mzt^2)\nonumber \\
\Delta&=& (1-\frac{A^2}{16 M^2})\nonumber\\
&=&\left(1-\frac{9\tilde y^2(\tilde A_0+12)^2}{32(2+9\tilde
y^2)(\tilde A_0+\tilde m_0^2+4)}\right)\label{paramident}\end{eqnarray} For
seesaw models the natural magnitude for the neutrino Dirac mass
is, $m_{\nu}^D >1 MeV $ (i.e $\, |y_\nu^D| > 10^{-5}$ and then the
limit $m_{\nu}<<0.01 eV$ for the lightest neutrino (assuming
direct hierarchy) implies $M_{\nu^c} > 10^6$ GeV). Since the
preferred values for the Susy breaking scale are smaller than 100
TeV (at most) it follows that the maximum value of $|\Azt|,|\mzt|
\sim 0.1 $ and they could be much smaller for more typical larger
values of the conjugate neutrino masses $M_{\nu^c} \sim 10^8 $ to
$ 10^{12}$ GeV. It is then clear from the corresponding range
$\Delta\sim 10^{-12} $ to $10^{-4}$ that the coupling ratio
$\ytt=y/f$ becomes ever closer to exactly $\ytt =4/3$ as M
increases and even for $M\sim 10^6$ GeV differs from $1.333 $ only
at the second decimal place. Thus to a good approximation $
h=6{\sqrt{6}} f $. Then it follows that \begin{equation} f
\simeq
10^{-26.83 \pm 0.17}(\frac{\overline{\sigma}}{GeV})~~;~
M \simeq 10^{-25.38 \pm
0.17}(\frac{\overline{\sigma}}{GeV})^2~~;~
\Delta \simeq 10^{-78.93 \pm 0.47}
(\frac{\overline{\sigma}}{GeV})^4\end{equation}
The range $M\sim
10^{6.6}$ to $10^{10.6}$ GeV corresponds nicely to $10^{16}
~GeV< \sigb < 10^{18} ~GeV $: as is natural in single scale Susy
SO(10) GUTs\cite{rparso10,MSGUTs,NMSGUTs,nmsgut3}. $f$ increases
with $\sigb$ with values below $10^{-11}$ achievable in the
NMSGUT only with difficulty. In MSLRMs, since there are no GUT
constraints on $\sigb$, one may assume somewhat wider ranges for
these parameters.
In all relevant cases $\Delta < 10^{ -4}$ is required. Thus the above equations imply
that ${\tilde y}^2$ must be close to the value \begin{equation} {{\tilde
y}_0}^2 = \frac{64}{9} {\frac {4+\Azt +\mzt^2}{16-8\Azt-32
\mzt^2+\Azt^2}}\end{equation}
Here $\Azt,\mzt \sim O(M_S/M_{\nu^c})
<<1$, hence $\tilde y_0$ is rather close to $4/3$ and the
equality is very close for larger $M\sim f\sigb$ since then
$\Azt,\mzt$ are tiny.
The measure of severity of
fine tuning $\beta=\sqrt{\Delta} \sim 10^{-2} - 10^{-6}$ compares
quite favourably with the case of the MSSM or Dirac neutrino
inflaton since there $\beta\sim 10^{-12} $ to $10^{-10}$ due to
the low values of the inflaton mass in those cases. The dominant
component of the fine tuning in the present case is a fine-tuning
of superpotential parameters, which is radiatively stable due to
non renormalization theorems. Specially for large $\sigb > 10^{16}
~GeV$ the Type I Susy seesaw can provide a rather attractive
inflationary seesaw with a natural explanation for neutrino masses
and weaker tuning demands on the radiatively unstable Susy
breaking parameters than the extreme and unstable fine-tunings
demanded by typical inflection point scenarios and in particular
the Dirac neutrino model \cite{akm}. Moreover, unlike the chaotic
sneutrino inflaton scenario\cite{murayana,elliyana}, no
trans-Planckian vevs are invoked.
\subsection{Reheating and Leptogenesis}
The post inflationary dynamics of our model bears an intimate
relation to previous studies of models with`instant preheating'
mechnism\cite{feldkoflinde} and specially the MSSM flat
direction inflection point inflation model\cite{alfermaz} and
preheating model\cite{ahnkolb} with strong coupling to the MSSM
Higgs. Supersymmetric seesaw inflation offers an attractive
synthesis precisely fulfilling the need expressed in
\cite{ahnkolb} :
"\emph{There
have been many models of leptogenesis. A hallmark of our model is
the economy of fields. The only undiscovered fields are the
inflaton, $\phi$, the standard model Higgs, h, and the
right-handed neutrino, N. There are very good reasons for
suspecting that all exist! The only unfamiliar aspect of our model
is the strong coupling of the inflaton field to the Higgs field.
While there is no reason to preclude such a coupling, it would be
very interesting to find particle-physics models with a motivation
for the coupling. }"
Due to the gauge(H,L) and third generation yukawa($H$)
coupled components of the inflaton
the inflaton energy will decay very rapidly (with decay time
$\tau_{dec} << H_{infl}^{-1} \sim (h M_p)/M^2$) by the `instant
preheating'' mechanism\cite{feldkoflinde,ahnkolb,alfermaz}. Thus
the reheating temperature $ T_{rh}\sim T_{max} \sim V_0^{1/4} \sim
M/h^{1/2}\sim 10^{11}-10^{15}\, GeV$. The parametric dependence is
identical to that found in \cite{alfermaz}. The difference in
scales arises only because the inflaton mass $M\sim 10^6-10^{12}$
GeV in our model is much larger than the inflaton mass parameter
$m_\phi\sim 0.1-10$ TeV in \cite{alfermaz} coming from soft
Supersymmetry breaking.
In preheating (``$\chi $ type") degrees of freedom, with masses($m_\chi\sim
g \phi(t)$) and decay rates ($\Gamma \sim g^3 \phi(t)$)
proportional to $\phi(t)$, are produced non-perturbatively every
time the inflaton field crosses zero. This happens because the
$\chi$ modes are ultra-light for a sufficiently large time
interval around the zero crossing time during which adiabaticity
is violated ( $ {\dot\omega}_k > \omega_k^2$ : where $\omega_k$
is the oscillation frequency at wave number $ k$). Here $\chi$
modes are the components of the $H,L,u^c_L,u_L$ chiral superfields
and the $W_\pm,B$ gauge superfields. They can be identified as
the fields which become massive given background values of the
three components of the inflaton ($\tilde \nu,\tilde
\nu^c_L,h^0$). Then with the usual superpotential
\begin{equation} W=y^u Q_L H u^c_L + y^d Q_L {\overline H}
d^c_L + y^\nu L H N + y^l L{\overline H}e^c_L +...\end{equation}
$y^u$ leads to massive $u_L,u^c_L$; $y^\nu$ leads to
massive $e_L$(one combination of the three $e_L$ ), $h^0,h^+
,\nu_L,\nu^c_L$; $y^l$ leads to massive ${\bar h}^-,e^c_L$(one
combination). Since $<H,N,L>$ preserve $U(1)_{em}$, the gauge
couplings give masses to Z (which forms a Dirac supermultiplet
with $(\nu-{\tilde h}_0)/\sqrt{2}$) and $W_{\pm} $ (form a pair of
Dirac supermultiplets with $l^{-},{h}_+$). The inflaton vev
leaves the down quark and gluon/gluino fields and $\bar h_0$, and
some combinations of the $l^-_L,l^c_L$ fields with light (MSSM
type) masses. These light ($\psi$-type) fields will form the first
step in the decays of the $\chi$ field.
As $<\phi>$ again increases after crossing zero the
$\chi$ modes become heavy and unstable and as a result decay
rapidly(within a time $\tau_{dec}\sim \frac{h}{M g^3}<<
m_{\phi}^{-1}$) to the light (mostly coloured) MSSM modes to
which they are coupled strongly coupled. A
fraction $\sim 10^{-1}$ of the inflaton condensate energy passes into
the light MSSM modes with every crossing resulting in complete
transfer within $\sim 10^2$ oscillation times. $\tau_{osc}\sim m_{\phi}^{-1}<<
H_{infln}^{-1} \sim (h M_p)\tau_{osc}/M \sim (1 \, - \, 150)
\tau_{osc}$. Once the energy is in the light($\psi$) modes MSSM
interactions rapidly complete thermalization.
Rapid decay of the inflaton oscillation amplitude leaves the
light modes to thermalize the energy dumped by the inflaton into a
radiation bath of all modes: which are no longer ever heavy
because the inflaton has decayed.
The reheating temperature is \begin{eqnarray} T_{rh} \sim ({\frac {30} {\pi^2 g_*}})^{1/4} V_0^{1/4}
\sim T_{max} \sim 10^{11} - 10^{15} \, GeV \end{eqnarray}
where $g_*=228.75$ is the effective number of MSSM degrees of
freedom. This reheating temperature is well above that required
to produce relativistic populations of gravitinos : which are
unacceptable if their lifetimes are larger than the
nucleosynthesis time $\tau_{N} \sim 1 \, sec $ since their decay
after nucleosynthesis would destroy the created nucleons. The
straightforward and generic resolution of this gravitino problem
is if the graviton masses are sufficiently large so that the
gravitinos decay before nucleosynthesis\cite{moroi} : $
\tau_{grav} \sim 10^5 \, sec ({\frac{1 \, TeV }{m_{3/2}}})^3 <<
\tau_N \sim 1 ~ sec $. Thus Supersymmetric seesaw Inflation also
indicates that the scale of supersymmetry breaking -as indicated
by the gravitino mass- should be above $ 50 $ TeV; as is also
found by fitting of fermion data in the NMSGUT\cite{NMSGUTs}.
Large reheat temperatures also ensure abundant thermal production
of righthanded neutrinos after inflation. Their CP violating
decays into leptons can drive thermal lepto-genesis
\cite{leptogen} for generating the observed baryon to entropy
density $n_B/s \sim 10^{-10}$ . \emph{Non-thermal} leptogenesis
is also possible \cite{ahnkolb} since the Higgs field H is
itself a $\chi$ type field and coupled to the righthanded
neutrinos. During inflaton oscillations the Higgs mass $m_h\sim
g_2 \phi$ fluctuates below and above $M_{\nu^c}\sim f
{\bar\sigma} $. CP violating Higgs-righthanded Neutrino
inter-conversion\cite{ahnkolb} leads to (non-thermal) Leptogenesis
which will add to the thermal leptogenesis. The complication in
the present case that the $L, H$ and $N$ components of the
inflaton have different decay rates implies a proper analysis
must track the separate evolution of all three fields making up
the inflaton using the equation of motion and Boltzmann equation
for the relevant degrees of freedom. This requires a separate
numerical study to expose the interplay of the couplings
$f_A,y_{AB},g_2$. The study of this evolution and the operation of
Leptogenesis in these models is now in progress.
\section{ Inflation and neutrino masses in the NMSGUT}
Finally we embed SSI in the New Minimal SO(10) GUT
(NMSO(10)GUT or NMSGUT). The NMSGUT is a realistic Susy SO(10)
model\cite{NMSGUTs,nmsgut3,blmdm} that successfully fits the known
fermion mass-mixing data in terms of GUT parameters and provides
structural reasons for suppression of the dangerous operator
dimension $d=4,5$ Baryon violation typical in Susy
GUTs\cite{nmsgut3}. It furthermore makes distinctive predictions
of a mini-split supersymmetry spectrum made viable by large $A,
\mu$-terms and with a characteristic \emph{normal} s-hierarchy.
Neutrino flavour plays a key role in enabling NMSGUT inflation :
the inflaton is composed of third generation conjugate
sneutrino, first generation left slepton (sneutrino) and the
$T_{3R}=1/2$ Higgs.
The NMSGUT Higgs field vevs
$\{{\mathbf{210}}(\omega,p,a),\mathbf{126}(\sigma)\}\equiv \Omega,
\mathbf{\overline {126}}(S=\bar\sigma)$ break $SO(10)\rightarrow G_{MSSM}$
while preserving Supersymmetry at $M_X$. An explicit Susy
preserving solution of symmetry breaking in terms of a cubic
equation for a complex variable $x$ and depending on a single
parameter ratio $\xi$ was found by us\cite{MSGUTs}. The mass
spectra implied\cite{MSGUTs,NMSGUTs} by this analytic solution
for the the MSGUT vacuum are the basis of our detailed
Renormalization Group and threshold effect
analysis\cite{MSGUTs,NMSGUTs,nmsgut3}. Inclusion of threshold
corrections raises the unification scale close to the Planck
scale and can lower the gauge coupling at unification. We shall
use the notation and results of \cite{ag1,ag2,NMSGUTs,nmsgut3}.
To embed SSI corresponding to a $NLH$ type flat direction we
show there is a corresponding flat direction of the full GUT potential
which rolls out of the MSGUT minimum (that has the SIMSSM as its effective theory).
The relevant fields are the GUT scale vev fields $\Omega\equiv \{\omega,p,a,w,\sigma\},S=\bar\sigma$ and
the (6) possible components $ h_i,{\bar{h}_i};i=1...6$ of the light MSSM Higgs doublet
pair $H,{\overline H} $ together with the chiral lepton fields $L_A,\nu_A^c,
A=1,2,3$. The relevant superpotential is
then\cite{MSGUTs,NMSGUTs}
\begin{equation} W = 2\sqrt{2}(h_{AB}h_1-2\sqrt{3}f_{AB}h_2-g_{AB}(h_5+i
\sqrt{3}h_6))+\bar{h}^T {\cal{H}}(<\Omega>)h +4\sqrt{2}
f_{AB}\bar\sigma \bar \nu_{A} \bar\nu_B + W_\Omega(\Omega) \end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
W_\Omega(\Omega,{\bar\sigma}) = m(p^2+3a^2+6\omega^2)+2 \lambda(a^3+3p\omega^2) +(M+\eta(p+3a-6 \omega))\sigma \bar\sigma
\end{equation}
and \begin{equation} \frac{\partial W_{\Omega}}{\partial \Omega }|_{h,\bar \nu,L = 0} =
\frac{\partial W_{\Omega}}{\partial \bar\sigma }|_{h,\bar \nu,L = 0}=0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
D_{\alpha}(\Omega)|_{h,\bar \nu,L = 0}=0\label{omegavac}\end{equation}
here $h_{AB},g_{AB},f_{AB}$ are the yukawa coupling matrices of
the three matter 16-plets to the $\mathbf{10,120,\overline {126}}$ Higgs
multiplets respectively. ${\cal{H}}$ is the Higgs doublet mass
matrix\cite{ag2,MSGUTs,NMSGUTs}. Equation (\ref{omegavac}) defines
the MSGUT vacuum\cite{MSGUTs}.
Of the 5 diagonal D-terms of SO(10) only those corresponding to
the generators $T_{3L},\break T_{3R},B-L $ are relevant for vevs
$\Omega,\bar\sigma$ and out of equilibrium inflaton mode composed of $\nu,\nu^c,h_0$. The vevs $\Omega,\bar\sigma$ do not
contribute to these D terms or cancel so
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{3L} &=&\frac{g_{u}}{2}(-\sum_{i=1}^6|h_{i0}|^2+\sum_{A}|\tilde
\nu_A|^2)\nonumber\\
D_{3R}&=&\frac{g_{u}}{2}(\sum_{i=1}^6|h_{i0}|^2-2|h_{40}|^2-\sum_{A}|\tilde
{\bar\nu}_{A}|^2)\nonumber\\
D_{B-L}&=&\sqrt{\frac{3}{8}}g_{u}(\sum_{A}(|\tilde
{\bar\nu}_{A}|-|\tilde \nu_A|^2)+2|h_{40}|^2)\end{eqnarray} where only
$h_{4\alpha}=\Phi^{44}_{{\dot{2}}\alpha}$ has $B-L=+2,T_{3R}=-1/2
$ and thus $Y=1 $ while all others have $T_{3R}=1/2$ and $B-L=0$.
The D-flatness conditions are
\begin{equation} \sum_A|\tilde
\nu_A|^2=\sum_{i}|h_{i0}^2|=\sum_A |\tilde{\bar
\nu}_{A}|^2+2|h_{40}|^2 \end{equation} In MSGUTs the MSSM Higgs doublet pair
is defined by fine tuning $Det({\cal{H}})\simeq 0$ so that its
lightest eigenvalue $\mu \sim M_W\sim 1 $ TeV specifies the $\mu$
term in the superpotential of the SIMSSM : $W=\mu
{\overline{H}}H+...$. The doublet pair $H,{\overline{H}}$ is a
linear combination\cite{MSGUTs,ag2,ag1} of the 6 doublet pairs of
the the NMSGUT :
\begin{eqnarray} h_i=U_{ij} H_j \qquad \qquad \bar{h}_i={\overline{U}}_{ij}
\overline{H}_j\end{eqnarray}
where $U,{\overline{U}}$ diagonalize the doublet mass matrix
${\cal{H}}$ : ${\overline{U}}^T{\cal{H}} U=
Diag\{\mu,M^H_2,....,M^H_6\}$ to positive masses. They are
calculated with $\mu=0=Det({\cal{H}})$. The so called Higgs
fractions : $\alpha_i=U_{i1},\bar\alpha_i={\overline{U}}_{i1}$ ,
determine the grand unified
formulae\cite{MSGUTs,NMSGUTs} for the SIMSSM fermion yukawas. For
tree level yukawa couplings replace $ h_i,\bar{h}_i\rightarrow
\alpha_i H ,\bar{\alpha}_i {\bar{H}} $. For example the neutrino
Dirac coupling is ($(\tilde h_{AB},\tilde g_{AB},\tilde
f_{AB})$=$2\sqrt{2}(h_{AB},g_{AB},f_{AB})$ ) \begin{equation}
y^{\nu}_{AB}=\tilde h_{AB} \alpha_1-2\sqrt{3}\tilde
f_{AB}\alpha_2-\tilde g_{AB}(\alpha_5+i \sqrt{3}\alpha_6)\end{equation} From
the $V=|F_{\bar h}|^2$ only the light Higgs doublet $H$ can
contribute. To get small yukawas the involvement of the lightest
generation is unavoidable. Thus we take $\nu_{A}=\nu_1$. Taking
$\tilde{ \bar\nu }_{ A}=\tilde{\bar \nu}_{1}$ the tuning
constraint is \emph{at best} of form $|y_{11}|^2\sim 10
(|y_{21}|^2 +|y_{31}|^2)$ : this is impossible to satisfy with
normal neutrino yukawa coupling hierarchy. Choosing
$\bar\nu_A=\nu^c_3 $ as the conjugate neutrino component of the
inflaton is more helpful in satisfying the fine tuning condition.
Thus our inflaton ansatz is
\begin{equation} \tilde{\nu}_1=
\frac{\phi}{\sqrt{3}} \qquad\qquad
h_{i0}=\frac{\alpha_{i}\phi}{\sqrt{3}} \qquad\qquad \tilde{\bar
\nu}_{3}=\frac{\phi}{\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{1-2|\alpha_4|^2}\end{equation} Note how
the Higgs fraction $\alpha_4$ enters as $\Gamma=1-
2|\alpha_4|^2$. It happens the solutions we have found earlier
\cite{NMSGUTs} can have $|\alpha_4|\sim 0.5$. It is not
inconceivable that $\Gamma\simeq 0$ is achievable without
destroying the realistic fermion fits to the fermion data.
We use generic Supergravity(SUGRY)-NUHM generated soft terms
in terms of a common trilinear parameter $A_0$ but
different soft mass parameters $\tilde{m}_{\tilde
f}^2,\tilde{m}_{h_i}^2$ for the 16 plets and the different
Higgs. Repeating the analysis of section 3 with the NMSGUT
superpotential and the new ansatz we obtain the parameter
identifications
\begin{eqnarray}
h&=&\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\big[(y^{\nu \dag} y^{\nu})_{11}+
\Gamma(|\tilde{h}_{31}|^2+4|\tilde
g_{31}|^2+(y^{\nu}y^{\nu \dag})_{33})+ 4|\tilde f_{33}|^2\Gamma^2)\big ]^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
A&=&\frac{1}{h}(16|\tilde f_{33}|
|y^{\nu}_{31}||\bar\sigma|{\sqrt\Gamma} +
4 |y^{\nu}_{31}|{\sqrt\Gamma}A_0 \cos (3
\theta_{\bar\sigma}-2 \theta_{y^{\nu}_{31}}))\nonumber\\
M^2 &=&\frac{32}{3}|\tilde f_{33}|^2|\bar
\sigma|^2\Gamma+\frac{8}{3}A_0\tilde f_{33}|\bar \sigma| \Gamma
\cos (3\theta_{\bar\sigma}-2 \theta_{y^{\nu}_{31}})+2
{\widehat{m}}_0^2 \end{eqnarray} The fine tuning condition $A=4 M$ is now
\begin{equation} |y^{\nu}_{31}|^2 = \frac{8
\Lambda_{n}}{9\Lambda_{d}-8 \Lambda_{n}(1+\Gamma)}\big
[|y^{\nu}_{11}|^2+|y^{\nu}_{21}|^2+\Gamma(|\tilde{h}_{31}|^2+4|\tilde
g_{31}|^2+|y^{\nu}_{32}|^2+|y^{\nu}_{33}|^2) + 4|\tilde
f_{33}|^2\Gamma^2\big ]\end{equation} Where \begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda_{n}&=&1+\frac{A_0}{4M_3}\cos(3\theta_{\bar\sigma}-2
\theta_{y^{\nu}_{31}})+
\frac{3{{\widehat m}_0}^2}{16 M_3^2 \Gamma}\nonumber\\
\Lambda_{d}&=& (1+\frac{A_0}{4M_3} Cos(3\theta_{\bar\sigma}-2
\theta_{y^{\nu}_{31}}))^2\end{eqnarray} and $M_3=\tilde f_{33}|\bar \sigma|
$ $M_{\bar\nu}>>M_S$ imples $\Lambda_{n,d}$ are both very close
to unity. So as before the fine tuning condition is essentially
between hard parameters as in GUTs and in sharp contrast to MSSM
inflaton models\cite{MSSMflat}: \begin{equation} |y^{\nu}_{31}|^2 = \frac{8
}{1-8\Gamma}(\Gamma(|\tilde{h}_{31}|^2+4|\tilde
g_{31}|^2+|y^{\nu}_{32}|^2+|y^{\nu}_{33}|^2) +
|y^{\nu}_{11}|^2+|y^{\nu}_{21}|^2+4|\tilde f_{33}|^2\Gamma^2)\end{equation}
In NMSGUT fits the strong hierarchy
$|y_{33}|>>|y_{32}|>>|y_{31}|>>|y_{21}|>|y_{11}|$ holds . So one
must tune \begin{equation} \Gamma \approx 0 \,\,\,\ {~{i.e}}\qquad\quad
|\alpha_4|\approx {\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} \end{equation} to a good accuracy. The
MSSM doublet H is almost exactly 50\% derived from the doublet in
the 210 plet ! The yukawa tuning condition is only
\begin{eqnarray}|y^{\nu}_{31}|^2&=& 8 (|y^{\nu}_{11}|^2+|y^{\nu}_{21}|^2 )\end{eqnarray}
which is easy to enforce in the NMSGUT.
There is an additional demand coming from eqn(\ref{hsqbyM}) :
$h^2/M_3 \sim ({y^\nu}^\dag y^\nu)_{11}/M_3 \sim 10^{-25} $ which
is, at first glance, much harder to enforce. However
\cite{nmsgut3} large wave function corrections\cite{wright} to
the GUT($Y_f^{tree}$)-MSSM($Y_f$) yukawa coupling relation due to
the circulation of heavy fields within loops on the lines entering
the yukawa vertex imply :
\begin{eqnarray} Y_f=(1 +{\Delta}_{\bar f}^T)\cdot (Y_f)_{tree}\cdot(1+ \Delta_f)
(1+ \Delta_{H^{\pm}} ) \end{eqnarray}
Due to the large number of
heavy fields the dressing of the Higgs fields can be rather large
($\sim 10^2 $). We earlier calculated\cite{nmsgut3} the
dressing for the \textbf{10}-plet component of the MSSM Higgs.
Above we showed that a completely
independent line of argument \emph{requires} that the doublet $H$
be 50\% derived from the \textbf{210}-plet. Thus the lengthy
calculation of the wave function corrections for each of the
six GUT doublets contributing to the MSSM doublet is
necessary. Even from the partial calculation\cite{nmsgut3} we see
that the large value of the wave function dressing makes the GUT
tree level matter fermion yukawa couplings (i.e
$\{h_{AB},g_{AB},f_{AB}\}_{tree}$ and therefore all the
$(y^f_{AB})_{tree}$ ) required to match the SIMSSM couplings at
$M_X^0$ much smaller than they would be without these
corrections. This has the important consequence of suppressing
$d=5$ B-violation operators since they depend on these yukawas
and have no Higgs line. Since it is the tree level couplings that
enter the formulae for the inflaton dynamics in the full GUT it is
easier to satisfy eqn.(\ref{hsqbyM}). Because of this and the
relatively large value of $M\sim M_3$ it should be be possible to
achieve the required fine tuning using the full wave function
dressing\cite{csaigck}.
Embedding in the GUT has overturned our naive assumption that the
lowest intermediate scale would govern inflation. Instead it is
rather the largest. While setting us the problem of finding
solutions to the tuning condition, compatible both with an
accurate fit of fermion masses and acceptable values of
inflationary power spectrum and spectral index, it emphatically
shows that the soft terms have little role to play in the fine
tuning which belongs rather to the GUT and intermediate scale
physics only. Thus the physics of SIMSSM driven inflation is in
sharp contrast to the Dirac neutrino mass driven
inflation\cite{akm,hotchmaz} in the MSSM extended by $U(1)_{B-L}$
and right handed neutrinos. Our analysis makes it clear that they
lie counterpoised not only as regards the nature of neutrino mass
but also as regards the nature of inflation and its regulating
mass scale besides their degree of naturalness.
An example of the relevant parameters from an accurate fit of
the complete fermion spectrum in the NMSGUT which has also been
tuned to make it as compatible as possible with the inflationary
scenario presented is seen in Table 1. More details may be found
in \cite{ssi}. The fine tuning between the yukawas proceeds as
anticipated with $1-\Gamma =1=\Lambda_{n,d}$. The remaining
problem is that $h^2/M\sim 10^{-19}$ GeV is too large. As a
result the number of e-folds $N_{CMB}$ is much smaller than
required. However as explained the formulae used seriously
underestimate the Higgs wave function corrections.
Search of the huge parameter space has just begun. We may well
hope for a completely realistic fit compatible with inflation in due
course. The detailed analysis of reheating behaviour and
Lepto-genesis in this model is also underway. Since the fits of
fermion masses also yield a value for the CP violation parameter
relevant for Lepto-genesis the incorporation of the SSI scenario
in the NMSGUT may eventually yield useful additional
constraints which will serve to narrow the parameter space further.
\begin{table}
$ \begin{array} {|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{\rm Parameter }&Value &Parameter &Value\\
\hline
\chi_{X}& 0.4458 & M_{h^0}& 122.99 \\
\chi_{Z}& 0.1426 & M_X & 7.08 \times 10^{17}\\
f_3 & 1.066 \times {10}^{-3}& f_1 ,f_2 &2.59\times{10}^{-8},4.405 \times 10^{-5} \\
h & 2.44 \times 10^{-4} & \Lambda_{n} &0.999999\\
M & 3.043 \times 10^{11}& \Lambda_{d} & 0.999999\\
\Gamma & 4.343 \times 10^{-5}& \Delta_{tuning}& 0.989\\
|{\overline{\sigma}}| & 4.69 \times 10^{15} &M_X &5.25 \times 10^{17}\\
A_0(M_X),m_0(M_X) & -5.235\times 10^5 , 1.260 \times 10^4 &\mu,B(M_X) & 4.316\times 10^5,-1.128 \times 10^{11}\\
M^2_{\bar H} & -1.498 \times 10^{11} & M^2_H & -1.448 \times 10^{11}\\
|\Delta_{H_0}|,|\Delta_{\bar{H}_0}| & 50.254,63.930 & |\alpha_{4}| & 0.707\\
M^{\nu^c}_3 & 4.86 \times 10^{13}&M^{\nu^c}_{1,2} & 1.181 \times 10^{9},2.01\times 10^{12} \\
|y_{31tree}^\nu|& 1.997 \times 10^{-4}& |y_{21tree}^\nu|,|y_{11tree}^\nu| & 4.489 \times 10^{-5},1.640 \times 10^{-6}\\
Log_{10}(h^2/M) & -18.706 & V_0,\phi_{end} & 3.579 \times 10^{52},2.153 \times 10^{15}\\
N_{pivot},N_{CMB} & 54.22, 4.78 \times 10^{-4} & \Delta , \beta & 8.82 \times 10^{-12},5.92 \times10^{-6} \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
\label{table I}\caption{\small{Illustrative example of relevant parameters from an accurate fit
of the fermion spectrum in the NMSGUT which is compatible with inflationary
scenario. All masses are in GeV.
$\chi_{X,Z}$ are the accuracies of the fits to 18 known fermion mass/mixing parameters
at $M_{X,Z}$.}}
\end{table}
\begin{theacknowledgments}
This is a report of work done in collaboration with Ila Garg and published as \cite{ssi}.
We are grateful to Anupam Mazumdar and Ling Fei Wang
for correspondence and collaboration in earlier stages of this work.
and thank David Lyth for discussions and useful comments.
\end{theacknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{aipproc}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Over the past decades, infrared (IR) astronomy made a tremendous progress largely thanks to various space missions, such as the Infra-Red Astronomical Satellite (IRAS: \citealt{soifer87}), the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO; \citealt{Ks96,Gz00}), and the $Spitzer$ space telescope \citep{spitzer}.
The most important aspect carried by IR wavelengths is probably that IR emission represents the dust-obscured star formation activity of galaxies \citep{Gz00}. The bolometric IR luminosity of galaxies measures the dust-obscured star formation within galaxies and is less affected by extinction while other shorter wavelength star formation rate (SFR) proxies falling on optical and ultra-violet (UV) wavelength regimes.
However using the bolometric IR luminosity as a star formation (SF) indicator has two caveats. First, not only newly formed massive stars, but also evolved stellar populations can heat dust components within galaxies \citep{Cz11}. Then it is extremely tricky to obtain the whole range of IR spectral energy distribution (SED) for high-z galaxies to measure bolometric IR luminosities.
Therefore, many studies have attempted calibrate several IR SFR proxy candidates including 8 $\micron$ and 24 $\micron$ bands to bolometric IR luminosities and other SFR indicators in order to establish reliable IR SFR proxies in recent years.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) have gotten enormous attention due to their ubiquity and strong potential as diagnostics of other properties such as ionized states and sizes of grains. PAHs are considered to be present in a wide range of objects and environments, such as post-AGB stars, planetary nebulae, HII regions, reflection nebulae and the diffuse interstellar medium \citep{Pg85,Al89}.
The PAH features are believed to contribute up to 10 \% of the total IR luminosity of star forming galaxies \citep{He01,Pt02,Sm07}.
Numerous recent studies measure PAH band fluxes and equivalent widths (EWs) in order to calibrate these emission features as SFR proxies within the Galactic environments and galaxies at higher redshift. These studies reveal that there exist differences in PAH EWs and L$_{PAH}$/$L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ ratios between local values and high redshift ones \citep{He01,Pt02, Sm07}. Since PAH band ratios reflect variations in physical conditions within environments, such as ionization states of dust grains and metallicity \citep{Sm07,Ga08,Go08, Dr11,Ga11}, more detailed study on this subject will put a better constraint on physical conditions of PAH emission sites and calibration of PAH bands as SFR proxies.
These previous studies on PAH emission features concentrate on stronger bands, such as 6.2, 7.7, and 11.3 $\mu m$. On the other hand, studies on 3.3 $\mu m$ feature have been far fewer, due to its relatively weaker strength. There still have been efforts to investigate the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission and its property related to star formation activity. The first of such studies is \citet{To91}. Compiling infrared L-band (3-4 $\micron$) spectra from various sources, \citet{To91} categorized the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission feature into two types and investigated if the origin of the emission feature is PAHs. Several studies on energy source of IR emission followed. Analyzing 57 AGN and one starburst galaxy spectra, \citet{Cl00} detected the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission from 47 of them and used its strength for classifying the target spectra.
\citet{RAV03} detected the 3.3 $\micron$ emission in two Seyfert 1 galaxies and one quasi-stellar object (QSO) using $NASA$ infrared telescope facility (IRTF) SpeX and claimed that these active galactic nuclei (AGN) have the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH luminosity levels similar to those of starburst and LIRGs. \citet{Im03} and \citet{Im04} observed 32 Seyfert 2 galaxies and 23 Seyfert 1 galaxies, respectively, in order to investigate connection between nuclear starburst activity and AGN activity using ground-based L-band spectroscopy. They detected the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission from 10 out of 23 Seyfert 1 galaxies and 11 out of 32 Seyfert 2 galaxies respectively, and found that starburst activity correlates with nuclear activity regardless of types of Seyfert galaxies. Using ISO/SWS spectra of a wide variety of sources, \citet{vD04} claimed that the 3.3 $\micron$ emission originate mainly in neutral and/or negatively charged PAHs in contrast to the 6.2 and 7.7 $\micron$ emission which are from PAH cations.
On the other hand, \citet{WKI08} and \citet{Oi10} confirmed that there is a strong correlation between nuclear starburst activity and AGN activity traced by either X-ray luminosity, or nuclear N-band luminosity for Seyfert galaxies, while detecting the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission from three out of eight sources and five out of 22 sources, respectively. Extending these works into more luminous regime, \citet{Im11} observed 30 PG QSOs and detected the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission from five QSOs utilizing slit-less spectroscopic capability of AKARI infrared satellite \citep{AKARI} to probe global star formation activity by the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission feature.. They confirmed that the correlation between nuclear starburst activity and AGN activity are intact for PG QSOs.
There have been other studies utilizing slit-less spectroscopic capability of AKARI. \citet{Im08} obtained AKARI Infrared Camera (IRC; \citealt{IRC}) spectra of 45 nearby ULIRGs in order to investigate the energy source of ULIRGs. They detected the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission from 40 ULIRGs. However, they claimed that the obscured starburst activity is not the dominant energy source for these ULIRGs, even for ULIRGs which are classified as non-Seyfert optically. \citet{Im10} also obtained IRC spectroscopy of 64 LIRGs and 54 ULIRGs and detected the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission from the majority of the observed targets. They found that the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH gives a good estimate for SFR as Br$\alpha$ ($\lambda_{rest}$ = 4.05 $\micron$) does. For more of higher redshift objects, \citet{Sj09} detected the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission for four out of 11 z $\sim$ 2 ULIRGs.
Understanding how the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH emission is related to star formation activities has a great importance, since the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH feature is likely to be the only dust emission feature at high redshift ($z > 4.5$) easily accessible with future space IR telescope missions, such as James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and SPICA.
Given the importance of understanding 2.5-5 $\mu m$ mid-infrared (MIR) emissions from extragalactic sources, we carried out a study of low redshift objects in the 2.5-5 $\mu m$ window, AKARI mJy Unbiased Survey of Extragalactic Sources (AMUSES) as one of AKARI mission projects (MPs). The main scientific goal of AMUSES is to construct a continuous spectral library over the wavelength window between 2.5 and 40 $\mu m$ for a subsample of 5$mJy$ Unbiased $Spitzer$ Extragalactic Survey (5MUSES, \citealt{5muses}) by combining spectra from AKARI and $Spitzer$.
In \S \ref{data}, we present sample selection, data acquisition and reduction. Then we present and discuss fitting methodology as well as stacking analysis in \S \ref{analysis}. In \S \ref{results}, we present both reduced individual spectra and the stacked spectra of the sample. We also present and discuss fitting results in \S \ref{results}. Implication of our results are presented in \S \ref{discussion}. We summarize our study in \S \ref{sum}.
Throughout this paper, we assume that the universe is flat with $\Omega_{M}$= 0.3 and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.7, and $H_{0}$=70km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ (e.g., \citealt{Im97}).
\section{Data}
\label{data}
\subsection{Sample Selection}
\label{sample}
The AMUSES sample is drawn from 5MUSES. We choose 5MUSES as our parent sample, because it contains a statistically unbiased library of MIR spectra of IR sources that covers the gap between the bright, nearby IR galaxies and the much fainter, more distant IR sources being studied by the $Spizter/AKARI$.
5MUSES, one of the $Spitzer$ Legacy surveys, performed a MIR spectroscopic observation of extragalactic sources brighter than 5$mJy$ at 24$\mu m$ in the $Spitzer$ First Look Survey (FLS; \citealt{fls, fadafls, yanfls, apfls, choifls, shim1, shim2}) field and four subfields of $Spitzer$ Wide-area Infrared Extragalactic survey (SWIRE; \citealt{swire}) with the Infrared Spectrograph (IRS) onboard the $Spitzer$ space telescope. The main scientific goal of 5MUSES is to provide an unbiased library of infrared spectra from 5 to 40 $\mu m$ of sources which have not been sought after in previous studies.
Since the main objective of AMUSES is to detect the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH feature, we select 5MUSES galaxies that are brighter than 1 mJy at 3.6 $\mu m$. Based on the $Spitzer$ IRAC 3.6 $\mu m$ data for the 5MUSES sample, we find that 60 of the 330 5MUSES galaxies satisfy the flux cut of 1mJy at 3.6 $\mu m$. We limit the redshift range to z $<$ 0.5 in order to achieve S/N $>$ 5 for detection of the 3.3 $\mu m$ emission feature. With this additional cut, the sample size is reduced to 50 galaxies. In addition to this base sample, we add 10 5MUSES galaxies with their 3.6 $\mu m$ flux brighter than 0.7 mJy whose redshifts could not be determined by optical spectroscopy. These are added as secondary targets in case that the scheduling constraint makes it impossible to observe the main targets. With these additional galaxies, the original sample consists of 60 galaxies.
Ultimately, a total of 44 galaxies among these 60 galaxies are approved for the final program, after resolving visibility conflicts with targets from other approved programs. However, only 20 target galaxies were observed until the mechanical failure of the AKARI cooling system. The termination of the AKARI scientific mission is announced on 2011 June 20, thus, these 20 galaxies are the final sample for AMUSES. For our final sample, we adopted their SED classes from \citet{5muses}. They classified objects using the 6.2 $\micron$ PAH equivalent widths (EWs): sources with EW $>$ 0.5 $\micron$ are starburst (SB)-dominated; sources with 0.2 $<$ EW $<$ 0.5 $\micron$ are AGN-SB composite and sources with EWs $\le$ 0.2 $\micron$ are AGN-dominated. There are 12 AGNs and seven starburst galaxies within the final sample. One galaxy has a composite SED. The final sample also includes two AGNs at z $>$ 0.7 whose redshifts were determined after our sample selection by \citet{5muses}. The basic properties of the sample are listed in Table \ref{table1}, while the redshift versus the 3.6 $\mu m$ flux is presented in Figure \ref{fig1}.
\subsection{Observation}
\label{obs}
The observation was carried out with the spectroscopy mode of IRC on AKARI. The NIR grism (NG) mode was adopted for most of the observations providing the spectral resolution of R $\sim$ 120 \citep{IRC}. For eight of the targets, NIR prism (NP) mode was used which provide the spectral resolution of R $\sim$ 20. The observations were carried out using 1$\arcmin \times 1\arcmin$ slit aperture to avoid confusion with surrounding sources. The pixel scale of NIR camera is 1.45$\arcsec$ and the full width half maxima of the point spread function is 3.2 pixels which corresponds to 4.64$\arcsec$.
All target galaxies have sizes small enough to fit in the slit aperture, although size variation is not insignificant. We present the R-band images of the target galaxies along with the 1D reduced spectra and the 2D spectrum images in Figure \ref{fig2}. For several galaxies without ancillary R-band images, $Spitzer$ IRAC 3.6 $\micron$ band images are presented. We discuss the extraction width and the target galaxy sizes in section \ref{dr}.
The actual exposure times run between six to seven minutes for each pointing observation. Originally, three pointing observations were planned for all the targets, but a half of the targets presented in Table 1 had less than three pointing observations due to the termination of the AKARI science mission. In total, observation of 51 pointings was carried out for 20 target galaxies. Table \ref{table1} also lists how many pointings are acquired for each target.
\subsection{Data Reduction}
\label{dr}
Data reduction was performed with the IRC spectroscopy pipeline.\footnotemark[3] The IRC spectroscopy pipeline subtracts scaled super-dark frames, applies linearity correction while masking saturation and monochromatic flat-fielding, subtracts background from individual sub-frames, registers and stacks images before subtracting background again from stacked images and extracting 2D spectra. Then wavelength calibration, flat color-term correction, spectral tilt correction, and spectral response calibration were applied on these extracted 2D spectra. Additional cosmic ray removal, stacking multi-pointing exposures, and one-sigma clipping during stacking were executed individually after processing the data through the IRC spectroscopy pipeline.
Final one-dimensional (1D) spectra were extracted from two-dimensional (2D) spectral images which are binned by three pixels along the wavelength direction. The 1D spectra were extracted from the 2D spectrum images with various widths in spatial direction. First, we extracted the 1D spectra with the width of 5 pixels which corresponds to 7.3$\arcsec$. In physical scales, this ranges from 1.8 kpc for the nearest target galaxy to 56.3 kpc for the farthest target galaxy. We present the extraction boxes with 5 pixel width over the R-, or IRAC 3.6 $\micron$ band images in Figure \ref{fig2}. As indicated in these figures, these extraction regions cover entire galaxies in most cases. We tried to change the extraction width in order to check if a larger extraction width unveils any hidden PAH 3.3 $\micron$ emission feature from them, or it changes the extracted PHA flux more than the measurement errors. Specifically, we also applied extraction boxes with 10 pixels and 15 pixels. However, we did not
notice any significant change of the extracted spectra over the range of extraction width for our entire sample.
Therefore, we use only the spectra extracted with 5 pixel extraction width for our analysis.
For more details regarding data reduction process, please refer \citet{IRCpipe}.
\footnotetext[3]{http://www.ir.isas.jaxa.jp/ASTRO-F/Observation/DataReduction/IRC/}
\section{Analysis}
\label{analysis}
\subsection{Spectra of the sample and their analysis}
\label{spectra}
We present the reduced spectra and fitting of emission features of 20 AMUSES galaxies in Figure \ref{fig2}. For FBQS J0216-0444 and SDSS J160128.54+544521.3, the presented spectra are based on $Spitzer$ IRS spectra of 5MUSES due to high redshifts instead of AKARI IRC spectra. We also include insets showing fitting results of the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH features for individual galaxies detected with the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH emission.
In order to detect the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH emission feature and measure its strength, we fit the spectra around 3.3 $\micron$ using the Drude profile \citep{LD01} :
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{drudepfl}
I_{\nu}^{(r)} & = & \frac{b_{r} \gamma_{r}^{2}}{(\lambda/\lambda_{r} - \lambda_{r}/\lambda)^{2} + \gamma_{r}^{2}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda_{r}$ is the central wavelength of the feature, $\gamma_{r}$ is the fractional FWHM, and $b_{r}$ is the central intensity.
Fitting and subtracting continuum from spectra also can be a subject of debate. The most difficult issue is how to avoid absorption features which are abundant throughout MIR wavelength regimes. These absorption features include CO$_{2}$ ice absorption at 4.27 $\micron$, $^{13}$CO$_{2}$ ice absorption at 4.38 $\micron$, and CO ice absorption feature at 4.67 $\micron$. The vicinity of the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH feature is not an exception with water ice absorption feature at 3.05 $\micron$ and carbonaceous dust absorption feature at 3.4 $\micron$.
Therefore, we decide to apply a spline fit for continuum to the wavelength range between 3.0 $\mu m$ and 3.6 $\mu m$ while masking out the 3.3 $\mu m$ emission feature and avoiding any obvious absorption feature by visual inspection. Generally, we used the wavelength ranges between 3.0 $\micron$ and 3.2 $\micron$, and between 3.4 $\micron$ and 3.6 $\micron$ for the continuum fit. If the 3.3 $\micron$ feature looks to be shifted upon visual inspection (perhaps due to an unknown systematic error in wavelength calibration), we adjust the fitting ranges. However, there is no 3.3 $\micron$ feature detected with a shifted peak. Also, if there is a clear absorption feature residing within the ranges upon visual inspection, we adjust the fitting range further out from 3.3 $\micron$.
We use an IDL procedure, MPFIT, to apply the Drude fit onto the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH feature after subtracting continuum from each individual spectrum. We do not constrain peaks and widths of Drude fit unless the IDL procedure cannot fit any obvious emission feature. We confirm the detection of the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission feature by visual inspection of the fitting, while considering S/N over the continuum. We measure line fluxes and EWs of the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH emission based on the outputs of the fitting results of Drude fits and continuum fits for the sample galaxies. The flux errors are determined based on the Drude fit and its errors measured by MPFIT. These values are given in Table \ref{table2}.
When no 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH emission is detected, we measure upper limits. In order to calculate the upper limits, first, we measure the standard deviation of data points within a wavelength range at which the 3.3 $\micron$ should be located. This range is decided by the average width obtained from the other galaxies detected with the 3.3 PAH $\micron$ emission. The average width is 17 nm. Then we assume a Drude profile which has a peak three times bigger than the standard deviation, and has a width of 17 nm which is the average width of the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH emission detected within our sample. We take the sums under these Drude profiles as upper limits for non-detection targets.
\subsection{Stacking analysis}
\label{stack}
In order to construct representative spectra of each SED class while recovering missing 3.3 $\mu m$ features due to low S/N, we apply stacking analysis. We constructed blind-stacked spectra of the entire sample, the galaxies with the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH feature detection, the galaxies without the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH feature, the galaxies with AGN SEDs, and the galaxies with starburst SEDs.
To construct the stacked spectra, we simply reproduced spectra of individual sample galaxies onto a wavelength grid set to have even step through the wavelength range between 2.5 $\mu m$ and 8 $\mu m$, then constructed the spectra for each group by simply averaging spectra of group galaxies without applying any clipping or normalization. $Spitzer$ IRS spectra provide data for any wavelength range required to construct the new spectra. We present the stacked spectra of each galaxy group in Figure \ref{fig3}.
We concern that the stacked spectra are dominated by a few galaxies with high flux. Therefore we also stacked normalized individual spectra for each group and compared the spectra to the stacked spectra produced without normalization. To do this, we normalized individual spectra by fluxes between 3.5 $\micron$ and 4.0 $\micron$, then obtained averages of them. However, overall, these stacked spectra do not show any significant departures from the ones in Figure \ref{fig3}.
\section{Results}
\label{results}
\subsection{Detection and strength of the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH emission}
\label{line}
We detect the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH feature from three galaxies out of 20 target galaxies. Although the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH features are generally pretty weak across the sample, a couple galaxies of starburst SED class, namely 2MASX J16182316+5527217 and 2MASX J16205879+5425127 show very clear and strong 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH features. While these two galaxies have starburst SEDs, the remaining one galaxy, 2MASX J10542172+5823445 has an AGN SED. Therefore, the detection rate for the starburst SED class sample is 29\% (2/7), while the detection rate for the AGN SED class sample is 8\% (1/12). However, since the desired S/N is not achieved for a large portion of the sample, these detection rates should be considered as lower limits.
Upper limits varies significantly. However, generally it is smaller for the starburst SED galaxies than the AGN SED galaxies. While the five SB galaxies without the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission detection have their average upper limits of 5.97$\times 10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$, their AGN counterparts have detection limits of 1.35$\times 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
The 3.3 $\micron$ PAH luminosities range from 7.11 $\times$10$^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ of an AGN at z = 0.205 (2MASX J10542172+5823445) to 7.14 $\times 10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ of a starburst galaxy at z =0.063 (2MASX J16205879+5425127). The two starburst galaxies with 3.3 $\micron$ PAH detection are at z $\sim$ 0.1 and their average luminosity is 9.46 $\times 10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
\subsection{Stacked spectra}
\label{stackresult}
The stacked spectrum of the entire sample shows a distinctive emission feature of the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH emission. The EW of the stacked spectrum is 11 nm, while the spectrum stacked with the galaxies with starburst SEDs has the EW of 32 nm. On the other hand, the spectrum stacked with the non-detection galaxies does not reveal the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH emission feature. The 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH emission does not show up for the stacked AGN spectrum, either. It is quite obvious that AGN host galaxies do not have strong PAH emission overall.
\section{Discussion}
\label{discussion}
\subsection{The Correlation between $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$}
\label{trend}
We present a plot comparing luminosity of the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH emission ($L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$) with infrared luminosity, $L_{IR}$ (Figure \ref{fig4}). Due to lack of the detected sources within the AMUSES sample, it is not meaningful to derive the correlation between $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ only for the AMUSES sample. Therefore we look for the correlation for the combined sample of AMUSES and literature samples. Big filled circles represent samples of the AMUSES objects, while small symbols represent samples from literatures \citep{RAV03, Im08, Sj09, Im10, LJC}. Note that $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ come from \citet{5muses}. In order to estimate $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ of the sample of 5MUSES, \citet{5muses} utilize mid-IR spectra from IRS along with the IRAC and MIPS photometry. First, they construct an IR template library based on these data. This library covers a wide range of galaxies from normal star-forming galaxies to ULIRGs to quasars. Then using synthetic IRAC photometry drawn from the IRS spectra and MIPS photometry, they compare them with the corresponding synthetic photometry from the SED templates and estimates $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$.
On the other hand, the other samples utilize IRAS photometry to calculate $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$. More specifically, they used the formula given in Table 1 of \citet{SM96}.
The figure shows a broad correlation between $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ for the combined sample of our data points and the data from the literature, though the scatter in the relation is large. In order to obtain a linear correlation between $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$, we carry out $\chi^{2}$ fitting to the combined sample while switching abscissa and ordinate between $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$, since the slope of the correlation changes significantly (by 15 \%) depending on which quantity is chose as a dependent. Then we take the average fit as our fitting result. The linear fit to the combined sample is as in Eq. (\ref{LIRL33});
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{LIRL33}
\mathrm{log} (L_{\mathrm{IR}})& = & (1.16 \pm 0.30) \times \mathrm{log} (L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}) \nonumber \\
& & -(3.11 \pm 0.34),
\end{eqnarray}
where $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ are in the unit of erg sec$^{-1}$ with the correlation coefficient of 0.70. This fit is shown in Figure \ref{fig4} with a solid line. The undetected sources are not included for this fitting. In general, the data points of AMUSES sample show higher $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ than the literature sample. Considering the fact that we may have a rather shallow detection limit and an unbiased distribution for AMUSES sample, the detected sources of AMUSES sample are more luminous objects in the 3.3. $\micron$ PAH emission feature and occupy the upper envelope in terms of $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ for the correlation between $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ of the literature samples.
On the other hand, $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ can contain non-star-forming contribution. Therefore, we consider the correlation between $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ only for sources with starburst SEDs, or HII-like SEDs. The fit is given as in Eq. (\ref{LIRL33sb});
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{LIRL33sb}
\mathrm{log} (L_{\mathrm{IR}})& = & (1.37 \pm 0.17) \times \mathrm{log} (L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}) \nonumber \\ &&-(12.18 \pm 0.75),
\end{eqnarray}
where the units for $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ are same with Eq. (\ref{LIRL33}). The correlation coefficient for the fit is 0.69. We use the same method which we use for Eq. (\ref{LIRL33}) for this fit. This fit is shown within Figure \ref{fig4} by a dotted line.
\subsection{The PAH 3.3 $\micron$ emission as a star formation indicator}
\label{sf}
In order to to be an effective star formation indicator, $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ must have a good correlation with $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$. Within the detected sources from AMUSES sample and the literature samples, especially with the sources with SB SEDs, $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ have a correlation between them, but with a large scatter (Figure \ref{fig4}).
This can be also confirmed by previous studies on other PAH emission features. Although systematic calibration of any particular PAH emission feature to SFR has been carried out less extensively than other SFR indicators, there have been a few studies to show strong correlations between the strengths of PAH emission features and IR luminosity. \citet{Gz98} utilizes the the strength of the 7.7 $\micron$ PAH emission for diagnosing energy sources for ULIRGs based on 15 spectra from ISO. Also using ISO spectra of galactic and extragalactic star sources, \citet{Pt04} shows that the luminosity of the 6.2 $\micron$ PAH emission ($L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$) correlates very well with L$_{FIR}$. \citet{Br06} calibrate the 6.2 $\micron$ PAH emission to $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ using IRS spectra of 22 starburst galaxies.
Regarding more of higher redshift objects, \citet{Pp08} found that all the PAH bands which they detected from 13 sub-mm galaxies (SMGs) at various redshifts between 1.0 and 2.5, namely the 6.2, 7.7, and 11.3 $\micron$ PAH emission features, correlate well with $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$.
\citet{Shi09} also found that the 6.2 $\micron$ and 7.7 $\micron$ PAH emission features correlate well with SFR based on $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ and use them to measure the cosmic star formation history of QSOs. \citet{Ft10} shows that the 6.2 $\micron$ and 7.7 $\micron$ PAH luminosities of their 16 ULIRGs at z $\sim$ 2 follow the correlation of the samples of \citet{Pp08}, \citet{Md09}, and \citet{Shi09}. On top of these studies, \citet{5muses} found strong correlations between $L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ for SB, composite, and AGN sources based on 5MUSES, the source of the parent sample for this study (A1, A2, and A3 of \citet{5muses}).
Whether our $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$-$L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ correlation persists, especially at high $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ remains as a subject of further investigation.
In Figure \ref{fig6}, we plot $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ against $L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$. We adopt $L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$ from \citet{5muses}.
\citet{5muses} utilize the PAHFIT software \citep{Sm07} and measured $L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$ from the fitting result based on it.
A linear fit to the detections of AMUSES sample gives the correlation between $L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ as in Eq. (\ref{LIRL62});
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{LIRL62}
\mathrm{log} (L_{\mathrm{IR}})& = & (0.95 \pm 0.03) \times \mathrm{log} (L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}) \nonumber \\ && +(4.21 \pm 0.19),
\end{eqnarray}
where the units for $L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ are same with Eq. (\ref{LIRL33}) with the correlation coefficient of 0.75.
However, it is noticeable that the ULIRGs deviate from the correlation. They have either higher $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$, or lower $L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$ than lower $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ objects suggest. It looks plausible that ULIRGs at $L_{IR} > 10^{12} M_{\odot}$ may deviate from correlations between PAH luminosity and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$, since these ULIRGs also may deviate from the correlation between $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ (Figure \ref{fig4}). Similar trends are reported by \citet{Pt04} and \citet{Im07}. In order to check if this is true, we obtain a linear fit to the detections with SB SEDs which are not ULIRGs. This fit gives the correlation between $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ as in Eq. (\ref{LIRL33noul});
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{LIRL33noul}
\mathrm{log} (L_{\mathrm{IR}})& = & (0.82 \pm 0.13) \times \mathrm{log} (L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}) \nonumber \\ &&+(10.58 \pm 0.86),
\end{eqnarray}
where the units for $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ are same with Eq. (\ref{LIRL33}). The correlation coefficient for the fit is 0.71 and the fit is shown in Figure \ref{fig4} as a dashed line.
It is noticeable that ULIRGs generally have smaller $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ for a given $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ regardless of SED classes based on this fit. Similar trends are found by \citet{Cl00} for the 7.7 $\micron$ PAH emission feature and \citet{Pt04} for the 6.2 $\micron$ PAH emission feature. It is not plausible that the offset for ULIRGs are due to any systematic difference in measurement methods for $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$, or $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$. For example, it is unlikely if $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ based on IRAS four band photometry overestimates true $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$, or $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ which we adopted from \citet{5muses} underestimates.
There can be two possible explanations why ULIRGs show the trend. First, ULIRGs may have larger non-star-forming contribution to their $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ regardless of their SED classes based on their optical spectra. There have been studies claiming that AGN contribution to $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ is not negligible for ULIRGs (\citealt{ntz09, So10}, and references therein). For instance, \citet{lz98} show that, while only 15\% of ULIRGs at luminosities below
2 $\times$ 10$^{12}$ L$_{\odot}$ are attributed to AGN, this fraction increases to 50\% at higher luminosity. Figure 5 of \citet{ntz07} show the correlations between nuclear activity and two IR luminosities; FIR(60$\micron$) luminosity (L$_{60}$) and the 7.7 $\micron$ PAH luminosity. Interestingly, the correlation between the nuclear activity probed by the $\lambda$5100$\AA$ monochromatic luminosity and the 7.7 $\micron$ PAH luminosity breaks at about L$_{60}$ $\sim$ 10$^{12}$ L$_{\odot}$, while L$_{60}$ correlates well with the entire range of $\lambda$5100$\AA$ monochromatic luminosity. The difference between these two correlations support that AGN activity may contribute to $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ more than it has been considered to be. Also, considering the fact that there is no sign of departure for ULIRG sample of \citet{Im08} from the correlation between $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$ (Figure \ref{fig5}), it is more likely to be $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ which causes the break. Recently, \citet{YR} found that the correlation between $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$/$L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ has a break around $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ $\sim$ 10$^{12}$ L$_{\odot}$ from another MP of AKARI, MSAGN. There is another candidate to contribute to $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ for ULIRGs other than AGN activity: embedded young stellar objects (YSOs) \citep{Pt04, Sp02, Sp07}. Although embedded YSOs are from star-forming regions, they should be considered as a non-typical star-forming contribution to $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$. Based on ISO observation, \citet{Sp02} found that most ULIRGs have the 6 $\sim$ 8 $\micron$ ice absorption feature and linked it to strongly obscured beginning of star formation.
Second, ULIRGs suppress PAH emissions, not only the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission, but the PAH emission features in general. As shown in Figure \ref{fig4} and Figure \ref{fig6}, both $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$ are lower for ULIRGs for a given $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$. It is believed that strong UV radiation, such as one from AGN, can destruct PAH molecules and reduce the population of PAHs. In fact, \citet{Im08} claimed that the ratio between the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH luminosity and infrared luminosity for ULIRGs are less than what is expected from obscured starbursts and are attributed to the deficiency of PAH within ULIRGs. However, it is unclear why AGN at L$_{IR} < 10^{12}$ L$_{\odot}$ does not reduce the PAH luminosity as much. Therefore, it is plausible that most ULIRGs have a large contribution from AGN to their $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$. A multi-wavelength analysis of the ULIRGs, including the mid-IR component from hot dust, should settle this issue \citep{Nd09, Nd10, Sj12}.
However, it is still possible that there is no such departure from the correlations for ULIRGs. Since there are few sources detected with the PAH emission features at the lower end, the correlations between the PAH luminosities and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ can be skewed by the few objects with large non-star-forming contribution to their $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$. In order to see if it is the case, it is required to detect more lower luminous objects in terms of PAH luminosity.
On the other hand, as shown in Figure \ref{fig4} and Figure \ref{fig6}, the 3.3 $\micron$ and 6.2 $\micron$ emission features behave similarly against $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$. In order to see if there is any difference between them, we plot $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ against $L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$ and present it in Figure \ref{fig5}. Although it looks to have large scatters, the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission has a strong correlation with the 6.2 $\micron$ PAH emission. A linear fit to the data points of all samples without the upper limits gives the correlation between $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$ as in Eq. (\ref{L33L62});
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{L33L62}
\mathrm{log} (L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}})& = & (0.83 \pm 0.06) \times \mathrm{log} (L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}) \nonumber \\ &&+ (7.88 \pm 0.41),
\end{eqnarray}
where the units for $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$ are erg sec$^{-1}$ with the correlation coefficient of 0.83. This fit is shown within Figure \ref{fig5} by a solid line.
Interestingly, ULIRGs do not deviate from the overall trend. These ULIRGs deviate rather significantly from the correlation between $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ and PAH luminosities (Figure \ref{fig4} and Figure \ref{fig6}). Therefore, it assures that the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH can represent what the 6.2 $\micron$ represents, if needed. However, it is noticeable that the correlation between $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$ is far from unity. This may be attributed to the origin of PAH emission features. As mentioned before, \citet{vD04} compare variations of the profiles of various PAH emission features and show that while the 6.2 and 7.7 $\micron$ emission originate from PAH cations, the 3.3 $\micron$ emission feature is attributed to neutral and/or negatively charged PAHs, which is suggested by several laboratory studies \citep{SV93, Lf96,HA99}.
Therefore, although the 3.3 $\micron$ PAH emission feature shows that it has the potential to be a SFR proxy like other PAH emission features, it heavily relies on understanding the physical conditions of PAH molecules and their emission features. It also requires to understand the deviation of ULIRGs and its origin lest the power of $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ as a proxy is hampered by this deviation.
\section{Summary}
\label{sum}
We describe the details of a mission project of AKARI, AMUSES and its results. With AMUSES, we have investigated the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH feature and its correlation with other PAH features as well as other properties of the sample galaxies. The summary of our results are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item{We detected the 3.3 $\mu m$ PAH emission from three out of 20 flux limited sample galaxies and the detection rate for our sample is 15\%.}
\item{For the combined sample of AMUSES and the literature samples, $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ correlates with $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$, while $L_{\mathrm{PAH6.2}}$ also has a similar correlation with $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$.}
\item{ULIRGs at $L_{IR} > 10^{12} L_{\odot}$ may deviate from the correlation between $L_{\mathrm{PAH3.3}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$ of the lower luminous objects due to non-star-forming contribution on $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$, such as AGN activity and heavily obscured YSOs, or destruction of PAH molecules by AGN activity.}
\end{enumerate}
{\bf Acknowledgement}
This work was supported by Korean Research Foundation (KRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MEST), No. 2010--0000712.
This research is based on observations with AKARI, a JAXA project with the participation of ESA.
|
\section{Introduction.}
Group algebras play very important role in algebra, harmonic
analysis and operator theory
\cite{fell,fidal,hew,kawadamj48,losannm2008,nai}. Group algebras
were extensively studied for locally compact groups. One of the main
instruments in those investigations was an existence of a Haar
measure, which is characterized by such essential properties as of
being left or right invariant and quasi-invariant relative left and
right shifts and to the inversion on the entire group. \par But
substantially less is known for non locally compact groups. If a
nontrivial Borel measure on a topological Hausdorff group
quasi-invariant relative to the entire group is given, then such
group is locally compact according to A. Weil's theorem. Therefore,
on non locally compact Hausdorrf groups Borel measures may be
quasi-invariant relative to proper subgroups only. This is the
reason of many differences between group algebras of locally compact
and non locally compact groups. For non locally compact groups they
are already nonassociative. This work continues previous
publications of the author. \par In this article families of
topological groups which may be non locally compact are considered.
Group algebras of non locally compact Hausdorff topological groups
are studied. Particularly, operators on non locally compact group
algebras and their isomorphisms are investigated. Borel regular
radonian measures $\mu _{\alpha }$ on topological groups $G_{\alpha
}$ quasi-invariant relative to dense subgroups $G_{\beta }$ are
taken. The Radon and Borel regularity properties for measures are
not very restrictive (see chapter 1 in \cite{dal} and chapter 2 in
\cite{federer}). The constructions of such measures were described
in \cite{dal,dalshn,lujms147:3:08,lujms150:4:08,luambp99,lunova2006}
and references therein. \par The main results of this paper are
obtained for the first time and are contained in Theorems 11, 15,
16, 18.
\section{Group algebra}
\par {\bf 1. Definition.} Let $\Lambda $ be a directed set and
$\{ G_{\alpha }: \alpha \in \Lambda \} $ be a family of topological
groups with completely regular (i.e. $T_1\cap T_{3\frac{1}{2}}$)
topologies $\tau _{\alpha }$ such that
\par $(1)$ $\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }: G_{\beta }\to G_{\alpha }$
is a continuous algebraic embedding with continuous inverse $(\theta
^{\beta }_{\alpha })^{-1}$, $\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }( G_{\beta
})$ is a proper subgroup in $G_{\alpha }$ for each $\alpha <\beta
\in \Lambda $;
\par $(2)$ $\tau
_{\alpha }\cap {\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })} \subset
\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(\tau _{\beta })$ and $\theta ^{\beta
}_{\alpha } (G_{\beta })$ is dense in $G_{\alpha }$ for each $\alpha
<\beta \in \Lambda $;
\par $(3)$ $G_{\alpha } $ is complete relative to the left
uniformity with entourages of the diagonal of the form ${\cal U} =
\{ (h,g): h, g \in G_{\alpha }; h^{-1}g\in U \} $ with neighborhoods
$U$ of the unit element $e_{\alpha }$ in $G_{\alpha }$, $U\in \tau
_{\alpha }$, $e_{\alpha }\in U$;
\par $(4)$ for each $\beta =\phi (\alpha )$ the embedding $\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }$ is precompact, that is by our definition
for every open set $U$ in $G_{\beta }$ containing the unit element
$e_{\beta }$ a neighborhood $V\in \tau _{\beta }$ of $e_{\beta }$
exists so that $V\subset U$ and $\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(V)$ is
precompact in $G_{\alpha }$, i.e. its closure $cl (\theta ^{\beta
}_{\alpha }(V))$ in $G_{\alpha }$ is compact, where $\phi : \Lambda
\to \Lambda $ is an increasing marked mapping.
\par {\bf 2. Definition.} Suppose that \par $(1)$ $\mu _{\alpha }: {\cal
B}(G_{\alpha }) \to [0,1]$ is a probability measure on the Borel
$\sigma $-algebra ${\cal B}(G_{\alpha })$ of a group $G_{\alpha }$
from \S 1 with $\mu _{\alpha }(G_{\alpha })=1$ so that \par $(2)$
$\mu _{\alpha }$ is quasi-invariant relative to the left and right
shifts on $h\in \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })$ for each
$\alpha <\beta \in \Lambda $, where $\rho ^{r}_{\mu _{\alpha
}}(h,g)=(\mu _{\alpha }^h)(dg)/\mu (dg)$ and $\rho ^{l}_{\mu
_{\alpha }}(h,g)=(\mu _{\alpha _h})(dg)/\mu (dg)$ denote
quasi-invariance $\mu _{\alpha }$-integrable factors, $\mu
^h_{\alpha }(S)=\mu (Sh^{-1})$ and $\mu _{\alpha ,h}(S)=\mu _{\alpha
}(h^{-1}S)$ for each Borel subset $S$ in $G_{\alpha }$. Moreover,
\par $(3)$ let a density $\psi _{\alpha }(g) =\mu _{\alpha
}(dg^{-1})/\mu _{\alpha }(dg)$ relative to the inversion exist and
let it be $\mu _{\alpha }$-integrable. \par A subset $E$ in
$G_{\alpha }$ has $\mu_{\alpha }$-measure zero, if a Borel subset
$F$ in $G_{\alpha }$ exists such that $E\subset F$ and $\mu _{\alpha
}(F)=0$. The completion of ${\cal B}(G_{\alpha })$ by all $\mu
_{\alpha }$-zero sets will be denoted by ${\cal A}(G_{\alpha })$.
The measure $\mu _{\alpha }$ has the extension $\nu _{\alpha }:
2^{G_{\alpha }}\to [0,1]$ such that $\nu _{\alpha } (E) := \inf \{
\mu _{\alpha }(F): ~ E\subset F \mbox{ and } F \in {\cal
B}(G_{\alpha }) \} ,$ where $2^{G_{\alpha }}$ denotes the family of
all subsets in $G_{\alpha }$. The measure $\nu _{\alpha }$ is Borel
regular, that is, by the definition all open subsets in $G_{\alpha
}$ are $\nu _{\alpha }$-measurable and each subset $E$ in $G_{\alpha
}$ is contained in a Borel subset $F$ so that $\nu _{\alpha }(E)=\nu
_{\alpha }(F)$. Evidently, $\nu _{\alpha }(F)=\mu _{\alpha }(F)$ for
each Borel subset $F$ in $G_{\alpha }$, so $\nu _{\alpha }$ on
$2^{G_{\alpha }}$ will also be denoted by $\mu _{\alpha }$.
\par Henceforth, it will be supposed that \par $(4)$ a subset $W_{\alpha }\in
{\cal A}(G_{\alpha })$ exists such that $\rho ^{r}_{\mu _{\alpha
}}(h,g)$ and $\rho ^{l}_{\mu _{\alpha }}(h,g)$ are continuous on
$\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })\times W_{\alpha }$ and $\psi
_{\alpha }(g)$ is continuous on $W_{\alpha }$ with $\mu _{\alpha
}(W_{\alpha })=1$ for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $ with $\beta = \phi
(\alpha )$. Let also each measure $\mu _{\alpha }$ be radonian, that
is for each $\epsilon >0$ a compact subset $V$ in $G_{\alpha }$
exists such that $\mu _{\alpha }(G_{\alpha }\setminus V)<\epsilon $.
\par {\bf 3. Notation.} Denote by $L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha },\mu_{\alpha })$
a complex subspace in $L^1(G_{\alpha }, \mu _{\alpha },{\bf C})$,
which is the completion of the linear space $L^0(G_{\alpha },{\bf
C})$ of all simple functions
$$ f(x)=\sum_{j=1}^n b_j \chi _{F_j}(x),$$ where
$b_j\in {\bf C}$, $~F_j\in {\cal A}(G_{\alpha })$, $~F_j\cap
F_k=\emptyset $ for each $j\ne k$, $ ~ \chi _F$ denotes the
characteristic function of a subset $F$, $~\chi _F(x)=1$ for each
$x\in F$ and $\chi _F(x)=0$ for every $x\in G_{\alpha }\setminus F$,
$~n\in {\bf N}$. A norm on $L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$ is by our
definition given by the formula:
$$(1)\quad \| f \|_{L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })} := \sup_{h\in
\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })} \| f_h \| _{L^1(G_{\alpha
})} <\infty ,$$ where $f_h(g):=f(h^{-1}g)$ for $h, g \in G_{\alpha
}$, $L^1(G_{\alpha }, \mu _{\alpha },{\bf C})$ is the usual Banach
space of all $\mu _{\alpha }$-measurable functions $u: G_{\alpha
}\to {\bf C}$ such that
$$(2)\quad \| u \| _{L^1(G_{\alpha
})} = \int_{G_{\alpha }} |u(g)|\mu _{\alpha }(dg) <\infty .$$
Suppose that \par $(3)$ $\phi : \Lambda \to \Lambda $ is an
increasing mapping, $\alpha < \phi (\alpha ) $ for each $\alpha \in
\Lambda $. We consider the complex space \par $(4)$ $L^{\infty
}(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha },\mu_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in
\Lambda ) := \{ f=(f_{\alpha }: \alpha \in \Lambda ); ~ f_{\alpha
}\in L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha },\mu_{\alpha })$ $\mbox{ for each
}$ $\alpha \in \Lambda ;$ $\| f \| _{\infty } := \sup_{\alpha \in
\Lambda } \| f_{\alpha } \|_{L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })} <\infty
,$ $\mbox{ where }$ $\beta = \phi (\alpha ) \} .$ \par When measures
$\mu _{\alpha }$ are specified, spaces are denoted shortly by
$L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$ and $L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta
}}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$.
\par {\bf 4. Proposition.} {\it Supply the family $L^{\infty
}(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$ from
\S 3 with the multiplication $f{\tilde \star } u =w$ such that
$$(1)\quad w_{\alpha } = f_{\beta } {\tilde *} u_{\alpha } =
\int_{G_{\beta }} f_{\beta }(h) u_{\alpha }(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha
}(h)g) \mu_{\beta }(dh) .$$
Then $L^{\infty
}(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$ is the
complex normed algebra generally noncommutative and nonassociative.}
\par {\bf Proof.} Evidently $L^{\infty
}(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$ is the
complex linear normed space, since $$\| af+bu \| _{\infty } :=
\sup_{\alpha \in \Lambda } \| af_{\alpha } + bu_{\alpha }
\|_{L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })} \le \sup_{\alpha \in \Lambda }
|a| \| f_{\alpha } \| _{L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })} +
\sup_{\alpha \in \Lambda } |b| \| u_{\alpha } \| _{L^1_{G_{\beta
}}(G_{\alpha })}$$ $$ = |a| \| f \| _{\infty } + |b| \| u \|
_{\infty }
$$ for each functions $f, u \in L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }):
\alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$ and complex numbers $a, b\in {\bf C}$,
where $\beta = \phi (\alpha )$ for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $. On
the other hand,
$$ \| f_{\beta } {\tilde *} u_{\alpha } \|_{L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })}
\le \| f_{\beta } \|_{L^1(G_{\beta })} \| u_{\alpha }
\|_{L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })} \le \| f_{\beta }
\|_{L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })} \| u_{\alpha } \|_{L^1_{G_{\beta
}}(G_{\alpha })}$$ in accordance with Lemma 17.2
\cite{lujms150:4:08}, since $\| f_{\beta } \|_{L^1(G_{\beta })}\le
\| f_{\beta } \|_{L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })}$, consequently,
$$ \| f{\tilde \star } u \| _{\infty } \le \| f \| _{\infty } \| u \|
_{\infty }.$$
\par The noncommutativity and the nonassociativity of this
multiplication follows from Formula $(1)$.
\par {\bf 5. Corollary.} {\it The family of all nonnegative functions
${\cal P} := \{ f: f \in L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }):
\alpha <\beta \in \Lambda ); ~ f_{\alpha }(x)\ge 0 ~ \forall x\in
G_{\alpha } ~ \forall \alpha \in \Lambda \} $ is a lattice.}
\par {\bf Proof.} If $f, u \in {\cal P}$ and $a\ge 0$ and $b\ge 0$,
then $af+bu\in {\cal P}$, $f\wedge u =\min (f,u)\in {\cal P}$,
$f\vee g=\max (f,g)\in {\cal P}$, since $af_{\alpha }(x)+bu_{\alpha
}(x)\ge 0$ and $\min (f_{\alpha }(x),u_{\alpha }(x))\ge 0$ and $\max
(f_{\alpha }(x),u_{\alpha }(x))\ge 0$ for each $x\in G_{\alpha }$
and $\alpha \in \Lambda $. Moreover, from $\mu _{\alpha }(S)\ge 0$
for each $S\in {\cal B}(G_{\alpha })$ and $\alpha \in \Lambda $ and
from Formula 4$(1)$ it follows that $(f{\tilde \star }u)_{\alpha
}(x)\ge 0$ for each $x\in G_{\alpha }$ and $\alpha \in \Lambda $,
consequently, $f{\tilde \star }u\in {\cal P}$ for all $f, u \in
{\cal P}$.
\par {\bf 6. Corollary.} {\it The operators
$T_f$ and ${\tilde T}_f$ defined by the formulas \par $(1)$ $T_fu:=
f{\tilde \star }u$ and
\par $(2)$ ${\tilde T}_fu:=u{\tilde \star }f$ are $\bf C$-linear and
continuous on the algebra $L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha
}): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$ for each $f\in L^{\infty
}(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$.}
\par {\bf 7. Lemma.} {\it Let an operator ${\hat U}_g$ be given by the formula:
\par $(1)$ ${\hat U}_{g_{\beta }} f_{\alpha }(x) = f_{\alpha
}(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(g_{\beta })x)$ for each $\alpha \in
\Lambda $ with $\beta = \phi (\alpha )$, $ ~ g_{\beta }\in G_{\beta
}$, $ ~ x\in G_{\alpha }$, then ${\hat U}_g: L^{\infty
}(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )\to
L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda
)$ is the linear isometry for each $g= \{ g_{\beta }: ~ \beta \in
\Lambda , ~ g_{\beta }\in G_{\beta } \} $.}
\par {\bf Proof.} Evidently, ${\hat U}_g (af+bu) = a {\hat U}_g f +
b {\hat U}_g u$ for each $a, b\in {\bf C}$ and $f, u \in L^{\infty
}(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$, since
${\hat U}_{g_{\beta }} (af_{\alpha }(x)+bu_{\alpha }(x)) = af_{\alpha
}(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(g_{\beta })x)+ b f_{\alpha }(\theta
^{\beta }_{\alpha }(g_{\beta })x)= a {\hat U}_{g_{\beta }} f_{\alpha
}(x) + b {\hat U}_{g_{\beta }} u_{\alpha }(x)$ for each $\alpha \in
\Lambda $ with $\beta = \phi (\alpha )$, $ ~ g_{\beta }\in G_{\beta
}$, $ ~ x\in G_{\alpha }$. The isometry property follows from the
equalities:
$$\| {\hat U}_gf \| _{\infty } = \sup _{\alpha \in \Lambda , \beta =\phi (\alpha )}
\sup_{h\in \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })} \int_{G_{\alpha
}} |f_{\alpha }(h\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(g_{\beta })x)| \mu
_{\alpha }(dx)$$ $$ = \sup _{\alpha \in \Lambda , \beta =\phi
(\alpha )} \sup_{h\in \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })}
\int_{G_{\alpha }} |f_{\alpha }(hx)| \mu _{\alpha }(dx) = \| f \|
_{\infty } .$$
\par {\bf 8. Lemma.} {\it The operator ${\hat U}_g$ from \S 7
satisfies the equality:
$$(1)\quad {\hat U}_g(f{\tilde \star }u) = f {\tilde \star }{\hat
U}_gu$$ for each $f, u \in L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha
}): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$ and every $g= \{ g_{\beta }: ~
\beta \in \Lambda , ~ g_{\beta }\in G_{\beta } \} $.}
\par {\bf Proof.} Formula $(1)$ follows from the equalities:
$${\hat U}_{g_{\beta }}(f_{\beta } {\tilde *}u_{\alpha })(x) =
\int_{G_{\beta }} f_{\beta }(h)u_{\alpha }((\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha
}(hg_{\beta })x))\mu _{\beta }(dh) = (f _{\beta } {\tilde
*} ({\hat U}_{g_{\beta }}u_{\alpha }))(x)$$ for each $x\in G_{\alpha
}$, $~\alpha \in \Lambda $, $~\beta = \phi (\alpha )$.
\par {\bf 9. Corollary.} {\it A bijective correspondence
between elements $g\in \prod_{\alpha \in \Lambda }G_{\alpha }=: G$
and operators ${\hat U}_g$ exists so that \par $(1)$ ${\hat
U}_g{\hat U}_h={\hat U}_{gh}$ for each $g, h\in G$.}
\par {\bf Proof.} The group $G$ consists of elements
$g= \{ g_{\alpha }: ~ \alpha \in \Lambda , ~ g_{\alpha }\in
G_{\alpha } \} $ with the multiplication $gh = \{ g_{\alpha
}h_{\alpha }: ~ \alpha \in \Lambda \} $ and the inversion $g^{-1} =
\{ g_{\alpha }^{-1}: \alpha \in \Lambda \} $, since $g_{\alpha
}h_{\alpha }\in G_{\alpha } $ for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $. This
group $G$ is the topological group relative to the Tychonoff
(product) topology $\tau ^t$ with the base $V=V_{\alpha }\times
\prod_{\gamma \in \Lambda ; \gamma \ne \alpha } G_{\gamma }$, where
$V_{\alpha }\in \tau _{\alpha }$, $ ~ \tau _{\alpha }$ is the
topology on $G_{\alpha }$, $~ \alpha \in \Lambda $. It is also the
topological group relative to the box topology $\tau ^b$ with the
base $V=\prod_{\alpha \in \Lambda } V_{\alpha }$, where $V_{\alpha
}\in \tau _{\alpha }$ is open in $G_{\alpha }$ for each $\alpha \in
\Lambda $. Then we deduce that
$${\hat U}_{g_{\beta }}{\hat U}_{h_{\beta }}f_{\alpha }(x)={\hat
U}_{g_{\beta }} ({\hat U}_{h_{\beta }} f_{\alpha }(x)) = {\hat
U}_{g_{\beta }}(f_{\alpha }(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(h_{\beta
})x))=$$ $$f_{\alpha } (\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(g_{\beta
})(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(h_{\beta })x))=f_{\alpha } (\theta
^{\beta }_{\alpha }(g_{\beta }h_{\beta })x)= {\hat U}_{g_{\beta
}h_{\beta }}f_{\alpha }(x)$$ for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $ with
$\beta = \phi (\alpha )$, where $x\in G_{\alpha }$. The latter
relation implies Formula $(1)$.
\par {\bf 10. Proposition.} {\it The representation ${\hat U}:
(G,\tau ^b) \to L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha
<\beta \in \Lambda )$ is strongly continuous.}
\par {\bf Proof.} Each bounded either continuous or simple function $f: G_{\alpha }\to
{\bf C}$ evidently belongs to $L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$, since
$\mu _{\alpha }$ is the probability measure and
$$(1)\quad \| f \|_{L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })} \le \sup_{x\in G_{\alpha
}} |f(x)|<\infty .$$ Each compact subset $V$ in $G_{\alpha }$ is
closed in $G_{\alpha }$ in accordance with Theorem 3.1.8 \cite{eng},
consequently, every compact subset $V$ is a Borel subset. \par For
an arbitrary marked function $u\in L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$
from the inclusion $L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })\subset
L^1(G_{\alpha })$, the Borel regularity of the measure $\mu _{\alpha
}$, Conditions 2$(1-4)$ and Lusin's theorem 2.3.5 \cite{federer} it
follows that for each $\epsilon _n>0$ a compact subset $E_n=E_n(u)$
in $G_{\alpha }$ exists so that the restriction $u|_{E_n}$ is
continuous and $\mu _{\alpha }(G_{\alpha }\setminus E_n)<\epsilon
_n$, since the measure $\mu _{\alpha }$ is radonian and for each
$\delta >0$ a compact subset $V$ in $G_{\alpha }$ exists such that
$\mu _{\alpha }(G_{\alpha }\setminus V)<\delta $ and considering
$u|_V$ and $\mu _{\alpha }|_{{\cal B}(V)}$. Take a monotone
decreasing sequence $\epsilon _n$ such that $\epsilon _n\downarrow
0$. Then $\mu _{\alpha }(G_{\alpha }\setminus E)=0$, where $$E(u)= E
:= \bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty }E_n.$$ For every $\delta >0$ and each
restriction $u|_{E_n}$ a simple function $$v_n = \sum_{j=1}^{m(n)}
b_{j,n} \chi _{F_{j,n}}(x)$$ exists such that $$\sup_{x\in E_n}
|u(x)-v_n(x)|<\delta ,$$ where $b_{j,n}\in {\bf C},$ $~ F_{j,n}\in
{\cal B}(E_n)$, $~ m(n)\in {\bf N}$. Put $v_0(x)=0$ on $G_{\alpha
}\setminus E$ and take the combination $v$ of these mappings $v_n$,
then $\sup_{x\in E} |u(x)-v(x)|<\delta $ and hence $v\in
L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$ due to Inequality $(1)$. \par In
accordance with \S 3 in each space $L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$
the linear space of all simple functions
$$(2)\quad f(x)=\sum_{j=1}^p b_j \chi _{F_j}(x)$$ is dense, where $b_j\in {\bf
C}$, $~F_j\in {\cal A}(G_{\alpha })$, $\chi _F$ denotes the
characteristic function of a subset $F$, $~\chi _F(x)=1$ for each
$x\in F$ and $\chi _F(x)=0$ for every $x\in G_{\alpha }\setminus F$,
$~p\in {\bf N}$. \par In view of Lemma 7 it is sufficient to prove,
that the representation $G\ni g \mapsto {\hat U}_gf_{\alpha }$ is
continuous on each simple function $f_{\alpha }\in L^1_{G_{\beta
}}(G_{\alpha })$, when $G$ is supplied with the box topology $\tau
^b$, since $\| {\hat U}_g(f_{\alpha }-u) \| = \| f_{\alpha }-u \|
$.
\par Now we take $E_n=E_n(f_{\alpha })$ and $E=E(f_{\alpha })$ as above. The measure
$\mu _{\alpha }$ is quasi-invariant, consequently,
\par $(3)$ $\mu _{\alpha }(h^{-1}(G_{\alpha }\setminus E))=0$ and
hence $\mu _{\alpha }([h^{-1}E]\cap W_{\alpha })=1$ for each $h\in
\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })$ with $\beta = \phi (\alpha
)$ and $\alpha \in \Lambda $.
\par On the other hand,
\par $(4)$ ${\hat U}_{g_{\beta }} f_{\alpha }(x) - {\hat U}_{e_{\beta }}f_{\alpha }(x) =
f_{\alpha }(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(g_{\beta })x) - f_{\alpha
}(x)$ and
$$ \| [{\hat U}_{g_{\beta }} - {\hat U}_{e_{\beta }}] f_{\alpha }(x)\|_{ L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })} =
\sup_{h\in \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })} \int_{G_{\alpha
}} |f(h\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(g_{\beta })x) - f(hx)| \mu
_{\alpha }(dx) \le 2 \| f \|_{L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })}<\infty
$$ for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $ with $\beta = \phi (\alpha )$, $ ~
g_{\beta }\in G_{\beta }$, $ ~ x\in G_{\alpha }$, since $\theta
^{\beta }_{\alpha }(e_{\beta })=e_{\alpha }$ is the unit element in
the group $G_{\alpha }$. \par For each $\delta >0$ an element
$h_{\delta }\in \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })$ exists such
that
$$(5)\quad | \| f_{\alpha }(x)\|_{L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })} -
\int_{G_{\alpha }} |f_{\alpha }(h_{\delta }x)| \mu _{\alpha }(dx) |
<\delta .$$ Evidently, the series $$(6)\quad \int_{G_{\alpha }}
|f(hx)| \mu _{\alpha }(dx)=\sum_{j=1}^p |b_j| \mu _{\alpha
}(h^{-1}F_j)\le \sum_{j=1}^p |b_j|$$ is finite, since $\mu _{\alpha
}$ is the nonnegative measure and $\mu _{\alpha }(G_{\alpha })=1$
and $p\in {\bf N}$ is a natural number. Each measure
$$(7)\quad w_h(A):= \sum_{j=1}^p |b_j| \mu _{\alpha }
((h^{-1}F_j)\cap A)$$ is $\sigma $-additive on ${\cal A}(G_{\alpha
})$ and absolutely continuous relative to $\mu _{\alpha }$ due
Formula $(6)$, where $A\in {\cal A}(G_{\alpha })$, $~h\in G_{\beta
}$. \par For a given arbitrary positive number $\epsilon >0$ take a
natural number $n_0$ such that $\epsilon >\epsilon _n$ for each
$n>n_0$. Choose a marked natural number $m>n_0$. From Theorem 4.5
\cite{hew} and Formulas $(1-4,7)$ and Conditions 1$(1-4)$ and
2$(1-4)$ it follows that for each $\delta >0$ a symmetric $V_{\beta
}=V_{\beta }^{-1}$ neighborhood of $e_{\beta }$ in $G_{\beta }$
exists such that $\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(V_{\beta })$ is
precompact in $G_{\alpha }$ and
$$(8)\quad \int_{G_{\alpha }\cap E_m}
|\sum_{j=1}^p b_j \chi _{F_j}(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(g_{\beta
})hx)- \sum_{j=1}^p b_j \chi _{F_j}(hx) |\mu _{\alpha }(dx)<\delta
.$$ This is possible by a choice of a sufficiently small $V_{\beta
}$ such that the left quasi-invariance factor $\rho ^l(a,b)$ is
bounded on $V_{\beta }\times (W_{\alpha }\cap E_m)$, since $\rho _l$
is continuous on $G_{\beta }\times W_{\alpha }$ and
$E_m=E_m(f_{\alpha })$ is compact. Indeed, the product $cl(\theta
^{\beta }_{\alpha }(V_{\beta }))E_m=:Q_m$ is compact in $G_{\alpha
}$ as the product of two compact subsets in the topological group
$G_{\alpha }$ (see \S 4.4 in \cite{hew}) and $E_m\subset Q_m$. From
the choice of $E_m$ we infer, that
$$(9)\quad \int_{G_{\alpha }\setminus E_m} |\sum_{j=1}^p b_j \chi
_{F_j}(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(g_{\beta })hx)- \sum_{j=1}^p b_j
\chi _{F_j}(hx) |\mu _{\alpha }(dx)\le 2 \epsilon \sum_{j=1}^p |b_j|
$$ for each $h\in \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })$. \par Thus
from $(8,9)$ it follows ,that for each $\delta >0$ a neighborhood
$V_{\beta }$ of $e_{\beta }$ in $G_{\beta }$ exists such that $\|
[{\hat U}_{g_{\beta }} - {\hat U}_{e_{\beta }}] f_{\alpha }(x)\|_{
L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })}<\delta $ for each $g_{\beta }\in
V_{\beta }$. Taking $V=\prod_{\alpha \in \Lambda } V_{\alpha }$ we
get that $\| [{\hat U}_g - {\hat U}_e] f \| <\delta $ for every
$g\in V$, where $f=(f_{\alpha }: \alpha \in \Lambda )\in L^{\infty
}(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$.
\par {\bf 11. Theorem.} {\it Suppose that a continuous mapping $S: L^{\infty
}(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )\to
L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda
)$ satisfies the following conditions:
\par $(1)$ $S$ is linear over the complex field so that $Sf=(S_{\alpha }f_{\alpha }: \alpha \in \Lambda )$
with $S_{\alpha }f_{\alpha }\in L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$ for
each $\alpha \in \Lambda $, where $\beta =\phi (\alpha )$;
\par $(2)$ positive, i.e. $S_{\alpha }f_{\alpha }$ is positive
if $f_{\alpha }$ is positive for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $;
\par $(3)$ $S(f{\tilde \star }g)=f{\tilde \star }Sg$ for every $f,
g\in L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in
\Lambda )$. \par Then elements $a\in G$ and $p= \{ p_{\alpha }:
p_{\alpha }>0 ~ \forall \alpha \in \Lambda \} \in {\bf R}^{\Lambda
}$ exist so that
\par $(4)$ $S=p{\hat U}_a$, that is $S_{\alpha }f_{\alpha }(x) =
p_{\alpha }{\hat U}_{a_{\beta }}f_{\alpha }(x)$ for any $\alpha \in
\Lambda $ with $\beta =\phi (\alpha )$ and each $x\in G_{\alpha }$.}
\par {\bf Proof.} In view of Corollary 5 the family ${\cal P}$ of all
nonnegative elements forms the cone. Conditions $(1,2)$ imply that
\par $(5)$ $S(f\vee g)=(Sf)\vee (Sg)$ and $S(f\wedge g)=(Sf)\wedge
(Sg)$ and
\par $(6)$ $S(\vee_{n=1}^{\infty } g_n)=\vee_{n=1}^{\infty } (Sg_n)$ and
$S(\wedge_{n=1}^{\infty } g_n)=\wedge_{n=1}^{\infty } (Sg_n)$ on
${\cal P}$. \par Being continuous the operator $S$ is bounded. We
consider a subset $E=\prod_{\alpha \in \Lambda } E_{\alpha }$ such
that $E_{\alpha }\in {\cal A}(G_{\alpha })$ for each $\alpha $. The
function \par $(7)$ $\xi _E = \{ \chi _{E_{\alpha }}: \alpha \in
\Lambda \} $ belongs to $L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }):
\alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$, since $\int_{G_{\alpha }} \chi
_{E_{\alpha }}(x)\mu _{\alpha }(dx) = \mu _{\alpha }(E_{\alpha })\le
\mu _{\alpha }(G_{\alpha })=1$ for any $\alpha $. The function $\eta
_E (x) := S\xi _E(x)$ is positive by the conditions of this theorem,
hence $\eta _{E,\alpha } := S_{\alpha } \chi _{E_{\alpha
}}(x_{\alpha })\ge 0$ on $G_{\alpha }$ and \par $(8)$ $\eta
_{E,\alpha }(x_{\alpha })>0$ for each $x_{\alpha }\in T_{S,\alpha
}(E_{\alpha })$ and every $\alpha \in \Lambda $, where $T_{S,\alpha
}(E_{\alpha })$ denotes a subset in $G_{\alpha }$ on which a
function $\eta _{E,\alpha }$ is positive which is defined up to a
$\mu _{\alpha }$-null set. From Formulas $(5)$ we get that
\par $(9)$ $T_{S,\alpha }(E_{\alpha }\cup F_{\alpha })=T_{S,\alpha }(E_{\alpha
})\cup T_{S,\alpha }(F_{\alpha })$ and $T_{S,\alpha }(E_{\alpha
}\cap F_{\alpha })=T_{S,\alpha }(E_{\alpha })\cap T_{S,\alpha
}(F_{\alpha })$ for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $ and $E_{\alpha },
F_{\alpha }\in {\cal A}(G_{\alpha })$. Moreover, the definition of
$T_{S,\alpha }(E_{\alpha })$ by Formula $(8)$ implies that \par
$(10)$ $(T_S)^{-1}=T_{S^{-1}}$, that is $(T_{S,\alpha
})^{-1}=T_{S^{-1},\alpha }$ for any $\alpha \in \Lambda $.
\par For a marked $\alpha \in \Lambda $ and $\beta = \phi (\alpha )$ we next
consider a base of symmetric neighborhoods $U_{\alpha
,v}=U^{-1}_{\alpha ,v}$ and $U_{\beta ,v}=U^{-1}_{\beta ,v}$ of the
unit elements $e_{\alpha }$ in $G_{\alpha }$ and $e_{\beta }$ in
$G_{\beta }$ satisfying the conditions:
\par $(11)$ $U_{\beta ,v}\subseteq U_{\alpha ,v}\cap G_{\beta }$ for
each $v\in \Upsilon _{\alpha ,\beta }$, where \par $(12)$ $\Upsilon
_{\alpha ,\beta }$ is a directed set by inclusion: $v\le t$ if and
only if $U_{\alpha ,t}\subseteq U_{\alpha ,v}$ so that for each
$v\in \Upsilon _{\alpha ,\beta }$ there exists $q(v)\in \Upsilon
_{\alpha ,\beta }$ with $q(v)>v$ and $U_{\alpha ,q(v)} \subset
U_{\alpha ,v}$ and $U_{\alpha ,q(v)} \ne U_{\alpha ,v}$,
$~U^{-1}_{\alpha ,v} = \{ g^{-1}: ~ g \in U_{\alpha ,v} \} $. Then
we put
\par $(13)$ $\xi _{\alpha ,v} = \chi _{U_{\alpha ,v}}$, $\eta
_{\alpha ,v}=S_{\alpha }\xi _{\alpha ,v}$, $\xi _v := \{ \xi
_{\alpha ,v}: \alpha \in \Lambda \} $ and $\eta _v := \{ \eta
_{\alpha ,v}: \alpha \in \Lambda \} $ for any $v\in \Upsilon
_{\alpha ,\beta }$. Below the proof of this theorem is continued and
is based on the following intermediate lemmas.
\par {\bf 12. Lemma.} {\it Let $P=T_S^{-1}U$, that is $P_{\alpha ,v} = T_{S,\alpha }^{-1}(U_{\alpha ,v})$
for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $ and $v\in \Upsilon _{\alpha ,\beta
}$, where $T_S$ and $U_{\alpha ,v}$ and $\Upsilon _{\alpha ,\beta }$
with $\beta =\phi (\alpha )$ are as in \S 11. Then for any $\alpha
\in \Lambda $ and for each $v\in \Upsilon _{\alpha ,\beta }$
elements $w=w(v)\in \Upsilon _{\alpha ,\beta }$ and $a_{\beta ,v}\in
G_{\beta }$ exist such that
\par $(1)$ $a_{\beta ,v} U_{\beta ,v}\supset P_{\beta ,w(v)}$
up to a $\mu _{\beta }$-null set.}
\par {\bf Proof.} Suppose the contrary that there exists $U_{\beta
,v}$ so that $a_{\beta }U_{\beta ,v}$ does not cover $\mu _{\beta
}$-almost entirely the set $P_{\beta ,w}$ for any $w\in \Upsilon
_{\alpha ,\beta }$ and any $a_{\beta }\in G_{\beta }$. Since
$U_{\alpha ,v}$ is a base of neighborhoods of the unit element in
$G_{\alpha }$ there exist $t, s \in \Upsilon _{\alpha ,\beta }$ such
that $U_{\beta ,t}^3\subseteq U_{\beta ,v}$ and $U_{\beta
,s}^2\subseteq U_{\beta ,v}$. Take two elements $a_{\beta ,1},
a_{\beta ,2}\in G_{\beta }$ satisfying the conditions:
\par $(2)$ $A_{\alpha } =cl_{\alpha } \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }([a_{\beta ,1}U_{\beta ,t}]
\cap P_{\beta ,s})$ and $B_{\alpha } =cl_{\alpha } \theta ^{\beta
}_{\alpha }([a_{\beta ,2}U_{\beta ,t}]\cap P_{\beta ,s})$ and
$A_{\beta } =[a_{\beta ,1} U_{\beta ,t}]\cap P_{\beta ,s}$ and
$B_{\beta } =[a_{\beta ,2}U_{\beta ,t}]\cap P_{\beta ,s}$ with $\mu
_{\alpha }(A_{\alpha })>0$ and $\mu _{\alpha }(B_{\alpha })>0$ and
$\mu _{\beta }(A_{\beta })>0$ and $\mu _{\beta }(B_{\beta })>0$ and
\par $(3)$ $A_{\beta }\cap B_{\beta }U_{\beta ,t}=\emptyset $, where
$cl_{\alpha }(A)$ denotes the closure of a subset $A$ in $G_{\alpha
}$. This is possible, since the group $\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha
}(G_{\beta })$ is dense in $G_{\alpha }$ and the quasi-invariant
radonian Borel regular measures $\mu _{\alpha }$ and $\mu _{\beta
}$ are positive on each open subset in $G_{\alpha }$ and $G_{\beta
}$ correspondingly.
\par Then the sets \par $(4)$ $C_{\alpha }=T_{S,\alpha }^{-1}(A_{\alpha })$
and $D_{\alpha }=T_{S,\alpha }^{-1}(B_{\alpha })$ are $\mu _{\alpha
}$-measurable and $~C_{\alpha }\cup D_{\alpha } \subset cl_{\alpha
}(U_{\beta ,s})$, also $C_{\beta }=T_{S,\beta }^{-1}(A_{\beta })$
and $D_{\beta }=T_{S,\beta }^{-1}(B_{\beta })$ are $\mu _{\beta
}$-measurable and are contained in $U_{\beta ,s}$, $~C_{\beta }\cup
D_{\beta } \subset U_{\beta ,s}$. From Conditions 11$(10,11)$ we
deduce that \par $(5)$ $C_{\alpha }^{-1}D_{\alpha }\subset
cl_{\alpha }(U_{\beta , v})$ and $C_{\beta }^{-1}D_{\beta }\subset
U_{\beta , v}$. \par Applying Formula 11$(3)$ we infer the
following:
$$(6)\quad (\chi_{C_{\beta }} {\tilde *} \chi_{cl_{\alpha }(U_{\beta , t})})(x)
= \int_{G_{\beta }} \chi_{C_{\beta }}(h) \chi_{cl_{\alpha }(U_{\beta
, t})}(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(h)x) \mu _{\beta }(dh)$$ $$ =
\int_{C_{\beta }} \chi_{cl_{\alpha }(U_{\beta , t})}(\theta ^{\beta
}_{\alpha }(h)x) \mu _{\beta }(dh) = \mu _{\beta } (C_{\beta }\cap
cl_{\alpha }(U_{\beta ,t}x^{-1})) ,$$ consequently, $(\chi_{C_{\beta
}} {\tilde *} \chi_{cl_{\alpha }(U_{\beta , t})})(x)=\mu_{\beta
}(C_{\beta })>0$ for each $x\in D_{\alpha }$, since $C_{\alpha
}^{-1}D_{\alpha } \subset cl_{\alpha }(U_{\beta ,t})$ and $C_{\alpha
}D_{\alpha }^{-1} \subset cl_{\alpha }(U_{\beta ,t}^{-1})=cl_{\alpha
}(U_{\beta ,t})$ and hence
$$(7)\quad (\chi_{C_{\beta }} {\tilde *} \chi_{cl_{\alpha }(U_{\alpha ,
t})})(x)\ge \mu_{\beta }(C_{\beta })\chi_{D_{\alpha }}(x).$$ Then
the inequality
$$(8) \quad S(\chi_{C_{\beta }} {\tilde *} \chi_{cl_{\alpha }(U_{\beta ,
t})}) = (\chi_{C_{\beta }} {\tilde *} S\chi_{cl_{\alpha }(U_{\beta
, t})}) \ge \mu_{\beta }(C_{\beta })S\chi_{D_{\alpha }}$$ follows
from Formulas $(7)$ and 11$(3)$. Applying Conditions $(2)$ one gets
$A_{\alpha }=T_{S,\alpha } (C_{\alpha }) = \{ x: ~ S\chi _{C_{\alpha
}} (x)>0 \} $ and $B_{\alpha }=T_{S,\alpha } (D_{\alpha }) = \{ x: ~
S\chi _{D_{\alpha }} (x)>0 \} $ and $A_{\beta }=T_{S,\beta }
(C_{\beta }) = \{ x: ~ S\chi _{C_{\beta }} (x)>0 \} $ and $B_{\beta
}=T_{S,\beta } (D_{\beta }) = \{ x: ~ S\chi _{D_{\beta }} (x)>0 \}
$. On the other hand, from Formulas $(3)$ we deduce the following:
$$(9)\quad S(\chi_{C_{\beta }} {\tilde *} \chi_{cl_{\alpha }(U_{\beta ,
t})})(x)= S\int_{G_{\beta }\cap U_{\beta, t}x^{-1}} \chi_{C_{\beta
}}(h) \mu _{\beta }(dh)=0,$$ since $A_{\beta }\cap (B_{\beta
}U_{\beta ,t})=\emptyset $ and hence $T_{S,\beta }^{-1}(A_{\beta
})\cap T_{S,\beta }^{-1}(B_{\beta }U_{\beta ,t})=\emptyset $ so that
$C_{\beta }\cap (D_{\beta }P_{\beta ,t}) = \emptyset $. But Formula
$(9)$ contradicts $(7)$, that finishes the proof of this lemma.
\par {\bf 13. Lemma.} {\it Let an
operation ${\tilde *}$ on $M(G_{\beta })\times L^1_{G_{\beta
}}(G_{\alpha })$ be defined by the formula
$$(1)\quad (\nu {\tilde *} u)(g) = \int_{G_{\beta }} \nu (dh) u(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(h)g)$$
for each $g \in G_{\alpha }$, where $M(G_{\beta })$ denotes the set
of all finite radon measures $\nu $ on $G_{\beta }$ supplied with
the norm. Then the mapping ${\tilde *}: M(G_{\beta })\times
L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })\to L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$ is
bilinear and continuous.}
\par {\bf Proof.} From Formula $(1)$ it follows that
$(\nu {\tilde *} (au+bg)) = a(\nu {\tilde *} u)+b(\nu {\tilde *} g)$
and $(a\nu +b\mu ) {\tilde *} u = a(\nu {\tilde *} u) +b (\mu
{\tilde *} u)$ for any complex numbers $a, b \in {\bf C}$, radonian
measures $\nu , \mu \in M(G_{\beta })$ and functions $u, g \in
L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$. Remind that the space $M(G_{\beta
})$ is supplied with the standard norm: $\| \nu \| = |\nu
|(G_{\beta })$, where $|\nu |=\nu ^+ + \nu ^-$ is the variation of
$\nu $ with the standard decomposition $\nu =\nu ^+ - \nu ^-$ into
the difference of two nonnegative measures $\nu ^+$ and $\nu ^-$.
Then $$\sup_{s\in \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(G_{\beta
})}\int_{G_{\alpha }} |\int_{G_{\beta }} \nu (dh) u(\theta ^{\beta
}_{\alpha }(h)(sg))|\mu_{\alpha }(dg)\le $$ $$\sup_{s\in \theta
^{\beta }_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })}\int_{G_{\beta }} \{ |\nu |(dh)
\int_{G_{\alpha }} |u(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(h)(sg))|\mu_{\alpha
}(dg) \} $$ due to Fubini's theorem, consequently,
$$(2)\quad \| \nu {\tilde *} u \|_{L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha
})}\le \| \nu \| \| u \|_{L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })}.$$
The latter inequality implies the continuity
of such skew convolution ${\tilde *}: M(G_{\beta })\times
L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })\to L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$.
\par {\bf Continuation of the proof of Theorem 11.}
By transfinite induction and Teichm\"uller-Tukey's lemma applying
Lemma 12 one gets a base of symmetric neighborhoods of the unit
elements such that
\par $(14)$ $U_{\beta ,t}^3\subseteq U_{\beta ,v}$ and $U_{\beta
,s}^2\subseteq U_{\beta ,v}$ for each $t\in \lambda (\beta ,v)$ and
$s\in \nu (\beta ,v)$, where $\lambda (\beta ,v)\subset \nu (\beta
,v)$ are cofinal subsets in $\Upsilon _{\alpha ,\beta }$ all
elements of which are greater than $v$ (see also \S 1.3 \cite{eng});
and Conditions 11$(11,12)$ and 12$(1)$. The inclusion $P_{\beta
,v}\supseteq P_{\beta , q}$ for each $v<q$ leads to $a_{\beta ,v}
U_{\beta ,v} \cap a_{\beta ,q} U_{\beta ,q}\ne \emptyset $,
consequently,
\par $(15)$ $a_{\beta ,v}^{-1} a_{\beta ,q} \in U_{\beta ,v}U_{\beta
,q}^{-1}$ \\ and hence $\{ a_{\beta ,v}: v \} $ is a fundamental
(Cauchy) net in $G_{\beta }$. But $G_{\beta }$ is the topological
group complete relative to its left uniformly (see \S \S 8.1.17 and
8.3 \cite{eng}). Therefore, this net converges $\lim_v a_{\beta
,v}=a_{\beta }$ in $G_{\beta }$. From $(15)$ the inclusion $a_{\beta
}\in a_{\beta ,v}U_{\beta ,v}^2$ follows, consequently,
\par $(16)$ $a_{\beta } U_{\beta ,v}\supset a_{\beta ,s} U_{\beta
,s}\supset P_{\beta ,w(s)}$ for every $s\in \nu (\beta ,v)$. \par In
view of Proposition 17.7 \cite{lujms150:4:08}
$$(17)\quad \lim_s \| \frac{\chi _{U_{\beta ,w(s)}} }{\mu _{\beta }(U_{\beta ,w(s)})}
{\tilde *} f-f \| _{L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })}=0$$ for each
$f\in L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$, since $\mu _{\beta }(U_{\beta
,w(s)})>0$, where $\beta =\phi (\alpha )$. \par The left
quasi-invariance factor $\rho^l_{\mu _{\alpha }}(\theta ^{\beta
}_{\alpha }(h),g)$ is continuous on $G_{\beta }\times W_{\alpha }$
and satisfies the cocycle condition $$\rho^l_{\mu _{\alpha }}(\theta
^{\beta }_{\alpha }(h),\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha
}(t^{-1})g)\rho^l_{\mu _{\alpha }}(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha
}(t),g)=\rho^l_{\mu _{\alpha }}(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(ht),g)$$
for all $h, t \in G_{\beta }$ and $g\in G_{\alpha }$. The
probability measure $\mu _{\alpha }$ is Borel regular and $\mu
_{\alpha }(G_{\alpha })=\mu _{\alpha }(W_{\alpha })$, consequently,
$W_{\alpha }$ is dense in $G_{\alpha }$ and hence has a continuous
extension onto $G_{\beta }\times G_{\alpha }$ due to the cocycle
condition and since $\tau _{\alpha }\cap {\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha
}(G_{\beta })} \subset \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(\tau _{\beta })$,
where $\beta =\phi (\alpha )$. Henceforth, we denote this continuous
extension by the same symbol $\rho^l_{\mu _{\alpha }}$.
\par Take a net of bounded functions $f_{\alpha ,\kappa
,y}\in L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$ such that
$$(18)\quad \lim_{\kappa } \int_{G_{\alpha }}f_{\alpha ,\kappa ,y} (g) \mu
_{\alpha }(dg)\mu _{\beta }(dh)=\delta _y(dh)$$ in $M(G_{\beta })$,
where $\delta _y(dh)$ denotes the atomic Dirac measure on $G_{\beta
}$ with atom at $y\in G_{\beta }$, $\kappa \in K$, where $K$ is a
directed set. Without loss of generality these functions can be
chosen such that the linear span over the complex field $\bf C$ of
the family of functions $span_{\bf C} \{ f_{\alpha ,\kappa ,y}: y
\in G_{\beta }, \kappa _0<\kappa \in K \} $ is dense in
$L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$ for each $\kappa _0\in K$. \par A
subspace of continuous functions in $L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$
is dense in this space $L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$ (see also \S
10). \par In the space $L^1(G_{\beta })$ the net $\frac{\chi
_{U_{\beta ,w(s)}}}{\mu _{\beta }(U_{\beta ,w(s)})}$ converges to
the atomic Dirac measure $\delta _{e_{\beta }}$ on $G_{\beta }$.
Consider these family of functions related by the left shifts with
weight factors $$f_{\alpha ,\kappa ,y} (g)=\frac{f_{\alpha ,\kappa
,e_{\alpha }}(\theta^{\beta }_{\alpha }(y)g)}{\rho^l_{\mu _{\alpha
}} (\theta^{\beta }_{\alpha }(y),e_{\alpha })},$$ where $y\in
G_{\beta }$, then we infer that
$$(19)\quad \int_{G_{\alpha }}f_{\alpha ,\kappa ,e_{\alpha }} (\theta^{\beta }_{\alpha }(hy)g) \mu
_{\alpha }(dg)\mu _{\beta }(dh)= \int_{G_{\alpha }}f_{\alpha ,\kappa
,e} (s) \frac{\rho^l_{\mu _{\alpha }} (\theta^{\beta }_{\alpha
}(hy),s)}{\rho^l_{\mu _{\alpha }} (\theta^{\beta }_{\alpha
}(y),e_{\alpha })} \mu _{\alpha }(ds)\mu _{\beta }(dh)$$ and
$$(20) \quad \lim_s (\frac{\chi _{U_{\beta ,w(s)}}}
{\mu _{\beta }(U_{\beta ,w(s)})} {\tilde *} f_{\alpha ,\kappa
,e_{\alpha }} (s) \frac{\rho^l_{\mu _{\alpha }} (\theta^{\beta
}_{\alpha }(hy),s))}{\rho^l_{\mu _{\alpha }} (\theta^{\beta
}_{\alpha }(y),e_{\alpha })} = f_{\alpha ,\kappa ,e_{\alpha }}
(g)\frac{\rho^l_{\mu _{\alpha }} (\theta^{\beta }_{\alpha
}(y),g)}{\rho^l_{\mu _{\alpha }} (\theta^{\beta }_{\alpha
}(y),e_{\alpha })},$$ since $e_{\beta }g=g$.
\par Consider particularly $f_{\alpha ,v,e_{\alpha }}=\frac{\chi _{U_{\alpha
,v}}} {\mu _{\alpha }(U_{\alpha ,v})}$
Applying Formulas $(17-20)$ and 8$(1)$ and Lemma 13
we deduce that the limit
$$\lim_s \lim_v (\frac{\chi _{U_{\beta ,w(s)}}}
{\mu _{\beta }(U_{\beta ,w(s)})} {\tilde *} \frac{\xi _{\alpha ,v}}
{\mu _{\alpha }(U_{\alpha ,v})}) = p_{\alpha }>0$$ converges and is
independent of $h\in G_{\beta }$, where $\xi _{\alpha ,v} := \|
S_{\alpha }\chi _{U_{\alpha ,v}} \| $, since $S$ is a bounded linear
operator and
$$ \lim_s \| ( \frac{\chi _{U_{\beta ,w(s)}} }{\mu _{\beta }(U_{\beta ,w(s)})}
{\tilde *} S_{\alpha }f) - S_{\alpha }f \| _{L^1_{G_{\beta
}}(G_{\alpha })}=0$$ and
$$\lim_{\kappa } r {\tilde *} f_{\alpha ,\kappa ,y} =
\int_{G_{\beta }} r(h)\delta _y(dh) =r(y)$$ for each continuous
bounded function $r$ on $G_{\beta }$. Therefore, $$S_{\alpha
}f_{\alpha } = p_{\alpha } \frac{\rho^l_{\mu _{\alpha }}
(\theta^{\beta }_{\alpha }(a_{\beta }),e_{\alpha })}{ \rho^l_{\mu
_{\alpha }} (\theta^{\beta }_{\alpha }(a_{\beta }),e_{\alpha
})}{\hat U}_{a_{\beta }} f_{\alpha }= p_{\alpha }{\hat U}_{a_{\beta
}} f_{\alpha }$$ on $L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$ for each $\alpha
$, where $\beta =\phi (\alpha )$. Moreover,
$$\| S \| = \sup_{\alpha \in \Lambda ; \beta =\phi (\alpha )}
p_{\alpha } \| {\hat U}_{a_{\beta }} \|_{L(X,X)}$$ with $X=L^{\infty
}(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$, where
$L(X,Y)$ denotes the normed space of all bounded linear operators
from $X$ to $Y$ with $X$ and $Y$ being complex normed spaces.
\par {\bf 14. Lemma.} {\it Let $\hat K$ be the scalar continuous operator
\par $(1)$ ${\hat K}f=pf$ for every $f\in L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha
<\beta \in \Lambda )$, that is $K_{\alpha }f_{\alpha }=p_{\alpha
}f_{\alpha }$ with $p_{\alpha }>0$ for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $.
Then this operator $\hat K$ satisfies Conditions 11$(1-3)$ and \par
$(2)$ $f\sim {\hat K}f$, that is $f\sim u$ by the definition means
that for every $t$ if $f_{\alpha }\ge 0$ and $u_{\alpha }\ge 0$ and
$t_{\alpha }\ge 0$ for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $ then $\{ f_{\alpha
}\wedge t_{\alpha }=0 \} \Leftrightarrow \{ u_{\alpha }\wedge
t_{\alpha }=0 \} $ for any $\alpha \in \Lambda $, where $f, u, t \in
L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda
)$.}
\par {\bf Proof.} Properties 11$(1-3)$ are evidently satisfied for
$\hat K$. Condition $(2)$ is also fulfilled, since $supp (f_{\alpha
}) = supp (p_{\alpha }f_{\alpha })$ for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $.
\par {\bf 15. Theorem.} {\it Topological group rings
$L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }, \mu_{\alpha }): \alpha
<\beta \in \Lambda )$ and $L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha },
\nu_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$ are isomorphic if and
only if measures $\mu _{\alpha }$ and $\nu _{\alpha }$ are
equivalent for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $.}
\par {\bf Proof.} If measures are equivalent, an isomorphism of topological group rings (and
algebras) is given by $$(1)\quad L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha },\mu
_{\alpha })\ni f_{\alpha }\mapsto f_{\alpha }\frac{d\mu _{\alpha
}}{d\nu _{\alpha }}\in L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha },\nu _{\alpha
})\quad \forall \alpha \in \Lambda .$$
\par Vice versa if topological group rings are isomorphic, all their
representations in $L(X,X)$ are equivalent, where $X$ is a complex
Banach space, $L(X,X)$ denotes the Banach space of all continuous
linear operators on $X$ into $X$. Particularly, ring representations
induced by unitary regular representations of groups $G_{\beta }$
are also equivalent. A regular unitary representation $T^{\beta ,\mu
_{\alpha }}: G_{\beta }\to U(X_{\alpha })$ is prescribed by the
formula
$$(2)\quad T^{\beta ,\mu _{\alpha }}(h) f_{\alpha }(x)=
\sqrt{\rho_{\mu _{\alpha }}(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(h),x)}
f_{\alpha }(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(h^{-1})x),$$ where $\beta
=\phi (\alpha )$, $~\alpha \in \Lambda $, $h\in G_{\beta }$,
$~X_{\alpha } := L^2(G_{\alpha },\mu_{\alpha },{\bf C})$,
$~U(X_{\alpha })$ denotes the unitary group on the Hilbert space
$X_{\alpha }$. The representation $T^{\beta ,\mu _{\alpha }}$ is
strongly continuous on each $G_{\beta }$ (see also
\cite{lujms150:4:08} and References 55 and 181 and 195 there and \S
10 above).
\par The family of all simple functions of the form
$$(3)\quad f_{\alpha } = \sum_{j=1}^n b_j \chi_{B_{\alpha ,j}}$$
with $n\in {\bf N}$, $~b_j\in {\bf C}$, open subsets $B_{\alpha ,j}$
in $(G_{\alpha },\tau _{\alpha })$, $B_{\alpha ,j}\cap B_{\alpha
,k}=\emptyset $ for all $j\ne k$, is dense in $X_{\alpha }$, since
the measure $\mu _{\alpha }$ is Borel regular. On the other hand,
$B_{\alpha, j}\cap \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })$ are open
in $G_{\beta }$, since $\tau _{\alpha }\cap {\theta ^{\beta
}_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })} \subset \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(\tau
_{\beta })$. From the latter property it follows that
$$f_{\alpha }\circ \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha } = \sum_{j=1}^n b_j \chi_{K_{\beta ,j}},$$
where $K_{\beta ,j}$ is open in $G_{\beta }$ for each $j$.
Therefore, the topological density $d(X_{\alpha })$ of the Hilbert
space $X_{\alpha }$ is not greater than that of $X_{\beta }$,
consequently, there exists an isometric linear embedding \par $(4)$
$\eta ^{\alpha }_{\beta }: X_{\alpha }\to X_{\beta }$.
\par Let $Y$ be a Banach space consisting of all vectors $y=(y_{\alpha }: ~
y_{\alpha }\in X_{\alpha }, ~ \alpha \in \Lambda )$ with $$\| y \| =
\sup_{\alpha \in \Lambda } \| y_{\alpha } \| _{X_{\alpha }}<\infty
,$$ it can be also denoted by $Y=l_{\infty }(X_{\alpha }: \alpha \in
\Lambda )$. The embedding $X_{\alpha }\oplus X_{\beta
}\hookrightarrow Y$ induces the embedding $L(X_{\alpha },X_{\alpha
})\oplus L(X_{\beta },X_{\beta })\hookrightarrow L(Y,Y)$. If a
strongly continuous unitary representation $T^{\alpha }: G_{\alpha
}\to L(X_{\alpha },X_{\alpha })$ is given for each $\alpha \in
\Lambda $, then taking Bochner's integral
$$R^{\alpha }(f_{\alpha }) y_{\alpha } := \int_{G_{\alpha }} f_{\alpha }
(g)T^{\alpha }(g)y_{\alpha } \mu _{\alpha }(dg),$$ where $f_{\alpha
}\in L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$ with $\beta =\phi (\alpha )$ and
$y_{\alpha }\in X_{\alpha }$, we get a strongly continuous
representation $R: L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha },
\mu_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )\to L(Y,Y),$ since
$X_{\alpha }\oplus X_{\beta }$ has an embedding into $Y$ and
$$R(u_{\beta }{\tilde *}f_{\alpha }) (y_{\beta }\oplus y_{\alpha }) := R[\int_{G_{\beta }}
u_{\beta }(h)f_{\alpha }(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(h)g) \mu _{\beta
}(dh) ] y_{\beta }\oplus y_{\alpha } = $$ $$\int_{G_{\beta }}
\int_{G_{\alpha }} (T^{\beta }(h)u_{\beta }(h) y_{\beta })\oplus
(f_{\alpha } (\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(h)g)T^{\alpha }(\theta
^{\beta }_{\alpha }(h)g)y_{\alpha }\mu_{\beta }(dh) \mu _{\alpha
}(dg)$$
$$=R^{\beta }(u_{\beta }){\tilde *} R^{\alpha }(f_{\alpha })
(y_{\beta }\oplus y_{\alpha })$$ for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $ with
$\beta = \phi (\alpha )$. Therefore, $R(u{\tilde \star }f)= R(u)
{\tilde \star }R(f)$ for each $f, u \in L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta
}}(G_{\alpha }, \mu_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$.
\par On the other hand, the embedding $\eta ^{\alpha }_{\beta }: X_{\alpha }\to X_{\beta }$
provides an equivalence relation $\Sigma ^{\alpha }$ so that
$T^{\beta ,\mu _{\alpha }}\times T^{\gamma ,\nu _{\beta }}$ induce a
unitary representation $T^{\beta , \gamma }: G_{\beta }\times
G_{\gamma }\to U(X_{\beta })$ for which $$(5)\quad T^{\beta , \gamma
}(g_{\beta } ,g_{\gamma }) = {\hat T}^{\beta ,\mu _{\alpha
}}(g_{\beta }) T^{\gamma ,\mu _{\beta }}(g_{\gamma })\in U(X_{\beta
}),$$ where a representation ${\hat T}^{\beta ,\mu _{\alpha }}$ is
induced by $T^{\beta ,\mu _{\alpha }} $ and the embedding $\eta
^{\alpha }_{\beta }$. Thus using an approximation of Dirac's measure
$\delta _z$ on $G_{\beta }$ we get that an equivalence of two
representations of two rings $L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha
}, \mu_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$ and $L^{\infty
}(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }, \nu_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in
\Lambda )$ provides an intertwining operator $A^{\beta }$ of two
regular unitary representations $T^{\beta ,\mu _{\alpha }}$ and
$T^{\beta ,\nu _{\alpha }}$ such that $A^{\beta }: L^2(G_{\alpha
},\nu _{\alpha },{\bf C})\to L^2(G_{\alpha },\mu _{\alpha },{\bf
C})$ is a linear isomorphism of Hilbert spaces for each $\alpha \in
\Lambda $. Measures $\mu _{\alpha }$ and $\nu _{\alpha }$ are
regular Borel measures, while each group $G_{\alpha }$ is Hausdorff,
hence these regular representations distinguish different elements
of $G_{\beta }$, that is they are injective. Thus $$(6)\quad
T^{\beta ,\mu_{\alpha }} = A^{\beta }T^{\beta ,\nu _{\alpha
}}(A^{\beta })^{-1}.$$ From this it follows, as it is known from the
literature, that measures $\mu _{\alpha }$ and $\nu _{\alpha }$ are
equivalent (see also \cite{lujms150:4:08} and References 55 and 181
and 195 there). We shortly recall a way of the proof.
\par A Borel subset $J\in {\cal B}(G_{\alpha })$ is of $\mu _{\alpha }$
measure zero, i.e. $\int_{G_{\alpha }} \chi_J d\mu _{\alpha }=0$, if
and only if $\int_{G_{\alpha }} k\chi_J d\mu _{\alpha }=0$ for each
nonnegative continuous function $k$ on $G_{\alpha }$. If $V$ is a
linear topological isomorphism of $L^2(G_{\alpha },\mu_{\alpha
},{\bf C})$ onto itself, then $\int_{G_{\alpha }} V(\chi_J) d\mu
_{\alpha }=0$. Therefore, an operator $V$ preserves invariant a set
of nonnegative functions $s$ on $G_{\alpha }$ with $\mu_{\alpha }(s)
:= \int_{G_{\alpha }} s d\mu _{\alpha }=0$, that is the family of
all subsets in $G_{\alpha }$ of $\mu_{\alpha }$-measure zero is
invariant under $V$. \par Consider matrix elements
$$(8)\quad (T^{\beta ,\mu_{\alpha }}(g)x,y) = (A^{\beta }T^{\beta
,\nu _{\alpha }}(g)(A^{\beta })^{-1}x,y) $$ for each $x, y \in
X_{\alpha }$. Evidently, $\| y \| =0$ if and only if the scalar
product in $(8)$ is zero for each $x\in X_{\alpha }$ and $g\in
G_{\beta }$. Sets $E_{n,\mu _{\alpha }}$ and $E_{n,\nu _{\alpha }}$
for measures $\mu _{\alpha }$ and $\nu _{\alpha }$ can be considered
as $E_n$ in \S 10. Then the limit $$\lim_n \int_{G_{\alpha }}
|(A^{\beta })^{-1}[1-\chi _{E_{n,\mu _{\alpha }}}]| d\nu _{\alpha
}=0$$ exists, since $\lim_n \mu _{\alpha } (G_{\alpha }\setminus
E_{n,\mu _{\alpha }})=0$ and the linear operator $(A^{\beta })^{-1}$
is continuous. Symmetrically $$\lim_n \int_{G_{\alpha }} |A^{\beta
}[1-\chi _{E_{n,\nu _{\alpha }}}]| d\mu _{\alpha }=0.$$
\par Each left shift $L_h: G_{\alpha }\to G_{\alpha }$ with $h\in
\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })$, $L_hg=hg$, induces an
isometry $f_{\alpha }(g)\mapsto f_{\alpha }(hg)$ of $L^1_{G_{\beta
}}(G_{\alpha }, \mu _{\alpha })$ onto itself and also for
$L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }, \nu _{\alpha })$. If $\{ U_{\alpha
,v}: v \} $ is a base of neighborhoods of the unit element in
$G_{\alpha}$, an arbitrary element $q\in G_{\alpha }$ is marked,
then there are elements $g_{\beta ,v,q}\in \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha
}(G_{\beta })$ such that $g_{\beta ,v,q}U_{\alpha ,v}$ is a base of
neighborhoods of $q$.
\par By Cauchy-Bounyakovskii's inequality $|(T^{\beta ,\mu_{\alpha
}}(g)x_m,y)|\le \| x_m \| \| y \| $, since $\| T^{\beta ,\mu_{\alpha
}}(g) \| =1$, hence if $x_m\to 0$, then $(T^{\beta ,\mu_{\alpha
}}(g)x_m,y)\to 0$ uniformly by $g\in G_{\alpha }$ with $m$ tending
to the infinity. If $z_m \in L^2(G_{\alpha },\mu _{\alpha },{\bf
C})$ are nonzero vectors, then $b_mz_m/\| z_m\|\to 0$ for each
sequence of complex numbers $b_m$ tending to zero, when $m$ tends to
the infinity. A nonequivalence of measures would lead to a
contradiction when one regular representation would be strongly
continuous and another not on certain vectors, but these
representations are equivalent and related by Formula $(8)$. In view
of Lemma 12 and Formulas $(2,8)$ for each Borel subset $B$ in
$G_{\alpha }$: $ ~ \mu_{\alpha }(B)=0$ if and only if $\nu _{\alpha
}(B)=0$, consequently, measures $\mu _{\alpha }$ and $\nu _{\alpha
}$ are equivalent, since measures $\mu _{\alpha }$ and $\nu _{\alpha
}$ are Borel regular.
\par {\bf 16. Theorem.} {\it Let $G = \prod_{\alpha \in \Lambda }G_{\alpha }$ and
$H = \prod_{\alpha \in \Lambda }H_{\alpha }$ be two topological
groups supplied with box topologies $\tau ^b_G$ and $\tau ^b_H$
respectively, where topological groups $G_{\alpha }$ and $H_{\alpha
}$ for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $ satisfy Conditions 1$(1-4)$,
measures $\mu _{\alpha }$ on $G_{\alpha }$ and $\nu _{\alpha }$ on
$H_{\alpha }$ satisfy Conditions 2$(1-4)$, a directed set $\Lambda $
has not a minimal element. \par 1. If topological groups $G_{\alpha
}$ and $H_{\alpha }$ for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $ are
topologically isomorphic, then equivalent measures $\mu _{\alpha }$
and $\nu _{\alpha }$ exist so that topological algebras $L^{\infty
}(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha },\mu_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in
\Lambda )$ and $L^{\infty }(L^1_{H_{\beta }}(H_{\alpha },\nu
_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$ are isomorphic and their
isomorphism $\hat T$ satisfies properties $(1-3)$ below.
\par 2. If a bijective surjective
continuous mapping ${\hat T}$ of $L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta
}}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$ onto $L^{\infty
}(L^1_{H_{\beta }}(H_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$ exists
and ${\hat T}^{-1}$ is continuous such that \par $(1)$ a mapping
${\hat T}= ({\hat T}_{\alpha }f_{\alpha }: \alpha \in \Lambda )$ is
linear so that ${\hat T}_{\alpha }: L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })\to
L^1_{H_{\beta }}(H_{\alpha })$ for every $\alpha \in \Lambda $ with
$\beta = \phi (\alpha )$;
\par $(2)$ $\hat T$ is positive, that is $f_{\alpha }\ge 0$ in
$L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$ if and only if ${\hat T}_{\alpha
}f_{\alpha }\ge 0$ in $L^1_{H_{\beta }}(H_{\alpha })$;
\par $(3)$ ${\hat T}$ is a ring homomorphism, that is
${\hat T}(f{\tilde \star }u)= (f {\tilde \star } {\hat T}u)$ for
each $f, u \in L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha
<\beta \in \Lambda )$, \par then topological groups $G_{\alpha }$
and $H_{\alpha }$ are topologically isomorphic and measures $\mu
_{\alpha }$ and $\nu _{\alpha }$ are equivalent for each $\alpha \in
\Lambda $.}
\par {\bf Proof.} If $\omega _{\alpha }: G_{\alpha }\to H_{\alpha }$
is a topological group isomorphism for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $,
then an operator ${\hat T}$ with $({\hat T}_{\alpha }f_{\alpha })(h)
:= f_{\alpha }(\omega ^{-1}_{\alpha }(h))$ for every $\alpha \in
\Lambda $ and $h\in H_{\alpha }$ and $f_{\alpha }\in L^1_{G_{\beta
}}(G_{\alpha })$ has the desired properties. Taking a measure $\nu
_{\alpha }=\mu _{\alpha }\circ \omega _{\alpha }^{-1}$ on $H_{\alpha
}$ for any $\alpha \in \Lambda $ establishes an isometric
isomorphism ${\hat T}$ which satisfies Conditions $(1-3)$.
\par Conversely, let ${\hat T}$ satisfy the conditions of this theorem.
Then from the conditions of this theorem the algebraic isomorphisms
\par $(4)$ ${\hat U}(G)\cong {\hat U}(H)$ and ${\hat S}(G)\cong
{\hat S}(H)$ follow, where ${\hat U}(G)$ and ${\hat S}(G)$ denote
the families of all operators satisfying Conditions $11(1-3)$ and
(11$(1-3)$,14$(1,2)$) correspondingly. These algebraic homomorphisms
are induced by the operator $\hat T$ according to the formula
\par $(5)$ ${\hat U}(G)\ni {\hat P}\mapsto {\hat T}{\hat P}{\hat T}^{-1}\in
{\hat U}(H)$. \par In view of Theorem 11 and Lemma 14 there are
algebraic isomorphisms ${\hat G}\cong {\hat U}(G)/{\hat S}(G)$ and
${\hat H}\cong {\hat U}(H)/{\hat S}(H)$, since the group algebra
$L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in
\Lambda )$ is isomorphic with $L^{\infty }(L^1_{H_{\beta
}}(H_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda )$, where ${\hat G}$ and
${\hat H}$ denote the groups of left translation operators from \S
11. Therefore, algebraically the group ${\hat G}$ is isomorphic with
$G$ and the group ${\hat H}$ with $H$ respectively, since a directed
set $\Lambda $ has not a minimal element. But the mappings ${\hat
T}$ and ${\hat T}^{-1}$ are bijective, surjective and continuous,
applying $(3)$ and 11$(3,17,18,20)$ we get the topological
isomorphism $\omega _{\alpha }$ of $G_{\alpha }$ with $H_{\alpha }$
for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $. \par In view of Theorem 15 measures
$\mu_{\alpha }\circ \omega _{\alpha }^{-1}$ and $\nu _{\alpha }$ on
$H_{\alpha }$ are equivalent and the isometric isomorphism of group
algebras is provided by the mapping $$L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha
},\mu _{\alpha })\ni f_{\alpha }\mapsto (f_{\alpha }\circ
\omega_{\alpha }^{-1})\frac{d\mu _{\alpha }\circ \omega_{\alpha }
^{-1}}{d\nu _{\alpha }}\in L^1_{H_{\beta }}(H_{\alpha },\nu _{\alpha
})\quad \forall \alpha \in \Lambda .$$
\par {\bf 17. Definition.}
Let
$$(1)\quad (g_{\beta }*f_{\alpha })(s)=\int_{G_{\beta }} g_{\beta }(x)f_{\alpha
}(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(x^{-1})s)\mu_{\beta }(dx)\mbox{ and}$$
$$(2)\quad (g_{\beta }\check{*}f_{\alpha })(s)=\int_{G_{\beta }} g_{\beta }(x)f_{\alpha
}(s\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(x^{-1}))\mu_{\beta }(dx)$$ for each
$s\in G_{\alpha }$.
\par The group algebra $L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha
<\beta \in \Lambda )$ will be called meta-commutative, if the
following condition is satisfied:
$$(3)\quad [\frac{f_{\beta }(x)}{\psi _{\beta
}(x^{-1}\theta ^{\gamma }_{\beta }(s))\rho^l_{\mu_{\beta }}(\theta
^{\gamma }_{\beta }(s^{-1}),\theta ^{\gamma }_{\beta }(s^{-1})x)}*
g_{\alpha }(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(x^{-1})\theta ^{\gamma
}_{\alpha }(s))](\theta ^{\gamma }_{\alpha }(s))$$ $$ = [g_{\beta
}(y)\check{*} f_{\alpha }(\theta ^{\gamma }_{\alpha }(s)\theta
^{\beta }_{\alpha }(y^{-1})](\theta ^{\gamma }_{\alpha }(s))$$ for
each $\alpha \in \Lambda $, every $s\in G_{\gamma }$ with $\beta
=\phi (\alpha )$, $ ~ \gamma =\phi (\beta )$, for every $f, g \in
L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha <\beta \in \Lambda
)$ such that $g_{\alpha }\circ \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }=g_{\beta
}$ and
\par $(4)$ $f_{\alpha }\circ \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }=f_{\beta }$
on $G_{\beta }$.
\par {\bf 18. Theorem.} {\it The group algebra $L^{\infty }(L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha }): \alpha
<\beta \in \Lambda )$ is meta-commutative if and only if a group $G$
is commutative.}
\par {\bf Proof.} A group $G$ is commutative if and only if a
group $G_{\alpha }$ is commutative for each $\alpha \in \Lambda $.
Since there are approximations of Dirac's measure $\delta _z$ on
$G_{\alpha }$ in this group algebra, then the group $G_{\alpha }$ is
commutative if and only if \par $(1)$ $f_{\alpha
}(y^{-1}s)=f_{\alpha }(sy^{-1})$ for each $f_{\alpha }\in
L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$ and any $x, s \in G_{\alpha }$. \par
On the other hand, each continuous bounded function $f_{\alpha }$ on
$G_{\alpha }$ is also continuous on $\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha
}(G_{\beta })$ relative to the topology $\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha
}(\tau _{\beta })$, since $\tau_{\alpha }\cap \theta ^{\beta
}_{\alpha }(G_{\beta })\subset \theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(\tau
_{\beta })$, consequently, $f_{\alpha}$ has a continuous bounded
restriction $f_{\beta }=f_{\alpha }\circ \theta^{\beta }_{\alpha } $
on the topological space $(G_{\beta },\tau _{\beta })$. This
restriction $f_{\beta }$ satisfies Condition 17$(4)$. The space of
bounded continuous functions $f_{\alpha }$ satisfying 17$(4)$ is
dense in $L^1_{G_{\beta }}(G_{\alpha })$. \par Therefore, it is
sufficient to demonstrate that Equality $(1)$ is equivalent to
17$(3)$ for any $y, s \in \theta^{\gamma }_{\alpha }(G_{\gamma })$,
since $G_{\gamma }$ is dense in $G_{\alpha }$ and in $G_{\beta }$,
where $\beta = \phi (\alpha )$ and $\gamma = \phi (\beta )$. From
Formulas 17$(1,2)$ we infer that
$$(2)\quad [\frac{f_{\beta }(x)}{\psi _{\beta
}(x^{-1}\theta ^{\gamma }_{\beta }(s))\rho^l_{\mu_{\beta }}(\theta
^{\gamma }_{\beta }(s^{-1}),\theta ^{\gamma }_{\beta }(s^{-1})x)}*
g_{\alpha }(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(x^{-1})\theta ^{\gamma
}_{\beta }(s))](\theta ^{\gamma }_{\beta }(s)) =$$
$$ \int_{G_{\beta }} \frac{f_{\beta }(x)}{\psi _{\beta
}(x^{-1}\theta ^{\gamma }_{\beta }(s))\rho^l_{\mu_{\beta }}(\theta
^{\gamma }_{\beta }(s^{-1}),\theta ^{\gamma }_{\beta
}(s^{-1})x)}g_{\alpha }(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(x^{-1})\theta
^{\gamma }_{\alpha }(s))\mu_{\beta }(dx)$$ $$= \int_{G_{\beta
}}g_{\beta }(y) f_{\alpha }(\theta ^{\gamma }_{\alpha }(s)\theta
^{\beta }_{\alpha }(y^{-1}))\frac{\psi _{\beta
}(y)\rho^l_{\mu_{\beta }}(\theta ^{\gamma }_{\beta
}(s^{-1}),y^{-1})}{\psi _{\beta }(y)\rho^l_{\mu_{\beta }}(\theta
^{\gamma }_{\beta }(s^{-1}),y^{-1})} \mu_{\beta }(dy)$$ after the
change of the integration variable $y=x^{-1}\theta ^{\gamma }_{\beta
}(s)$, where $x\in G_{\beta }$ and $s\in G_{\gamma }$. Therefore,
from Formulas $(2)$ and 17$(1,2)$ it follows, that Condition 17$(3)$
is equivalent to the equality
$$(3)\quad \int_{G_{\beta }} g_{\beta }(x)f_{\alpha
}(\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha }(x^{-1})\theta ^{\gamma }_{\beta
}(s))\mu_{\beta }(dx) =\int_{G_{\beta }} g_{\beta }(x)f_{\alpha
}(\theta ^{\gamma }_{\beta }(s))\theta ^{\beta }_{\alpha
}(x^{-1}))\mu_{\beta }(dx).$$ A bounded continuous function
$g_{\beta }$ is arbitrary in $L^1_{G_{\gamma }}(G_{\beta })$ in the
latter formula, consequently, Equality $(1)$ is satisfied if and
only if 17$(3)$ is valid.
|
\section{Motivation}
For 50 years, the Association of Universities for Research in
Astronomy
(AURA)\footnote{\href{http://www.aura-astronomy.org/}{http://www.aura-astronomy.org/}}
has supported a growing number of astronomical observatories on
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=16&q=-30.1690556,-70.8062861}{Cerro
Tololo} and
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=16&q=-30.2407416667,-70.7366833}{Cerro
Pach\'{o}n}. These observatories include ones operated by the
National Optical Astronomy Observatories
(NOAO)\footnote{\href{http://www.ctio.noao.edu/noao/}{http://www.ctio.noao.edu/noao/}
and \href{http://www.noao.edu/}{http://www.noao.edu/}} and several
other ``tenant'' scientific research facilities. Since the founding
of the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory and purchase of the
``El Totoral'' property 25 November 1962\footnote{``Brief History of
the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory'' written by Victor
Blanco in February 1993:
\href{http://www.ctio.noao.edu/noao/content/ctio-history}{http://www.ctio.noao.edu/noao/content/ctio-history}},
CTIO has provided a critical platform for astronomical observations of
the southern skies\footnote{Including, of course, support for
observations with the Blanco 4-m telescope for the High-Z Supernova
Search team and Supernova Cosmology Project which led to the 2011
Nobel Prize in physics
\citep[e.g.][]{Riess98,Schmidt98,Perlmutter99}, and important
pioneering work by the Cal\'{a}n/Tololo SNe Ia survey
\citep[e.g.][]{Hamuy96}. CTIO continues to provide support for the
investigation of the cosmological acceleration through the Dark
Energy Survey (DES) and Dark Energy Camera (DECam) project on the
Blanco 4-m telescope.}, and continues to support impressive science
on no less than two dozen facilities. The neighboring peak Cerro
Pach\'{o}n has been developed over the past two decades, hosting the
SOAR\footnote{\href{http://www.soartelescope.org/}{http://www.soartelescope.org/}}
and Gemini
South\footnote{\href{http://www.gemini.edu/}{http://www.gemini.edu/}}
telescopes. The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope
(LSST)\footnote{\href{http://www.lsst.org/lsst/}{http://www.lsst.org/lsst/}}
is currently under construction on the
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.2446333333,-70.749416667}{El
Pe\~{n}\'{o}n peak of Cerro Pach\'{o}n}. With excellent seeing,
weather, monitoring and mitigation of light pollution, and strong
legacy of development of infrastructure and trained staff, the
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=16&q=-30.1690556,-70.8062861}{Cerro
Tololo} and
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=16&q=-30.2407416667,-70.7366833}{Cerro
Pach\'{o}n} sites are well positioned to host astronomical
observatories for the next half century.
The precise positions of the observatories on Cerro Tololo has been
historically useful for a variety of purposes, including lunar
occultations \citep[e.g.][]{Lasker73,Vilas77}, planetary occultations
\citep[e.g.][]{French83,Hubbard97}, planetary ring occultations
\citep[e.g.][]{Elliot81}, and asteroid astrometry
\citep[e.g.][]{Buie12}. Among other purposes, precise positions for
telescopes on these peaks are important for applying velocity
corrections for precise radial velocity measurements with the CHIRON
spectrograph on the SMARTS 1.5-m telescope \citep[][]{Schwab10}, and
will be important for accounting for geocentric parallax when
determining orbits of nearby small solar system bodies imaged with the
Dark Energy Camera (DECam) on the Blanco 4-m telescope and LSST.
Given the importance of a precise position for astronomical
calculations, it came as a surprise to the author that the position
for CTIO published in the Astronomical Almanac and in {\it iraf}
obsdb.dat file (observatory database) differed from GPS-measured
geodetic positions on Cerro Tololo by approximately a kilometer. As I
discuss later, this is not an ``error'' per se. The discrepancy arises
due to the mismatch in definitions between astronomical and geodetic
coordinates \citep{Harrington72,Blanco72}. However, the issue raised
awareness that {\it (1) there are conflicting (and sometimes
incorrect) coordinates and elevations for facilities on Cerro Tololo
and Cerro Pach\'{o}n on the WWW and in the literature, and (2)
coordinates have not yet been estimated for many of the new
facilities on these peaks}. Hence, an accessible review of the
coordinates for the Tololo and Pach\'{o}n facilities was long overdue.
This document is a summary of my notes and measurements for the
coordinates of facilities on Cerro Tololo and Cerro Pach\'{o}n. It
may be updated later if improved measurements or corrections come to
light. After some discussion on terrestrial coordinate systems (\S2),
historical review and document archaeology (\S3), I present new
measurements of accurate geodetic and geocentric coordinates for the
astronomical facilities on Cerro Tololo and Cerro Pach\'{o}n (\S4),
and intercompare the measurements and assess their accuracy (\S5). The
best estimates of the coordinates for the observatories are compiled
in Table \ref{tab:final}. The document was first written in mid-2012,
and a summary of revisions is provided after the bibliography.
\section{Background on Coordinate and Elevation Systems \label{background}}
Following the ISO 6709 standard, geodetic positions in this paper are
quoted as latitude ($\phi$), longitude ($\lambda$), and elevation
($H$) on the World Geodetic System 84 (WGS~84) coordinate frame,
unless otherwise noted. Elevations will be discussed later in this
section, as they require a more detailed explanation. North latitude
and east longitude are positive. Longitude 0$^{\circ}$ on the WGS~84
frame corresponds to the International Reference Meridian defined by
the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS),
which lies approximately 5'' ($\sim$100 m) east of the meridian at the
Royal Observatory in Greenwich. One degree ($^{\circ}$) of latitude
$\phi$ is 110.86 km, one minute ($^{'}$) is 1.85 km, and one second
($^{''}$) is 30.8 m. At the latitude of Cerro Tololo, one degree of
longitude $\lambda$ is 96.32 km, one minute ($^{'}$) is 1.61 km, one
second is 26.8 m.
Global Position System (GPS; also called NAVSTAR) is the well known
navigation system supported by a constellation of 24 orbiting
satellites launched by the U.S. Department of Defense
\citep[e.g.][]{GPS92}. Altitudes measured by GPS are referenced to a
gravitational equipotential surface that defines sea level: the World
Geodetic System 84 (WGS~84). According to a Department of Defense
publication tilted ``Military Standard for Department of Defense World
Geodetic System (WGS)''\footnote{Document MIL-STD-2401, dated 11~January~1994,
\href{http://earth-info.nga.mil/publications/specs/printed/2401/2401.pdf}{http://earth-info.nga.mil/publications/specs/printed/2401/2401.pdf}},
the WGS~84 provides ``{\it the basic reference frame (coordinate
system), geometric figure for the earth (ellipsoid), earth
gravitational model, and means to relate positions on various
geodetic datums and systems for DoD operations and applications.}''
The WGS~84 geometric figure is an oblate spheroid with radius at the
equator of 6378137 m, and a flattening of $f$ = 1/298.257223563 (with
a corresponding polar radius of approximately 6356752 m. While there
is a 1984 version of the geoid model, there have been later updates of
the Earth Gravitational Model (EGM; e.g. EGM96)\footnote{For further
details on WGS~84 and its minor alterations over the past decades,
see NIMA Technical Report TR8350.2, "Department of Defense World
Geodetic System 1984, Its Definition and Relationships With Local
Geodetic Systems", 3rd edition, Amendment 1 (3 Jan 2000):
\href{http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/tr8350.2/tr8350_2.html}{http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/tr8350.2/tr8350$\_$2.html}.}
-- indeed improving the resolution and accuracy of the geoid model is
a never-ending pursuit of the geodesy
community\footnote{\href{http://www.iag-aig.org/}{http://www.iag-aig.org/}}.
Quoted latitudes are usually {\it geodetic} ($\phi$), which measure
the angle between a normal at a position on a spheroid, and the
equatorial plane. Sometimes {\it geocentric} latitudes ($\phi^{'}$)
are quoted, measuring the angle between the line between the surface
position and the Earth's center, and the equatorial plane. Geodetic
and geocentric longitudes $\lambda$ are identical as they share the
same axis and reference meridian. Geodetic latitudes ($\phi$) and
geocentric latitudes ($\phi^{'}$) at Tololo and Pach\'{o}n differ by
$\sim$10'. Conversions for geodetic and geocentric coordinates can be
found in Sec. 4 of the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical
Almanac \citep{Seidelmann92}.
One can define {\it geodetic height} with respect to the reference
ellipsoid. Elevations are classically defined with respect to {\it
mean sea level}, however this does not follow the ellipsoid exactly
due to the local concentration of mass -- and of course defining sea
level on land is not trivial. Earth gravitational models (EGMs) are
mathematical approximations for the {\it geoid}, the Earth's
gravitational equipotential surface. The gravitational vector is
perpendicular to the geoid. The ocean's mean sea level roughly follows
the geoid, so one needs to define the geoid in order to quote
altitudes with respect to ``mean sea level'' on land, as is commonly
done. The geoid varies from the ellipsoid shape by deviations of up to
approximately $\pm$100 m. In reality, the geoid is a very complicated
and irregular surface following local concentrations of mass. In
practice, it is defined by high order spherical harmonic expansion
expressions. One commonly used EGM is Earth Gravitational Model 1996
(EGM96). This defines the geoid with a spherical harmonic series of
$n$ = 360 ($\sim$100 km resolution). There are three different
``heights'' of note: {\it geodetic height} ($h$), orthometric height
or {\it elevation} ($H$), and {\it geoid height} ($N$). They are
related as:
\begin{equation}
H = h - N
\end{equation}
i.e. the elevation $H$ is equal to the geodetic height $h$ minus the
geoid height $N$ \citep[measured with respect to the reference
ellipsoid; see Chapter 4 of][]{Seidelmann92}.
An online tool from
UNAVCO\footnote{\href{http://www.unavco.org/community_science/science-support/geoid/geoid.html}{http://www.unavco.org/community$\_$science/science-support/geoid/geoid.html}}
was used to estimate the geoid height $N$ on the EGM96 model for Cerro
Tololo and Cerro Pach\'{o}n. The mean geoid heights $N$ for Tololo and
Pach\'{o}n are approximately 34.6 and 35.0 meters, respectively.
Geoid heights at individual observatories will be tabulated at the end
of the paper. EGM96 geoid heights across both peaks vary at the
$<$0.1 m level from site to site. There are subtle differences in
geoid models as they have improved in accuracy and resolution over the
years. For example, at the position of the Blanco 4-m telescope, the
(EGM84, EGM96, and
EGM2008\footnote{\href{http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/wgs84/gravitymod/egm2008/index.html}{http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/wgs84/gravitymod/egm2008/
index.html}}\,\footnote{\href{http://geographiclib.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/GeoidEval}{http://geographiclib.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/GeoidEval}})
Earth gravitational models predict geoid heights $N$ = (31.41, 34.62,
33.31) meters. Hence, the definition of ``mean sea level'' under the
observatories has varied at the $\pm$few meter level over the past
decades. Throughout this paper, all geoid heights $N$ refer to the
EGM96 model, unless otherwise noted.
{\it To what degree are Cerro Tololo and Cerro Pach\'{o}n moving due
to plate tectonics?} While the common perception is that Chile is
moving westward with the South American tectonic plate, there are
surprisingly large variations in the plate motion in Chile. These
large variations are traced through time series GPS measurements of
ground stations in Chile maintained by the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory\footnote{\href{http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html}{http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html}}.
Generally, stations north of Santiago (Santiago, Valpara\'{i}so,
Copiap\'{o}, Iqueque) are moving {\it northeast} with respect to
WGS~84 at $\sim$30 mm/yr, while Chilean stations south of Santiago are
moving {\it northwest} at $\sim$90 mm/yr. Although I have been unable
to find accurate geodetic motions for Cerro Tololo and Cerro
Pach\'{o}n in particular, judging by the measurements for other
well-studied benchmarks in Chile, it is very likely that the peaks are
moving at $<$100 mm/yr, and most likely $<$30 mm/yr.
UNAVCO\footnote{\href{http://www.unavco.org/community$\_$science/science-support/crustal$\_$motion/dxdt/model.html}{http://www.unavco.org/community$\_$science/science-support/crustal$\_$motion/dxdt/model.html}}
provides a plate motion calculator (model GSRM v1.2) on their website,
and at Cerro Tololo's position, they predict that the South American
plate is moving with respect to the WGS~84 coordinate system at 9.24
mm/yr (9.17 mm/yr N, 1.10 mm/yr E) - however this velocity is
substantially smaller than those reported for northern Chile JPL
stations. Hence, over the five decade history of the observatory, the
site has very likely moved $<$5 m (and indeed the UNAVCO plate motion
calculator would predict only $\sim$0.5 m of motion over 50 years).
In summary, any deviations in the published positions for the
observatory larger than these amounts are unlikely to be attributable
to tectonic motion, especially on short timescales.
\section{Previous Coordinates and Elevations}
\subsection{Coordinates}
Past published positions for Cerro Tololo and Cerro Pach\'{o}n and
individual structures are listed in Table \ref{tab:old}. The
Astronomical Almanac \citep[AA; e.g.][]{AA2013} often listed positions
for individual telescopes at major observatories during the early
1980's, but only listed positions for 4 telescopes on Tololo in the
1982 edition: the Blanco 4-m reflector, the 1.5-m reflector, the 1-m
reflector, and the 24'' Curtis Schmidt telescope. These positions were
presumably adopted from the CTIO facilities manual
\citep[e.g.][]{Walker80}. The AA ceased listing positions for
individual telescopes at observatories after the mid-80's, and
provided only mean positions for observatories thereafter. Note that
the AA concedes that the observatory positions are a mix of geodetic
and astronomical values, and the type of position is not provided.
\begin{deluxetable*}{llllllllll}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Published Coordinates for
Cerro Tololo and Cerro Pach\'{o}n\label{tab:old}}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{ \colhead{Site} & \colhead{Ref.} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\phi$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\lambda$} & \colhead{Elev.} & \colhead{Notes}\\
\colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$\circ$} & \colhead{'} & \colhead{''} & \colhead{$\circ$} &
\colhead{'} & \colhead{''} & \colhead{(m)} & \colhead{}}
\startdata
Cerro Tololo & & & & & & & & & \\
\hline
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.166666667,-70.816666667}{CTIO} &\citet{Mayall68} & -30&10 &00 &-70&49 &00 & 2200 & $a$\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.164722222,-70.815000000}{CTIO} &\citet{Blanco72} & -30&09 &53$\pm$1.8 &-70&48 &54$\pm$3& ... & Astronomical, $b$\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.165555555,-70.804444444}{CTIO} &\citet{Harrington72}&-30&09&56 &-70&48 &16 & 2210 & Topographic Map,$c$\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.168944444,-70.805861111}{CTIO} &\citet{Walker80} & -30&10 &08.2$\pm$0.4 &-70&48&21.1$\pm$0.4& 2210 & Geodetic, $d$\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.168944444,-70.806666667}{CTIO} &AA 1975-1980 & -30&10&08.2 &-70&48 &24 & 2399 &\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.165277778,-70.815000000}{CTIO} &iraf & -30&09 &55 &-70&48 &54 & 2215 & $e$\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.165000000,-70.815000000}{CTIO} &AA 1983-2013 & -30&09 &54 &-70&48 &54 & 2215 &\\
CTIO &MPC(2012) & ...&...&... &-70&48 &21 & ... &\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.166055556,-70.814888889}{Blanco 4-m} &\citet{Walker80} & -30&09 &57.8 &-70&48 &53.6 & 2210 &\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.166055556,-70.814888889}{Blanco 4-m} &AA 1982 & -30&09 &57.8 &-70&48 &53.6 & 2235 &\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.166055556,-70.814888889}{Blanco 4-m} &\citet{Hubbard97}& -30&09 &57.8 &-70&48 &53.6 & 2235 &\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.165638888,-70.815138889}{SMARTS 1.5-m} &AA 1982 & -30&09 &56.3 &-70&48 &54.5 & 2225 &\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.165638888,-70.815138889}{SMARTS 1.5-m} &\citet{Walker80} & -30&09 &56.3 &-70&48 &54.5 & 2210 & Astronomical\\
SMARTS 1.3-m &MPC(2012) & ...&...&... &-70&48 &21 & ... & $f$\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.16522222,-70.814416667}{SMARTS 1.0-m} &\citet{Walker80} & -30&09 &54.8 &-70&48 &51.9 & 2210 & Astronomical\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.16522222,-70.814972222}{SMARTS 0.9-m} &\citet{Walker80} & -30&09 &54.8 &-70&48 &53.9 & 2210 & Astronomical\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.1689444444,-70.80586111}{Schmidt 0.6-m}&\citet{Harrington72} & -30&10 &08.2$\pm$0.4&-70&48 &21.1$\pm$0.4 & 2399$\pm$10 & {\bf Geodetic}, $g$\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.16541666667,-70.814638889}{Schmidt 0.6-m}&\citet{Harrington72} & -30&09 &55.5$\pm$1.4&-70&48 &52.7$\pm$2.0 & 2210 & {\bf Astronomical}, $g$\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.16704027778,-70.816224444}{Tololo ``O''} &AURA survey notes& -30&10 &01.345 &-70&48 &58.408 & 2211.60 & $h$\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.1724630333,-70.80004267778}{NASA Monument 7401}& NASA& -30&10 &20.86692 &-70&48 &00.15364& 2123.090 & Geodetic,$i$\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.167638889,-70.80538889}{PROMPT} &PROMPT website & -30&10 &03.50 &-70&48 &19.40 & ... &\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.16900000,-70.8040000}{LCOGT} &LCOGT website & -30&10 &08.4 &-70&48 &14.4 & 2200 & $j$\\
\hline
Cerro Pach\'{o}n & & & & & & & & &\\
\hline
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.22833333,-70.72333333333}{Gemini S.} &AA 2013 & -30&13 &42 &-70&43 &24 & 2725 &\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.22833333,-70.7233333333}{Gemini S.} &iraf & -30&13&42 &-70&43 &24 & 2737 &\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.24075000,-70.7366933333}{Gemini S.} &Gemini website & -30&14 &26.700&-70&44 &12.096 & 2722 & $k$\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.23333333,-70.7166666667}{Gemini S.} &\citet{Zombeck07}& -30&14 &... &-70&43 &... & 2715 &\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.17225000,-70.800027778}{LSST} &\citet{Ivezic08B,Ivezic08} & -30&10 &20.1 &-70&48 &00.1& 2123 &\\
LSST &LSST website & ...&...&... &...&...&... & 2647 & $l$\\
LSST Auxiliary &LSST website & ...&...&... &...&...&... & 2647 & $l$\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.23800,-70.73372222}{SOAR} &\citet{Simms05} & -30&14 &16.8 &-70&44 &01.4 & 2738 &\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.35000,-70.81666667}{SOAR} &\citet{Zombeck07}& -30&21 &... &-70&49 &... & 2701 &\\
SOAR &SOAR website & ...&...&... &...&...&... & 2701 & $m$\\
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.2370536111,-70.734554444}{Pach\'{o}n monument (near SOAR)}& AURA survey notes&-30&14&13.393&-70&44&04.396&2724.60
\enddata
\tablecomments{I list longitude as measured with east being positive,
following the 2013 Astronomical Almanac \citep{AA2013}. In the
first column, hyperlinks are provided to plot the coordinates
on Google Maps for comparison. Notes: ($a$) \citet{Mayall68}
position is quoted longitude as 4$^h$ 43$^m$ 16$^s$ W. ($b$)
\citet{Blanco72} geodetic position determined from observations of
GEOS B satellite with Curtis Schmidt telescope from
\citet{Harrington72} study. \citet{Blanco72} also lists the
\citet{Harrington72} astronomical coordinates. ($c$)
\citet{Harrington72} ``{\it approximate coordinates, taken from a
topographic sheet based on the 1924 International Reference
Ellipsoid and the 1956 Provisional South American Datum...}''.
($d$) \citet{Walker80} adopts the geodetic coordinates for the
Schmidt telescope from \citet{Harrington72}. ($e$) {\it iraf}
position in obsdb.dat files: see e.g.
\href{http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/iraf/rvsao/bcvcorr/obsdb.htm}{http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/iraf/rvsao/bcvcorr/obsdb.html}.
($f$) MPC longitude was listed as 289$^{\circ}$.1941, with
$\rho$cos($\phi$) = 0.86560 and $\rho$sin($\phi$) = -0.49980 (see
\href{http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/ObsCodes.html}{http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/ObsCodes.html}).
($g$) \citet{Harrington72} measured the astronomical position
through timing the transits of stars with SAO catalog
astrometry. They determined the geodetic position through measuring
and timing positions of the GOES-II satellite (which had a
well-determined orbit, and strobe lights which flashed sequences of
7$\times$ 1.4 ms pulses every 4 s). The geodetic height is ``above
ellipsoid'', (however {\it which} ellipsoid is not explicitly
mentioned (but given that the observations analyzed in 1971, it is
likely WGS 66). ($h$) ``O'' is Tololo Control survey monument SE of
Blanco 4-m. Values from AURA survey notes from Don Cassidy which
triangulated the position from Peralillo and Pach\'{o}n survey
markers using theodolite observations, tied to elevations determined
by Instituto Geographic Militar (IGM). ($i$) NASA website (Space
Geodesy Program):
\href{http://cddis.nasa.gov/site$\_$cat/cerr.html}{http://cddis.nasa.gov/site$\_$cat/cerr.html}.
($j$) LCOGT website:
\href{http://lcogt.net/site/cerro-tololo}{http://lcogt.net/site/cerro-tololo}.
($k$) Gemini website:
\href{http://www.gemini.edu/sciops/telescopes-and-sites/locations}{http://www.gemini.edu/sciops/telescopes-and-sites/locations}.
($l$) LSST website:
\href{http://www.lsst.org/lsst/science/summit_facilities}{http://www.lsst.org/lsst/science/summit$\_$facilities}.
($m$) SOAR website:
\href{http://www.soartelescope.org/about-soar/location-1}{http://www.soartelescope.org/about-soar/location-1.}}
\end{deluxetable*}
The Minor Planet Center (MPC)
lists\footnote{\href{http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/ObsCodesF.html}{http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/ObsCodesF.html}}
two observatory code entries for CTIO: \#807 (Cerro Tololo
Observatory, La Serena) and \#I02 (Cerro Tololo, La Serena--2MASS).
At the time of writing (16 July 2012), the MPC lists identical
longitudes $\lambda$, and parallax constants $\rho$cos$\phi$ and
$\rho$sin$\phi$ for these two codes: $\lambda$ = 289$^{\circ}$.1941
(degrees east of Greenwich), and $\rho$cos$\phi$ = 0.86560 and
$\rho$sin$\phi$ = -0.49980. ``$\phi$'' in this case is apparently
geocentric latitude, and should be labeled $\phi^{'}$ to distinguish
it from geodetic latitude $\phi$. From these last two quantities we
can calculate the parallax parameter $\rho$ to be 0.999532, and
latitude $\phi^{'}$ = -30$^{\circ}$.00228 = -30$^{\circ}$00'08''. This
is in good agreement with values derived later in this paper.
\subsection{1972 Harrington et al. Determination of Astronomical and
Geodetic Coordinates \label{1972}}
In an annual report, \citet{Blanco72} reported the following regarding
the coordinates for CTIO:\\
{\bf ``{\it A program to determine the precise geodetic and geographic
positions of Cerro Tololo was initiated by Dr. R. Harrington, U.S.
Naval Observatory, Washington D.C., and Dr. and Mrs. V. M. Blanco,
CTIO. Observations of the GEOS B satellite, which was flashed
especially for this purpose, were made with the Curtis Schmidt
telescope. The final reductions made at the Goddard Space Flight
Center yield the following geodetic position:
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.16894444,-70.805861111}{$\phi$
= -30$^{\circ}$ 10' 8''.2, $\lambda$ = W\,70$^{\circ}$ 48'
21''.1}. The geographic or astronomical position was determined
by the method of equal altitudes with data obtained from a series
of theodolite observations. The preliminary results are
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.164722222,-70.8150000}{$\phi$
= -30$^{\circ}$ 9' 53''\,$\pm$\,1''.8, $\lambda$ =
W\,70$^{\circ}$ 48' 54''\,$\pm$\,3''}. These figures suggest a
deflection of the vertical of approximately 39 arc sec in the
west-northwesterly direction, approximately perpendicular to the
orientation of the Andean Cordillera and the deep off-shore
Chile-Peru oceanic trench, which are the probable sources of the
deflection.''}}\\
Examination of the original \citet{Harrington72} study\footnote{ A
copy of the \citet{Harrington72} study proved exceedingly difficult
to find, but the NOAO North library has a copy. A scanned copy can
be downloaded at
\href{http://www.pas.rochester.edu/$\sim$emamajek/Harrington72.pdf}{http://www.pas.rochester.edu/$\sim$emamajek/Harrington72.pdf}.}
suggests a typo in the deflection of vertical measured. The
astronomical and geodetic coordinates for the Curtis Schmidt telescope
on Tololo are listed in Table \ref{tab:old}. \citet{Harrington72}
concluded:\\
{\bf {\it ``The astronomic coordinates of the Curtis Schmidt telescope
can be compared to the above geodetic coordinates to obtain the
deflection of the vertical. This deflection amounts to
30''.1\,$\pm$\,1''.7 towards an azimuth of
295$^{\circ}$\,$\pm$\,3$^{\circ}$, which corresponds to
approximately 930 meters on the ellipsoid surface.''}}\\
Hence, the source of the discrepancy between the Almanac and {\it
iraf} positions for CTIO and what one would measure with a GPS or on
Google Earth appears to be due to the difference in the {\it type} of
latitude and longitude being reported (i.e. astronomical vs.
geodetic). While the astronomical position is useful for calculating
transit times, it may not be the position desired for other
calculations (e.g. taking into account geocentric parallax,
occultation calculations, etc.).
\subsection{1973 Survey Elevations \label{1973survey}}
I list in Table \ref{tab:elev} elevations for the concrete platforms
for observatories on the Tololo plateau from a 1973 survey map from
the NOAO Engineering Department\footnote{Contains note ``Survey map
drawn by E.W. Ross, checked \& approved by Don Cassidy, Oct 12,
1971.''}. The concrete platforms for all of the observatories on the
Tololo plateau have elevations ranging from 2209.60 m (SMARTS/Yale
1.0-m) to 2210.50 m (Blanco 4-m), i.e. less than $\Delta$$H$ = 1.1 m
among them. The elevations quoted in the survey are tied to topography
from the ``Fuerza Aerea de Chile - Servicio Aeoro Fotogrametrico
(November 1964)'' and ``supplemented by plane table topography by AURA
October 1966.'' The topography of the Tololo plateau was tied to
elevations of neighboring peaks with coordinates provided by the IGM
(including Cerro Pach\'{o}n and Cerro Peralillo) via a primary survey
monument called "Tololo", "Tololo Control", or "O" on the old survey
maps (discussed further in \S\ref{Tololo_Monument}). The Tololo survey
monument was assigned elevation 2211.60 m above sea level. Separate
notes from this period list an elevation of 2724.60 m for an IGM
survey monument on Cerro Pach\'{o}n, however it is not clear whether
this monument corresponds to one of the modern day survey monuments on
Pach\'{o}n as the site has been developed considerably in the
intervening four decades.
\begin{deluxetable*}{llr}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Elevations for Observatory Platforms on 1973 Survey Map\label{tab:elev}}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Observatory} & \colhead{$H$} & \colhead{$\Delta$$H$}\\
\colhead{} & \colhead{(m)} & \colhead{(m)}
}
\startdata
Blanco 4-m (158'') & 2210.50 & -1.10\\
SMARTS 1.5-m (60'') & 2210.99 & -0.61\\
SMARTS 1.0-m (40'') & 2209.60 & -2.00\\
SMARTS 0.9-m (36'') & 2210.49 & -1.11\\
Curtis Schmidt 0.6-m (24'') & 2210.00 & -1.60\\
No. 1 16'' (later USNO) & 2210.31 & -1.29\\
No. 2 16'' (later CHASE) & 2209.65 & -1.95\\
\hline
Tololo Control survey monument & 2211.60 & 0.00
\enddata
\tablecomments{$H$ is elevation scale measured with respect to sea
level, tied to topography established by Fuerza Aerea de Chile -
Servicio Aero Fotogrametrico, and supplemented by plane table
topography measured by AURA. Later calculations show that the 1973
survey elevations appear to assume a geoid within a meter or so of
the EGM-84 model. $\Delta$$H$ is differential elevation with respect
to Tololo Control survey monument. The mean elevation of the 7
platforms is 2210.22 m. Their mean height on Google~Earth is 2202.7
m. Their mean height measured via GPS is 2217.6 m. }
\end{deluxetable*}
\subsection{2008 Survey Elevations \label{2008survey}}
In Figure \ref{fig:2008survey}, I show a scanned table from a 2008
survey of Cerro Tololo, Cerro Pach\'{o}n, and the neighboring peak
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.20539944444,-70.7963013138889}{Cerro
Morado} (S of Tololo, NW of Pach\'{o}n), completed by Juan Carlos
Aravena Godoy for AURA. Cerro Morado has a Instituto Geographico
Militar (IGM) survey monument with well determined geodetic
coordinates, which were provided to the surveyers by the Chilean Army
(highlighted in red in Fig. \ref{fig:2008survey}). The coordinates
are on the WGS~84 system (as adopted by SIRAS, the Sistema de
Referencia Geoc\'{e}ntrico para las Am\'{e}ricas), and elevations are
with respect to the GRS~80 ellipsoid. The difference in geocentric
radii between the GRS~80 and WGS~84 ellipsoids at the position of the
Blanco 4-m is 26 $\mu$m (i.e. 10$^{-4.6}$ m). Hence, for all
practical purposes, the differences between the GRS~80 ellipsoid
adopted by SIRGAS (used in Chilean surveying) and the WGS~84
ellipsoids, are completely negligible
\footnote{The only difference between the WGS~84 and GRS~80 reference
ellipsoid is due to the adopted flattening parameter ($f$) - in the
{\it 6th} decimal place. So throughout, it is safe to assume that
GRS~80 is equivalent to WGS~84. See also: NIMA Technical Report
TR8350.2, "Department of Defense World Geodetic System 1984, Its
Definition and Relationships With Local Geodetic Systems", 3rd
edition, Amendment 1 (3 Jan 2000):
\href{http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/tr8350.2/tr8350_2.html}{http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/tr8350.2/tr8350$\_$2.html}.}.
The 2008 survey also measured positions for 4 survey monuments near
the
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.1690556,-70.8062861}{Schmidt}
telescope on the Tololo plateau. The elevations ranged from 2241.175
to 2241.767 m, i.e. $\Delta H$ = 0.652\,m, and $\bar{H}$ = 2241.430\,m
(elevations are with respect to the GRS~80 ellipsoid). This is
probably representative of the GRS~80 heights of the concrete
platforms for the observatories on the Tololo plateau. The 1970s-era
survey notes also list elevations for 4 pins distributed around the
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.1690556,-70.8062861}{Schmidt}
telescope, with elevations ranging from 2209.333 to 2209.985 m
($\Delta H$ = 0.592\,m; $\bar{H}$ = 2209.650\,m), and given the
description and close agreement in spread of elevations, these are
likely to be the same pins as measured in the 2008 survey. Both the
Tololo Control and Schmidt survey monument measurements indicate that
the 1973 survey maps can be converted to be geodetic heights with
respect to the GRS~80 ($\approx$WGS~84) ellipsoid by adding
$\sim$31\,m. This difference is not far from the geoid undulations
predicted for Tololo's position in recent EGM models (\S 5.2.2).
These numbers seem to confirm that the 2008 survey elevations have not
subtracted off geoid undulation, and they are simply with respect to
the GRS~80 ellipsoid (hence, they are likely to have non-zero
elevations at mean sea level).
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{Juan_Carlos_Aravena_Godoy_Survey_2008.jpg}
\caption{Geodetic positions for survey monuments on Cerro Tololo, Pach\'{o}n, and Morado,
from a report completed by Juan Carlos Aravena Godoy for AURA dated 28 October 2008.
The coordinates are on the WGS~84 system (as adopted by SIRAS, the Sistema de Referencia
Geoc\'{e}ntrico para las Am\'{e}ricas), and elevations are with geodetic heights $h$
respect to the GRS~80
ellipsoid (i.e. not ``mean sea level'', since no geoid has been subtracted). Measurements
were taken via theodolite observations anchored to the Cerro Morado geodetic position (epoch 2002.0)
provided by the Wilfredo Rubio Dias, Depto.
de Datos y C\'{a}lculo, Instituto Geographico Militar, Ejerctio de
Chile (dated 23 Oct 2008). Pins ED-1 through ED-4 appear to correspond to positions
near the Schmidt telescope on Tololo.
\label{fig:2008survey}}
\end{figure}
\section{Measurements}
{\it GPS (Garmin):} Positions were measured with a Garmin brand Dakota
20 GPS\footnote{Courtesy of Michael Warner (CTIO).}, shown in Figure
\ref{GPS}. This GPS was set to update at 1 second intervals, quoted
positions to 0''.1 precision and elevations to 1 m precision, and
provided a regularly updated estimate of the position accuracy.
Typical quoted accuracy in a 1 sec interval ranged from as good as 3 m
(with unobstructed view and several satellites acquired), and at times
as bad as 20 m, close to the
advertised\footnote{\href{http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/}{http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/}}
mean accuracy of $\sim$15 m.
Measurements were taken in different modes. As the GPS would not
operate inside of domes due to obstructed view, I typically took two
sequences of measurements at four corners of a given structure, and
averaged the results. For assymetric structures (e.g. Gemini, SOAR), I
did some simple interpolation to estimate the central position. The
GPS positions were very repeatable at the $\pm$0.1'' level (only very
rarely would subsequent measurements taken minutes apart differ by
0.2''). Measurements were either taken (1) with the device sitting on
the flat cement platforms outside of the domes, or the ground if there
was no platform, or (2) with the device held in the hand,
approximately 1 meter above the ground. None of the elevation
measurements taken in this manner are quoted to better than 1 m
precision. For GPS measurements of geodetic benchmarks and observatory
sites currently lacking enclosures (e.g. KASI and T80-S), the GPS
device was left sitting on the ground at the position, and coordinates
were saved at 1 s or 5 s intervals for extended periods of time to the
GPS's memory. As the GPS would often read out precisely the same
coordinates for several seconds on end (then jump small amounts,
presumably due to acquiring and losing individual satellites), it was
decided to measure statistical moments only on {\it unique} coordinate
sets in the time series data. Especially long time series measurements
were made of the benchmarks next to the SMARTS 1.5-m and NASA geodesy
benchmark next to the SARA (former Lowell 24'') telescope.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{Garmin_1_5mBenchmark.jpg}
\caption{The Garmin Dakota 20 GPS unit used in this study, sitting next
to the benchmark adjacent to the southwest corner of the concrete platform
for the SMARTS 1.5-m telescope.
\label{GPS}}
\end{figure}
{\it GPS (iPhone):} Auxiliary GPS measurements were made with an
iPhone 3s using Entel phone service, and using the application {\it
Compass}. The iPhone measurements suffered two major limitations:
sparse network coverage on the mountains, and the latitudes and
longitudes were listed at 1'' precision. Elevation estimates were
also made using the iPhone application {\it Current
Elevation}\footnote{\href{http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/current-elevation/id429847648}{http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/current-elevation/id429847648}}.
As the quoted positions were at lower precision than those provided by
the Garmin GPS, and far fewer measurements were taken with the iPhone,
I will not list these measurements. They do provide a consistency
check on the Garmin GPS results, and indeed the iPhone coordinates
appeared consistent with the Garmin results at the $\sim$1'' level,
when available.
{\it Google Earth:} I used Google Earth 5.1 downloaded from the Google
website\footnote{\href{http://www.google.com/earth/index.html}{http://www.google.com/earth/index.html}}
and installed on a MacBook Pro running Mac OS X 10.6.8. Google Earth
is a ``virtual globe'' that superposes satellite imagery over digital
elevation model (DEM) data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
(SRTM). SRTM was a dual radar system that flew on Space Shuttle
Endeavour in February 2000, producing a high resolution elevation
model, and was a project lead by the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency (NGA) and NASA \citep{Farr07}. SRTM elevation data are on the
WGS~84 coordinate system, adopt the EGM96 vertical datum (geoid), and
for Chile the spatial resolution is 3'' ($\sim$100 m). Hence, the
Google Earth data from SRTM suffers from low resolution which may miss
fine structure, and any leveling of sites over the past decade (e.g.
LSST sites). Google Earth images of Cerro Tololo and Cerro Pach\'{o}n
are shown in Figures \ref{Tololo} and \ref{Pachon}, respectively, with
observatories and survey monuments marked.
\begin{figure*}[htp!]
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{GoogleEarthTololo.jpg}
\caption{Google Earth imagery of Cerro Tololo with observatories and
survey monuments marked.
\label{Tololo}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htp!]
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{GoogleEarthPachon.jpg}
\caption{Google Earth imagery of Cerro Pach\'{o}n with observatories
and buildings marked.
\label{Pachon}}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
Individual determinations of the geodetic positions for the
observatories on Cerro Tololo and Cerro Pach\'{o}n are tabulated in Table
\ref{tab:Tololo}. Additional measurements for other facilities on the
two peaks are tabulated in Table \ref{tab:other}.
\begin{deluxetable*}{lllllllll}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Measured Geodetic Positions\label{tab:Tololo}}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Site} & \colhead{Method} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\phi$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\lambda$} & \colhead{$H$}\\
\colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$\circ$} & \colhead{'} & \colhead{''} & \colhead{$\circ$} & \colhead{'} & \colhead{''} & \colhead{(m)}
}
\startdata
\hline
Blanco 4-m & GPS & -30 & 10 & 10.73 & -70 & 48 & 23.52 & 2213\\
(fmr. 150'' or 158'') & GE & -30 & 10 & 10.73 & -70 & 48 & 23.32 & 2204\\
\hline
SMARTS 1.5-m & GPS & -30 & 10 & 09.53 & -70 & 48 & 24.49 & 2218\\
(former 60'') & GE & -30 & 10 & 09.20 & -70 & 48 & 24.24 & 2208\\
\hline
SMARTS 1.0-m & GPS & -30 & 10 & 07.94 & -70 & 48 & 21.82 & 2217\\
(former Yale 40'') & GE & -30 & 10 & 07.79 & -70 & 48 & 21.69 & 2201\\
\hline
SMARTS 0.9-m & GPS & -30 & 10 & 08.00 & -70 & 48 & 23.90 & 2217\\
(former 36'') & GE & -30 & 10 & 07.69 & -70 & 48 & 23.67 & 2203\\
\hline
Curtis Schmidt 0.6-m & GPS & -30 & 10 & 08.59 & -70 & 48 & 22.62 & 2219\\
(former 24'') & GE & -30 & 10 & 08.50 & -70 & 48 & 22.49 & 2207\\
\hline
Former UCAC & GPS & -30 & 10 & 06.93 & -70 & 48 & 22.85 & 2222\\
(former 16'' \#1) & GE & -30 & 10 & 06.87 & -70 & 48 & 22.65 & 2200\\
\hline
Former CHASE & GPS & -30 & 10 & 06.99 & -70 & 48 & 21.71 & 2217\\
(former 16'' \#2, MMWT) & GE & -30 & 10 & 06.84 & -70 & 48 & 21.44 & 2196\\
\hline
RASICAM & GPS & -30 & 10 & 07.99 & -70 & 48 & 25.10 & 2214\\
... & GE & -30 & 10 & 07.96 & -70 & 48 & 24.97 & 2200\\
\hline
WHAM & GPS & -30 & 10 & 05.84 & -70 & 48 & 12.79 & 2159\\
... & GE & -30 & 10 & 05.89 & -70 & 48 & 12.77 & 2154\\
\hline
KASI & GPS & -30 & 10 & 01.84 & -70 & 48 & 14.39 & 2157\\
... & GE & ... & ...& ... & ... & ...& ... & 2140$^a$\\
\hline
LCOGT Stellan-A & GPS & -30 & 10 & 02.67 & -70 & 48 & 17.33 & 2170\\
... & GE & -30 & 10 & 02.38 & -70 & 48 & 17.00 & 2146\\
\hline
LCOGT Stellan-B & GPS & -30 & 10 & 02.48 & -70 & 48 & 16.90 & 2170\\
... & GE & -30 & 10 & 02.20 & -70 & 48 & 16.52 & 2144\\
\hline
LCOGT Stellan-C & GPS & -30 & 10 & 02.87 & -70 & 48 & 16.93 & 2170\\
... & GE & -30 & 10 & 02.65 & -70 & 48 & 16.63 & 2151\\
\hline
SMARTS 1.3-m & GPS & -30 & 10 & 02.84 & -70 & 48 & 18.01 & 2170\\
... & GE & -30 & 10 & 02.67 & -70 & 48 & 17.68 & 2151\\
\hline
PROMPT \#1 & GE & -30 & 10 & 03.42 & -70 & 48 & 18.77 & 2162\\
\hline
PROMPT \#2 & GE & -30 & 10 & 03.39 & -70 & 48 & 19.42 & 2161\\
\hline
PROMPT \#3 & GE & -30 & 10 & 03.07 & -70 & 48 & 18.71 & 2157\\
\hline
PROMPT \#4 & GPS & -30 & 10 & 03.59 & -70 & 48 & 19.40 & 2178\\
... & GE & -30 & 10 & 03.42 & -70 & 48 & 19.09 & 2162\\
\hline
PROMPT \#5 & GE & -30 & 10 & 03.06 & -70 & 48 & 19.02 & 2156\\
\hline
PROMPT \#6 & GE & -30 & 10 & 03.72 & -70 & 48 & 18.82 & 2166\\
\hline
PROMPT \#7 & GPS & -30 & 10 & 04.38 & -70 & 48 & 19.34 & 2179\\
... & GE & -30 & 10 & 04.17 & -70 & 48 & 19.23 & 2172\\
\hline
GONG & GPS & -30 & 10 & 03.98 & -70 & 48 & 19.89 & 2184\\
... & GE & -30 & 10 & 03.75 & -70 & 48 & 19.64 & 2167\\
\hline
SSI Airglow & GPS & -30 & 10 & 05.35 & -70 & 48 & 19.55 & 2183\\
... & GE & -30 & 10 & 05.11 & -70 & 48 & 19.43 & 2178\\
\hline
SARA South 0.6-m & GPS & -30 & 10 & 19.73 & -70 & 47 & 57.11 & 2123\\
(Lowell 24'') & GE & -30 & 10 & 19.61 & -70 & 47 & 57.00 & 2112\\
\hline
T80-South (site) & GPS & -30 & 10 & 04.31 & -70 & 48 & 20.48 & 2187\\
... & GE & ... & ... & ... & ... & ...& ... & 2175$^a$\\
\hline
Gemini South & GPS & -30 & 14 & 26.54 & -70 & 44 & 12.13 & 2722\\
... & GE & -30 & 14 & 26.70 & -70 & 44 & 11.84 & 2711\\
\hline
SOAR & GPS & -30 & 14 & 16.21 & -70 & 44 & 00.84 & 2712\\
... & GE & -30 & 14 & 16.51 & -70 & 44 & 01.24 & 2688\\
\hline
LSST 8.4-m (site) & GPS & -30 & 14 & 40.68 & -70 & 44 & 57.90 & 2652 \\
... & GE & ... & ... & ... & ... & ...& ... & 2633$^a$\\
\hline
LSST Auxiliary 1.4-m (site) & GPS & -30 & 14 & 41.27 & -70 & 44 & 51.80 & 2652\\
... & GE & ... & ... & ... & ... & ...& ... & 2627$^a$\\
\hline
Andes LIDAR Obs. (ALO) & GPS & -30 & 15 & 06.39 & -70 & 44 & 17.48 & 2519\\
... & GE & -30 & 15 & 06.24 & -70 & 44 & 17.37 & 2522
\enddata
\tablecomments{GPS = Global Positioning System, measured using Garmin
Dakota 20 unit. GE = Google Earth (26 March 2011 image of Tololo, 11
Apr 2011 image of Pach\'{o}n). Geodetic latitude $\phi$, longitude
$\lambda$ on WGS~84 system. Elevation $H$ is orthometric height with
respect to geoid. Google~Earth adopts the EGM96 geoid, however the
adopted geoid used by the Dakota~20 GPS is ambiguous. The KASI,
T80-S, LSST, and LSST Support sites were undeveloped at the time of
the latest Google Earth images (hence no coordinates could be
determined visually). $a$ = Google Earth elevation at the GPS
position for this facility. The LSST and LSST Auxiliary sites were
unleveled during the time ($\sim$2000) of the SRTM elevation mapping
used by Google~Earth, so are not reliable.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{deluxetable*}{llllllllll}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Measured Geodetic Positions for Other Landmarks\label{tab:other}}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Site} & \colhead{Method} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\phi$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\lambda$} & \colhead{$H$}\\
\colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$\circ$} & \colhead{'} & \colhead{''} & \colhead{$\circ$} & \colhead{'} & \colhead{''} & \colhead{(m)}
}
\startdata
\hline
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.172477500,-70.800026667}{NASA Monument 7401} & GPS & -30 & 10 & 20.919 & -70 & 48 & 00.096 & 2124.1\\
(Site 892, W of SARA) & GE & -30 & 10 & 20.90 & -70 & 48 & 00.01 & 2124\\
\hline
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.169377778,-70.806925000}{Monument (SW of 1.5-m)} & GPS & -30 & 10 & 09.76 & -70 & 48 & 24.93 & 2214.0\\
... & GE & -30 & 10 & 09.67 & -70 & 48 & 24.78 & 2206\\
\hline
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.1699305556,-70.806458333}{Tololo Control Monument} & GPS & -30 & 10 & 11.75 & -70 & 48 & 23.25 & 2222\\
(SE of Blanco) & GE & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & 2201\\
\hline
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.168863888,-70.802647222}{Round Office Building} & GPS & -30 & 10 & 07.91 & -70 & 48 & 09.53 & 2158\\
(Tololo) & GE & -30 & 10 & 07.83 & -70 & 48 & 09.40 & 2151\\
\hline
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.251216667,-70.7391111}{AURA 20 Unit Dormitory} & GPS & -30 & 15 & 04.38 & -70 & 44 & 20.80 & 2502\\
(Pach\'{o}n) & GE & -30 & 15 & 04.34 & -70 & 44 & 20.75 & 2506\\
\hline
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.252094444,-70.73990000}{New Dormitory} & GPS & -30 & 15 & 07.54 & -70 & 44 & 23.64 & 2503\\
(Pach\'{o}n) & GE & -30 & 15 & 07.64 & -70 & 44 & 23.80 & 2503\\
\hline
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.252016667,-70.7400027778}{New Dining Building} & GPS & -30 & 15 & 07.26 & -70 & 44 & 24.01 & 2503\\
(Pach\'{o}n) & GE & -30 & 15 & 07.22 & -70 & 44 & 23.97 & 2500\\
\hline
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.241458333,-70.73826667}{Old Dining Building} & GPS & -30 & 14 & 29.25 & -70 & 44 & 17.76 & 2699\\
(Pach\'{o}n) & GE & -30 & 14 & 29.28 & -70 & 44 & 17.90 & 2692\\
\hline
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.2412916667,-70.73826667}{Communications Hut} & GPS & -30 & 14 & 28.65 & -70 & 44 & 17.76 & 2702\\
(Pach\'{o}n) & GE & -30 & 14 & 28.69 & -70 & 44 & 17.80 & 2692\\
\hline
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-29.917019444,-71.241947222}{CTIO Office Entrance} & GPS & -29 & 55 & 01.27 & -71 & 14 & 31.01 & 97\\
(La Serena) & GE & -29 & 55 & 01.37 & -71 & 14 & 30.97 & 90\\
\hline
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-29.916527778,-71.2417527778}{Gemini Office Entrance} & GPS & -29 & 54 & 59.50 & -71 & 14 & 30.31 & 97\\
(La Serena) & GE & -29 & 54 & 59.65 & -71 & 14 & 30.44 & 94\\
\hline
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-29.91732058,-71.24217972}{SOAR Office Entrance} & GPS & -29 & 55 & 02.35 & -71 & 14 & 31.85 & 97\\
(La Serena) & GE & -29 & 55 & 02.38 & -71 & 14 & 31.21 & 88
\enddata
\tablecomments{GPS = Global Positioning System, measured using Garmin
Dakota 20 unit. GE = Google Earth. Geodetic latitude $\phi$,
longitude $\lambda$ on WGS~84 system. Elevation $H$ is orthometric
height with respect to geoid.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\subsection{Comparison of Google~Earth to GPS \label{comparison}}
For approximately 30 structures (observatories, buildings, and
monuments) on Cerro Tololo and Cerro Pach\'{o}n for which I measured both
positions via GPS and Google~Earth (GE), I find the following offsets
in geodetic latitude $\phi$ and longitude $\lambda$:
\begin{equation}
\phi_{GE}\,-\,\phi_{GPS}\,=\,-0".10\,\pm\,0".03\,({\rm rms} = 0".14)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{GE}\,-\,\lambda_{GPS}\,=\,-0".14\,\pm\,0".02\,({\rm rms} = 0".14)
\end{equation}
in units of length, this translates to:
\begin{equation}
\phi_{GE}\,-\,\phi_{GPS}\,=\,-3.1\,\pm\,1.0\,({\rm rms} = 4.3)~{\rm m}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{GE}\,-\,\lambda_{GPS}\,=\,-3.8\,\pm\,0.6\,({\rm rms} = 3.8)~{\rm m}
\end{equation}
When comparing Google Earth imagery at different epochs, systematic
shifts in latitude and longitude are visible. Repeated measurements
of the position for the NASA geodetic monument (just west of the SARA
South observatory) on Google~Earth at different dates (27 Feb 2006, 3
Apr 2010, 26 Mar 2011) show systematic epoch-to-epoch shifts at the
$\pm$0''.08-0''.13 level. Hence, for the purposes of deriving ``best''
geodetic positions, I correct the Google~Earth positions to take into
account their systematic difference with respect to GPS positions.
\subsection{NASA Geodetic Monument \label{NASA_Monument}}
The NASA Crustal Dynamics Project established a cluster of observing
monuments near the SARA South Observatory (former Lowell 24'') for
satellite laser ranging measurements \citep[the technique is discussed
in e.g.][]{Tapley85}. The monuments are collectively referred to as
``site number 892''\footnote{Data is provided at the website
\href{http://cddis.nasa.gov/site$\_$cat/cerr.html}{http://cddis.nasa.gov/site$\_$cat/cerr.html}
maintained by the Space Geodesy and Altimetry Projects Office
(SGAPO), edited by Mark Bryant and Carey Noll, dated March 1993.},
but the primary monument is labeled number 7401, and it occasionally
appears by this number in the geodesy literature. The monument disk is
about a meter north of the center of a 25 foot square pad easily
visible on Google Earth (and easily visible just south of the SARA
telescope access road), and shown in Figure \ref{NASA7401}. The site
hosted three campaigns using Transportable Laser Ranging Systems
(TLRS) between 1984 and 1991 \citep[the program is discussed
in][]{Allenby84}, taking range measurements to the Laser Geodynamics
Satellite (LAGEOS). Precise geodetic coordinates for monument 7401
are provided in the SGAPO online archives as
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.172463033333,-70.800042677778}{latitude
south 30$^{\circ}$ 10' 20.86692'', longitude west 70$^{\circ}$ 48'
00.15364''}, elevation 2123.090 m, height above ellipsoid 2155.748 m
(dated 23 April 1990). The quoted ellipsoid assumed an equatorial
radius of 6378137 m and flattening f = 1/298.255, i.e. an identical
radius, but slightly different flattening compared to WGS~84.
The monument provides a useful check on the types of ``elevations''
that are being reported. Both GPS and Google~Earth measured an
elevation of 2124 m for the NASA monument, i.e. only 1 m above the
NASA geodetic value. This measurement alone is strongly suggestive
that both the GPS and Google~Earth measurements take into account a
geoid model, and are not simply measured from the WGS~84 reference
ellipsoid. Unfortunately, the agreement between the GPS and
Google~Earth elevations for the monument does not provide a useful
explanation for the $\sim$11 m systematic offset between the two as
inferred from averages of elevation measures for $\sim$30 other sites.
The source of the discrepancy at other sites is unclear. Is standing
next to buildings biasing the GPS elevations? Is small scale elevation
structure not taken into account by the smoothed SRTM elevation data
affecting the Google Earth elevations?
Preliminary estimates of the motion of monument 7401 were reported in
\citet{Smith94}, however the errors were large. The measured motion
during 1984-1991 was 35.9 mm/yr towards azimuth angle 30$^{\circ}$,
however the error ellipsoid was 24.0 mm/yr $\times$ 10.7 mm/yr with
the long axis oriented towards azimuth angle -5$^{\circ}$. Hence, the
measured motion was statistically negligible. The NASA geodetic
coordinates are valuable, however, as they provide not only a
well-calibrated position for comparison with the GPS and Google Earth
positions, but a potential first epoch for estimating the motion of
Cerro Tololo with respect to the WGS~84 terrestrial coordinate system.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{NASA_Monument7401.jpg}
\caption{Platform for monument 7401 (site \#892) situated just west of the
SARA South Observatory (former Lowell 24''). The benchmark was
built for the NASA Crustal Dynamics Project in the early 1980's, and
satellite laser ranging measurements were taken here between
1984 and 1991. The actual benchmark is marked by a metal disk within
the central dark square on the platform. Several auxiliary benchmarks
labeled with 7401 and letters are visible scattered across the platform.
The SARA South Observatory lies to the right of the image down the
service road that the car is parked on.
\label{NASA7401}}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Tololo Control Monument \label{Tololo_Monument}}
A survey monument called
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.1699303333,-70.8064641388889}{``Tololo'',
``Tololo Control'', or ``O''} on the 1960s/1970s-era notes and
survey maps of Cerro Tololo lies just southeast of the Blanco 4-m dome
structure, just outside of the guard rail girding the gravel (see Fig.
\ref{TololoMonument}). In Table \ref{tab:TololoControl}, I list
several estimates of the elevation of the
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.1699303333,-70.8064641388889}{Tololo
Control survey monument}. An elevation of 2211.60 m above sea level
is listed on a surveying note from the Kitt Peak National Observatory
Engineering Dept. This benchmark was used in conjunction with
monuments on other nearby peaks (Pach\'{o}n, Morado, etc.) for tying
in the position of Tololo with the cartographic grid used by the
Instituto Geographico Militar de Chile and Chilean Air Force in the
1960s (the Chile Plane Coordinate System)\footnote{The monument disk
states ``Instituto Geographico Militar de Chile - destruccion penada
por la ley''.}. The elevation of this monument defined the elevation
scale for other structures built on the Tololo plateau, as marked in
the 1973 survey map (see Table \ref{tab:elev}). GPS measurement of
the elevation of the
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.1699303333,-70.8064641388889}{Tololo
monument} yielded 2222 m. The 2008 survey discussed in
\S\ref{2008survey} measured a geodetic elevation of 2242.493 m with
respect to the GRS~80 ellipsoid (which is within tens of micrometers
of the WGS~84 ellipsoid). The monument is not obvious on Google~Earth
imagery, however the elevation in the vicinity of the monument is 2201
m.
\begin{deluxetable*}{lllll}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Elevations for Tololo Control Monument\label{tab:TololoControl}}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Source} & \colhead{Elevation} & \colhead{Notes}\\
\colhead{} & \colhead{(m)} & \colhead{}}
\startdata
1973 survey & 2211.60\,m & ``mean sea level'' \\
{\bf 2008 survey} & {\bf 2242.493\,m} & w/r GRS~80 ellipsoid (no geoid)\\
Google Earth & 2201\,m & w/r WGS~84 ellipsoid + EGM96 geoid\\
GPS & 2222\,m & w/r WGS~84 ellipsoid + unknown geoid
\enddata
\end{deluxetable*}
\vspace{0.5cm}
The 2008 survey measurement for the Tololo Control survey marker is
the most accurate WGS~84 coordinate position, and fortunately its
datum is unambiguous (GRS~80 $\approx$ WGS~84). The GPS elevation is
20\,m lower than the 2008 geodetic survey elevation. The Google~Earth
elevation is $\sim$10 m lower yet, however Google~Earth measures
elevations with respect to the EGM-96 geoid, which accounts for most
of the $\sim$41\,m discrepancy. The level of disagreement among the
elevations is somewhat surprising, however, given the good agreement
for the elevations measured for the NASA monument near the SARA South
observatory.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{TololoBenchmark.jpg}
\caption{``Tololo Control'' survey monument on the Cerro Tololo peak,
just southeast of the Blanco 4-m telescope. This was the primary
benchmark for Tololo in the surveys of the mid-1960s, and its
elevation is within $\sim$1-2 m of the platforms for all of the
telescopes on the Tololo plateau. The 2008 survey by Juan Carlos
Aravena Godoy estimated a geodetic position of $\phi$ =
-30$^{\circ}$10'11.7492'', $\lambda$ = -70$^{\circ}$48'23.2709'' at
elevation 2242.493\,m above the GRS~80 ellipsoid (i.e. not taking
into account a geoid model, not with respect to mean sea level).
\label{TololoMonument}}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Treatment of Elevation Data}
Multiple series of GPS measurements were taken of a few sites on
different days. From comparing average GPS elevation measurements
taken on different days, it is clear that significant systematic
errors in the GPS elevations are present at the $\pm$5 m rms level
(presumably from having data from different satellites participate in
the solution). This precludes using the standard error of the mean
for measurements taken during a short interval on a given day as a
useful measure of the uncertainties.
Inter-comparison of the GPS and Google~Earth elevations reveals a
systematic offset:
\begin{equation}
<H_{Google} - H_{GPS}> = -11.5\,\pm\,2.0~{\rm m}
\end{equation}
The rms scatter was $\pm$8.6 meters. The source of the discrepancy is
unclear. Two likely possibilities are that either (1) the 3''
resolution of the Google Earth elevation data from SRTM has smoothed
over the high elevation points (where many of the telescopes are
located), or (2) there may be a difference in the geoid adopted in the
GPS calculations and that used by Google Earth (EGM96). Both the GPS
and Google~Earth elevations are clearly limited in their accuracy.
The GPS measurements often have epoch-to-epoch jumps and the datum is
ambiguous (at the time of writing, there is conflicting literature on
the web regarding this; whether Garmin GPSs measure with respect to
the ellipsoid, or whether they include a geoid model). The Google
Earth maps have excellent imagery resolution, but the elevation maps
are limited to the SRTM resolution ($\sim$3''). Unfortunately,
elevations taken both with the handheld GPS unit and via Google Earth
must both be taken with a grain of salt. The best elevations that we
have available are those from the 2008 survey and those for a NASA
geodetic monument.
For useful comparison of the elevations, it was decided to place all
measurements on the same elevation system defined by the 2008
theodolite survey (which includes very accurate elevations measured
with respect to the GRS~80 [$\approx$WGS~84] ellipsoid). Through
inter-comparison of the measured elevations, I decided to correct GPS,
Google Earth, and 1973 survey elevations to the geodetic elevation
system defined by the 2008 survey (close enough to WGS~84 to be
practically considered WGS~84):
\begin{equation}
h_{WGS~84}~\simeq~H_{GPS} + (28\,\pm\,3)~{\rm m}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
h_{WGS~84}~\simeq~H_{Google~Earth} + N(EGM96)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
h_{WGS~84}~\simeq~H_{1973~Survey} + (31.3\,\pm\,0.4)~{\rm m}
\end{equation}
The difference between the Google~Earth elevations and the 2008 survey
geodetic heights $h$ are close enough to the EGM-96 geoid undulations
$N$ (38\,$\pm$\,3 m; see actual EGM-96 $N$ values in Table 6), that
they appear to provide useful elevations $H$. The difference between
the GPS elevations and 2008 survey heights do not appear to correspond
to either zero (if the GPS elevations were actually geodetic heights),
or any of the widely used geoid undulations. Hence, I simply add a
constant to the GPS elevations and place them on the WGS~84 geodetic
height scale. The difference between the 2008 survey geodetic heights
and the 1973 survey elevations (31.3 m) is remarkably similar to the
geoid undulation heights (\S2; especially for the WGS~84 ellipsoid),
suggesting that the zero point for the 1973 survey elevations is
indeed within a few meters of recent geoid models.
\section{Conclusions}
Best estimates for the geodetic and geocentric positions of the
observatories on Cerro Tololo and Cerro Pach\'{o}n are listed in Table
\ref{tab:final}. Final elevations taking into account the offsets in
elevations discussed in the last section are also included, along
with geoid undulation heights $N$ based on the EGM-96 model.
It appears that using Google Earth one can derive geodetic WGS~84
coordinates for observatories and structures to approximately
$\pm$0''.15 (5~m) accuracy in latitude and longitude without resorting
to more accurate techniques (i.e. GPS, surveying). Google~Earth shows
systematic shifts in position between imagery epochs at the
$\sim$$\pm$0''.1 level ($\sim$3~m). Positions measured on the most
recent Google~Earth imagery of Cerro Tololo and Pach\'{o}n reveal slight
systematic offsets with respect to GPS-derived positions at the
$\pm$0''.1 (3~m) level, which can be corrected for if necessary. The
rms scatter in positions derived via GPS and Google~Earth is
approximately 0''.14 (4~m). Treating the GPS and Google~Earth
positions as independent estimates, and correcting the Google~Earth
positions for small systematic differences at the 0''.1 (3~m) level,
one can derive final mean positions for structures on Cerro Tololo and
Pach\'{o}n with absolute accuracy $\pm$0''.1 (3~m). One can obviously do
better if needed through long integrations of GPS determinations, or
theodolite observations tied to monuments with well-constrained
geodetic positions, however this would obviously require more time and
money (which always seem to be in short supply).
While {\it astronomical} coordinates have not been determined for all
of the observatories on Cerro Tololo and Cerro Pach\'{o}n (an arduous
task), one can derive approximate astronomical coordinates by adding
an offset derived from Harrington et al.'s (1972) observations:
\begin{equation}
\phi_{astronomical}~-~\phi_{geodetic}~\simeq\,12".7\,\pm\,1".5
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{astronomical}~-~\lambda_{geodetic}~\simeq\,-31".6\,\pm\,2".0
\end{equation}
However this is only a rough approximation as no doubt the vertical
deflection due to the gravity field varies subtly over the two peaks.
Besides the obvious (and explainable) disagreement between the
geodetic and astronomical positions for Cerro Tololo (\S\ref{1972}),
there was at least one other surprise in comparing the final positions
in Table \ref{tab:final} with the previously published positions in
Table \ref{tab:old}. An often quoted
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.17225000,-70.800027778}{position
for LSST} listed in two recent LSST documents
\citep{Ivezic08B,Ivezic08} appears to be in error by 9.4 km
($\Delta$$\phi$ = 260".6, $\Delta$$\lambda$ = 60.0''), and by
$\sim$500 m in elevation (2123 m listed vs. $\sim$2600 m
measured). The position listed in \citet{Ivezic08B} and
\citet{Ivezic08} appears to correspond most closely to the
\href{https://maps.google.com/maps?&z=18&q=-30.1724630333,-70.80004267778}{NASA
survey monument on Cerro {\it Tololo}} (rather than Pach\'{o}n).
The position for the LCOGT observatories on Tololo on the LCOGT
website appear to be in error by $\sim$0.2 km. Our position for Gemini
South agrees with the value on their
website\footnote{\href{http://www.gemini.edu/sciops/telescopes-and-sites/locations}{http://www.gemini.edu/sciops/telescopes-and-sites/locations}}
to better than $<$0''.04 for each axis (within $\sim$1 m), and our GPS
estimate of the elevation (2722 m) is identical to their value.
After finding that some of the published positions for observatories
on Cerro Tololo and Cerro Pach\'{o}n were erroneous, it may be worth
the time to double-check the published positions of other
observatories (especially if those observatories pre-date the GPS
era). Using erroneous positions for observatories can lead to
unnecessary systematic errors in various position-dependent
astronomical calculations, which are inexcusable in the era of GPS and
Google Earth.
\acknowledgements
The author thanks Jason Wright for pointing out the discrepancy
between the published position for CTIO and that determined with
Google Earth, which triggered this investigation. I thank Michael
Warner for lending the author his Garmin GPS. The author also thanks
Enrique Figueroa for sharing the 2008 survey report from Juan Carlos
Aravena Godoy, and thanks to Malcolm Smith, Oscar Saa, Tim Abbott,
Alistair Walker, Chris Smith, Nicole van der Bliek, Kadur Flores, Jeff
Barr, and Dan Phillips, for conversations on the history and mythology
of Cerro Tololo and Cerro Pach\'{o}n.
\bibliographystyle{apj}
|
\section{Market-Based Approaches}
Markets resulting from voluntary trade tend to be complex phenomena. A typical price chart shows wild swings, big jumps, bubbles, and crashes. These are even more obvious when we look at the chart of returns instead of prices. (Recall that the return from one day to the next is the percentage you would have earned if you bought it one day and sold it on the next.)
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.2]{Maymin_gr1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{The dark dots are the actual daily returns of the Standard $\&$ Poor's 500, the most widely followed broad based U.S. market index. The light dots overlaid on top are simulated returns from the Normal distribution having the same mean and standard deviation as the actual returns. You can see that the blue dots vary wildly, much more than could be expected from a Gaussian distribution. In addition, these periods of higher volatility\index{volatility} tend to cluster together. And finally, there is Black Monday, October 19, 1987, when the market fell by 20 percent.}
\end{figure}
As Wolfram has noted, most academic market-based approaches to explaining or understanding these complexities essentially ignore the vast amount of seeming randomness and focus on the few pockets of predictability. For example, momentum, the idea that winners will keep winning and losers will keep losing, seems to be a persistent feature of many markets, and has been the subject of thousands of scholarly papers after its first documentation by Jegadeesh and Titman \cite{Jegadeesh}. But the effect of momentum, while profitable, is still rather small compared to the vast degree of randomness.
Virtually the only tools used for this standard strand of research are regression analysis, attempting to explain individual security or portfolio returns through a fixed number of factors, and portfolio construction, attempting to sort portfolios into buckets based on some factors or indicators and explore the difference in future performance between the highest and the lowest buckets.
In \textit{NKS}, Wolfram explored the alternative approach of trying to model the randomness directly rather than ignoring it. He proposed a one-dimensional cellular automaton model where each cell represents an agent's decision to buy or sell, and the running totals of black cells can be used to infer a market price. Jason Cawley\index{Cawley, J.} has generalized this model in a \textit{Mathematica} demonstration.
In a sense, cellular automata\index{cellular automata} models for financial prices are a subset of the more general recent approach of agent-based modelling.\index{agent-based modelling} Here, agent behavior is programmed into several varieties, initial proportions of each are chosen, and the interactions between those agents generates market transactions and prices. Gilbert \cite{Gilbert} offers a comprehensive introduction and treatment of this literature. The Santa Fe Institute created an artificial stock market a few decades ago; Ehrentreich \cite{Ehrentreich} focuses on agent-based finance and specifically on the lessons of this market. The ability to create multi-agent models has become even easier with the introduction of specialized environments for such tasks such as NetLogo \cite{Wilensky}.\index{NetLogo}
However, all such agent-based models, including Wolfram's, rely on multiple agents interacting and trading with each other, often with multiple securities too. In the spirit of \textit{NKS}, we should ask: could a single representative investor trading\index{trading} a single security generate complexity?
This was exactly the question I asked during the NKS Summer School of 2007. I realized that because there was no one for the lonely representative investor to trade with, and no other assets for him to compare his to, he would have to be a technical trader, someone who makes decisions based solely on the past history of prices. Technical traders are also called chartists because they often rely on graphical representations of past prices, such as when moving averages of different lookback windows cross, or when the prices seem to form a recognizable visual pattern. Indeed, given the recognition in \textit{NKS} that our natural visual ability was well-adapted to discerning complexity, it seemed reasonable to assume that some of the skills of a technical trader could possibly result in complexity in the price series directly.
Although technical traders can rely on any function of historical prices, a simpler and yet still fully general approach would be to model a trader as evaluating an arbitrary algorithm taking as input the previous prices, or price changes, or even just the signs of those price changes, starting with the most recent first.
The primary benefit of the NKS Summer School is working one-on-one with the author. Indeed, Wolfram suggested using an iterated finite automaton (c.f. Wolfram \cite{Wolframessay}) to model the internal algorithm of the trader. An iterated finite automaton (IFA) \index{iterated finite automaton} takes one list of symbols and outputs another, and can have internal states. It is thus a collection of rules of the form:
\begin{center}
\noindent \textbf{\{state1,input\}} $\to$ \textbf{\{state2,output\}}
\end{center}
Trivially, no single-state IFA generates complexity. Among all of the 256 possible two-state IFAs, there turned out to essentially be only one unique trading rule that generated some form of complexity. Using Wolfram's IFA numbering scheme, this was trading rule 54, depicted by the graphical network below.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.9]{Maymin_gr2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{The boxes represent the two internal states of the trader's rule. He starts every day in state 1. He looks back at the $n$ most recent price changes, starting with the most recent, and follows the arrows until he reaches the $n$th-most recent one. }
\end{figure}
Suppose his lookback window is $n = 3$ days. If today is Thursday, then he would have to look back at the market price change on Wednesday, Tuesday, and Monday, in that order. Let's say the market was down Wednesday. So he leaves state 1 following the DOWN arrow, which leads him to state 2. That DOWN arrow also outputs a Buy signal. This can be viewed as his current thinking on what to do in the market, but it is not his final decision because he has not looked at all of the past few days that he intended to.
Next he would need to look at Tuesday's price change. Suppose it too was down. Then he would follow the DOWN arrow out of his current state, state 2. This arrow leads him back to state 2, and updates his current thinking to Sell.
Ultimately, his decision on whether to buy or sell will now depend on what the price change on Monday was: if the market had been down, he would now sell, and if it had been up, he would now buy. Whatever he does, the market follows, because he is the representative investor. So if he were to Buy, no transactions would actually take place, because he has no one to trade with, but the level of the market would go up so he is now indifferent about buying more. The next day, he starts the process all over again, starting with the most recent price change, which happened to be up.
This rule 54 generates quite complex behavior, for virtually any lookback window. The graphs below show the price processes for a variety of lookback windows (See Fig.~3).
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{Maymin_gr3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Notice how the prices jump down drastically before coming back up. Because the prices are always deterministically calculated, they will eventually cycle, and could in principle start anywhere along the cycle. Thus, the big jump down could occur later in the cycle. Furthermore, the lookback window can be made larger so that the cycle time is longer than the age of the universe: looking back just 22 ticks means the cycle time is more than four million ticks.}
\end{figure}
So it is true that the absolute simplest model of trading can indeed generate complex price patterns, validating the key insights of \textit{NKS} and finally answering a question that Wolfram had worked on for decades. With just a single trader and a single asset, and only two internal states, there is essentially a unique rule that generates complex security prices. This is the minimal model of financial complexity (Maymin, \cite{Maymin2011a}).
But how complex is the generated price series? We have seen above that real markets suffer from many irregularities. Specifically, the stylized facts about market returns relative to independently distributed Normal returns are that real returns have higher kurtosis (fatter tails), negative skewness (more extreme jumps down), and a rich panoply of autocorrelations (generating mean reversion or momentum at different horizons).
By taking a lookback window of $n=22$ and partitioning the up and down ticks into buckets large enough to interpret their rolling sum as a daily return, we can estimate the implied kurtosis, skewness, and correlations of the resulting price series. Surprisingly enough, it turns out that all of the troublesome stylized facts of real markets occur in the generated price series as well!
Thus, the unique, simple, and minimal model of financial complexity, with no parameters to tweak, serendipitously ends up explaining much of what
we see in real markets.
What does the rule do, exactly? Do such traders exist? In general, there need be no easy description of a trading rule. But in this case, there happens to be a very simple explanation. Notice that state 1 is an UP-absorbing state: any UP day will bring the trader to state 1. Similarly, state 2 is a DOWN-absorbing state. Thus, rule 54 ultimately merely compares the two earliest days of its lookback window: if the price change $n - 1$ ticks ago were the same as the price $n$ ticks ago, then the investor would sell; if they were different, he would buy.
An alternative interpretation is that the representative investor look each tick and compares it to the previous one. If they are the same, whether both up or both down, he sells; if they are different, either up and then down or down and then up, he buys. However, his order does not take effect immediately but rather experiences a delay of $n-1$ ticks. Put this way, such a trading rule can be expressed as a combination of four
commonplace rules: profit taking in bull markets, momentum in bear markets, buying on dips, and buying on recoveries.
Naturally, the minimal model can be extended to multiple states, multiple assets, and multiple traders, and complexity again emerges, with more variety as well. But it is interesting that even the minimal model is able to fit actual returns so well, and so much better than random walks or Brownian motions, the standard assumptions of non-NKS-influenced finance.
Clearly, the \textit{NKS} approach is useful in market-based finance. So why is it not more frequently used in academic circles? The reason is selection bias.
The bane of academic financial research is selection bias. Selection bias in data can falsely suggest that certain assets or industries had high expected returns, only because those were the only ones who survived long enough to be in the dataset. Selection bias may even be latent and quite subtle: one of the longest puzzles in finance is the equity premium puzzle documented by Mehra and Prescott \cite{Mehra} in 1985, noting that historical average returns have been far too high to be explained by risk aversion, the standard explanatory tool of financial economics. But we will never know if the selection bias of having had a booming stock market for many decades is what allowed us the luxury of asking why have our stock returns been so large.
But by far the biggest concern is selection bias of the models, also known as data snooping. If we posit a model that is influenced by what we have seen, then tests of the model are contaminated. At the extreme, you can always optimize the parameters of any family of models to get the best possible fit, but you will never know if you are not just overfitting noise.
Partially in an attempt to combat this problem, and partially because finance is often viewed as a discipline of economics, academic literature in the area is virtually required to motivate any analysis with detailed reasoning why the model makes sense \textit{a priori}. Of course, it is impossible to tell by reading a paper whether the model indeed was formulated prior to any observation of the data or whether it was retrofit onto it later, or, less obviously, whether it was just the lucky one of many models tested that happened to work. Academics rarely (though not never) publish the results of failed models.
This attachment to motivation is the biggest hurdle to wider acceptance of the useful tools and techniques of the \textit{NKS} framework. Mining the computational financial universe requires abandoning all preconceptions of what should or should not work and instead trying hundreds, thousands, millions of possibilities to see what does indeed work. By the Principle of Computational Irreducibility,\index{Principle of Computational Irreducibility} the motivation game can not work in general, and can even be a hindrance to the truth. The \textit{NKS} approach to market-based finance requires overcoming enormous inertia to flip standard academic practice completely on its head.
That's a tough row to hoe, but there have been some other inroads. Explicitly, Zenil and Delahaye \cite{Zenil} investigate the market as a rule-based system by comparing the distributions of binary sequences from actual data with those resulting from purely algorithmic means. On a more implicit level, many otherwise standard-seeming financial results seem to be more willing to test literally all possible strategies or combinations, reserving their motivation and justification only to the form of the model. The tide may not have started to turn yet, but the waves are starting to froth.
\section{Government-Based Approaches}
Markets resulting from government fiat tend to be simple price fixings. Even the ostensibly more general price floors or ceilings end up being price fixings anyway because otherwise the legislation is useless. So a time series of government-controlled prices tend to look like a constant, experiencing nearly zero volatility... until the government can no longer control the price and the pent-up volatility explodes all at once. Imagine a currency peg about to break or the stock market hitting an automatic circuit breaker curbing trading. When trading resumes, the true price will likely be very different from the most recently reported price.
In exploring regulatory issues and their possible effects on markets, there are two traditional approaches: theoretical and econometric. The theoretical approach solves for the equilibrium in a particular standard model and evaluates how it changes under different regulatory regimes. The econometric approach attempts to analyze past regulatory changes to isolate the effects of unanticipated regulatory changes. These two approaches sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, and each has its own pitfalls.
A unifying way of viewing both approaches is to observe that they each effectively assume a particular process for the evolution of market prices, and then translate regulatory changes into different values for the particular parameters. Theoretical models attempt to solve for what the new parameters will be while the econometric models attempt to estimate them from the historical record.
There is a third way, the \textit{NKS} way: one could use a rules-based approach with regulatory overrides. Specifically, one could imagine the rule 54 trader wanting to sell the asset but being stopped by government forces intent on propping up the market.
This is now a question of computational search. It is unclear ahead of time what the effect will be. The best way to find out is to simulate it. In Maymin \cite{Maymin2009}, I did just that, and showed that regulation in general makes market price processes appear to be more Normal and less complex (until, of course, the regulation can no longer be afforded). Particular periods, however, could actually appear even worse than the non-regulated version.
Further, the results from pricking bubbles and propping up crashes are not symmetrical: specifically, if regulations were to prick apparent bubbles, then propping up apparent crashes makes no additional difference (see Fig.~4).
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.76]{img1.pdf}\includegraphics[scale=.76]{img2.pdf}\\\includegraphics[scale=.76]{img3.pdf}\includegraphics[scale=.76]{img4.pdf}
\caption{The graphs show rolling moment estimates from these four different regulatory regimes.}
\end{figure}
An even more direct result can be found in Maymin and Lim \cite{Maymin2012} where we compare regulations directly on a cellular automaton model. In the context of environmental regulations, suppose each cell represents an entity that can choose whether or not to pollute. And suppose the rule governing whether you pollute or not depends entirely on what you and your neighbors did in the previous instance. For concreteness, let's say it is Wolfram rule 110, which he has shown to be computational universal, or maximally complex (see Fig.~5).
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.9]{Maymin_gr4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Call anarchy the state of no overriding law, neither \textit{a priori} regulation nor \textit{ex post} justice. Then the half of the people on the right hand side never pollute, while those who occasionally pollute exhibit interesting, indeed maximal, complexity. Under complete \textit{a priori} regulation, no one would pollute ever, leading to zero complexity. But under \textit{ex post} albeit noisy justice in which with some probability those who polluted last time will now be polluted on by those who had abstained, maximal complexity is restored. Furthermore, even that half of the population that would not have polluted under anarchy now does occasionally pollute. Bearing in mind that pollution is a cost with associated benefits, and that some amount of pollution is likely to be optimal, we can draw conclusions about which system accomplishes what we want.}
\end{figure}
With the \textit{NKS} approach to regulation in general, both financial and otherwise, we are able to see the effects of varying kinds of regulatory overrides on top of a simple system of otherwise static rules. I expect that for the government-based strand of finance research, the \textit{NKS} approach will eventually come to dominate the field, as it represents the only way I can see of performing true experiments on the possible effects of different proposed regulations.
\section{Practitioners}
While academics and regulators play a loud part in finance, the silent super-majority are practitioners: traders, investors, and speculators who have a vested interested in keeping quiet and keeping secrets. Practitioners do not care how to pronounce the word ``finance,'' and they switch randomly from one to the other. They represent by far the most important constituency. Can an \textit{NKS} approach help them too?
In one sense, they represent the heart of the \textit{NKS} approach. Markets are complex but by the Principle of Computational Equivalence they are no more complex than other maximally complex things. Complex things can often be modeled by simple rules. When even the simplest of rules constitute an astronomical number of possibilities, the only possible approach, by the Principle of Computational Irreducibility, is exhaustive or random search. Thus, together, practitioners are essentially mapping and mining the financial computational universe, even if they are doing so unintentionally and occasionally redundantly.
It turns out that this task of finding a profitable strategy in past prices is one of the hardest computational problems on the planet. Indeed, I have shown that this task is as hard as solving satisfiability or the traveling salesman problem. In other words, markets will be efficient---that
is, there will be no profitable trading strategies based on past prices because they would have all been discovered and exploited---only if all other difficult problems have also been solved.
Surprisingly enough, I have also shown the converse: that if the markets happen to be efficient, then we can actually use those markets to solve
the other difficult problems. We can, in effect, ``program'' the market to solve general computational problems.
Thus, market efficiency and computational efficiency turn out to be the same thing. This paper, Maymin \cite{Maymin2011b}, sparked the creation of \textit{Algorithmic Finance}, a new journal and indeed a new field launched specifically to continue the insights from merging computational efficiency and
market efficiency. I am the managing editor of the journal and Stephen Wolfram is on the advisory board. With this journal, we hope to continue the journey of exploring \textit{NKS}-inspired approaches to the field of finance.
\section{Conclusions}
The insights from \textit{NKS} are general, deep, and broad: simple rules can generate complexity; beyond a small threshold, all complexity is maximal
complexity; the only way of evaluating even simple systems that generate complexity is to run them and see. In finance, these insights are critical
for understanding markets and their evolution, particularly as trading moves ever closer to complete automation.
Both the journal \textit{Algorithmic Finance} and the field of algorithmic finance rely on these insights to grow. Applications as varied as high frequency finance and automated trading, the heuristics of behavioral investors, news analytics, statistical arbitrage, and dynamic portfolio management
all reside at the intersection of computer science and finance, and could, and have, and will continue to benefit from the tools of \textit{NKS}.
\bibliographystyle{ws-rv-van}
|
\section{Introduction}
A recent essentially exhaustive study of Skyrme parameterizations for their ability to satisfy experimental constraints of nuclear matter properties produced a shortlist of satisfactory parameter sets \cite{Dut12}. No attention was paid in that study to the ability of the parameterizations to fit properties of finite nuclei. In this contributions we analyse the shortlist of sets for their ability to reproduce various properties of finite nuclei. We proceed by summarizing the nuclear matter constraints, then by discussing the properties the satisfactory parameter sets, including details related solely to the finite nuclear character, followed by a description and analysis of their behavior in finite nuclei, and conclude with a discussion of the results.
\section{The Skyrme Force}
The Skyrme interaction dates to the 1950s, when Skyrme first postulated his form of the nuclear effective interaction, based on the idea that it should be short-ranged, with a truncated Taylor expansion in powers of the relative momentum of the interacting particles \cite{skyrme}. Rather than describe the Skyrme force in full detail, we refer the reader to recent reviews \cite{stone-reinhard,bender-review,example-skyrme} and list only what is necessary here. As well as its functional form, the Skyrme force is defined by around ten (depending on the variant) parameters which must be fitted. Fitting these parameters can be viewed as a minimization problem, where the fitness function has ten variables, and can be defined in various ways, most typically by a chi-squared function of calculated values of experimentally-known data. Each Skyrme parameterization is generated by a combination of the fitness function, the minimization algorithm and the starting set of parameters used to initiate the algorithm. The complexity of the multi-dimensional function and the freedom of choice of data to fit to has led to a large number of parameterizations. In the next section, a summary of the nuclear matter constraints \cite{Dut12} is given, along with some details about the fitting procedures of the ``good'' forces is given.
\section{The Constraints and the Parameter Sets}
The recent set of nuclear matter constraints \cite{Dut12} used empirically-derived constraints on the nuclear incompressibility, the skewness coefficient, the pressure of both symmetric matter and pure neutron matter, the equation of state of neutron matter, the symmetry energy and its derivative at saturation density, and the half-saturation-density symmetry energy and the volume isospin incompressibility. These macroscopic constraints gave an initial shortlist, which was further reduced by some microscopic constraints (e.g. Landau parameters) and observed neutron star properties to produce a shortlist.
The list of parameter sets consists of (in order of publication) SKRA \cite{Ras00}, KDE0v1 \cite{Agr05}, NRAPR \cite{Ste05}, LNS \cite{Cao06}, and SQMC700 \cite{Gui06}. Along with a short discussion of the different sets in this section, we comment on the various different subsidiary parameters and choices that occur when using Skyrme forces in finite nuclei. In particular, one must choose how to include the exchange part of the Coulomb force, which is sometimes either ignored or treated in the Slater approximation (or rarely, more exactly), whether the contribution to the spin-orbit forces from the $t_1$ and $t_2$ terms is included and how the center of mass is treated. Where these choices are not clear from the original papers, we have attempted to deduce them and commented as appropriate. Where the papers are explicit, we do not repeat the information here.
The premise of SKRA\cite{Ras00} was that its equation of state in nuclear matter should be fitted to that derived from a realistic potential, along with relativistic and many-body corrections. In this way, it was argued, the effective nucleon in the mean-field should contain as correlated a version of the bare nucleon as possible. Ground state properties of doubly-magic nuclei were also included in the parameter fit. This parameterization has been little explored in the literature since its exposition. For SKRA, along with the fits to infinite nuclear matter, the finite nuclear calculations presented were explicitly indicated as being performed with a particular published code \cite{hafom}. From this it can be deduced that the finite nuclear calculations included the Coulomb exchange in the Slater approximation, included the $t_1$ and $t_2$ contributions to the spin-orbit force and used the diagonal approximation to the center of mass correction.
The KDE0v1 \cite{Agr05} parameterization had two underlying emphases in its derivation; that the simulated annealing technique was used in optimizing the parameters, and that a wide range of observables from finite nuclei with a small amount of nuclear matter information were used in the parameter fitting. The fitting observables include ground state energies and radii, as well as breathing mode energies. Interestingly, other parameter sets appeared in the same paper as KDE0v1, which differed only in their starting parameters in the fit algorithm, but did not pass the nuclear matter constraints \cite{Dut12}. This speaks of the non-linear nature of the fitness functions in terms of the parameters. The KDE0v1 parameterization has a particular prescription for the center of mass correction, dependent on identifying the spherical quantum numbers of each occupied level. We have not implemented this correction in the presented results, but in the spirit of KDE0v1, use an a posteriori treatment, taking the diagonal part of the center of mass operator.
NRAPR \cite{Ste05} aims, like SKRA, to fit an equation of state derived from realistic interactions, including pure neutron as well as symmetric nuclear matter, along with some adjustment to finite nuclei.
LNS \cite{Cao06} again is fitted to nuclear matter calculations with realistic interactions - in this case to the equation of state and effective mass arising from Bruckner-Hartree-Fock calculations. Adjustment is made taking a small set of doubly-magic finite nuclei into account. Whether the $t_1$ and $t_2$ spin-orbit term is taken into account is not made explicit, and we present some results with both choices made.
SQMC700 \cite{Gui06}, which also makes the shortlist is based on a quark-meson coupling model which can be recast in the form of a density functional with certain assumptions. The form of the functional is close to, but not exactly the same as the Skyrme functional. Consequently, this force has so far been omitted from our calculations, though we intend to study it for a follow-up paper. We note that the authors presenting the SQMC700 force surveyed properties of finite nuclei \cite{Gui06} in their original exposition.
The spin-orbit part of the force in all cases is fitted to finite nuclei. Usually this is one or more single-particle spin-orbit splittings as deduced from the energy levels of odd-mass nuclei neighboring the doubly-magic nuclei, though NRAPR adjusts the spin-orbit strength to better reproduce binding energies of finite nuclei, without mentioning spin-orbit splittings.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{PDStevenson_fig1a.eps} & \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{PDStevenson_fig1b.eps}
\\
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{PDStevenson_fig1c.eps} & \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{PDStevenson_fig1d.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Binding energies of doubly-(semi)-magic nuclei for four shortlisted forces, compared to SkI4 as a reference. The forces are labeled in the legend and described in the text. For LNS (top left), ``ils=0'' means that the $t_1$ and $t_2$ term is not included in the spin-orbit force, ``ils=1'' means that it is included.}\label{fig:be}
\end{figure}
\section{observables}
We evaluate the following list of observables, motivated by the selection in a recent review \cite{stone-reinhard}. These are taken as a sample of a longer list of observables as a proxy to measure the success of forces which fit nuclear matter to reproduce finite nuclear properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Binding energies of even-even doubly-(semi)-magic nuclei.
since not all forces are fitted to these nuclei. These are compared with a reference force, SkI4, which gives decent results. Nuclei chosen are: $^{16}$O, $^{34}$Si, $^{40}$Ca, $^{48}$Ca, $^{48}$Ni, $^{56}$Ni, $^{68}$Ni, $^{78}$Ni, $^{80}$Zr, $^{90}$Zr, $^{100}$Sn, $^{114}$Sn, $^{132}$Sn, $^{146}$Gd and $^{208}$Pb. In plots, the independent variable is given as $\sqrt{NZ}$ to help separate the points.
\item Fission barriers.
Early Skyrme forces had not been particularly successful in reproducing the fission barriers in heavy nuclei, prompting the widely-used SkM* parameterization, fitted to give a good description of the deformation path of $^{240}$Pu \cite{skms}. We apply the same pairing prescription to each force, being a volume delta pairing with an averaged strength \cite{bender-review}. We compare with the SkM* force as a reference, as it was fitted with the fission path in mind.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{PDStevenson_fig2}
\caption{Fission barrier in $^{240}$Pu for the subset of forces, compared with SkM*\label{fig:fb}}
\end{figure}
\item Isotope shifts
The changes in radii across an isotopic chain is something which is very much in the realm of finite-nuclear properties, and dependent on the details of the single-particle energies, so it is interesting to see the extent to which forces fitted mostly to nuclear matter data can perform well in such observables. We choose a particularly difficult example, namely the isotope shift between the two doubly-magic calcium nuclei $^{40}$Ca and $^{48}$Ca. The chain of even-even isotopes between these two nuclei show a roughly parabolic behavior in the radii, with $^{40}$Ca and $^{48}$Ca having similar charge radii ($r^2$($^{48}$Ca)$-r^2$($^{40}$Ca)=0.007 fm$^2$ \cite{ski4}), with an increase in between as the $f_{7/2}$ shell is partially filled. This general trend is poorly described by Skyrme forces, which is usually blamed on correlation effects. Other methods have been shown to reproduce the trend in certain circumstances \cite{caurier,fayans}. We do not check the whole trend here, just the shift between the two specific doubly-magic isotopes.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Results}
\subsection{Binding energies}
The binding energies are shown in Figure \ref{fig:be}. As a reference, results from SkI4 \cite{ski4}, as an example of a force fitted to ground-state data of many doubly-magic nuclei. A range of results is evident, from LNS, with a somewhat poor isospin-dependence, through NRAPR, which has a spread larger than the reference SkI4, to SKRA and KDE0v1 which are very competitive with the reference force. Curiously, the small number of forces which pass the strict nuclear matter constraints, show quite different behavior for binding energies of finite nuclei.
\subsection{Fission Barriers}
Figure \ref{fig:fb} shows the deformation energies for axially-deformed constrained Hartree-Fock calculations for the subset of four forces, with SkM* as a reference. We use a slightly modified NRAPR force called NRAPRii, in which the spin-orbit parameter has been doubled. The standard NRAPR has a spin-orbit force so weak that even $^{208}$Pb is not doubly-magic. Doubling the strength fixes this without breaking the nuclear matter tests. The forces group into three sets; LNS, which had the poorest isospin dependence in binding energies does not reproduce the fission barrier structure at all. It has the hyper-deformed minimum as being the ground state, with no further barrier to the fission path. SKRA and NRAPRii look very similar, but with weak barriers, while KDE0v1 reproduces the SkM* very well. This is all the more remarkable given that SkM* was designed to account for the fact that standard Skyrme forces, fitted to ground state data, did not reproduce this barrier.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{PDStevenson_fig3}
\caption{Isotope shift between $^{40}$Ca and $^{48}$Ca for various Skyrme forces, including the subset, labeled as {\it CSkP}, various other Skyrme forces and in particular the SkI forces, which were fitted to this observable.\label{fig:is}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Isotope Shifts}
The Calcium isotope shifts are shown in Figure \ref{fig:is}. They are plotted against the derivative, $L$, of the symmetry energy at saturation density, since this has been shown to correlate with radius data in lead isotopes \cite{chen}. The dashed line in the plot shows the line of best fit, with the solid lines indicating one standard deviation in the fit. The vertical lines, labeled {\it MIX2} show the range allowed in the nuclear matter constraints \cite{Dut12}. Obviously the subset of forces which passed the constraints appear in the allowed region. The correlation between $L$ and the isotope shift is quite strong, as previously shown in lead, and gratifyingly the previously allowed values of $L$ are consistent with the observed isotope shift in calcium. The outliers in the calculation are the SkI forces \cite{ski4}, which were fitted to the isotope shift, but not to $L$. Although it appears that Skyrme forces will generally correlated $L$ with the isotope shift, one can bypass this correlation if one chooses, by including suitable observables in the fit. It would be interesting to repeat this exercise for the lead isotopes to see if the correlation is easily broken by suitable fitting.
\section{Conclusions}
A subset of Skyrme forces, which passed a series of tests on nuclear matter properties derived from data, have been analyzed for their behavior in finite nuclei. It is found that for observables with no direct correlation to nuclear matter quantities, a range of different behavior is found, while for a particular example of a finite nuclear observable with a known correlation to nuclear matter properties, passing the constraint seems sufficient, but not necessary, to fit the experimental data. The KDE0v1 force fits the finite nuclear data presented quite well, and it was also the only force presented fitted to a signigicant amount of data from finite nuclei. It was also the only force able to pass the nuclear matter constraints of \cite{Dut12} without inclusion of a wide range of Equation of State data in the fit. Tentatively, one can conclude that Skyrme parameterizations cannot be necessarily expected to reproduce data, to which they were not fitted, with very high accuracy.
\begin{theacknowledgments}
Financial support from the UK STFC, and from the Santander University Network is acknowledged in support of this work. MD thanks the Brazilian Agency FAPESP.
\end{theacknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{aipproc}
\IfFileExists{\jobname.bbl}{}
{\typeout{}
\typeout{******************************************}
\typeout{** Please run "bibtex \jobname" to obtain}
\typeout{** the bibliography and then re-run LaTeX}
\typeout{** twice to fix the references!}
\typeout{******************************************}
\typeout{}
}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Sec:SphereInterpolation}
The following interpolation inequality holds on the sphere:
\be{Ineq:Interpolation}
\frac{p-2}d\iS{|\nabla u|^2}+\iS{|u|^2}\ge\(\iS{|u|^p}\)^{2/p}\quad\forall\;u\in\H^1(\S^d,d\mu)
\end{equation}
for any $p\in(2,2^*]$ with $2^*=2\,d/(d-2)$ if $d\ge 3$ and for any $p\in(2,\infty)$ if $d=2$. In~\eqref{Ineq:Interpolation}, $d\mu$ is the uniform probability measure on the $d$-dimensional sphere, that is, the measure induced by Lebesgue's measure on $\S^d\subset{\mathbb R}^{d+1}$, up to a normalization factor such that $\mu(\S^d)=1$.
Such an inequality has been established by M.-F.~Bidaut-V\'eron and L.~V\'eron in \cite{BV-V} in the more general context of compact manifolds with uniformly positive Ricci curvature. Their method is based on the Bochner-Lichnerowicz-Weitzenb\"ock formula and the study of the set of solutions of an elliptic equation which is seen as a bifurcation problem and contains the Euler-Lagrange equation associated to the optimality case in~\eqref{Ineq:Interpolation}. Later, in \cite{MR1230930}, W.~Beckner gave an alternative proof based on Legendre's duality, on the Funk-Hecke formula, which has been proved in \cite{45.0702.01,46.0632.02}, and on the expression of some optimal constants found by E.~Lieb in \cite{MR717827}. D.~Bakry, A.~Bentaleb and S.~Fahlaoui in a series of papers based on the \emph{carr\'e du champ} method and mostly devoted to the ultraspherical operator have shown a result which turns out to give yet another proof, which is anyway very close to the method of \cite{BV-V}. Their computations allow to slightly extend the range of the parameter $p$: see \cite{MR1260331,MR2141179,MR1244430,MR1231419,MR1768016,MR1917038,MR1971589,MR2564058,MR2641798}, and \cite{MR674060,MR578933} for earlier related works.
In all computations based on the Bochner-Lichnerowicz-Weitzenb\"ock formula, the choice of exponents in the computations appears somewhat mysterious. The seed for such computations can be found in \cite{MR615628}. Our purpose is on one hand to give alternative proofs, at least for some ranges of the parameter $p$, which do not rely on such a very technical choice. On the other hand, we also simplify the existing proofs (see Section \ref{SubSec:classical}).
Inequality~\eqref{Ineq:Interpolation} is remarkable for several reasons:\begin{enumerate}
\item It is optimal in the sense that $1$ is the optimal constant. By H\"older's inequality, we know that $\nrm u2\le\nrm up$ so that the equality case can only be achieved by functions which are constant a.e. Of course, the main issue is to prove that the $(p-2)/d$ constant is optimal, which is one of the classical issues of the so-called $A$-$B$ problem, for which we primarily refer to \cite{MR1688256}.
\item If $d\ge3$, the case $p=2^*$ corresponds to Sobolev's inequality. Using the stereographic projection as in \cite{MR717827}, we easily recover Sobolev's inequality in the euclidean space ${\mathbb R}^d$ with optimal constant and obtain a simple characterization of the extremal functions found by T. Aubin and G. Talenti: see \cite{MR0448404,MR0289739,MR0463908}.
\item In the limit $p\to 2$, one obtains the logarithmic Sobolev inequality on the sphere, while by taking $p\to\infty$ if $d=2$, one recovers Onofri's inequality; see \cite{MR1143664} and Corollary~\ref{Cor:Onofri} below.
\end{enumerate}
Exponents are not restricted to $p>2$. Consider indeed the functional
\[
\mathcal Q_p[u]:=\frac{p-2}d\,\frac{\iS{|\nabla u|^2}}{\(\iS{|u|^p}\)^{2/p}-\iS{|u|^2}}
\]
for $p\in[1,2)\cup(2,2^*]$ if $d\ge 3$ or $p\in[1,2)\cup(2,\infty)$ if $d=2$, and
\[
\mathcal Q_2[u]:=\frac1d\,\frac{\iS{|\nabla u|^2}}{\iS{|u|^2\log\(|u|^2/\iS{|u|^2}\)}}
\]
for any $d\ge1$. Because $d\mu$ is a probability measure, $\(\iS{|u|^p}\)^{2/p}-\iS{|u|^2}$ is nonnegative if $p>2$, nonpositive if $p\in[1,2)$, and equal to zero if and only if $u$ is constant a.e. Denote by $\mathcal A$ the set of $\H^1(\S^d,d\mu)$ functions which are not a.e.~constant and consider the infimum
\be{Eqn:Infimum}
\mathcal I_p:=\inf_{u\in\mathcal A}\mathcal Q_p[u]\;.
\end{equation}
With these notations, we can state a slightly more general result than the one of~\eqref{Ineq:Interpolation}, which goes as follows and also covers the range $p\in[1,2]$.
\begin{thm}\label{Thm:Main} With the above notations, $\mathcal I_p=1$ for any $p\in[1,2^*]$ if $d\ge 3$, or any $p\in[1,\infty)$ if $d=1$, $2$.\end{thm}
As already explained above, in the case $(2, 2^*]$ the above theorem was proved first in \cite[Corollary 6.2]{BV-V}, and then in \cite{MR1230930} using previous results by E.~Lieb in \cite{MR717827} and the Funk-Hecke formula (see \cite{45.0702.01,46.0632.02}). The case $p=2$ was covered in \cite{MR1230930}. The whole range $p\in[1, 2^*]$ was covered in the case of the ultraspherical operator in \cite{MR2564058,MR2641798}. Here we give alternative proofs for various ranges of $p$, which are less technical, and interesting by themselves, as well as some extensions.
Notice that the case $p=1$ can be written as
\[
\iS{|\nabla u|^2}\ge d\left[\iS{|u|^2}-\(\iS{|u|}\)^2\right]\quad\forall\;u\in\H^1(\S^d,d\mu)\;,
\]
which is equivalent to the usual Poincar\'e inequality
\[
\iS{|\nabla u|^2}\ge d\iS{|u-\overline u|^2}\quad\forall\;u\in\H^1(\S^d,d\mu)\quad\mbox{with}\quad\overline u=\iS u\;.
\]
See Remark~\ref{Rem:Poincare}, for more details. The case $p=2$ provides the logarithmic Sobolev inequality on the sphere. It holds as consequence of the inequality for $p\neq 2$ (see Corollary~\ref{Cor:LogSob}).
For $p\neq 2$, the existence of a minimizer of
\[
u\mapsto\iS{|\nabla u|^2}+\frac{d\,\mathcal I_p}{p-2}\left[\nrm u2^2-\nrm up^2\right]
\]
in $\big\{u\in\H^1(\S^d,d\mu)\,:\,\iS{|u|^p}=1\big\}$ is easily achieved by variational methods and will be taken for granted. Compactness for either $p\in[1,2)$ or $2<p<2^*$ is indeed classical, while the case $p=2^*$, $d\ge 3$ can be studied by concentration-compactness methods. If a function $u\in\H^1(\S^d,d\mu)$ is optimal for \eqref{Ineq:Interpolation} with $p\neq2$, then it is solves the Euler-Lagrange equation
\be{Eqn:EL}
-\Delta_{\S^d} u=\frac{d\,\mathcal I_p}{p-2}\,\left[\nrm up^{2-p}\,u^{p-1}-u\right]
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_{\S^d}$ denotes the Laplace-Beltrami operator on the sphere $\S^d$.
In any case, it is possible to normalize the $\mathrm L^p(\S^d)$-norm of $u$ to $1$ without restriction because of the zero homogeneity of $\mathcal Q_p$. It turns out that the optimality case is achieved by the constant function, with value $u\equiv1$ if we assume $\iS{|u|^p}=1$, in which case the inequality degenerates because both sides are equal to $0$. This explains why the dimension $d$ shows up here: the sequence $(u_n)_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$ such that
\[
u_n(x)=1+\frac 1n\,v(x)
\]
with $v\in\H^1(\S^d,d\mu)$ such that $\iS v=0$ is indeed minimizing if and only if
\[
\iS{|\nabla v|^2}\ge d\iS{|v|^2}\;,
\]
and the equality case is achieved if $v$ is an optimal function for the above Poincar\'e inequality, \emph{i.e.}~a function associated to the first non-zero eigenvalue of the Laplace-Beltrami operator $-\,\Delta_{\S^d}$ on the sphere $\S^d$. Up to a rotation, this means
\[
v(\xi)=\xi_d\quad\forall\;\xi=(\xi_0,\,\xi_1,\ldots\xi_d)\in\S^d\subset{\mathbb R}^{d+1}
\]
since $-\,\Delta_{\S^d} v=d\,v$. Recall that the corresponding eigenspace of $-\,\Delta_{\S^d}$ is $d$ dimensional and generated by the composition of $v$ with an arbitrary rotation.
\subsection{The logarithmic Sobolev inequality}\label{Sec:LogSob}
As a first classical consequence of \eqref{Eqn:Infimum}, we have a logarithmic Sobolev inequality. This result is rather classical; related forms of the result can be found for instance in~\cite{Bakry-Emery85} or in \cite{AMTU}.
\begin{cor}\label{Cor:LogSob} Let $d\ge1$. For any $u\in\H^1(\S^d,d\mu)\setminus\{0\}$, we have
\[
\iS{|u|^2\,\log\(\frac{|u|^2}{\iS{|u|^2}}\)}\le\frac 2d\iS{|\nabla u|^2}\;.
\]
Moreover, the constant $\frac 2d$ is sharp.\end{cor}
\begin{proof} The inequality is achieved by taking the limit as $p\to 2$ in \eqref{Eqn:Infimum}. To see that the constant $\frac 2d$ is sharp, we can observe that
\[
\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\iS{|1+\varepsilon\,v|^2\,\log\(\frac{|1+\varepsilon\,v|^2}{\iS{|1+\varepsilon\,v|^2}}\)}=2\iS{\left|v-\overline v\right|^2}
\]
with $\overline v=\iS v$. The result follows by taking $v(\xi)=\xi_d$.\end{proof}
\section{Extensions}\label{Sec:Extensions}
\subsection{Onofri's inequality}\label{Sec:Onofri}
In case of dimension $d=2$, \eqref {Ineq:Interpolation} holds for any $p>2$ and we recover Onofri's inequality by taking the limit $p\to\infty$. This result is standard in the literature: see for instance \cite{MR1230930}. For completeness, let us give a statement and a short proof.
\begin{cor}\label{Cor:Onofri} Let $d=1$ or $d=2$. For any $v\in\H^1(\S^d,d\mu)$, we have
\[
\iS{e^{v-\overline v}}\le e^{\frac 1{2\,d}\iS{|\nabla v|^2}}
\]
where $\overline v=\iS v$ is the average of $v$. Moreover, the constant $\frac 1{2\,d}$ in the right hand side is sharp.\end{cor}
\begin{proof}In dimension $d=1$ or $d=2$, Inequality~\eqref{Ineq:Interpolation} holds for any $p>2$. Take $u=1+v/p$ and consider the limit as $p\to\infty$. We observe that
\[
\iS{|\nabla u|^2}=\frac 1{p^2}\iS{|\nabla v|^2}\quad\mbox{and}\quad\lim_{p\to\infty}\iS{|u|^p}=\iS{e^v}
\]
so that
\[
\(\iS{|u|^p}\)^{2/p}-1\sim \frac 2p\,\log\(\iS{e^v}\)\quad\mbox{and}\quad\iS{|u|^2}-1\sim \frac 2p\,\iS v\;.
\]
The conclusion holds by passing to the limit $p\to\infty$ in Inequality~\eqref{Ineq:Interpolation}. Optimality is once more achieved by considering $v=\varepsilon\,v_1$, $v_1(\xi)=\xi_d$, $d=1$ and Taylor expanding both sides of the inequality in terms of $\varepsilon>0$, small. Notice indeed that $-\Delta_{\S^d} v_1=\lambda_1\,v_1$ with $\lambda_1=d$, so that
\[
\nrm{\nabla u}2^2=\varepsilon^2\,\nrm{\nabla v_1}2^2=\varepsilon^2\,d\,\nrm{v_1}2^2\;,
\]
$\iS{v_1}=\overline v_1=0$, and
\[
\iS{e^{v-\overline v}}-1\sim\frac{\varepsilon^2}2\iS{|v-\overline v|^2}=\frac 12\,\varepsilon^2\,\nrm{v_1}2^2\;.
\]
\end{proof}
\subsection{Interpolation and a spectral approach for \texorpdfstring{$p\in(1,2)$}{qp in (1,2)}}\label{SubSec:OneTwo}
In \cite{MR954373}, W.~Beckner gave a method to prove interpolation inequalities between logarithmic Sobolev and Poincar\'e inequalities in case of a Gaussian measure. Here we shall prove that the method extends to the case of the sphere and therefore provides another family of interpolating inequalities, in a new range: $p\in[1,2)$, again with optimal constants. For further considerations on inequalities that interpolate between Poincar\'e and logarithmic Sobolev inequalities, we refer to \cite{MR2152502,ABD05,ABD,Bakry-Emery85,MR772092,MR2766956,MR2609029,MR2081075,MR1796718} and references therein.
Our purpose is to extend \eqref{Ineq:Interpolation} written as
\be{Eqn:BecknerExtended}
\frac 1d\iS{|\nabla u|^2}\ge \frac{\(\iS{|u|^p}\)^{2/p}-\iS{|u|^2}}{p-2}\quad\forall\;u\in\H^1(\S^d,d\mu)
\end{equation}
to the case $p\in[1,2)$. Let us start with a remark.
\begin{remark}\label{Rem:Poincare} At least for any nonnegative function $v$, using the fact that $\mu$ is a probability measure on $\S^d$, we may notice that
\[
\iS{\left|v-\overline v\right|^2}=\iS{\left|v\right|^2}-\(\iS v\)^2
\]
can be rewritten as
\[
\iS{\left|v-\overline v\right|^2}=\frac{\iS{|v|^2}-\(\iS{|v|^p}\)^{2/p}}{2-p}\;,
\]
for $p=1$, hence extending \eqref{Ineq:Interpolation} to the case $q=1$. However, as already noticed for instance in \cite{ABD05}, the inequality
\[
\iS{|v|^2}-\(\iS{|v|}\)^2\le \frac 1d\iS{|\nabla v|^2}
\]
also means that, for any $c\in{\mathbb R}$,
\[
\iS{|v+c|^2}-\(\iS{|v+c|}\)^2\le \frac 1d\iS{|\nabla v|^2}\;.
\]
If $v$ is bounded from below a.e.~with respect to $\mu$ and $c>-\mathrm{infess}_\mu v$, so that $v+c>0$ $\mu$ a.e., the left hand-side is
\[
\iS{|v+c|^2}-\(\iS{|v+c|}\)^2=c^2+2\,c\iS v+\iS{|v|^2}-\(c+\iS v\)^2=\iS{\left|v-\overline v\right|^2}\;,
\]
so that the inequality is the usual Poincar\'e inequality. By density, we recover that \eqref{Eqn:BecknerExtended} written for $p=1$ exactly amounts to Poincar\'e's inequality written not only for $|v|$, but also for any $v\in\H^1(\S^d,d\mu)$.
\end{remark}
\medskip Next, using the method introduced by W.~Beckner in \cite{MR954373} in case of a Gaussian measure, we are in position to prove \eqref{Eqn:BecknerExtended} for any $p\in(1,2)$, knowing that the inequality holds for $p=1$ and $p=2$.
\begin{prop}\label{Prop:4} Inequality \eqref{Eqn:BecknerExtended} holds for any $p\in(1,2)$ and any $d\ge 1$. Moreover $d$ is the optimal constant. \end{prop}
\begin{proof} Optimality can be checked by Taylor expanding $u=1+\varepsilon\,v$ at order two in terms of $\varepsilon>0$ as in the case $p=2$ (logarithmic Sobolev inequality). To establish the inequality itself, we may proceed in two steps.
\medskip\noindent\emph{$1^{\rm st}$ step: Nelson's hypercontractivity result.\/} Although the result can be established by direct methods, we follow here the strategy of Gross in \cite{Gross75}, which proves the equivalence of the optimal hypercontractivity result and the optimal logarithmic Sobolev inequality.
Consider the heat equation of $\S^d$, namely
\[
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}=\Delta_{\S^d} f
\]
with initial datum $f(t=0,\cdot)=u\in L^{2/p}(\S^d)$, for some $p\in(1,2]$, and let $F(t):=\nrm {f(t,\cdot)}{p(t)}$. The key computation goes as follows.
\begin{multline*}
\frac{F'}F=\frac d{dt}\,\log F(t)=\frac d{dt}\,\left[\frac 1{p(t)}\,\log\(\iS{|f(t,\cdot)|^{p(t)}}\)\right]\\
=\frac{p'}{p^2\,F^p}\left[\iS{v^2\log\(\frac{v^2}{\iS{v^2}}\)}+4\,\frac{p-1}{p'}\,\iS{|\nabla v|^2}\right]
\end{multline*}
with $v:=|f|^{p(t)/2}$. Assuming that $4\,\frac{p-1}{p'}=\frac 2d$, that is
\[
\frac{p'}{p-1}=2\,d\;,
\]
we find that
\[
\log\(\frac{p(t)-1}{p-1}\)=2\,d\,t
\]
if we require that $p(0)=p<2$. Let $t_*>0$ be such that $p(t_*)=2$. As a consequence of the above computation, we have
\be{Ineq:Nelson}
\nrm{f(t_*,\cdot)}2\le\nrm u{2/p}\quad\mbox{if}\quad\frac 1{p-1}=e^{2\,d\,t_*}\;.
\end{equation}
\medskip\noindent\emph{$2^{\rm nd}$ step: Spectral decomposition.\/} Let $u=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb N}}u_k$ be a decomposition of the initial datum on the eigenspaces of $-\Delta_{\S^d}$ and denote by $\lambda_k=k\,(d+k-1)$ the ordered sequence of the eigenvalues: $-\Delta_{\S^d} u_k=\lambda_k\,u_k$ (see for instance \cite{MR0282313}). Let $a_k=\nrm{u_k}2^2$. As a straightforward consequence of this decomposition, we know that $\nrm u2^2=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb N}}a_k$, $\nrm{\nabla u}2^2=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb N}}\lambda_k\,a_k$,
\[
\nrm{f(t_*,\cdot)}2^2=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb N}}a_k\,e^{-2\,\lambda_k\,t_*}\;.
\]
Using \eqref{Ineq:Nelson}, it follows that
\[
\frac{\(\iS{|u|^p}\)^{2/p}-\iS{|u|^2}}{p-2}\le\frac{\(\iS{|u|^2}\)-\iS{|f(t_*,\cdot)|^2}}{2-p}=\frac 1{2-p}\sum_{k\in{\mathbb N}^*}\lambda_k\,a_k\,\frac{1-e^{-2\,\lambda_k\,t_*}}{\lambda_k}\;.
\]
Notice that $\lambda_0=0$ so that the term corresponding to $k=0$ can be omitted in the series. Since $\lambda\mapsto\frac{1-e^{-2\,\lambda\,t_*}}{\lambda}$ is decreasing, we can bound $\frac{1-e^{-2\,\lambda_k\,t_*}}{\lambda_k}$ from above by $\frac{1-e^{-2\,\lambda_1\,t_*}}{\lambda_1}$ for any $k\ge 1$. This proves that
\[
\frac{\(\iS{|u|^p}\)^{2/p}-\iS{|u|^2}}{p-2}\le\frac{1-e^{-2\,\lambda_1\,t_*}}{(2-p)\,\lambda_1}\sum_{k\in{\mathbb N}^*}\lambda_k\,a_k=\frac{1-e^{-2\,\lambda_1\,t_*}}{(2-p)\,\lambda_1}\,\nrm{\nabla u}2^2\;.
\]
The conclusion easily follows if we notice that $\lambda_1=d$, and $e^{-2\,\lambda_1\,t_*}=p-1$ so that
\[
\frac{1-e^{-2\,\lambda_1\,t_*}}{(2-p)\,\lambda_1}=\frac 1d\;.
\]
The optimality of this constant can be checked as in the case $p>2$ by a Taylor expansion of $u=1+\varepsilon\,v$ at order two in terms of $\varepsilon>0$, small.
\end{proof}
\section{Symmetrization and the ultraspherical framework}
\subsection{A reduction to the ultraspherical framework}\label{SubSec:reduction}
\medskip We denote by $(\xi_0,\,\xi_1,\ldots\xi_d)$ the coordinates of an arbitrary point $\xi\in\S^d$, with $\sum_{i=0}^d|\xi_i|^2=1$. The following symmetry result is kind of folklore in the literature and we can quote \cite{MR0402083,MR717827,MR1164616} for various related results.
\begin{lem}\label{Lem:Sym} Up to a rotation, any minimizer of \eqref{Eqn:Infimum} depends only on $\xi_d$.\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Let $u$ be a minimizer for $\mathcal Q_p$. By writing $u$ in \eqref{Ineq:Interpolation} in spherical coordinates $\theta\in[0,\pi]$, $\varphi_1$, $\varphi_2$,... $\varphi_{d-1}\in[0,2\pi)$ and using decreasing rearrangements (see for instance~\cite{brock2000general}), it is not difficult to prove that among optimal functions, there is one which depends only on $\theta$. Moreover, equality in the rearrangement inequality means that $u$ has to depend on only one coordinate, $\xi_d=\sin\theta$.\end{proof}
Let us observe that the problem on the sphere can be reduced to a problem involving the ultraspherical operator:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$\bullet$] Using Lemma~\ref{Lem:Sym}, we know that \eqref{Ineq:Interpolation} is equivalent~to
\[
\frac{p-2}d\int_0^\pi|v'(\theta)|^2\;d\sigma+\int_0^\pi|v(\theta)|^2\;d\sigma\ge\(\int_0^\pi |v(\theta)|^p\;d\sigma\)^\frac 2p
\]
for any function $v\in\mathrm H^1([0,\pi],d\sigma)$, where
\[
d\sigma(\theta):=\frac{(\sin\theta)^{d-1}}{Z_d}\,d\theta\quad\mbox{with}\quad Z_d:=\sqrt\pi\,\frac{\Gamma(\tfrac d2)}{\Gamma(\tfrac{d+1}2)}\;.
\]
\item[$\bullet$] The change of variables $x=\cos\theta$, $v(\theta)=f(x)$ allows to rewrite the inequality as
\[\label{Ultraspherical}
\frac{p-2}d\int_{-1}^1|f'|^2\;\nu\;d\nu_d+\ix{|f|^2}\ge\(\ix{|f|^p}\)^\frac 2p
\]
where $d\nu_d$ is the probability measure defined by
\[
\nu_d(x)\,dx=d\nu_d(x):=Z_d^{-1}\,\nu^{\frac d2-1}\,dx\quad\mbox{with}\quad\nu(x):=1-x^2\;,\quad Z_d=\sqrt\pi\,\frac{\Gamma(\tfrac d2)}{\Gamma(\tfrac{d+1}2)}\;.
\]
\end{enumerate}
We may also want to prove the result in case $p<2$, to have the counterpart of Theorem~\ref{Thm:Main} in the ultraspherical setting. On $[-1,1]$, consider the probability measure $d\nu_d$ and define
\[
\nu(x):=1-x^2\,,
\]
so that $d\nu_d=Z_d^{-1}\,\nu^{\frac d2-1}\,dx$. We consider the space $\mathrm L^2((-1,1),d\nu_d)$ with scalar product
\[
\scal{f_1}{f_2}=\ix{f_1\,f_2}
\]
and use the notation
\[
\nrmx fp=\(\ix{f^p}\)^\frac 1p\;.
\]
On $\mathrm L^2((-1,1),d\nu_d)$, we define the self-adjoint \emph{ultraspherical} operator by
\[
\L f:=(1-x^2)\,f''-d\,x\,f'=\nu\,f''+\frac d2\,\nu'\,f'
\]
which satisfies the identity
\[
\scal{f_1}{\L f_2}=-\ix{f_1'\,f_2'\;\nu}\;.
\]
Then the result goes as follows.
\begin{prop}\label{Prop:Ultra} Let $p\in[1,2^*]$, $d\ge 1$. Then we have
\be{InterpUS}
-\scal f{\L f}=\ix{|f'|^2\;\nu}\ge d\,\frac{\nrmx fp^2-\nrmx f2^2}{p-2}\quad\forall\,f\in\H^1([-1,1],d\nu_d)
\end{equation}
if $p\neq 2$, and
\[
-\scal f{\L f}=\frac d2\ix{|f|^2\,\log\(\frac{|f|^2}{\nrmx f2^2}\)}
\]
if $p=2$.
\end{prop}
We may notice that the proof in~\cite{BV-V} requires $d\ge2$ while the case $d=1$ is also covered in \cite{MR1230930}. In Bentaleb \emph{et al.,} the restriction $d\ge2$ has been removed in~\cite{MR2641798}. Our proof is inspired by \cite{BV-V} and \cite{MR1231419,MR1971589}, but it is a simplification (in the particular case of the ultraspherical operator) in the sense that only integration by parts and elementary estimates are used.
\subsection{A proof of Proposition~\ref{Prop:Ultra}}\label{SubSec:classical}
Let us start with some preliminary observations. The operator $\L$ does not commute with the derivation, but we have the relation
\[\label{Commutation}
\left[\frac\partial{\partial x},\L\right]\,u=\(\L u\)'-\L u'=-2\,x\,u''-d\,u'\;.
\]
As a consequence, we obtain
\[
\scal{\L u}{\L u}=-\ix{u'\,\(\L u\)'\;\nu}=-\ix{u'\,\L u'\;\nu}+\ix{u'\,\(2\,x\,u''+d\,u'\)\;\nu}
\]
and
\[
\scal{\L u}{\L u}=\ix{|u''|^2\;\nu^2}-d\,\scal u{\L u}\;,
\]
\be{Gamma2}
\ix{(\L u)^2}=\scal{\L u}{\L u}=\ix{|u''|^2\;\nu^2}+d\ix{|u'|^2\;\nu}\;.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, a few integrations by parts show that
\be{L-Gamma}
\scal{\frac{|u'|^2}u\;\nu}{\L u}=\frac d{d+2}\ix{\frac{|u'|^4}{u^2}\;\nu^2}-\,2\,\frac{d-1}{d+2}\ix{\frac{|u'|^2\,u''}u\;\nu^2}\;,
\end{equation}
where we have used the fact that $\nu\,\nu'\,\nu_d=\frac 2{d+2}\,(\nu^2\,\nu_d)'$.
\medskip Let $p\in(1,2)\cup (2,2^*)$. In $H^1([-1,1],d\nu_d)$, consider now a minimizer $f$ for the functional
\[
f\mapsto \ix{|f'|^2\;\nu}- d\,\frac{\nrmx fp^2-\nrmx f2^2}{p-2}=:\mathcal F[f]
\]
made of the difference of the two sides in inequality \eqref{InterpUS}. The existence of such a minimizer can be proved by classical minimization and compactness arguments. Up to a multiplication by a constant, $f$ satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equation
\[
-\frac{p-2}d\,\L f+f=f^{p-1}\;.
\]
Let $\beta$ be a real number to be fixed later and define $u$ such that $f=u^\beta$, so that
\[
\L f=\beta\,u^{\beta-1}\,\(\L u+(\beta-1)\,\frac{|u'|^2}u\,\nu\)\,.
\]
Then $u$ is a solution to
\[
-\L u-(\beta-1)\,\frac{|u'|^2}u\,\nu+\lambda\,u=\lambda\,u^{1+\beta\,(p-2)}\quad\mbox{with}\quad\lambda:=\frac d{(p-2)\,\beta}\;.
\]
If we multiply the equation for $u$ by $\frac{|u'|^2}u\,\nu$ and integrate, we get
\[
-\ix{\L u\,\frac{|u'|^2}u\,\nu}-(\beta-1)\ix{\frac{|u'|^4}{u^2}\,\nu^2}+\lambda\ix{|u'|^{2}\;\nu}=\lambda\,\ix{u^{\beta\,(p-2)}\,|u'|^2\;\nu}\;.
\]
If we multiply the equation for $u$ by $-\,\L u$ and integrate, we get
\[
\ix{(\L u)^2}+(\beta-1)\ix{\L u\,\frac{|u'|^2}u\;\nu}+\lambda\ix{|u'|^2\;\nu}=(\lambda+d)\ix{u^{\beta\,(p-2)}\,|u'|^2\;\nu}\;.
\]
Collecting terms, we have found that
\[
\ix{(\L u)^2}+\(\beta+\frac d\lambda\)\ix{\L u\,\frac{|u'|^2}u\;\nu}+(\beta-1)\,\(1+\frac d\lambda\)\ix{\frac{|u'|^4}{u^2}\,\nu^2}-d\ix{|u'|^2\;\nu}=0\,.
\]
Using~\eqref{Gamma2} and~\eqref{L-Gamma}, we get
\begin{multline*}
\ix{|u''|^2\;\nu^2}+\(\beta+\frac d\lambda\)\left[\frac d{d+2}\ix{\frac{|u'|^4}{u^2}\;\nu^2}-\,2\,\frac{d-1}{d+2}\ix{\frac{|u'|^2\,u''}u\;\nu^2}\right]\\
+(\beta-1)\,\(1+\frac d\lambda\)\ix{\frac{|u'|^4}{u^2}\,\nu^2}=0 \,,
\end{multline*}
that is
\be{identity0}
\mathsf a\ix{|u''|^2\;\nu^2}+2\,\mathsf b\ix{\frac{|u'|^2\,u''}u\;\nu^2}+\mathsf c\ix{\frac{|u'|^4}{u^2}\;\nu^2}=0
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathsf a=1\;,\\
&&\mathsf b=-\,\(\beta+\frac d\lambda\)\,\frac{d-1}{d+2}\;,\\
&&\mathsf c=\(\beta+\frac d\lambda\)\frac d{d+2}+(\beta-1)\,\(1+\frac d\lambda\)\;.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using $\frac d\lambda=(p-2)\,\beta$, we observe that the reduced discriminant
\[
\delta=\mathsf b^2-\mathsf a\,\mathsf c<0
\]
can be written as
\[
\delta=A\,\beta^2+B\,\beta+1\quad\mbox{with}\quad A=(p-1)^2\,\frac{(d-1)^2}{(d+2)^2}-p+2\quad\mbox{and}\quad B=p-3-\frac{d\,(p-1)}{d+2}\;.
\]
If $p<2^*$, $B^2-4\,A$ is positive and it is therefore possible to find $\beta$ such that $\delta<0$.
Hence, if $p<2^*$, we have shown that $\mathcal F[f]$ is positive unless the three integrals \eqref{identity0} are equal to $0$, that is, $u$ is constant. It follows that $\mathcal F[f]=0$, which proves \eqref{InterpUS} if $p\in(1,2)\cup (2,2^*)$. The cases $p=1$, $p=2$ (\emph{cf.} Corollary~\ref{Cor:LogSob}) and $p=2^*$ can be proved as limit cases. This concludes the proof of Proposition~\ref{Prop:Ultra}.
\section{A proof based on a flow in the ultraspherical setting}
Inequality~\eqref{InterpUS} can be rewritten for $g=f^p$, \emph{i.e.}~$f=g^\alpha$ with $\alpha=1/p$, as
\[
-\scal f{\L f}=-\scal{g^\alpha}{\L g^\alpha}=:\I g\ge d\,\frac{\nrmx g1^{2\,\alpha}-\nrmx{g^{2\,\alpha}}1}{p-2}=:\F g
\]
\subsection{Flow}
Consider the flow associated to $\L$, that is
\be{flow}
\frac{\partial g}{\partial t}=\L g\;,
\end{equation}
and observe that
\[
\frac d{dt}\,\nrmx g1=0\;,\quad
\frac d{dt}\,\nrmx{g^{2\,\alpha}}1=-\,2\,(p-2)\,\scal f{\L f}=2\,(p-2)\,\ix{|f'|^2\;\nu}
\]
which finally gives
\[
\frac d{dt}\F{g(t,\cdot)}=-\frac d{p-2}\,\frac d{dt}\,\nrmx{g^{2\,\alpha}}1=-\,2\,d\,\I{g(t,\cdot)}
\]
\subsection{Method}
If \eqref{InterpUS} holds, then
\be{EntropyUS}
\frac d{dt}\F{g(t,\cdot)}\le-\,2\,d\,\F{g(t,\cdot)}\;,
\end{equation}
thus proving
\[
\F{g(t,\cdot)}\le\F{g(0,\cdot)}\,e^{-\,2\,d\,t}\quad\forall\;t\ge0\;.
\]
This estimate is actually equivalent to \eqref{InterpUS} as can be shown by estimating $\frac d{dt}\F{g(t,\cdot)}$ at $t=0$.
The method based on the Bakry-Emery approach amounts to establish first that
\be{BE}
\frac d{dt}\I{g(t,\cdot)}\le-\,2\,d\,\I{g(t,\cdot)}
\end{equation}
and prove \eqref{EntropyUS} by integrating the estimate on $t\in[0,\infty)$: since
\[
\frac d{dt}\(\F{g(t,\cdot)}-\I{g(t,\cdot)}\)\ge0
\]
and $\lim_{t\to\infty}\(\F{g(t,\cdot)}-\I{g(t,\cdot)}\)=0$, this means that
\[
\F{g(t,\cdot)}-\I{g(t,\cdot)}\le0\quad\forall\;t\ge0
\]
which is precisely \eqref{InterpUS} written for $f(t,\cdot)$ for any $t\ge0$ and in particular for any initial value $f(0,\cdot)$.
The equation for $g=f^p$ can be rewritten in terms of $f$ as
\[
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}=\L f+(p-1)\,\frac{|f'|^2}f\;\nu\;.
\]
Hence we have
\[
-\frac 12\,\frac d{dt}\ix{|f'|^2\;\nu}=\frac 12\,\frac d{dt}\,\scal f{\L f}=\scal{\L f}{\L f}+(p-1)\,\scal{\frac{|f'|^2}f\;\nu}{\L f}\;,
\]
\subsection{An inequality for the Fisher information} Instead of proving~\eqref{InterpUS}, we will established the following stronger inequality. For any $p\in(2,2^\sharp]$,
\be{InterpFisherUS}
\scal{\L f}{\L f}+(p-1)\,\scal{\frac{|f'|^2}f\;\nu}{\L f}+d\,\scal f{\L f}\ge0\;.
\end{equation}
Notice that~\eqref{InterpUS} holds under the restriction $p\in(2,2^\sharp]$, which is stronger than $p\in(2,2^*]$. We do not know whether the exponent $2^\sharp$ in \eqref{InterpFisherUS} is sharp or not.
\subsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{\eqref{InterpFisherUS}}{12}}
Using~\eqref{Gamma2} and~\eqref{L-Gamma} with $u=f$, we find that
\begin{multline*}
\frac d{dt}\ix{|f'|^2\;\nu}+\,2\,d\ix{|f'|^2\;\nu}\\
=-\,2\,\ix{\(|f''|^2+(p-1)\,\frac d{d+2}\frac{|f'|^4}{f^2}-\,2\,(p-1)\,\frac{d-1}{d+2}\frac{|f'|^2\,f''}f\)\,\nu^2}\;.
\end{multline*}
The right hand side is nonpositive if
\[
|f''|^2+(p-1)\,\frac d{d+2}\frac{|f'|^4}{f^2}-\,2\,(p-1)\,\frac{d-1}{d+2}\frac{|f'|^2\,f''}f
\]
is pointwise nonnegative, which is granted if
\[
\left[(p-1)\,\frac{d-1}{d+2}\right]^2\le(p-1)\,\frac d{d+2}\;,
\]
a condition which is exactly equivalent to $p\le2^\sharp$.
\subsection{An improved inequality} For any $p\in(2,2^\sharp)$, we can write that
\begin{multline*}
|f''|^2+(p-1)\,\frac d{d+2}\frac{|f'|^4}{f^2}-\,2\,(p-1)\,\frac{d-1}{d+2}\frac{|f'|^2\,f''}f\\
=\alpha\,|f''|^2+\frac{p-1}{d+2}\left|\frac{d-1}{\sqrt d}\,f''-\sqrt d\,\frac{|f'|^2}f\right|^2\ge \alpha\,|f''|^2
\end{multline*}
where
\[
\alpha:=1-(p-1)\,\frac{(d-1)^2}{d\,(d+2)}
\]
is positive. Now, using the Poincar\'e inequality
\[
\int_{-1}^1|f''|^2\;d\nu_{d+4}\ge(d+2)\int_{-1}^1|f'-\overline{f'}|^2\;d\nu_{d+2}
\]
where
\[
\overline{f'}:=\int_{-1}^1f'\;d\nu_{d+2}=-d\ix{x\,f}\;,
\]
we obtain an improved form of \eqref{InterpFisherUS}, namely
\[
\scal{\L f}{\L f}+(p-1)\,\scal{\frac{|f'|^2}f\;\nu}{\L f}+[d+\alpha\,(d+2)]\,\scal f{\L f}\ge0\;,
\]
if we can guarantee that $\overline{f'}\equiv0$ along the evolution determined by \eqref{flow}. This is the case if assume that $f(x)=f(-x)$ for any $x\in[-1,1]$. Under this condition, we find that
\[
\ix{|f'|^2\;\nu}\ge [d+\alpha\,(d+2)]\,\frac{\nrmx fp^2-\nrmx f2^2}{p-2}\;.
\]
As a consequence, we also have
\[
\iS{|\nabla u|^2}+\iS{|u|^2}\ge\frac{d+\alpha\,(d+2)}{p-2}\(\iS{|u|^p}\)^{2/p}
\]
for any $u\in\mathrm H^1(\S^d,d\mu)$ such that, using spherical coordinates,
\[
u(\theta,\varphi_1,\varphi_2,...\varphi_{d-1})=u(\pi-\theta,\varphi_1,\varphi_2,...\varphi_{d-1})\quad\forall\;(\theta,\varphi_1,\varphi_2,...\varphi_{d-1})\in[0,\pi]\times[0,2\pi)^{d-1}\;.
\]
\subsection{One more remark} The computation is exactly the same if $p\in(1,2)$ and we henceforth also prove the result in such a case. The case $p=1$ is the limit case corresponding to the Poincar\'e inequality
\[
\int_{-1}^1|f'|^2\;d\nu_{d+2}\ge d\(\ix{|f|^2}-\left|\ix f\right|^2\)
\]
and arises as a straightforward consequence of the spectral properties of $\L$. The case $p=2$ is achieved as a limiting case. It gives rise to the logarithmic Sobolev inequality (see for instance \cite{MR674060}).
\subsection{Limitation of the method} The limitation $p\le2^\sharp$ comes from the pointwise condition
\[
h:=|f''|^2+(p-1)\,\frac d{d+2}\frac{|f'|^4}{f^2}-\,2\,(p-1)\,\frac{d-1}{d+2}\frac{|f'|^2\,f''}f\ge0\;.
\]
Can we find special test functions $f$ such that this quantity can be made negative ? which are admissible, {i.e.} such that $h\,\nu^2$ is integrable ? Notice that at $p=2^\sharp$, we have that $f(x)=|x|^{1-d}$ is such that $h\equiv0$, but such a function, or functions obtained by slightly changing the exponent, are not admissible for larger values of $p$.
By proving that there is contraction of $\mathcal I$ along the flow, we look for a condition which is stronger than asking that there is contraction of $\mathcal F$ along the flow. It is therefore possible that the limitation $p\le2^\sharp$ is intrinsic to the method.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{Flow-F1.pdf}
\caption{\sl Plot of $d\mapsto 2^\sharp=\frac{2\,d^2+1}{(d-1)^2}$ and $d\mapsto 2^*=\frac{2\,d}{d-2}$.}
\end{figure}
\medskip\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements.} J.D.~and M.J.E.~were partially supported by ANR grants \emph{CBDif} and \emph{NoNAP}, and J.D.~by the ECOS project C11E07 \emph{Functional inequalities, asymptotics and dynamics of fronts.} M.K.~was partially supported by Chilean research grants Fondecyt 1090103, Fondo Basal CMM-Chile, Project Anillo ACT-125 CAPDE. M.L.~was supported in part by NSF grant DMS-0901304.\normalcolor \\[4pt]
{\sl\small \copyright~2012 by the authors. This paper may be reproduced, in its entirety, for non-commercial purposes.}
\small
|
\section{Introduction}
Intense star formation and subsequent evolution of massive stars are
spectacular processes observable from radio through optical to X-ray and
even $\gamma$-ray wavelengths, and represent a microcosm of starburst
astrophysics. Upon formation from giant molecular clouds, young massive
stars emit large amounts of ultraviolet (UV) radiation to ionize the ambient
medium into H~II regions. The accumulated kinetic energy injected by stellar
winds from O-type and Wolf-Rayet stars rival the explosion energies of
supernovae (SNe). These mechanical energies not only shock-heat the ambient
medium to 10$^6$--10$^8$~K that emits diffuse X-rays, but also may compress
ambient clouds to trigger further star formation. Within this medium, newly
formed X-ray binaries and magnetized young stellar objects shine as point
sources in X-rays. Regions of massive star formation are thus excellent
astrophysical laboratories to study the co-evolution of massive stars and
the multi-phase interstellar medium.
Giant H~II regions (GHRs) are sites of intense star formation qualified as
starbursts. Their H$\alpha$ luminosities, typically
$\sim{}10^{39}$-$10^{41}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ \citep{1984ApJ...287..116K}, require
an ionizing power equivalent to that of 24-2400 O5V stars
\citep{1997A&A...322..598S}.
Depending on their stellar content and
interstellar environments, GHRs may possess very different X-ray properties.
30 Doradus (30~Dor) in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) is dominated by a
central massive cluster, R136 \citep{1960MNRAS.121..337F} with a mass of
$\sim{}6\times10^4\,M_\odot$ \citep{2005ASSL..329...49B}, and its diffuse
X-ray luminosity is $L_{\rm X}\simeq1.4\times10^{37}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ in
0.5--8~keV \citep{1999ApJ...510L.139W, 2006AJ....131.2140T}.
NGC~604 in M33 contains multiple OB associations spreading over a
large area \citep{1996ApJ...456..174H}, and its hot ionized medium (HIM) has
a total unabsorbed X-ray luminosity of $1.43\times10^{36}$~erg~s$^{-1}$
\citep{2008ApJ...685..919T}.
IC~131, another GHR in M33, shows diffuse X-ray emission within a large
shell southeast to a concentration of OB stars and the diffuse X-ray emission
is characterized by an unusually hard spectrum \citep{2009ApJ...707.1361T}.
\begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccc}[!htp]
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Journal of analyzed \emph{Chandra} ACIS Observation\label{tab3}}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{ObsID} & \colhead{Start Date} & \colhead{Exposure (ks)\tablenotemark{a}} &
\multicolumn{4}{c}{CCD chips\tablenotemark{b}} &
\colhead{} \\
\cline{4-7}\\
\colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{NGC~5461}&
\colhead{NGC~5462} & \colhead{NGC~5471} & \colhead{Src.\ 6\tablenotemark{c}} &
\colhead{Data Mode}
}
\startdata
2779 &02.Oct.31 &11.9 &\nodata &\nodata &S3 &S2 & VFAINT\\
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
2065 &00.Oct.29 &9.63 &\nodata &S2 &S2 &S2 & FAINT\\
4737 &04.Jan.01 &20.5 &S3 &S3 &\nodata &S3 & VFAINT\\
4731 &04.Jan.19 &55.8 &\nodata &\nodata &S2 &\nodata & VFAINT\\
5297 &04.Jan.25 &18.7 &\nodata &\nodata &S2 &\nodata & VFAINT\\
5322 &04.May.03 &64.7 &\nodata &\nodata &\nodata &S2 & VFAINT\\
4733 &04.May.07 &23.6 &\nodata &\nodata &\nodata &S2 & VFAINT\\
5323 &04.May.09 &42.5 &\nodata &\nodata &\nodata &S2 & VFAINT\\
4736 &04.Nov.01 &73.9 &S2 &S2 &S2 &S2 & VFAINT\\
6152 &04.Nov.07 &22.7 &S2 &S2 &S2 &S2 & VFAINT\\
6170 &04.Dec.22 &43.4 &S3 &S3 &S2 &S3 & VFAINT\\
6175 &04.Dec.24 &40.6 &S3 &S3 &S2 &S3 & VFAINT\\
6169 &04.Dec.30 &28.0 &S3 &S3 &\nodata &S3 & VFAINT\\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Effective exposure, in which deadtime and bad time
intervals due to flaring have been excluded.}
\tablenotetext{b}{CCD chips that contain the specific targets in
the ACIS observations. The ellipses indicate
observations not used.}
\tablenotetext{c}{A point source detected in NGC~5462. See Table \ref{tab2}
for details.}
\end{deluxetable*}
The generation of X-ray-emitting hot gas reflects the star
formation activities and the accompanied high energy processes. We have
chosen to study the GHRs NGC~5461, NGC~5462, and NGC~5471 in M101 at a
distance of 6.8~Mpc \citep[][ hence $1\arcsec$ = 33~pc]{2006ApJS..165..108S},
because they are several times as luminous as 30~Dor
and exhibit contrasting optical morphologies \citep{2005ApJ...619..779C},
allowing us to investigate the generation and distribution of hot gas of
GHRs with larger-scale starbursts.
NGC~5461 is a large ($40\arcsec\times 25\arcsec$) H~II complex with multiple
components \citep{1990ApJS...73..661H}. The linear size of NGC~5461 is
$\sim 1.3$~kpc $\times$ 0.82~kpc. Six R136-class clusters of quite young
ages ($<5$~Myr) have been identified by \citet{2005ApJ...619..779C}; five
of them are located in H1105, the main body of NGC~5461. It is suggested
that the entire region is associated with two generations of star formation
events \citep{2006AJ....131..849P}.
The GHR NGC~5462 corresponds to another large H~II complex spreading
$48\arcsec\times33\arcsec$, or $\sim 1.6$~kpc~$\times$~1.1~kpc, as seen in ground-based
H$\alpha$ images \citep{1975A&A....40..421I}. Thirty-three H~II regions
are identified within NGC~5462 \citep{1990ApJS...73..661H}, but none
of them is comparable to 30~Dor ($\sim{}290$~pc$\times290$~pc).
\citet{2005ApJ...619..779C} have identified 25 cluster candidates
in NGC~5462 and made photometric measurements; the two most luminous clusters
have masses of $\sim{}2\times10^4\,M_\odot$ and ages of $\gtrsim 10$~Myr.
At such ages, SNe explosions of massive stars begin
to dominate the energetics of the GHRs \citep{2005MNRAS.361..679O}.
If the resulting hot gas is confined therein, the GHRs may be
expected to be luminous X-ray sources.
NGC~5471 is a GHR in the outskirt of M101. \citet{1985ApJ...290..449S}
identified five bright knots in NGC~5471 and concluded that the
B-knot (NGC~5471B) contains a supernova remnant (SNR) because of its
non-thermal radio emission and high [\ion{S}{2}]/H$\alpha$ ratio.
This SNR was subsequently suggested to be a ``hypernova remnant'' because
its $\sim{}10^{52}$~ergs explosion energy derived from the \emph{ROSAT}
X-ray observation was much higher than the canonical SN explosion
energy 10$^{51}$~ergs \citep{1999ApJ...517L..27W}. NGC~5471B has been observed
to be a large-velocity-width source \citep[LVWS, ][]{1986ApJ...311...85C},
which is unique among NGC~5461, NGC~5462, and NGC~5471
\citep{1994AJ....107..651Y}. In a follow-up critical examination of
NGC~5471B, \citet{2002AJ....123.2462C} analyzed the underlying stellar
population and the spectral and kinematic properties of the nebula,
and concluded that these optical observations support the presence of a
hypernova remnant in NGC~5471B.
To carry out a comprehensive investigation of the physical properties of
multi-phase gas and evolving processes in these GHRs, we have examined
\emph{Chandra} X-ray observations and obtained H$\alpha$ echelle spectral
mapping of NGC~5461 and NGC~5471 with the 4m Mayall Telescope at Kitt
Peak National Observatory (KPNO). We report the analysis of hot gas
in NGC~5461, NGC~5462, and NGC~5471 in this paper, and the
kinematics of warm ionized gas in these GHRs in an upcoming paper.
This paper is organized as follows: observations and data reductions
are described in Section \ref{sec2}, the results of our analysis are
presented in Section \ref{sec3}, the nature of the GHRs is discussed
in Section \ref{sec4}, and conclusions are given in Section \ref{sec5}.
\section{Observations and Data Reductions}\label{sec2}
\begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccc}[!htp]
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Properties of Detected Point Sources\label{tab2}}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Source} &
\colhead{CXOU Name} &
\colhead{$\delta_x$ ($\arcsec$)} &
\colhead{CR $({\rm~cts~ks}^{-1})$} &
\colhead{HR} &
\colhead{HR1} &
\colhead{Flag} &
\colhead{MI} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\colhead{(1)} &
\colhead{(2)} &
\colhead{(3)} &
\colhead{(4)} &
\colhead{(5)} &
\colhead{(6)} &
\colhead{(7)} &
\colhead{(8)}
}
\startdata
1 & J140338.65+541849.9 & 0.6 &$ 0.07 \pm 0.02$& --& --& B, S & --\\
2 & J140341.28+541904.0 & 0.4 &$ 0.77 \pm 0.06$& $-0.69\pm0.07$ & $ 0.35\pm0.08$ & B, S, H & NGC5457-X50, P107\\
3 & J140342.56+541910.5 & 0.5 &$ 0.12 \pm 0.03$& --& --& B, S & --\\
4 & J140351.90+542149.4 & 0.3 &$ 0.47 \pm 0.06$& $-0.88\pm0.06$ & $ 0 .28\pm0.13$ & B, S & NGC5457-X130\\
5 & J140352.60+542210.8 & 0.4 &$ 0.12 \pm 0.03$& --& --& B, S & --\\
6 & J140353.83+542157.2 & 0.3 &$ 5.24 \pm 0.18$& $-0.48\pm0.04$ & $ 0 .38\pm0.04$ & B, S, H & NGC5457-X21, P110\\
7 & J140354.30+542209.4 & 0.4 &$ 0.13 \pm 0.03$& $-0.89\pm0.13$ & --& B, S & NGC5457-X280\\
8 & J140354.51+542152.0 & 0.5 &$ 0.08 \pm 0.03$& --& --& B, H & NGC5457-X243\\
9 & J140354.84+542135.3 & 0.4 &$ 0.09 \pm 0.02$& --& --& B, S, H & --\\
10 & J140429.21+542352.9 & 0.3 &$ 13.40 \pm 1.60$& $-1.00\pm0.00$ & $-0.21\pm0.11$ & S, B & NGC5457-X17
\enddata
\tablecomments{The energy bands are defined as the following:
0.3--0.7 (S1), 0.7--1.5 (S2), 1.5--3 (H1), 3--7~keV (H2),
S = S1+S2, H = H1+H2, and B = S+H.
Column (1): Source
number. (2): {\sl Chandra} X-ray Observatory (unregistered) source name,
following the {\sl Chandra} naming convention and the IAU Recommendation
for Nomenclature (e.g., http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/iau-spec.html). (3):
Position uncertainty (1$\sigma$) calculated from the maximum likelihood
centroiding and an approximate off-axis angle ($r$) dependent systematic
error $0\farcs2+1\farcs4(r/8^\prime)^2$ (an approximation to Figure~4 of
\citet{2002ApJ...574..258F}), which are added in quadrature.
(4): On-axis source broad-band count rate --- the sum of the
exposure-corrected count rates in the four bands. (5-6): The hardness
ratios defined as
${\rm HR}=({\rm H-S2})/({\rm H+S2})$ and ${\rm HR1}=({\rm S2-S1})/{\rm S}$,
listed only for values with uncertainties less than 0.2. (7): Energy
bands in which the source is detected, and from which the most accurate
position is adopted in Column (2). (8): Matching identifiers of other X-ray
catalogs: from \citet[][ with a prefix "NGC5457-X"]{2011ApJS..192...10L} and
from \citet[][with a prefix "P"]{2001ApJ...561..189P}.
}
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccc}[!hbp]
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Journal of IR, optical and UV data\label{tab1}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Object} & \colhead{Observation Date} & \colhead{Filter} &
\colhead{$\lambda$ (\AA)\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Bandwidth (\AA)\tablenotemark{a}} &
\colhead{Band} & \colhead{Exposure (s)\tablenotemark{b}} }
\startdata
M101 & 2004 Mar. 08 & Channel 1 & 3.6$\mu$m & 0.75$\mu$m (21\%) & dust \& PAH & 10.4\\
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
NGC~5461 & 1999 Mar. 23 & F656N & 6562 & 22 &H$\alpha$ & 160(1), 600(2)\\
& 1999 Mar. 24 & F547M & 5454 & 487 &Str{\"o}mgren \emph{y}& 600(2), 100(2),20(3)\\
& 1999 Jun. 17 & F547M & 5454 & 487 &Str{\"o}mgren \emph{y}& 500(2)\\
NGC~5462 & 2000 Feb. 01 & F656N & 6562 & 22 &H$\alpha$ & 160(1), 600(2)\\
& 2000 Feb. 01 & F547M & 5454 & 487 &Str{\"o}mgren \emph{y} & 600(1), 100(2), 20(2)\\
NGC~5471 & 1997 Nov. 01 & F656N & 6562 & 22 &H$\alpha$ & 180(1), 600(2)\\
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
NGC~5457 & Co-added & FUV & 1550 & 300 & hot star & 1500
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{The effective wavelength and bandwidth of the filters
are taken from the IRAC Instrument Handbook
\citep{2004ApJS..154...10F} for the \emph{Spitzer} data,
the WFPC2 Instrument Handbook \citep{1996wfpc.rept....5B}
for the \emph{HST} observations and the flight calibration
\citep{2004AAS...205.2509M} for the \emph{GALEX} images.}
\tablenotetext{b}{The exposure time is followed by the number of exposures in
parentheses. Multiple exposures are used to remove cosmic rays.}
\end{deluxetable*}
The main data sets used in this study are from the archive of the
\emph{Chandra X-ray Observatory} observations. Archival data from the
\emph{Hubble Space Telescope} (\emph{HST}), \emph{Spitzer Space Telescope}
and \emph{Galaxy Evolution Explorer} (\emph{GALEX}) are also employed here
for multi-wavelength comparisons.
The X-ray data analyzed here consist of several segments from the 1~Ms
\emph{Chandra} observation of M101 \citep{2010ApJS..188...46K} and a
15~ks \emph{Chandra} ACIS observation aimed at NGC~5471 (ObsID: 2779,
PI: Q.~D.~Wang). The Ms observation is used for imaging and spectral
analyses of NGC~5461 and NGC~5462. NGC~5471 is located at $\sim20'$
off the aim point of the Ms observation of M101, where the 90\%
energy-encircled radius (EER) is greater than $15\arcsec$ for a point
source\footnote{\emph{Chandra} Proposer's Observatory Guide ver 12.0,
Figure~4.13, available at http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/POG.};
therefore, only the 15~ks observation directly aimed at NGC~5471 is
used to construct color composites of multi-band images. The small
number of X-ray counts in this short observation prevents us from
producing a tri-color X-ray image of NGC~5471. Table~\ref{tab3}
summarizes the observations used for imaging and spectral analysis.
Most of the adopted
observations were made within one year span, so there is no significant
variations of the instrumental background\footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/Links/Acis/acis/Cal\_prods/bkgrnd/current/}.
The CIAO 4.2 software is used for the X-ray data calibration and spectrum
extraction. We reprocess the Chandra data starting with the Level 1 event
files following the pipeline on the official website\footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/guides/acis\_data.html}.
Point-like sources in three broad bands, 0.3$-$1.5~keV~(S),
1.5$-$7.0~keV~(H), and 0.3$-$7.0~keV~(B), are identified from the event
maps, which are produced by merging all the available observations,
following the procedure detailed in \citet{2004ApJ...612..159W}
using a combination of three algorithms: wavelet, sliding box, and maximum
likelihood centroid fitting. The estimation of the count rate of a source
is based on the number of counts within the 90\% EER determined from the
calibrated point-spread function (PSF) of the instrument
\citep{2000SPIE.4012...17J}. Point-like sources detected in the
three GHRs are listed in Table~\ref{tab2}.
Different CCD chips have
different responses, therefore, the instrumental backgrounds
are subtracted from the raw event maps in four energy bands: 0.3$-$0.7~keV
(S1), 0.7$-$1.5~keV (S2), 1.5$-$3.0~keV (H1), and 3.0$-$7.0~keV (H2), then
the net count maps are corrected by the exposure maps of these four energy
bands. The final net intensity maps (S1, S2, and H1+H2) are used to produce
tri-color X-ray images, and the S1+S2 net intensity maps are used as the
X-ray images in the multi-band color-composite images. Point sources
have been excised from the H1+H2 intensity maps of NGC~5461 and NGC~5462,
and the contours extracted
from the resulting diffuse emission maps have been overplotted on the
corresponding images in Figure~\ref{fig1}.
The archival infrared (IR), optical and UV data from space telescopes are
also included in this study in order to explore the physical properties
of interstellar gas in various phases in and around these GHRs.
The IR 3.6~$\mu$m image is obtained with the \emph{Spitzer}
Infrared Array Camera (IRAC; PI: George Rieke). The \emph{HST} WFPC2
images of the three GHRs are from the Cycle 6 program GO-6829
(PI: You-Hua Chu). The UV image is a stacked one from the ``Tracing
the Extreme Edges of Galaxies in UV and HI'' program in Cycle 3
(PI: Frank Bigiel). As we do not make photometric measurements,
the post basic calibration data are used directly. Relevant
information of these complementary IR, optical, and UV data is
summarized in Table~\ref{tab1}. The multiple exposures of the
\emph{HST} WFPC2 observations in each band are employed to remove cosmic
rays using the IRAF tasks \emph{xzap} and
\emph{imcombine}.
\section{Data Results}\label{sec3}
\begin{figure*}[!htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{figure1a.eps}
~~\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{figure1b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{figure1c.eps}
~~\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{figure1d.eps}\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{figure1e.eps}
~~\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{figure1f.eps}\\
\centering
\caption{Multi-band (panels {\em a--d}) and tri-color X-ray (panels
{\em e} and {\em f}) images of the three GHRs.
The red, green, and blue colors in the multi-band images {\em a},
{\em c}, and {\em d} correspond to \emph{Spitzer} IRAC 3.6$\mu$m,
\emph{HST} WFPC2 F656N narrow band (H$\alpha$ line), and
\emph{Chandra} ACIS soft (0.3$-$1.5~keV) band; those in
panel~{\em b} represent the Str{\"o}mgren \emph{y} (\emph{HST}
F547M), UV (\emph{GALEX}), and X-ray (\emph{Chandra} 0.3--1.5~keV)
emission in NGC~5461; and those in the tri-color X-ray images
{\em e} and {\em f} represent soft (0.3--0.7~keV), medium
(0.7--1.5~keV) and hard (1.5--7.0~keV) bands, respectively,
and the cyan color in panel~{\em c} represents the Str{\"o}mgren
\emph{y} ({\em HST} F547M) band image of NGC~5462.
The orange circles in panels {\em e} and {\em f} mark the
detected X-ray point sources; their radii are of 1.2 times the
90\% ERR. The dashed contours overplotted on panels~{\em a,
b, e, f} (black), and {\em c} (white) represent the
point-source-excised surface brightness of hard X-ray band
at levels of (1.19, 1.35, and
1.68)$\times10^{-5}$~photon~s$^{-1}$~cm$^{-2}$~arcmin$^{-2}$
in panels~{\em a, b}, and {\em e}, and (1.09, 1.29, and
1.70)$\times10^{-5}$~photon~s$^{-1}$~cm$^{-2}$~arcmin$^{-2}$
in panels~{\em c} and {\em f}, respectively, which are 3$\sigma$,
5$\sigma$, and 9$\sigma$ above the local background. \label{fig1}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Spatial Properties}
To investigate the relative distributions of the IR, optical,
and X-ray emission, we have used these images to produce the color
composites in Figure~\ref{fig1} (panels~{\em a}--{\em d}) for
NGC~5461, NGC~5462, and NGC~5471.
The X-ray images used in these color composites are the adaptively
smoothed net intensity maps in the 0.3--1.5~keV energy band.
The alignment among the multi-band images is based on the world
coordinates systems (WCS) and is accurate to better than $1\arcsec$.
To examine the hardness of the X-ray emission, we have also made
tri-color composites using the adaptively smoothed net intensity
maps in the 0.3--0.7, 0.7--1.5, and 1.5--7.0~keV bands for
NGC~5461 and NGC~5462, shown in the panels~{\em e} and {\em f} of
Figure~\ref{fig1}. NGC~5471 has insufficient signal to warrant such
color image.
\begin{figure*}[!htp]
\epsscale{0.8}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{figure2left.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{figure2middle.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{figure2right.eps}
\caption{Radial surface brightness profile comparisons in the broad band
(0.3--7.0~keV) to determine the diffuse extraction regions in
NGC~5461 (left), NGC~5462 (middle), and NGC~5471 (right). The
distance to the center in NGC~5461 is measured along the minor
axes, and on- and off-source profiles are plotted in black and
red data points, respectively. The extraction regions are
selected to be elliptical with semi-major and minor axes of
26\farcs25$\times$21\arcsec\ and position angle of $44^\circ$
for NGC~5461, circular with a radius of 27\arcsec\ for NGC~5462,
and 24\farcs6\ for NGC~5471. The threshold count rate is listed
in the first row of Table~\ref{tab4} reporting spectral fitting
results. \label{fig2}}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{NGC~5461}
Optical images of NGC~5461 show a bright core, where a high concentration
of clusters are found, and extended distribution of stars and gas to the
northeast and southwest of the core, roughly along a spiral arm of M101
\citep[Figure~2 of ][]{2005ApJ...619..779C}. NGC~5461 is also a bright
X-ray emitter (Figure~\ref{fig1}e), and as shown in Figure~\ref{fig1}a--b, its
diffuse X-ray emission follows the distribution of stars, peaking at the
bright optical core H1105 and extending to the northeast and southwest.
The central X-ray emission has been identified as a quasi-soft source
\citep[][ Src.\ 114 therein]{2004ApJ...609..710D}. In the
0.3--0.7~keV band, the diffuse emission shows a remarkable deviation from
the GHR's distribution -- it extends $\sim15''$ from the southern
boundary of the H$\alpha$ bright region southward toward a region of
elevated stellar density, which is visible in both \emph{HST} WFPC2
continuum images \citep{2005ApJ...619..779C} and the \emph{GALEX} UV image
(Figure~\ref{fig1}b). The linear scale of this soft X-ray extension is
about 500~pc at the distance of M101, and is too large to be a sign of
the blown out hot gas from H1105; the spectral analysis of
this feature is presented in Section \ref{x-ray_spec} and its nature
is further discussed in Section \ref{subsce}.
\subsubsection{NGC~5462}
Optical images of NGC~5462 show that its stars are distributed roughly
in the northeast-southwest direction along a spiral arm, and that the
dense ionized gas (seen in H$\alpha$) is offset from the stars in the
downstream direction \citep[northwest, ][]{2005ApJ...619..779C}.
The multi-band image of NGC~5462 in Figure~\ref{fig1}c shows
that the diffuse X-ray emission is also offset from the stars, but in the
opposite direction to the H~II gas. This relative distribution is very
different from that of NGC~5461, where diffuse X-rays follow the
stars and H~II gas except for the soft X-ray extension to the south.
As seen in the tri-color X-ray image (Figure~\ref{fig1}f), near the centroid
of the diffuse X-ray emission is the bright X-ray point source Src.\ 6
(as listed in Table~\ref{tab2}) at
[14$^{\rm h}$03$^{\rm m}$53$^{\rm s}$.8, 54$^\circ21'57\arcsec$], which
was identified as a black hole (BH) candidate by \citet{2003ApJ...582..184M}.
This point source is coincident with a bright IR source
(Figure~\ref{fig1}c), and the candidate star cluster NGC~5462-19
of \citet{2005ApJ...619..779C}. Since this point source is the dominant
X-ray emitter in this field, we analyze its spectrum in
Section~\ref{x-ray_spec}. The non-thermal nature
of its X-ray spectrum, the light absorption, and the steep photon
index (see also Col.~4 in Table~\ref{tab4}) indicate that this point source
could be a BH/X-ray binary in M101 or a nearly face-on
AGN in the background. Src.\ 6 is very different from the point
source Src.\ 4 near H1159, which is a quasi-soft X-ray source
identified by \citet[][Src.\ 116 therein]{2004ApJ...609..710D}. The
physical nature of Src.\ 6 will be discussed in Section~4.3.
\subsubsection{NGC~5471}
\emph{HST} images of NGC~5471 have resolved the five knots defined by
\citet{1985ApJ...290..449S}, A--E, into clusters with associated
H~II gas \citep{2005ApJ...619..779C}. The multi-band image of NGC~5471
(Figure~\ref{fig1}d) shows that the X-ray emission peaks at
the B-knot. As this is a 15 ks observation, it is not clear whether faint
diffuse emission is pervasive in this GHR complex. The angular size of
NGC~5471B is comparable to the equivalent radius of the PSF even in the
on-axis observation, and therefore it is not surprising that NGC~5471B
is identified as a point source in our and former detections (Src.\ 10
in Table~\ref{tab2}). The spectral analysis of this source uses all
available sections of the Ms observation of M101 to improve the
signal-to-noise ratio, assuming that all X-ray emission originates from
the [S~II]/H$\alpha$ enhanced shell in NGC~5471B, as often seen in
X-ray-bright superbubbles \citep[e.g., ][]{1990ApJ...365..510C}.
\begin{figure*}[!htp]
\plottwo{figure3left.eps}{figure3right.eps}
\caption{Raw images of the fields containing NGC~5461, NGC~5462 (left)
and NGC~5471 (right). These are merged event maps of the ACIS
observations selected to make the spectral extraction of these
sources. On- and off-source extraction regions are represented
in black solid circles and green dashed polygons (outside the
red dash-dotted circle for NGC~5471), respectively. The background
regions are compromises among the data sets of different
observations. \label{fig3}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{X-ray Spectral Analysis}\label{x-ray_spec}
The X-ray spectra of the diffuse emission from the three GHRs are
extracted from each individual observation using CIAO command
\emph{specextract}. Six, seven, and eight observations are used
for NGC~5461, NGC~5462, and NGC~5471 for full coverage,
respectively (see Table~\ref{tab3} for the data adoption). The
adopted on-source spectral extraction regions are elliptical
(for NGC~5461) or circular (for NGC~5462 and NGC~5471). The region
sizes are determined by comparing the on-source and off-source
radial surface brightness profiles, as illustrated in
Figure~\ref{fig2}. The threshold intensities are listed in the
first row of Table~\ref{tab4}, and the regions for the spectral
extraction are overplotted on the raw X-ray images
of NGC~5461, NGC~5462, and NGC~5471 in Figure~\ref{fig3}. All
point-like sources detected in NGC~5461 and NGC~5462 are excised
with circular exclusive regions of radii 1.2 times the 90\% EER, which
enclose at least 95\% X-ray emission from the point sources.
For the intriguing X-ray source Src.\ 6,
11 observations are employed (Table~\ref{tab3}) to extract its
spectrum using CIAO command \emph{psextract}.
The adopted source region is circular with a radius 1.2 times the 90\% EER,
and the background region is a concentric annulus with radii of 1.2--2
times the 90\% EER.
Since the ACIS-S3 CCD is completely filled by M101 in every segment of
the Ms observation, local backgrounds for the diffuse X-rays cannot be
obtained from this chip,
and thus we adopt the ``double background subtraction'' method to account
for the position dependence of the background, effective area, and energy
response of the instruments. The off-source region for NGC~5461 or
NGC~5462 is selected less ideally from an adjacent chip, and that
for NGC~5471 is selected in the nearby field on the same chip (green dashed
rectangle and polygon in Figure~\ref{fig3}). The spectra of the
non-X-ray contributions are extracted individually from the corresponding
regions in the stowed background data in CALDB~4.2 and normalized according
to the 10-12~keV count rates \citep{2006ApJ...645...95H}. The on- and
off-source spectra extracted from different observations for each GHR are
weighted by exposure and combined to improve the statistics.
The net on-source and off-source spectra are jointly
fitted in XSPEC.
\begin{figure*}[!htp]
\centering
\epsscale{.80}
\includegraphics[scale=0.33,angle=-90]{figure4top-left.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.33,angle=-90]{figure4top-right.eps}\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.33,angle=-90]{figure4bottom-left.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.33,angle=-90]{figure4bottom-right.eps}
\caption{X-ray spectral analysis of NGC~5461 (top-left), NGC~5462
(top-right), NGC~5471 (bottom-left) and the point source
CXO~J140353.83+542157.2 (Src.\ 6) near NGC~5462 (bottom-right).
The on- and off-source spectra are plotted in black and red
colors, respectively. In the spectra of the GHRs, dotted lines
represent thermal (green) and non-thermal (blue) contributions,
and black dashed lines represent the diffuse background emissions
which are scaled from the off-source spectra. The
best-fit model of Src.\ 6 is a
power-law, while the spectra of the three GHRs are well
fitted with a {\tt MEKAL} (dotted green) plus power-law
(dotted blue) model.
The spectral fit parameters are given in Table~\ref{tab4}.
\label{fig4}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{deluxetable*}{lcccc}[!htp]
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablecaption{X-ray spectroscopy of Emission from Giant H~II Regions \label{tab4}}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Emission Component} & \colhead{NGC~5461} & \colhead{NGC~5462} &
\colhead{Src.\ 6} & \colhead{NGC~5471B}
}
\startdata
(1) Threshold Count Rate\tablenotemark{a}(10$^{-6}$ sbu)
& $2.67\pm0.53$ & $16.3\pm 3.7$ & \nodata & $2.14\pm0.56$ \\
(2) Accumulated effective exposure (ks) & 228.9 & 238.5 & 381.3 & 276.6 \\
(3) Net Count Rate\tablenotemark{b} (10$^{-3}$ cts s$^{-1}$)
& $4.6\pm0.2$ & $4.3\pm0.2$ & $3.6\pm0.1$ & $4.5\pm0.1$ \\
(4) Adopted Abundance for {\tt MEKAL} part (Z$_\odot$)
& 0.65 & 0.42 & \nodata & 0.25 \\
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
(5) Neutral Hydrogen Column Density (10$^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$)
& $0.3^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ & $0.2^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$
& $0.26^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $0.3^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ \\
(6) Temperature of {\tt MEKAL} Component (keV)
& $0.25^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $0.24^{+0.04}_{-0.06}$
& \nodata & $0.19^{+0.08}_{-0.04}$ \\
(7) Photon Index
& $2.4^{+0.9}_{-0.8}$ & $3.5^{+1.8}_{-1.1}$
& $3.1^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ & $5.6^{+1.0}_{-0.8}$ \\
(8) Emission Measure/$d^2_{6.8}$ ($10^{62}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$)
& $0.3^{+1.2}_{-0.2}$ & $0.2^{+1.7}_{-0.1}$
& \nodata & $2.6^{+5.4}_{-2.1}$ \\
(9) $A_\Gamma$ ($10^{-5}$photons~keV$^{-1}$~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ at 1~keV)
& $0.3^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ & $0.3^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$
& $1.7^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ & $1.4^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ \\
(10) $\chi^2$/degrees of freedom & 54.0/52 & 51.4/48 & 87.5/77 & 69.5/57 \\
(11) $F_{\rm X,MEKAL}/F_{\rm X,PL}$\tablenotemark{c}
& 1.8 & 2.5 & \nodata & 1.5 \\
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
(12) $L_{\rm X,0.5-5.0~keV}$\tablenotemark{d}($10^{38}$~erg~s$^{-1}$)
& 2.9 & 1.7 & 2.7 & 8.2 \\
(13) $n_{\rm H}/f^{-1/2}d^{-1/2}_{6.8}$ ($\textrm{cm}^{-3}$)\tablenotemark{e}
& 0.29 &0.014 & \nodata & 8.0 \\
(14) $E_{\rm th}/f^{1/2}d^{5/2}_{6.8}$ ($10^{52}$~ergs)\tablenotemark{f}
& 9.1 & 161. & \nodata & 2.9 \\
\enddata
\tablecomments{See Section~\ref{x-ray_spec} and lower notes for the
descriptions of each row. The errors of the count rates are
Poissonian, and the confidence ranges of the fitted parameters
are at the 90\% level.}
\tablenotetext{a}{The count rates are counted in 0.3--7.0 keV energy
interval without background subtraction, which are
summarized from surface brightness profile
analyses. 1~sbu=1~cts~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~arcsec$^{-2}$.}
\tablenotetext{b}{The net count rates are counted in 0.4--5.0~keV energy
interval with instrumental background subtraction,
and the emissions from point-like sources (Src.\ 1--9 in
Table~\ref{tab2}) have been excluded from the GHRs'
diffuse emissions.}
\tablenotetext{c}{Model absorbed flux ratio of {\tt MEKAL} to power-law
of 0.5--5.0~keV.}
\tablenotetext{d}{Unabsorbed X-ray luminosity. Calculated from
fitted model flux, for those three GHRs only the {\tt MEKAL}
part is included.}
\tablenotetext{e}{Root mean square (RMS) hydrogen density generated from
the best-fit normalization parameter of the {\tt MEKAL}
model, where $f$ denotes filling
factor of the hot gas, the ellipsoids for H1105 (with
half-axes $3\farcs15\times3\farcs15\times5\farcs3$, size
of contour at 20\% of the top value) and NGC~5471B (with
half-axes $1\farcs1\times0\farcs85\times0\farcs85$: size
of the [S II]/H$\alpha$-enhanced shell), and the sphere
for NGC~5462 (with radius $0\farcm45$) are assumed, and
the He/H ratio are 0.09, 0.09, 0.08 for H1105, NGC~5462
and NGC~5471B, respectively. }
\tablenotetext{f}{The thermal energy of the hot plasma is calculated as:
$E_{\rm th}=V\cdot f\cdot u_{\rm X}=\frac{3}{2}\cdot
2.3n_{\rm H}kT\cdot V\cdot f$, where $n_{\rm H}$ is the
hydrogen density of shocked gas. }
\end{deluxetable*}
The optically-thin thermal plasma emission model, {\tt MEKAL}
\citep{1985A&AS...62..197M}, plus an additional non-thermal component
is used to fit the spectra of the diffuse emission from the three
GHRs. Based on the oxygen and iron abundances determined from optical
spectrophotometry of the three GHRs \citep{1989ApJ...345..186T,
2002ApJ...581..241E, 2003ApJ...591..801K}, the abundance parameters in the
thermal components of NGC~5461, NGC~5462, and NGC~5471B are adopted to be
0.65, 0.42, and 0.25~$Z_{\odot}$, respectively. The neutral hydrogen column
density of the absorption to the fitting model is set to be free (while
it was fixed in the analyses of \citet{2010ApJS..188...46K} and
\citet{1999ApJ...510L.139W}). The fitted spectra are shown
in Figure~\ref{fig4}. The spectral results are summarized in
Table~\ref{tab4}, in which Rows~(5)-(11) give the spectral fit
parameters, and Rows~(12)-(14) show the derived physical
parameters.
The best-fit models for the X-ray spectra of the three GHRs are all
characterized by a soft thermal component ($\sim{}0.2$~keV), and a
non-negligible power-law component which dominates the spectra
above $\sim1.0$~keV. The X-ray luminosities of the thermal component
for NGC~5461, NGC~5462, and NGC~5471 are $(2.9, 1.7$, and
$8.2) \times10^{38}$~erg~s$^{-1}$, respectively. As a comparison,
\citet{2010ApJS..188...46K} and \citet{1999ApJ...510L.139W} obtained
lower luminosities. Such discrepancies may be caused by a combination
of a few factors: in addition to different spectral extraction regions,
larger absorbing hydrogen column densities and lower metal abundances
were derived or adopted in our spectral fittings. It seems that these
M101 GHRs are the most luminous in X-rays among
the known GHRs in the local universe. This high X-ray luminosity will
be discussed in Section~4.
We choose to use a power-law component to fit the hard tails
in the spectra, instead of assuming another thermal component of higher
temperature as \citet{2010ApJS..188...46K} did, because the power-law
component may better represent the contribution from unresolved point
sources, residual emission of the excluded point sources (in NGC~5462),
and even emission from cosmic rays at shocks of stellar winds and SNRs.
The point source CXOJ140353.83+542157.2 (Src.\ 6) is characterized by
a power-law spectrum of intrinsic luminosity
$\sim{}2.7\times10^{38}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ in
the 0.5-5.0 energy band for the M101 distance of 6.8~Mpc.
Given that the excluded region
encircles $\gtrsim 90\%$ energy, the residual X-ray luminosity of the
excluded point source in the diffuse emission of NGC~5462 may be up to
$\sim10^{37}$~erg~s$^{-1}$. This source (Src.\ 6) is at least ten times
brighter than the other detected point sources except for the central
emissions in NGC~5461 and NGC~5471B, which are detected as two point
sources (see Table~\ref{tab2}).
Therefore, the contributions of point sources in the spectra of diffuse
emission in the three GHRs may be at least $\sim10^{37}$~erg~s$^{-1}$,
and are partly responsible for the power-law components in best-fit models.
The estimated hydrogen density of the hot gas, $n_{\rm H}$ (given in
Table~\ref{tab4}), depends on its volume. The emission region of NGC~5461
is irregular, and we assume that the elliptical extraction region represents
a prolate ellipsoid and use the volume of the ellipsoid enclosed by the
contour at 20\% of the peak surface brightness for the hot gas.
The hot gas volume in NGC~5462 is determined with the same assumptions.
The spectral extraction region of NGC~5471B (Figure~\ref{fig3}) is
much larger than its optical size due to the large scattering of X-ray
photons; thus, we assume that the diffuse X-ray emission originates from
the interior of the [S~II]/H$\alpha$-enhanced shell in NGC~5471B
\citep{2002AJ....123.2462C}, which
is reasonable for a superbubble or a hypernova remnant scenario.
Consequently, we adopt the optical shell volume for the hot gas in
NGC~5471B. A volume filling factor $f$ is introduced to account for the
fact that the emitting volume may be smaller than the assumed volume.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec4}
The X-ray luminosities of NGC~5461, NGC~5462, and NGC~5471 are at
least an order of magnitude higher than that of 30 Dor. While
the H$\alpha$ luminosities of these three M101 GHRs are also about
an order of magnitude higher than that of 30 Dor, the high X-ray
luminosities are not a direct consequence of the high H$\alpha$
luminosities. As shown by \citet{2005ApJ...619..779C}, the three
M101 luminous GHRs have multiple clusters at different evolutionary
stages with ages ranging from $<$5 Myr to $>$10 Myr; furthermore,
many clusters are as massive as the R136 cluster in 30 Dor. The
diffuse X-ray luminosity of hot gas generated by a cluster is
time-dependent, and grows by almost two orders of magnitude at ages
of 3-10 Myr when massive O stars explode as SNe \citep{2005MNRAS.361..679O}.
Therefore, the high diffuse X-ray luminosities of the three M101
GHRs are caused by the large number of massive clusters at ages when
SN explosions are rampant. Below, we discuss possible mechanisms
for generating the hot gas in these GHRs.
\subsection{Superbubble Scenario of the GHRs}\label{subsce}
The X-ray emission associated with GHRs NGC~5461, NGC~5462, and
NGC~5471 in M101 may be produced by similar processes as in superbubbles
in the Magellanic Clouds \citep{1990ApJ...365..510C, 1991ApJ...373..497W,
1991ApJ...374..475W}. Their soft appearances and luminosities are also
as expected from the quasi-spherical superbubble model with a central
stellar cluster with mass of $\sim 10^5 M_\odot$ \citep{1995ApJ...450..157C,
2005ApJ...635.1116S}. However, the various spatial distributions of hot gas
are not totally confined in visible superbubbles.
At the southern outskirt of NGC 5461, where the soft X-ray emission extends,
a bright patch of UV emission is present (see Figure~\ref{fig1}b),
corresponding to the blue stars distributed in a triangular region that
is clearly seen in the color composite of the \emph{HST} WFPC2 images
of \citet[Figure~2,][]{2005ApJ...619..779C}.
The main body of NGC~5461 stretches along a spiral arm, while the
afore-mentioned region of blue stars is detached from the main body and
located in the upstream side, possibly belonging to an earlier episode
of star formation triggered by the spiral density wave. The luminosity
of the extended soft X-ray emission is of order $10^{37}$~erg~s$^{-1}$,
if an absorbed thermal emission model with $N_{\rm H}\sim10^{21}$~cm$^{-2}$
and $kT\sim0.2$~keV is adopted. This X-ray luminosity is too high to be
accounted for solely by the stellar emission from the unresolved OB-stars
and active pre-main sequence stars that also contribute to the UV emission.
This soft diffuse X-ray emission most likely originates from hot gas powered
by SN explosions and fast stellar winds.
It is unlikely that outflows from the clusters in H1105 are
responsible for this hot gas because of the following reason. If the hot
gas moves at its isothermal sound velocity $\sim$100 km~s$^{-1}$, it would
take 5 Myr to reach a distance of 500~pc, the outer bounary of the diffuse
X-ray emission. As the clusters in H1105 are all $<$5 Myr old
\citep{2005ApJ...619..779C}, it is
impossible for them to have produced hot gas through SN explosions 5 Myr
ago. A better candidate for producing this hot gas is the star cloud,
i.e., high surface density of stars over an extended area, between
H1105 and H1098, directly due north of the diffuse soft X-ray emission
and best seen in the color image of \citet{2005ApJ...619..779C}. This star
cloud is reminiscent of the stellar content in supergiant shells (SGSs),
such as SGSs LMC-3 and LMC-4, where diffuse soft X-ray emission is detected
with X-ray luminosities of 10$^{37}$ erg~s$^{-1}$ \citep{2001ApJS..136...99P}.
It is possible that the outflow of hot gas produced by energy feedback of this
star cloud contributes to the southern extension of diffuse soft X-ray emission.
In NGC~5462, the large displacement of the diffuse X-ray emission from the
H~II regions indicates that the current young clusters embedded in the H~II
regions are not likely responsible for generating the required
X-ray-emitting hot gas. On the other hand, the diffuse X-ray emission
is better coincident with the ridge of older blue stars that are parallel
to the H~II regions and offset in the same direction as the diffuse X-ray
emission. It is possible that SN explosions from these stars power the
X-ray emission. The H$\alpha$ image of NGC~5462
\citep[Figure 6e of ][]{2005ApJ...619..779C} shows long filaments extending
from the ridge of blue stars toward the diffuse X-ray emission region,
further supporting the hot gas outflow scenario.
It should be noted
that quiescent superbubbles \citep[not energized by recent SN
explosions;][]{1995ApJ...450..157C} associated with the sub-H~II regions
in NGC~5462 would not be detected by even the 1~Ms \emph{Chandra}
observation, whose detection limit for point sources is several
$\times10^{36}$~erg~s$^{-1}$. Superbubbles' soft X-ray emission can
also be absorbed by surrounding dense cold medium and become undetectable.
This may explain the apparent absence of X-ray emission associated with H1170.
Only X-ray-bright superbubbles may be detected by the Ms \emph{Chandra}
observation, and they appear as soft or quasi-soft sources, such as
Src.\ 4 in H1159.
The spatial analysis of X-rays in NGC~5471B is limited by the short exposure
of the on-axis observation. The angular size of B-knot is too small to be
resolved in the \emph{Chandra} observation, and the potential contribution
from other knots of NGC~5471 to the total luminosity cannot be excluded. The
analysis of high-dispersion echelle spectra of the H$\alpha$ line indicates
that only the B-knot is a LVWS source (FWHM$\gtrsim 120$~km~s$^{-1}$,
Sun et~al., in preparation), which
is unique within NGC~5461 and NGC~5471. In the next section we discuss
NGC~5471B as a hypernova remnant.
\subsection{NGC~5471B as Hypernova Remnant}\label{hnr}
The broad H$\alpha$ velocity profile of NGC~5471B suggests that an
energetic explosive event has taken place. If the large velocities
originate from an expanding shell, the extreme velocity offsets
of the wings of the broad velocity profile indicate an expansion
velocity at least 300~km~s$^{-1}$.
If the temperature $T_{\rm X}$ measured from the {\tt MEKAL} model
is adopted as the average temperature $\left<T\right>$ weighted by
emission measure, which is 1.27 times the postshock temperature
$T_{\rm s}$ based on the numerical calculations of the Sedov-Taylor
self-similar solution, we can then estimate the blast wave velocity
as $\sim340$ km s$^{-1}$, which is consistent with the value obtained
by \citet{2002AJ....123.2462C}. We adopt the size of the remnant as
that of the [\ion{S}{2}]/H$\alpha$-enhanced shell, and derive the
atomic number density of ambient medium from the RMS hydrogen density
(Row~12 in Table~\ref{tab4}) under the assumption that the filling
factor is of unity. Based on the Sedov solution, we then estimate
the remnant age as $3.4\times10^4$ yr, and the explosion energy as
$1.5\times10^{52}$~ergs, comparable on order of magnitude
to the thermal energy $E_{\rm th}$ (Table~\ref{tab4}) and consistent
with the ``hypernova remnant'' scenario \citep{1999ApJ...517L..27W}.
The remnant age is smaller than the typical time scale for it to enter the
pressure-driven snowplow (PDS) phase \citep{1988ApJ...334..252C}:
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm PDS}\sim 2.2\times10^4\,E^{3/14}_{52}n^{-4/7}_0\zeta^{-5/14}_{\rm m}\ {\rm yr},
\end{equation}
where $E_{52}$ is the expansion energy in units of 10$^{52}$~ergs, $n_0$
is the atomic number density of ambient medium, and $\zeta_{\rm m}$ is
relative metallicity to solar abundance employed in the cooling function.
In the case of NGC~5471B, $t_{\rm PDS}\simeq4.2\times10^4\,{\rm yr}$,
which is consistent with the Sedov-Taylor phase assumption;
meanwhile, the isothermal phase starts at radius:
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm PDS}=33.0\,E^{2/7}_{52}n^{-3/7}_0\zeta^{-1/7}_{\rm m,0.25}\ {\rm pc},
\end{equation}
which is comparable to the apparent size of NGC~5471B in the H$\alpha$
and [\ion{S}{2}] images.
For comparison, the quiescent superbubble model \citep{1995ApJ...450..157C}
would produce unphysical parameters. In such a scenario, the temperature and
density distributions in the shocked wind layer of an energy-conserving
bubble are
\begin{equation}
n(x)=n_{\rm c}(1-x)^{-2/5},\,T(x)=T_{\rm c}(1-x)^{2/5},
\end{equation}
where $x=r/R$ is the fractional radius, $R$ is the radius of the bubble:
\begin{equation}\label{equ1}
R=42\,L_{37}^{1/5}n_0^{-1/5}t_{6}^{3/5}\;{\rm pc},
\end{equation}
$n_{\rm c}$ and $T_{\rm c}$ are the central density and temperature:
\begin{eqnarray}
n_{\rm c} &=& 1.1\times10^{-2}\,L_{37}^{6/35}n_0^{19/35}t_{6}^{-22/35}
\;{\rm cm}^{-3},\\
T_{\rm c} &=& 0.27\,L_{37}^{8/35}n_0^{2/35}t_{6}^{-6/35}
\;{\rm keV},
\end{eqnarray}
where $L_{37}$ is the mechanical luminosity of the stellar winds measured
in units of $10^{37}$~erg~s$^{-1}$, $n_0$ is the atomic number
density of the ambient medium in units of cm$^{-3}$, and $t_6$ is the age
of the bubble in $10^6$~yr.
Adopting the same definition of the dimensionless temperature $\tau=T_{\rm
min}/T_{\rm c}$ as in \citet{1995ApJ...450..157C}, where $T_{\rm
min}=5\times10^5$~K is the minimum temperature of the hot gas that will
emit in soft X-ray band, and assuming the measured X-rays represent the hot
gas from the interior of a spherical bubble with radius of 30~pc, the
average size of the [\ion{S}{2}]/H$\alpha$-enhanced shell, the volume emission
measure of the hot gas in NGC~5471B can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{equ2}
EM &=& \int n_{\rm e}n_{\rm H} \mathrm{d}^3 r\nonumber\\
&=& 2.3\times10^{60}\,n_{\rm c}^2I(\tau)\;{\rm cm}^{-3},
\end{eqnarray}
where $n_{\rm c}$ is in units of cm$^{-3}$, and the dimensionless integral is
$I(\tau)=(125/33)-5\tau^{1/2}+(5/3)\tau^3-(5/11)\tau^{11/2}$; meanwhile, the
observed temperature is the average temperature:
\begin{equation}\label{equ3}
\langle T\rangle = \frac{\int n(r)^2T(r)\mathrm{d}^3r}{\int n(r)^2\mathrm{d}^3r}
= T_{\rm c}K(\tau)/I(\tau),
\end{equation}
where $K(\tau)=(125/156)-(5/13)\tau^{13/2}+(5/4)\tau^4-(5/3)\tau^{3/2}$.
Therefore, substituting the radius of bubble $R$, the emission measure and the
temperature of the hot gas to equations~\ref{equ1}, \ref{equ2}, and
\ref{equ3}, the derived mechanical luminosity of winds is
$1.3\times10^{38}$erg~s$^{-1}$, the atomic number density of ambient
medium is several of $10^6$~cm$^{-3}$, and the age of the bubble is 41~Myr.
If the candidate clusters NGC~5471-10 and 11 are massive evolved ones,
$M_{\rm c}\sim{}10^4 M_\odot$, $t_{10}\gtrsim20$~Myr and
$t_{11}\gtrsim 60$~Myr, as seen in the color-magnitude diagram
\citep[][ Figure~10 therein]{2005ApJ...619..779C}, the mechanical luminosity and
the bubble age are consistent; however, the ISM density is not physical.
Therefore, the ``hypernova remnant'' scenario is more favorable
compared to the superbubble model.
\subsection{Physical Properties of Src.\ 6 in NGC~5462}
The bright X-ray point source Src.\ 6 near the centroid
of the diffuse emission in NGC~5462 has a spectrum that is
best described by a power-law model. Src.\ 6 has been proposed
to be a BH/X-ray binary \citep[P110 of ][]{2003ApJ...582..184M}. The
coincidence between this BH/X-ray binary candidate and a
previously identified optical cluster candidate
\citep[NGC~5462-19 of ][]{2005ApJ...619..779C} appears to
suggest that the X-ray binary is a member of the cluster;
however, a re-visit of the IR observations,
optical and radio images raises doubt about this picture.
\begin{figure}[!htp]
\epsscale{.80}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.63]{figure5.eps}
\caption{Spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting of Src.\ 6 in the field
of NGC 5462. The 6 data points from the blue to red wings are of
Str{\"o}mgren~\emph{y} (\emph{HST}~F547M),
WFPC2~R (\emph{HST}~F675W), \emph{Spitzer}~IRAC 3.6$\mu$m, 4.5$\mu$m,
5.8$\mu$m, and 8.0$\mu$m bands, respectively. The dashed line
represents the SED of a simple single population, which cannot
fit the mid-IR excess; and the black and gray solid ones are
scaled young stellar object (YSO) models which are not relevant here
since this point source is too bright to be a YSO at the distance of
M101. Therefore, this candidate cluster is more likely to be a
background star-forming galaxy with a strong X-ray source if the
detected sources all coincide.
\label{fig5}}
\end{figure}
Bright IR emission is not expected from a BH/X-ray binary, yet
\emph{Spitzer} observations detected a bright IR counterpart of
Src.\ 6. The spectral energy distribution (SED) of the optical
and IR emission from this source (see Figure~\ref{fig5}) suggests
the existence of heated dust. This SED is inconsistent with that
of young stellar objects (YSOs) in both spectral shapes and
luminosities. It is, however, similar to those frequently seen
in active galactic nuclei (AGN). If the minimum at the 5.8~$\mu$m
band corresponds to the rest-frame minimum at the 4.5~$\mu$m band
(due to the presence of PAH emission in the adjacent bands) seen
in star-forming regions or galaxies, this source is likely a
background AGN at $z \sim 0.3$. The small absorption column implied
by the best model fit to the X-ray spectrum can be reconciled if
the AGN is viewed face-on.
We examined the optical images of the cluster candidate \#19 more
closely. The closeup $HST$ F547M image of NGC~5462-19 in
Figure~\ref{fig6} shows a core and a diffuse halo, and it could
be decomposited as a central point source and a exponential disk
in GALFIT \citep{2010AJ....139.2097P}. This morphology is
consistent with that of an AGN in a disk galaxy. If the
diffuse optical emission originates from a galactic disk, the
scale length of the exponential disk, as 0\farcs2, implies a distance
of several of 10$^9$ pc since the scale length is around 1 to 10~kpc
for most disk galaxies. This estimated distance is of
the same order of magnitude as the redshift distance estimated
crudely from the IR SED. For a distance of 10$^9$ pc, the intrinsic
X-ray luminosity of Src.\ 6 would be $\sim$10$^{43}$ erg~s$^{-1}$,
within the X-ray luminosity range of AGN \citep{2011ApJ...736...99A}.
Another important clue to the nature of Src.\ 6 is provided by its
coincidence with the radio source NGC~5457E-$\theta$
\citep{2002ApJ...573..306E}, which definitively indicates that Src.\ 6
is a radio loud AGN rather than a BH/X-ray binary. We therefore
conclude that Src.\ 6 originates from the background
AGN, instead of a BH/X-ray binary in a candidate cluster.
\begin{figure}[!htp]
\epsscale{.80}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.33]{figure6.eps}
\caption{Close-up view of the cluster candidate NGC~5462-19
\citep{2005ApJ...619..779C} in {\em HST} F547M band. The
white ellipse represents the exponential disk from the GALFIT
decomposition result with a radius of 5 times of the scale length,
and the white cross indicates the location of the X-ray detected
source (Src.\ 6). \label{fig6}}
\end{figure}
\section{Concluding Comments}\label{sec5}
Giant H~II regions contain high concentrations of massive stars; therefore,
they are excellent laboratories to study modes of massive star formation
and subsequent evolution. We have analyzed \emph{Chandra} observations of
X-ray emission from three GHRs in M101, NGC~5461, NGC~5471 and NGC~5462.
The X-ray emission from these three GHRs exhibits diverse properties
with respect to the individual H~II regions and associated stellar
clusters.
~~ \\
Our main results are the following:
1. The spectra of diffuse X-ray emission from NGC~5461, NGC~5462, and
NGC~5471B all appear to be thermal with characteristic plasma temperatures
$\sim$0.2~keV, although contributions from point sources may be significant
and are modeled as an additional power-law component. The luminosities of
the thermal components of the GHRs are: $2.9\times10^{38}$, $1.7\times10^{38}$,
and $8.2\times10^{38}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ for NGC~5461, NGC~5462, and NGC~5471B,
respectively, which represent emission from hot gas commonly generated
in massive star-forming regions. They are very luminous because they contain
multiple massive clusters and star clouds at different ages and some of
them are ripe with rampant SN explosions.
2. The distributions of diffuse X-ray emission in the three GHRs exhibit
distinct features. In NGC~5461, the brightest diffuse X-ray emission roughly
follows the distribution intense star formation; in addition, a patch of
diffuse soft X-rays extend southward over $\sim$500 pc and may be attributed
to outflows from the star cloud between H1105 and H1098.
In NGC~5462, the extended X-ray emission
is displaced from the H~II regions and a ridge of blue stars; the
H$\alpha$ filaments extending from the ridge of star cloud to the
diffuse X-ray emission region suggests that hot gas outflows have
occurred.
In NGC~5471, the X-ray emission is very much confined within the B-knot,
and our analysis indicates that the physical properties of the X-ray
emitter are more consistent with a ``hypernova remnant'' scenario than
a superbubble model. It is nevertheless unclear whether the explosion
energy is provided by a single ``hypernova'' or concentrated
multiple core-collapse SNe from a cluster.
3. The point source Src.\ 6 in NGC~5462 is most likely a background
AGN at a distance of order of 10$^9$ pc and its intrinsic X-ray luminosity
is $\sim$10$^{43}$ erg~s$^{-1}$.
\acknowledgments
We thank the anonmynous referee for her/his careful reading and insightful
suggestions. YC acknowledges support from the 973 Program grant
2009CB824800 and the NSFC grants 11233001 and 10725312. YHC acknowledges
the support of SAO/CXC grant
GO0-11025X. We also thank Bing Jiang for her assistance in data reduction,
and Qiusheng Gu for helpful comments on the SED of NGC5462-19.
\bibliographystyle{apj}
|
\section{\textbf{INTRODUCTION}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
We consider a network sharing optimization problem. All of the users would like to optimize their own path selection without exchanging information with others. However, congestion on the same edge introduces increasing cost. We would like to figure out a distributed scheme for them to find a best solution.
We assume here that each user has a flow with unit capacity requirement but different source or destination. However, generalization to multi-commodity situation is not difficult if we split flows into units and carry out the algorithm for each unit flow. Cost on each edge is a random variable due to link state changes and environment variances. As mentioned above, conflictions increase costs, so we assume the expectation of one such variable grows when flows routed on it increase. In the front half of this paper, we assume these expectations are known and we focus on the virtual game designing to find the flow scheduling scheme.
In the second half, we generalize our problem into unknown environment. That is, we do not know the expectations of edge costs and we need moderate exploration. We use the newly proposed DSEE Sequence[17] to optimize the time for exploration. After exploration, samples of edge costs are stored in routers and the sample means are calculated to approximate the expectations. Exploration periods happen periodically in a predetermined manner so routers know when to explore. Between two neighboring exploration periods is an exploitation period. At the beginning of an exploitation period, we use the distributed Bellman-Ford algorithm[16] to calculate routing tables based on the sample means. In order to solve the confliction problem, we apply the virtual game here. During the rest time of the exploitation period, we route flows according to the routing tables. Obviously, exploration and Bellman Ford periods both introduce extra cost, or reward loss. The ultimate object for us is to design a distributed algorithm to minimize long-run total cost for the whole network. In the whole paper, we assume that time is slotted and both explorations and exploitations need time.
\subsection{\textbf{Background of Flow Scheduling}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
Problems of flow scheduling in known scenario could still be very hard to solve. There are increasing literatures in this area with development of the widely-used MPLS network. Here, we base our work on background of flow scheduling instead of packet switching, wired or wireless, in order to make it more practical and useful nowadays.
The \textit{minimum interference routing} [1]-[4] is a prospective direction in flow scheduling. Its purpose can be quite similar with ours. However, minimum interference routing algorithms, like MIRA[2] and WSP[4], consider more about load balancing to maintain the sustainability of future flow admitting , while we want to solve an optimization problem right now. Extensions of our work approve of adaptive scheduling of newly admitted flow but all routers should be informed beforehand that new flows have come in.
Literatures in the Routing Games are more relevant to our problem. Firstly, our modeling is very similar to the modeling of the \textit{atomic routing} in [5]. Secondly, at the Bellman Ford period users perform a virtual game and take turns to select their own optimized routing path without considering congestion to others, which is the same with routing games. However, there is still fundamental difference between our virtual game and atomic routing. Firstly, we let distributed routers decide the best paths for the players, other than players select by themselves. This is more reasonable since in real life, routers decide paths for users. Secondly, our game is only virtual, which is used finally to solve an optimization problem. However, it is well known that games won't always converge to the optimum point. So we set the extra cost one user introduces to the whole network as the revenue he pays (see part II.B) to make this non-cooperative game a situation when selfish optimization equals social optimization. We prove the fast convergence to Nash Equilibrium Point in this routing game and use the constant bound of the `Price of Anarchy' to measure its worth[9]. Moreover, modeling of [5] does not consider the generalization to unknown environment, so our work is more general.
\subsection{\textbf{Stochastic online learning based on MAB Problem}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
Second half of our paper focuses on the generalization to unknown model. The nature of routing problem with unknown edge cost calls for introduction of the Multi-armed Bandit (MAB) Problem. In the classic MAB, there are N independent arms and one single player. Each arm, when played, incurs a random cost with an unknown distribution. The player should decide the sequence to play each arm to obtain the minimum cost. We notice that the player should try to maintain the balance between exploration and exploitation, which respectively means to play a new arm and learn its cost distribution and to play the arm with minimum cost. A frequently used criterion to judge the performance of an adopted sequence is the so called \textit{regret} or \textit{cost of learning}, defined as the difference in total cost between the chosen sequence and the optimum sequence when cost distribution is known. The best regret, logarithmically growing with time, is obtained in [10] by Lai and Robbins. In [11][12], authors gave out index-type policies to achieve logarithmic regret.
Routing problems with unknown edge cost distributions can be modeled as a variation of the classic MAB problem if we view each path as an arm. However, performances of classic algorithms degrade severely here since paths with shared edge cannot be viewed as independent. In [13], Liu and Zhao explore the dependence of paths to obtain a logarithmic regret. In [14], Gai and Krishnamachari made modifications to UCB1 [12] and applied their algorithm LLC into shortest path problem. However, none of them gave out distributed method for path selection. In our work, we put this difficulty into the design of a distributed virtual game and solve it beforehand in known model. It's important to note that the concept Distributed Learning in [15] is different from our concept of `distributed'. `Distributed' in [15] means that each user does not exchange information with others and finds the best arm on his own. However, we further assume that our algorithm should be carried out distributedly in each router by using the Bellman Ford Algorithm. Moreover, [12]-[15] did not consider network sharing, so our work is more general.
In our paper, we explore an algorithm doing online learning for multi-user situation in a distributed way. To our knowledge, no previous work considered such comprehensive situation. Based on our algorithm, the whole network can also achieve logarithmic regret with time. However, in order to judge the virtual game at the same time, we define regret slightly differently from the classic definition.
\\
\\
\textbf{Definition 1: }We define \textbf{Regret} as the number of time slots when the network is not in a Nash Equilibrium Point.
\\
\\
In Regret Analysis part, we analyze the equivalence between definition 1 and the classic one. We prove that our virtual game reaches a Nash Equilibrium Point in limited circles, and regret grows logarithmically with time. These claims ensure the effectiveness of the virtual game.
It is important to note that the Optimum Point is also a Nash Equilibrium Point in our game. However, Nash Equilibrium Point is not unique since strategy domain for each user is discrete (different paths). Commonly, only when we have continuous strategy domain, Nash Equilibrium Point is unique[5][6]. So analysis of the \textit{Price of Anarchy} is necessary.
\section{\textbf{SYSTEM MODEL}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\subsection{\textbf{Cost Modeling}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
Consider a graph \(G=(V,E)\) and \(K\) source-destination pairs \((s_k,t_k)\), each with unit amount \(f_k=1\). For each edge \(e\in E\), define flow on the edge
\begin{equation}
f_e=\sum_{e\in p_k}f_k
\end{equation}
in which the \(p_k\) represents the path chosen by the \(k\)th flow. Since all flows have unit amount, the flow on each edge \(f_e\) will take discrete value from \(\{1,2,...,K\}\). Define
\begin{equation}
C(F)=\sum_{e\in E}c_{e}(f_{e})
\end{equation}
as the total cost in one time slot, in which the \(c_{e}\) represents the cost for edge $e$. At each time slot, for each edge $e$ and a certain flow amount \(f_{e}\), \(c_{e}(f_{e})\) is a random variable whose expectation value increases when \(f_{e}\) grows. For different time slots, \(c_{e}(f_{e})\) is an i.i.d. random process. \(F\) denotes the whole flow distribution on the network. In order to minimize the time average of \(C(F)\), we try to obtain the best flow distribution \(F\) in a distributed way to minimize the expectation of \(C(F)\). Henceforth we use a bar to represent the expectation. For example, \(\bar{C}(F)\) denotes the expectation of \(C(F)\). The unit amount is the granularity of all flows. Obviously, generalization to multi-commodity scenario is trivial if we split flows into flow units and treat each unit as an independent flow.
\subsection{\textbf{Incentive}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
In the virtual game design, users are assumed selfish since they could not exchange information. In order to stimulate users to cooperate, we set revenues as incentives for them. Assume at some time \(t\), there are already \(K_t\) flows in the network and the whole flow distribution is currently \(F_t\). Then the whole cost of the network equals \(\bar{C}(F_t)\). For a certain \(kth\) flow, let \(F_t(k)\) denote the flow distribution when \(f_k\) is withdrawn from \(F_t\). Then we define
\begin{equation}
\bar{C}(F_t)-\bar{C}(F_t(k))
\end{equation}
as the revenue for the \(kth\) flow. We can easily see that when a user has the opportunity to change its routing path, he surely chooses the path that introduces the minimum extra cost to the whole network. Then the total cost decreases.
\section{\textbf{ALGORITHM IN KNOWN MODEL}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\subsection{\textbf{Virtual Game Design}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
In this part, we assume that routers know all \(\bar{c}_e(f_e)\) beforehand. Each user takes turns to hire routers to do Bellman Ford Algorithm. The price for each edge is set as the incentive described in II.B.
There will be \(N*K\) time slots reserved for one circle. So time reserved for each user is N slots, and the Bellman Ford Algorithm surely converges in such long period. Also, total cost decreases each time when a user changes path, since the revenue for this user defined earlier is equal to the extra cost to the whole network introduced by him.
\\
\\The complete algorithm is as follows:
1) Take out the \(kth\) flow from current flow distribution. If it is the first time for this flow to do path optimization and routers do not know yet the path to transmit this flow, they do not need to take it out.
2) Calculate price on each edge. The price is the extra cost if this edge is chosen:
\begin{equation}
P_e(F)=\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-f_k)
\end{equation}
3) Start the Bellman Ford Algorithm and wait for N slots to ensure its convergence. The source node is \(s_k\). Find out the path with minimum price to transmit flow to \(d_k\).
4) Add up \(f_k\) on each edge chosen to transmit the \(kth\) flow.
5) Do the 1) again for the \(k+1 th\) flow.
\subsection{\textbf{Nash Equilibrium Point}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent \textbf{Theorem 1: }If we do algorithm described in III.A, then after finite circles, the whole network reaches a Nash Equilibrium Point. Convergence time is bounded.
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof: }During one circle, one of two events below must occur:
a).At least one user changes his path.
b).No one changes his path.
If event `b' happens, we know that no one could change his path unilaterally. Obviously the network has reached Nash Equilibrium Point.
However, if event `a' happens, total cost decreases. This has been stated in II.B. Since there will be limited paths for one flow to take, number of flow distribution is limited, too. So `a' won't happen all the time.
We can further figure out the upper bound of convergence time to reach a Nash Equilibrium Point. In fact, we need \(\lceil\frac{S_M}{S_m}\rceil\) times of Bellman Ford circles. The \(S_M\) denotes the maximum difference between cost of two different flow distribution, and \(S_m\) denotes the minimum. This is true because during each Bellman Ford circle, the cost of the whole network will at least decrease by \(S_m\) if `b' does not happen. \ensuremath{\rlap{\hbox{\rule[.4 ex]{0.2 ex}{0 ex}\rule[.4 ex]{0.84 ex}{0.07 ex}\rule[.4 ex]{0.07 ex}{0.9 ex}}}\square}
\section{\textbf{PRICE OF ANARCHY}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
In this part we give out the analysis of the `Price of Anarchy'. This notion was originally defined in [8] to measure the selfish performance of a simple game of N players that compete for M parallel links. In [9], the authors analyzed the price of anarchy of an atomic routing game to polynomial edge cost with nonnegative coefficient. They gave out results of \(d^{O(d)}\) in which \(d\) represents the highest order of the polynomial edge cost function. This result is considered by [5] to be a significant generalization of previous work.
In our paper, we still need analysis of the `Price of Anarchy' since our ultimate goal is to solve an optimization problem. So far, we give out algorithm to make different users optimize their own price--the incentive--to reach a Nash Equilibrium Point. So we need to figure out the difference between a Nash Equilibrium Point and the optimum point.
\\
\\
\textbf{Definition 2: }We define the \textbf{Price of Anarchy} as
\begin{equation}
\bar{C}(F_N)/\bar{C}(F^{*})
\end{equation}
The \(F_N\) represents flow distribution of one Nash equilibrium point. And \(F*\) represents flow distribution of the optimum point, in which (2) is optimized.
\\
\\
We give out existence of constant price of anarchy for general polynomial edge cost. Then we give out concrete value for polynomials with nonnegative coefficients. Here we need the functions to be convex but this is trivial when congestion is concerned. The assumption of polynomial edge cost is common in previous work of Routing Games[5][8][9]. Our modeling is different from routing game. In Routing Games, the `total price' in (6) is equal to the expectation of total cost function defined in (2), while they are different in our virtual game. However, polynomial functions are quite enough to model congestions in our problem, so we still use this assumption.
\subsection{\textbf{General Polynomial Function: Existence}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
In this part we prove the existence of constant upper bound of the price of anarchy for polynomial edge cost function. In another word, this constant is independent of network size and topology. In the proof we use the following definition.
\\
\\
\textbf{Definition 3: }We define \textbf{Total Price} for distribution \(F\) as
\begin{equation}
P(F)=\sum_{e\in E}[\bar{c}_{e}(f_{e})-\bar{c}_{e}(f_{e}-f_{u})]\cdot f_e
\end{equation}
\(f_u\) just means the unit flow amount.\\
We simply replace \(f_u\) with 1 in following parts, since we claim in section II.A that all flow has the same unit amount. What is important is the reason we define (6) as the `total price'. In fact, from (3)(4) we know that the incentive pricing scheme asks for the \(kth\) user a price of
\begin{equation}
P_k(F)=\sum_{e\in p_k}[\bar{c}_{e}(f_{e})-\bar{c}_{e}(f_{e}-1)]
\end{equation}
We add up (7) for all users and we get
\begin{equation}
P(F)=\sum_{k=1}^{K}\sum_{e\in p_k}[\bar{c}_{e}(f_{e})-\bar{c}_{e}(f_{e}-1)]
\end{equation}
Simply change the order of summation and we get (6).
\\
\\
\textbf{Theorem 2: }If the expectation of edge cost function \(\bar{c}_{e}(f_{e})\) is convex and grows polynomially with \(f_e\), there exists a constant bound for the `Price of Anarchy' independent of network size and flow amount.\\
We assume that edge cost functions are polynomials of maximum degree \(d\). Here \(d\) is different from the degree of barycentric spanner in proof of \textbf{Theorem 4}.
\begin{equation}
\bar{c}_e(f_e)=a_e f_e^d + \sum_{i=1}^{d} a_e^{(i)} f_e^{d-i}
\end{equation}
First we give out Lemma 1. This is the relationship between total cost and total price.
\\
\\
\textbf{Lemma 1: } For a given network G=(V,E), there exist two constant numbers \(A_l, A_r\). For any flow distribution \(F\), we have
\begin{equation}
A_l\le \frac{P(F)}{\bar{C}(F)}\le A_r
\end{equation}
These two numbers are independent of the network size.\\
The nature of Lemma 1 is very simple. For a polynomial \(E(c_e)\), the numerator and the denominator of (10) is of the same order of flow amount \(f_e\). So the fraction is certainly limited. We put detailed proof in Appendix A. Similarly, we could arrive at the following formula.\\
For a given G=(V,E), there exists a constant number \(A_u\). For any flow distribution and any edge \(e\), it satisfies
\begin{equation}
\frac{\bar{c}_e(f_e+1)-\bar{c}_e(f_e)}{\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)}\le A_u
\end{equation}\\
Then we give out \textbf{Lemma 2}. This is the `Variational Inequality Characterization'[5], which describes the basic feature of a Nash Equilibrium Point. Proof of \textbf{Lemma 2} is also put in the appendix.
\\
\\
\textbf{Lemma 2: } For a given network G=(V,E) and a Nash Equilibrium point \(F\) of K users, for any flow distribution \(F{'}\), we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sum_{e\in E}[\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)]\cdot f_e \le A_u\sum_{e\in E}[\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)]\cdot f_e{'}
\end{split}
\end{equation}\\
Based on these two Lemmas, we can complete the proof of \textbf{Theorem 2}. The proof is still very simple in nature. We have proven that the total cost(2) and the total price(6) grows with flow amount in the same order (\textbf{Lemma 1}). Then we find the constant upper bound of \(\frac{P(F_N)}{P(F*)}\) (\textbf{Lemma 2}). These two steps complete the proof. The detailed proof is put in Appendix C.
\subsection{\textbf{Polynomial Function with Nonnegative Coefficients: Concrete Value}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
For polynomial edge cost with nonnegative coefficients, we give out concrete value of the upper bound. Although we could derive a proof based on the same procedure of part IV.A, we can take advantage of the nonnegative coefficients to get a relatively simple proof in the Appendix. First we give out some definitions. If (8) holds and coefficients are all nonnegative, we have for each edge e
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\bar{c}_e(f_e+1)-\bar{c}_e(f_e)=a_e [(f_e+1)^d-f_e^d] +\sum_{i=1}^{d} a_e^{(i)} [(f_e+1)^{d-i}-f_e^{d-i}]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Obviously, all terms in (13) have nonnegative coefficients. We assume
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\bar{c}_e(f_e+1)-\bar{c}_e(f_e)=\sum_{i=0}^d \tilde{a}_e^{(i)} f_e^{d-i-1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in which \(\tilde{a}_e^{(i)}>0\) and \(\tilde{a}_e^{(0)}=a_e\).
Moreover,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sum_{i=0}^d \tilde{a}_e^{(i)}=\bar{c}_e(1)-\bar{c}_e(0)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We assume
\begin{equation}
s_e=\mathop{min}\limits_{a_e^{(i)}>0}(a_e^{(i)})
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
L=\mathop{max}\limits_{e\in E}[\bar{c}_e(1)-\bar{c}_e(0)]
\end{equation}
\\
\textbf{Theorem 3} For a given network G=(V,E), if all edge cost functions satisfy (9) and coefficients are nonnegative, we could give out the concrete value of the constant upper bound of the Price of Anarchy. The constant is \([(d+1)L\mathop{max}\limits_{e\in E}\frac{1}{s_e}]^d=d^{O(d)}\).
\section{\textbf{ALGORITHM IN UNKNOWN MODEL}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
From this section, we give out generalization to unknown model. In another word, we further assume that the cost distribution of each edge is unknown at the beginning. In order to get enough information about the network, we adopt the newly proposed DSEE Sequence algorithm in [17] and cut time into interleaving exploration and exploitation periods. A router sends exploration flows to get samples of the cost and store them in memory. Based on these samples, a router calculates sample mean and view it as the expectation of edge cost when doing Bellman-Ford Algorithm. Between the exploration periods are the exploitation periods, at the beginning of which the virtual game is applied. During the rest time of exploitation, users share the network based on routing tables. In order not to route flows on edges with high price, each user consents to do enough explorations. However, exploration periods and Bellman Ford periods cannot be too long since they introduce extra cost to the network.
\subsection{\textbf{Exploration}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
One exploitation period lasts for \(N=|V|\) time slots. In one exploration period, only one source node \(s_k\) starts exploration. K source nodes take turns to do exploration in different exploration periods. At the beginning of the first exploration period, \(s_1\) sends out a short flow of a random amount \(k_1\) to a random edge \(e_r\) related to it to explore the value \(c_{e_r}(k_1)\). Then the other node of edge \(e_r\) receives this flow and forward it in the next time slot. This whole exploration period terminate in \(N=|V|\) time slots. In the next exploration period, the source node \(s_2\) starts exploration instead of \(s_1\). The constant number \(N=|V|\) is large enough to ensure a minimum probability \(r=min_{e\in E}(r_e)>0\), in which the \(r_e\) is the probability of the edge \(e\) being estimated.
\subsection{\textbf{Exploitation}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
At the beginning of this period, there will be \(N*K\) time slots reserved for a Bellman Ford period. During one period, we do one circle of the virtual game described in III.A.
However, we should replace (4) with
\begin{equation}
P_e(F)=\hat{c_e}(f_e)-\hat{c_e}(f_e-f_k)
\end{equation}
in which \(\hat{c_e}(f_e)\) denotes the sample means stored in routers' memory.
\subsection{\textbf{DSEE}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
Time is divided into interleaving sequence of Exploration and Exploitation. At the beginning of each exploitation period, there is \(N*K\) time slots arranged for Bellman Ford period to do virtual game. One Bellman Ford period terminates only when the total time \(N*K\) is reached. Similarly, one Exploration period ends after \(N\) time slots. However, the exploitation period ends when the time slot t satisfies
\begin{equation}
card(t)<Glog(t)
\end{equation}
in which the \(card(t)\) represents number of time slots used to do exploration up to time t. Certainly, the whole DSEE Sequence is determined beforehand once the parameter G has been chosen.
\section{\textbf{REGRET ANALYSIS}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
We define regret as the number of time slots when all the flows are not routed in Nash Equilibrium Point (see the end of the Introduction part). In section III.B, we have proved the inevitability for K users to reach the Nash Equilibrium Point in limited circles of virtual game. In this part, we analyze the equivalence of definition 1 with classic one. Then we prove regret grows logarithmically with time.
\subsection{\textbf{Equivalence between Definition 1 and classic definition}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
Classic definition of regret is the difference in total cost between the chosen strategy sequence and the optimum strategy sequence when cost distribution is known.
In our algorithm, there exist two conditions that regret increases. The first one is exploration or Bellman Ford. During these periods, no flows are transmitted. However, if we define an extra constant cost for each of such slot to get a classic definition, we can see that this two regrets grow with time in the same order. The second one is when flows are not routed in a Nash Equilibrium Point in an exploitation period. But in one such slot, extra cost cannot be larger than \(S_M\). Therefore, even if we define a classic regret, it still grows with same order of time.
The only difference is the distance from one Nash Equilibrium Point to the Optimum Point. However, finding the Optimum Point for different flows tends to be NP hard and it cannot be done in a distributed way. So we choose to define regret based on a sub-optimal Nash Equilibrium Point which cannot be further improved in a distributed manner. Previous parts have shown the constant `Price of Anarchy' bound, which convince of the feasibility of our definition.
\subsection{\textbf{Regret Order}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Theorem 4: }If the chosen G in (19) satisfies
\begin{equation}
G\ge max(3/r,\frac{8d^2|E|\sigma^2}{rc^2})
\end{equation}
then regret(T) increases with the form \(O(log(T))\).\\
Here we give out some definitions in Theorem 4.
\\
\\
\textbf{Definition 4: }Let \(S\) be a d-dimensional vector space. A set \(B=\{x_1,x_2,...,x_d\}\subset S\) is called a barycentric spanner for \(S\) if every \(x\) in \(S\) can be written as linear combination of elements of \(B\) with coefficients in \([-1,1]\).\\
It is shown in [15] that if \(S\) is a compact set, then it has a barycentric spanner. We know that the set of different paths for a certain source-destination pair \((s_k,d_k)\) is a compact vector space, thus it has a barycentric spanner with dimension \(d_k\). We assume \(d=\mathop{max}\limits_{k=1\sim K} d_k\). \(\sigma^2\) is the largest variance of all the edge cost under different flow distributions. \(r\) is the minimum of the probability that a certain edge is chosen during explorations. \(c_k\) is the minimum price difference between two paths for the \(kth\) user under all different flow distributions. Since number of flow distributions is limited, \(c_k\) surely exists. Then we can define\(c=\mathop{min}\limits_{k=1\sim K} c_k\). These parameters are all related to the network topology and can be obtained beforehand. However, while choosing a G based on (20) is doable, usually we can choose a smaller G. Here we only concern about the existence of a sufficient condition.
Proof of \textbf{Theorem 4} still can be found in the Appendix. Instead we give out the basic idea of the proof. If G is chosen big enough, sufficient times will be used for exploration so that we have relatively accurate sample means for the cost of each edge under different flow amount. Based on Bernstein's inequality, we can bound the variance of sample means of path cost. When this variance is small enough, we can bound the probability that we make mistakes in the virtual game circle. Mistake-free virtual game results in Nash Equilibrium. Although proof of \textbf{Theorem 4} seems lengthy, it relies on this simple idea.
\section{\textbf{SIMULATIONS}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\subsection{\textbf{Price of Anarchy Simulation}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
In this part we give out simulation result for the `Price of Anarchy'. Figure 1 shows the probability density function of the `Price of Anarchy' for different cost function orders. Large density near price 1 proves the efficiency of our algorithm. Also, the relationship between the `Price of Anarchy' and cost function order can be observed: distribution with a higher order has a longer tail.
\begin{figure}[hp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Price_draw_result_2.eps}
\caption{`Price of Anarchy' distribution}\label{fig:graph}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\textbf{Regret Simulation}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
In this part we give out the simulation results for regret order. Figure 2 shows the growing behavior of regret with time under different G selections. We choose the \(G_b\) as the basic G based on the condition shown in \textbf{Theorem 4}. Actually, this condition is just an sufficient condition that leads to logarithmic growing of regret. In real simulation, we have chosen a basic G smaller than in \textbf{Theorem 4} but can still help the logarithmic growth hold.
\begin{figure}[hp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{regret_final_result_log.eps}
\caption{regret(T)}\label{fig:graph}
\end{figure}
The second figure is the regret divided by log(T). It could help us see more clearly how the regret converges to a logarithmic order. Moreover, we see from simulation that if G is not large enough, the regret grows with an order larger than log(T). So in real-life applications, we should make sure that G is large enough.
\begin{figure}[hp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{regret_final_result_constant.eps}
\caption{regret(T) divided by log(T)}\label{fig:graph}
\end{figure}
\section{\textbf{Conclusions}}
In this paper, we considered the flow scheduling problem both under known and unknown model. For the known model, we proposed a virtual non-cooperative game with incentive pricing to solve cost optimization problem for users who do not exchange information with each other. To analyze this virtual game, we proved the fast convergence of the game into a Nash Equilibrium Point which had a bounded price of anarchy. The constant bound was proved to be independent of network size and flow amount. Then we extended this algorithm to situations when cost distributions were unknown beforehand. We modeled this problem under multi-armed bandit model and combined the virtual game with the newly proposed DSEE Sequence which could achieve best regret for all light-tail cost distributions. Sure enough, regret of our algorithm was proved to be growing logarithmically with time if the DSEE parameters were chosen properly, which is best in the classic online learning scenario. Also, simulation results of the `Price of Anarchy' and the regret growing behavior were given out to test the essential correctness of all our claims.
\appendices
\section{Proof of \textbf{Lemma 1}}
Based on (9) we have
\begin{equation}
[\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)]\cdot f_e=a_e f_e^{d} + \sum_{i=1}^{d} b_e^{(i)} f_e^{d-i}
\end{equation}
Here \(a_e^{(i)}\) and \(b_e^{(i)}\) are coefficients. We do not require them to be nonnegative here, but in \textbf{Theorem 3}, we require \(a_e^{(i)}\) to be nonnegative. Divide (21) with \(f_e^d\) and we get
\begin{equation}
\frac {\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)}{f_e^{d-1}}=a_e + \sum_{i=1}^{d} b_e^{(i)} f_e^{-i}
\end{equation}
For any \(\epsilon > 0\), there exists a \(f_{e,\epsilon}\). For any \(f_e > f_{e,\epsilon}\), \begin{equation}
|\frac {\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)}{f_e^{d-1}}-a_e|<\epsilon
\end{equation}
So we have, for any \(f_e > f_{e,\epsilon}\),
\begin{equation}
a_e-\epsilon< \frac {\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)}{f_e^{d-1}}<a_e+\epsilon
\end{equation}
Since \(f_{e,\epsilon}\) is limited, there exists a closed section \(I_e\). For any \(f_e \le f_{e,\epsilon}\),
\begin{equation}
\frac {\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)}{f_e^{d-1}} \in I_e
\end{equation}
Since \(\frac {\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)}{f_e^{d-1}}>0\), \(0 \notin I_e \). We choose \(\epsilon < \frac{a_e}{2}\), and denote \(J_e = I_e \cup [\frac{a_e}{2},\frac{3a_e}{2}]\) and we have for any \(f_e\),
\begin{equation}
\frac {\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)}{f_e^{d-1}} \in J_e
\end{equation}
Similarly, we divide (9) with \(f_e^{d}\) and finally get
\begin{equation}
\frac {\bar{c}_e(f_e)}{f_e^{d}} \in J_e^{'}
\end{equation}
Here \(J_e\) and \(J_e^{'}\) are both closed sections excluding zero.
Then for any flow distribution \(F\), we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{P(F)}{\bar{C}(F)}=&\frac{\sum_{e \in E} [\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)]\cdot f_e}{\sum_{e \in E} \bar{c}_e(f_e)}
\\=&\frac{\sum_{e \in E} [\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)]/ f_e^{d-1}}{\sum_{e \in E} \bar{c}_e(f_e)/ f_e^d}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
From (26)(27) we know there exist two numbers \(A_l, A_r\), for any flow distribution, (10) holds.
\ensuremath{\rlap{\hbox{\rule[.4 ex]{0.2 ex}{0 ex}\rule[.4 ex]{0.84 ex}{0.07 ex}\rule[.4 ex]{0.07 ex}{0.9 ex}}}\square}
\section{Proof of \textbf{Lemma 2}}
For a certain \(k\in \{1,2,...,K\}\), the Nash Equilibrium Point \(F\) satisfies
\begin{equation}
\sum_{e\in {p_k^N}}[\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)]\le \sum_{p_k \in \Gamma_k} \sum_{e\in p_k} [\bar{c}_e(f_e+1)-\bar{c}_e(f_e)] \cdot f_{p_k}
\end{equation}
Here \(\Gamma_k\) represents the set of all paths available to the \(kth\) user. And \(f_{p_k}=1\) only when the path \(p_k \in \Gamma_k\) is chosen by the \(kth\) user. Otherwise it equals zero. Obviously, (29) can be derived directly from the definition of Nash Equilibrium Point. For different path selection schemes, \(f_{p_k}\) varies. However, (29) always holds. For a certain flow distribution F', we add up (29) for all K users and get
\begin{equation}
P(F_N)\le\sum_{e\in E}[\bar{c}_e(f_e+1)-\bar{c}_e(f_e)] \cdot f_e{'}
\end{equation}
Since we have (11) already, we can get (12).\ensuremath{\rlap{\hbox{\rule[.4 ex]{0.2 ex}{0 ex}\rule[.4 ex]{0.84 ex}{0.07 ex}\rule[.4 ex]{0.07 ex}{0.9 ex}}}\square}
\section{Proof of \textbf{Theorem 2}}
Let F represents a random Nash Equilibrium point and \(F^{*}\) denotes the optimum point. For a certain edge e, from (26), we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{[\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)]/f_e^{d-1}}{[\bar{c}_e(f_e^{*})-\bar{c}_e(f_e^{*}-1)]/(f_e^{*})^{d-1}} \le \frac{J_e^{(L)}}{J_e^{(R)}}
\end{equation}
The \(J_e^{(L)}\) and \(J_e^{(R)}\) are left and right border of \(J_e\). And * represents the optimum point. From this inequality we can derive directly and get
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
[\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)] \cdot f_e^{*}\le & (\frac{J_e^{(L)}}{J_e^{(R)}})^{\frac{1}{d}}\{[\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)] \cdot f_e\}^{\frac{d-1}{d}}
\\ &\cdot \{[\bar{c}_e(f_e^{*})-\bar{c}_e(f_e^{*}-1)] \cdot f_e^{*}\}^{\frac{1}{d}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Based on the \(H\ddot o\ lder\) inequality, we get
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sum_{e \in E} [\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)] \cdot f_e^{*}
\le &(\frac{J_e^{(L)}}{J_e^{(R)}})^{\frac{1}{d}}\sum_{e \in E} \{[\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)] \cdot f_e\}^{\frac{d-1}{d}}
\\ &\cdot \{[\bar{c}_e(f_e^{*})-\bar{c}_e(f_e^{*}-1)] \cdot f_e^{*}\}^{\frac{1}{d}}
\\ \le &(\frac{J_e^{(L)}}{J_e^{(R)}})^{\frac{1}{d}}\{\sum_{e \in E}[\bar{c}_e(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e-1)] \cdot f_e\}^{\frac{d-1}{d}}
\\ &\cdot \{\sum_{e \in E}[\bar{c}_e(f_e^{*})-\bar{c}_e(f_e^{*}-1)] \cdot f_e^{*}\}^{\frac{1}{d}}
\\=& (\frac{J_e^{(L)}}{J_e^{(R)}})^{\frac{1}{d}} \cdot [P(F)]^{\frac{d-1}{d}} \cdot [P(F^{*})]^{\frac{1}{d}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since (12) holds for every flow distribution \(F{'}\), we could let \(F{'}=F^{*}\) so
\begin{equation}
P(F) \le A_u \cdot (\frac{J_e^{(L)}}{J_e^{(R)}})^{\frac{1}{d}} \cdot [P(F)]^{\frac{d-1}{d}} \cdot [P(F^{*})]^{\frac{1}{d}}
\end{equation}
It means
\begin{equation}
P(F)/P(F^{*}) \le (A_u)^d \cdot \frac{J_e^{(L)}}{J_e^{(R)}}
\end{equation}
And we have Lemma 1, so we finally get
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\bar{C}(F)/\bar{C}(F^{*})= &\frac{\bar{C}(F)}{P(F)} \cdot \frac{P(F)}{P(F^{*})} \cdot \frac{P(F^{*})}{\bar{C}(F^{*})} \\ \le &(A_u)^d \cdot \frac{A_r}{A_l} \frac{J_e^{(L)}}{J_e^{(R)}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
From previous Lemmas, we know absolutely that constants on the right side of this inequality are independent from network topology and flow distribution. Since \(F_N\) is a random flow distribution, we have proved \textbf{Theorem 2}. \ensuremath{\rlap{\hbox{\rule[.4 ex]{0.2 ex}{0 ex}\rule[.4 ex]{0.84 ex}{0.07 ex}\rule[.4 ex]{0.07 ex}{0.9 ex}}}\square}
\section{Proof of \textbf{Theorem 3}}
Conditions in this theorem also ensure the functions are convex. So we have for any flow distribution
\begin{equation}
\bar{C}(F)\le P(F)
\end{equation}
From (15) we have, for any i and any \(e\in E\)
\begin{equation}
\tilde{a}_e^{(i)}<L
\end{equation}
Based on \(H\ddot{o}lder\) inequality, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sum_{e \in E}[\bar{c}_e(f_e+1)-\bar{c}_e(f_e)]\cdot f_e^{*}=&\sum_{i=0}^d\sum_{e \in E} \tilde{a}_e^{(i)} f_e^{d-i-1}f_e^{*}
\\\le&\sum_{i=0}^d\{\sum_{e \in E} \tilde{a}_e^{(i)}( f_e^{d-i-1})^{\frac{d-i}{d-i-1}}\}^{\frac{d-i-1}{d-i}}
\\& \;\;\;\;\cdot\{\sum_{e \in E} \tilde{a}_e^{(i)}(f_e^{*})^{d-i}\}^{\frac{1}{d-i}}
\\\le& L\sum_{i=0}^d\{\sum_{e \in E} \frac{1}{s_e} \bar{c}_e(f_e) \}^{\frac{d-i-1}{d-i}}\{\sum_{e \in E} \frac{1}{s_e} \bar{c}_e(f_e^{*}) \}^{\frac{1}{d-i}}
\\\le& L\mathop{max}\limits_{e\in E}\frac{1}{s_e}\cdot \sum_{i=0}^d\{ \bar{C}(F) \}^{\frac{d-i-1}{d-i}}\{\bar{C}(F^{*})\}^{\frac{1}{d-i}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since \(\bar{C}(F^{*})\le \bar{C}(F)\), we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sum_{e \in E}[\bar{c}_e(f_e+1)-\bar{c}_e(f_e)]\cdot f_e^{*}\le (d+1)L\mathop{max}\limits_{e\in E}\frac{1}{s_e}\cdot \{ \bar{C}(F) \}^{\frac{d-1}{d}}\{\bar{C}(F^{*})\}^{\frac{1}{d}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
For one random Nash equilibrium \(F\) and the optimum point \(F^{*}\), from (30)(37) we have
\begin{equation}
\bar{C}(F)\le P(F)\le\sum_{e\in E}[\bar{c}_e(f_e+1)-\bar{c}_e(f_e)] \cdot f_e^{*}
\end{equation}
Combining (16)(17)(40)(41) we have
\begin{equation}
\bar{C}(F) / \bar{C}(F^{*}) \le [(d+1)L\mathop{max}\limits_{e\in E}\frac{1}{s_e}]^d=d^{O(d)}
\end{equation}
And this constant is independent of network topology and flow distribution.\ensuremath{\rlap{\hbox{\rule[.4 ex]{0.2 ex}{0 ex}\rule[.4 ex]{0.84 ex}{0.07 ex}\rule[.4 ex]{0.07 ex}{0.9 ex}}}\square}
\section{Proof of \textbf{Theorem 4}}
Since the number of time slots used in exploration and Bellman Ford increases strictly with \(O(logt)\), we could only focus on the number of slots that all flows are not operating at the Nash equilibrium point. Define the \(A_t\) the event that all the flows are not operating at the Nash equilibrium point at time t. We give out the upper bound of \(P(A_t)\).
\\
\\
Define \(B_t^k\) as the event that last Bellman Ford just before time slot t for the \(k\)th flow goes wrong since poor estimation of the path cost. Then
\begin{equation}
P(B_t^k)=P\{\hat{X}^*(t)\ge min_{p\in P}\hat{X_p}(t)\}
\end{equation}
The \(P\) denotes the set of paths that the \(k\)th flow can choose from. The \(\hat{X_p}(t)\) is the incentive price for choosing path \(p\). This price is calculated by adding up all the extra edge cost introduced by the \(k\)th flow. That is
\begin{equation}
\hat{X_p}(t)=\sum _{e\in E}\hat{c_e}(f_e)-\hat{c_e}(f_e-f_k)
\end{equation}
The \(p^*\) represents the real best path for \(k\)th flow to choose if price expectation for each edge is known exactly. And the \(\hat{X}^*(t)\) is the estimated price for choosing this path.
\\
\\
Let \(n_e(k,t)\) be the number of times \(e\in E\) is observed when the \(k\) units of flow are put on it up to time t during the exploration slots. Let \(r_e(k)\) represents the probability that \(e\) with flow \(k\) on it is chosen to be observed at a random time slot. Since \(k\) can only take values from \(\{1,2,...,K\}\) and the number of edges is limited, we can ensure the existence of \(r=\mathop{min}\limits_{e\in E}r_e\).
\\
\\
Obviously,
\begin{equation}
E(n_e(k,t))=Gr_e(k)logt
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
Var(n_e(k,t))<Gr_e(k)logt
\end{equation}
so, based on Bernstein's inequality
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
P\{n_e(k,t)<{\frac {1}{2}}Grlogt\}\le &P\{n_e(k,t)<{\frac {1}{2}}Gr_e(k)logt\}
\\<&exp(-\frac{1}{2}\frac{E^2(n_e(k,t))}{\frac{1}{2}E(n_e(k,t))+Var(n_e(k,t))})
\\=&t^{-\frac{1}{3}Gr_e(k)}\le t^{-1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Let \(M=\frac {1}{2}Grlogt\) and we can easily get
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
P\{ \exists e \in E, k \in \{1,2,...,K\}, s.t.n_e(k,t)<M \}<\sum_{e\in E,1\le k \le K} P\{n_e(k,t)<M\} < K|E|t^{-1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We choose a barycentric spanner in the network and assume it has \(d_k\) elements \(\{p_1,p_2,...,p_{d_k}\}\), then
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\{\hat{X}^*(t)\ge min_{p\in P}\hat{X_p}(t)\}\subseteq&\{\hat{X}^*(t)-X^*(t)>\frac{c}{2}\}\cup_{l=1}^{d_k}\{\hat{X_l}(t)-X_l(t)<-\frac{c}{2d_k}\}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in which
\begin{equation}
X_l(t)=\sum_{e\in p_l}[\bar{c}_e(f_e+f_k)-\bar{c}_e(f_e)]
\end{equation}
and \(X^*(t)\) represents the real minimum expectation price of the path for \(k\)th flow.
\\
\\
Specifically for each \(p_l\) we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\;\;\hat{X_l}(t)-X_l(t)=\sum_{e\in p_l}[\hat{c_e}(f_e+f_k)-\hat{c_e}(f_e)]-\sum_{e\in p_l}[\bar{c}_e(f_e+f_k)-\bar{c}_e(f_e)]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
When enough times are used to estimate each edge, the value above will have a high probability to be small. Let \(L_l\) denote the number of edges in \(p_l\). Then we have
\\
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&{\;\;}P\{\hat{X_l}(t)-X_l(t)<-\frac{c}{2d_k} | \forall e \in E, k \in \{1,2,...,K\}, n_e(k,t) \ge M \}
\\<&P\{|\hat{X_l}(t)-X_l(t)|>\frac{c}{2d_k} | \forall e \in E, k \in \{1,2,...,K\}, n_e(k,t) \ge M \}
\\<&\;\;\;\;\sum_{e \in p_l}P\{|\hat{c_e}(f_e)-\bar{c}_e(f_e)|>\frac{c}{2d_k L_l}
\\&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; |\forall e \in E, k \in \{1,2,...,K\}, n_e(k,t) \ge M \}
\\&+\sum_{e \in p_l}P\{|\hat{c_e}(f_e+f_k)-\bar{c}_e(f_e+f_k)|>\frac{c}{2d_k L_l}
\\&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; |\forall e \in E, k \in \{1,2,...,K\}, n_e(k,t) \ge M \}
\\\le& 2L_l*2exp(-\frac{1}{2}\frac{(\frac{c}{2d_k L_l})^2}{\frac{\sigma ^2}{Grlogt}})
\\\le &4|E|exp(-\frac{1}{2}\frac{(\frac{c}{2d|E|})^2}{\frac{\sigma ^2}{Grlogt}})
\\\le &4|E|t^{-1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\\
Similar upper bound of \(\hat{X}^*(t)\) can also be obtained. After that we get
\begin{equation}
P(B_t^k)<4(|E|+|E|^2)t^{-1}+t^{-1}<5|E|^2t^{-1}
\end{equation}
\\
Each event \(B_t^k\) leads to the event \(A_{\widetilde{t}}\) for some \(\widetilde{t}>t\). If we would like to make the whole K flows reach the Nash Equilibrium point, we should ensure that \(B\) does not happen for a period long enough before time \(t\). In fact, if \(B\) does not happen, we will need \(\lceil\frac{S_M}{S_m}\rceil\) circles of Bellman Ford period to do virtual game. This result is based on Theorem 1. This is because if \(B\) does not happen, it tends to be the same situation that routers know exactly the cost distribution of each edge.
\\
\\
The nature of DSEE Sequence makes the start point of each exploration period in an exponential sequence. We present this fact in a heuristic way. For the start time \(t_1\) of a exploration period, we have
\begin{equation}
card(t_1)=Glogt_1
\end{equation}
and for the start point \(t_2\) of the next exploration period we have
\begin{equation}
card(t_2)=Glogt_2
\end{equation}
Since \(card(t_1)+NK=card(t_2)\), we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{t_2}{t_1}=exp(\frac{NK}{G})
\end{equation}
\\Let \(\{t_1,t_2,...t_{\lceil\frac{S_M}{S_m}\rceil}\}\) denote the starting points of last \(\lceil\frac{S_M}{S_m}\rceil\) circles of Bellman Ford period before time \(t\). And let \(t_{\lceil\frac{S_M}{S_m}\rceil+1}\) denote the starting point of the following period after time \(t\). We see obviously that
\begin{equation}
\frac{t_{\lceil\frac{S_M}{S_m}\rceil+1}}{t_1}=exp(\frac{NK{\lceil\frac{S_M}{S_m}+1\rceil}}{G})
\end{equation}
For any Bellman Ford time slot \(t^*\) between \(t_1\) and \(t_{\lceil\frac{S_M}{S_m}\rceil+1}\) ,it satisfies that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{t}{t^*}<\frac{t_{\lceil\frac{S_M}{S_m}\rceil+1}}{t_1}=exp(\frac{NK{\lceil\frac{S_M}{S_m}+1\rceil}}{G})
\end{split}
\end{equation}
During these circles of Bellman Ford period, if B does not happen, the \(A_t\) does not happen either.
So we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
P(A_t)<&\sum_{t^*,k=1,2,...,K}P(B_{t^*}^k)<\sum_{t^*,k=1,2,...,K}5|E|^2{(t^*)}^{-1}
\\<&10K|E|^2 \lceil \frac{S_M}{S_m} \rceil exp(\frac{NK\lceil\frac{S_M}{S_m}+1\rceil}{G}){t}^{-1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\\
In another word, the total regret to time horizon T can be written as
\begin{equation}
\sum_{t=1}^T{P(A_t)}=\sum_{t=1}^T{O(t^{-1})}
\end{equation}
and it is \(O(logT)\)\ensuremath{\rlap{\hbox{\rule[.4 ex]{0.2 ex}{0 ex}\rule[.4 ex]{0.84 ex}{0.07 ex}\rule[.4 ex]{0.07 ex}{0.9 ex}}}\square}
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
We provide a quantitative evaluation of the size of the operators that
restore cluster properties in Bakamjian-Thomas formulations of
relativistic few-body quantum mechanics.
Relativistic few-body models are an extension of the corresponding
non-relativistic models that are exactly Poincar\'e invariant. By
exact Poincar\'e invariance we mean that quantum probabilities, which
are the dimensionless observables of the theory, have the same values
in all inertial coordinate systems. Wigner\cite{wigner} showed that a
necessary and sufficient condition for the invariance of quantum
probabilities is the existence of a dynamical representation of the
Poincar\'e group on the model Hilbert space.
Dirac\cite{dirac} showed that at least three of the Poincar\'e
generators must have interactions in order to satisfy the commutation
relations in an interacting theory. This is because time translation
can be expressed in terms of Lorentz boosts and spatial translations.
Beyond Poincar\'e invariance, the requirement that Poincar\'e
invariance also holds for isolated subsystems requires that the
unitary representation of the Poincar\'e group be well approximated by
a tensor product of two representations when evaluated between states
representing asymptotically separated subsystems.
Bakamjian and Thomas\cite{bakamjian} provided the first non-field
theoretic realization of the Poincar\'e Lie algebra with interactions.
Their construction satisfied cluster properties at the two-body level,
but not for systems of more than two particles. Coester\cite{coester}
applied the Bakamjian-Thomas construction to three-body systems and
showed that the resulting three-body $S$-matrix satisfied cluster
properties. Unfortunately his result did not extend to the unitary
representation of the Poincar\'e group and did not apply to systems of
four or more particles. Sokolov\cite{sokolov}\cite{coester2} provided
a complete solution to the problem in terms of certain unitary
operators. In this framework the size of the corrections that restore
cluster properties are related to how close these unitary operators
are to the identity. Sokolov's operators have never been computed in
any applications.
The Bakamjian-Thomas construction begins with a tensor product of two
irreducible representations of the Poincar\'e group and decomposes it
into a direct integral of irreducible representations using
Clebsch-Gordan coefficients for the Poincar\'e group
\[
\vert (M, j )\mathbf{P} ,\mu ; l ,s \rangle =
\sumint d\mathbf{p}_1 d\mathbf{p}_2
\vert (m_1,j_1) \mathbf{p}_1, \mu_1 \rangle \otimes \vert (m_2, j_2 )
\mathbf{p}_2, \mu_2 \rangle \times
\]
\[
\underbrace{\langle
(m_1,j_1) \mathbf{p}_1, \mu_1 (m_2, j_2 )\mathbf{p}_2, \mu_2 \vert
(M, j )\mathbf{P} ,\mu ; l ,s \rangle}_{\mbox{Poincar\'e group Clebsch-Gordan coeff.}}.
\]
Interactions are added to the invariant mass operator of this free-particle
irreducible representation that commute with the free spin operator and commute
with and are independent of the quantum numbers that label vectors in
each irreducible subspace
\[
M_I = M_0 + V.
\]
In the free-particle irreducible basis these matrix elements have the
form
\[
\langle (M, j )\mathbf{P} ,\mu ; l ,s \vert V
\vert (M', j' )\mathbf{P}' ,\mu' ; l' ,s' \rangle =
\]
\[
\delta(\mathbf{P}-\mathbf{P}')\delta_{jj'} \delta _{\mu \mu'}
\langle M , l ,s \Vert v^j \Vert M',l',s' \rangle .
\]
Simultaneous eigenstates of $M_I, \mathbf{j}^2, j_z, \mathbf{P}$ are
constructed by solving the Schr\"odinger equation for the mass
eigenstates
\[
(\lambda -M) \phi_{\lambda ,j}( M,l,s) =
\sumint' dM'
\langle M , l ,s \Vert v^j \Vert M',l',s' \rangle
\phi_{\lambda ,j}( M,l,s) .
\]
The eigenstates defined by the wave functions
\[
\langle (M, j )\mathbf{P} ,\mu ; l ,s
\vert (\lambda, j' )\mathbf{P}' ,\mu' \rangle =
\delta (\mathbf{P}-\mathbf{P}') \delta_{jj'}\delta_{\mu \mu'}
\phi_{\lambda ,j}( M,l,s)
\]
are complete and transform irreducibly under the dynamical representation
\[
U(\Lambda ,a ) \vert (\lambda, j )\mathbf{P} ,\mu \rangle
\]
\[
\sum_{\nu} \vert (\lambda, j )\pmb{\Lambda}{P} ,\nu \rangle
e^{i \Lambda P \cdot a} \sqrt{{\omega_\lambda (\Lambda P)
\over \omega_\lambda (P) }}
D^j _{\nu \mu}(R_w(\Lambda ,P))
\]
of the Poincar\'e group. The original Bakamjian-Thomas construction
was for a system of two particles; but a generalization of the
construction outlined above works for any number of particles. The
key requirement is that the spin in the interacting model is
identified with the spin in the non-interacting model.
In the two-body Bakamjian-Thomas representation it is clear that when
the two-body interaction is turned off the resulting unitary
representation of the Poincar\'e group becomes the tensor product of
two non-interacting irreducible representations, as expected. When
the Bakamjian-Thomas construction is applied to systems of three
particles, turning off the two-body interactions involving one
particle no longer results in a tensor product of a one and two body
representation of the Poincar\'e group.
The Sokolov construction starts with the two-body interactions that
appear in the two-body problem and uses them to construct three-body
interactions that lead to a dynamical representation of the Poincar\'e
group that clusters to the tensor product of the two-body
Bakamjian-Thomas representation and a one-body representation. This
construction can be repeated recursively for any number of particles.
To understand the Sokolov construction consider a three-body system
where one pair of particles interact. There are two natural
constructions of a dynamical representation of the Poincar\'e group.
The first is to take the tensor product of a two-body Bakamjian-Thomas
representation with a single-particle irreducible representation. The
second is to perform a full three-body Bakamjian Thomas construction where
the interaction commutes with the non-interacting three-body spin.
Using appropriate choices of two-body interactions, these
constructions can be done in a manner that ensures that both
representations lead to the same scattering matrix elements and two
body-bound state masses. The relevant additions to the two-body
invariant mass have the forms
\[
\langle \mathbf{P}',j_3',\mu_3', \mathbf{p}_3', m_{12}' ,j', l',s',\mu'
\vert V^{TP}_{12} \vert
\mathbf{P},j_3',\mu_3', \mathbf{p}_3, m_{12} ,j, l,s,\mu
\rangle =
\]
\[
\delta (\mathbf{P}' -\mathbf{P}) \delta_{j_3'j_3}
\delta_{{\mu_3' \mu_3}}
\delta ({\mathbf{p}_3'} -{\mathbf{p}_3})
\delta_{j'j} \delta_{{\mu' \mu}}
{\langle m_{12}', l',s'\Vert v^j_{12} \Vert m_{12} ,l,s \rangle}
\]
and
\[
\langle \mathbf{P}',{j}_3,\bar{\mu}_3, \mathbf{q}_3', m_{12}' ,{j}', l',s',
\bar{\mu}'
\vert V^{BT}_{12} \vert
\mathbf{P},{j}_3,\bar{\mu}_3, \mathbf{q}_3, m_{12} ,{j}, l,s,\bar{\mu}
\rangle =
\]
\[
\delta (\mathbf{P}' -\mathbf{P})\delta_{j_3'j_3}
\delta_{{\bar{\mu}_3' \bar{\mu}_3}}
\delta ({\mathbf{q}_3'} -{\mathbf{q}_3})
\delta_{{j}'{j}} \delta_{{\bar{\mu}' \bar{\mu}}}
{\langle m_{12}', l',s'\Vert v^{j}_{12} \Vert m_{12} ,l,s \rangle}
\]
where
\[
\mathbf{q}_3 := \pmb{\Lambda}^{-1} (P/M({k})) p_3 \qquad
\bar{\mathbf{j}}= R_w(P,p_{12})\mathbf{j} \qquad
\bar{\mathbf{j}}_3= R_w(P,p_{3})\mathbf{j}_3 .
\]
Violations of cluster properties arise because the boost that appears
in the definition of $\mathbf{q}_3$ and $\bar{\mathbf{j}}$ depends on
$m_{12}$ which does not commute with the potential. The spectator
delta functions and spin kronecker delta functions in these two
expressions are only equivalent when $m_{12}=m_{12}'$. The $S$-matrix
in both for these representations are equal when the reduced kernels
$\langle m_{12}', l',s'\Vert v^{j}_{12} \Vert m_{12} ,l,s \rangle$ are
identified. This is because the $S$-matrix has the form of the
reduced kernel
\[
\langle m_{12}', l',s'\Vert S^j_{12} \Vert m_{12} ,l,s \rangle
\]
multiplied by delta functions that become equivalent on shell (when
$m_{12}=m_{12}'$). A consequence of this equivalence is that both
unitary representations of the Poincar\'e group are related by an
$S$-matrix preserving unitary transformation \cite{ekstein}
\[
A_{12,3} U^{TP}_{12,3}(\Lambda ,a)
A_{12,3}^{\dagger} = U_{12,3}^{BT}(\Lambda ,a) .
\]
In the Bakamjian-Thomas representation it is possible to combine the
three $2+1$ mass operators to get an interacting three-body mass
operator that commutes with the non-interacting three-body spin
\[
M^{BT}:= M^{BT}_{12,3} + M^{BT}_{23,1} + M^{BT}_{31,2} - 2 M^{BT}_{0}
\qquad
\mathbf{j}^{BT} := \mathbf{j}_0.
\]
Applying the Bakamjian-Thomas construction to this mass operator gives
a dynamical unitary representation, $U^{BT} (\Lambda ,a)$, of the
Poincar\'e group.
Sokolov defined an $S$-matrix equivalent representation using a
unitary transformation constructed from a symmetrized product of the
three $2+1$ unitary operators relating the $2+1$ Bakamjian-Thomas
representation to the $2+1$ tensor product representations:
\begin{equation}
U(\Lambda ,a) := A^{\dagger} U^{BT} (\Lambda ,a) A
\label{e.1}
\end{equation}
where
\[
A = e^{\mbox{ln}(A_{12,3})+\mbox{ln}(A_{23,1})+\mbox{ln}(A_{31,2})} .
\]
The resulting three-body invariant mass operator can be expressed
in terms of these unitary transformations and the mass operators
for the $2+1$ tensor product representations:
\[
M:=
\]
\[
A^{\dagger} \left ( A_{12,3} M_{12,3} A^{\dagger}_{12,3}+
A_{23,1} M_{23,1}A^{\dagger}_{23,1} +
A_{31,2} M_{31,2}A^{\dagger}_{31,2} - 2 M^{BT}_{0}
\right ) A .
\]
Because the $A_{ij,k} \to I$ when the interaction between particles
$i$ and $j$ is turned off, in each asymptotic region this mass
operator becomes the mass operator for the associated tensor product
representation, which implies that this transformed representation of
the Poincar\'e group satisfies cluster properties. The combined effect
of the unitary operators is to generate three-body interactions that
restore the Poincar\'e commutation relations to the cluster expansions
of the Poincar\'e generators.
In the limit that $A$ in (\ref{e.1}) becomes the identity the Sokolov
representation becomes the Bakamjian-Thomas representation. Thus the
size of the difference between these unitary transformations and the
identity provides a measure of the size of the violations of cluster
properties in the Bakamjian-Thomas representation.
To test the size of the corrections that restore cluster properties we
consider a simple four-body model. It consists of a three-particle
system where two of the particles interact to form a bound state and
an external probe that interacts weakly with the third particle. We
assume that there are no interactions between the particles in the
bound pair and the third particle or the probe. All particles are
treated as spinless particles and the probe is a assumed to interact
via a scalar ``current''. We use a relativistic Malfliet-Tjon type of
potential to construct a model with nuclear-physics scales.
We formulate models treating the three-body system as a $2+1$
tensor-product representation or a $2+1$ Bakamjian-Thomas
representation. The current matrix elements in the two cases are
related by the unitary transformation $A_{12,3}$
\[
\langle 12\otimes 3 \vert j(0) \vert 12\otimes 3' \rangle =
\langle
(12,3)^{BT} \vert A_{12,3}j(0)A^{\dagger}_{12,3}
\vert (12,3)^{\prime BT} \rangle .
\]
It follows that the difference between
$\langle 12\otimes 3 \vert j(0) \vert 12\otimes 3' \rangle$
and $\langle
(12,3)^{BT} \vert j(0)
\vert (12,3)^{\prime BT} \rangle$ provides one measure of difference
between $A_{12,3}$ and the identity, which is a measure of the
size of the operator that restores cluster properties to the
Bakamjian-Thomas representation.
In the figures we plot
\[
F(\mathbf{p}_3'-\mathbf{p}_3, \mathbf{p}_{12}) :=
\]
\begin{equation}
{
\int d\mathbf{p}_{12}'{}_{TP}\langle \mathbf{p}_3,
\mathbf{p}_{12}, \phi \vert j(0) \vert
\mathbf{p}_3', \mathbf{p}_{12}',\phi \rangle_{TP} -
\int d\mathbf{p}_{12}'{}_{BT}\langle \mathbf{p}_3,
\mathbf{p}_{12}, \phi \vert j(0) \vert
\mathbf{p}_3', \mathbf{p}_{12}',\phi \rangle_{BT}
\over
\int d\mathbf{p}_{12}'{}_{TP}\langle \mathbf{p}_3,
\mathbf{p}_{12}, \phi \vert j(0) \vert
\mathbf{p}_3', \mathbf{p}_{12}',\phi \rangle_{TP}
}
\label{eq.2}
\end{equation}
In (\ref{eq.2}) the integral over $\mathbf{p}_{12}'$ removes the
dependence on the momentum of the bound pair, $\mathbf{p}_{12}$, in a
model that satisfies cluster properties. $F(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{p}_{12})$
must vanish for
models satisfying cluster properties, which is illustrated by the flat
plane in each of the figures. Any residual dependence on
$\mathbf{p}_{12}$ in this expression indicates a violation of cluster
properties, which provides a measure of how much the operator
$A_{12,3}$ differs from the identity. Figures 1. and 2. show
(\ref{eq.2}) for $p_{12}$ perpendicular and parallel to $q=p_3'-p_3$
in Dirac's front-form dynamics. These two plots exhibit a small
dependence on $\mathbf{p}_{12}$, but the value differs from zero.
Figures 3. and 4. show (\ref{eq.2}) for $p_{12}$ perpendicular and
parallel to $q=p_3'-p_3$ in Dirac's instant-form dynamics. Figures
5. and 6. show (\ref{eq.2}) for $p_{12}$ perpendicular and parallel to
$q=p_3'-p_3$ in Dirac's point-form dynamics. Both the instant and
point-form calculations have more dependence on $\mathbf{p}_{12}$ than
the front-form calculation, but the magnitude of the violations of
cluster properties are of comparable size in all three cases. While
all six plots exhibit clear violations of cluster properties, the size
of the violations are a few parts in a thousand which is well within
the size of both theoretical and experimental uncertainties in
relativistic nuclear physics observables. The violations of cluster
properties increase with stronger binding or for wave functions with
higher mean momentum, however for scales associated with realistic
nuclear-nucleon interactions the violations remain small. This
suggests that at current levels of experimental precision there is no
real need to compute corrections that restore cluster properties.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{6.2cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.9cm,clip]{ff_3d_perp.eps}
\caption[Short caption for figure 3]{\label{labelFig1}
Front form - $p_{12}\perp q$
}
\end{center}
\label{fig.1}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{6.2cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.9cm,clip]{ff_3d_parallel.eps}
\caption[Short caption for figure 4]{\label{labelFig2}
Front form - $p_{12} \Vert q$
}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\label{fig.2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{6.2cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.9cm,clip]{instant_3d_perp.eps}
\caption[Short caption for figure 3]{\label{labelFig3}
Instant form - $p_{12}\perp q$
}
\end{center}
\label{fig.3}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{6.2cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.9cm,clip]{instant_3d_parallel.eps}
\caption[Short caption for figure 4]{\label{labelFig4}
Instant form - $p_{12} \Vert q$}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\label{fig.4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{6.2cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.9cm,clip]{pf_wp_3d_perp.eps}
\caption[Short caption for figure 6]{\label{labelFig5}
Point form - $p_{12}\perp q$
}
\end{center}
\label{fig.5}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{6.2cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.9cm,clip]{pf_wp_3d_parallel.eps}
\caption[Short caption for figure 6]{\label{labelFig6}
Point form - $p_{12} \Vert q$
}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\label{fig.6}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
A good graph visualization clearly and effectively describes the nodes of a graph as well as the underlying relationships between these nodes. In this work, we propose a novel approach to embedding a high-dimensional graph in a two-dimensional space such that crossings are minimized while proximity relations between nodes are simultaneously preserved. The quality of a visualization is gauged on the basis of how easily it can be understood and interpreted. In this context, a minimum number of edge crossings has been identified as the most desirable characteristic for graph visualizations \citep{purchase1997aesthetic,ware2002cognitive,battista}. Minimizing crossings is a challenging problem. Determining the minimum number of crossings for a graph is NP-complete \citep{garey1983crossing}. In practice as well, this is a very difficult problem. Existing state of the art integer programming based \emph{exact} crossing minimization approaches for general graphs are only tractable for small sparse graphs. Graphs of upto 100 nodes can be solved in 30 minutes of computation time, and reaching the optimal solution is not guaranteed\citep{exactcrossing,oocm}.
There exists a body of literature on the problems of drawing restricted classes of graphs e.g. 2-layer or k-layer crossing minimized graphs \citep{2layerplanar, hierarchplanar}, which are also NP-complete problems and difficult in practice. Polynomial time embedding algorithms do exist for the special class of planar graphs. However, these classes of methods do not allow for much flexibility in placement of nodes implying limited additional constraint satisfaction capability such as for preserving proximity relations. Additionally, the topological transformations involved alter the user's mental map of the data that may be based on local structure or relative proximities.
However, proximity preservation is a much desired property for general data embedding \citep{sne,lle}. Frequently, the nodes of a graph represent objects that have their own intrinsic properties with associated distances or similarity measures that describe implicit relations between all pairs of nodes. A graph embedding that serves to represent such relationships faithfully must produce a mapping of nodes from high-dimensional space to low-dimensional vectors that preserves pairwise proximity relations. For general data embedding, the desired quality is frequently expressed as a function of the embedding and then optimized. For example, in Multidimensional Scaling (MDS), the goal is to produce an embedding that minimizes the difference between the actual distances and (Euclidean) distances in the embedding between all pairs of nodes. Several nonlinear dimensionality reduction techniques have been proposed where the emphasis is on preserving local structure \citep{laplacianeigenmaps,sne,tsne}. While these methods can be applied to visualize the nodes of the graph, the extant edges between nodes create a large number of edge-crossings.
Thus, embedding such heterogeneous data poses a unique challenge. The underlying graph structure must be presented clearly. At the same time, since the nodes of the graph are themselves data points characterized by features, the positions of nodes in the embedding must effectively represent the proximities between the data points in the original space. A natural question is: how can the number of edge crossings in the embedded graph be minimized, while simultaneously optimizing the embedding objective? This requires expressing the basic condition for no edge crossings as an optimization problem, which has previously not been done \footnote{Existing integer programming based crossing-number formulations incorporate a large number of constraints e.g. \emph{Kuratowski} constraints characterizing planar subgraphs based on the theorem that a graph is planar iff it contains no Kuratowski subdivisions \citep{berge1958theorie}.}. The formulation of edge-crossings constraints and the representation of crossing minimization as a continuous optimization problem are the principle contributions of this paper. This representation is a fundamentally new paradigm for crossing minimization. Expressing edge-crossing minimization as a \emph{continuous} optimization problem offers the additional advantage that other embedding objectives such as proximity preserving criteria can be simultaneously optimized.
The key theoretical insight of the paper is that the condition that two edges do {\bf not} cross is equivalent to the feasibility of a system of nonlinear inequalities. In Section \ref{sec:cntnsedgecrossing}, we prove this using a theorem of the alternative: Farkas' Lemma. The transformed system has an intuitive geometric interpretation, it ensures that the two edges are separated by a linear hyperplane. Thus, each edge-crossing constraint reduces to a classification problem which is very closely related to support vector machines (SVM). The resulting system of inequalities can then be relaxed to create a natural penalty function for each possible edge crossing. This non-negative function goes to zero if no edge crossings occur. This general approach is applicable to the intersection of any component of the graph represented as a convex polyhedron, including arbitrary shaped nodes, labels and subgraphs represented by their convex hulls. The approach is a distinct and important departure from prior crossing minimization approaches \citep{orth,exactcrossing,gutwenger2004experimental} and graph drawing algorithms that employ heuristics to avoid crossings \citep{fdpfruchterman,wills1999nicheworks}. It also allows for extensions of general data embedding methods applied to graphs that otherwise ignore crossings.
In Section \ref{sec:CR-SM}, we explore how edge-crossing constraints can be added to stress majorization algorithms for MDS.
We develop the Crossing Reduction with Stress Majorization (CR-SM) algorithm which simultaneously minimizes stress while eliminating or reducing edge crossings using penalized stress majorization. The method solves a series of unconstrained nonlinear programs. We test the method on two sets of graph embedding problems with associated distance matrices. We first demonstrate the approach on a compelling problem involving genetic distances in tuberculosis molecular epidemiology. The graphical results are shown for spoligoforests drawn using a set of fifty-five biomarkers. The method found planar graph embeddings with lower stress than those generated using the state-of-the-art Graphviz NEATO algorithm (stress majorization for MDS). We then demonstrate the approach on randomly generated high-dimensional graphs designed to have some planar embeddings with high stress. The results show that the proposed approach, CR-SM, can produce two-dimensional embeddings with minimal edge crossings with little increase in stress. Additional illustrations are provided in the appendix. Animations of the algorithm illustrating how the edge crossing penalty progressively transforms the graphs are provided at \url{http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~shabba/FinalGD/}.
We now describe our notation. All vectors will be column vectors unless transposed to a row vector by a prime $'$. For a vector $x$ in the \emph{n-}dimensional real space $\mathbb{R}^n$, $x_i$ represents the $ith$ component. $x_+$ denotes the vector in $\mathbb{R}^n$ with components $(x_+)_i=max(x_i, 0), i=1,..,n$. The 1-norm of $x$, $\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=1}^n |x_i|$ will be denoted by $||x||_1$, and the 2-norm of $x$, $\sqrt{x'x}$ will be denoted by $||x||_2$. A vector of ones in a real space of arbitrary dimension will be denoted by $e$. The notation $A \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ will signify a real $m \times n$ matrix. For such a matrix, $A'$ will denote the transpose, while $A_i$ will denote the $ith$ row. The notation $\displaystyle{\underset{x \in X}{argmin f(x)}}$ represents the solution to the problem $\displaystyle{\underset{x \in X}\min f(x)}$ and equals $\{x^* \in X: f(x^*) \leq f(x), \forall x \in X\}$.
\section{Motivation}
\label{sec:Motivation}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{spoldb4.jpg}
\caption{Embeddings of spoligoforests of SpolDB4 sublineages by 7 algorithms
(a) CR-SM
(b) MDS
(c) Laplacian Eigenmaps
(d) Stochastic Neighborhood Embedding (SNE)
(e) Graphviz Twopi
(f) Spring Embedding
(g) Orthogonal Embedding.
The proposed approach CR-SM shown in (a) eliminates all edge crossings with little change in the overall stress as compared with the stress majorization solution in (b).
}
\label{fig:SpolDB4}
\end{figure}
The goal is to create clear representations of graphs with a reduced number of crossings. This must be achieved while optimizing other embedding criteria, such as preserving pairwise distances between nodes as defined in the original high-dimensional space. Such graphs with associated pairwise distances between nodes arise in various domains; the specific motivating application for this work is visualization of phylogenetic forests (spoligoforests) of \emph{Mycobacterium tuberculosis} complex (MTBC). In a spoligoforest, each node represents a strain of MTBC described by its genetic fingerprint and each edge represents a putative mutation \citep{webtools}. Each node or strain has a genetic distance that can be defined to every other strain, even if they are not connected in the underlying graph (phylogenetic forest).
Similar graphs exist in other domains, e.g. in a graph of web pages, each node may be a web page and each edge may represent a hyperlink between pages. Each web page is a document with intrinsic properties, so there is an associated distance or similarity measure between nodes even if no link exists between them.
Existing embedding and graph drawing methods typically do a good job at preserving proximity relations or minimizing crossings, but not both.
Here we illustrate the shortcomings of existing methods. Figure \ref{fig:SpolDB4} shows the visualization of a (planar) spoligoforest for the SpolDB4 subfamilies of MTBC created by the proposed approach and 6 other embedding methods: \begin{inparaenum}[\itshape \upshape(a\upshape)]
\item CR-SM
\item MDS
\item Laplacian Eigenmaps
\item Stochastic Neighborhood Embedding
\item Graphviz Twopi
\item Spring Embedding
\item Orthogonal Embedding.
\end{inparaenum}
The proposed approach, CR-SM, minimizes crossings while preserving proximity relations. MDS by stress majorization as implemented in Graphviz NEATO \citep{majorization} shown in Figure \ref{fig:SpolDB4}(b) preserves pairwise distances specified between all pairs of nodes but has edge crossings. The Laplacian Eigenmap technique involves inferring an adjacency matrix and the corresponding weighted Laplacian based on distances between points in high-dimensional space and subsequently generating a spectral embedding based on the weighted Laplacian \citep{laplacianeigenmaps}. Limitations of Laplacian Eigenmaps reported in \citet{van2007dimensionality} are observed in the spoligoforest visualizations. Multiple nodes collapse to form dense clusters of points in the reduced space leading to collocated edges. This makes it difficult to observe individual nodes and relations between them. The graph in Figure \ref{fig:SpolDB4}(d) is generated using SNE which is based on representing proximities in high-dimensional space as conditional probabilities and generating embeddings in the reduced space that preserve these probabilities \citep{sne}. While genetically similar strains cluster together in the embedding generated by SNE, there are edge crossings and the genetic relatedness between all pairs of strains is less evident as indicated by high stress tabulated in Table 1, Section \ref{sec:results}. Embeddings generated using Graphviz Twopi that tries to preserve uniform angular span, have a visually appealing radial layout but do not represent pairwise distances between nodes. The spring embedding method treats a graph as a physical system, in which all nodes exert repulsive forces on each other, while nodes connected by edges also have attractive forces between them \citep{fdpfruchterman}. In the state of equilibrium, nodes connected by edges are placed close to each other; as the edges are short the number of crossings is low. A variation of the spring model for drawing weighted graphs defined by \citet{kamada} is based on the assumption that edge lengths need to be preserved. It does not represent the majority of pairwise distances between all pairs of nodes not directly connected by edges. Orthogonal layout methods use heuristics to generate straight-line planar embeddings with minimum edge bends \citep{orth} as shown in Figure \ref{fig:SpolDB4}(g). This method first generates a ``visibility representation'', which is a skeletal representation of the graph. Individual graph components are then substituted with equivalent straight-line forms. Further heuristics-based transformations are made to generate an orthogonal embedding with minimum edge-bends. While the planar embeddings in Figure \ref{fig:SpolDB4}(e)-(g) may be uncluttered and therefore visually appealing, they are inaccurate representations of the data. The relative placement of individual components of the graph do not represent genetic distances defined by the distance matrix. For example, the relative placement of subgraphs representing MTBC lineages does not reflect the genetic similarity between lineages and edge lengths do not represent the extent of mutation. The proposed approach in Figure \ref{fig:SpolDB4}(a) on the other hand, represents pairwise distances correctly. By optimizing the MDS objective or any other dimensionality reduction objective with additional edge crossing penalties, the embedding has no edge-crossings and also a naturally emerging radial structure due to the minimum separation between edges enforced.
\section{Continuous Edge-Crossing Constraints}
\label{sec:cntnsedgecrossing}
We show how edge-crossing constraints can be expressed as a system of nonlinear inequalities through the introduction of additional variables for each edge crossing. Expressing the constraint that two edges must not cross as a system of nonlinear equalities is a key non-obvious first step for developing a continuous objective function to minimize edge crossings. The formulation is based on the fact that each straight-line edge is a convex polyhedron. Therefore, $\exists u \not=0$ and $\gamma$ such that for two edges that do not intersect, $x'u-\gamma$ is nonpositive for all points $x \in \mathbb{R}^2$ lying on one edge and nonnegative for all points $x \in \mathbb{R}^2$ lying on the other edge. Figure \ref{fig:cross} illustrates that the no-edge-crossing constraint corresponds to introducing a separating hyperplane defined by $\{x|x \in \mathbb{R}^2, x'u=\gamma\}$ and requiring each edge to lie in opposite half spaces.
\begin{figure} [H]
\begin{tabular}{cc}
(a) \;\;\; \includegraphics{nocross.png}
(b) \;\;\; \includegraphics{cross.png}
\end{tabular}
\caption{ In (a) edge {$\cal{A}$} from $a$ to $c$ and edge $\cal{B}$ from $b$ to $d$ do not cross. Any line between {$x'u-\gamma=1$} and {$x'u-\gamma=-1$} strictly separates the edges. Using a soft margin, the plane in (b) $x'u-\gamma=0$ separates the plane into half spaces that should contain each edge.
}
\label{fig:cross}
\end{figure}
To elucidate this idea further, note that each point on an edge can be represented as the convex combination of the extreme points of the edge. Consider edge $\cal A$ with end points $a=[a_x \;\; a_y] \in \mathbb{R}^2$ and $c=[c_x \;\; c_y] \in \mathbb{R}^2$ and edge $\cal B$ with end points $b=[b_x \;\; b_y] \in \mathbb{R}^2$ and $d=[d_x \;\; d_y] \in \mathbb{R}^2$. The matrices $A$ and $B$ contain the end or extreme points of the edges $\cal A$ and $\cal B$ respectively. Any point in the intersection of edge $\cal A$ and $\cal B$ can be written as a convex combination of the extreme points of $\cal A$ and also as a convex combination of the extreme points of $\cal B$. Therefore, two edges do not intersect if and only if the following system of equations has {\bf no solution}:
\begin{align}
\exists \;\;\; \delta_{A} \in \mathbb{R}^2\mbox{ and } \delta_{B} \in \mathbb{R}^2 \mbox{ such that}\;\;\;
A' \delta_{A}=B' \delta_{B} \;\;\;
e' \delta_{A}=1 \;\;\;
e' \delta_{B}=1 \;\;\;
\delta_{A} \geq 0 \;\;\;
\delta_{B} \geq 0
\end{align}
where
$e$ is a 2-dimensional vector of ones and $\displaystyle{A= \begin {bmatrix} a_x & a_y \\c_x & c_y \end{bmatrix}}$ and $\displaystyle{B= \begin {bmatrix} b_x & b_y \\d_x & d_y \end{bmatrix}}$.
The conditions that two given edges do \emph{not} cross, i.e. that (1) has no solution, are precisely characterized by using Farkas' Lemma. Farkas' Lemma states that for each fixed $p \times n$ matrix $D$ the linear system $Du\le0$, $d'u>0$ has no solution $u \in \mathbb{R}^n$ if and only if the system $D'v=d$, $v\ge 0$ has a solution $v \in \mathbb{R}^p$.
\begin{theorem}[Conditions for no edge crossing] The edges $\cal A$ and $\cal B$ do not cross if and only if $\exists$ $u$, $\alpha$, $\beta \in \mathbb{R}^2$, such that
\begin{equation}
Au \ge \alpha e \;\;\;\;\;
Bu \le \beta e \;\;\;\;\;
\alpha - \beta >0.\\
\label{eq:cond}
\end{equation}
\label{th:nocross}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Farkas' Lemma, (\ref{eq:cond}) has a solution if and only if the following system has no solution
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cond2a}
A'\delta_A -B'\delta_B =0, \;\;\;\;e'\delta_A=1 \;\;\;\; e'\delta_B=1 \;\;\;\;\delta_A \ge 0 \;\;\;\;\;\; \delta_B \ge 0.\\
\end{equation}
System \ref{eq:cond2a} has no solution if and only if the convex combination of the extreme points of $\cal A$ and $\cal B$ do not intersect.
\end{proof}
The theorem can be generalized to intersections between any component of the graph represented as convex combinations of their respective extreme points. Let the graph component represented as convex polyhedron ${\cal A}$ have $v$ extreme points and the component ${\cal B}$ have $s$ extreme points. There exists
$\delta_A \in \mathbb{R}^v$ and $\delta_B \in \mathbb{R}^s$ such that ${\cal A}=\{ x |x = A' \delta_A, e'\delta_A=1, \delta_A\ge 0\}$ and ${\cal B}=\{ x |x = B'\delta_B, e'\delta_B=1, \delta_B\ge 0\}$. Then from Theorem \ref{th:nocross},
\begin{corollary}[Conditions for no intersection of two polyhedrons]
The polyhedrons ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$ do not intersect, ${\cal A}\cap{\cal B}=\emptyset$, if and only if $\exists$ $u \in \mathbb{R}^2$, $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cond2}
\begin{array}{l}
Au - \gamma e \ge e\mbox{,}\;\;\;\;\;
Bu - \gamma e \le -e \\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
Therefore, two edges (or more generally two polyhedrons) {\bf do not} intersect if and only if
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:LP}
0=\min_{u,\gamma} f(A,B, u, \gamma)=\min_{u,\gamma} || (-Au+(\gamma +1)e)_+||^q_q + ||(Bu-(\gamma -1)e)_+||^q_q
\mbox { for } q=1 \mbox { or }\ q=2. \end{equation}
Here $q=1$ represents the one-norm, while $q=2$ represents the least-squares form. As in SVMs, (\ref{eq:LP}) can be converted into a linear or quadratic program depending on the choice of $q=1$, or $q=2$ respectively \citep{vapnik,bradley1998feature}. Here we study $q=2$. Thus, the edge-crossing condition can be converted to alternate forms and potentially more convenient mathematical programs by choice of appropriate norms and introduction of constraints and extra variables to eliminate the plus function. The minimization function in (\ref{eq:LP}) provides a natural function for penalizing edges that do cross. Much like soft-margin SVM classification \citep{cortes1995support}, two edges (or more generally two polyhedrons) $\cal A$ and $\cal B$ do not intersect if and only if there exists a hyperplane, $x'u-\gamma=0$ that strictly separates the extreme points of $\cal A$ and $\cal B$. If the edges do not cross, then the optimal objective of (\ref{eq:LP}) will be 0; while it will be strictly greater than 0 if the edges do cross.
\section{Crossing Reduction with Stress Majorization}
\label{sec:CR-SM}
Edge-crossing constraints and penalties are a practical and flexible paradigm that can be used directly or as part of optimization-based graph embedding algorithms to minimize edge crossings in graph embeddings. Many algorithms are possible depending on the variant of the formulation of the penalty terms used. In this paper, we used the differentiable least-squares loss for the penalty terms.
For $\ell$ edge objects there are $\frac { \ell(\ell-1)} {2} $ possible intersections and thus $O(\ell^2)$ penalty terms. Note, an optimized embedding will typically only produce a fraction of the possible edge crossings. Thus, this suggests an iterative penalty approach would be efficient because we need only deal with the small set of edge crossings that actually occur during the iterations of the algorithm. In this section, we describe an algorithm for minimizing the \emph{stress} (MDS objective) with quadratic penalties for edge crossings.
Note that alternately, by including 1-norm penalties for every edge-crossing, an exact penalty method can be developed for crossing minimization. Such \emph{exact} penalty functions have the desirable property that a single minimization can yield the \emph{exact} solution \citep{nocedal}. While this offers advantages on convergence rates as a finite penalty would suffice, the resulting function is non-differentiable. This strategy can also result in sharper increases in stress. This is in contrast to inexact penalty methods using quadratic penalties where the performance depends on the penalty parameter update strategy.
Inexact penalty methods require gradually increasing the penalty parameter in each iteration, thus requiring multiple iterations to reach the minimum. The use of gentle penalties means that small changes are made in the coordinates of the nodes resulting in lower stress. Thus, these variations can be used to define objectives with varying emphasis on the stress and intersections components, resulting in different layouts.
Using a multi-objective penalty approach, edge crossing minimization can be incorporated into any optimization-based embedding or graph drawing formulation. In this paper, we do multi-objective optimization combining edge-cross minimization with the stress function given by the widely-used MDS objective \citep{coxmds}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:stressfunc}
stress(X)=\sum_{i<j}w_{ij}(||X_i-X_j||_2-d_{ij})^2
\end{equation}
for $X \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times 2}$. The stress function measures the difference of the Euclidean distance between points in the new reduced two-dimensional space and their corresponding defined m-dimensional proximities. It is therefore a measure of the disagreement between pairwise distances in the high-dimensional space and the new reduced space. Here $X_i \in \mathbb{R}^2$ is the position of the node $i$ in the two-dimensional embedding described by its x and y coordinates. $d_{ij}$ represents the distance between nodes i and j. The normalization constant $w_{ij}=d_{ij}^{- \alpha}$, $\alpha=2 $ is used. This constant $\alpha$ can be tweaked to alter the emphasis on preserving distances between nearby or faraway nodes as needed. Thus, the solution to (\ref{eq:stressfunc}) is a configuration of points in a two-dimensional Euclidean space such that points in this space represent the original objects, and the pairwise distances between nodes in this space match the original dissimilarities between the objects.
However, the stress function in (\ref{eq:stressfunc}) is non-convex. The stress majorization or SMACOF algorithm introduced in \citep{smacof} finds an approximate solution to (\ref{eq:stressfunc}) by iteratively minimizing quadratic approximations to the original stress function. Each approximation, known as the majorization function is simpler to minimize than the original stress function and always takes a value greater than or equal to the original function. SMACOF iteratively minimizes the approximation function $Fstress(X,Z)$ which is a quadratic approximation of the $stress$ function in (\ref{eq:stressfunc}). $Fstress(X,Z)$ is defined such that $stress(X) \leq Fstress(X,Z)$ always holds, and $Fstress(X,Z)$ touches the surface of the $stress(X)$ function at a single point $Z$ known as the \emph{supporting point}.
\begin{equation}
Fstress(X,Z)=\sum_{i<j}w_{ij}d_{ij}^2+Tr(X'L^wX)-2Tr(X'L^{Z}Z)
\end{equation}
where the $n \times n$ weighted Laplacian is defined as follows
\begin{equation*}
L_{i,j}^{w} = \begin{cases}
-w_{ij} & \,\, i\neq j \text{,} \\
\sum_{i\neq k} w_{ik} & \,\, i = j \end{cases}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
L_{i,j}^{Z} = \begin{cases}
-w_{ij}d_{ij}inv\left(||Z_i-Z_j||_2\right) & \,\, i\neq j \text{,} \\
\displaystyle -\sum_{i\neq j} L_{i,j}^{Z} & \,\, i = j \end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $inv(x) = \frac{1}{x}$ when $x \neq 0$ and 0 otherwise, and $Z \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times 2}$ is a constant matrix and is the value of $X$ from the previous iteration.
The addition of 2-norm edge crossing penalties for $m$ crossings produces the following unconstrained optimization problem:
\begin{multline}
\min_{X, U, r} p(X,Z,U,r)=\min_{X, U, r} Fstress(X,Z)+ \\ \sum_{i=1}^m \frac{\rho _i} {2} [|| (-A^i X U_i+(r_i +1)e)_+||_2 ^2+ ||(B^i X U_i-(r_i -1)e)_+||_2^2]
\label{eq:problem}
\end{multline}
where $\rho \in \mathbb{R}^m$ defines the penalty parameters. Here $A^i \in \mathbb{R}^{2\times n}$ represents a matrix that serves to select the coordinates of the end-points of edge object $\cal{A}$ from $X$ to obtain $A= \begin {bmatrix} a_x & a_y \\c_x & c_y \end{bmatrix}$ as defined in Section \ref{sec:cntnsedgecrossing}. $U \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times 2}$ and $r \in \mathbb{R}^m$. $U_i$ and $r_i$ contains the $u$ and $\gamma$ obtained from (\ref{eq:LP}) that define the separating hyperplane for edge-crossing $i$ .
The iterative penalty method given in Algorithm \ref{alg} progressively increases the penalty parameters on each detected edge crossing until the algorithm converges. \footnote{The algorithm was implemented in Matlab. The initial solution $X^1$ with stress ${s^1}$ is calculated using \emph{stress majorization}. The following parameters are used: $\epsilon=1e-3$, $\tau=1e-6$, $constant = 4$, $\rho_{min} = s^1/constant$, $\rho_{inc}=1.1$ and $\rho_{max}=10^6$.} The algorithm begins by finding the stress-majorization solution $X^1$ and then refining the solution by introducing penalties for crossed edges. At each iteration, the edge crossing detection QP (\ref{eq:LP}) is solved to both detect edge crossings and calculate the hyperplanes used in the edge-crossing penalties. For each crossed edge, the penalty corresponding to that edge pair is increased at each iteration until a maximum penalty is reached. The penalty is increased slowly to avoid problems with ill-conditioning. For this work, we emphasized edge crossing minimization so $\rho_{max}$ is set high. But $\rho_{max}$ can be reduced to examine the trade-offs between the embedding and edge-crossing minimization objectives. Computational efficiency is gained due to the fact that edges that never cross in the course of the algorithm have a penalty of 0. A formal analysis of the computational complexity of this algorithm is left for future work.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Crossing Reduction with Stress Majorization}
\label{alg}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE Input: Pairwise distances, Edge list
\STATE $C \gets \emptyset$
\STATE $U^* \gets [ ]$
\STATE $r^* \gets [ ]$
\REPEAT
\REPEAT
\FOR {each edge pair $A^i$ and $B^i, i=1, \ldots, m$}
\STATE $(u^{*},\gamma^{*}) \gets argmin f(A^i,B^i, U_i, r_i)$ \{defined in QP (\ref{eq:LP})\}
\IF{$f(A^i,B^i, u^{*},\gamma^{*})\ge \tau$ and $i \notin C$}
\STATE $\rho_i \gets \rho_{min}$
\STATE $C \gets C \cup i$
\STATE $U_i \gets u^{*}$
\STATE $r_i \gets \gamma^{*}$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE $Z \gets X^j$
\STATE $L^Z \gets L^{X^j}$
\STATE $X^{j+1} \gets argmin(p(X,Z,U^*,r^*))$ \{defined in (\ref{eq:problem})\}
\STATE $j \gets j+1$
\STATE $\rho_{i} \gets min(\rho_{inc} \times \rho_i, \rho_{max})$
\UNTIL{$||X^j-X^{j-1}|| \geq \epsilon$ \AND $C \not=\emptyset$ }
\UNTIL {$||X^j-X^{j-1}|| \geq \tau$ \AND $ {\partial \over \partial X} p(X^j,X^{j-1},U^*,r^*) \geq \tau$ \AND $C \not=\emptyset$}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
For each fixed value of penalty parameter $\rho$, the objective (\ref{eq:problem}) is minimized using an algorithm that alternates between a $U-phase$ and an $X-phase$. In the $U-phase$, the soft margin separating hyperplane ($u^i$,$\gamma^i$) for each edge pair $i$ for a fixed $X$ is determined by solving QP(\ref{eq:LP}). For crossings that are present in successive iterations, the $u$ and $\gamma$ determined by solving (\ref{eq:LP}) in the previous iteration are used as a ``warm-start" point for improved efficiency. An inexpensive heuristic is used to reduce the number of edge-pairs checked: no crossing possible if bounding boxes enclosing edges do not intersect. In the $X-phase$, the configuration of nodes $X$ is determined by minimizing (\ref{eq:problem}) with respect to $X$ alone for the fixed values of $U$ and $r$ defining the separating hyperplanes determined in the $U-phase$. The BFGS algorithm as implemented in the Matlab Optimization Toolbox is used to minimize this edge-crossing penalized stress function. The penalties for crossed edges are driven higher until no edge crossings exist or the problem converges. Note, most edge pairs have penalty parameter $\rho_i=0$ since they never cross. Therefore, such an alternating iterative strategy involves solving relatively simpler problems in each phase for each iteration.
\section{Results and Interpretation}
\label{sec:results}
Two sets of graphs were used to evaluate the performance of CR-SM:
\begin{itemize}
\item{a real-world application: visualization of \emph{phylogenetic forests} (spoligoforests) of MTBC strains}, and
\item{randomly generated graphs that have a known planar embedding with high stress. The graphs were designed to challenge the CR-SM algorithm to find an alternate embedding that minimizes crossings while keeping the stress low.}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Embedding of Spoligoforests}
To demonstrate the performance of the approach, we return to the motivating application: visualization of spoligoforests created from DNA fingerprints of MTBC strains \citep{reyes2008,webtools}. Each node of the spoligoforest corresponds to a distinct genotype of MTBC as determined by two types of DNA fingerprints: 43 bit long spoligotypes and 12 loci of MIRU. The genetic distance between nodes is measured by the number of distinct changes in the spoligotypes and MIRU \citep{RulesPaper}. Nodes are colored by lineage, which are assigned to strains by experts on the basis of the strains' biomarkers. The adjacency relationships in the spoligoforest are determined as in \citep{RulesPaper}. The graph is always planar by definition since it consists of multiple trees. Note, not all putative evolutionary relationships between strains can be inferred, resulting in a disconnected graph that has ``orphan'' nodes, i.e. nodes not connected to any other components. This presents a challenge to traditional graph drawing methods like spring embedding techniques that use existence of edges as indicators of proximity. Strains belonging to the same lineage are likely to have small genetic distances between them. There may be some deviations from this expectation which may be of interest from a biological perspective as well. Thus, good spoligoforest visualizations must accurately represent pairwise genetic distances between strains belonging to the same lineage as well as across lineages, and also evolutionary distances between the lineages (subgraphs) themselves.
In this section, we make comparisons of visualizations generated using CR-SM with six existing crossing minimization and proximity-preserving graph embedding methods that were described in Section \ref{sec:Motivation}.
We examine the visualization of spoligoforests with distance matrices defined using spoligotype and MIRU type (MTBC biomarkers) for four problems. The results are summarized in Table \ref{spoligoforeststats} and the visualizations are shown in Figure \ref{fig:SpolDB4} and the appendix. For all graphs, CR-SM was initialized using the MDS produced by the stress majorization algorithm and run until convergence criteria described in \ref{sec:CR-SM}. In all the spoligoforests, the proposed method, CR-SM, drastically reduces the edge crossings, while making only minor changes in the total stress as compared with other proximity preserving methods MDS, Laplacian Eigenmaps and SNE. While the dimensionality reduction techniques Laplacian Eigenmaps and SNE extended to apply to graph data, can represent proximity relations locally, visualizations generated by these methods have a large number of edge crossings obscuring underlying relationships. Additionally, they do not represent all pairwise distances faithfully. As indicated by the stress values in Table \ref{spoligoforeststats}, the CR-SM visualizations are more informative and accurate than those produced by existing popular approaches for drawing planar graphs e.g. embeddings generated using spring, orthogonal and Twopi that disregard genetic distances available in the heterogeneous data \citep{reyes2008, RulesPaper}. All stress values reported in Table \ref{spoligoforeststats} are scaled such that the stress produced by NEATO (stress majorization implementation) is 1. These results show the efficacy of CR-SM in optimizing multiple objectives pertaining to both stress and crossings.
Note while the original graph is in a fifty-five dimensional space, the data is inherently lower dimensional, thus many embeddings are possible with similar stress. In three of the four graphs, CR-SM, i.e. minimizing the majorization function with edge-crossing penalties, actually produced graphs with less stress than the those generated by NEATO (stress majorization). This illustrates that edge-crossing penalties may help guide stress majorization to a more desirable local minima with little or no change in the overall stress. The proposed approach can be used to dynamically remove edge crossings in an existing graph. An animation of the proposed algorithm altering the initial MDS solutions can be viewed at \url{http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~shabba/FinalGD/}.
\begin{table}
\label{tab:spolstats}
\centering
\small\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-1pt}
\tiny{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c|c||c||c||c|c||c|c||}
\cline{1-12}
\multirow{2}{*}{Graph} & \multirow{1}{*}{Num of} & \multirow{1}{*}{Num of} & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{CR-SM(MDS+Constraints)} & \multirow{1}{*}{MDS} &\multirow{1}{*}{Planar} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{Laplac. Eigenmap} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{SNE}\\ \cline{4-12}
& \multirow{1}{*}{Nodes} & \multirow{1}{*}{Edges} & \tiny{stress} & \tiny{Init. \# cr.} & \tiny{Final \# cr.} & \tiny{\# cr.} & \multirow{1}{*}{\tiny{stress}} &\tiny{stress} &\tiny{\# cr.} &\tiny{stress} &\tiny{\# cr.} \\ \cline{1-12} \hline
\tiny{LAMs}&68& 66& 0.91& 27& 0& 43& 3.12& 9.77 & 29 &4.5462 &13\\ \cline{1-12}
\tiny{\emph{M. africanum}}& 97& 89& 0.99& 11& 0& 11& 6.32& 18.81 & 210 & 14.0103&4\\ \cline{1-12}
\tiny{H, X, LAM}& 45& 29& 0.90& 9& 0& 1& 8.64& 15.83 & 87 & 8.7490&41\\ \cline{1-12}
\tiny{SpolDB4}& 151& 138& 1.06& 51& 2& 51& 3.32& 12.46 & 207 & 6.0467&39\\ \cline{1-12} \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Stress and number of crossings (abbreviated \# cr.) in embeddings generated for four spoligoforests by the proposed approach CR-SM. Comparisons made with (i) MDS embedding (NEATO) (ii) Planar embeddings (Twopi) and embeddings generated by alternate proximity preserving methods (iii) Laplacian Eigenmaps and (iv) SNE.}
\label{spoligoforeststats}
\end{table}
\subsection{Randomly Generated Planar Graphs}
In this section, we demonstrate the performance of the method on a suite of randomly generated planar graphs.
In order to evaluate the performance of the algorithm, we generate random graphs that have at least one known planar embedding. However, the graphs were constructed so that the known planar embedding violates the proximity preservation requirement. The challenge for the CR-SM algorithm is to find alternate embeddings that preserve proximity relations while still keeping the number of crossings low.
The graphs were generated as follows: $|V|$ points were generated in $\mathbb{R}^n$ with $n$ varying from 7, 15 to 20 to make generating the embedding progressively more challenging. The Euclidean distance between each pair of points was determined. The points were projected in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and $|E|$ edges were introduced between nodes so that planarity is preserved using a Markov Chain algorithm, as per the method in \citep{randomgraphs}. Since the planar embedding has high stress and is not truly representative of the proximity relations in the data, it is not the most desirable embedding. By relaxing the requirement for 0 crossings, CR-SM can find alternate embeddings with few edge crossings and reduced stress, thus achieving a balance between these often contrary objectives.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
(a) \;\;\; \includegraphics{neato.png}
(b) \;\;\; \includegraphics{final.png}
\end{tabular}
\caption{ Embeddings for randomly generated graph in $\mathbb{R}^7$ with 50 nodes and 80 edges using (a) Stress majorization \emph{(stress$=$131.8, 369 crossings)} and (b) CR-SM \emph{(stress$=$272.1, 0 crossings)}. The original planar embedding had \emph{stress$=$352.5}.}
\label{fig:randgraphs}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
(a) \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{normstress2.jpg}\\
(b) \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{cross2.jpg}
\caption{Comparison of (a) stress and (b) number of crossings in embeddings for randomly generated graphs with 50-120 nodes and 40-160 edges generated using CR-SM, NEATO (stress majorization), Laplacian Eigenmaps, SNE, Spring and Orthogonal embedding. Stress is scaled such that the stress produced by NEATO is 1.}
\label{fig:randgraphsplots}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{cbarrelstresscolorsizetwonorm.png}
\caption{ Plot comparing embeddings generated by CR-SM and stress majorization in terms of stress and number of crossings for 160 randomly generated graphs with 50-80 nodes and 40-160 edges.}
\label{fig:stresscrossrandgraph}
\end{figure}
The plots in Fig. \ref{fig:randgraphsplots} represent the number of crossings and stress of embeddings for a set of 160 randomly generated graphs with 50 to 120 nodes and 40 to 160 edges averaged for all graphs with the same $|V|$ and $|E|$. The number of crossings increases with the graph density. Comparisons are made between CR-SM and the six other algorithms discussed in this paper: MDS, SNE, Laplacian Eigenmaps, Orthogonal Embedding, Spring Embedding and Twopi. Optimizing with respect to the stress alone (MDS), results in embeddings that have many edge crossings. The Laplacian Eigenmap embedding that is optimized with respect to a different proximity preservation objective aimed at preserving local structure also has a large number of crossings. Force-directed placement methods e.g. spring embedding \citep{fdpfruchterman} and planar grid embedding techniques like ORTH \citep{orth} have a low number of edge crossings but can have high stress. Alternate embeddings are generated by CR-SM that keep the number of edge crossings low while preserving proximity relations, thus clearly representing the underlying graph structure i.e. adjacency and connectivity information. Figure \ref{fig:stresscrossrandgraph} shows a plot of final edge crossings vs initial edge crossings in embeddings generated by CR-SM for these 160 randomly generated graphs. The size and color of the nodes represent the ratio of final stress of the embeddings found by CR-SM to that of the stress majorization solution found by NEATO. As indicated by the vast majority of blue dots in the lower half of the plot, CR-SM can produce embeddings with a significant reduction in the number of crossings with small increase in stress as compared to the graph embeddings produced using only the MDS objective.
\section{Discussion}
In this work we introduce a fundamentally new paradigm for elimination of edge crossings in graph embeddings. We developed a novel approach to simultaneously optimizing the aesthetic criteria for no edge crossings and preservation of proximity relations in heterogeneous graph data. This work demonstrates how edge-crossing constraints can be formulated as a system of nonconvex constraints. Edges do not cross if and only if they can be strictly separated by a hyperplane. If the edges cross, then the hyperplane defines the desired half-spaces that the edges should lie within. The edge-crossing constraints can be transformed into a continuous edge-crossing penalty function in either 1-norm or least-squares form. We developed the Crossing Reduction with Stress Majorization (CR-SM) algorithm that couples the stress majorization algorithm with a penalty method for edge crossing minimization. Computational results demonstrate that this approach is quite practical and tractable. Continuous optimization methods can be used to effectively find local solutions, a very desirable outcome since drawing graphs with a minimum number of edge-crossings is NP-hard. Successful results were illustrated on problems in the epidemiology of tuberculosis involving visualizing phylogenetic forests that were not adequately addressed using existing planar graph drawing approaches since they did not preserve proximity relations and gave especially undesirable results on disconnected graphs. Dimensionality reduction techniques such as Laplacian Eigenmaps and SNE applied to this problem were successful in depicting proximities amongst immediate neighbors, but they failed to represent all pairwise distances. Moreover, they have many crossings. Whereas stress majorization, a popular means of solving MDS, achieves low stress, it also has a large number of crossings. Interestingly, CR-SM actually found embeddings with less stress and reduced number of crossings as compared with the stress majorization solution. This may be caused by the fact that the MTBC data is from a fifty-five dimensional space and the stress function is highly nonconvex with many possible locally optimal embeddings existing with similar stress, thus the edge crossing constraints may help guide the algorithm to a more desirable local solution both from a stress and aesthetic point of view. Results on high dimensional random graphs with planar embeddings show that the method can find much more desirable solutions from a visualization point of view with only relatively small changes in stress.
This work opens up many avenues for future research at the intersection of machine learning and data visualization. Here we focused on elimination of edge crossings and stress minimization (MDS). The general multiobjective approach for minimizing overlaps between graph components is applicable to any optimization-based dimensionality reduction, graph drawing or embedding methods \citep{van2007dimensionality, qpdwyer} used for data visualization in both supervised and unsupervised learning. While the method described was motivated by the need to minimize edge crossings and simultaneously preserve pairwise distances in heterogeneous graph data as defined by the MDS objective, it can be used to eliminate edge crossings with any embedding objective. The theorems and algorithms are directly applicable to the intersection of any graph components that are convex polyhedrons.
Thus, the method can also be used to eliminate node-node overlaps and node-edge crossings. Our preliminary work was limited to planar graphs, but the penalty approach can be used to reduce crossings in nonplanar graphs as well. Since the edge-crossing constraints are very closely related to linear SVM, all the different classification and regularization loss functions in SVM could be used to produce crossing-penalty functions with different aesthetic effects and algorithmic ramifications. For example, maximum margin separation can enforce maximum spacing between graph components. This work used the Matlab function ``fminunc" as its primary workhorse -- which inherently limits the problem size. In reality, there is a great potential for making highly scalable special purpose algorithms for edge-crossing-constrained graph embeddings. The state-of-the-art linear SVM algorithms which are massively scalable can potentially be adapted to this problem as well. We leave these promising research directions as future work.
\acks{We would like to thank Prof. B\"ulent Yener of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for his valuable suggestions. We would like to acknowledge support for this project from NIH (R01LM009731).}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sect:intro}
In this paper, we study some subelliptic compensation phenomena on homogeneous groups, that have to do with divergence, curl and the space $L^1$ of Lebesgue integrable functions or differential forms. In the elliptic cases they were discovered by Bourgain-Brezis, Lanzani-Stein and van Schaftingen around 2004. Also lying beneath our results is the failure of the critical Sobolev embedding of the non-isotropic Sobolev space $\dot{NL}^{1,Q}$ into $L^{\infty}$. In particular, we prove an approximation lemma that describes how functions in $\dot{NL}^{1,Q}$ can be approximated by functions in $L^{\infty}$.
To begin with, let us describe the elliptic results on $\mathbb{R}^n$ ($n \geq 2$) upon which our results are based. We denote by $d$ the Hodge-de Rham exterior derivative, and $d^*$ its (formal) adjoint. The theory discovered by Bourgain-Brezis, Lanzani-Stein and van Schaftingen consists of three major pillars, each best illustrated by a separate theorem. The first involves the solution of $d^*$:
\begin{thm}[Bourgain-Brezis \cite{MR2293957}] \label{thm:BB}
Suppose $q \ne n-1$. Then for any $q$-form $f$ with coefficients on $L^n(\mathbb{R}^n)$ that is in the image\footnote{By this we mean $f$ is the $d^*$ of some form with coefficients in $\dot{W}^{1,n}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, where $\dot{W}^{1,n}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is the (homogeneous) Sobolev space of functions that have 1 derivative in $L^n(\mathbb{R}^n)$.} of $d^*$, there exists a $(q+1)$-form $Y$ with coefficients in $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ such that $$d^*Y = f$$ in the sense of distributions, and $\|Y\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)} \leq C \|f\|_{L^n(\mathbb{R}^n)}.$
\end{thm}
In particular, we have
\begin{cor}[Bourgain-Brezis \cite{MR1949165}] \label{cor:BB}
For any function $f \in L^n(\mathbb{R}^n)$, there exists a vector field $Y$ with coefficients in $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ such that $$\mathrm{div\,} Y = f$$ in the sense of distributions, and $\|Y\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)} \leq C \|f\|_{L^n(\mathbb{R}^n)}.$
\end{cor}
The second pillar is a Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality for differential forms:
\begin{thm}[Lanzani-Stein \cite{MR2122730}] \label{thm:LS}
Suppose $u$ is a $q$-form on $\mathbb{R}^n$ that is smooth with compact support. We have $$\|u\|_{L^{n/(n-1)}(\mathbb{R}^n)} \leq C (\|du\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)} + \|d^*u\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)})$$ unless $d^*u$ is a function or $du$ is a top form. If $d^*u$ is a function, one needs to assume $d^*u = 0$; if $du$ is a top form, one needs to assume $du = 0$. Then the above inequality remains true.
\end{thm}
Since $d$ of a 1-form is its curl and $d^*$ of a 1-form is its divergence, this is sometimes called a div-curl inequality.
The third theorem is the following compensation phenomenon:
\begin{thm}[van Schaftingen \cite{MR2078071}] \label{thm:vs}
If $u$ is a $C^{\infty}_c$ 1-form on $\mathbb{R}^n$ with $d^*u = 0$, then for any 1-form $\phi$ with coefficients in $C^{\infty}_c(\mathbb{R}^n)$, we have
$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} u \cdot \phi dx \leq C \|u\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)} \|\phi\|_{\dot{W}^{1,n}(\mathbb{R}^n)}.$$
\end{thm}
If $\dot{W}^{1,n}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ were embedded into $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, Theorem \ref{thm:BB} would be trivial by Hodge decomposition, and so would be Theorem \ref{thm:vs} by H\"{o}lder's inequality. It is remarkable that these theorems remain to hold even though the desired Sobolev embedding fails.
It turns out all three theorems above are equivalent by duality. van Schaftingen \cite{MR2078071} gave a beautiful elementary proof of Theorem \ref{thm:vs}, thereby proving all of them.
We mention here that these results seem to be quite different from the more classical theory of compensated compactness; no connection between them is known so far.
We also refer the reader to the work of Brezis-van Schaftingen \cite{MR2332419}, Chanillo-van Schaftingen~\cite{MR2511628}, Maz'ya \cite{MR2578609}, Mironescu \cite{MR2645163}, Mitrea-Mitrea \cite{MR2470831}, van Schaftingen \cite{MR2443922}, \cite{MR2550188} and Amrouche-Nguyen \cite{MR2771258} for some interesting results related to these three theorems. In particular, Chanillo-van Schaftingen proved in \cite{MR2511628} a generalization of Theorem~\ref{thm:vs} to general homogeneous groups.
On the other hand, in \cite{MR2293957}, Bourgain-Brezis proved the following remarkable theorem, strengthening all three theorems above:
\begin{thm}[Bourgain-Brezis \cite{MR2293957}]
In Theorem~\ref{thm:BB} and Corollary~\ref{cor:BB}, the space $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ can be replaced by the smaller Banach space $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n) \cap \dot{W}^{1,n}(\mathbb{R}^n)$. Also, in Theorem~\ref{thm:LS} and~\ref{thm:vs}, the spaces $L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)$ can be replaced by the bigger Banach space $L^1(\mathbb{R}^n) + (\dot{W}^{1,n}(\mathbb{R}^n))^*$. (Here $X^*$ denotes the dual of a Banach space $X$.)
\end{thm}
They proved this by giving a direct constructive proof of the analog of Theorem~\ref{thm:BB}, where the space $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is replaced by $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n) \cap \dot{W}^{1,n}(\mathbb{R}^n)$; they then deduced the rest by duality. In the former they used the following approximation lemma, which is another remedy of the failure of the critical Sobolev embedding, and which is of independent interest:
\begin{lemma}[Bourgain-Brezis \cite{MR2293957}] \label{lem:approx}
Given any $\delta > 0$ and any function $f \in \dot{W}^{1,n}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, there exist a function $F \in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n) \cap \dot{W}^{1,n}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ and a constant $C_{\delta} > 0$, with $C_{\delta}$ independent of $f$, such that $$\sum_{i=2}^n \|\partial_i f - \partial_i F\|_{L^n(\mathbb{R}^n)} \leq \delta \|\nabla f\|_{L^n(\mathbb{R}^n)}$$ and $$\|F\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)} + \|\nabla F\|_{L^n(\mathbb{R}^n)} \leq C_{\delta} \|\nabla f\|_{L^n(\mathbb{R}^n)}.$$
\end{lemma}
Here one should think of $F$ as an $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n) \cap \dot{W}^{1,n}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ function whose derivatives approximate those of the given $f$ in all but one direction.
In this paper, we prove an analog of the above approximation lemma on any homogeneous group $G$. To describe our result we need some notations. First, let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a Lie algebra (over $\mathbb{R}$) that is \emph{graded}, in the sense that $\mathfrak{g}$ admits a decomposition $$\mathfrak{g} = V_1 \oplus V_2 \oplus \dots \oplus V_m$$ into direct sums of subspaces $V_1, \dots, V_m$ of $\mathfrak{g}$ such that $$[V_{j_1}, V_{j_2}] \subseteq V_{j_1+j_2}$$ for all $j_1$, $j_2$, where $V_j$ is understood to be zero if $j > m$. We assume that $V_m \ne \{0\}$. It is immediate that $\mathfrak{g}$ is nilpotent of step $m$. We introduce a natural family of dilations on $\mathfrak{g}$, by letting $$\lambda \cdot v = \lambda v_1 + \lambda^2 v_2 + \dots + \lambda^m v_m$$ if $v = v_1 + \dots + v_m$, $v_i \in V_i$ and $\lambda > 0$. This defines a one-parameter family of algebra automorphisms of $\mathfrak{g}$. Furthermore, we assume that $\mathfrak{g}$ is \emph{stratified}, in the sense that $V_1$ generates $\mathfrak{g}$ as a Lie algebra. Let $G$ be the connected and simply connected Lie group whose Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{g}$. Such a Lie group $G$ with stratified $\mathfrak{g}$ is then called a \emph{homogeneous group}. It carries a one-parameter family of automorphic dilations, given by $\lambda \cdot \exp(v) := \exp(\lambda \cdot v)$ where $\exp \colon \mathfrak{g} \to G$ is the exponential map. In the sequel we fix such a group $G$.
Now define the homogeneous dimension $Q$ of $G$ by $$Q := \sum_{j=1}^m j \cdot n_j$$ where $n_j := \dim V_j$. We also pick a basis $X_1$, $\dots$, $X_{n_1}$ of $V_1$. Any linear combination of these will then be a left-invariant vector field of degree 1 on $G$. If $f$ is a function on $G$, we define its subelliptic gradient as the $n_1$-tuple $$\nabla_b f := (X_1 f, \dots, X_{n_1} f).$$ The homogeneous non-isotropic Sobolev space $\dot{NL}^{1,Q}(G)$ is then the space of functions on $G$ whose subelliptic gradient is in $L^Q(G)$. Here in defining the $L^Q(G)$ space, we use the Lebesgue measure on $\mathfrak{g}$, which we identify with $G$ via the exponential map. In the following, we will denote the functional spaces on $G$ by $\dot{NL}^{1,Q}$, $L^Q$, $L^{\infty}$ etc. for simplicity unless otherwise specified.
It is well-known that $\dot{NL}^{1,Q}$ fails to embed into $L^{\infty}$. Nonetheless, we prove the following approximation lemma for functions in $\dot{NL}^{1,Q}$:
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:approxsub}
Given any $\delta > 0$ and any function $f$ on $G$ with $\|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} < \infty$, there exist a function $F \in L^{\infty}$ with $\nabla_b F \in L^Q$, and a constant $C_{\delta} > 0$ with $C_{\delta}$ independent of $f$, such that $$\sum_{k=2}^{n_1} \|X_k f - X_k F\|_{L^Q} \leq \delta \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}$$ and $$\|F\|_{L^{\infty}} + \|\nabla_b F\|_{L^Q} \leq C_{\delta} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.$$
\end{lemma}
Specializing this result to the Heisenberg group $\mathbb{H}^n$, we deduce, for instance, the following result about the solution of $\overline{\partial}_b$:
\begin{thm} \label{thm:soldbarbstrong}
Suppose $Q = 2n+2$ and $q \ne n-1$. Then for any $(0,q)$-form $f$ on $\mathbb{H}^n$ that has coefficients in $L^Q$ and that is the $\overline{\partial}_b^*$ of some other form with coefficients in $\dot{NL}^{1,Q}$, there exists a $(0,q+1)$-form $Y$ on $\mathbb{H}^n$ with coefficients in $L^{\infty} \cap \dot{NL}^{1,Q}$ such that $$\overline{\partial}_b^*Y = f$$ in the sense of distributions, with $\|Y\|_{L^{\infty}} + \|\nabla_b Y\|_{L^Q} \leq C \|f\|_{L^Q}$.
\end{thm}
We then have a Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality for $\overline{\partial}_b$ on $\mathbb{H}^n$:
\begin{thm} \label{thm:subGNstrong}
Suppose $Q = 2n+2$. If $u$ is a $(0,q)$ form on $\mathbb{H}^n$ with $2 \leq q \leq n-2$, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:GNdbarbq}
\|u\|_{L^{Q/(Q-1)}} \leq C (\|\overline{\partial}_b u\|_{L^1 + (\dot{NL}^{1,Q})^*} + \|\overline{\partial}_b^* u \|_{L^1 + (\dot{NL}^{1,Q})^*}).
\end{equation}
Also, if $n \geq 2$ and $u$ is a function on $\mathbb{H}^n$ that is orthogonal to the kernel of $\overline{\partial}_b$, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:GNdbarb0}
\|u\|_{L^{Q/(Q-1)}} \leq C \|\overline{\partial}_b u\|_{L^1 + (\dot{NL}^{1,Q})^*}.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
There is also a version of this result for (0,1) forms and $(0,n-1)$ forms, analogous to the last part of Theorem~\ref{thm:LS}.
A weaker version of this theorem, namely what one has by replacing $L^1+(\dot{NL}^{1,Q})^*$ above by $L^1$, can also be deduced easily from the work of Chanillo-van Schaftingen \cite{MR2511628} (c.f. also \cite{MR2592736}).
Several difficulties need to be overcome when we prove Lemma~\ref{lem:approxsub} on a general homogeneous group. The first is that we no longer have a Fej\'{e}r kernel as in the Euclidean spaces, which served as the building block of a good reproducing kernel $K_j$ in the original proof of Bourgain-Brezis. As a result, we need to find an appropriate variant of that. What we do is to adopt the heat kernels $S_j$, and to use $S_{j+N}$, where $N$ is large, as our approximate reproducing kernel. In other words, we use $S_{j+N} \Delta_j f$, where $N$ is large, to approximate $\Delta_j f$, where $\Delta_j f$ is a Littlewood-Paley piece of the function $f$. Since the heat kernel does not localize perfectly in ``frequency'', we need, in the preparational stage, some extra efforts to deal with additional errors that come up in that connection.
Our second difficulty, which is also the biggest challenge, is that our homogeneous group is in general not abelian. Hence we must carefully distinguish between left- and right-invariant derivatives when we differentiate a convolution (which is defined in (\ref{eq:convdef})): $X_k (f*K)$ is equal to $f*(X_k K)$, and not to $(X_k f)*K$, if $X_k$ is left-invariant and $K$ is any kernel (c.f Proposition~\ref{prop:deriv} in Section~\ref{sect:leftright}). To get around that, several ingredients are involved. One of them is to explore the relationship between left- and right-invariant vector fields, which we recall in Section \ref{sect:leftright}. Another is to introduce two different auxiliary controlling functions $\omega_j$ and $\tilde{\omega}_j$. These are functions that dominate $|\Delta_j f|$ pointwisely (at least morally), and both $X_k \omega_j$ and $X_k \tilde{\omega}_j$, for $k=2,\dots,n_1$, will be better controlled than $X_1 \omega_j$ and $X_1 \tilde{\omega}_j$. The key here, on the other hand, is that $\tilde{\omega}_j$ is frequency localized, and it dominates $\omega_j$. Also, $\omega_j$ satisfies $$\|\sup_j (2^j \omega_j)\|_{L^Q} \lesssim 2^{\sigma(Q-1)/Q} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.$$ On the contrary, $\tilde{\omega}_j$ will not satisfy the analog of this inequality, and $\omega_j$ will not be frequency localized. In defining such $\omega_j$ and $\tilde{\omega}_j$, instead of taking an ``$L^{\infty}$ convolution'' as in the definition of $\omega_j$ used by Bourgain-Brezis, we will take a discrete convolution in $l^Q$ and an honest convolution for $\omega_j$ and $\tilde{\omega}_j$ respectively. (The precise definition of $\omega_j$ and $\tilde{\omega}_j$ can be found in Section \ref{sect:outline}.) We then use $\omega_j$ to control the part of $f$ where the high frequencies are dominating, and use $\tilde{\omega}_j$ to control the other part of $f$ where the low frequencies are dominating.
Finally, we will need two slightly different versions of Littlewood-Paley theories on a homogeneous group. One is chosen such that $f = \sum_j \Delta_j f$, and the other is chosen such that the reverse Littlewood-Paley inequality holds (as in Proposition~\ref{prop:equivLP}).
We will now proceed as follows. In Section~\ref{sect:pre}-\ref{sect:LP} we describe some preliminaries about homogeneous groups. This includes some mean-value type inequalities on $G$, some tools that allow us to mediate between left- and right-invariant derivatives, as well as a refinement of a Littlewood-Paley theory on $G$. In Section~\ref{sect:alg} we give some algebraic preliminaries needed in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:approxsub}, and in Section~\ref{sect:outline} we give an outline of the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:approxsub}. Section \ref{sect:f0}-\ref{sect:g0} contains the details of the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:approxsub}. Finally in Section \ref{sect:thms} we prove Theorem \ref{thm:soldbarbstrong} and \ref{thm:subGNstrong}.
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sect:pre}
Let $G$ be a homogeneous group, $n_j := \dim V_j$, and $X_1, \dots, X_{n_1}$ be a basis of $V_1$ as above. We introduce a coordinate system on $G$. First write $$n := n_1 + \dots + n_m,$$ and extend $X_1, \dots, X_{n_1}$ to a basis $X_1, \dots, X_n$ of $\mathfrak{g}$, such that $X_{n_{j-1} + 1}, \dots, X_{n_j}$ is a basis of $V_j$ for all $1 \leq j \leq m$ (with $n_0$ understood to be 0). Then for $x = [x_1, \dots, x_n] \in \mathbb{R}^n$, we identify $x$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i X_i \in \mathfrak{g}$. We will also identify $\mathfrak{g}$ with $G$ via the exponential map. Thus we write $x$ for the point $\exp(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i X_i) \in G$. This defines a coordinate system on $G$. The group identity of $G$ is $0=[0,\dots,0]$, and the dilation on $G$ is given explicitly by $$\lambda \cdot x = [\lambda x_1, \dots, \lambda x_{n_1}, \lambda^2 x_{n_1+1}, \dots, \lambda^2 x_{n_2}, \dots, \lambda^m x_{n_{m-1}+1}, \dots, \lambda^m x_n]$$ for $\lambda > 0$ and $x = [x_1, \dots, x_n]$.
For $x, y \in G$, we write $x \cdot y$ for their group product in $G$. By the Campbell-Hausdorff formula, this group law is given by a polynomial map when viewed as a map from $\mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^n$. More precisely, the map $(x,y) \mapsto x \cdot y$ can be computed by
\begin{align}
x \cdot y &= \exp\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i X_i \right) \cdot \exp\left(\sum_{i=1}^n y_i X_i \right) \notag \\
&= \exp\left( \sum_{i=1}^n x_i X_i + \sum_{i=1}^n y_i X_i + \frac{1}{2} \left[\sum_{i=1}^n x_i X_i, \sum_{i=1}^n y_i X_i\right] + \dots \right). \label{eq:CH}
\end{align}
It follows that for $1 \leq k \leq n_1$, the $k$-th coordinate of $x \cdot y$ is $x_k + y_k$.
The dilations on $G$ are automorphisms of the group: in particular,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dilauto}
\lambda \cdot (x \cdot y) = (\lambda \cdot x) \cdot (\lambda \cdot y)
\end{equation}
for all $\lambda > 0$ and all $x, y \in G$.
A function $f(x)$ on $G$ is said to be homogeneous of degree $l$ if $f(\lambda \cdot x) = \lambda^l f(x)$ for all $x \in G$ and $\lambda > 0$. From (\ref{eq:CH}) we see that for all $n_j < k \leq n_{j+1}$, the $k$-th coordinate of $x \cdot y$ is equal to $x_k + y_k + P_k(x,y)$ where $P_k$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $j$ on $G \times G$. On $G$ one can define the homogeneous norm $$\|x\| = \left(\sum_{j=1}^m \sum_{n_{j-1} < k \leq n_j} |x_k|^{\frac{2m!}{j}} \right)^{\frac{1}{2m!}}.$$ It is a homogeneous function of degree 1 on $G$, and satisfies a quasi-triangle inequality $$\|x \cdot y\| \leq C(\|x\| + \|y\|)$$ for all $x, y \in G$, where $C$ is a constant depending only on $G$. We also have $\|x\|=\|x^{-1}\|$ for all $x \in G$, since if $x = [x_1, \dots, x_n]$ then $x^{-1} = [-x_1, \dots, -x_n]$.
Any element $X$ of $\mathfrak{g}$ can be identified with a left-invariant vector field on $G$. It will be said to be homogeneous of degree $l$ if $X(f(\lambda \cdot x)) = \lambda^l (Xf)(\lambda \cdot x)$ for all $C^1$ functions~$f$. $X_1, \dots, X_{n_1}$ is then a basis of left-invariant vector fields of degree 1 on $G$. We remind the reader that we write $\nabla_b f = (X_1 f, \dots, X_{n_1} f)$, and call this the subelliptic gradient of $f$.
By the form of the group law on $G$, one can see that if $n_{j-1} < k \leq n_j$, then $X_k$ can be written as $$X_k = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_k} + \sum_{p = j+1}^m \sum_{n_{p-1} < k' \leq n_p} P_{k,k'}(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{k'}}$$ where $P_{k,k'}(x)$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $p-j$ if $n_{p-1} < k' \leq n_p$.
If $X$ is a left-invariant vector field on $G$, we write $X^R$ for the right-invariant vector field on $G$ that agrees with $X$ at the identity (namely $0$). We also write $\nabla_b^R f$ for the $n_1$-tuple $(X_1^R f, \dots, X_{n_1}^R f)$.
The Lebesgue measure $dx$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$ is a Haar measure on $G$ if we identify $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ with a point in $G$ as we have always done. It satisfies $d(\lambda \cdot x) = \lambda^Q dx$ for all positive $\lambda$, where $Q = \sum_{j=1}^m j \cdot n_j$ is the homogeneous dimension we introduced previously.
With the Haar measure we define the $L^p$ spaces on $G$. If $f$ and $g$ are two $L^1$ functions on $G$, then their convolution is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:convdef}
f*g(x) = \int_G f(x \cdot y^{-1}) g(y) dy,
\end{equation}
or equivalently
$$ f*g(x) = \int_G f(y) g(y^{-1} \cdot x) dy. $$
The non-isotropic Sobolev space $\dot{NL}^{1,Q}$ is the space of functions $f$ such that $\|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} < \infty$.
\section{Some basic inequalities}
To proceed further, we collect some basic inequalities that will be useful on a number of occasions.
In this and the next section, $f$ and $g$ will denote two general $C^1$ functions on $G$. The first proposition is a mean-value inequality.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:meanvalue}
There exist absolute constants $C > 0$ and $a > 0$ such that $$|f(x \cdot y^{-1}) - f(x)| \leq C \|y\| \sup_{\|z\| \leq a \|y\|} |(\nabla_b f)(x \cdot z^{-1})|$$ for all $x, y \in G$.
\end{prop}
For a proof of this proposition, see Folland-Stein \cite[Page 33, (1.41)]{MR657581}.
There is also a mean-value inequality for right translations, whose proof is similar and we omit:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:meanvalueright}
There exist absolute constants $C > 0$ and $a > 0$ such that $$|f(y^{-1} \cdot x) - f(x)| \leq C \|y\| \sup_{\|z\| \leq a\|y\|} |(\nabla_b^R f)(z^{-1} \cdot x)|$$ for all $x, y \in G$.
\end{prop}
Next we have some integral estimates:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:fg}
If
\begin{equation} \label{eq:condfdiffintgk}
\left|\nabla_b f(x) \right| \leq (1+\|x\|)^{-M} \quad \text{and} \quad \left|g(x)\right| \leq (1+\|x\|)^{-M}
\end{equation}
for all $M > 0$, then for any non-negative integer $k$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fdiffintgk}
\int_G |f(x \cdot y^{-1}) - f(x)| |g_k(y)| dy \leq C 2^{-k} (1+\|x\|)^{-M}
\end{equation}
for all $M$, where $g_k(y) := 2^{kQ} g(2^k \cdot y)$.
\end{prop}
The key here, as well as in the next two propositions, is that we get a small factor $2^{-k}$ on the right hand side of our estimates.
\begin{proof}
We split the integral into two parts: $$\int_G |f(x \cdot y^{-1}) - f(x)| |g_k(y)| dy = \int_{\|y\| \leq c\|x\|} dy + \int_{\|y\| > c \|x\|} dy = I + II,$$ where $c$ is a constant chosen such that if $\|y\| \leq c\|x\|$ and $\|z\| \leq a\|y\|$ then $\|x \cdot z^{-1}\| \geq \frac{1}{2} \|x\|$. Here $a$ is the constant appearing in the statement of Proposition~\ref{prop:meanvalue}, and such $c$ exists by (\ref{eq:normmeanvalue}) below. We then apply Proposition \ref{prop:meanvalue} twice. First in $I$, the integrand can be bounded by $$|f(x \cdot y^{-1}) - f(x)||g_k(y)| \leq C (1+\|x\|)^{-M} \|y\| |g_k(y)|$$ for all $M$, and $$\int_G \|y\| |g_k(y)| dy = C 2^{-k}.$$ Also, in $II$, the integrand can be bounded by $$|f(x \cdot y^{-1}) - f(x)||g_k(y)| \leq C \|y\| |g_k(y)|,$$ and \begin{align*} \int_{\|y\| \geq c\|x\|} \|y\| |g_k(y)| dy &\leq \int_{\|y\| \geq c\|x\|} \|y\| (1+2^k\|y\|)^{-Q-M-1} 2^{kQ} dy \\ &\leq C 2^{-k} (1+\|x\|)^{-M} \end{align*} for all $M$. Combining the estimates concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
We remark here that if we want (\ref{eq:fdiffintgk}) to hold for a specific $M$, then we only need condition (\ref{eq:condfdiffintgk}) to hold with $M$ replaced by $Q+M+1$.
In particular, we have
\begin{prop} \label{prop:fgconv}
If $f$, $g$ are as in Proposition \ref{prop:fg}, and in addition $\int_G g(y) dy = 0$, then for any non-negative integer $k$, we have $$|f*g_k(x)| \leq C 2^{-k} (1+\|x\|)^{-M}$$ for all $M$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
One can write $$f*g_k(x) = \int_G \left(f(x \cdot y^{-1}) - f(x)\right) g_k(y) dy$$ since $\int_G g(y) dy = 0$ implies $\int_G g_k(y) dy = 0$. Then taking absolute values and using Proposition \ref{prop:fg}, one yields the desired claim.
\end{proof}
Similarly, suppose $f_k(x):= 2^{kQ} f(2^k \cdot x)$. Using the representation $$f_k*g(x) = \int_G f_k(y) g(y^{-1} \cdot x) dy,$$ and invoking Proposition \ref{prop:meanvalueright} instead of Proposition \ref{prop:meanvalue}, we can estimate $f_k*g$ as well.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:fgconv2}
Suppose $$\left|\nabla_b^R g(x) \right| \leq (1+\|x\|)^{-M} \quad \text{and} \quad \left|f(x)\right| \leq (1+\|x\|)^{-M}$$ for all $M > 0$. Suppose further that $\int_G f(y) dy = 0$. Then for any non-negative integer $k$, we have $$|f_k*g(x)| \leq C 2^{-k} (1+\|x\|)^{-M}$$ for all $M$.
\end{prop}
Finally, let $\sigma$ be a non-negative integer, and adopt the shorthand $x_{\sigma} := 2^{-\sigma} \cdot x^{\sigma},$ where $x^{\sigma} := [2^\sigma x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n]$ if $x = [x_1,\dots,x_n]$.
We will need the following mean-value type inequality for $\|x_{\sigma}\|$.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:xtheta}
For any $x, \theta \in G$,
$$
\left|\,\, \|(x \cdot \theta)_{\sigma}\| - \|x_{\sigma}\| \,\, \right| \leq C \|\theta\|.
$$
Here the constant $C$ is independent of $\sigma$. Similarly $\left|\,\, \|(\theta \cdot x)_{\sigma}\| - \|x_{\sigma}\| \,\, \right| \leq C \|\theta\|$.
\end{prop}
In particular, taking $\sigma = 0$, the norm function satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{eq:normmeanvalue}
\left|\, \|x \cdot \theta\| - \|x\| \,\right| \leq C \|\theta\|
\end{equation}
for all $x, \theta \in G$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:xtheta}]
We prove the desired inequalities using scale invariance. The key is that the function $x \mapsto \|x_{\sigma}\|$ is homogeneous of degree 1 and smooth away from $0$; in fact, $(\lambda \cdot x)_{\sigma} = \lambda \cdot (x_{\sigma})$, and the homogeneity of the above map follows: $$\|(\lambda \cdot x)_{\sigma}\| = \|\lambda \cdot (x_{\sigma})\| = \lambda \|x_{\sigma}\|.$$ By scaling $x$ and $\theta$ simultanenously, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\|x\|=2$. Now to prove the first inequality, we consider two cases: $\|\theta\| \leq 1$ and $\|\theta\| \geq 1$. If $\|\theta\| \leq 1$, then the (Euclidean) straight line joining $x$ and $x \cdot \theta$ stays in a compact set not containing $0$. Then we apply the Euclidean mean-value inequality to the function $x \mapsto \|x_{\sigma}\|$, which is smooth in this compact set and satisfies $| \nabla \|x_{\sigma}\| | \lesssim 1$ there uniformly in $\sigma$. It follows that if $\|\theta\| \leq 1$, we have $$|\, \|(x \cdot \theta)_{\sigma}\| - \|x_{\sigma}\| \, | \lesssim |\theta| \leq C \|\theta\|.$$ Here $|\theta|$ is the Euclidean norm of $\theta$. On the other hand, if $\|\theta\| \geq 1$, then $$|\, \|(x \cdot \theta)_{\sigma}\| - \|x_{\sigma}\| \, | \leq \|(x \cdot \theta)_{\sigma}\| + \|x_{\sigma}\| \leq \|x \cdot \theta\| + \|x\| \lesssim C (\|x\| + \|\theta\|) \lesssim \|\theta\|,$$ where the second to last inequality follows from the quasi-triangle inequality. Thus we have the desired inequality either case. One can prove the second inequality similarly.
\end{proof}
\section{Left- and right-invariant derivatives} \label{sect:leftright}
Next we describe how one mediates between left- and right-invariant derivatives when working with convolutions on $G$. First we have the following basic identities.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:deriv}
$$X_k (f*g) = f*(X_k g), \quad (X_k f)*g = f*(X_k^R g), \quad \text{and} \quad X_k^R(f*g) = (X_k^R f)*g,$$ assuming $f$, $g$ and their derivatives decay sufficiently rapidly at infinity.
\end{prop}
A proof can be found in Folland-Stein \cite[Page 22]{MR657581}.
Since our groups are not abelian in general, one has to be careful with these identities; one does not have, for instance, the identity between $X_k (f*g)$ and $(X_k f)*g$.
We also have the following flexibility of representing coordinate and left-invariant derivatives in terms of right-invariant ones.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:repR}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
For $1 \leq i \leq n$, the coordinate derivative $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$ can be written as $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} = \sum_{k=1}^{n_1} X_k^R D_{i,k}$$ where $D_{i,k}$ are homogeneous differential operators of degree $j-1$ if $n_{j-1} < i \leq n_j$.
\item In fact any $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$, $1 \leq i \leq n$, can be written as a linear combination of $(\nabla_b^R)^{\alpha}$ with coefficients that are polynomials in $x$, where $\alpha$ ranges over a finite subset of the indices $\{1,\dots,n_1\}^{\mathbb{N}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
This proposition holds because our homogeneous groups are stratified. Since this proposition is rather well-known, we omit its proof. We point out that a similar statement with its proof can be found in Stein \cite[Page 608, Lemma in Section 3.2.2]{MR1232192}.
Next, we have the following lemma that allows one to write the left-invariant derivative of a bump function as sums of right-invariant derivatives of some other bumps.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:leftright}
Suppose $\phi$ is a Schwartz function on $G$ (by which we mean a Schwartz function on the underlying $\mathbb{R}^n$).
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item \label{prop:leftrighta} If $\int_G \phi(x) dx = 0$, then there exists Schwartz functions $\varphi^{(1)}, \dots, \varphi^{(n_1)}$ such that $$\phi = \sum_{k=1}^{n_1} X_k^R \varphi^{(k)}.$$
\item
If furthermore $\int_G x_k \phi(x) dx = 0$ for all $1 \leq k \leq n_1$, then one can take the $\varphi^{(k)}$'s such that $\int_G \varphi^{(k)}(x) dx = 0$ for all $1 \leq k \leq n_1$. This will be the case, for instance, if $\phi$ is the left-invariant derivative of another Schwartz function whose integral is zero.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
To prove part (a), first we claim that any Schwartz function $\phi$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$ that has integral zero can be written as $$\phi = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\partial \phi^{(i)}}{\partial x_i}$$ for some Schwartz functions $\phi^{(1)}, \dots, \phi^{(n)}$.
To see that we have such a representation, we use the Euclidean Fourier transform on $\mathbb{R}^n$. First, we observe that since the integral of $\phi$ is zero, which implies $\widehat{\phi}(0) = 0$, we have, for all $\xi \in \mathbb{R}^n$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:smallxi}
\widehat{\phi}(\xi) = \int_0^1 \frac{d}{ds} \widehat{\phi}(s\xi) ds = \sum_{i=1}^n \xi_i \int_0^1 \frac{\partial \widehat{\phi}}{\partial \xi_i}(s\xi) ds.
\end{equation}
Taking inverse Fourier transform, one can write $\phi$ as a sum of coordinate derivatives of some functions. The problem is that $\int_0^1 \frac{\partial \widehat{\phi}}{\partial \xi_i}(s\xi) ds$, while smooth in $\xi$, does not decay as $\xi \to \infty$. So the above expression is only good for small $\xi$. But for large $\xi$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:largexi}
\widehat{\phi}(\xi) = \sum_{i=1}^n \xi_i \frac{\xi_i}{|\xi|^2} \widehat{\phi}(\xi).
\end{equation} (Here $|\xi|$ is the Euclidean norm of $\xi$.) Hence if we take a smooth cut-off $\eta \in C^{\infty}_c(\mathbb{R}^n)$ with $\eta \equiv 1$ near the origin, then combining (\ref{eq:smallxi}) and (\ref{eq:largexi}), we have
\begin{align*}
\widehat{\phi}(\xi) &= \eta(\xi) \widehat{\phi}(\xi) + (1-\eta(\xi)) \widehat{\phi}(\xi) \\
&= \sum_{i=1}^n \xi_i \left( \eta(\xi) \int_0^1 \frac{\partial \widehat{\phi}}{\partial \xi_i}(s\xi) ds + (1-\eta(\xi)) \frac{\xi_i}{|\xi|^2} \widehat{\phi}(\xi) \right).
\end{align*}
Taking inverse Fourier transform, we get the desired decomposition in our claim above.
Now we return to the group setting. Let $\phi$ be a function on $G$ with integral zero. Using the above claim, identifying $G$ with the underlying $\mathbb{R}^n$, we write $\phi$ as $$\phi = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\partial \phi^{(i)}}{\partial x_i}$$ for some Schwartz functions $\phi^{(1)}, \dots, \phi^{(n)}$. Now by Proposition \ref{prop:repR} (a), for all $1 \leq i \leq n$, one can express the coordinate derivatives $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$ in terms of the
right-invariant derivatives of order 1. Hence by rearranging the above identity we obtain Schwartz functions $\varphi^{(1)}, \dots, \varphi^{(n_1)}$ such that $$\phi = \sum_{k=1}^{n_1} X_k^R \varphi^{(k)},$$ as was claimed in (a).
Finally, if we had in addition $\int_G x_k \phi(x) dx = 0$ for all $1 \leq k \leq n_1$, then one can check, in our construction above, that $\int_G \phi^{(i)}(x) dx = 0$ for all $1 \leq i \leq n_1$. It follows that $\int_G \varphi^{(i)}(x) dx = 0$ for all $1 \leq i \leq n_1$; in fact $\varphi^{(i)}$ is just $\phi^{(i)}$ plus a sum of derivatives of Schwartz functions, which integrates to zero. The rest of the proposition then follows.
\end{proof}
We point out here that in the above two propositions, left-invariant derivatives could have worked as well as right-invariant ones. More precisely:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:repL}
Proposition \ref{prop:repR} and \ref{prop:leftright} remain true if one replaces all right-invariant derivatives by their left-invariant counterparts.
\end{prop}
In what follows, we will develop the habit of consistently denoting the operator $f \mapsto f*K$ by $Kf$ if $K$ is a kernel. If $K$ is a Schwartz function, then $\nabla_b (Kf) = f*(\nabla_b K)$, where (each component of) $\nabla_b K$ is a Schwartz function with integral~0. Thus Proposition \ref{prop:leftright} can be applied to $\nabla_b K$; then one gets some kernels $\tilde{K}^{(k)}$'s that are Schwartz functions, and satisfy $$\nabla_b K = \sum_{k=1}^{n_1} X_k^R \tilde{K}^{(k)}.$$ Schematically we write $\nabla_b K = \nabla_b^R \tilde{K}$, and conclude that $$\nabla_b (Kf) = f*(\nabla_b^R \tilde{K}) = (\nabla_b f) * \tilde{K}.$$ Again writing $\tilde{K}f$ for $f*\tilde{K}$, we obtain the identity $$\nabla_b (Kf) = \tilde{K} (\nabla_b f).$$ If in addition $\int_G K(y) dy = 0$, then one also has $\int_G \tilde{K}(y) dy = 0$, by the last part of Proposition \ref{prop:leftright}.
\section{Littlewood-Paley theory and a refinement} \label{sect:LP}
We now turn to the Littlewood-Paley theory for $G$. We need actually two versions of that. First, let $\Psi$ be a Schwartz function on $G$ such that $\int_G \Psi(x) dx = 1$, and such that $\int_G x_k \Psi(x) dx = 0$ for all $1 \leq k \leq n_1$. Such a function exists; in fact one can just take a function $\Psi$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$ whose Euclidean Fourier transform is identically 1 near the origin, and think of that as a function on $G$. Now let $\Delta(x) = 2^Q \Psi(2 \cdot x)- \Psi(x)$, and $\Delta_j(x) = 2^{jQ} \Delta(2^j \cdot x)$. Also write $\Delta_jf = f*\Delta_j$. Then for $f \in L^p$, $1 < p < \infty$, we have $$f = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \Delta_j f,$$ and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:LPforward}
\left\| \left( \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} |\Delta_j f|^2 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right\|_{L^p} \leq C_p \|f\|_{L^p}.
\end{equation}
This holds because $\int_G \Delta(y) dy = 0$. In fact we have the following more refined Littlewood-Paley theorem:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:refinedLP}
If $D$ is a Schwartz function on $G$, $\int_G D(x) dx = 0$, and
$$|D(x)| \leq A \left(1+ \|x\|\right)^{-(Q+2)},$$
$$\left| \frac{\partial}{\partial x_k} D(x) \right| \leq A (1 + \|x\|)^{-(Q+r+1)} \quad \text{if $n_{r-1} < k \leq n_r$,} \quad 1 \leq r \leq m,$$
then defining $D_jf = f*D_j$ where $D_j(x) = 2^{jQ} D(2^j \cdot x)$, we have
$$
\left\| \left( \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} |D_j f|^2 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right\|_{L^p} \leq C_p A \|f\|_{L^p}, \quad 1 < p < \infty
$$
where $C_p$ is a constant independent of the kernel $D$.
\end{prop}
Later we will need the fact that the constant on the right hand side of the Littlewood-Paley inequality depends only on $A$ but not otherwise on the kernel $D$. Applying this proposition to $\Delta_j$ yields our claim (\ref{eq:LPforward}).
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality we may assume $A = 1$. The proof of this proposition relies on a vector-valued singular integral theory on $G$, which is presented, for instance, in \cite[Chapter 13, Section 5.3]{MR1232192}. By our assumptions, it is readily checked that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:D1}
\left(\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} |D_j(x)|^2 \right)^{1/2} \leq C \|x\|^{-Q},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:D2}
\left(\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \left|\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k} D_j(x)\right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \leq C \|x\|^{-Q-r} \qquad \text{if $n_{r-1} < k \leq n_r$}, \quad 1 \leq r \leq m;
\end{equation}
in fact by scale invariance, it suffices to check this when $\|x\| \simeq 1$. For example, to bound $\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} |\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k} D_j(x)|^2$ where $n_{r-1} < k \leq n_r$, it suffices to split the sum into $\sum_{j \geq 0}$ and $\sum_{j < 0}$; for the second sum, one bounds each term by $C 2^{j(Q+r)}$, and for the first sum, one bounds each term by $C 2^{j(Q+r)} 2^{-j(Q+r+1)}$. Putting these together yields the desired bound (\ref{eq:D2}). (\ref{eq:D1}) can be obtained similarly.
Furthermore, we need to check that for any normalized bump function $\Phi$ supported in the unit ball,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:D3}
\left(\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \left|\int_G D_j(x) \Phi(R \cdot x) dx \right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \leq C \quad \text{for all $R > 0$}.
\end{equation}
By scale invariance we may assume that $R \simeq 1$. Now when $j < 0$, $$\left| \int_G D_j(x) \Phi(R \cdot x) dx \right| \leq 2^{jQ} \|\Phi(R \cdot x)\|_{L^1} \leq C 2^{jQ},$$ since $|D_j(x)| \leq 2^{jQ}$ and $R \simeq 1$. When $j \geq 0$, $$\left| \int_G D_j(x) \Phi(R \cdot x) dx \right| \leq \int_G | D_j(x)| |\Phi(R \cdot x) - \Phi(0)| dx \leq C \int_G |D_j(x)| \, R \|x\| dx \leq C 2^{-j},$$ with the first inequality following from $\int_G D(x) dx = 0$, and the second inequality following from Proposition \ref{prop:meanvalue}. Putting these together, we get the desired estimate (\ref{eq:D3}).
From (\ref{eq:D1}), (\ref{eq:D2}), (\ref{eq:D3}), the vector-valued singular integral theory mentioned above applies, and this gives the bounds in our current proposition. Since none of the constants $C$ in (\ref{eq:D1}), (\ref{eq:D2}), (\ref{eq:D3}) depend on the kernel $D$, neither does the bound of our conclusion depend on $D$.
\end{proof}
We record here that the assumption $\int_G x_k \Psi(x) dx = 0$ for all $1 \leq k \leq n_1$ guarantees that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:momentDelta}
\int_G x_k \Delta(x) dx = 0
\end{equation} for all $1 \leq k \leq n_1$.
Next, for the reverse Littlewood-Paley inequality, we need the second version of Littlewood-Paley projections, given by the following proposition:
\begin{prop}\label{prop:equivLP}
There are $2n_1$ functions $\Lambda^{(1)}$, $\dots$, $\Lambda^{(2n_1)}$, each having zero integral on $G$, such that if $\Lambda^{(l)}_j (x) = 2^{jQ} \Lambda^{(l)}(2^j \cdot x)$ and $\Lambda^{(l)}_j f = f*\Lambda^{(l)}_j$, then $$\sum_{l=1}^{2n_1} \left\| \left( \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} |\Lambda^{(l)}_j f|^2 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right\|_{L^p} \simeq_p \|f\|_{L^p},$$ where $1 < p < \infty$.
\end{prop}
Since the sum in $l$ is usually irrelevant for the estimates, we will abuse notation, and simply write $$\left\| \left( \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} |\Lambda_j f|^2 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right\|_{L^p} \simeq_p \|f\|_{L^p}.$$ Note that we do not claim $f = \sum_{l,j} \Lambda_j^{(l)} f$ here.
\begin{proof}
The key is to construct $2n_1$ Schwartz functions $\Lambda^{(1)}$, $\dots$, $\Lambda^{(2n_1)}$ and another $2n_1$ Schwartz functions $\Xi^{(1)}$, $\dots$, $\Xi^{(2n_1)}$, all of which have integral zero, such that the delta function at the identity $0$ can be represented by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:deltarep}
\delta_0 = \sum_{l=1}^{2n_1} \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \Lambda^{(l)}_j * \Xi^{(l)}_j
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda^{(l)}_j (x) = 2^{jQ} \Lambda^{(l)}(2^j \cdot x)$ and $ \Xi^{(l)}_j(x) = 2^{jQ} \Xi^{(l)}(2^j \cdot x)$. Once we have such functions, we can write
\begin{align*}
(f,g) &= \sum_{l=1}^{2n_1} \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \left( \Xi^{(l)}_j \Lambda^{(l)}_j f, g \right) \\
&= \sum_{l=1}^{2n_1} \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \left( \Lambda^{(l)}_j f, \Xi^{(l)*}_j g \right) \\
&\leq \sum_{l=1}^{2n_1} \left\| \left( \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} |\Lambda^{(l)}_j f|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^p} \left\| \left( \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} |\Xi^{(l)*}_j g|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^{p'}},
\end{align*}
where $(f,g)$ denotes the inner product on $L^2(G)$ and $\Xi^{(l)*}_j$ is the adjoint of $\Xi^{(l)}_j$ with respect to this inner product, which is also given by the convolution against a Schwartz function of integral zero. Here $p'$ is the dual exponent to $p$. Hence if $1 < p < \infty$, we can estimate the $L^{p'}$ norm above by Proposition \ref{prop:refinedLP}, and get
$$
(f,g) \leq C_p\|g\|_{L^{p'}} \sum_{l=1}^{2n_1} \left\| \left( \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} |\Lambda^{(l)}_j f|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^p}
$$
which is the desired reverse inequality since $g$ is arbitrary. The forward inequality follows already from Proposition \ref{prop:refinedLP}.
To construct Schwartz functions $\Lambda^{(1)}$, $\dots$, $\Lambda^{(2n_1)}$ and $\Xi^{(1)}$, $\dots$, $\Xi^{(2n_1)}$ such that they have integral zero and they satisfy (\ref{eq:deltarep}), we proceed as follows. Let $\Psi$ be as in the beginning of this section. Then $\Psi*\Psi$ is a Schwartz function (here $*$ is still the group convolution), and $\int_G \Psi*\Psi(x) dx = 1$. Let $\Psi_j(x) = 2^{jQ} \Psi(2^j \cdot x)$. Then
\begin{align}
\delta_0 &= \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} (\Psi_j*\Psi_j - \Psi_{j-1}*\Psi_{j-1}) \notag \\
& = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \left( \Psi_j*(\Psi_j-\Psi_{j-1}) + (\Psi_j-\Psi_{j-1})*\Psi_{j-1} \right). \label{eq:deltarep1}
\end{align}
Note that in the smaller brackets, we have the $L^1$ dilation of $\Psi_0-\Psi_{-1}$. Now $\Psi_0-\Psi_{-1}$ has integral zero, and the moments $\int_G x_k (\Psi_0(x)-\Psi_{-1}(x))dx = 0$ for $1 \leq k \leq n_1$. Hence by Proposition \ref{prop:leftright} and Proposition \ref{prop:repL}, we can write $\Psi_0-\Psi_{-1}$ as either $$\Psi_0-\Psi_{-1} = \sum_{k=1}^{n_1} X_k^R \varphi^{(k)} \quad \text{or} \quad \Psi_0-\Psi_{-1} = \sum_{k=1}^{n_1} X_k \psi^{(k)}$$ for some Schwartz functions $\varphi^{(1)}, \dots, \varphi^{(n_1)}$ and $\psi^{(1)}, \dots, \psi^{(n_1)}$, all of which have integral zero. Plugging the first identity back to the first term of (\ref{eq:deltarep1}) and the second identity into the second term of (\ref{eq:deltarep1}), and integrating by parts using Proposition \ref{prop:deriv}, we get
$$
\delta_0 = \sum_{k=1}^{n_1} \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} ((X_k \Psi)_j*\varphi^{(k)}_j + \psi^{(k)}_j * (X_k^R \Psi)_{j-1}/2 ).
$$
Renaming the functions, we obtain the desired decomposition of $\delta_0$ as in (\ref{eq:deltarep}).
\end{proof}
To proceed further, we consider the maximal function on $G$, defined by $$Mf(x) = \sup_{r > 0} \frac{1}{r^Q} \int_{\|y\| \leq r} |f(x \cdot y^{-1})| dy.$$ We need the following properties of $M$:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:max}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $M$ is bounded on $L^p$ for all $1 < p \leq \infty$;
\item $M$ satisfies a vector-valued inequality, namely $$\left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} |Mf_j|^2 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right\|_{L^p} \leq C_p \left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} |f_j|^2 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right\|_{L^p},$$ for $1 < p < \infty$.
\item Moreover, if $|\phi(y)| \leq \varphi\left(\|y\|\right)$ for some decreasing function $\varphi$, and $A = \int_G \varphi(\|y\|) dy$, then $|f*\phi(x)| \leq C A Mf(x)$ where $C$ is a constant depending only on $G$ but not on $\phi$.
\item In particular, $$\left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} |\Lambda_j f_j|^2 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right\|_{L^p} \leq C_p \left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} |f_j|^2 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right\|_{L^p}$$ for all $1 < p < \infty$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
The proof of these can be found in Stein \cite[Chapter 2]{MR1232192}, once we notice that the group $(G,\|\cdot\|,dx)$ satisfies the real-variable structures set out in Chapter 1 of the same monograph.
We also need a Littlewood-Paley inequality for derivatives:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:derivLP}
We have $$\left\| \left(\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} (2^j |\Delta_j f|)^2\right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^p} \leq C_p \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^p}$$
for all $1 < p < \infty$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
To begin with, we will use (\ref{eq:deltarep}), which we write schematically as $$\delta_0 = \sum_{j'=-\infty}^{\infty} \Lambda_{j'} * \Xi_{j'},$$ suppressing the finite sum in $l$. Hence for any $j$, we have $$2^j \Delta_j f = \sum_{j'=-\infty}^{\infty} 2^j (\Xi_{j+j'}\Lambda_{j+j'}f) * \Delta_j.$$ Now we write $\Delta$ schematically as $\nabla_b^R \tilde{\Delta}$ using Proposition \ref{prop:leftright}; this is possible since $\int_G \Delta(x) dx = 0$. From equation (\ref{eq:momentDelta}) and the second part of Proposition \ref{prop:leftright}, we can arrange so that $\int_G \tilde{\Delta}(x) dx = 0$. It follows that
\begin{align*}
2^j \Delta_j f &= \sum_{j'=-\infty}^{\infty} (\Xi_{j+j'}\Lambda_{j+j'}f) * \nabla_b^R (\tilde{\Delta}_j) \\
&= \sum_{j'=-\infty}^{\infty} (\nabla_b(\Xi_{j+j'}\Lambda_{j+j'}f)) * \tilde{\Delta}_j.
\end{align*}
Using the notations introduced at the end of Section~\ref{sect:leftright}, we then get
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Deltajrep}
2^j \Delta_j f
= \sum_{j'=-\infty}^{\infty} \tilde{\Delta}_j \tilde{\Xi}_{j+j'} \tilde{\Lambda}_{j+j'} (\nabla_b f).
\end{equation}
Note that $\tilde{\Lambda}$ and $\tilde{\Xi}$ also have integral zero, by the observation stated at the end of Section~\ref{sect:leftright}.
Now the kernel of the operator $\tilde{\Delta}_j \tilde{\Xi}_{j+j'}$ is $\tilde{\Xi}_{j+j'}*\tilde{\Delta}_j(x)$. We claim that this kernel is bounded by $$2^{-|j'|} 2^{Q \min\{j,j+j'\}} (1+2^{\min\{j,j+j'\}}\|x\|)^{-(Q+1)}.$$ In fact this follows from Proposition \ref{prop:fgconv} if $j' < 0$, and from Proposition \ref{prop:fgconv2} if $j' \geq 0$. Here we need to use the facts that both $\tilde{\Xi}$ and $\tilde{\Delta}$ are Schwartz, and that both of them have integral zero as we observed above.
It then follows, from Proposition \ref{prop:max} (c), that
$$
2^j |\Delta_j f| \leq C \sum_{j'=-\infty}^{\infty} 2^{-|j'|} M \tilde{\Lambda}_{j+j'} (\nabla_b f).
$$
Taking $l^2$ norm in $j$, we get
$$
\left(\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} (2^j |\Delta_j f|)^2\right)^{1/2} \leq C\left(\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} (M \tilde{\Lambda}_j (\nabla_b f))\right)^{1/2}.
$$
Taking $L^p$ norm in space, and using Proposition \ref{prop:max}(b) and Proposition \ref{prop:refinedLP}, we get the desired estimate. (Here we use $\int_G \tilde{\Lambda}(x) dx = 0$.)
\end{proof}
The following is a Bernstein-type inequality for our Littlewood-Paley decomposition $\Delta_j$:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:Bern}
If $f \in \dot{NL}^{1,Q}$, then for all $j \in \mathbb{Z}$, we have $$\|\Delta_j f\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}$$ where $C$ is independent of both $f$ and $j$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
From (\ref{eq:Deltajrep}) in the proof of the previous proposition, we have, for any $f \in \dot{NL}^{1,Q}$, that $$\Delta_j f = (\nabla_b f)*K^{(j)}$$ where $K^{(j)}$ is the kernel given by
\begin{align*}
K^{(j)}(x):=& 2^{-j} \sum_{j'=-\infty}^{\infty} \left( \tilde{\Lambda}_{j+j'} * \tilde{\Xi}_{j'+j} * \tilde{\Delta}_j \right)(x).
\end{align*}
Here
$$
\tilde{\Lambda}_{j+j'} * \tilde{\Xi}_{j'+j} * \tilde{\Delta}_j = (\tilde{\Lambda} * \tilde{\Xi})_{j'+j} * \tilde{\Delta}_j = \left((\tilde{\Lambda} * \tilde{\Xi})_{j'} * \tilde{\Delta} \right)_j.
$$
Hence
$$
K^{(j)}(x) = 2^{j(Q-1)} \sum_{j'=-\infty}^{\infty} ((\tilde{\Lambda} * \tilde{\Xi})_{j'} * \tilde{\Delta})(2^j \cdot x).
$$
Now $\tilde{\Lambda} * \tilde{\Xi}$ is a Schwartz function, and $\int_G \tilde{\Lambda} * \tilde{\Xi} = 0$. Thus we have the following pointwise estimate for $(\tilde{\Lambda} * \tilde{\Xi})_{j'} * \tilde{\Delta} (x)$: if $j' \geq 0$, then by Proposition~\ref{prop:fgconv2},
$$
|(\tilde{\Lambda} * \tilde{\Xi})_{j'}*\tilde{\Delta}(x)| \leq C 2^{-j'} (1+\|x\|)^{-M} \quad \text{for all $M$},
$$
whereas if $j' < 0$, then by Proposition~\ref{prop:fgconv},
$$
|(\tilde{\Lambda} * \tilde{\Xi})_{j'}*\tilde{\Delta}(x)| \leq C 2^{j'} 2^{j'Q} (1 + 2^{j'} \|x\|)^{-M} \quad \text{for all $M$}.
$$
It follows that for any $x \in G$, we have
$$
\left|\sum_{j' \geq 0} (\tilde{\Lambda} * \tilde{\Xi})_{j'} * \tilde{\Delta}(x) \right| \leq C (1+\|x\|)^{-M} \quad \text{for all $M$},
$$
and
\begin{align*}
&\left|\sum_{j' < 0} (\tilde{\Lambda} * \tilde{\Xi})_{j'} * \tilde{\Delta}(x) \right| \\
\leq & C \sum_{\|x\|^{-1} \leq 2^{j'} \leq 1} 2^{j'(Q+1)} (2^{j'}\|x\|)^{-M} + C \sum_{2^{j'} < \min \{1, \|x\|^{-1} \}} 2^{j'(Q+1)} \\
= & C (1 + \|x\|)^{-(Q+1)}.
\end{align*}
Thus $\sum_{j' = -\infty}^{\infty} (\tilde{\Lambda} * \tilde{\Xi})_{j'} * \tilde{\Delta} \in L^{Q/(Q-1)}$, from which it follows that $K^{(j)} \in L^{Q/(Q-1)}$ uniformly in $j$. Hence we have $$\|\Delta_j f\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}$$ for all $j$, where $C = \|K^{(j)}\|_{L^{Q/(Q-1)}}$ is independent of $j$.
\end{proof}
Finally, we need the ``heat kernels'' which we define as follows. Let $S$ be a non-negative Schwartz function on $G$, which satisfies $$\int_G S(y) dy = 1 \quad \text{and} \quad S(x) \simeq e^{-\|x\|} \quad \text{for all $x \in G$}.$$ (For instance, $S(x) = c e^{-(1+\|x\|^{2m!})^{\frac{1}{2m!}}}$ will do for a suitable $c$, since $$(1+\|x\|^{2m!})^{\frac{1}{2m!}}-\|x\| \to 0$$ as $\|x\| \to \infty$.) We write $$S_j(x) := 2^{jQ} S(2^j \cdot x),$$ and as usual let $S_j f := f*S_j$.
\section{Algebraic preliminaries} \label{sect:alg}
In this section we describe some algebraic structures we use in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:approxsub}. First we have the following algebraic identity:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:alg}
For any sequence $\{a_j\}$, one has $$1 = \sum_{j = 1}^N a_j \prod_{1 \leq j' < j} (1-a_{j'}) + \prod_{j=1}^N (1-a_j).$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This is just saying that
\begin{align*}
1 &= a_1 + (1-a_1)\\
&= a_1 + a_2(1-a_1) + (1-a_1)(1-a_2)\\
&= a_1 + a_2(1-a_1) + a_3(1-a_1)(1-a_2) + (1-a_1)(1-a_2)(1-a_3)\\
&= \dots
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Note that by renaming the indices, one can also write
$$
1 = \sum_{j=1}^N a_j \prod_{j < j' \leq N} (1-a_{j'}) + \prod_{j=1}^N (1-a_j).
$$
Hence we have:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:algest}
If $\{a_j\}$ is a sequence of numbers satisfying $0 \leq a_j \leq 1$ for all $j$, then
$$
0 \leq \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} a_j \prod_{j' > j} (1-a_{j'}) \leq 1.
$$
\end{prop}
Next, suppose we are given a function $h$ on $G$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fconstr}
h = \sum_j h_j
\end{equation}
for some functions $h_j$, where all $h_j$ satisfy $\|h_j\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C$. We will describe a paradigm in which we approximate $h$ by an $L^{\infty}$ function that we will call $\tilde{h}$. In fact, motivated by the algebraic proposition we have above, we let
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Fconstr}
\tilde{h}=\sum_j h_j \prod_{j' > j} (1 - U_{j'})
\end{equation}
where $U_j$ are some suitable non-negative functions such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fjGjboundby1}
C^{-1} |h_j| \leq U_j \leq 1 \quad \text{pointwisely for all $j$.}
\end{equation}
Then at least $\|\tilde{h}\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C$ because
$$
|\tilde{h}(x)| \leq \sum_j |h_j(x)| \prod_{j' > j} (1 - U_{j'}(x)) \leq C \sum_j U_j(x) \prod_{j' > j} (1 - U_{j'}(x)) \leq C,
$$
where the last inequality follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:algest}. One would now ask whether this could be any sensible approximation of $h$; in particular, let's try to see whether $\|X_k (h-\tilde{h})\|_{L^Q}$ is small, for $k=1,\dots,n_1$. To understand this, write $h = \sum_j h_j$.
Then
$$
h-\tilde{h} = \sum_j h_j \left( 1 - \prod_{j' > j} (1-U_{j'}) \right).
$$
Using Proposition~\ref{prop:alg} to expand the latter bracket and rearranging the resulting sum, we get
\begin{equation} \label{eq:f-Fconstr}
h-\tilde{h} = \sum_j U_j V_j,
\end{equation}
where $V_j$ is defined by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Hconstr}
V_j = \sum_{j' < j} h_{j'} \prod_{j' < j'' < j} (1-U_{j''}).
\end{equation}
It follows that
$$
X_k (h-\tilde{h}) = \sum_j (X_k U_j)V_j + \sum_j U_j(X_k V_j).
$$
By Proposition~\ref{prop:algest} and (\ref{eq:fjGjboundby1}), we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Hbound}
|V_j| \leq C \quad \text{pointwisely for all $j$}.
\end{equation}
This can be shown using the same argument we have used to bound $\|\tilde{h}\|_{L^{\infty}}$.
Furthermore, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:gradHbound}
|X_k V_j| \leq C \sum_{j' < j} (|X_k h_{j'}| + |X_k U_{j'}|).
\end{equation}
In fact this follows from
\begin{equation} \label{eq:derivrule}
X_k V_j = \sum_{j' < j} \left( (X_k h_{j'}) - (X_k U_{j'}) V_{j'} \right) \prod_{j' < j'' < j} (1-U_{j''}).
\end{equation}
(\ref{eq:derivrule}) holds because when one computes $X_k V_j$, either the derivative hits $h_{j'}$, or the derivative hits $U_{j'}$ for some $j' < j$; furthermore, the coefficient of $X_k U_{j'}$ in $X_k V_j$ is $$- V_{j'} \prod_{j' < j'' < j} (1-U_{j''}).$$
From (\ref{eq:Hbound}) and (\ref{eq:gradHbound}), it follows that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:gradf-Fbound}
|X_k (h-\tilde{h})| \leq C\left(\sum_j |X_k U_j| + \sum_j U_j \sum_{j' < j} (|X_k h_{j'}| + |X_k U_{j'}|)\right);
\end{equation}
we will hope to estimate this in $L^Q$ norm on $G$, if we choose $U_j$ suitably.
In the following sections, equations (\ref{eq:fconstr}), (\ref{eq:Fconstr}), (\ref{eq:fjGjboundby1}), (\ref{eq:f-Fconstr}), (\ref{eq:Hconstr}), (\ref{eq:Hbound}), (\ref{eq:gradHbound}), (\ref{eq:derivrule}) and (\ref{eq:gradf-Fbound}) will form a basic paradigm of our construction.
\section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:approxsub}: Outline} \label{sect:outline}
We give an outline of the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:approxsub} in this section, and we defer the detailed proof to the next four sections. The proof will be in 3 steps. First, given $\delta > 0$, and given $f \in \dot{NL}_1^Q$, we find a large positive integer $N$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:f01}
\|\nabla_b f_0\|_{L^Q} \leq \frac{\delta}{3} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q},
\end{equation}
where $$f_0 := f- \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} S_{j+N} \Delta_j f.$$ This is possible basically because from $f = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \Delta_j f$, we get $f_0 = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} (1-S_{j+N}) \Delta_j f$, which is small when $N$ is sufficiently large. We will see that $N$ can be chosen to depend only on $\delta$ but not on $f$.
Next, we define the auxiliary controlling functions $\omega_j$ and $\tilde{\omega}_j$ as follows. Let $\sigma$ be a large positive integer to be chosen, and suppose from now on we have the ``smallness'' condition on $f$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:smallassump}
\|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} \leq c_G 2^{-NQ} 2^{-\sigma(Q-1)},
\end{equation}
with the constant $c_G$ depending only on the group $G$. For $x = [x_1,\dots,x_n]$, we recall $x^{\sigma} := [2^\sigma x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n]$ and $x_{\sigma} := 2^{-\sigma} x^{\sigma}$. Let $E$ be a Schwartz function, defined by $$E(x) := e^{-(1+\|x_{\sigma}\|^{2m!})^{\frac{1}{2m!}}}.$$ We write $\Lambda$ for the lattice $\{2^{-N} \cdot s \colon s \in \mathbb{Z}^n\}$ of scale $2^{-N}$ in $G$, and define $\omega_j$ by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:omegajdef}
\omega_j(x) := \left( \sum_{r \in \Lambda} \left[ S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(2^{-j} \cdot r) E(r^{-1} \cdot (2^j \cdot x))\right ]^Q \right)^{1/Q}
\end{equation}
for all $x \in G$. Here $N$ is the positive integer we chose previously. Note that $\omega_j$ is like a discrete convolution, except that we are using the $l^Q$ norm in $r$ rather than the sum in $r$. We also define $\tilde{\omega}_j$ by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tomegajdef}
\tilde{\omega}_j := 2^{NQ}E_j S_{j+N} |\Delta_j f|
\end{equation}
where $E_j f := f*E_j$, and $E_j(y) := 2^{jQ} E(2^j y)$. $\omega_j$ and $\tilde{\omega}_j$ will be used to control the Littlewood-Paley pieces $\Delta_j f$ of $f$; in fact respectively they will control $h_j$ and $g_j$ we introduce below. They will also have better derivatives in the $X_2, \dots, X_{n_1}$ directions than in the $X_1$ direction.
Now we decompose $f-f_0$ into the sum of two functions $g$ and $h$ as follows. Let $R >> \sigma$ be another positive integer to be chosen, and let $\zeta$ be a smooth function on $[0,\infty)$ such that $\zeta \equiv 1$ on $[0,1/2]$, and $\zeta \equiv 0$ on $[1,\infty)$. Let
$$
\zeta_j(x) := \zeta \left(\frac{2^j \omega_j(x)}{\sum_{k < j, \text{ } k \equiv j (\text{mod } R)} 2^k \omega_k(x)}\right).
$$
We remark here that $\zeta_j(x)$ is not the $L^1$ dilation of $\zeta$, i.e. $\zeta_{j}(x)\neq 2^{jQ}\zeta(2^j \cdot x)$; it is a smooth approximation of the characteristic function of the set $\{2^{j} \omega_j <\sum_{k<j, k\equiv j(\text{mod }R)}2^k\omega_{k}\}$.
We then define two functions $h$ and $g$ such that $$h := \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} h_j, \quad g := \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} g_j,$$ where
$$
h_j (x) := (1-\zeta_j(x)) S_{j+N}(\Delta_j f)(x)
$$
and
$$
g_j (x) := \zeta_j(x) S_{j+N}(\Delta_j f)(x).
$$
It follows that $$f = f_0 + g + h.$$
By $\zeta_j$'s definition, we can think of $h$ as the part where morally ``the high frequencies dominate the low frequencies'', and $g$ as the part where morally the reverse happens. We remark that $g$ and $h$ depend on $R$, $\sigma$ and $N$. We are free to choose $R$ and $\sigma$; but $N$ is fixed once we fix $\delta$.
To proceed further, we will approximate $h$ by some $L^{\infty}$ function $\tilde{h}$ using the paradigm of approximation we discussed in the previous section. Namely, we define
$$
\tilde{h} := \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} h_j \prod_{j' > j} (1-U_{j'})
$$
where
$$
U_j := (1-\zeta_j) \omega_j .
$$
We will prove that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:h1}
\|\tilde{h}\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:h2}
\|X_k (h-\tilde{h})\|_{L^Q} \leq C_N 2^{-\sigma/Q} R \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} + C_N 2^{\sigma Q} R \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}^2, \quad k = 2, \dots, n_1,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:h3}
\|X_1 (h-\tilde{h})\|_{L^Q} \leq C_N 2^{\sigma Q} R \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.
\end{equation}
Finally, using the same paradigm, we approximate $g$ by some $\tilde{g} \in L^{\infty}$, where
$$
\tilde{g} := \sum_{c=0}^{R-1} \sum_{j \equiv c (\text{mod } R)} g_j \prod_{j' > j \atop j' \equiv c (\text{mod }R)} (1-G_{j'})
$$
and
$$
G_j := \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\text{mod } R)} 2^{-t} \tilde{\omega}_{j-t}.
$$
We will prove that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:g1}
\|\tilde{g}\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C R,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:g2}
\|\nabla_b (g-\tilde{g})\|_{L^Q} \leq C_N 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} R^2 2^{-R} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.
\end{equation}
Note that one can estimate the full $\nabla_b$ of the error here (rather than only the ``good'' derivatives $X_k$ for $k=2,...,n_1$). We will see in later sections that the ``smallness'' assumption (\ref{eq:smallassump}) on the given $f$ is used right here, in the proofs of (\ref{eq:h1}), (\ref{eq:h2}), (\ref{eq:h3}), (\ref{eq:g1}) and (\ref{eq:g2}).
Altogether, if we define $F$ to be $\tilde{g} + \tilde{h}$, then by (\ref{eq:h1}) and (\ref{eq:g1}),
$$\|F\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C R,$$
and by (\ref{eq:f01}), (\ref{eq:h2}) and (\ref{eq:g2}), for $k = 2, \dots, n_1$
\begin{align*}
&\|X_k (f-F)\|_{L^Q} \\
\leq & \|\nabla_b f_0\|_{L^Q} + \|X_k (h-\tilde{h})\|_{L^Q} + \|\nabla_b (g-\tilde{g})\|_{L^Q} \\
\leq & \frac{\delta}{3} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} + C_N 2^{-\sigma/Q} R \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} + C_N 2^{\sigma Q} R \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}^2 \\ &\quad + C_N 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} R^2 2^{-R} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.
\end{align*}
If one now chooses $R = B \sigma$ where $B$ is a constant $> 2(Q+1)$ (say $B = 2(Q+2)$ will do), and chooses $\sigma$ to be sufficiently big with respect to $N$, then this is bounded by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Xkgoodboundtemp}
\frac{\delta}{2} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} + A_{\delta} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}^2
\end{equation}
where $A_{\delta}$ is a constant depending only on $G$ and $\delta$ (remember $N$ is fixed once we choose $\delta$). The above analysis is valid whenever $\delta > 0$ and (\ref{eq:smallassump}) holds, namely $\|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} \leq c_G 2^{-NQ} 2^{-\sigma(Q-1)}$, where $\sigma$ is the one that we just picked depending on $\delta$. Note that $N$, $\sigma$ and $R$ are chosen independent of our given function $f$; they depend only on the given $\delta$. If now a general $f$ in $\dot{NL}_1^Q$ is given, and $\delta$ is sufficiently small, one will rescale $f$ so that $$\|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} = \min\{c_G 2^{-NQ} 2^{-\sigma(Q-1)}, \delta (2A_{\delta})^{-1}\}.$$ The right hand side is a number depending only on $\delta$. Now using bound (\ref{eq:Xkgoodboundtemp}), for $k = 2, \dots, n_1$, $$\|X_k (f-F)\|_{L^Q} \leq \delta \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}$$ as desired. Also,
$$\|F\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq CR \frac{\|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}}{\min\{c_G 2^{-NQ} 2^{-\sigma(Q-1)}, \delta (2A_{\delta})^{-1}\}} = C_{\delta} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.$$
Similarly, one can derive the estimate
$\|\nabla_b (f-F)\|_{L^Q} \leq C_{\delta} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}$ by using (\ref{eq:f01}), (\ref{eq:h3}) and (\ref{eq:g2}). This implies $\|\nabla_b F\|_{L^Q} \leq C_{\delta} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}$, and completes the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:approxsub}.
In the sequel, $C$ will denote constant independent of $\delta$, $N$, $\sigma$ and $R$. All dependence of constants on $N$, $\sigma$ and $R$ will be made clear in the notations.
\section{Estimating $f_0$} \label{sect:f0}
We now begin the proof of our approximation Lemma~\ref{lem:approxsub}. Let $N$ be a large positive integer. Define $f_0$ as in Section~\ref{sect:outline}. First, since $f = \sum_j \Delta_j f$, by the definition of $f_0$, we have
$$f_0 := \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} (I - S_{j+N}) \Delta_j f = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \sum_{k \geq N} (S_{j+k+1} - S_{j+k})\Delta_j f$$ where $I$ is the identity operator. Now let $P$ be the kernel of the operator $S_1-S_0$. Then $P$ is a Schwartz function, and $$\int_G P(y) dy = 0.$$ Furthermore, if we define $P_k f = f*P_k$ where $P_k(y) = 2^{kQ} P(2^k \cdot y)$, then $$f_0 = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \sum_{k \geq N} P_{j+k}(\Delta_j f).$$ Using the notation at the end of Section~\ref{sect:leftright}, one gets
$$
\nabla_b f_0 = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \sum_{k \geq N} \tilde{P}_{j+k} \tilde{\Delta}_j (\nabla_b f),
$$
where the kernels $\tilde{P}$ and $\tilde{\Delta}$ are Schwartz, and satisfy $$\int_G \tilde{P}(y) dy = \int_G \tilde{\Delta}(y) dy = 0$$ since $\int_G P = \int_G \Delta = 0$.
Now it follows from Proposition \ref{prop:equivLP} that
\begin{align*}
\|\nabla_b f_0\|_{L^Q} \simeq& \left\| \left(\sum_{r=-\infty}^{\infty} \left| \Lambda_r \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \sum_{k \geq N} \tilde{P}_{j+k} \tilde{\Delta}_j (\nabla_b f)\right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q} \notag.
\end{align*}
To proceed further, we replace, in the right hand side of the above formula, the index $j$ by $j+r$, and then pull out the summation in $j$ and $k$. Then we obtain the following bound for $\|\nabla_b f_0\|_{L^Q}$, namely
\begin{align}
& \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \sum_{k \geq N} \left\| \left(\sum_{r=-\infty}^{\infty} \left| \Lambda_{r} \tilde{P}_{j+r+k} \tilde{\Delta}_{j+r} (\nabla_b f)\right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q} \notag,
\end{align}
which is equal to
\begin{align}
& \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \sum_{k \geq N} \left\| \left(\sum_{r=-\infty}^{\infty} \left| \Lambda_{r+j} \tilde{P}_{r+k} \tilde{\Delta}_{r} (\nabla_b f)\right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q} \label{eq:f_0est}
\end{align}
if we first replace the index $r$ by $r-j$, and then replace $j$ by $-j$. Now we split the sum into two parts, one where $j < 0$, and one where $j \geq 0$, and show that both of them are bounded by $C 2^{-N} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}$. The sum where $j < 0$ can be estimated using Proposition \ref{prop:fgconv2}: in fact $\Lambda_{r+j} \tilde{P}_{r+k} \tilde{\Delta}_{r} (\nabla_b f) =(\tilde{\Delta}_{r} (\nabla_b f)) * (\tilde{P}_{r+k} * \tilde{\Lambda}_{r+j})$, and by Proposition \ref{prop:fgconv2}, $$|\tilde{P}_{r+k} * \tilde{\Lambda}_{r+j}|(x) = \left|( \tilde{P} * \tilde{\Lambda}_{k-j} )_{r+j} \right|(x) \leq C 2^{-(k-j)} 2^{Q(r+j)} \left( 1 + 2^{r+j} \|x\| \right)^{-(Q+1)}$$ since $k-j>0$, $\Lambda$, $\tilde{P}$ are Schwartz, and $\int_G \tilde{P}(y) dy = 0$. From this we infer, using Proposition~\ref{prop:max}~(c), that $$|\Lambda_{r+j} \tilde{P}_{r+k} \tilde{\Delta}_r(\nabla_b f)| \leq C 2^{-(k-j)} M \tilde{\Delta}_r(\nabla_b f).$$ It follows that the sum where $j < 0$ is bounded by
$$
\sum_{j < 0} \sum_{k \geq N} C 2^{-(k-j)} \left\| \left(\sum_{r = -\infty}^{\infty} (M \tilde{\Delta}_r(\nabla_b f))^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q} \leq C 2^{-N} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}
$$
as desired. Next, for the sum where $j \geq 0$, one defines an auxiliary kernel $D$ by $$D = \tilde{\Delta} * \tilde{P}_k * \Lambda_j \quad \text{if $j \geq 0$ and $k \geq N$}.$$ We claim that
\begin{prop} \label{prop:D}
$D$ is a Schwartz function,
$$|D(x)| \leq C 2^{-j-k} (1+\|x\|)^{-(Q+2)},$$
$$\left|\frac{\partial}{\partial x_l} D(x)\right| \leq C 2^{-j-k} (1+\|x\|)^{-(Q+r+1)} \quad \text{if $n_{r-1} < l \leq n_r$}, \quad 1 \leq r \leq m,$$
and
$$\int_G D(x) dx = 0.$$
\end{prop}
Assume the proposition for the moment. Then one can apply the refinement of Littlewood-Paley theory in Proposition~\ref{prop:refinedLP} and conclude that
$$
\left\| \left(\sum_{r=-\infty}^{\infty} |D_r (\nabla_b f)|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q} \leq C 2^{-j-k} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q},
$$
i.e.
$$
\left\| \left(\sum_{r=-\infty}^{\infty} |\Lambda_{r+j} \tilde{P}_{r+k} \tilde{\Delta}_r (\nabla_b f)|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q} \leq C 2^{-j-k} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.
$$
Summing over $j \geq 0$ and $k \geq N$, we see that the sum over $j \geq 0$ in (\ref{eq:f_0est}) is bounded by $C 2^{-N} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}$ as well, as desired.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:D}]
It is clear that $D$ is Schwartz and $\int_G D(x) dx = 0$. To prove the estimate for $|D(x)|$, first consider $\tilde{\Delta}*\tilde{P}_k$ with $k \geq N$. From Proposition \ref{prop:deriv}, we have $\nabla_b^R (\tilde{\Delta}*\tilde{P}_k) = (\nabla_b^R \tilde{\Delta})*\tilde{P}_k$, so by Proposition \ref{prop:fgconv}, we get
$$
|(\nabla_b^R)^{\alpha} (\tilde{\Delta}*\tilde{P}_k)(x)| \leq C_{\alpha,M} 2^{-k} (1+\|x\|)^{-M}
$$
for all multi-index $\alpha$ and all $M > 0$. It follows that
$$
|\tilde{\Delta}*\tilde{P}_k(x)| + \left|\frac{\partial}{\partial x_l} (\tilde{\Delta}*\tilde{P}_k)(x)\right| \leq C_{M,l} 2^{-k} (1+\|x\|)^{-M}
$$
for any $M > 0$ and all $1 \leq l \leq n$. Here we applied Proposition \ref{prop:repR} (b), which says that each $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_l}$ can be written as a linear combination of $(\nabla_b^R)^{\alpha}$ with coefficients that are polynomials in $x$. Applying Proposition \ref{prop:fgconv} again, we get
$$
|D(x)| \leq C_{M} 2^{-j-k} (1+\|x\|)^{-M}
$$
for all $M > 0$, since $j \geq 0$. Similarly
$$
|(\nabla_b^R)^{\alpha} D(x)| \leq C_{\alpha,M} 2^{-j-k} (1+\|x\|)^{-M}
$$
for all multi-index $\alpha$ and all $M > 0$. It follows that
$$
\left|\frac{\partial}{\partial x_l} D(x)\right| \leq C_{M} 2^{-j-k} (1+\|x\|)^{-M}
$$
for all $1 \leq l \leq n$ and all $M > 0$, from which our proposition follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Properties of $\omega_j$ and $\tilde{\omega}_j$}
Suppose $\delta > 0$ is given, and let $N$ be chosen as in the previous section. Let $\sigma$ be a very large positive integer, to be chosen depending on $N$ and thus $\delta$. Suppose (\ref{eq:smallassump}) holds, i.e. $\|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} \leq c_G 2^{-NQ} 2^{-\sigma(Q-1)}$, where $c_G$ is a sufficiently small constant depending only on $G$. Define $\omega_j$ and $\tilde{\omega}_j$ by (\ref{eq:omegajdef}) and (\ref{eq:tomegajdef}) as in Section~\ref{sect:outline}, namely
$$
\omega_j(x) := \left( \sum_{r \in \Lambda} \left[ S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(2^{-j} \cdot r) E(r^{-1} \cdot (2^j \cdot x))\right ]^Q \right)^{1/Q}
$$
and
$$
\tilde{\omega}_j(x) := 2^{NQ}E_j S_{j+N} |\Delta_j f|(x).
$$
First, we want a pointwise bound for $\omega_j$. To obtain that we observe:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:shift}
Let $S_j$ and $E_j$ be defined as in Section~\ref{sect:outline}. Then whenever $x, \theta \in G$ with $\|\theta\| \leq 2^{-j}$, we have $$S_j(x \cdot \theta) \simeq S_j(x) \quad \text{and} \quad E_j(\theta \cdot x) \simeq E_j(x).$$ In particular, we have $$S_jf(x \cdot \theta) \simeq S_jf(x)$$ if $f$ is a non-negative function and $\|\theta\| \leq 2^{-j}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
First we observe that $$E(x) \simeq e^{-\|x_{\sigma}\|} \quad \text{for all $x \in G$}.$$ This is because $$(1+\|x_{\sigma}\|^{2m!})^{\frac{1}{2m!}}-\|x_{\sigma}\| \to 0$$ as $\|x_{\sigma}\| \to \infty$. Now by Proposition \ref{prop:xtheta}, we have $$\left| \, \|(\theta \cdot x)_{\sigma}\| - \|x_{\sigma}\| \, \right| \leq C \quad \text{if $\|\theta\| \leq 1$.}$$ Hence from $E(x) \simeq e^{-\|x_{\sigma}\|}$ and $E(\theta \cdot x) \simeq e^{-\|(\theta \cdot x)_{\sigma}\|}$, we get $$E(\theta \cdot x) \simeq E(x) \quad \text{if $\|\theta\| \leq 1$.}$$ Scaling yields the desired claim for $E_j$.
Next, suppose $\|\theta\| \leq 1$. We claim that $S(x \cdot \theta) \simeq S(x)$ for all $x \in G$. This holds because $S(x \cdot \theta) \simeq e^{-\|x \cdot \theta\|}$ and $S(x) \simeq e^{-\|x\|}$ for all $x$, and one can apply (\ref{eq:normmeanvalue}) to compare the latter.
Scaling yields the claim for $S_j$.
\end{proof}
Now comes the pointwise bound for $\omega_j$, from both above and below.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:omegaequiv}
$$\omega_j(x) \simeq \left(\sum_{r \in \Lambda} \left[S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(x \cdot 2^{-j}r) E(r^{-1})\right]^Q\right)^{1/Q}. $$
Here the implicit constant is independent of $N$ and $\sigma$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Recall that by (\ref{eq:omegajdef}),
\begin{align*}
\omega_j(x) &:= \left( \sum_{r \in \Lambda} \left[ S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(2^{-j} \cdot r) E(r^{-1} \cdot (2^j \cdot x))\right ]^Q \right)^{1/Q} \\
& = \left( \sum_{s \in (2^j \cdot x)^{-1} \cdot \Lambda} \left[ S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(x \cdot (2^{-j} \cdot s)) E(s^{-1})\right ]^Q \right)^{1/Q}
\end{align*}
The last identity follows from a change of variable: if $s = (2^j \cdot x)^{-1} \cdot r$, then we have $r = (2^j \cdot x) \cdot s$, so $2^{-j} \cdot r = x \cdot (2^{-j} \cdot s)$, the last identity following because dilations are group homomorphisms (c.f. (\ref{eq:dilauto})). Now recall that $\Lambda$ is the lattice $\{2^{-N} \cdot s \colon s \in \mathbb{Z}^n\}$. Hence every $s \in (2^j \cdot x)^{-1} \cdot \Lambda$ can be written uniquely as $r \cdot (2^{-N} \cdot \theta)$ for some $r \in \Lambda$ and $\theta \in G$, such that if $\theta = [\theta_1, \dots, \theta_n]$, then all $\theta_k \in [0,1)$. This defines a map from the shifted lattice $(2^j \cdot x)^{-1} \cdot \Lambda$ to the original lattice $\Lambda$, and it is easy to see that this map is a bijection. Hence if the inverse of this map is denoted by $s = s(r)$, then
$$
\omega_j(x) = \left( \sum_{r \in \Lambda} \left[ S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(x \cdot (2^{-j} \cdot s(r))) E(s(r)^{-1})\right ]^Q \right)^{1/Q}.
$$
But $s(r) = r \cdot (2^{-N} \cdot \theta)$ for some $\|\theta\| \leq 1$. Thus by Proposition \ref{prop:shift}, we get
$$
E(s(r)^{-1}) \simeq E(r^{-1}).
$$
Also, from the same relation between $s(r)$ and $r$, we have $2^{-j} \cdot s(r) = (2^{-j} \cdot r) \cdot (2^{-(j+N)} \cdot \theta)$ with $\|2^{-(j+N)} \cdot \theta\| \leq 2^{-(j+N)}$. Thus by Proposition \ref{prop:shift} again, we get
$$
S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(x \cdot (2^{-j} \cdot s(r))) \simeq S_{j+N} |\Delta_j f|(x \cdot (2^{-j} \cdot r)).
$$
Hence the proposition follows.
\end{proof}
By a similar token, one can prove that
\begin{prop}
$$
\tilde{\omega}_j(x) \simeq \sum_{r \in \Lambda} S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(x \cdot (2^{-j} \cdot r)) E(r^{-1}),
$$
with implicit constants independent of $N$ and $\sigma$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This is because by (\ref{eq:tomegajdef}),
\begin{align*}
\tilde{\omega}_j(x) &= 2^{NQ} \int_G S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(x \cdot (2^{-j} \cdot y)) E(y^{-1}) dy \\
&= \sum_{r \in \Lambda} \int_{[0,1)^n} S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(x \cdot (2^{-j} \cdot r) \cdot(2^{-(j+N)} \cdot \theta)) E((2^{-N} \cdot \theta)^{-1} \cdot r^{-1}) d\theta\\
\end{align*}
The second equality follows from the fact that every $y \in G$ can be written uniquely as $r \cdot (2^{-N} \cdot \theta)$ for some $r \in \Lambda$ and $\theta \in [0,1)^n$, which we have already used in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:omegaequiv}. Note again that if $y = r \cdot (2^{-N} \cdot \theta)$, then by the fact that dilations are group homomorphisms, we have $2^{-j} \cdot y = 2^{-j} \cdot (r \cdot (2^{-N} \cdot \theta)) = (2^{-j} \cdot r) \cdot (2^{-(j+N)} \cdot \theta)$. Also, we used $dy = 2^{-NQ} d\theta$ in the change of variables.
Now one can mimic the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:omegaequiv}. In fact, one observes that whenever $\|\theta\| \leq 1$, one has
$$
E((2^{-N} \cdot \theta)^{-1} \cdot r^{-1}) \simeq E(r^{-1})
$$
and
$$
S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(x \cdot (2^{-j} \cdot r) \cdot(2^{-(j+N)} \cdot \theta)) \simeq S_{j+N} |\Delta_j f|(x \cdot (2^{-j} \cdot r)).
$$
One then concludes that
$$\tilde{\omega}_j(x) \simeq \sum_{r \in \Lambda} S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(x \cdot (2^{-j} \cdot r)) E(r^{-1}).$$
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
From the two propositions above, it follows that
\begin{prop} \label{prop:omegapointwise}
$$S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(x) \leq C \omega_j(x) \leq C \tilde{\omega}_j(x).$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The first inequality holds because the term corresponding to $r = 0$ in the right hand side of the equation in Proposition~\ref{prop:omegaequiv} is precisely $S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(x)$. The second inequality holds by the previous two propositions, since the $l^Q$ norm of a sequence is always smaller than or equal to its $l^1$ norm.
\end{proof}
Next we have
\begin{prop} \label{prop:omegauniform}
$$\|\omega_j\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C \|\tilde{\omega}_j\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C 2^{NQ} 2^{\sigma(Q-1)} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} \leq 1$$
if $c_G$ in assumption (\ref{eq:smallassump}) is chosen sufficiently small.
\end{prop}
We fix this choice of $c_G$ from now on.
\begin{proof}
The first inequality follows from the previous proposition. The second inequality follows from
$$\|\tilde{\omega}_j\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq 2^{NQ} \|E\|_{L^1} \|S\|_{L^1} \|\Delta_j f\|_{L^{\infty}},$$
$$\|E\|_{L^1} = C 2^{\sigma(Q-1)},$$
and Bernstein's inequality as in Proposition~\ref{prop:Bern}.
The last inequality holds since $\|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} \leq c_G 2^{-NQ} 2^{-\sigma(Q-1)}$ and $c_G$ is sufficiently small.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:omegaderiv}
$$|X_1 \omega_j| \leq C 2^j \omega_j$$ and
$$|X_k \omega_j| \leq C 2^{j-\sigma} \omega_j \quad \text{for $k = 2, \dots, n_1$}.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
One just needs to recall the definition of $\omega_j$ from (\ref{eq:omegajdef}), namely
$$
\omega_j(x) = \left( \sum_{r \in \Lambda} \left[ S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(2^{-j} \cdot r) E(r^{-1} \cdot (2^j \cdot x))\right ]^Q \right)^{1/Q}
$$
and to differentiate it. Here it is crucial that the variable $x$ is in the argument of $E$ and not in $S_{j+N}|\Delta_jf|$; in other words, we could not have taken the expression in Proposition \ref{prop:omegaequiv} to be the definition of $\omega_j$, because while it is true that the continuous convolution $f\ast g$ can be written as $\int_G f(y^{-1})g(y\cdot x)dy$ or $\int_G f(x\cdot y^{-1})g(y)dy$ via integration by parts, the analogous statement fails for discrete convolutions. Hence if $\omega_j$ was defined by the expression in Proposition~\ref{prop:omegaequiv}, then there would be no way of integrating by parts and letting the derivatives fall on $E$ here.
More precisely, first we observe
$$
|X_k (1+\|x_{\sigma}\|^{2m!})^{\frac{1}{2m!}}| \leq C 2^{-\sigma} \quad \text{if $k = 2, \dots, n_1$}
$$
and
$$
|X_1 (1+\|x_{\sigma}\|^{2m!})^{\frac{1}{2m!}}| \leq C.
$$
Thus
$$
|X_1 E(x)| \leq C E(x), \quad \text{and} \quad |X_k E(x)| \leq C 2^{-\sigma} E(x) \quad \text{if $k = 2, \dots, n_1$}.
$$
Now since we are using left-invariant vector fields, they commute with left-translations. It follows that
$$
X_k (E(r^{-1} \cdot (2^j \cdot x))) = 2^j (X_k E)(r^{-1} \cdot (2^j \cdot x))
$$
for all $k = 1, \dots, n_1$, and using the above estimates for $X_k E$, one easily obtains the desired inequalities.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:Dtomegaj}
$$|X_1 \tilde{\omega}_j| \leq C 2^j \tilde{\omega}_j$$ and
$$|X_k \tilde{\omega}_j| \leq C 2^{j-\sigma} \tilde{\omega}_j \quad \text{for $k = 2, \dots, n_1$}.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}Note that
$\tilde{\omega}_j$ can be written as $$\tilde{\omega}_j=2^{NQ}\int_{G}S_{j+N}|\Delta_jf|(2^{-j} \cdot y^{-1} )E(y \cdot (2^{j} \cdot x))dy.$$
The proof is then almost identical to the previous proposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:maxomega}
$$\|\sup_j (2^j \omega_j) \|_{L^Q} \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q-1)/Q} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This is because
\begin{align*}
\int_{G} (\sup_j 2^j \omega_j)^Q (x) dx
\leq & \sum_j \int_{G} (2^j \omega_j)^Q (x) dx \\
\simeq & \sum_j \sum_{r \in \Lambda} E(r^{-1})^Q \int_{G} [ 2^j S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|(x \cdot 2^{-j}r)]^Q dx,
\end{align*}
the last line following from Proposition~\ref{prop:omegaequiv}. Now by the translation invariance of the Lebesgue measure (which is the Haar measure on $G$), the integral in the last sum is independent of $r$. Furthermore,
$$\sum_{r \in \Lambda} E(r)^Q \simeq \sum_{r \in \Lambda} \int_{\theta \in [0,1)^N} E(r \cdot (2^{-N} \cdot \theta))^Q d\theta = 2^{NQ} \int_G E(y)^Q dy \leq C 2^{NQ} 2^{\sigma(Q-1)};$$ here we used Proposition~\ref{prop:shift} in the first inequality, that every $y \in G$ can be written uniquely as $r \cdot (2^{-N} \cdot \theta)$ for some $r \in \Lambda$ and $\theta \in [0,1)^N$ in the middle identity, and that $\|E^Q\|_{L^1} \leq C2^{\sigma(Q-1)}$ in the last inequality. Altogether, this shows
\begin{align*}
\int_{G} (\sup_j 2^j \omega_j)^Q (x) dx
\leq & C 2^{NQ} 2^{\sigma(Q-1)} \int_{G} \sum_j \left(2^j |\Delta_j f|(x) \right)^Q dx \\
\leq & C 2^{NQ} 2^{\sigma(Q-1)} \int_{G} \left(\sum_j \left(2^j |\Delta_j f|(x)\right)^2\right)^{Q/2} dx \\
\leq & C 2^{NQ} 2^{\sigma(Q-1)} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}^Q,
\end{align*}
the last inequality following from Proposition~\ref{prop:derivLP}.
\end{proof}
\section{Estimating $h-\tilde{h}$} \label{sect:h0}
In this section we estimate $h-\tilde{h}$. First, we recall our construction: we have $h = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} h_j$, where
$$
h_j (x) = (1-\zeta_j(x)) S_{j+N}(\Delta_j f)(x).
$$
We also have
$$
\tilde{h} = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} h_j \prod_{j' > j} (1-U_{j'})
$$
where
$$
U_j = (1-\zeta_j)\omega_j .
$$
We will estimate $\tilde{h}$ following our paradigm of approximation in Section~\ref{sect:alg}. By Proposition \ref{prop:omegapointwise} and \ref{prop:omegauniform}, we have $$C^{-1} |h_j| \leq U_j \leq 1.$$ It follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:algest} that $\|\tilde{h}\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C$, proving (\ref{eq:h1}).
Next, following the derivation of (\ref{eq:gradf-Fbound}), we have
$$
|X_k(h-\tilde{h})| \leq C \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} |X_k U_j| + \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} |U_j| \sum_{j' < j} (\|\nabla_b h_{j'}\|_{L^{\infty}} + \|\nabla_b U_{j'}\|_{L^{\infty}})
$$
for $k = 1, \dots, n_1$.
But $U_j$ can be estimated by
$$|U_j(x)| \leq \omega_j(x) \chi_{\{ 2^j \omega_j > (1/2) \sum_{k < j,\, k \equiv j (\textrm{mod} R)} 2^k \omega_k \}}(x)$$
where $\chi$ denotes the characteristic function of a set. This is because $1-\zeta_j(x) = 0$ unless $2^j \omega_j(x)> (1/2) \sum_{k < j,\, k \equiv j (\textrm{mod} R)} 2^k \omega_k(x)$.
Next, for $k = 2, \dots, n_1$, $X_k U_j$ can be estimated by
$$
|X_k U_j(x)| \leq C 2^{j-\sigma} \omega_j(x) \chi_{\{ 2^j \omega_j > (1/2) \sum_{k < j,\, k \equiv j (\textrm{mod} R)} 2^k \omega_k \}}(x)
$$
because $|X_k \omega_j| \leq C2^{j-\sigma} \omega_j$ by Proposition \ref{prop:omegaderiv}, and
$$
|X_k \zeta_j| \leq C 2^{j-\sigma} \chi_{\{ 2^j \omega_j > (1/2) \sum_{k < j,\, k \equiv j (\textrm{mod} R)} 2^k \omega_k \}}.
$$
(The last inequality follows by differentiating the definition of $\zeta_j$, and using $|X_k \omega_j| \leq C 2^{j-\sigma} \omega_j$ again.) Similarly,
$$
|X_1 U_j(x)| \leq C 2^{j} \omega_j(x) \chi_{\{ 2^j \omega_j > (1/2) \sum_{k < j,\, k \equiv j (\textrm{mod} R)} 2^k \omega_k \}}(x).
$$
Finally, we have
$$
\|\nabla_b h_j\|_{L^{\infty}} + \|\nabla_b U_j\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q-1)} 2^j \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.
$$
(The estimate on $\nabla_b U_j$ follows from the above discussion and Proposition~\ref{prop:omegauniform}, while the estimate on $\nabla_b h_j$ is similar.)
So altogether, for $k = 2, \dots, n_1$, we have
\begin{align*}
|X_k(h-\tilde{h})(x)| \leq & C 2^{-\sigma} \mathfrak{S}(x) + C_N 2^{\sigma(Q-1)} \mathfrak{S}(x) \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q},
\end{align*}
where
$$\mathfrak{S}(x):=\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} 2^j \omega_j(x) \chi_{\{ 2^j \omega_j > (1/2) \sum_{k < j,\, k \equiv j (\textrm{mod} R)} 2^k \omega_k \}}(x).$$
Similarly,
$$
|X_1(h-\tilde{h})(x)| \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q-1)} \mathfrak{S}(x).
$$
To proceed further, we estimate the $L^Q$ norm of the sum $\mathfrak{S}(x)$; this sum can be rewritten as
$$\sum_{c = 0}^{R-1} \sum_{j \equiv c (\textrm{mod} R)} 2^j \omega_j(x) \chi_{\{ 2^j \omega_j > (1/2) \sum_{k < j,\, k \equiv c (\textrm{mod} R)} 2^k \omega_k \}}(x).$$
For each fixed $c$, we have
\begin{align}\label{ineqn:max}
\left| \sum_{j \equiv c (\textrm{mod} R)} 2^j \omega_j \chi_{\{ 2^j \omega_j > (1/2) \sum_{k < j,\, k \equiv c (\textrm{mod} R)} 2^k \omega_k \}} \right |
\leq 3 \sup_j (2^j \omega_j).
\end{align}
This is true because for a fixed $x$, for any $N>0$, one can pick the biggest integer $j_0\leq N,\, j_0 \equiv c (\textrm{mod} R)$ such that $2^{j_0} \omega_{j_0} > (1/2) \sum_{k < j_0,\, k \equiv c (\textrm{mod} R)} 2^k \omega_k$. Then
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{j\leq N,\, j \equiv c (\textrm{mod} R)}2^{j}\omega_{j}\chi_{\{ 2^j \omega_j > (1/2) \sum_{k < j,\, k \equiv c (\textrm{mod} R)} 2^k \omega_k \}} \\
=&\sum_{j\leq j_0,\, j \equiv c (\textrm{mod} R)}2^{j}\omega_{j}\chi_{\{ 2^j \omega_j > (1/2) \sum_{k < j,\, k \equiv c (\textrm{mod} R)} 2^k \omega_k \}}\\
\leq &2^{j_0}\omega_{j_0}+ \sum_{j< j_0,\, j \equiv c (\textrm{mod} R)}2^{j}\omega_{j}\\
\leq &3\cdot 2^{j_0}\omega_{j_0}\\
\leq &3 \sup_j (2^j \omega_j).
\end{align*}
Letting $N\rightarrow +\infty$ we get the inequality (\ref{ineqn:max}). Hence
$$\mathfrak{S}(x) \leq 3R \sup_j (2^j \omega_j)(x),$$
and from Proposition~\ref{prop:maxomega} we conclude that
$$\|\mathfrak{S}\|_{L^Q} \leq CR 2^{\sigma(Q-1)/Q} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.$$
Putting these altogether, for $k = 2, \dots, n_1$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ineqn:Dh}
\begin{split}
\|X_k(h-\tilde{h})\|_{L^Q}
\leq & C_N 2^{-\sigma/Q} R \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} + C_N 2^{\sigma Q} R \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}^2,\end{split}
\end{equation}
and this proves (\ref{eq:h2}).
Using the pointwise bound of $X_1(h-\tilde{h})$, and applying the same method as in (\ref{ineqn:Dh}), one can prove
$$
\|X_1 (h-\tilde{h})\|_{L^Q} \leq C_N 2^{\sigma Q} R \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q},
$$
completing our proof of (\ref{eq:h3}).
\section{Estimating $g-\tilde{g}$} \label{sect:g0}
In this section we estimate $g-\tilde{g}$. Again we recall our construction: we have $g = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} g_j$, where
$$
g_j (x) = \zeta_j(x) S_{j+N}(\Delta_j f)(x) ,
$$
and
$$
\tilde{g} = \sum_{c=0}^{R-1} \sum_{j \equiv c (\text{mod } R)} g_j \prod_{j' > j \atop j' \equiv c (\text{mod }R)} (1-G_{j'})
$$
where
$$
G_j = \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\text{mod } R)} 2^{-t} \tilde{\omega}_{j-t}.
$$
Now by Proposition \ref{prop:omegapointwise},
$$
C^{-1} |g_j| \leq \omega_j \zeta_j.
$$
But then
$$
C^{-1} \omega_j \zeta_j \leq G_j \leq 1.
$$
In fact, on the support of $\zeta_j$,
$$
\omega_j \leq \sum_{k < j \atop k \equiv j (\text{mod } R)} 2^{k-j} \omega_k = \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\text{mod } R)} 2^{-t} \omega_{j-t} \leq C G_j,
$$
and the first inequality follows. The last inequality comes from Proposition~\ref{prop:omegauniform}. Thus
$$
C^{-1} |g_j| \leq G_j \leq 1,
$$
and from Proposition~\ref{prop:algest}, we have $|\tilde{g}| \leq CR$. This proves (\ref{eq:g1}).
Next
\begin{align*}
g-\tilde{g}
&= \sum_{c=0}^{R-1} \sum_{j \equiv c (\text{mod } R)} g_j \left(1 - \prod_{j' > j \atop j' \equiv c (\text{mod } R)} (1-G_{j'}) \right) \\
&= \sum_{c=0}^{R-1} \sum_{j \equiv c (\text{mod } R)} G_j H_j \\
&= \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} G_j H_j
\end{align*}
where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Hjdef}
H_j := \sum_{j' < j \atop j' \equiv j (\text{mod } R)} g_{j'} \prod_{j' < j'' < j \atop j'' \equiv j (\text{mod } R)} (1 - G_{j''}).
\end{equation}
By Proposition~\ref{prop:algest}, an immediate estimate of $H_j$ is
$$|H_j|\leq \sum_{j'<j}|g_{j'}|\prod_{j'<j''<j}(1-G_{j''})\leq C\sum_{j'<j}G_{j'}\prod_{j'<j''<j}(1-G_{j''})\leq C.$$
We now collect below some estimates for $\nabla_b g_j$, $\nabla_b G_j$ and $\nabla_b H_j$. To begin with, we have
\begin{prop} \label{prop:tomegamaximal}
$$\tilde{\omega}_j \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} MM(\Delta_j f)$$
where $M$ is the maximal function defined before Proposition \ref{prop:max}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
$$E(x) \leq C (1+\|x_{\sigma}\|)^{-(Q+1)} \leq C 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} (1+ \|x\|)^{-(Q+1)}$$ and the latter is an integrable radially decreasing function. Thus $$\tilde{\omega}_j = 2^{NQ} E_j(S_{j+N}|\Delta_j f|) \leq C 2^{NQ} 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} MM(\Delta_j f).$$
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:DGj}
$$|\nabla_b G_j| \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} 2^{j-t} MM(\Delta_{j-t}f).$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
One differentiates the definition of $G_j$ and estimates the derivatives of $\tilde{\omega}_j$ using Proposition~\ref{prop:tomegamaximal} and~\ref{prop:Dtomegaj}.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:Dgj}
$$|\nabla_b g_j| \leq C_N 2^j M(\Delta_j f).$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
One differentiates $g_j(x) = \zeta_j(x) S_{j+N}(\Delta_jf)(x)$, letting the derivative hit either $\zeta_j$ or $S_{j+N}$, and estimates the rest by the maximal function. The worst term is when the derivative hits $S_{j+N}$, which gives a factor of $2^{j+N}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:DHj}
$$
|\nabla_b H_j| \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{j-t} MM(\Delta_{j-t} f).
$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Following the derivation of (\ref{eq:derivrule}) from (\ref{eq:Hconstr}) in Section~\ref{sect:alg}, and using the definition of $H_j$ in (\ref{eq:Hjdef}), we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:derivruleH}
\nabla_b H_j = \sum_{j' < j \atop j' \equiv j (\textrm{mod } R)} \left(\nabla_b g_{j'}- (\nabla_b G_{j'}) H_{j'} \right) \prod_{j' < j'' < j \atop j' \equiv j (\textrm{mod } R)} (1 - G_{j''}),
\end{equation}
so
\begin{align*}
|\nabla_b H_j| \leq C \sum_{j' < j \atop j' \equiv j (\textrm{mod } R)} (|\nabla_b g_{j'}| + |\nabla_b G_{j'}|).
\end{align*}
This, with Proposition \ref{prop:DGj} and \ref{prop:Dgj}, leads to
$$C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} \sum_{l > 0 \atop l \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} \sum_{t \geq 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} 2^{j-l-t} MM(\Delta_{j-l-t}f).$$ Rearranging gives the desired bound.
\end{proof}
The proofs of the next two estimates are the same as those in Proposition \ref{prop:Dgj} and \ref{prop:DGj}, except that one differentiates once more.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:D2gj}
$$|\nabla_b^2 g_j| \leq C_N 2^{2j} M(\Delta_j f).$$
\end{prop}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:D2Gj}
$$|\nabla_b^2 G_j| \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} 2^{2(j-t)} MM(\Delta_{j-t} f).$$
\end{prop}
Finally we estimate second derivatives of $H_j$:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:D2Hj}
$$|\nabla_b^2 H_j| \leq C_N 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{2(j-t)} MM(\Delta_{j-t} f).$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Differentiating (\ref{eq:derivruleH}) once more, again using the way we derived (\ref{eq:derivrule}) from (\ref{eq:Hconstr}), we get
\begin{align*}
\nabla_b^2 H_j
= \sum_{j' < j \atop j' \equiv j (\textrm{mod } R)} \left( \nabla_b [\nabla_b g_{j'}- (\nabla_b G_{j'}) H_{j'}] - (\nabla_b G_{j'})(\nabla_b H_{j'}) \right) \prod_{j' < j'' < j \atop j' \equiv j (\textrm{mod } R)} (1 - G_{j''}).
\end{align*}
Thus $|G_j|\leq 1, |H_j| \leq C$ imply that
\begin{align*}
|\nabla_b^2 H_j|
\leq & C \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} |\nabla_b^2 g_{j-t}| + |\nabla_b^2 G_{j-t}| + |\nabla_b G_{j-t}| |\nabla_b H_{j-t}|.
\end{align*}
The first two terms can be estimated using Proposition \ref{prop:D2gj} and \ref{prop:D2Gj}. For the last term, Proposition \ref{prop:DGj} and \ref{prop:DHj} give
$$
|\nabla_b G_j| |\nabla_b H_j| \leq C_N 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} \sum_{l > 0 \atop l \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} 2^{2j-t-l} (MM\Delta_{j-t} f)(MM \Delta_{j-l}f).
$$
Now we split the sum into two parts: one where $t > l$, and the other where $l \geq t$, and use $\|\Delta_j f\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} \leq 1$. In the first sum, we estimate $MM\Delta_{j-t}f$ by a constant; this is possible because $MM \Delta_{j-t} f$ is bounded by $\|\Delta_{j-t} f\|_{L^{\infty}}$, which is bounded by a constant by Bernstein inequality (Proposition~\ref{prop:Bern}) and our assumption (\ref{eq:smallassump}). We then sum $t$ to get a bound
$$ C\sum_{l > 0 \atop l \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-l} 2^{2(j-l)} MM \Delta_{j-l}f. $$
In the second sum, we estimate $MM\Delta_{j-l}f$ by a constant instead, and sum $l$ to get a bound
$$ C\sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} 2^{2(j-t)} MM \Delta_{j-t}f. $$
These two bounds are identical. So
$$
\sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} |\nabla_b G_{j-t}| |\nabla_b H_{j-t}|
\leq C_N 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} \sum_{l > 0 \atop l \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-l} 2^{2(j-t-l)} MM \Delta_{j-t-l}f.
$$
Rearranging we get the desired bound.
\end{proof}
Now we will estimate $$\left\| \sum_{s = -\infty}^{\infty} \nabla_b (G_s H_s) \right\|_{L^Q}.$$ We use the Littlewood-Paley projections $\Lambda_j^{(l)}$'s: this is then bounded by
\begin{align}
&\left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} \left( \sum_{s = -\infty}^{\infty} | \Lambda_j \nabla_b (G_s H_s) | \right)^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q} \notag \\
=&
\left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} \left( \sum_{s = -\infty}^{\infty} | \Lambda_j \nabla_b (G_{j-s} H_{j-s}) | \right)^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q} \notag \\
\leq &
\sum_{s = -\infty}^{\infty} \left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} | \Lambda_j \nabla_b (G_{j-s} H_{j-s}) |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q} \notag \\
=& \sum_{s = -\infty}^{\infty} \left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} | \Lambda_{j+s} \nabla_b (G_j H_j) |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q}. \label{eq:Gjtobeest}
\end{align}
We split the sum into two parts: $\sum_{s \leq R}$ and $\sum_{s > R}$. We shall pick up a convergence factor $2^{-|s|}$ or $|s|2^{-|s|}$ for each term so that we can sum in $s$.
To estimate the first sum, we fix $s \leq R$. Then for each $j \in \mathbb{Z}$, we split $G_j$ into a sum
$$G_j = G_j^{(1)} + G_j^{(2)},$$
where $$G_j^{(1)} = \sum_{0 < t < |s| \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} \tilde{\omega}_{j-t},$$
and $$G_j^{(2)} = \sum_{t \geq \max\{|s|,R\} \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} \tilde{\omega}_{j-t}.$$
Note that the splitting of $G_j$ depends on $s$; in particular, if $-R \leq s \leq R$, then $G_j^{(1)} = 0$ and $G_j^{(2)} = G_j$.
Now we estimate
$$
\left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} | \Lambda_{j+s} \nabla_b (G_j^{(1)} H_j) |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q}.
$$
We have
\begin{align*}
\Lambda_{j+s} (\nabla_b (G_j^{(1)} H_j))
&= (\nabla_b (G_j^{(1)} H_j))*\Lambda_{j+s} \\
&= 2^{j+s} (G_j^{(1)}H_j) * (\nabla_b^R \Lambda)_{j+s}
\end{align*}
by the compatibility of convolution with the left- and right-invariant derivatives. Hence from $|H_j| \leq C$, and
$$|G_j^{(1)}| \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} \sum_{0 < t < |s| \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} MM(\Delta_{j-t}f)$$
which follows from Proposition \ref{prop:tomegamaximal}, we have
$$
|\Lambda_{j+s} (\nabla_b (G_j^{(1)} H_j))| \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} 2^s \sum_{0 < t < |s| \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{j-t} MMM(\Delta_{j-t}f).
$$
Taking square function in $j$ and then the $L^Q$ norm in space, we obtain that, when $s < -R$,
\begin{align}
\left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} | \Lambda_{j+s} \nabla_b (G_j^{(1)} H_j) |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q}
& \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} \frac{|s|}{R} 2^s \left\| \left(\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} (2^j |\Delta_j f|)^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q} \notag \\
&\leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} \frac{|s|}{R} 2^s \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q} \label{eq:Gj1est}.
\end{align}
Here the last inequality follows from Proposition \ref{prop:derivLP}.
The same norm on the left hand side above is of course zero when $-R \leq s \leq R$.
Next, we estimate
$$
\left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} | \Lambda_{j+s} \nabla_b (G_j^{(2)} H_j) |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q} \leq C \left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} |\nabla_b (G_j^{(2)} H_j) |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q}.
$$
Now by $|H_j|\leq C$,
$$
|\nabla_b(G_j^{(2)} H_j)| \leq C \left(|\nabla_b G_j^{(2)}| + |G_j^{(2)}| |\nabla_b H_j|\right).
$$
We know
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Gj2bd}
|G_j^{(2)}| \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} \sum_{t \geq \max\{|s|,R\} \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} MM(\Delta_{j-t}f)
\end{equation}
by Proposition~\ref{prop:tomegamaximal}, and $|\nabla_b G_j^{(2)}|$ is bounded by $C \sum_{t \geq \max\{|s|,R\} \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} 2^{j-t} \tilde{\omega}_{j-t}$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:DGj}. Therefore by Proposition~\ref{prop:tomegamaximal} again, we have
$$
|\nabla_b G_j^{(2)}| \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} \sum_{t \geq \max\{|s|,R\} \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} 2^{j-t} MM(\Delta_{j-t}f).
$$
Hence
\begin{align*}
\left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} |\nabla_b G_j^{(2)} |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q}
\leq & C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} \sum_{t \geq \max\{|s|,R\} \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} \left\|\left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} |2^j \Delta_j f |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q} \\
\leq & C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} 2^{-\max\{|s|,R\}} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, by (\ref{eq:Gj2bd}) and Proposition \ref{prop:DHj}, one can estimate
$$
|G_j^{(2)}| |\nabla_b H_j| \leq C_N 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} \sum_{t \geq \max\{|s|,R\} \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} \sum_{m > 0 \atop m \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{j-t-m} MM(\Delta_{j-t}f) MM(\Delta_{j-m}f).
$$
We split this sum into the sum over three regions of $t$ and $m$: the first one being where $t \geq \max\{|s|,R\}$ and $m > t$;
the second one being where $t \geq \max\{|s|,R\}$ and $t \geq m\geq \max\{|s|,R\}$, which is equivalent to say
$m \geq \max\{|s|,R\}$ and $t \geq m$;
and the last one being where $0 < |m| < \max \{|s| , R\}$ and $t \geq \max\{|s|,R\}$. The first two sums are basically the same; each can be bounded by
$$\sum_{m \geq \max\{|s|, R\} \atop m \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R) } 2^{j-m} MM(\Delta_{j-m}f) \sum_{t \geq m} 2^{-t} MM(\Delta_{j-t}f),$$
which is bounded by
$$ \sum_{m \geq \max\{|s|, R\} \atop m \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R) } 2^{-m} 2^{j-m} MM(\Delta_{j-m}f)$$
since we can bound $MM\Delta_{j-t} f$ by a constant (c.f proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:D2Hj}) and take sum in $t$. The last sum is bounded by
$$C 2^{-\max\{|s|,R\}} \sum_{0 < m < \max\{|s|,R\} \atop m \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R) } 2^{j-m} MM (\Delta_{j-m}f)$$
for the same reason.
Thus
\begin{align*}
|G_j^{(2)}| |\nabla_b H_j|
&\leq C_N 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} \left(2 \sum_{m\geq \max\{|s|, R\} \atop m \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R) }2^{-m} 2^{j-m} MM(\Delta_{j-m}f) \right.\\
&\qquad \qquad + \left. 2^{-\max\{|s|,R\}} \sum_{0 < m < \max\{|s|,R\} \atop m \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{j-m} MM (\Delta_{j-m}f) \right).\\
\end{align*}
Taking $l^2$ norm in $j$ and then $L^Q$ norm in space, we get
\begin{align*}
\left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} |G_j^{(2)} (\nabla_b H_j) |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q}
\leq & C_N 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} \max\{|s|,R\} 2^{-\max\{|s|,R\}} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q},
\end{align*}
It follows that
\begin{align}
\left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} | \Lambda_{j+s} \nabla_b (G_j^{(2)} H_j) |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q}
\leq & C_N 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} \max\{|s|,R\} 2^{-\max\{|s|,R\}} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}. \label{eq:Gj2est}
\end{align}
Summing (\ref{eq:Gj1est}) and (\ref{eq:Gj2est}) over $s \leq R$, we get a bound
$$
C_N 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} R^2 2^{-R} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}
$$
for the first half of the sum in (\ref{eq:Gjtobeest}).
Next we look at the second half of the sum in (\ref{eq:Gjtobeest}), that corresponds to the sum over all $s > R$. First,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Gjslarge}
|\Lambda_{j+s} \nabla_b (G_j H_j)| \leq |\Lambda_{j+s} ((\nabla_b G_j) H_j)| + |\Lambda_{j+s} (G_j (\nabla_b H_j))|.
\end{equation}
The first term can be written as
\begin{align*}
&\int_G ((\nabla_b G_j)(x \cdot y^{-1}) - (\nabla_b G_j)(x)) H_j(x \cdot y^{-1}) \Lambda_{j+s}(y) dy + (\nabla_b G_j)(x) (\Lambda_{j+s} H_j)(x) \\
=& \, I + II.
\end{align*}
The second term in (\ref{eq:Gjslarge}) can be written as
\begin{align*}
&\int_G (G_j(x \cdot y^{-1}) - G_j(x)) (\nabla_b H_j) (x \cdot y^{-1}) \Lambda_{j+s}(y) dy + G_j(x) \Lambda_{j+s} (\nabla_b H_j)(x) \\
=& \, III + IV.
\end{align*}
We estimate $I$, $II$, $III$, $IV$ separately.
First, in $I$, we bound $|H_j| \leq C$, and write
\begin{align*}
&(\nabla_b G_j)(x \cdot y^{-1}) - (\nabla_b G_j)(x) \\
=& 2^{NQ} \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} 2^{j-t} \int_G S_{j+N-t}|\Delta_{j-t} f|(x \cdot z^{-1}) \left((\nabla_b E)_{j-t}(z \cdot y^{-1})-(\nabla_b E)_{j-t}(z)\right) dz.
\end{align*}
We put this back in $I$, and thus need to bound
\begin{equation} \label{eq:nablaEintIII}
\int_G \left|(\nabla_b E)_{j-t}(z \cdot y^{-1})-(\nabla_b E)_{j-t}(z)\right| |\Lambda_{j+s}(y)| dy.
\end{equation}
But
$$|\nabla_b^2 E(x)| \leq C E(x) \leq \frac{C}{(1+2^{-\sigma}\|x\|)^K} \leq C 2^{\sigma K} \frac{1}{(1+\|x\|)^K}$$ for all positive integers $K$.
We will use this estimate with $K = 2(Q+1)$, and apply the remark after Proposition \ref{prop:fg}; the integral (\ref{eq:nablaEintIII}) is then bounded by
\begin{align*}
& C 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} 2^{-s-t} 2^{(j-t)Q} (1+2^{j-t}\|z\|)^{-(Q+1)}.
\end{align*}
Hence
$$
|I| \leq C_N 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} 2^{-s} \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-2t} 2^{j-t} MM(\Delta_{j-t} f)(x).
$$
Taking square function in $j$ and $L^Q$ norm in space, we get a bound
$$
C_N 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} 2^{-s} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.
$$
For $II$, recall the pointwise bound for $\nabla_b G_j$ from Proposition~\ref{prop:DGj}:
$$
|\nabla_b G_j| \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0(\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} 2^{j-t} MM(\Delta_{j-t}f).
$$
To estimate $\Lambda_{j+s} H_j$, we use part (\ref{prop:leftrighta}) of Proposition \ref{prop:leftright}, and write (schematically) $\Lambda$ as $\nabla_b^R \cdot \Phi$ where $\Phi$ is a ($2n$ tuple of) Schwartz function, and integrate by parts. Then
$$
|\Lambda_{j+s} H_j| = 2^{-j-s} |(\nabla_b H_j)*\Phi_{j+s}| \leq 2^{-j-s} \|\nabla_b H_j\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} 2^{-s},
$$
since $\|\nabla_b H_j\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} 2^j$. Hence
$$
|II| \leq C_N 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} 2^{-s} \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} 2^{j-t} MM(\Delta_{j-t}f).
$$
Taking square function in $j$ and $L^Q$ norm in space, we get a contribution
$$
C_N 2^{2\sigma(Q+1)} 2^{-s} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.
$$
Now to bound $III$, we follow our strategy as in $I$. First we bound $|\nabla_b H_j| \leq C_N 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} 2^j$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:DHj}, and write
\begin{align*}
& G_j(x \cdot y^{-1}) - G_j(x) \\
=& 2^{NQ} \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} \int_G S_{j+N-t} |\Delta_{j-t} f|(x \cdot z^{-1}) (E_{j-t}(z \cdot y^{-1}) - E_{j-t}(z)) dz.
\end{align*}
We put this back in $III$, and thus need to bound
\begin{equation} \label{eq:nablaEint}
\int_G \left|E_{j-t}(z \cdot y^{-1})-E_{j-t}(z)\right| |\Lambda_{j+s}(y)| dy.
\end{equation}
But
$$|\nabla_b E(x)| \leq C E(x) \leq \frac{C}{(1+2^{-\sigma}\|x\|)^K} \leq C 2^{\sigma K} \frac{1}{(1+\|x\|)^K}$$ for all postive integers $K$. We will take $K = 2(Q+1)$, and apply the remark after Proposition \ref{prop:fg}; the integral (\ref{eq:nablaEint}) is then bounded by
\begin{align*}
& C 2^{\sigma(Q+1)} 2^{-s-t} 2^{(j-t)Q} (1+2^{j-t}\|z\|)^{-(Q+1)}.
\end{align*}
Hence
$$
|III| \leq C_N 2^{2\sigma (Q+1)} 2^{-s} \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} 2^{j-t} MM(\Delta_{j-t} f)(x).
$$
Taking square function in $j$ and $L^Q$ norm in space, we get a bound
$$
C_N 2^{2\sigma (Q+1)} 2^{-s} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.
$$
Finally, to estimate $IV$, we recall that $|G_j| \leq 1$, as was shown at the beginning of this section. Furthermore,
\begin{align*}
|(\Lambda_{j+s} (\nabla_b H_j))(x)| \leq & |(\nabla_b H_j) * (\nabla_b^R \Phi)_{j+s}(x)| \\
= & 2^{-j-s} | (\nabla_b^2 H_j) * \Phi_{j+s} (x)| \\
\leq & 2^{-j-s} M(\nabla_b^2 H_j)(x). \\
\end{align*}
By Proposition \ref{prop:D2Hj}, this is bounded by
\begin{align*}
& C_N 2^{2\sigma (Q+1)} 2^{-s} \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} 2^{j-t} MMM(\Delta_{j-t} f)(x).
\end{align*}
Hence
$$
|IV| \leq C_N 2^{2\sigma (Q+1)} 2^{-s} \sum_{t > 0 \atop t \equiv 0 (\textrm{mod } R)} 2^{-t} 2^{j-t} MMM(\Delta_{j-t} f)(x).
$$
Taking square function in $j$ and then $L^Q$ norm in space, this is bounded by
$$
C_N 2^{2\sigma (Q+1)} 2^{-s} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.
$$
Hence
$$
\sum_{s > R} \left\| \left( \sum_{j = -\infty}^{\infty} | \Lambda_{j+s} \nabla_b (G_j H_j) |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right\|_{L^Q}
\leq C_N 2^{2\sigma (Q+1)} 2^{-R} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.
$$
Altogether, (\ref{eq:Gjtobeest}) is bounded by
\begin{align*}
& C_N 2^{2\sigma (Q+1)} R^2 2^{-R} \|\nabla_b f\|_{L^Q}.
\end{align*}
This proves our claim (\ref{eq:g2}), and marks the end of the proof of our approximation Lemma~\ref{lem:approxsub}.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:soldbarbstrong} and \ref{thm:subGNstrong}} \label{sect:thms}
In this section we prove Theorem \ref{thm:soldbarbstrong} and \ref{thm:subGNstrong}. We first recall the $\overline{\partial}_b$ complex on the Heisenberg group $\mathbb{H}^n$.
First, $\mathbb{H}^n$ is a simply connected Lie group diffeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$. We write $[x,y,t]$ for a point on $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$, where $x, y \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $t \in \mathbb{R}$. The group law on the Heisenberg group is then given by $$[x,y,t] \cdot [u,v,w] = [x+u, y+v, t+w+2(yu - xv)],$$ where $yu$ is the dot product of $y$ and $u$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. The left-invariant vector fields of order 1 on $\mathbb{H}^n$ are then linear combinations of the vector fields $X_1, \dots, X_{2n}$, where
$$X_k = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_k} + 2 y_k \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \quad \text{and} \quad X_{k+n} = \frac{\partial}{\partial y_k} - 2 x_k \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \quad \text{for $k=1,\dots,n$}.$$ Thus in this case, $n_1$ is equal to $2n$, and $$\nabla_b f = (X_1 f, \dots, X_{2n} f).$$ The one-parameter family of automorphic dilations on $\mathbb{H}^n$ is given by $$\lambda \cdot [x,y,t] = [\lambda x, \lambda y, \lambda^2 t] \quad \text{for all $\lambda > 0$}.$$ The homogeneous dimension in this case is $Q = 2n+2$.
Now let $$Z_k = \frac{1}{2} (X_k - i X_{k+n}) \quad \text{and} \quad \overline{Z}_k = \frac{1}{2} (X_k + i X_{k+n}), \quad k = 1, \dots, n.$$ For $0 \leq q \leq n$, the $(0,q)$ forms on the Heisenberg group $\mathbb{H}^n$ are expressions of the form $$\sum_{|\alpha| = q} u_{\alpha} d\overline{z}^{\alpha},$$ where the sum is over all strictly increasing multi-indices $\alpha = (\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_q)$ of length $q$ with letters in $\{1, \dots, n\}$; in other words, each $\alpha_k \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, and $\alpha_1 < \alpha_2 < \dots < \alpha_q$. $d\overline{z}^{\alpha}$ here is a shorthand for $d\overline{z}_{\alpha_1} \wedge \dots \wedge d\overline{z}_{\alpha_q}$, and each $u_{\alpha}$ is a smooth function on $\mathbb{H}^n$. The $\overline{\partial}_b$ complex is then defined by
$$
\overline{\partial}_b u = \sum_{k=1}^{2n} \sum_{|\alpha| = q} \overline{Z}_k (u_{\alpha}) d\overline{z}_k \wedge d\overline{z}^{\alpha} , \quad \text{if $\sum_{|\alpha| = q} u_{\alpha} d\overline{z}^{\alpha}$}.
$$
By making the above $d\overline{z}^{\alpha}$ an orthonormal basis for $(0,q)$ forms at every point, one then has a Hermitian inner product on $(0,q)$ forms at every point on $\mathbb{H}^n$, with which one can define an inner product on the space of $(0,q)$ forms on $\mathbb{H}^n$ that has $L^2$ coefficients. One can then consider the adjoint of $\overline{\partial}_b$ with respect to this inner product, namely
$$
\overline{\partial}_b^*u = \sum_{|\alpha| = q} \sum_{k \in \alpha} -Z_k(u_{\alpha}) d\overline{z}_k \mathrel{\lrcorner} d\overline{z}^{\alpha};
$$
here the interior product $\mathrel{\lrcorner}$ is just the usual one on $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:soldbarbstrong}]
The key idea is that when one computes $\overline{\partial}_b^*$ of a $(0,q+1)$ form on $\mathbb{H}^n$, only $2(q+1)$ of the $2n$ real left-invariant derivatives of order 1 are involved. So if $q + 1 < n$, then for each component of the $q$ form, there will be some real left-invariant derivatives of degree 1 that are irrelevant in computing $\overline{\partial}_b^*$, and we can give up estimates in those directions when we apply Lemma \ref{lem:approxsub}.
We will use the bounded inverse theorem and an argument closely related to the usual proof of the open mapping theorem.
Let $\dot{NL}^{1,Q} (\Lambda^{(0,q+1)})$ be the space of $(0,q+1)$ forms on $\mathbb{H}^n$ with $\dot{NL}^{1,Q}$ coefficients, and similarly define $L^Q (\Lambda^{(0,q)})$. Consider the map $\overline{\partial}_b^* \colon \dot{NL}^{1,Q} (\Lambda^{(0,q+1)}) \to L^Q (\Lambda^{(0,q)})$.
It is bounded and has closed range. Hence it induces a bounded linear bijection between the Banach spaces
$\dot{NL}^{1,Q} (\Lambda^{(0,q+1)}) / \text{ker($\overline{\partial}_b^*$)}$ and $\text{Image($\overline{\partial}_b^*$)}
\subseteq L^Q (\Lambda^{(0,q)})$.
By the bounded inverse theorem, this map has a bounded inverse; hence for any $(0,q)$ form $f \in \text{Image($\overline{\partial}_b^*$)} \subseteq L^Q (\Lambda^{(0,q)})$, there exists $\alpha^{(0)} \in \dot{NL}^{1,Q} (\Lambda^{(0,q+1)}) $ such that
$$
\begin{cases}
\overline{\partial}_b^*\alpha^{(0)} = f\\
\|\nabla_b \alpha^{(0)}\|_{L^Q} \leq C \|f\|_{L^Q}.
\end{cases}
$$
Now for $q < n-1$, if $I$ is a multi-index of length $q+1$, then one can pick $i \notin I$ and approximate $\alpha^{(0)}_I$
by Lemma \ref{lem:approxsub} in all but the $X_i$ direction; more precisely, for any $\delta > 0$,
there exists $\beta^{(0)}_I \in \dot{NL}^{1,Q} \cap L^{\infty}$ such that
$$
\sum_{j \ne i} \left\| X_j \left(\alpha^{(0)}_I - \beta^{(0)}_I\right) \right\|_{L^Q}
\leq \delta \left\|\nabla_b \alpha^{(0)}_I\right\|_{L^Q} \leq C \delta \left\|f \right\|_{L^Q}
$$
and
$$
\left\| \beta^{(0)}_I \right\|_{L^{\infty}} + \left\| \nabla_b \beta^{(0)}_I \right\|_{L^Q}
\leq A_{\delta} \left\| \nabla_b \alpha^{(0)}_I \right\|_{L^Q} \leq C A_{\delta} \left\|f\right\|_{L^Q}.
$$
Then if $\delta$ is picked so that $C \delta \leq \frac{1}{2}$, we have
$\beta^{(0)} := \sum_I \beta^{(0)}_I d\overline{z}^I \in \dot{NL}^{1,Q} \cap L^{\infty} (\Lambda^{0,q+1})$ satisfying
$$
\begin{cases}
\|f - \overline{\partial}_b^* \beta^{(0)}\|_{L^Q} \leq \frac{1}{2} \|f \|_{L^Q} \\
\|\beta^{(0)}\|_{L^{\infty}} + \|\nabla_b \beta^{(0)}\|_{L^n} \leq A \|f\|_{L^Q}
\end{cases}
$$
(the first equation holds because $\|f-\overline{\partial}_b^*\beta^{(0)}\|_{L^Q} = \|\overline{\partial}_b^*(\alpha^{(0)} - \beta^{(0)})\|_{L^Q}$, and $A$ here is a fixed constant).
In other words, we have sacrificed the property $f = \overline{\partial}_b^*\alpha^{(0)}$ by replacing $\alpha^{(0)} \in \dot{NL}^{1,Q}$
with $\beta^{(0)}$, which in addition to being in $\dot{NL}^{1,Q}$ is in $L^{\infty}$. Now we repeat the process,
with $f-\overline{\partial}_b^*\beta^{(0)}$ in place of $f$, so that we obtain $\beta^{(1)}\in \dot{NL}^{1,Q} \cap L^{\infty} (\Lambda^{0,q+1})$ with
$$
\begin{cases}
\|f-\overline{\partial}_b^*\beta^{(0)}-\overline{\partial}_b^*\beta^{(1)}\|_{L^Q} \leq \frac{1}{2} \|f-\overline{\partial}_b^*\beta^{(0)}\|_{L^Q} \leq \frac{1}{2^2} \|f\|_{L^Q} \\
\|\beta^{(1)}\|_{L^{\infty}} + \|\nabla_b \beta^{(1)}\|_{L^Q} \leq A \|f-\overline{\partial}_b^*\beta^{(0)}\|_{L^Q} \leq \frac{A}{2} \|f\|_{L^Q}.
\end{cases}
$$
Iterating, we get $\beta^{(k)}\in \dot{NL}^{1,Q} \cap L^{\infty} (\Lambda^{0,q+1})$ such that
$$
\begin{cases}
\|\beta-\overline{\partial}_b^*(\beta^{(0)}+\dots+\beta^{(k)})\|_{L^Q} \leq \frac{1}{2^{k+1}} \|f\|_{L^Q} \\
\|\beta^{(k)}\|_{L^{\infty}} + \|\nabla_b \beta^{(k)}\|_{L^Q} \leq \frac{A}{2^k} \|f\|_{L^Q}.
\end{cases}
$$
Hence
$$
Y = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \beta^{(k)}
$$
satisfies $Y \in \dot{NL}^{1,Q} \cap L^{\infty} (\Lambda^{0,q+1})$ with
$$
\begin{cases}
\overline{\partial}_b^*Y = f \\
\|Y\|_{L^{\infty}} + \|\nabla_b Y\|_{L^Q} \leq 2A \|f\|_{L^Q}
\end{cases}
$$
as desired.
\end{proof}
We mention that by the duality between $(0,q)$ forms and $(0,n-q)$ forms, we have the following Corollary for solving $\overline{\partial}_b$ on $\mathbb{H}^n$:
\begin{cor} \label{cor:solvedbarb}
Suppose $q \ne 1$. Then for any $(0,q)$-form $f$ on $\mathbb{H}^n$ that has coefficients in $L^Q$ and that is the $\overline{\partial}_b$ of some other form on $\mathbb{H}^n$ with coefficients in $\dot{NL}^{1,Q}$, there exists a $(0,q-1)$-form $Y$ on $\mathbb{H}^n$ with coefficients in $L^{\infty} \cap \dot{NL}^{1,Q}$ such that $$\overline{\partial}_b Y = f$$ in the sense of distributions, with $\|Y\|_{L^{\infty}} + \|\nabla_b Y\|_{L^Q} \leq C \|f\|_{L^Q}.$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:subGNstrong}]
We use duality and the Hodge decomposition for $\overline{\partial}_b$. Suppose first $u$ is a $C^{\infty}_c$ $(0,q)$ form on $\mathbb{H}^n$ with $2 \leq q \leq n-2$. We test it against a $(0,q)$ form $\phi \in C^{\infty}_c$. Now $$\phi = \overline{\partial}_b^* \alpha + \overline{\partial}_b \beta$$ by Hodge decomposition for $\overline{\partial}_b$ on $\mathbb{H}^n$, where $$\|\nabla_b \alpha\|_{L^Q} + \|\nabla_b \beta\|_{L^Q} \leq C\|\phi\|_{L^Q}.$$ Apply Theorem~\ref{thm:soldbarbstrong} to $\overline{\partial}_b^* \alpha$ and Corollary~\ref{cor:solvedbarb} to $\overline{\partial}_b \beta$, we get $$\phi = \overline{\partial}_b^* \tilde{\alpha} + \overline{\partial}_b \tilde{\beta}$$ where $\tilde{\alpha}$ and $\tilde{\beta}$ have coefficients in $\dot{NL}^{1,Q} \cap L^{\infty}$, with bounds
$$
\|\nabla_b \tilde{\alpha}\|_{L^Q} + \|\tilde{\alpha}\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C \|\overline{\partial}_b^* \alpha\|_{L^Q} \leq C \|\phi\|_{L^Q},
$$
$$
\|\nabla_b \tilde{\beta}\|_{L^Q} + \|\tilde{\beta}\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C \|\overline{\partial}_b \beta\|_{L^Q} \leq C \|\phi\|_{L^Q}.
$$
Thus
\begin{align*}
(u,\phi) &= (u, \overline{\partial}_b^* \tilde{\alpha}) + (u, \overline{\partial}_b \tilde{\beta}) \\
&= (\overline{\partial}_b u, \tilde{\alpha}) + (\overline{\partial}_b^*u, \tilde{\beta}) \\
&\leq \|\overline{\partial}_b u\|_{L^1 + (\dot{NL}^{1,Q})^*} \|\tilde{\alpha}\|_{L^{\infty} \cap \dot{NL}^{1,Q}} + \|\overline{\partial}_b^* u\|_{L^1 + (\dot{NL}^{1,Q})^*} \|\tilde{\beta}\|_{L^{\infty} \cap \dot{NL}^{1,Q}} \\
&\leq C (\|\overline{\partial}_b u\|_{L^1 + (\dot{NL}^{1,Q})^*} + \|\overline{\partial}_b^* u\|_{L^1 + (\dot{NL}^{1,Q})^*}) \|\phi\|_{L^Q}.
\end{align*}
This proves the desired inequality (\ref{eq:GNdbarbq}).
The proof of (\ref{eq:GNdbarb0}) for functions $u$ orthogonal to the kernel of $\overline{\partial}_b$ is similar, which we omit.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\footnotesize
\noindent\textit{Acknowledgments.}
The authors would like to thank E. Stein for originally suggesting this problem, H. Brezis for his encouragement and interest in our work, and the referee who read the manuscript very carefully and gave us many helpful suggestions.
|
\section{Green-function based analysis}\label{sec_cohp}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=19cm]{Fig-visualize-NPD-combined-lt.eps}
\caption{
Bond visualization of sp$^2$-sp$^3$ nano-composite carbon solid (NCCS)
with 10$^5$ atoms by the COHP and $\pi$COHP analysis.
The bonds are visualized both for the sp$^2$ and sp$^3$ domains,
or both for $\sigma$ and $\pi$ bonds in (a),
while the bonds are visualized only for the sp$^2$ domain
or for $\pi$ bonds in (b).
A closeup of a sp$^2$-sp$^3$ domain boundary is shown in (c).
}
\label{FIG-NPD-COHP}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Now the discussion is turned into the second topic,
the post-calculation analysis with huge electronic structure data.
The present paper presents analysis methods based on the Green's function,
{\it i. e.}
crystalline orbital Hamiltonian population (COHP) method,
\cite{COHP-1993} and its theoretical extension called $\pi$COHP method.
The original COHP reveals the local bonding nature for each atom pair energetically
and its definition is
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{IJ}(\varepsilon) \equiv \frac{-1}{\pi} \sum_{\alpha, \beta}
H_{J \beta; I \alpha} {\rm Im} \, G_{I \alpha; J \beta}(\varepsilon + {\rm i} 0 ),
\label{EQ-COHP}
\end{eqnarray}
where the basis suffices, previously denoted by $i$ and $j$,
are decomposed into the atom suffices, $I$ or $J$,
and the orbital suffices, $\alpha$ or $\beta$
($i \equiv (I, \alpha), j \equiv (J, \beta)$).
The energy integration of COHP, called ICOHP, is also defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{IJ} \equiv \int f\left(\varepsilon - \mu \right) C_{IJ}(\varepsilon) d \varepsilon.
\label{EQ-ICOHP}
\end{eqnarray}
The sum of ICOHP gives
the electronic structure energy or the sum of the occupied eigen levels; \cite{COHP-1993}
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{\rm elec} \equiv \sum_k f(\varepsilon_k - \mu ) \, \varepsilon_k = \sum_{I,J} B_{IJ}.
\label{EQ-ICOHP-SUM}
\end{eqnarray}
A large negative value of $B_{IJ}$ indicates
the energy gain for the bond formation between the ($I,J$) atom pair.
In the original paper, \cite{COHP-1993}
the analysis is carried out for {\it ab initio} calculations
in the linear-muffin-tin-orbital formulation \cite{LMTO-1984}.
The method was applied not only to insulator
but also to metal, such as in Ref.~\cite{Y_ISHII-QC-COHP}.
The method is suitable for the present order-$N$ method,
since the present method is based on the Green's function.
\cite{TAKAYAMA-KRSD-COCG}
Here the $\pi$COHP is proposed as
a theoretical extension of the original COHP.
If the Hamiltonian contains the s- and p-type orbitals, for example,
the off-site Hamiltonian term is decomposed
into the $\sigma$ and $\pi$ components
($H_{J \beta; I \alpha} = H_{J \beta; I \alpha}^{(\sigma)} +
H_{J \beta; I \alpha}^{(\pi)})$.
The $\pi$COHP, $C_{IJ}^{(\pi)}$, will be defined in Eq.~(\ref{EQ-COHP}),
when $H_{J \beta; I \alpha}$ is replaced by $H_{J \beta; I \alpha}^{(\pi)}$.
The $\pi$ICOHP, $B_{IJ}^{(\pi)}$, will be defined in Eq.~(\ref{EQ-ICOHP}),
when $C_{IJ}$ is replaced by $C_{IJ}^{(\pi)}$.
The $\sigma$COHP, $C_{IJ}^{(\sigma)}$, and
the $\sigma$ICOHP, $B_{IJ}^{(\sigma)}$, are defined in the same manners.
From the definitions,
the (I)COHP is decomposed into the sum of the $\sigma$(I)COHP and $\pi$(I)COHP
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{IJ}(\varepsilon) &=& C_{IJ}^{(\sigma)}(\varepsilon) + C_{IJ}^{(\pi)}(\varepsilon)
\label{EQ-COHP-DECOMPOSE} \\
B_{IJ} &=& B_{IJ}^{(\sigma)} + B_{IJ}^{(\pi)}.
\label{EQ-ICOHP-DECOMPOSE}
\end{eqnarray}
Hereafter the original (I)COHP is called as \lq full' (I)COHP.
In the code,
the full, $\sigma$ and $\pi$(I)COHP can be calculated automatically,
without any additional data communication,
during the massively parallelized order-$N$ calculation.
One can distinguish the $\sigma$ and $\pi$ bonds,
energetically, by the $\sigma$(I)COHP and $\pi$(I)COHP.
A large negative value of $B_{IJ}^{(\sigma)}$ or $B_{IJ}^{(\pi)}$ indicates
the $\sigma$ or $\pi$ bond formation between the atom pair, respectively.
In Fig.~\ref{FIG-NPD-COHP},
the ($\pi$)COHP analysis is demonstrated
in an NCCS system with 10$^5$ atoms,
so as to distinguish the sp$^2$ and sp$^3$ domains,
because
one can distinguish the sp$^2$ domains
from the sp$^3$ domains
by the presence of $\pi$ bonds.
The system is a resultant structure
of the our previous finite-temperature MD simulation
with a periodic boundary condition.
\cite{HOSHI-2010-NPD}
The simulation is a preliminary research for the formation process of
the nano-polycrystalline diamond (NPD), a novel ultra-hard materials.
\cite{IRIFUNE-2003-NPD, GUILLOU-2007-NPD-GROWTH}
The NPD is produced directly from graphitic materials
and consists of 10-nm-scale diamond-structure domains
with a characteristic lamella-like structure.
Its growth process is of great interest and
possible precursor structures should be
a ten-nm-scale composite
between the sp$^2$ (graphite) and sp$^3$ (diamond) domains.
The present research is motivated from the above problem,
though the present structures, still,
have a gap in the length scale,
when it is compared with experiments,
as discussed later.
Figure \ref{FIG-NPD-COHP} (a) or (b) shows
the bond visualization
with the full ICOHP or the $\pi$ICOHP, respectively.
In Fig.~\ref{FIG-NPD-COHP}(a),
a bond is drawn for an $(I,J)$ atom pair,
when its ICOHP value satisfy the condition of
$B_{IJ} < B_{\rm th}$
with a given threshold value of $B_{\rm th} (<0)$.
We found a typical value of $B_{\rm th} = - 9$ eV.
The visualization with the full ICOHP indicates
the visualization both for sp$^2$ and sp$^3$ bonds.
In Fig.~\ref{FIG-NPD-COHP}(b), on the other hand,
a $\pi$ bond is drawn,
when its $\pi$ ICOHP value satisfy the condition of
$B_{IJ}^{(\pi)} < B_{\rm th}^{(\pi)}$
with a given threshold value of $B_{\rm th}^{(\pi)} (<0)$.
We found a typical value of $B_{\rm th}^{(\pi)} = - 1.5$ eV.
The visualization with the $\pi$ICOHP indicates
the visualization only for sp$^2$ bonds.
The bond visualization analysis in Figs.~\ref{FIG-NPD-COHP}(a) and (b)
concludes that the layered domains are sp$^2$ domains
and the non-layered domains are sp$^3$ domains.
Figure \ref{FIG-NPD-COHP}(c) shows
the visualization of a boundary region
between sp$^2$ and sp$^3$ domains.
Here one can confirms that a layered domain
form an sp$^2$ or graphite-like structure
and a non-layered domain form an sp$^3$ or diamond-like structure,
as expected from the ($\pi$)ICOHP analysis.
Several points are discussed for the ($\pi$)COHP analysis.
(I) The value of $| B_{\rm th}^{(\pi)} |$
is much smaller than that of $| B_{\rm th}|$,
because the $\pi$ bonding is
much weaker than the $\sigma$ bonding.
(II) The threshold values for the bond visualizations,
$B_{{\rm th}}$ and $B_{{\rm th}}^{(\pi)}$,
may not be universal among materials
but is independent on the system size.
One should choose a typical value once for a material
and can use the value among different system sizes.
(III) One should be careful, sometimes, in the interpretation of the analysis result,
because the $\pi$COHP analysis dose not detect an sp$^2$ bond
but detects a contribution of the $\pi$-bonding component, as explained above.
For example,
the initial structure for the simulation of Fig.~\ref{FIG-NPD-COHP}
contains defects among the sp$^3$ domains, \cite{HOSHI-2010-NPD}
as \lq seeds' of the sp$^2$-sp$^3$ domain boundary.
The resultant structure in Fig.~\ref{FIG-NPD-COHP} still has
several initial defects in the sp$^3$ domains
and $\pi$ bonds are often drawn in Fig.~\ref{FIG-NPD-COHP}(b)
at such local defective regions.
Such a $\pi$ bond does not mean an $sp^2$ bond.
(IV) The structure of Fig.~\ref{FIG-NPD-COHP}
has a gap in the length scale,
when it is compared with experiments.
The structure is a \lq 2D-like' one,
because the periodic cell length
in the perpendicular direction to the paper (2nm)
is much smaller than the other two cell lengths, 17 nm or more. \cite{HOSHI-2010-NPD}
The artificial \lq 2D-like' situation affect severely
the resultant atomic structure and
makes a difficulty for a direct comparison between the simulation and experiment.
A more realistic situation with the ten-nanometer simulation cell sizes
in the three directions
requires million-atom MD simulation,
ten times larger than that in the present result.
\cite{HOSHI-2010-NPD}
Such a larger MD simulation
may be a possible target in near future with the parallel computations.
(V) The bond visualization of
Figs.~\ref{FIG-NPD-COHP}(a)-(c)
was realized by our original visualization tool
'VisBAR'(=Visualization tool with Ball, Arrow and Rods).
The tool is based on Python (www.python.org) and
was developed for our needs
in the large-scale calculations,
like the ($\pi$)COHP analysis.
In summary,
(i) a high parallel efficiency was found in
ten-million-atom order-$N$ electronic structure calculations
on the K computer with approximately $10^5$ processor cores.
Important computational issues are addressed
for communication, memory size and file reading/writing.
(ii) The ($\pi$) COHP analysis method is presented
as a practical post-calculation analysis method
ideal for the huge distributed data of the Green's function.
The analysis is demonstrated in a sp$^2$-sp$^3$ nano-composite carbon solid,
so as to distinguish sp$^2$ and sp$^3$ domains.
The example shows a typical need of
large-scale electronic structure calculation
that requires
both large-scale calculation
and large-data analysis with huge distributed data.
The present research indicates
general aspects of computational physics,
beyond electronic structure calculation,
with current or next-generation supercomputers.
Numerical algorithm and computer scientific methods
will be inseparable from physics.
A physical discussion should be
constructed from physical quantities,
like the Green's function or the ($\pi$-)COHP,
that can be computed, analyzed and visualized
with massively parallel computer architectures.
All the methods discussed here,
ones for calculation,
parallel file reading/writing with split XML file,
memory saving workflow,
post-calculation data analysis, and visualization,
are designed to be suitable for the massively parallel computer architecture,
and some of them may be useful in other computational physics fields.
\begin{acknowledgment}
{\bf Acknowledgments}
The present research is partially supported by the Field 4
( Industrial Innovation )
of the HPCI Strategic Program of Japan.
A part of the results is obtained
by the K computer at the RIKEN Advanced Institute for Computational Science
(The early access and the proposal numbers of hp120170, hp120280).
This research is supported partially by Grant-in-Aid
for Scientific Research
(No. 23104509, 23540370)
from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan.
This research is supported also partially by Initiative on Promotion of Supercomputing for Young Researchers,
Supercomputing Division, Information Technology Center, The University of Tokyo.
The supercomputers were used also
at the Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo
and at the Research Center for
Computational Science, Okazaki.
\end{acknowledgment}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Let $S=\C[x_0,...,x_n]$ be the graded ring of polynomials in $x_0,,...,x_n$ with complex coefficients and denote by $S_r$ the vector space of homogeneous polynomials in $S$ of degree $r$.
For any polynomial $f \in S_d$ we define the {\it Jacobian ideal} $J_f \subset S$ as the ideal spanned by the partial derivatives $f_0,...,f_n$ of $f$ with respect to $x_0,...,x_n$. For $n=2$ we use $x,y,z$ instead of
$x_0,x_1,x_2$ and
$f_x,f_y,f_z$ instead of $f_0,f_1,f_2$.
We define the corresponding graded {\it Milnor} (or {\it Jacobian}) {\it algebra} by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1}
M(f)=S/J_f.
\end{equation}
The study of such Milnor algebras is related to the singularities of the corresponding projective hypersurface $D:f=0$, see \cite{CD}, as well as to the mixed Hodge theory of
the hypersurface $D$ and of its complement $U=\PP^n \setminus D$, see the foundational article by Griffiths \cite{Gr} and also \cite{DSW}, \cite{DSt2}, \cite{DSt3}, \cite{DS}.
\bigskip
We define the {\it singular locus scheme} of the hypersurface $D$ to be the subscheme $\Sigma_f$ of $\PP^n$ defined by the ideal $J_f$. If $p$ is an isolated singularity of the hypersurface $D$ with local equation $g=0$, then one has a natural isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{eqT}
\OO_{\Sigma_f,p}=T(g),
\end{equation}
the local Tjurina algebra of the analytic germ $g$, see Lemma \ref{Tj} below. In particular, $\dim \OO_{\Sigma_f,p}=\dim T(g) =\tau(g)$, the Tjurina number of the
isolated singularity $(D,p)$.
\bigskip
On the other hand, one knows that several homogeneous ideals in $S$ may define the same subscheme. The largest one defining $\Sigma_f$
is denoted by $\wJ _f$ and it is the saturated ideal associated to the Jacobian ideal $J_f$, see \cite{H}, p. 125, Exercises II.5.9 and II.5.10. From the definition, it is clear that the homogeneous components $\wJ _{f,k}$ and $J_{f,k}$ of $\wJ _f$ and $J_f$ respectively coincide for $k$ large enough.
In order to get explicit values for such $k$'s, we recall the following notions from \cite{DSt2}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def}
For a degree $d$ hypersurface $D:f=0$ with isolated singularities in $\PP^n$, three integers have been introduced, see \cite{DSt2}.
\noindent (i) the {\it coincidence threshold} $ct(D)$ defined as
$$ct(D)=\max \{q~~:~~\dim M(f)_k=\dim M(f_s)_k \text{ for all } k \leq q\},$$
with $f_s$ a homogeneous polynomial in $S$ of degree $d$ such that $D_s:f_s=0$ is a smooth hypersurface in $\PP^n$.
\noindent (ii) the {\it stability threshold} $st(D)$ defined as
$$st(D)=\min \{q~~:~~\dim M(f)_k=\tau(D) \text{ for all } k \geq q\}$$
where $\tau(D)$ is the total Tjurina number of $D$, i.e. the sum of all the Tjurina numbers of the singularities of $D$.
\noindent (iii) the {\it minimal degree of a nontrivial relation} $mdr(D)$ defined as
$$mdr(D)=\min \{q~~:~~ H^n(K^*(f))_{q+n}\ne 0\}$$
where $K^*(f)$ is the Koszul complex of $f_0,...,f_n$ with the grading defined in section 3, see also the formula \eqref{relvscoho}.
\end{definition}
It is clear that one has
\begin{equation}
\label{REL}
ct(D)=mdr(D)+d-2,
\end{equation}
using the formula \eqref{dif} below, in other words the main invariants are $ct(D)$ and $st(D)$.
By definition, it follows that for any such hypersurface $D$ which is not smooth, we have $d-2 \leq ct(D) \leq T$ and using \cite{CD} we get $st(D) \leq T+1$, where
we set $T=T(n,d)=(n+1)(d-2)$ .
Recall that Hilbert-Poincar\'e series of a graded $S$-module $E=\oplus_kE_k$ of finite type is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq21}
HP(E;t)= \sum_{k\geq 0} (\dim E_k)t^k
\end{equation}
and that we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq31}
HP(M(f_s);t)= \frac{(1-t^{d-1})^{n+1}}{(1-t)^{n+1}}.
\end{equation}
In particular, it follows that $M(f_s)_j=0$ for $j>T$ and $\dim M(f_s)_j=\dim M(f_s)_{T-j}$ for $0 \leq j \leq T$.
\bigskip
In this note we first discuss the relation between the saturation $\wI$ of a homogeneous ideal $I \subset S$ and the condition that a homogeneous polynomial $g \in S_r$ vanishes on the subscheme $V(I)$ of $\PP^n$ defined by $I$.
Our main result is Theorem \ref{linsys} describing the relation between the syzygies involving the partial derivatives $f_0,...,f_n$ and the defect of the linear systems vanishing on the
singular locus subscheme $\Sigma_f=V(f_0,...,f_n)=V(J_f)$ of a projective hypersurface $D:f=0$, when $D$ has only isolated singularities. This extends the nodal case treated in Theorem 1.5 in \cite{DSt2} and uses the full power of the Cayley-Bacharach Theorem as stated in \cite{EGH}, Theorem CB7, i.e.
the supports of the subschemes $\Gamma'$ and $\Gamma''$ which are residual to each other
might not be disjoint, see Remark \ref{rk3}. For other, more classical relations between syzygies and algebraic geometry we refer the Eisenbud's book \cite{Eis}.
\bigskip
One consequence is the following relation between the above invariants and the saturation $\wJ$ of the Jacobian ideal $J=J_f$.
\begin{cor}
\label{corD}
If the hypersurface $D:f=0$ has only isolated singularities, then $\wJ _k=J_k$ for $k\geq \max(T-ct(D),st(D))$.
\end{cor}
Further relations involving the $a$-invariant $a(M(f))$ and the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity
$\reg M(f)$ of the graded algebra (resp. $S$-module ) $M(f)$ are given below.
We would like to thank Laurent Bus\'e who explained to us alternative proofs of the main result, based on local cohomology and \v Cech complexes and presented here in Remarks \ref{rkBuse}
and \ref{rkBuse2} and who draw our attention on some small errors in a previous version.
\section{Saturation of ideals and defects of linear systems} \label{sec:two}
For any homogeneous ideal $I$ in $S$ we define its saturation $\wI$ as the set of all elements $s \in S$ such that for any $i=0,...,n$ there is a positive integer $m_i$ such that
$$x_i^{m_i}s \in I,$$
see \cite{H}, p. 125, Exercise II.5.10. It follows that $\wI$ is also a homogeneous ideal in $S$ and moreover $I$ and $\hat I$ define the same subscheme $V(I)=V(\wI) $ of $\PP^n$.
An ideal $I$ is called saturated if $I=\wI$. One has the following alternative definition for a saturated ideal.
We say that a homogeneous polynomial $g \in S$ vanishes on the scheme $V(I)$ if for any (closed) point $p$ belonging to the support $ |V(I)|$ of our scheme $V(I)$, the germ of regular function induced by $g$ at $p$ (which is defined up to a unit in the local ring $\OO_{\PP^n,p}$) belongs to the ideal sheaf stalk $\I_{V(I),p}$ of the ideal sheaf $\I_{V(I)}$ defining the subscheme $V(I)$.
Then one can easily see that a homogeneous polynomial $h$ in $\wI$ is exactly a homogeneous polynomial vanishing on the subscheme $V(I)=V(\wI) $. Hence, an ideal $I$ is saturated exactly when it contains all the homogeneous polynomials vanishing on the subscheme $V(I)$.
This proves in particular the following, via Theorem 8 (Lasker's Unmixedness Theorem) in \cite{EGH}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop1}
If the ideal $I$ is a complete intersection, then $I$ is saturated.
\end{prop}
The simpliest, and most well known version of this result, is of course E. Noether's "AF+BG" Theorem, see for instance \cite{GH} , p. 703.
\begin{rk}
\label{rk1}
When the subscheme $V(I)$ is reduced, then the saturation $\wI$ coincides with the radical ideal $\sqrt I$. For the singular locus $\Sigma_f$, supposed to be 0-dimensional, this happens exactly when $D$ is a nodal hypersurface.
\end{rk}
For any homogeneous ideal $I$ we consider the graded artinian $S$-module
\begin{equation}
\label{eqSD}
SD(I)= \frac{\wI}{I},
\end{equation}
called the {\it saturation defect module} of $I$ and the {\it saturation threshold} $sat(I)$ defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eqsat}
sat(I)=\min \{q~~:~~\dim I_k= \dim \wI _k \text{ for all } k \geq q\}.
\end{equation}
When $Y=V(I)$ is a 0-dimensional subscheme in $\PP^n$, we introduce the corresponding sequence of defects
\begin{equation}
\label{eqDEF}
\defect _kY=\dim H^0(Y, \OO_Y)-\dim \frac{S_k}{\wI_k}.
\end{equation}
For the singular locus $Y=\Sigma_f$, if we set $J=J_f$, this becomes
$$\defect _k\Sigma_f=\tau(D)-\dim \frac{S_k}{\wJ_k}.$$
In particular, if $\Sigma_f \ne \emptyset$, then $\defect _0\Sigma_f=\tau(D)-1.$
Moreover, when $D$ is a nodal hypersurface, one clearly has
$h \in \wJ_k$ if and only if $h$ vanishes on the set of nodes $\NN$ of the hypersurface $D$,
i.e. we get exactly the notion used in \cite{DSt2} and \cite{DSt3}.
The module $SD(J_f)$ was already considered by Pellikaan in \cite{Pe} under the name of Jacobian module (in a local version, and especially when $\wJ_f$ is a radical ideal).
\begin{rk}
\label{rklocalco}
The above objects can be interpreted in terms of local cohomology, see Appendix 1 in \cite{Eis}
for the definition and basic properties of this cohomology. Let $\bf m$ be the maximal ideal $(x_0,...,x_n)$ in $S$. Then one has just from definitions
$$SD(I)= \frac{\wI}{I}=H^0_{\bf m}(S/I)$$
and also, via Corollary A1.12 in \cite{Eis},
$$\defect _kY=\dim H^0(Y, \OO_Y)-\dim \frac{S_k}{\wI_k}=\dim H^1_{\bf m}(S/I)_k$$
where the last subscript $k$ indicates the $k$-th homogeneous component.
The $a$-invariant of the graded standard algebra $M(f)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{ainv}
a(M(f))=\max\{k: H^1_{\bf m}(M(f))_k \ne 0\},
\end{equation}
and the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of the graded $S$-module $M(f)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{reg}
\reg(M(f))=\min\{k: H^0_{\bf m}(M(f))_{>k} =0 \text{ and } H^1_{\bf m}(M(f))_{>k-1} =0 \},
\end{equation}
see \cite{Ch}.
\end{rk}
\section{Defects and syzygies involving the Jacobian ideal} \label{sec3}
Let $f$ be a homogeneous polynomial of degree $d$ in the polynomial ring $S$ and denote by $f_0,...,f_n$ the corresponding partial derivatives.
One can consider the graded $S-$submodule $AR(f) \subset S^{n+1}$ of {\it all relations} involving the $f_j$'s, namely
$$a=(a_0,...,a_n) \in AR(f)_m$$
if and only if $a_0f_0+a_1f_1+...+a_nf_n=0$.
Inside $AR(f)$ there is the $S-$submodule of {\it Koszul relations} $KR(f)$, called also the
submodule of {\it trivial relations}, spanned by the relations $t_{ij} \in AR(f)_{d-1}$ for
$0 \leq i <j \leq n$, where $t_{ij}$ has the $i$-th coordinate equal to $f_j$, the $j$-th coordinate equal to $-f_i$ and the other coordinates zero, see relation \eqref{tij} below.
The quotient module $ER(f)=AR(f)/KR(f)$ may be called the module of {\it essential relations}, or non trivial relations, since it tells us which are the relations which we should add to the Koszul relations in order to get all the relations, or syzygies, involving the $f_j$'s.
One has the following description in terms of global polynomial forms on $\C^{n+1}$. If one denotes $\Omega ^j$ the graded $S$-module of such forms of exterior degree $j$, then
\medskip
\noindent(i) $\Omega ^{n+1}$ is a free $S$-module of rank one generated by $\omega=dx_0 \wedge dx_1 \wedge...\wedge dx_n.$
\medskip
\noindent(ii) $\Omega ^{n}$ is a free $S$-module of rank $n+1$ generated by $\omega_j$ for $j=0,...,n$ where $\omega _j$ is given by the same product as $\omega$ but omitting $dx_j$.
\medskip
\noindent(iii) The kernel of the wedge product $df \wedge: \Omega ^{n} \to \Omega ^{n+1}$ can be identified up to a shift in degree to the module $AR(f)$. Indeed, one has to use the formula
$$df \wedge (\sum_{j=0,n}(-1)^ja_j\omega_j)=(\sum_{j=0,n}a_jf_j)\omega.$$
\noindent(iv) $\Omega ^{n-1}$ is a free $S$-module of rank ${n+1 \choose 2}$ generated by $\omega_{ij}$ for $0 \leq i <j \leq n$ where $\omega _{ij}$ is given by the same product as $\omega$ but omitting $dx_i$ and $dx_j$.
\medskip
\noindent(v) The image of the wedge product $df \wedge: \Omega ^{n-1} \to \Omega ^{n}$ can be identified up to a shift in degree to the submodule $KR(f)$. Indeed, one has to use the formula
$$df \wedge \omega_{ij}=f_i\omega_j-f_j\omega_i.$$
In conclusion, it follows that one has
\begin{equation}
\label{relvscoho}
ER(f)_m=H^n(K^*(f))_{m+n}
\end{equation}
for any $m \in \N$, where $K^*(f)$ is the Koszul complex of $f_0,...,f_n$ with the natural grading $|x_j|=|dx_j|=1$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{Koszul}
0 \to \Omega^0 \to \Omega^1 \to ... \to \Omega^{n+1}\to 0
\end{equation}
with all the arrows given by the wedge product by $df=f_0dx_0+f_1dx_1+...+f_ndx_n$.
Our main result is the following.
\begin{thm}
\label{linsys}
Let $D:f=0$ be a degree $d$ hypersurface in $\PP^n$ having only isolated singularities. If $\Sigma_f$ denotes its singular locus subscheme, then
$$\dim ER(f)_{nd-2n-1-k}=\dim H^{n}(K^*(f))_{nd-n-1-k}= \defect _k\Sigma_f $$
for $0\leq k \leq nd-2n-1$ and $\dim H^{n}(K^*(f))_j=\tau(D)$ for $j\geq n(d-1)$.
In other words,
$$\dim M(f)_{T-k}=\dim M(f_s)_k+\defect _k\Sigma_f $$
for $0\leq k \leq nd-2n-1$, where $T=T(n,N)=(n+1)(d-2)$. In particular, if $\Sigma_f \ne \emptyset$, then $\dim M(f)_T=\tau(D)>0$, i.e. $st(D) \leq T$.
\end{thm}
Note that this Theorem determines the dimensions $\dim M(f)_j$ in terms of defects of linear systems for any $j\geq d-1$, i.e. for all $j$ since
the dimensions $\dim M(f)_j=\dim S_j$ for $j<d-1$ are well known.
\proof
The proof of this result is based on the same idea as the proof of Theorem 1.5 in \cite{DSt2} where the nodal hypersurfaces are treated.
However, the use of the Cayley-Bacharach Theorem is now more refined, since in the case at hand we deal with non-reduced scheme $\Sigma_f $.
Let the coordinates on $\PP^n$ be chosen such that the hyperplane $H_0: x_0=0$ is transversal to $D$, then $\Gamma=V(f_1,...,f_n)$ is a 0-dimensional complete intersection contained in the affine space $U_0=\C^n=\PP^n \setminus H_0$. If we use the coordinates $y_1=x_1,....,y_n=x_n$, then the intersection $D_0=D \cap U_0$ is given by the equation $g(y)=0$, where
$g(y)=f(1,y_1,...,y_n)$. The Euler relation for $f$ yields the relation
$$f_0(1,y)+y_1g_1(y)+...+y_ng_n(y)=d \cdot g(y),$$
where $g_j$ denotes the partial derivative of $g$ with respect to $y_j$.
If $0 \in \C^n$ is an isolated singularity of $D_0$, let $\OO_n$ be the local ring at analytic germs at the origin, $J_g$ the ideal in $\OO_n$ spanned by the partial derivatives. With this notation, one clearly has the following isomorphisms.
\begin{lem}
\label{Tj}
$\OO_{\Gamma,0}=M_g$ where $M_g:=\OO_n/J_g$ is the Milnor algebra of the germ $g$ and $\OO_{\Sigma_f,0}=T_g$ where $T_g:=\OO_n/((g)+J_g)$ is the Tjurina algebra of the germ $g$.
\end{lem}
The support of $\Gamma$ consists of a finite set of points in $\PP^n$, say $p_1,...,p_r$. A part of these points, say $p_j$ for $j=1,...,q$ are the singularities of $D$, i.e. the points in the support of $\Sigma_f$.
Assume we have a nonzero element in $H^{n}(K^*(f))_{nN-n-1-k}$ for some $0\leq k \leq s,$ with $s=nN-2n-1$. This is the same as having a relation
$$R_m: a_0f_0+a_1f_1+....a_nf_n=0$$
where $a_j \in S$ are homogeneous of degree
$m=s-k$ and $R_m$ is not a consequence of the relations
\begin{equation}
\label{tij}
T_{ij}:f_jf_i-f_if_j=0.
\end{equation}
This is equivalent to looking at coefficients $a_0$ module the ideal $(f_1,...,f_n)$.
Since $p_j$ is not a singularity for $D$ for $j>q$, it follows that $f_0(p_j)\ne 0$ in this range.
Hence, for $j>q$, the relation $R_m$ implies that the germ of function induced by $a_0$ at $p_j$ (dividing by some homogeneous polynomial $b_j$ of degree $m$ such that $b_j(p_j)\ne 0$) belongs to the ideal defining $\Gamma$.
At a singular point $p_j$ with $j \leq q$, we get that $a_0f_0 $ belongs to the ideal defining $\Gamma$. In other words, assuming that $p_j=0$ and using the Euler relation above, we see that the germ induced by $a_0$ at $p_j$ belongs to the annihilator ideal $Ann(g) \subset M_g$ of the class of $g$ in the local Milnor algebra $M_g$.
We apply now the Cayley-Bacharach Theorem as stated in \cite{EGH}, Theorem CB7, where one should replace 'family of curves' by 'family of hypersurfaces' in the last phrase.
Let $\Gamma'$ and $\Gamma''$ be subscheme of $\Gamma$, residual to one another in $\Gamma$, and such that:
(i) the support of $\Gamma'$ is contained in the support of $\Gamma$, at a point in the set $\{p_{q+1},...,p_r\}$ these two schemes coincides, and at a point $p$ in the set $\{p_{1},...,p_q\}$ the subscheme $\Gamma'$ of $\Gamma$ is defined by the ideal $Ann(g_p)$ in the local Milnor algebra $M_{g_p}$, where $g_p=0$ is a local equation of $D$ at $p$ and we use the identification given by Lemma \ref{Tj} above.
(ii) the support of $\Gamma''$ is the set $\{p_{1},...,p_q\}$ and the corresponding local ring at a point $p$ in this set is the local Tjurina algebra $T_{g_p}$. In other words, the corresponding ideal is exactly the principal ideal $(g_p)$ of the Milnor algebra $M_{g_p}$. Recall also that these two ideals $(g_p)$ and $Ann(g_p)$ are orthogonal complements to each other via a nondegenerate pairing on the Gorenstein local ring $M_{g_p}$, see \cite{EGH}. More precisely, we have the following general result, perhaps well known to specialists.
\begin{lem}
\label{Ann}
Let $(A,m)$ be a local Artinian Gorenstein ring containing a field $K$. Then, for any ideal $I \subset A$, one has $Ann(I) =I^{\perp}$, where the orthogonal complement is taken with respect to the nondegenerate pairing $Q:A \times A \to K$.
\end{lem}
\proof
In fact, one has $K=A/m$ and there is a positive integer $s$ such that $m^s$ has length one, i.e. $m^s = K$. For any $K$-linear map $\rho:A \to K$ inducing an isomorphism on $m^s$, the nondegenerate pairing in the statement above may be given as the composition $Q: A \times A \to A \to K$, where the first arrow is the multiplication in $A$ and the second arrow is $\rho$.
From this construction, it is clear that $Ann(I) \subset I^{\perp}$. Conversely, let $a \in I^{\perp}$, such that we have $Q(ai)=0$ for any $i \in I$. Suppose there is an $i_0 \in I$ such that $ai_0 \ne0$.
Then there is an element $g \in A$ such that $ai_0g \ne 0$ but $ai_0g \in m^s$, see the discussion on page 312 of the paper \cite{EGH} . This is a contradiction, since it implies $Q(a,i_0g) \ne 0$ or we have $i_0g \in I.$
\endproof
The above discussion implies that the dimension of the family of hypersurfaces $a_0$ of degree $m=s-k$ containing $\Gamma'$ (modulo those containing all of $\Gamma$, which are in fact exactly the elements of the ideal $(f_1,...,f_n)$ in view of Proposition \ref{prop1}) is exactly the dimension of $H^{n}(K^*(f))_{nN-n-1-k}$.
On the other hand, for $s$ as above and $0\leq k\leq s$, the Cayley-Bacharach Theorem says that this dimension is equal to the defect $\defect_k(\Sigma_f)$, thus proving the first claim in Theorem \ref{linsys}.
Next we have
\begin{equation}
\label{dif}
\dim H^{n}(K^*(f))_j
=\dim M(f)_{j+d-n-1}-\dim M(f_s)_{j+d-n-1},
\end{equation}
see \cite{DSt2}.
Moreover, $j \geq n(d-1)$ is equivalent to $j+d-n-1>(n+1)(d-2)$ and hence $\dim M(f)_{j+d-n-1}=\tau(D)$ and $\dim M(f_s)_{j+d-n-1}=0$, thus proving the second claim in Theorem \ref{linsys}.
\endproof
\begin{rk}
\label{rk3}
It follows by the proof above that a point $p$ is in the support of both subschemes $\Gamma'$ and $\Gamma''$ if and only if the singularity $(D,p)$ is not weighted homogeneous.
Indeed, by K. Saito's result \cite{KS}, this is equivalent to the local equation $g_p=0$ satisfying $g \notin J_{g_p}$.
\end{rk}
\begin{rk}
\label{rkBuse}
One can obtain an alternative proof for Theorem \ref{linsys} as follows.
We construct a double complex $K^{*,*}$ in the following way. The $0$-th line is just the Koszul complex considered in \eqref{Koszul}, but shifted in such a way that the differentials become homogeneous of degree $0$ and $K^{0,0}$=S. In terms of the grading ring $S$, one has
$$K^{p,0}=\wedge^pS^{n+1}(p(d-1)).$$
Then we build the $p$-th column by replacing $K^{p,0}$ by its \v Cech complex as defined for instance in section A1B of \cite{Eis} or in \cite{Buse}, p. 18, whose notation we use below. In other words, we set
$$K^{p,q}=C^q({\bf x},\wedge^pS^{n+1}(p(d-1))),$$
where ${\bf x}=(x_0,...,x_n)$.
To get our result one has to consider the associated double complex
$T^r=\oplus_{p+q=r} K^{p,q}$ and to compute its cohomology in two ways, using the two usual spectral sequences, exactly as in the proof of Lemma 3.13 in \cite{Buse}.
If we compute first the cohomology along the columns using Theorem A1.3 and Theorem A2.50 in \cite{Eis},
the only non-trivial groups are on the $(n+1)$-st line, and this can be identified to the dual of the Koszul complex. More precisely, we have isomorphism of vector spaces
$$H^{n+1}_{\bf m}(K^{p,0})_s= \wedge ^{n+1-p}S_{(n+1-p)(d-1)-s}=\Hom(K^{n+1-p,0},\C)_s.$$
Next we compute first the cohomology along the lines, and we get nonzero terms only on the last two columns, which correspond to the \v Cech complex for $H^n(K^*(f))$ (resp. $H^{n+1}(K^*(f))$)
on the $n$-th column (resp. on the $(n+1)$-st column). Both of these $S$-modules have a support of dimension 1, hence when we take now the cohomology along the columns, we get
$$H^{j}_{\bf m}(H^n(K^*(f)))=H^{j}_{\bf m}(H^{n+1}(K^*(f)))=0$$
for $j>1$. On the other hand one clearly has $H^{0}_{\bf m}(H^n(K^*(f)))=0$, see for instance
\cite{CD}, Corollary 11, and hence $E_2=E_{\infty}$ for this spectral sequence as well.
Putting everything together we get that
$$\dim H^{n+2}(T^*)_s=\dim ER(f)_{nd-n-s}=\dim H^1_{\bf m}(M(f))_{-n-1+s}$$
which is exactly the claim of Theorem \ref{linsys} .
Note that exactly the same proof works for any collection of $n+1$ homogeneous polynomials of the same degree $(d-1)$ when they define a zero-dimensional subscheme of $\PP^n$.
The case of homogeneous polynomials of different degrees can be handled in a similar way, but more care is needed with the homogeneity shifts to assure that the corresponding Koszul complex has degree 0 differentials. See also \cite{vS}.
\end{rk}
\begin{rk}
\label{rkBuse2}
A more rapid proof, essentialy equivalent to the above, can be obtained as follows. First we use the local duality, namely if
$\omega_{M(f)}$ is the canonical module of $M(f)$, then the dual
$H^1_{\bf m}(M(f))^{\vee}$ is graded isomorphic to $\omega_{M(f)}$, see Theorem 3.6.19 page 142 in \cite{BH} or Fact 5 in \cite{Ch}, where the graded version is clearly stated. Then recall that the first nonzero cohomology group in the Koszul complex is nothing else but the shifted canonical module, namely with the grading for $K^*(f)$ considered in the Remark above and in \cite{Ch} one has
$$(\omega_{M(f)})_j=H^n(K^*(f)) _{j-n-1}=ER(f)_{nd-2n-1+j},$$
see Theorem 1.6.16 page 50 in \cite{BH} and Lemma 22 in \cite{Ch}.
\end{rk}
\begin{ex}
\label{ex3A2}
\textbf {Quartic curves $(d=4)$}
Any quartic curve with 3 cusps is projectively isomorphic
to the curve:
$$ C : f=x^2y^2+y^2z^2+z^2x^2-2xyz(x+y+z)= 0$$
In general, for any cuspidal curve $C$, one can imagine the singular locus subscheme as consisting of a family of points $p$ (located at the cusps of $C$) and a nonzero cotangent vector $u_p$ at every such point $p$ (given by the corresponding tangent cone).
Then a homogeneous polynomial $g$ vanishes on $\Sigma_f$ if and only if one has $g(p)=0$ and $dg(p)=\lambda_pu_p$ for some constants $\lambda_p\in \C$.
A direct computation shows that for our quartic curve above we have
$$HP(M(f);t)=1+3t+6t^{2}+7t^{3}+6(t^{4}+\ldots \\$$
and
$$HP(M(f_s);t)=1+3t+6t^{2}+7t^{3}+6t^{4}+3t^5+t^6.$$
The $3$ cusps are located at the points $a=(0:0:1)$, $b=(0:1:0)$ and $c=(1:0:0)$ and the nonzero cotangent vectors are $u_a=dx-dy$ and so on.
Using Theorem \ref{linsys} we get the following.
\medskip
\noindent (i) $\defect _0\Sigma_f =6-1=5$, $\defect _1\Sigma_f =6-3=3$, $\defect _k\Sigma_f =0$ for $k \geq 2$. Using the definition of $\defect _k\Sigma_f $, this yields $\wJ _k=0$ for $k=0,1,2$,
(which is clear using our geometric description) and $\dim \wJ_ m={m+2 \choose 2}-6$ for $m \geq 3$ where $J=J_f$.
\medskip
\noindent (ii) On the other hand, we obviously have $J _k=0$ for $k=0,1,2$ and
$\dim J_m={m+2 \choose 2}-\dim M(f)_m$ for $m \geq 3$.
\medskip
It follows that $sat(J_f)=4=st(D)$ and $SD(J_f)=\C$ placed in degree $3$.
\end{ex}
\section{Some consequences} \label{sec4}
Using the above notations, we have the following.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop2}
Assume the hypersurface $D:f=0$ in $\PP^n$ has only isolated singularities and set $J=J_f$. Then the sequence of dimensions
$\dim \frac{S_k}{\wJ _k}$ is an increasing sequence bounded by the total Tjurina number $\tau(D)$ of $D$ given by
$$\tau(D)= \sum_{p \in |\Sigma_f|}\tau(g_p).$$
Moreover, $\dim \frac{S_k}{\wJ _k}=\tau(D)$ if and only if $k \geq T-ct(D)$.
\end{prop}
\proof The first claim follows from Theorem \ref{linsys} and Corollary 11 in \cite{CD} which show that the sequence of
defects $\defect_k\Sigma_f$ is decreasing. The second claim follows from the equality \eqref{dif} and the definition of $ct(D)$.
\endproof
\begin{cor}
\label{corB}
$$sat(J_f)\leq max(T-ct(D),st(D)).$$
\end{cor}
The example $f=xyz$ where $sat(J_f)=0$, $T-ct(D)=st(D)=1$ shows that this inequality may be strict.
In fact, based on empirical evidence as seen in the following Example, one may conjecture that $T-ct(D)\leq st(D)$. Note that $J_f=\wJ_f$ implies $T-ct(D)= st(D)$.
\begin{ex}
\label{exnodal}
\noindent (i) Let $D:x^py^q+z^d=0$ where $p>0,$ $q>0$ and $p+q=d$. Then using the partial derivatives $f_x$ and $f_y$ we see that $mdr(D)=1$, and hence $ct(D)=d-1<\frac{T}{2}$.
A direct computation using Example 14. (i) in \cite{CD} yields $st(D)= 2d-3$.
\medskip
\noindent (ii) Let $D$ be a degree $d$ nodal hypersurface in $\PP^n$. Then $ct(D) \geq \frac{T}{2}$,
see \cite{DSt3}, Corollary 2.2. On the other hand, it is clear that one has in general $st(D) \geq ct(D)$, except possibly the case
when $T$ is odd and $st(D)=ct(D)-1=\frac{T-1}{2}.$ However, note that in this very special case one has $T-ct(D)=st(D)$.
\medskip
Hence in case (i) as well as for all hypersurfaces $D$ such that $ct(D) \geq \frac{T}{2}$ (as in case (ii) above),
we get $T -ct(D) \leq st(D)$ and hence $sat(J_f)\leq st(D)$.
\end{ex}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop3}
Assume the hypersurface $D:f=0$ in $\PP^n$ has only isolated singularities and assume that $st(D) \geq n(d-2)+1=T-(d-3).$ Then $sat(D)=st(D)$.
\end{prop}
\proof Corollary 8 in \cite{CD} shows that $\dim M(f)_{q-1} \geq \dim M(f)_{q}$ for $q\geq n(d-2)+1$. It follows that for $q=st(D)$ one has
$$\codim J_{q-1}=\dim M(f)_{q-1}>\tau(D) \geq \codim\wJ_{q-1}.$$
\endproof
In the following example we list the few general situations where the explicit value of $sat(D)=st(D)$ is known.
\begin{ex}
\label{st}
\noindent (i) Let $D$ be a degree $d$ nodal curve in $\PP^2$, which is not a line arrangement. Then
one has $st(D)\geq 2d-3$, see formula (1.6) and Corollary 1.4 in \cite{DSt2}.
In particular, if $D$ has just one node and $d>2$, then we have $sat(D)=T=3d-6$,
see Example 4.3 (i) in \cite{DSt2}.
\medskip
\noindent (ii) Let $D$ be a degree $d$ Chebyshev hypersurface in $\PP^n$. Then
one has $st(D)=T-(d-3)$, see Corollary 3.2 in \cite{DSt3}.
\end{ex}
\begin{cor}
\label{corC}
Assume that $ct(D) \geq \frac{T}{2}$. Then $\tau(D) \leq \dim M(f_s)_{T-ct(D)}$.
\end{cor}
This results shows that for large $ct(D)$, i.e. $ct(D)$ close to $T$, the Tjurina number (and in particular the number of singularities) has to be small. For instance, $ct(D)=T$ if and only if $D$ has only one singularity, and this is of type $A_1$, i.e. a node.
One has also the following result, using the definitions given in \eqref{ainv} and \eqref{reg}
and Theorem \ref{linsys}.
\begin{cor}
\label{corD}
Assume the hypersurface $D:f=0$ in $\PP^n$ has only isolated singularities and $d=deg(f)$. Then
$$a(M(f))=nd-2n-1-mdr(D)=T-ct(D)-1$$
and
$$\reg(M(f))=\max(T-ct(D),sat(J_f)-1).$$
\end{cor}
\begin{rk}
\label{sym}
It is shown in \cite{vS} in the local case and in \cite{DS} in the graded case that the torsion module
$SD(J_f)=H^0_{\bf m}(M(f))$ is a Gorenstein module, and hence in particular has interesting symmetry properties. In the graded case this can be stated as
$$\dim SD(J_f)_k=\dim SD(J_f)_{T-k}$$
for all $k \in \Z$. Moreover, we {\it conjecture} that the sequence of dimensions $\dim SD(J_f)_k$ is {\it unimodal}, i.e. one has $\dim SD(J_f)_k \leq \dim SD(J_f)_{k+1}$ for all $0 \leq k <T/2$.
As an example, when $f=x(x^3+y^3+z^3)$, i.e. $n=2$ and $d=4$, the corresponding sequence is $0,1,3,4,3,1,0$.
\end{rk}
\section{The case $\Sigma_f$ is a complete intersection} \label{sec5}
In this section we show how Theorem \ref{linsys} can be used to obtain a new proof of the following result obtained in \cite{CD}, Proposition 13. Assume as above that the hypersurface $D:f=0$ in $\PP^n$ has only isolated singularities and $d=deg(f)$.
Assume moreover that $\Sigma_f$ is a complete intersection, i.e. there are homogeneous polynomials $g_1,...,g_n$ in $S$ of degrees $a_1,...,a_n$, such that the ideal $I$ in $S$ spanned by the $g_i$'s satisfies the conditions
$$J_f \subset I \text{ and } (J_f)_s=I_s \text{ for all } s>>0.$$
It it clear that this condition can be restated as $J_f \subset I \subset \wJ_f.$ But this implies
$ I \subset \wJ_f \subset \wI$ and using Proposition \ref{prop1} we get
$$I = \wJ_f = \wI,$$
hence the ideal $I$ is precisely the saturation $ \wJ_f $.
With this notation we have the following result.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop4}
$$HP(M(f))(t)=HP(M(f_s))+t^{(n+1)(d-1)-\sum a_i} \frac{(1-t^{a_1}) \cdots (1-t^{a_n})}{(1-t)^{n+1}}.$$
\end{prop}
\proof It follows from Theorem \ref{linsys} that one has
$$\dim M(f)_{k}=\dim M(f_s)_k+\tau(D) -m''_{T-k}, $$
where $m''_j=\dim (S/I)_j$. The Hilbert-Poincar\'e series of $S/I$ is just
$$\frac{(1-t^{a_1}) \cdots (1-t^{a_n})}{(1-t)^{n+1}}.$$
This implies $m''_j+m''_{q-k-1}=\tau(D)$ for all $j \in \Z$, where $q=\sum a_i -n$.
We get
$$\dim M(f)_{k}=\dim M(f_s)_k+m''_{\sum a_i-(n+1)(d-1)+k}, $$
which is equivalent to our claim.
\endproof
This proof yields also the following.
\begin{cor}
\label{corE}
With the notation and assumptions of this section, we have $\tau(D)=a_1\cdots a_n$ and $ct(D)=T-\sum a_i +n$. In particular, when $n=2$, the couple $(a_1,a_2)$ is determined, when it exists, by the couple $(\tau(D),ct(D))$.
\end{cor}
|
\section{Introduction}
During the last decade, the astronomy community has come to realize that black hole (BH) activity plays an important role in galaxy formation, e.g., by regulating star formation through winds and outflows \cite[]{sca05,cat05}. To understand how galaxies form, we therefore need to understand how supermassive BHs and galaxies co-evolve.
The most important observational tools for studying the co-evolution of BHs and galaxies are the empirical scaling relations between BH mass and global galaxy properties, such as the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation \cite[]{fm2000,geb00a}, a particularly tight relation between BH mass, {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}, and the central, stellar velocity dispersion, $\sigma_*$. The {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation suggests a causal connection between the BH and the bulge \citep[although see e.g.,][for a counter argument]{jahnke2011}, and is believed to hold clues to understanding the galaxy formation process. By studying how the BH mass relates to the mass of the bulge (as measured by $\sigma_*$), the galaxy evolution process can be examined across different redshift ranges and for different galaxy types.
Active galactic nuclei (AGN) have become instrumental in this work because they contain actively accreting black holes. Not only are they direct probes of the BH-galaxy co-evolution, but galaxies with AGN are the only galaxies in which we can measure black hole masses in the non-local universe. The method is referred to as the virial method, where the width of broad AGN emission lines such as H$\alpha$ or H$\beta$ is used to measure {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ \cite[e.g.,][]{vestergaard2006}.
Whereas measuring virial BH masses in AGN through broad emission lines is
relatively straightforward, measuring the host galaxy velocity dispersion is
hampered by the presence of the very bright nuclei which can completely
overpower the light from the underlying galaxy.
Attempts have been made to use the width of [OIII] lines as a proxy for the bulge potential \cite[]{nelson2000,shields2003,salviander2007}, but these studies suffer from a large scatter due to non-gravitational influences on the [OIII] line width \cite[such as outflows, radio luminosity, accretion rates, etc; see, e.g.,][]{netzer2007}.
Studies of low-luminosity AGN at $z\lesssim0.1$ have shown that they follow the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation of local, more massive spheroids
\cite[e.g.,][]{geb00b,nelson2004,greene2006a,woo2010,bennert2011a}, and there is evidence that higher redshift AGN show evolution with regard to the local {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation.
\cite{woo2006,woo2008} and \cite{treu2007} studied two samples of Seyfert 1 galaxies at $z=0.36$ and $z=0.57$ and found an offset from the local relation
suggesting that, for a fixed black hole mass, higher redshift spheroids have
smaller velocity dispersions than local ones. This indicates that, in these
objects, the galactic bulge is still forming around the black hole. \cite{hiner2012} find a similar offset with respect to the local relation in a sample of six post-starburst AGN at $z\sim0.3$. These results have serious implications and may provide important observational constraints for galactic evolution models which attempt to explain the co-evolution of black holes and bulges. The studies by \citeauthor{woo2008}, \citeauthor{treu2007}, and \citeauthor{hiner2012} suggest a very recent growth, within the last 5$-$6 billion years, of intermediate-mass bulges for a given black hole mass, in contrast to predictions made by detailed hydrodynamic simulations \cite[e.g.,][]{robertson2006b}.
On the other hand, \cite{shen2008} study a large sample of AGN observed with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) at $z<0.452$ and find no evidence of evolution in the relation.
The study of the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation has been severely limited in QSOs due to the observational challenges such a project poses. However, studying {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ in QSOs would be desirable since these are potentially the objects where the most rapid growth (in both BH and bulge) occurs. Studies of {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ at $z>0$ need to include QSOs in order to probe the higher end of the relation and, potentially, episodes when either the bulge or the BH is catching up in its growth.
Measuring velocity dispersions from absorption lines in QSO host galaxies is observationally challenging. The relatively few studies of host galaxy stellar absorption line spectroscopy in the literature \cite[e.g.,][]{canalizo2001,nolan2001,jahnke2007,wold2010} are not able to recover host spectra in the central regions of the galaxy. Using these spectra to measure velocity dispersions could lead to ambiguous results since it is difficult to determine whether the dispersions are being measured in the bulge of the galaxy or in the outskirts or some extended tidal feature where {$\sigma_*$}\ may not be representative of the mass of the bulge or that of the BH. Indeed, few attempts have been made to measure {$\sigma_*$}\ in the host galaxies of luminous QSOs \citep[e.g.,][]{wolf2008,rothberg2012}, but these studies have been in relation to the host structural properties rather than {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}.
Therefore, it would be ideal to find a class of objects with a natural ``coronagraph'' that would occult the QSO nucleus when measuring {$\sigma_*$}, but one that we could remove in order to measure {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ from the width of the broad lines. As described below, we have found that dust-reddened QSOs fit the bill.
Red QSOs have some of the same characteristics as their blue counterparts, such as (at least some of the) strong broad emission lines and high bolometric luminosities, but with much redder continua. At present, there is not a clear definition for red QSOs, so that the different objects that are cataloged as red QSOs do not form a homogeneous class. The majority of red QSOs discovered to date, however, appear to be reddened by dust, and thus they are considered the dust-obscured equivalent of the blue QSO population \citep[e.g.,][]{cutri2002,marble2003,hall2002,glikman2004,white2003}. Even then, there are cases where the dust is intervening rather than intrinsic to the QSO \cite[e.g.,][]{gregg2002}. Here we focus on those objects where the dust is presumably near the nucleus.
The heavy extinction of the QSO nuclei at optical wavelengths makes dust reddened QSOs excellent candidates to study velocity dispersions and stellar populations in their host galaxies.
The host galaxy spectrum suffers from much lower (if any) extinction than the nucleus, and stellar absorption features such as those around the Mg\,Ib and G-band regions are clearly visible in the blue region, being almost free of contamination from QSO light. At longer wavelengths, however, the contribution from the reddened QSO continuum increases and broad H$\alpha$ is clearly visible. Thus, {$\sigma_*$}\ can be measured from features in the underlying host galaxy and {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ can be estimated from the width of H$\alpha$ using the {\it same} spectrum.
In this paper, we present a pilot study to test the feasibility of using these
objects to measure {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}. In \S~\ref{observations} we describe the sample, imaging and spectroscopic observations, as well as the data reduction. In \S~\ref{analysis} we describe our method to fit stellar velocity dispersions and to measure {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}. In \S~\ref{results} we present our results and consider potential biases in our sample, while in \S~\ref{discussion} we discuss our results in the context of other studies of {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ that use AGN.
Throughout the paper, we have assumed a cosmological model with $H_{0} = 71$ km\,s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m=0.27$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.73$ \citep{spergel2003}, except where noted. We use the Vega magnitude system unless otherwise specified.
\section{Observations and Data Reduction}\label{observations}
\subsection{The Sample}\label{sample}
Our sample is drawn from the sample of 29 red 2MASS QSOs studied by \citet{marble2003}, which in turn is drawn from the sample compiled by \citet{cutri2002}. We focused on the subsample from \citet{marble2003} because these objects have Hubble Space Telescope ($HST$) imaging observations that are useful to measure the nuclear luminosities and to study the properties of the host galaxies.
The objects in this sample have $M_{K}\lesssim-25$, $J-K_{s}>2.0$ and detections in each of the three 2MASS bands, $JHK_{s}$. They have a median redshift of $z=0.213$ and have been spectroscopically confirmed to contain an AGN \citep{smith2002}.
A fraction of these objects have spectropolarimetry published by \citet{smith2003}. We avoided the objects that show a blue continuum, with broad emission features dominating the optical spectrum. Our final sample consists of nine of the remaining targets chosen at random within the observational constraints.
In Table~\ref{table:sample} we list the final sample. The redshifts listed were measured from stellar absorption lines in our Keck spectra (\S~\ref{spectroscopy}). $J-K_{s}$ colors and absolute $K_{s}$ magnitudes are quoted from \citet{marble2003}, and the latter assume $H_{0} = 75$ km\,s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$ and $q_{0}=0.5$.
\begin{deluxetable}{clcccccc}
\tabletypesize{\small}
\tablecolumns{4}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{The Red QSO Sample}
\tablehead{
\colhead {Object} & {QSO} &
\colhead{$z_{host}$} & \colhead{$M_{K_{s}}$} & \colhead{$J-K_{s}$}&\colhead{ESI Exposure} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Extraction aperture} \\
\colhead {ID} & {(2MASSi J)} & \colhead{ } & \colhead{ } & \colhead{ } & \colhead{Time (sec)} & \colhead{(arcsec)} & \colhead{(kpc)} \\
}
\startdata
1&005055.7$+$293328 & 0.1356 & $-$25.6 & 2.1 & 1800 & 0.21 & 0.50 \\
2&015721.0$+$171248 & 0.2139 & $-$27.0 & 2.7 & 7200 & 0.21 & 0.75\\
3&022150.6$+$132741 & 0.1398 & $-$25.7 & 2.4 & 5400 & 2.86 & 6.96\\
4&034857.6$+$125547 & 0.2112 & $-$26.7 & 3.3 & 3600 & 0.79 & 2.70\\
5&163736.5$+$254302 & 0.2772 & $-$26.5 & 2.3 & 5400 & 0.21 & 0.88\\
6&165939.7$+$183436 & 0.1709 & $-$26.5 & 2.2 & 5400 & 0.29 & 0.84\\
7&225902.5$+$124646 & 0.1989 & $-$25.6 & 1.9 & 5400 & 0.42 & 1.36\\
8&230442.4$+$270616 & 0.2370 & $-$25.4 & 2.1 & 7200 & 0.97 & 3.61\\
9&232745.6$+$162434 & 0.3664 & $-$27.0 & 2.4 & 5400 & 1.29 & 6.51\\
\enddata
\label{table:sample}
\end{deluxetable}
\subsection{Spectroscopy}\label{spectroscopy}
We obtained deep, medium resolution spectroscopic observations with the Echellette Spectrograph and Imager \cite[ESI;][]{sheinis2002} on the Keck II telescope during three separate nights in October 2003, July 2004 and September 2004. We observed in the echellette mode, which provides a wavelength coverage from 3900 to 11000 \AA\ in 10 orders (6 through 15). We used a 1\arcsec\ slit, which projected to $\sim$7 pixels (ranging from $\sim$8 pixels at the short-wavelength end to $\sim$6 pixels at the long-wavelength end) on the MIT-Lincoln Labs 2048$\times$4096 CCD detector. The spectral resolution is 11.4 km s$^{-1}$ pixel$^{-1}$.
We placed the slit through the center of the host galaxies to ensure that the velocity dispersions that we measure correspond to those of the host galaxy bulges.
All targets were observed under clear weather conditions and subarcsecond seeing ($\sim 0\farcs6$ in V), except for 230442.4$+$270616 and 022150.6$+$132741, which were observed through clouds, and 232745.6 $+$162434, which was observed in high wind conditions. Exposure times for each target ranged from 1800 to 7200~s; specific times are listed in Table~\ref{table:sample}.
We also observed a suite of template stars with stellar types ranging from F0 to M6 (listed on Table~\ref{table:templates}) and several spectrophotometric standards.
\begin{deluxetable}{lc}
\tabletypesize{\small}
\tablecolumns{2}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{Stellar templates used for the velocity dispersion fitting}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Star} & \colhead{Luminosity} \\
\colhead{} & \colhead{class}
}
\startdata
HD\,218140 & F0 \\
SAO\,90936 & F5 \\
HD\,11851 & F8 \\
BD$+$264556 & G0 \\
HD\,10995 & G2IV \\
SAO\,91026 & G5 V \\
SAO\,090989 & K0 \\
SAO\,91028 & K2 \\
HD\,11326 & K2III \\
HD\,218113 & K5III \\
SAO\,90990 & K5 V \\
Ci20131 & M0 \\
HD\,11729 & M6 \\
SAO\,92712 & K0 \\
SAO\,92718 & G0 \\
\enddata
\label{table:templates}
\end{deluxetable}
The spectra were reduced using a combination of IDL and IRAF scripts written to meet the specific needs of our program. After bias subtraction and flat fielding, each order was rectified independently in both spatial and wavelength directions using a modified version of the WMKONSPEC package\footnote{http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/inst/nirspec-old/wmkonspec/index.html}. A star was observed at multiple positions across the slit in order to trace and rectify the spatial direction of the spectra. A wavelength solution, obtained from observations of a Cu-Ar lamp, was used to rectify the wavelength direction. Sky lines were removed by fitting the background in the two-dimensional spectra. The spectra were calibrated using spectrophotometric standards from \citet{massey1988} observed with the slit at the parallactic angle. Each target had two or three individual exposures; we averaged the spatially corrected spectra using the IRAF task {\it scombine}.
We extracted spectra from the central few kpc of each spectrum, adjusting the size of the aperture to match approximately the effective radius, $r_{\rm eff}$, of each target (see \S~\ref{morphologies}), as listed in Table~\ref{table:sample}. This corresponded to a slightly different aperture size for each echellette order, since the spatial scale varies for different orders. We then combined the spectra from all orders into a single spectrum for each target. We corrected the spectra for Galactic extinction, using the values given by \citet{schlegel1998}. Finally, we transformed the spectra to rest frame using redshifts measured from stellar absorption lines. The final spectra for the nine targets are shown in Figs.~\ref{figure:spectra1} and \ref{figure:spectra2}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\figurenum{1a}
\begin{center}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{f1a.eps}
\caption{Keck ESI rest-frame spectra of our sample of nine 2MASS QSOs.}
\label{figure:spectra1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\figurenum{1b}
\begin{center}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{f1b.eps}
\caption{Keck ESI rest-frame spectra of our sample of nine 2MASS QSOs.}
\label{figure:spectra2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Imaging}\label{imaging}
The imaging data were obtained from the $HST$ data archive (SNAP-9057; PI: D.\ Hines) and were originally published by \citet{marble2003}. The targets were observed with the PC chip of the WFPC2 in the F814W filter. Each target had two 400~s exposures. We combined the images with {\it multidrizzle}, using standard procedures.
\section{Analysis}\label{analysis}
\subsection{Velocity Dispersion}\label{sigma}
The velocity dispersion in the host galaxies was measured by fitting broadened stellar templates to the galaxy spectra. A direct fitting algorithm based on that described by \citet{barth02} was used. The algorithm has been extensively tested and utilized for AGN host galaxies by, e.g., \citet{gh06} and \citet{wold07}. The model spectrum $M(x)$ which is fitted to the host galaxy is formed by convolving a stellar template $T(x)$ with a line-of-sight velocity broadening function, assumed to be a Gaussian with dispersion $\sigma_{v}$, adding a power-law continuum $C(x)$ and multiplying by a polynomial $P(x)$:
\begin{equation}
M(x) = \left\{ \left[ T(x) \otimes G(x)\right] + C(x) \right\} \times P(x),
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $T(x)\otimes G(x)$ is the stellar template convolved with the Gaussian, $G(x)$. The $x$ coordinate is defined as $x=\ln \lambda$ so that velocity shifts are linear in $\ln \lambda$.
The continuum is $C(x)=c_{0}+c_{1}x$ (note that this is a power-law as a function of wavelength), and $P(x)$ was chosen to be a 3rd degree polynomial
$P(x)=c_{2}p_{0}(x)+c_{3}p_{1}(x)+c_{4}p_{2}(x)+c_{5}p_{3}(x)$, where $p_{n}(x)$ are Legendre polynomials. In order to find the best-fitting model, we varied the velocity dispersion and the six coefficients $c_{0}$ to $c_{5}$ using a downhill simplex method \citep{ps88} until a global minimum of the $\chi^{2}$ function was found.
Our object spectra are combinations of QSO and galaxy features, and the featureless continuum $C(x)$ describes the underlying AGN continuum. The polynomial $P(x)$ accounts for reddening between the template and the object, so the factor $C(x) \times P(x)$ which is added to the convolved stellar template describes the underlying reddened QSO spectrum. By comparing $C(x) \times P(x)$ with an unobscured QSO spectrum, we were able to obtain an estimate of the amount of reddening for each QSO. This is described in \S~\ref{L5100}.
Stellar templates $T(x)$ were formed from individual and various combinations of the 15 different stellar spectra observed with the same setup as the red QSOs (see Table~\ref{table:templates}).
Average F, G, K and M spectra were made by normalizing to the flux in the 7000$-$7100 {\AA} region and taking the average of all spectra within each of the four classes. Since the main source of uncertainty in measuring velocity dispersions typically comes from template mismatches \citep{barth02,gh06}, we ran a series of tests to determine the best template to fit for each region and thus minimize systematic uncertainties, as described in detail below.
Based on previous experience and descriptions of similar analyses in the literature \citep{barth02,gh06,wold07} we chose to estimate velocity dispersions from fits to two different spectral regions: (1) a blue region at 3900$-$4600 {\AA} including Ca\,K but excluding the Ca\,H line (the region 3950$-$3985 \AA\, around Ca\,H was excluded because in some cases AGN contamination from H$\epsilon$ in emission complicated the fit),
and (2) a red region at 5100$-$5550 {\AA} with the \ion{Mg}{1}b absorption line complex $\lambda\lambda$5167, 5173, 5184 masked out (5155$-$5220 {\AA}). It is well-known that the correlation between [Mg/Fe] and velocity dispersion for elliptical galaxies \citep{jorgensen99,kuntschner01} can cause problems with simultaneous fitting of the \ion{Mg}{1}b absorption and the region redward of it \citep{barth02,wold07}. The red region may also be affected by the AGN \ion{Fe}{2} pseudo-continuum at 5050$-$5520 {\AA}, affecting the fits to this region. This is seen in a couple of our objects, as well as emission from [\ion{N}{1}] $\lambda\lambda$ 5198, 5200. We therefore chose to mask out the region 5155$-$5220 {\AA} from our fits. Apart from this, the chosen red and blue regions are the two most reliable regions in the optical with strong enough stellar features to be used for velocity dispersion measurements.
The region redward of the \ion{Mg}{1}b contains several iron absorption line features that are well fitted with our composite template. We also obtain good fits to the blue region, in particular to the Ca\,K line at 3933 \AA, H$\delta$-absorption at 4100 \AA, and the G-band at 4300 {\AA}. Generally, we do not see much AGN contamination in this region, except in one case (165939$+$183436), which consequently has larger uncertainties in the velocity dispersion. Some narrow AGN emission lines, such as
H$\gamma$, H$\delta$, and [\ion{O}{3}] $\lambda$4363, had to be masked from some of the fits, as well as corrupt spectral regions in a couple of cases. In cases where we could not achieve a good fit to the 4000\AA\ break, but there were enough features longward of the break to constrain the fit, we restricted our fit to a region from 4000$-$4600 \AA .
The galaxy spectra were shifted to the rest frame of the stellar templates, and the fitting algorithm initiated with a reasonable set of parameters (we fit seven free parameters including the velocity dispersion). The parameters were varied freely using the downhill simplex routine until a best fit was found. To improve on the best fit and to ensure that a global minimum was found, the fitting routine was started again, with initial model parameters equal to the first solution but perturbed by 10$-$20 \% in random directions for each parameter. The confidence interval on $\sigma_{v}$ was thereafter found by varying the velocity dispersion in steps of 10 km~s$^{-1}$ while letting the other six parameters float freely.
In order to minimize systematic uncertainties due to template mismatches, we used single stars as well as different combinations as stellar templates. For the red region, we find that, in general, we obtain the lowest reduced $\chi^{2}$ when using late stellar types as templates. Five of the objects were best fit in this region with a K\,5 template. This is not surprising since this region is generally dominated by features from later stellar types. This also consistent with the results found by Hiner et al.\ (in preparation), who measure stellar velocity dispersions in local galaxies by using templates constructed from a large suite of stellar types, accurately mimicking stellar populations of different ages \citep[see also][]{hiner2012}. They find a one-to-one correlation in the velocity dispersions that they measure by using a single K star template versus more complex stellar templates in the \ion{Mg}{1}b region (equivalent to our ``red region''). Only three of the objects in our sample (005055.7+293328, 034857.6+125547, 225902.5+124646) are best fit by including a contribution from earlier stellar types. Although these fits produced the smallest reduced $\chi^{2}$, the resulting {$\sigma_*$}\ is within a few tens of km~s$^{-1}$ of that measured with a K star template. In fact, the standard deviation in the values of {$\sigma_*$}\ measured from different templates is typically smaller than $\sim$20 km~s$^{-1}$. Since we do not do a detailed analysis of the stellar populations in this work, we do not favor any particular composite template among those that yield the lowest reduced $\chi^{2}$ values. Therefore, for consistency, we chose to use the same composite template for these three objects as the one we used for the blue region, as described below. The remaining object, 015721.0$+$171248, shows significant QSO contamination in the red region and we were not able to obtain a reliable fit in this region.
The spectra of our objects in the blue region show features from both early- and late-type stars. Therefore, fits using single stellar types as templates consistently resulted in significantly larger reduced $\chi^{2}$ values than those obtained from fits using composite stellar templates. This is also consistent with the results by Hiner et al., who find that using single stellar types as templates for this spectral region result in systematic uncertainties of several tens of km~s$^{-1}$. Thus, we tested a few templates consisting of combinations of stellar types with ratios by flux that would mimic intermediate-age populations (i.e., including features from older and younger populations) and chose the one that yield the lowest values of reduced $\chi^{2}$. Although, in principle, we could do a $\chi^{2}$ minimization to determine the best combination of stellar types for each template, we chose use the same template for every host galaxy in order to reduce the number of free parameters (and degeneracies) in the fits. The flux contribution at 7000 \AA\ of each stellar type for this composite template is 40\% K, 40\% G, 15\% F and 5\% M-star (Fig.~\ref{figure:master_template}).
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\figurenum{2}
\plotone{f2.eps}
\caption{Composite stellar template, consisting of 40\% K, 40\% G, 15\% F and 5\% M-type stars (by flux). The stellar template shown here has been convolved with a $\sigma$ = 165 km s$^{-1}$, which is a typical velocity dispersion of the host galaxies in the sample.}
\label{figure:master_template}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The galaxy spectra in the red and the blue regions with the best-fit models overplotted are shown in Figs.~\ref{figure:fit1} and \ref{figure:fit2}, and the velocity dispersions obtained from these fits are listed in Table~\ref{table:results}. The reduced chi-squared, $\chi^{2}_{red}$, for each fit is also listed.
The confidence intervals on {$\sigma_*$}\ give the uncertainty related to the fitting procedure, with smaller confidence intervals for higher signal-to-noise spectra and for spectra with minimal AGN contribution in the fitting regions. Typically, we obtain 68\% confidence intervals with a width of 10$-$20 km~s$^{-1}$.
\onecolumn
\begin{figure}[tb]
\figurenum{3a}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{f3a.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Best-fit models (red trace) overplotted on the host galaxy spectra (black trace) in the two spectral regions described in the text. Top of each panel: Rest-frame host spectrum with a fitted broadened stellar template overplotted. Bottom: residual from the fit (blue trace).}
\label{figure:fit1}
\end{figure}
\twocolumn
\onecolumn
\begin{figure}[tb]
\figurenum{3b}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{f3b.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Best-fit models (red trace) overplotted on the host galaxy spectra (black trace) in the two spectral regions described in the text. Top of each panel: Rest-frame host spectrum with a fitted broadened stellar template overplotted. Bottom: residual from the fit (blue trace).}
\label{figure:fit2}
\end{figure}
\twocolumn
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
\tablecolumns{8}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{Best-fit velocity dispersions}
\tablehead{
\colhead{QSO} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Blue region} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Red region} & \colhead{Weighted } \\
\colhead{(2MASSi J)} & \colhead{{$\sigma_*$}} & \colhead{$\chi^{2}_{red}$} & \colhead{std. dev.} & \colhead{{$\sigma_*$}} & \colhead{$\chi^{2}_{red}$} & \colhead{std. dev.} & \colhead{avg. {$\sigma_*$}}
}
\startdata
005055.7$+$293328 &$169_{-4}^{+6\phn}$ & 1.71 & 15.4 & $179_{-15}^{+7}$ & 0.69 & 18.3 & $176_{-17}^{+14}$\\
015721.0$+$171248 &$250_{-8}^{+12}$& 6.75 & 53.0 & \nodata &\nodata&\nodata& $250_{-54}^{+54}$ \\
022150.6$+$132741 &$115_{-7}^{+9\phn}$ & 1.96 & 40.7 & $140_{-7}^{+7\phn}$ & 3.31 & 20.0 & $129_{-22}^{+22}$ \\
034857.6$+$125547 &$136_{-17}^{+9}$& 6.16 & 26.1 & $157_{-8}^{+9\phn}$ & 2.99 & 17.9 & $152_{-17}^{+17}$ \\
163736.5$+$254302 &$159_{-8}^{+2\phn}$ & 1.49 & 16.7 & $124_{-11}^{+14}$& 0.51 &\phn8.4&$129_{-12}^{+14}$ \\
165939.7$+$183436 &$188_{-22}^{+13}$&0.50 & 22.1 & $150_{-26}^{+32}$& 0.20 & 16.8 & $159_{-25}^{+28}$ \\
225902.5$+$124646 &$198_{-2}^{+10}$& 0.87 & 25.8 & $190_{-12}^{+12}$& 0.69 & 27.8 & $194_{-20}^{+21}$\\
230442.4$+$270616 &$165_{-4}^{+3\phn}$ & 1.53 & 35.3 & $125_{-7}^{+7\phn}$ & 0.76 &\phn3.1& $127_{-7}^{+7\phn}$ \\
232745.6$+$162434 &$229_{-6}^{+7\phn}$ & 2.23 & 21.6 & $195_{-12}^{+11}$& 0.89 & 23.1 & $205_{-19}^{+19}$
\enddata
\tablecomments{Velocity dispersion in units of km\,s$^{-1}$ obtained for the blue and red fitting regions. The errors for the blue and red regions are 68\% confidence intervals; $\chi^{2}_{red}$ is the reduced $\chi^{2}$ for the best fit. The standard deviation in km\,s$^{-1}$ of a series of measurements using different stellar templates is given for each region; this is an estimate of the systematic uncertainty due to template mismatches. The last column is the average of the {$\sigma_*$}\ from the blue and red regions, weighted by their corresponding uncertainties. The errors given for the average values include the standard deviations added in quadrature. The blank spaces denote regions where a good fit was not obtainable. Note that the velocity dispersions in this table have not been aperture corrected.}
\label{table:results}
\end{deluxetable}
\noindent
In reality, the uncertainty in the velocity dispersion is larger than this because not all features in the stellar templates used match the host galaxy features equally well. In order to estimate the uncertainties related to template mismatches we fitted a range of stellar templates to the host galaxies and obtained a standard deviation of the measured values of {$\sigma_*$}. We list the standard deviations for each range of fits for each region in Table~\ref{table:results}. As mentioned above, the systematic uncertainties due to template mismatches are generally much smaller in the red region than in the blue region, in agreement with the results of Hiner et al.\ (in preparation).
The velocity dispersions measured from the blue and red regions agree within the uncertainties. In order to get representative velocity dispersions for each object, we average the two values weighted by their uncertainties and the goodness of fit (as given by $\chi^{2}_{red}$). The weighted averages with their uncertainties (including systematic uncertainties added in quadrature) are listed in the last column of Table~\ref{table:results}.
\subsection{Galaxy Morphologies}\label{morphologies}
We analyzed the $HST$ imaging data with the two-dimensional modeling program GALFIT \citep{peng2002} to achieve three primary goals: (1) to obtain photometry of the nucleus to be used in the measurement of {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}, (2) to determine the size and characteristics of the bulge component, if present, and (3) to search for signs of interaction in order to properly interpret our results.
It is imperative that the appropriate PSF is used when modeling galaxy morphologies. Empirical PSFs are ideal for this purpose, as they reflect the same instrumental conditions that were used for the observations. We searched the $HST$ archive for high signal-to-noise stars (typical peak counts were $\sim2100$) that were observed with the same instrument and filter and that fell near the same CCD position as the QSOs. The input PSF image must be large enough to encompass the wings of the function, so we chose a large region and interpolated across extraneous sources within the region. Since the PSF is undersampled in the PC image, we broadened it with a Gaussian of $\sigma = 0.8$ pixels. This increased the full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) of the PSF to be greater than 2 pixels, while preserving the encompassed flux.
The science images need to be large enough to accurately estimate the background sky level. This is especially important, because the edges of galaxy profiles are sensitive to the background sky level, and can affect, for example, the S\'{e}rsic index, $n$, of the profile fit to the galaxy. We cut each image to 15''.75 by 15''.75 (350 pixels x 0.045 arcsec pix$^{-1}$) centered on the science target, which is several times the size of the targets themselves. This large region sometimes included other objects, which we either masked from the fit or fit with an extra component. To match the resolution of the PSF, we also broadened the science images with the same Gaussian used on the PSF.
We followed an iterative process while fitting the morphologies of the galaxies. Each fit included the point source (a scaled PSF) and background sky level estimated by GALFIT. We began with simple models of single bulge or disk components for the host galaxies and added complexity as necessary. All but one of the galaxies required two or more components to model the host. Where the image showed multiple objects in the field, the secondary object was fit with its own component or masked from the fit. We generally used free index S\'{e}rsic profiles to model the bulges, but in many cases, GALFIT did not converge on a reasonable S\'{e}rsic index. To fit these hosts, we ran several iterations of GALFIT holding the index constant at values $n =$ 1, 2, 3, and 4. In each case the $n = 4$ fit the image the best. We adopted the best-fit models based on the $\chi^{2}$ values and residuals of the model subtracted image.
We report magnitudes for the best fits of each of the targets. Visual inspection of the residual images indicates that the point source and PSF were slightly mismatched. In order to estimate the uncertainty in the magnitudes, we also performed a direct PSF subtraction and determined the upper and lower limits for which the PSF was clearly over- and under-subtracted, respectively. The magnitudes measured by direct subtraction were, in each case, within 0.1 mag of the value obtained from the GALFIT fits, except for 005055.7$+$293328, for which the difference was 0.36 mag. Our measured magnitudes are systematically fainter than those reported by \cite{marble2003}, with the differences ranging from less than 0.1 mag to 1.1 mag in the most extreme case (165939.7$+$183436). The differences likely arise from the fact that we fit simultaneously a PSF with the different components of the host galaxy (e.g., bulge and disk), so the nuclear fluxes that we measure are less likely to be contaminated by light from the host galaxy. Another reason for the differences in magnitudes may be the choice of PSFs: Whereas we selected empirical PSFs from the $HST$ archive, \citet{marble2003} used one of the QSOs in their sample as the PSF to subtract from all the other QSOs. They chose 222202.2$+$195231 since it did not show significant extended emission after subtracting an artificial PSF created with the software package Tiny Tim \citep{krist2001}.
In Table~\ref{table:galfit} we list the magnitudes of the PSF and S{\'e}rsic components used to fit each object. The magnitudes are apparent $HST$ F814W magnitudes, not corrected for Galactic extinction nor K-corrected, to allow for direct comparison with results published by \cite{marble2003}. Every object appears to have a clear bulge component. In Figs.~\ref{figure:galfit}, \ref{figure:galfit_b} and \ref{figure:galfit_c} we show the image, the best fit model, and the residuals after subtraction of each of the targets. One-dimensional surface brightness profiles of each object, including all the components used to model them, are shown in Fig.~\ref{figure:radial}.
\begin{deluxetable}{llcccc}
\tablecolumns{12}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{Results of Modeling the QSO Host Galaxies Using GALFIT}
\tablehead{
\colhead{QSO} & \colhead{Component} & \colhead{$m_{\rm F814W}$} & \colhead{$r_{\rm eff}$} & \colhead{$r_{\rm eff}$} & \colhead{S{\'e}rsic Index}\\
\colhead{(2MASSi J)} & & \colhead{(mag)$^{a}$} & \colhead{($\arcsec$)} & \colhead{(kpc)} & \\
\colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)}
& \colhead{(6)}
}
\startdata
005055.7$+$293328 & PSF & 20.50 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& bulge & 19.27 & 0.22 & 0.52 & 4 (fixed) \\
& disk? & 19.42 & 3.46 & 8.22 & 0.15 \\
& arms & 18.56 & 1.89 & 4.50 & 0.63 \\
\hline
015721.0$+$171248 & PSF & 20.45 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& bulge & 20.67 & 0.19 & 0.67 & 4 (fixed) \\
& disk & 19.86 & 0.72 & 2.50 & 1 (fixed) \\
\hline
022150.6$+$132741 & PSF & 21.17 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& bulge & 17.93 & 2.89 & 7.04 & 4 (fixed) \\
& disk & 18.88 & 2.13 & 5.19 & 0.5 \\
\hline
034857.6$+$125547 & PSF & 21.57 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& bulge & 19.80 & 0.79 & 2.70 & 5.8 \\
& companion & 20.88 & 0.44 & 1.51 & 1 (fixed) \\
& companion & 20.08 & 0.70 & 2.40 & 1 (fixed) \\
\hline
163736.5$+$254302 & PSF & 21.37 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& bulge & 19.88 & 0.22 & 0.92 & 4.7 \\
& disk & 19.87 & 0.49 & 2.04 & 0.6 \\
\hline
165939.7$+$183436 & PSF & 19.11 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& bulge & 18.21 & 0.26 & 0.76 & 4 (fixed) \\
\hline
225902.5$+$124646 & PSF & 19.40 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& bulge & 18.82 & 0.41 & 1.33 & 3.7 \\
& disk & 19.51 & 1.20 & 3.89 & 1 (fixed) \\
\hline
230442.4$+$270616 & PSF & 20.70 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& bulge & 19.23 & 0.98 & 3.65 & 4 (fixed) \\
& disk & 21.50 & 0.32 & 1.18 & 1 (fixed) \\
\hline
232745.6$+$162434 & PSF & 22.12 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& bulge & 19.20 & 1.30 & 6.56 & 4 (fixed) \\
& disk & 20.07 & 1.03 & 5.22 & 1 (fixed) \\
\enddata
\tablecomments{$^{a}$ F814W magnitudes not corrected for Galactic reddening or for intrinsic reddening.}
\label{table:galfit}
\end{deluxetable}
The object 005055.7$+$293328 is hosted by a spiral galaxy and has a prominent dust lane in the central region. In order to obtain the best estimate for the nuclear flux we fit the host galaxy with multiple components so as to minimize the residuals after subtraction. The best fit included the spiral arms, disk, bulge, and an additional narrow S{\'e}rsic profile (not included in Table~\ref{table:galfit}) to account for the asymmetric light distribution due to the dust lane. While fitting all these components allows us to obtain a good fit for the PSF, it is likely that we are underestimating the flux and the effective radius of the bulge, since we are splitting it into two components.
For 163736.5+254302 and 165939.7+183436, we use additional components to fit the apparent companions. These components are not listed in Table~\ref{table:galfit}, but they are shown in Fig.~\ref{figure:radial}.
\vspace{0.6in}
\subsection{Black hole mass estimates}
We estimated virial masses for the BHs in the sample
by using the scaling relation for {H$\alpha$}\ given by \cite{greene2010}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ensuremath{M_\mathrm{BH}} = (9.7 \pm 0.5) \times 10^6
\left(\frac{\ensuremath{L_{\rm{5100 \AA}}}}{10^{44}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}} \right)^{0.519 \pm 0.07} \nonumber \\
\times \left(\frac{\ensuremath{\mathrm{FWHM}_\mathrm{H{\alpha}}}}{10^3~{\rm km s^{-1}}} \right)^{2.06 \pm 0.06}
\end{eqnarray}
\citeauthor{greene2010} use the virial coefficient measured by \citet{onken2004}, i.e., $<f>$ = 5.5, which is a factor of 1.8 higher than the value assumed for a spherically symmetric broad line region \cite[e.g.,][]{kaspi2000}. This value is also consistent with that found by \citet{woo2010} from a sample of reverberation mapped AGN. Although \citet{graham2011} find a lower virial factor (i.e., 2.8), we adopt $<f>$ = 5.5 since this allows us to compare our results directly with those of previous studies (see \S\ref{results}).
In the scaling relation for virial masses, the size of the broad line
region is a function of the FWHM of the broad component of H$\alpha$, FWHM$_{H\alpha}$, and the AGN continuum luminosity at rest frame 5100 \AA,
$L_{5100}$. Here we describe our procedure to measure each of these two quantities.
\subsubsection{Measuring FWHM$_{H\alpha}$}
In order to measure the width of the broad {H$\alpha$}\ line, we first had to do a detailed decomposition of the narrow {H$\alpha$}\ component and the narrow \ion{N}{2} $\lambda\lambda$~6548, 6583 lines. We performed all the line fits using the {\it specfit} task \citep{Kriss94} in the IRAF STSDAS package, and following the method outlined by \citet{glikman2007} and \citet{GH04}, as described below.
First, we created a narrow line model by fitting the \ion{S}{2} $\lambda\lambda$6716, 6731 doublet. The line profiles often showed blue wings. Thus, we fit each line using two Gaussians, one of which was allowed to have skew (or asymmetry), although we found that skew was not needed in all cases. The continuum was fit simultaneously with a power law function. To ensure the same model fit for both lines, and to avoid unrealistic degeneracies, we constrained the model for each line of the doublet to be the same. This was done by matching the widths of each
\onecolumn
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
\figurenum{4a}
\epsscale{0.9}
\plotone{f4a.eps}
\caption{$HST$ F814W images of the 2MASS QSOs. For each row, the left panel is the original image, the central panel is the best model obtained with GALFIT, and the right panel is the residuals after subtracting the best model from the observed image. Each image is 10\arcsec$\times$10\arcsec.}
\label{figure:galfit}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\twocolumn
\onecolumn
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
\figurenum{4b}
\epsscale{0.9}
\plotone{f4b.eps}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{figure:galfit}}
\label{figure:galfit_b}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\twocolumn
\onecolumn
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
\figurenum{4c}
\epsscale{0.9}
\plotone{f4c.eps}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{figure:galfit}}
\label{figure:galfit_c}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\twocolumn
\noindent
component and the relative positions of the doublet. Because we used a two-Gaussian model, an extra constraint on the flux ratio was necessary to ensure the same total model for each line. \citet{Garstang52} calculates the transition probability and intensity ratio of the doublet $^{4}$S - $^{2}$D transition in \ion{S}{2}. He finds it can range from 0.5 to 0.8 depending on the parameters used in the calculation. However, he also cites a reasonable observed value of 0.74 based on NGC 7662. We adopted this observed value for our \ion{S}{2} fits, as it produced the most reasonable fit of the range.
In some cases the \ion{S}{2} doublet was contaminated by the {H$\alpha$}\ broad emission or telluric absorption. In these cases we fit the [\ion{O}{3}] $\lambda\lambda$4959, 5007 doublet to create a narrow line model. Similar techniques as with the \ion{S}{2} doublet were used to fit the [\ion{O}{3}] doublet. In this case the doublet flux ratio was constrained to 2.87 \citep{OF2006}, which was a good fit for our data.
We then fit the region around {H$\alpha$}\ using the narrow line model for \ion{N}{2} $\lambda$6548 and \ion{N}{2} $\lambda$6583. We constrained the relative position of the \ion{N}{2} lines using the laboratory wavelengths for these lines. While \citet{glikman2007} constrained the \ion{N}{2} flux ratio to a theoretical value of 2.96, we found better fits when we let the flux of each \ion{N}{2} line be freely fit. This often resulted in a flux ratio greater than 2.96. In addition, we included a narrow line component of {H$\alpha$}\ using the fitted narrow line model and we used a power law to characterize the continuum. Finally, we included a broad Gaussian (with initial width of 5000 km s$^{-1}$) to model the broad line {H$\alpha$}\ component. We first fixed the broad {H$\alpha$}\ line to be symmetric, then added skew after its centroid position had been located by the fitting routine. We show the best fits with each of their components in Fig.~\ref{figure:lineprofiles}.
{\it Specfit} uses a simplex method to minimize $\chi^{2}$. We adjusted input parameters and initial step sizes iteratively to probe different local $\chi^{2}$ minima and thus found the global $\chi^{2}$ minimum.
The errors in the FWHM$_{H\alpha}$ resulting from the fit are typically $\sim$15 km s$^{-1}$. The true uncertainties, however, are much larger since they are dominated by the uncertainties in the modeling of the narrow component and the decomposition of the broad and narrow components.
In addition, although the AGN is much less extinguished in these wavelength regions than in the regions where we measure {$\sigma_*$}, there is still significant contribution from the host galaxy to the continuum around {H$\alpha$}. We found that subtracting different stellar {H$\alpha$}\ absorption lines (corresponding to different stellar templates or stellar populations) has no measurable effect on the value of FWHM$_{H\alpha}$. However, the shape of the stellar continuum around {H$\alpha$}\ is different for different stellar populations, and this can potentially affect the fitting of the broad component, especially for the objects with the broadest emission lines. Thus the choice of stellar template to subtract from the AGN spectrum introduces a systematic uncertainty. In order to estimate this uncertainty, we measured FWHM$_{H\alpha}$ from the different template-subtracted emission lines and found the standard deviation for the different measurements. We added this uncertainty in quadrature to the fitting and systematic errors.
The final values for FWHM$_{H\alpha}$ and their uncertainties are listed in Table~\ref{mbh}. The FWHM$_{H\alpha}$ we measure for 225902.5$+$124646 is highly uncertain because H$\alpha$\ has a very asymmetric profile, with very extended emission on the blue side of the line. This is likely indicative of an outflow, so that the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ we derive from it may not be reliable. We attempted a variety of ways to separate the core of the line from the outflow, by fitting the latter with multiple Gaussians blueshifted with respect to the core. In order to ensure that we obtain a conservative measure of {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}, we chose the smallest value of FWHM$_{H\alpha}$ that would fit the line. The upper limit on the errors is given by the FWHM that would be obtained if a single Gaussian were used to fit the broad profile.
We note that some studies, including those of reverberation mapped AGN \citep[e.g.,][]{woo2010} use line dispersions rather than FWHM to calculate {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}. However, these measurements are based on $H\beta$ rather than {H$\alpha$}. For our study, we are unable to measure the line dispersion or FWHM of H$\beta$, since the AGN is still highly obscured at those wavelengths. Instead, we must use {H$\alpha$}\ as a proxy for H$\beta$. The relations between these two lines in the literature are currently much better constrained for FWHM than for line dispersions. For example, the relation between FWHM$_{H\alpha}$ and FWHM$_{H\beta}$ used by \citet{greene2010} is derived by fitting 162 objects
\onecolumn
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\figurenum{5}
\includegraphics[scale=0.27]{f5a.eps}\hspace*{0.1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.27]{f5b.eps}\hspace*{0.1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.27]{f5c.eps}\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.27]{f5d.eps}\hspace*{0.1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.27]{f5e.eps}\hspace*{0.1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.27]{f5f.eps}\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.27]{f5g.eps}\hspace*{0.1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.27]{f5h.eps}\hspace*{0.1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.27]{f5i.eps}\\
\caption{One-dimensional surface brightness profiles of the $HST$ F814W images of the 2MASS QSOs, showing each of the components used to fit the objects with GALFIT. The black dashed lines in the residuals panels trace the one-sigma error bars in the observed data.}
\label{figure:radial}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\twocolumn
\onecolumn
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\figurenum{6}
\epsscale{0.9}
\plotone{f6.eps}
\caption{Continuum-subtracted, rest-frame Keck ESI spectra (black trace) of the 2MASS QSOs in the {H$\alpha$}\ region. The narrow line component models are plotted in blue, the broad emission lines in green, and the overall fit to the data in red.
}
\label{figure:lineprofiles}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\twocolumn
\noindent
\citep[see][for details] {greene2005}, whereas \citet{mcgill2008} derive their relation for {H$\alpha$}\ line dispersions from only 19 objects. Thus, we use the relation for FWHM$_{H\alpha}$ rather than that for line dispersions. This choice does not affect our main results: if we were to use line dispersions rather than FWHM$_{H\alpha}$, the resulting {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ would be, on average, 0.08 dex greater.
\begin{deluxetable}{clrcccc}
\tabletypesize{\small}
\tablecolumns{5}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{Black Hole Masses}
\tablehead{
\colhead {Object} & {QSO} & Weighted & \colhead{FWHM$_{H\alpha}$} & \colhead{E($B-V$)} & \colhead{$\lambda L_{5100}$} & \colhead{{$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}} \\
\colhead {ID} & {(2MASSi J)} & avg. {$\sigma_*$} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)}& \colhead{} & \colhead{(10$^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$)}& \colhead{(10$^{8}$ {$\mathcal M_{\odot}$})} }
\startdata
1&005055.7$+$293328 & $176_{-17}^{+14}$ &$2679^{+227}_{-175}$ & 1.64 & \phn2.52$\pm$1.24 & \phn$1.19^{+0.40}_{-0.55}$ \\
2&015721.0$+$171248 & $250_{-54}^{+54}$ &$2196^{+27}_{-32}$ & 2.13 & 18.74$\pm$2.05 & \phn$2.24^{+0.35}_{-0.72}$ \\
3&022150.6$+$132741 & $129_{-22}^{+22}$ &$4279^{+421}_{-492}$ & 1.76 & \phn1.78$\pm$0.24 & \phn$2.61^{+1.06}_{-1.01}$ \\
4&034857.6$+$125547 & $152_{-17}^{+17}$&$4213^{+355}_{-342}$ & 1.68 & \phn4.16$\pm$0.95 & \phn$3.93^{+1.47}_{-1.61}$ \\
5&163736.5$+$254302 & $129_{-12}^{+14}$ &$3178^{+371}_{-248}$ & 1.93 & 14.13$\pm$2.21 & $\phn4.15^{+1.87}_{-1.75}$ \\
6&165939.7$+$183436 & $159_{-25}^{+28}$ &$6742^{+3640}_{-142}$ & 0.39 & \phn0.94$\pm$0.24 & \phn$4.79^{+9.31}_{-1.38}$ \\
7&225902.5$+$124646 & $194_{-20}^{+21}$ &$4457^{+5543}_{-100}$ & 0.84 & \phn4.03$\pm$0.55 & \phn$4.34^{+27.9}_{-3.05}$ \\
8&230442.4$+$270616 & $127_{-7}^{+7\phn}$ &$6349^{+251}_{-265}$ & 0.99 & \phn1.71$\pm$0.47 & \phn$5.77^{+1.62}_{-2.02}$ \\
9&232745.6$+$162434 & $205_{-19}^{+19}$&$2341^{+416}_{-161}$ & 1.93 & 19.16$\pm$5.57 & \phn$2.59^{+1.55}_{-1.18}$ \\
\enddata
\label{mbh}
\end{deluxetable}
\subsubsection{Measuring $L_{5100}$}\label{L5100}
The AGN continuum flux at rest frame 5100 \AA\ cannot be measured directly from our ESI spectra for two primary reasons: (1) The continua of red QSOs suffer
from significant extinction at short wavelengths, and this extinction needs
to be properly measured. (2) The spectrum in this wavelength region has
a large contribution from the host galaxy that also needs to be accounted for.
In order to obtain the unobscured QSO flux at 5100 \AA, we first
measured the extinction for each object by modeling its spectrum.
As described in \S\ref{sigma}, we modeled the QSO continuum by
including a polynomial (in $x = ln(\lambda)$ space) in the fitting procedure to obtain {$\sigma_*$}. The resulting
polynomial, $C(x) \times P(x)$, is then a good representation of the reddened QSO.
In order to estimate E($B-V$), we compared the polynomial to the Sloan Digitized Sky Survey (SDSS) composite QSO spectrum \citep{vandenberk2001} reddened with a Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) reddening law \citep{prevot1984,bouchet1985}, with E($B-V$) as a free parameter.
The values of E($B-V$) that we obtained using this procedure are listed
in Table~\ref{mbh}. Two thirds of our objects span a range of E($B-V$) values comparable to those found by \cite{urrutia2009} in a sample selected from the FIRST-2MASS Red Quasar Surveys \citep{glikman2007}, i.e., E($B-V$) $\lesssim 1.5$. The remaining three objects, however have E($B-V$) $\sim 2$. Typical errors in E($B-V$) derived from the fits are $\sim$0.1.
Whenever possible, we also estimated E($B-V$) using H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratios. Naturally, the values for these ratios become more uncertain with
increasing extinction, so we only estimated E($B-V$) for the seven objects for
which we could obtain reliable ratios. The resulting E($B-V$) values were
generally consistent with the values obtained from the fitting procedure,
although the two could differ by as much as E($B-V$)$\sim$0.3. We found no trend in the way the two values differed; the average E($B-V$) of the seven objects measured from the Balmer decrement was 1.49, compared to 1.45 as inferred from modeling the AGN continuum. Since there is no a priori reason why the continuum and broad
emission lines should suffer the same amount of extinction, we only used the Balmer decrement estimates as a rough comparison to make sure the reddening estimates derived from the model were reasonable.
As a further test, we subtracted the corresponding reddened SDSS composite
spectrum from the spectrum of each of our targets to recover the host galaxy
spectrum. There were some QSO features that were over- or under-subtracted
in the resulting host galaxy spectra. This is caused by the mismatches
between the SDSS composite spectrum and the intrinsic spectra of our QSOs.
Indeed, the greatest source of uncertainty in the final values of $L_{5100}$
comes from such mismatches.
However, the overall spectral energy distribution (SED) of each host galaxy
matched the shape of the SED that would be expected for a galaxy with the given set of stellar absorption features observed in that galaxy.
Once we had determined the intrinsic reddening for each object, we scaled each continuum model, $C(x) \times P(x)$, to match the observed flux of
the corresponding QSO nucleus, as measured from $HST$ WFPC2 F814W images
using GALFIT (see Table~\ref{table:galfit}) and corrected for Galactic extinction using the values given by \citet{schlegel1998}.
Thus we constructed continua of the reddened QSOs without galaxy contamination and taking into account flux
loses due to the slit. Finally, we corrected these continua for intrinsic extinction (using the values listed in Table~\ref{mbh}) and measured the the flux of each QSO at rest-frame 5100 \AA. As mentioned above, the greatest source of uncertainty comes from measuring E($B-V$) by making the assumption that the intrinsic continuum shape of our sources is equal to that of the SDSS composite QSO. The uncertainties for $\lambda L_{5100}$ listed in Table~\ref{mbh} include the uncertainty in the intrinsic power-law index, $\alpha_{\lambda}$ (conservatively assumed to be $\sim$0.05; \cite{vandenberk2001}) as well as the uncertainty in measuring E($B-V$) by the process we outline above.
The black hole masses derived from our measurements of FWHM$_{H\alpha}$ and $\lambda L_{5100}$ are listed in Table~\ref{mbh}. For completion, we also repeat the values of {$\sigma_*$}\ from Table~\ref{table:results} in Table~\ref{mbh}. As mentioned before, using line dispersions rather than FWHM to estimate black hole masses results in masses that are, on average, 0.08 dex greater than those presented in this table.
\section{Results}\label{results}
Our results are summarized in Fig.~\ref{msigmaplot}, where the 2MASS
red QSOs are plotted as black circles. We also plot objects from \cite{woo2010}, which include the 24 local AGN that have published {$\sigma_*$}\ and {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ from reverberation mapping (green squares), as well as the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation derived by \citeauthor{woo2010} from that sample (green dashed line). For reference, the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation for inactive local galaxies
measured by \cite{mcconnell2011} is plotted as a blue dotted line.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\figurenum{7}
\begin{center}
\epsscale{0.8}
\plotone{f7.eps}
\caption{Red 2MASS QSOs (black circles) in the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ diagram.
The green dash line is the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ for local AGN relation measured by \cite{woo2010}. We also plot the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation for quiescent local galaxies measured by \cite{mcconnell2011} as a blue dotted line.
Green squares are local AGN with reverberation mapped {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ reported by \cite{woo2010}. Stars denote the Seyfert galaxies at $z=0.36$ and $z=0.57$ from the work by Woo et al.~\citeyear{woo2006,woo2008} and \cite{treu2007}. The two objects marked with hexagons do not follow the Faber-Jackson relation (see text for details)}
\label{msigmaplot}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The majority of the red QSOs are clearly above the local relations. We have specifically compared our sample to AGN only to avoid any potential biases introduced by comparing active to quiescent galaxies \citep{lauer2007}, and we have used a virial coefficient consistent with that found by \citet{woo2010} from the reverberation mapped AGN sample.
\cite{woo2010} estimate an intrinsic scatter of 0.43 dex for their relation including all morphological types. In contrast, our objects are, on average, 0.80 dex above the \citeauthor{woo2010} relation, with six out of nine of them having log({$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}) above the intrinsic scatter.
Comparison with the \citeauthor{mcconnell2011} relation for quiescent galaxies yields a similar, although smaller, discrepancy: our sample is, on average, 0.65 dex above the relation, and with five objects being above the intrinsic scatter.
When comparing our objects to those of \citet{woo2010}, it is pertinent to consider possible differences in the width of {H$\alpha$}\ when measured from single epoch (SE) spectra versus rms spectra from reverberation mapped objects.
\citet{park2012} find that H$\beta$ is broader in rms spectra than in SE spectra, although the difference between the two decreases as the intrinsic width of the broad lines increases. \citeauthor{park2012} present a prescription to correct for this effect in relatively narrow-lined ($<$3000 km~s$^{-1}$~) objects. To get an idea of how much this effect might impact our results, we can assume that the correction for H$\beta$ holds for {H$\alpha$}, and that it is a reasonable approximation for the objects in our sample with broader {H$\alpha$}\ as well. With those assumptions, if we apply equation (8) of \citeauthor{park2012} to correct the FWHM$_{H\alpha}$ in Table~\ref{mbh}, we find that the black hole masses of the objects in our sample decrease by 0.13 dex on average. This correction, however, is not enough to bring the objects to agreement with the local {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation, as they would still be, on average, 0.67 dex above the \citet{woo2010} relation. Even if the correction for {H$\alpha$}\ and/or for objects with broader lines were greater, it is unlikely to be large enough to account for the offset we observe.
It is important to consider other potential biases that may be present in our sample. First, the morphology of the host galaxies could introduce a bias. It has been shown that the precise form of the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation has a dependence on the morphology of the galaxies in question \cite[e.g.,][]{graham2011}, and that pseudobulges do not follow the same relation \citep{kormendy2011}.
As can be seen in Table~\ref{table:galfit}, every host galaxy in our sample has a bulge component that is best fit by a S{\'e}rsic of index $n\simeq4$. Although most of the galaxies also appear to have a disk component, the majority (7/9) are clearly dominated by the bulge. In order to investigate how the presence of the disk may affect our measurement of {$\sigma_*$}\ in the bulges, we tested whether they follow the Faber-Jackson relation \citep{faber1976}. In the left panel of Fig.~\ref{figure:fj}, we plot velocity dispersions vs.\ absolute Cousins I magnitudes of the bulge components of the galaxies. The latter were obtained using the output magnitudes from GALFIT given in Table~\ref{table:galfit} corrected for Galactic reddening, applying k-corrections for the spectral type of each galaxy and passive evolution using the on-line calculator from \citet{vandokkum2001}.
The dashed line in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{figure:fj} is the Faber-Jackson relation from \citet{nigoche2010}.
\citeauthor{nigoche2010} use a sample of $\sim$90,000 SDSS-DR7 early-type galaxies to calculate the Faber-Jackson parameters (i.e., A and B in log~{$\sigma_*$} = A - BM$_{r}$) for different magnitude ranges. Our objects span a magnitude range of $-20.6<M_{I}<-23.4$, or $-19.8<M_{r}<-22.6$ \cite[AB magnitudes, using the transformation equations given by][]{jester2005}. In this magnitude range, \citet{nigoche2010} find A = 0.152$\pm$0.009 and B = $-$0.976$\pm$0.193. Note that the relation of \citeauthor{nigoche2010} is measured in the SDSS r-filter, and we have simply transformed it to Cousins-I, without accounting for potential wavelength-dependent differences in the slope.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\figurenum{8}
\begin{center}
\epsscale{1.1}
\plottwo{f8a.eps}{f8b.eps}
\caption{{\bf Left:} Faber-Jackson relation for the bulge component of the 2MASS red QSO hosts. The errors in M$_{\rm I}$ are smaller than the symbols (0.01$-$0.04 mag). The numbers indicate the object ID number, as listed in the various tables.
The dashed line is the Faber-Jackson relation measured by \citet{nigoche2010} from a sample of $\sim$90,000 SDSS early-type galaxies in the luminosity range spanned by our sample in the SDSS $r-$band. Note that we have not accounted for potential wavelength-dependent differences in the slope. {\bf Right:} The bulges of the 2MASS red QSOs plotted on the Fundamental Plane. The solid line is the orthogonal fit to the Fundamental Plane from \citet{hyde2009} derived from $\sim$50,000 SDSS-DR6 early-type galaxies. The dashed and dotted lines correspond to the values that enclose 68\% and 95\% of the SDSS galaxies, respectively.}
\label{figure:fj}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Two host galaxies fall clearly off the relation: those of 005055.7+293328 and 015721.0+171248 (objects \# 1 and 2, respectively), both of which have disks with luminosities comparable to, or greater than, their corresponding bulges. As described in \S~\ref{morphologies}, the host galaxy of 005055.7+293328 has prominent nearly edge-on disk with spiral arms and a dust lane that goes through the bulge. To mimic the dust lane, we fit this object with two separate components, so we almost certainly underestimate the flux contained in the bulge. \citet{marble2003} fit a single component to the host galaxy of this object and find a M$_{I}$ = $-$22.3. This magnitude would bring the position of the object to agreement with the Faber-Jackson relation. The other object, 015721.0+171248, is the only one in the sample that has a disk that is more luminous than the bulge. The rotating component from a dynamically cold disk can bias {$\sigma_*$}\ toward higher values (when the disk is edge-on) or lower values \citep[when the disk is face-on; see e.g.,][] {bennert2011a}. Although the disk of 015721.0+171248 has a lower inclination than that of 005055.7+293328, its velocity dispersion may still be somewhat increased by the dynamically cold component.
More importantly, 015721.0+171248 is the only object for which there is significant QSO contamination in the stellar absorption line spectrum, so that we were not able to obtain a reliable fit of {$\sigma_*$}\ for the red region.
We have marked both of these objects with hexagons in Figs.~\ref{msigmaplot} and \ref{deltambh} to indicate that the {$\sigma_*$}\ measured in these objects may not be representative of normal bulges. Interestingly, these are the two objects that fall closest to the local AGN {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation, and removing them from the analysis only accentuates the offset of the red QSO sample with respect to the local relation.
We also consider the position that the bulges in our sample occupy on the Fundamental Plane \cite[FP;][]{djorgovski1987}. We obtain $<\mu>_{eff}$ as an output parameter from GALFIT, applying k-corrections and passive evolution to $z=0$ as above, as well as correcting from cosmological dimming. We compare it to the FP relation derived by \citet{hyde2009} from a sample of $\sim$50,000 SDSS-DR4 (with parameters from DR6) early-type galaxies at $0<z<0.35$. Here we use their orthogonal fit to the plane in the SDSS $i-$band and we have transformed it to Cousins-I, using the corrections prescribed by \citet{rothberg2012}. The solid line in Fig.~\ref{figure:fj} (right panel) corresponds to the coefficients given in Table 2 of \citet{hyde2009}, and the dashed and dotted lines correspond to the values that enclose 68\% and 95\% of their SDSS early-type galaxies, respectively. While, on average, our objects fall below the FP, they are consistent with the scatter in the relation. The two objects that are off the Faber-Jackson relation also appear to be the ones with the largest offset from the FP.
Besides the effects of a potential dynamically cold component on {$\sigma_*$}, we need to consider the possibility that we are measuring {$\sigma_*$}\ in systems that are not dynamically relaxed. At least a third of the host galaxies in our sample show clear signs of interactions (Figs.~\ref{figure:galfit}, \ref{figure:galfit_b}, \ref{figure:galfit_c}).
Many of the numerical simulations that are successful at reproducing the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation presuppose that AGN activity is triggered by mergers \cite[e.g.,][]{robertson2006a,robertson2006b,hopkins2006}. However, they predict the value {$\sigma_*$}\ after the system has reached dynamical equilibrium. To investigate the evolution of {$\sigma_*$}\ during mergers, \cite{stickley2012} use N-body simulations of merging galaxies to perform a flux-weighted measurement of {$\sigma_*$}\ through a diffraction slit. They find that, typically, {$\sigma_*$}\ tends to increase right after the first passage, followed by a period of oscillation about the value that {$\sigma_*$}\ eventually reaches once the system comes to dynamical equilibrium. Thus, the observed value of {$\sigma_*$}\ in our objects could potentially be different from their corresponding equilibrium value, depending on the precise merger stage at which we happen to be observing them. However, \citeauthor{stickley2012} estimate that, even in extreme cases, the observed value of {$\sigma_*$}\ should fall between 70\% and 200\% of the quiescent value, and the probability that the observed value of {$\sigma_*$}\ will actually be far from the equilibrium value is rather small. Therefore, even in the highly unlikely case that our entire sample is caught during an oscillation stage when {$\sigma_*$}\ has a lower value, the predicted quiescent value would not be high enough to bring our sample to agreement with the local {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation. Moreover, using more sophisticated high-temporal resolution numerical simulations, Stickley and Canalizo (in preparation) find that the time at which the value of {$\sigma_*$}\ shows significant deviations from the equilibrium value preceeds the period of measurable accretion onto the black hole (i.e., the time when the object appears as a QSO).
Another possibility is that dust in the host galaxy may be obscuring a fraction of the stars and this may result in a biased measurement of {$\sigma_*$}. With the exception of 005055.7+293328, we find no clear evidence for significant amounts of dust in the host galaxies of the red QSOs. Their spectra show that, while the nucleus suffers from strong extinction, the host galaxies are not significantly reddened. As mentioned in \S~\ref{L5100}, after subtracting a reddened QSO spectrum, the overall SED of each host galaxy matches the shape of the SED that would be expected from the observed stellar absorption features. This indicates that there is no severe reddening in the host galaxies. Moreover, if the bulges of these galaxies were significantly reddened, they would not fall on the Faber-Jackson or FP relations (see Fig.~\ref{figure:fj}). However, we cannot rule out the possibility that a modest amount of dust reddenning (E($B-V$)$\lesssim$0.1) could be present in the hosts. Therefore, it is important to consider the effects that dust in the host galaxy, particularly if located close to the central regions of the bulge, would have on the measurement of {$\sigma_*$}. The simulations of \cite{stickley2012} include a toy model for dust consisting of a slab of gray attenuating material, and show that a lower value of {$\sigma_*$}\ can be measured if the light from stars closer to the central regions is more extinguished than that of stars at larger radii. The specific toy model used by \citeauthor{stickley2012} leads to a decrease on the measured value of {$\sigma_*$}\ $\lesssim$15\%. Correcting for this factor would not bring the red 2MASS QSOs to the local {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation. While more realistic models for dust attenuation are needed to truly quantify the effect of dust on the measurement of {$\sigma_*$}, we repeat that there is no evidence indicating that our host galaxies suffer from significant dust extinction.
Finally, we consider the bias that may be introduced from the sample selection. The objects were selected based on their near-infrared colors. The selection criterion that objects must have $J-K_{s}>2.0$ implies that their SEDs will be dominated by the AGN in the near-infrared; if they were dominated by the host galaxy, their colors would be bluer than this. Thus, the host galaxies of the most reddened AGN could possibly be biased toward lower luminosity (and lower mass). We investigate this potential bias by looking at the offset of the objects as a function of near-infrared colors and reddening. First, we plot our objects on the black hole mass - bulge luminosity relation, {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$} - L$_{\rm bulge}$, in Fig.~\ref{figure:mlbul}, where we have transformed the bulge magnitudes, M$_{I}$ from Fig.~\ref{figure:fj} to M$_{R}$ assuming an average $R-I$ = 0.6 for the sample. The solid line in this figure is the local relation for inactive galaxies from \citet{bettoni2003}, as reported by \citet{kim2008}. Not surprisingly, our objects have overmassive BHs with respect to the local relation: they are, on average, 0.89 dex above the relation. Note that two of the objects that have the largest offsets with respect to the relation (objects 1 and 2) are also the two objects that do not follow the Faber-Jackson relation. If we do not include these two objects, then the sample is, on average, 0.69 dex above the relation.
\begin{figure}
\figurenum{9}
\begin{center}
\epsscale{0.8}
\plotone{f9.eps}
\caption{Red 2MASS QSOs in the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$} - L$_{\rm bulge}$ diagram. The solid line is the local relation for inactive galaxies from \citet{bettoni2003}, as reported by \citet{kim2008}. The numbers indicate the object ID number, as listed in the various tables. The errors in M$_{\rm R}$ are, on average, 0.1 mag. The magnitude of object 1 is likely to be underestimated due to the presence of a dust lane (see text for details). Note that objects 1 and 2 do not fall on the Faber-Jackson relation.}
\label{figure:mlbul}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
If there were indeed a bias favoring less luminous galaxies for more reddened objects, we should see a trend of an increasing offset from the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$} - $L_{bulge}$ relation, $\Delta$M$_{R,bulge}$, with increasing $J-K_{s}$ colors and with increasing reddening, E($B-V$). Figure~\ref{figure:colors} shows no such trends and, in fact, some of the most reddened objects also have the smallest offsets in magnitude. Therefore, we do not see evidence for a bias introduced by the color selection of our sample.
\begin{figure}
\figurenum{10}
\begin{center}
\epsscale{1.1}
\plottwo{f10a.eps}{f10b.eps}
\caption{Offset from the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$} - $L_{\rm bul}$ relation as a function of $J-K_{s}$ color (left) and reddening (right).
The numbers indicate the object ID number, as listed in the various tables. Note that objects 1 and 2 do not fall on the Faber-Jackson relation.}
\label{figure:colors}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}\label{discussion}
Our sample appears to have a true offset with respect to the local {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation, in the sense that the black holes in red QSOs are overmassive compared to their host galaxies.
\cite{woo2006,woo2008} and \cite{treu2007} find similar offsets for samples of Seyfert 1 galaxies at $z\sim0.36$ and $z\sim0.57$; their results are plotted along with ours in Fig.~\ref{msigmaplot}.
\cite{woo2008} investigate the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation at three different redshift bins ($<$0.1, 0.36, and 0.57), and conclude that there is evolution at the 95\% confidence level. This is at least in qualitative agreement with several studies of the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$} - {$\mathcal M_{\rm bulge}$}\ relation at higher redshifts. Using 51 quasar hosts (mostly lensed), \cite{peng2006a,peng2006b,peng2006c} find evidence that the ratio {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}/{$\mathcal M_{\rm bulge}$}\ increases above $z=1$.
\cite{bennert2011b} find similar results in a sample of $1<z<2$ X-ray selected, broad-line AGN by deriving stellar masses of the bulge component from multi-filter surface photometry in $HST$ images. The implication from these and other studies \cite[e.g.,][]{decarli2010} is that at $z \sim 2$ host bulges were undermassive relative to their BHs (compared to today), suggesting that BHs grew first and bulges have been playing ``catch-up.''
While our results appear to be in line with all these studies, they also present additional challenges to the evolutionary picture. \cite{woo2008} find a potential trend in the evolution of {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}, if indeed the higher redshift samples are the direct progenitors of the local AGN. They show this clearly in their Fig.~3, where they plot the offset in {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ with respect to the local, quiescent sample of \cite{tremaine2002}. We repeat this plot, including our objects, in Fig.~\ref{deltambh}, where we have calculated the offsets with respect to the local AGN {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation from reverberation mapped objects \citep{woo2010}, and we also include the local AGN samples of \citet{bennert2011a} and \citet{greene2006a}. The BH masses in the \citet{greene2006a} sample have been increased by log(1.8) = 0.255 to account for the difference in the virial coefficient used by \citeauthor{greene2006a} compared to that used in the other studies. Thus, all the BH masses in Fig.~\ref{deltambh} assume a virial coefficient of $f\sim5.5$ \citep{onken2004,woo2010}.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\figurenum{11}
\begin{center}
\epsscale{1.1}
\plottwo{f11a.eps}{f11b.eps}
\caption{{\bf Left Panel:} A representation of the offset in {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ with respect to the local AGN {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ as a function of redshift, after \cite{woo2008}. The offsets are with respect to the \cite{woo2010} {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation for local AGN.
Open stars are the samples of \cite{woo2006,woo2008}, crosses are the AGN from \cite{greene2006a}, open squares are reverberation mapped AGN \citep{woo2010}, and open triangles are AGN from \cite{bennert2011a}. The 2MASS QSOs (this work) are plotted as filled circles, bridging the gap between local samples and higher redshift samples. The two objects marked with hexagons do not follow the Faber-Jackson relation in Fig.~\ref{figure:fj}. Red symbols denote objects with log({$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}/{$\mathcal M_{\odot}$}) $> 8$. {\bf Right Panel:} Same as left panel, but plotting the offset in {$\sigma_*$}.
}
\label{deltambh}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Taken at face value, Fig.~\ref{deltambh} would indicate that there is a steep increase in the offset between redshifts of 0.1 and 0.2, and that most of the evolution has occurred in the last 3 Gyrs. Alternatively, in the context of models that find a non-causal origin for the scaling relations \citep[e.g.,][]{jahnke2011}, most of the mass existing in the disks of these objects has been transferred to the bulge through mergers in the last 3 Gyrs. This would also be consistent with our result showing that the two objects with the most significant disk components are also the two objects with the largest offsets in the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$} - L$_{\rm bulge}$ relation (Fig.~\ref{figure:mlbul}).
However, the comparison between local and higher redshift AGN samples is not straightforward, as the latter have, on average, significantly higher {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ than their local counterparts. Every object at $z>0.2$ has {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ $> 10^{8}$ {$\mathcal M_{\odot}$}, whereas there is a dearth of objects in this mass range at lower redshifts. In Fig.~\ref{deltambh}, we plot all the objects with {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ $> 10^{8}$ {$\mathcal M_{\odot}$}\ with red symbols. If we consider the red objects only, the trend with redshift becomes less significant. The red objects at $z<0.1$ have an average offset of 0.40 dex, compared to 0.80 dex in our sample, and 0.66 dex and 0.61 dex, respectively, in the Seyfert 1 samples at $z=0.36$ and $z=0.57$ of \citet{woo2006,woo2008}.
The difference in {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ range between the local and the higher-$z$ samples is due, at least in part, to the fact that they are drawn from flux-limited samples. In these samples, less luminous objects are not detected at higher redshifts and, since AGN luminosity depends partially on {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}, objects with lower {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ are less likely to be picked.
\citet{lauer2007} describe a potential bias that may be present in samples of AGN at the highest {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}.
They show that a bias may arise from the conspiratory nature of a steep luminosity function and intrinsic scatter in the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation, leading to a selection that favors higher mass BHs over lower mass BHs. Thus studies targeting luminous or massive AGN may find an offset from the local relation that is only due to this selection bias. On the other hand, \citet{treu2007} run Monte Carlo simulations to investigate the effects on a hypothetical selection function log({$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}/{$\mathcal M_{\odot}$}) $> 7.9$, which applies to the objects of \citet{woo2006,woo2008} as well as our own. They compare the measured offset to a simulated input offset with respect to the local {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ and find that the bias is negligible, unless the intrinsic scatter at higher redshifts increases dramatically (of the order of 1 dex). However, the fact that we find an offset from the local relation in all of the objects with {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ $> 10^{8}$ {$\mathcal M_{\odot}$}, both in the local and the non-local universe, may indicate that there is still some bias at play.
In order to further assess potential biases, we examine the dependence of the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ offset on AGN luminosities and Eddington ratios (Figs.~\ref{figure:luminosity} and \ref{figure:eddington}). For the reverberation mapped AGN of \citet{woo2010}, we use the values of L$_{5100}$ published by \citet{park2012}, \citet{Bentz2006}, \citet{kaspi2000}, and \citet{denney2006}. For consistency, we transform L$_{H\alpha}$ in the sample of \citet{greene2006a} to L$_{5100}$, using the relations given by \citet{greene2005}. The resulting plot is shown in Fig.~\ref{figure:luminosity}. We see a striking trend: The offset increases with luminosity, with virtually all the objects with log(L$_{5100}$/erg s$^{-1}$) $>43.6$ being above the relation, including those with {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ $<$ 10$^{8}$ {$\mathcal M_{\odot}$}. Clearly, the majority (two thirds) of high luminosity AGN are in the non-local universe, and this could be driving the trend. However, we note that all of the high-luminosity objects in the local universe follow this trend as well.
One possible way to explain this trend might be if the radius-luminosity ($R_{BLR}-L$) relation somehow changed dramatically at high luminosities, if, for example, a point is reached where the broad line region is matter-bound so that the radius-luminosity relation would flatten. A different relation might also be expected if the SEDs of high luminosity objects are different from those of lower luminosity objects. The data points in Fig.~5 of \citet{bentz2009} suggest that, indeed, some flattening of the $R_{BLR}-L$ relation may occur at the highest luminosities. However, even if that were the case, the potential flattening occurs at luminosities significantly higher than log(L$_{5100}$/erg s$^{-1}$) $= 43.6$. In fact, if we were to fit only the objects in the luminosity range of $43.6 <$ log(L$_{5100}$/erg s$^{-1}$) $<$ 45.3 (corresponding to the luminous objects of Fig.~\ref{figure:luminosity}), we would obtain a steeper relation, closer to the relation of \citet{kaspi2000}, and resulting in somewhat higher black hole masses in this range. Thus, variations in the $R_{BLR}-L$ relation cannot account for the trend we see in Fig.~\ref{figure:luminosity}.
Using semi-analytical models of galaxy evolution, \citet{portinari2011} find that more luminous QSOs tend to trace over-massive BHs with respect to the intrinsic relation \cite[similar to the bias described by][]{lauer2007}. However, for objects at $z<0.5$, their simulations predict that the parameters of QSO host galaxies closely follow the distribution of those of inactive galaxies, with very small offsets ($\sim$0.1 dex) in host galaxy mass.
\begin{figure}
\figurenum{12}
\begin{center}
\epsscale{0.8}
\plotone{f12.eps}
\caption{Offset from the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation as a function of AGN luminosity at 5100 \AA. The 2MASS QSOs (this work) are plotted as filled circles. Open stars are the non-local samples of \citet{woo2006,woo2008}, crosses are local AGN from \cite{greene2006a}, open squares are local reverberation mapped AGN \citep{woo2010}, and open triangles are local AGN from \cite{bennert2011a}. Red symbols denote objects with log({$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}/{$\mathcal M_{\odot}$}) $> 8$.
}
\label{figure:luminosity}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To measure Eddington ratios we obtain rough bolometric luminosities by assuming L$_{\rm bol}$ = 10 L$_{5100}$ \citep{woo2002}. The plot of $\Delta${$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ vs.\ L$_{\rm bol}$/L$_{\rm Edd}$ (Fig.~\ref{figure:eddington}) shows large scatter and no correlations. However, since Fig.~\ref{figure:luminosity} shows that there may be an offset in $\Delta${$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ at high AGN luminosities, it may be instructive to consider separately objects of lower luminosity (log (L$_{5100}$/erg s$^{-1}$) $<$ 43.5; blue symbols in Fig.~\ref{figure:eddington}) and those of higher luminosity (pink symbols). A trend appears to surface: objects with low L$_{\rm bol}$/L$_{\rm Edd}$ have more positive offsets with respect to {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ than those with higher L$_{\rm bol}$/L$_{\rm Edd}$. We caution that the trends may be largely driven by the fact that we are dividing the objects in bins according AGN luminosity, e.g., a highly luminous AGN can have low {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ only if it has a high accretion rate. Such trends of increasing L$_{\rm bol}$/L$_{\rm Edd}$ with decreasing {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ have been observed in large flux-limited samples of AGN \cite[e.g.,][]{netzer2007}. However, we note that the trends we see in Fig.~\ref{figure:eddington} are in the offset with respect to {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ and not just in {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}.
A similar trend with respect to {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}-L$_{\rm bulge}$ was observed by \citet{kim2008} in a study of 45 $z\lesssim 0.35$ type 1 AGN. They find that, at a given bulge luminosity, objects with high L$_{\rm bol}$/L$_{\rm Edd}$ have lower {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}.
They suggest that this may be explained in terms of the growth phase of BH: If L$_{\rm bol}$/L$_{\rm Edd}$ decreases as a function of time during a black hole growth episode, then BH with the highest L$_{\rm bol}$/L$_{\rm Edd}$ have more ``catching up to do'' than those with lower L$_{\rm bol}$/L$_{\rm Edd}$. We searched for this trend by dividing the objects of Fig.~\ref{figure:eddington} in bins of stellar velocity dispersion (as a proxy for bulge luminosity; not shown in Fig.~\ref{figure:eddington}). Given the large scatter, we found no significant trends or correlations. We also searched for this trend in our sample by plotting $\Delta$M$_{R,bulge}$ (from Fig.~\ref{figure:mlbul}) against L$_{\rm bol}$/L$_{\rm Edd}$. Once again, we found a large scatter and no significant trends.
\begin{figure}
\figurenum{13}
\begin{center}
\epsscale{0.8}
\plotone{f13.eps}
\caption{Offset from the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation as a function of Eddington ratio. The 2MASS QSOs (this work) are plotted as filled circles. Open stars are the samples of \citet{woo2006,woo2008}, crosses are AGN from \cite{greene2006a}, open squares are reverberation mapped AGN \citep{woo2010}, and open triangles are AGN from \cite{bennert2011a}. Blue symbols are objects with log (L$_{5100}$/erg s$^{-1}$) $<$ 43.5 and pink symbols are the objects with higher luminosities.}
\label{figure:eddington}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The combination of the potential biases in these samples with the trends that we have uncovered in this study prevents us from making any definitive statements on whether we see evolution with redshift in the {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation.
Clearly, better statistics are needed to disentangle the dependence of {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ on mass, luminosity, accretion rates, and redshift. Studying samples with a wider range of these properties could help us to better understand the scatter and the different biases.
For local AGN, \cite{bennert2011a} indicate a future study of $\sim$75 additional AGN with {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ $> 10^{7}$ {$\mathcal M_{\odot}$}\ that can be used to probe the local {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}\ relation at the highest {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ and, likely, at high luminosities. In the non-local universe, we are conducting a study of additional red QSOs as well as other QSOs that are similarly suited for the study of {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma_*$}, including objects in lower {$\mathcal M_{\rm BH}$}\ and lower luminosity ranges. We will present results from objects at $0.2<z<1$ in forthcoming papers \citep[e.g.,][]{hiner2012}.
\acknowledgments
We are grateful to the referee for a very detailed report that helped improved the contents and the presentation of this paper.
We thank Barry Rothberg for providing a copy of his manuscript before publication and Chien Peng for insightful discussions and suggestions. We also thank Alan Stockton and Michael Harrison for their assistance in obtaining some of the observations, and Roozbeh Davari for providing scripts for radial plots.
Support for this program was provided by the
National Science Foundation, under grant number AST 0507450. Additional support was provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute (Program AR-12626), which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Incorporated, under NASA contract NAS5-26555, and by the Norwegian Research Council, project number 191735. M.W. acknowledges funding from the Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship.
Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory,
which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute
of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous
financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation.
The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.
{\it Facilities:} \facility{Keck:II (ESI)}, \facility{HST (WFPC2)}
\bibliographystyle{style}
|
\section{Introduction}
This is the second paper in a series presenting photometric metal abundances of RR Lyrae variable stars in the Magellanic Clouds and their use for chemical and structural analysis. In Kapakos, Hatzidimitriou \& Soszy\'{n}ski (2011, hereinafter Paper I), the results of the Fourier decomposition analysis of the V-band light curves of 84 fundamental-mode and 16 first overtone pulsators in the central bar region of the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) were presented. The methodology was described in detail with full discussion of the method, limitations, biases and sources of error. However, the spatial extent of the sample in the central bar region did not allow the investigation of important issues such as a possible metallicity gradient, which has been proposed by other independent studies (e.g. Carrera et al. 2009). Furthermore, studies on the morphology of the SMC seem to reveal interesting features. The structure of the SMC is affected by interactions with both the LMC and our Galaxy (e.g. Hatzidimitriou \& Hawkins 1989, hereinafter HH89; Bekki 2009). Subramanian \& Subramaniam (2009, hereinafter SS09) have found its depth along the line-of-sight (LOS) to be larger than that of the LMC and a bulge-like structure near the optical center, based on red horizontal branch (red clump) stars. A larger depth in the outer region has also been suggested, probably partially connected to a tidal stream-like structure in the north-eastern outer regions (Hatzidimitriou, Cannon \& Hawkins 1993). Although the distribution of old red stars in the SMC (i.e. giants and red clump stars with ages $\geq1 Gyr$, according to Zaritsky et al. 2000) and the velocity field of red giant branch stars, which does not show much rotation (Harris \& Zaritsky 2006), suggest a spheroidal structure, HI and young stars are found to have ordered rotation and to reside in a disk (van der Marel, Kallivayalil \& Besla 2009). In Paper I, we found indications that old populations as represented by RR Lyrae stars are distributed in two dynamical structures with different average metal abundances. Thus, a study of a larger sample distributed over a larger area is needed to clarify all these issues.
\par{We have used the RR Lyrae variables detected in the extended region of the SMC with the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE), phase III (OGLE-III\footnotemark[1] \footnotetext[1]{The full extent of the OGLE-III data set was not available for Paper I.}), combined with the data collected from phase II (OGLE-II) in the central region. Our aim is to derive metal abundances ([Fe/H]) and distance moduli for all RR Lyrae variables of RRab type with well observed light curves in order to proceed to a chemical and structural analysis of the old populations of this galaxy, using a much larger sample of objects distributed over a more extended area of the SMC than in Paper I. We decided to exclude RRc type stars from our analysis, since discrepancies associated with the calibrating equations of their Fourier parameters versus metallicity were detected in Paper I. However, we provide the results of the Fourier decomposition for these stars as well, for completeness reasons.}
\par{In Section 2, we describe the data used and give the Fourier decomposition results. In Section 3, we derive the metal abundances of a carefully selected sample of RRab stars and discuss their distribution, as well as the positions of these objects on the Bailey diagram. In Section 4, we investigate the existence of a metalicity gradient in the area covered by our study. In Section 5, we derive the absolute magnitudes and distance moduli of the RR Lyrae stars and we proceed to a structural analysis of the SMC. Variations to its LOS depth and structure-metallicity relations are examined. In Section 6, we summarize our results.}
\section{Data Analysis and Fourier Decomposition}
\subsection{Data description}
The present study is based on observations obtained with the 1.3m Warsaw telescope at the Las Campanas Observatory, Chile, during phase III of the OGLE project, between 2001 and 2009 (Soszy\'{n}ski et al. 2010, hereinafter Sos10). These observations contain precisely calibrated photometric and astrometric data in the I- and V-band filters, from the extended area of the SMC, covering $\simeq14$ square degrees on the sky in 41 fields of $\simeq35^{\prime}\times35^{\prime}.5$ (see Udalski 2003 and Udalski et al. 2008 for reduction pipeline, techniques and observational details). Although the data are thoroughly discussed in Sos10, some issues are worth mentioning. Stars located in the overlapping regions of adjacent fields were detected twice and their photometry was compiled from all available sources. Moreover, for RR Lyrae variables in the central bar region of the SMC, which was also covered by OGLE-II observations between 1997 and 2000, the two photometry databases were merged after the appropriate inter-calibrations, i.e. by shifting the OGLE-II photometry to match the OGLE-III light curves.
\par{Following Paper I, we opted for V-band photometry since the dependence of [Fe/H] on the Fourier parameters has been directly calibrated only for this band. It should be noted that some authors (e.g. Deb \& Singh 2010, hereinafter DS10; Haschke et al. 2012, hereinafter HGDJ) have used I-band data to derive metal abundances and physical parameters of RR Lyrae stars. As thoroughly discussed in Paper I, although the I-band light curves may produce similar average metallicities to those derived from the V-band light curves, discrepancies are revealed in metallicities of individual stars and their distributions. Furthermore, the errors of the Fourier parameters (and thus those of the corresponding metal abundances) are lower when using V-band light curves. The applicability of the calibrating equations is based on a deviation parameter introduced by Jurcsik \& Kov\'{a}cs (1996, hereinafter JK96; see Section 3). When the corresponding criterion is applied directly in V-band light curves, the selection effects are minimized.}
\par{There are 2475 RR Lyrae variables in the SMC, listed in the ninth part of the OGLE-III Catalogue of Variable Stars (OIII-CVS). The classification of the RR Lyraes as fundamental-mode pulsators (RRab), first overtone pulsators (RRc), double-mode pulsators (RRd) or second overtone pulsators (RRe), is described in Sos10. We have only retained RRab and RRc stars with V-band light curves, thus limiting our sample to 2092 stars, 1922 of them being of RRab type and 170 of RRc type. Among these stars, 23 objects (22 RRab and 1 RRc star) are Galactic foreground RR Lyrae variables and thus were excluded from further discussion. Another 13 RRab stars were discarded from the final data set, 12 having poorly populated time series (with less than $4m$ points, were m is the order of the fit) and 1 having high $\sigma_{fit}$ (see next subsection). The final sample consisted of 1887 RRab stars and 169 RRc stars, listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, along with properties of their light curves which are described later in this Section.}
\par{We have adopted the periods provided in OIII-CVS. The RRab and RRc variables in our sample have average periods of $0.60\pm0.06$ days (std) and $0.37\pm0.03$ days (std), respectively, the latter being expectedly shorter than the former. The individual periods and corresponding errors are listed in Column (2) of Tables 1 \& 2 for the RRab and RRc types respectively. It should be noted that these periods have been re-derived in the OGLE-III release and thus they are slightly different from the values used in Paper I for stars appearing both in OGLE-II and OGLE-III.}
\subsection{Fourier Decomposition}
\begin{table*}
\begin{minipage}{180mm}
\begin{center}\scriptsize
\caption{Fourier decomposition parameters for 1887 RRab stars derived from data of the OGLE phases II \& III in the V-band.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccccccccccc@{}}
\hline
OGLE Star ID&$P_0 (days)$&N&$\sigma_{fit}$&$A_0$&$A_1$&$A_3$&$A_V$&$\varphi_{31}$&$\varphi_{41}$&$D_m$\\
\hline
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0009&0.6947615(17)&78&0.053&19.477(3)&0.311(4)&0.114(4)&0.940&5.27(6) &1.82(9) &2.03(1.10)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0029&0.5937182(9) &50&0.089&19.667(4)&0.269(6)&0.074(5)&0.704&4.75(44)&1.24(14)&3.92(1.39)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0036&0.5222231(3) &51&0.089&19.646(4)&0.456(6)&0.133(6)&1.233&4.41(6) &0.80(8) &3.54(1.55)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0048&0.5910502(7) &50&0.071&19.529(4)&0.289(5)&0.108(5)&0.832&4.58(8) &0.52(10)&2.05(1.63)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0058&0.5704761(6) &51&0.072&19.816(5)&0.379(7)&0.088(7)&0.962&4.49(10)&0.77(15)&4.45(2.11)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0059&0.4666863(8) &50&0.141&20.045(6)&0.378(9)&0.157(9)&1.228&4.48(9) &0.95(11)&4.96(2.15)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0066&0.5676896(4) &50&0.062&19.357(3)&0.350(4)&0.144(4)&1.149&5.16(5) &1.69(7) &2.79(1.12)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0075&0.5225272(4) &52&0.098&19.715(4)&0.425(6)&0.131(6)&1.151&4.48(7) &0.89(9) &3.56(1.49)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0076&0.6641898(21)&47&0.063&19.697(5)&0.194(8)&0.063(7)&0.556&5.04(14)&1.30(96)&2.71(2.73)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0077&0.6043705(12)&50&0.077&19.657(5)&0.274(7)&0.077(7)&0.708&4.77(11)&1.48(15)&3.85(2.83)\\
\\
Average value& &65&0.086&19.731(281)&0.285(89)&0.085(41)& &4.94(62)&1.47(95)& \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\emph{Notes.} The numbers in parentheses are standard deviations multiplied by $10^6$ for the period, $10^3$ for $A_j$, $A_V$, 1 for $D_m$ and $10^2$ for the rest. The complete table is available in electronic form (see Supporting Information) and includes the original number of points $N_0$ in each light curve, all $A_j$ (where j=0,1,2,3,4), $R_{j1}$ and $\varphi_{j1}$ (where j=2,3,4).
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\begin{minipage}{180mm}
\begin{center}\scriptsize
\caption{Fourier decomposition parameters for 169 RRc stars derived from data of the OGLE phases II \& III in the V-band.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}cccccccccc@{}}
\hline
OGLE Star ID&$P_0 (days)$&N&$\sigma_{fit}$&$A_0$&$A_1$&$A_4$&$A_V$&$\varphi_{21}$&$\varphi_{31}$\\
\hline
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0020&0.3519121(7) &42&0.054&19.528(4)&0.245(5)&0.012(5)&0.494& 3.66( 23)&5.30(23)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0035&0.3438972(10)&42&0.050&19.369(3)&0.257(4)&0.017(5)&0.532& 3.36( 15)&5.46(23)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0040&0.3949114(8) &49&0.054&19.574(4)&0.261(6)&0.011(5)&0.545& 3.47( 16)&5.46(19)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0050&0.3485816(5) &50&0.048&19.390(4)&0.269(5)&0.028(6)&0.593& 2.95( 12)&5.07(18)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0062&0.3793270(8) &50&0.057&19.530(4)&0.239(4)&0.015(5)&0.530&-0.38(300)&6.48(19)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0088&0.3444114(6) &51&0.074&19.732(5)&0.252(7)&0.054(7)&0.572& 3.02( 14)&7.02(14)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0140&0.3694145(22)&50&0.105&19.656(4)&0.169(7)&0.039(7)&0.408& 0.93( 21)&2.82(29)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0213&0.3975514(13)&48&0.083&19.663(4)&0.161(5)&0.015(5)&0.342& 2.05( 21)&6.74(13)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0218&0.3532244(10)&47&0.055&19.625(5)&0.228(8)&0.013(6)&0.489& 2.79( 16)&5.43(28)\\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0232&0.3383378(5) &71&0.051&19.419(2)&0.272(3)&0.007(3)&0.565& 2.88( 08)&4.98(22)\\
\\
Average value& &63&0.073&19.681(275)&0.236(43)&0.021(13)& &3.00(76)&5.56(146)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\emph{Notes.} The numbers in parentheses are standard deviations multiplied by $10^6$ for the period, $10^3$ for $A_j$, $A_V$ and $10^2$ for the rest. The complete table is available in electronic form (see Supporting Information) and includes the original number of points $N_0$ in each light curve, all $A_j$ (where j=0,1,2,3,4), $R_{j1}$ and $\varphi_{j1}$ (where j=2,3,4).
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
The light curves of the 2056 RR Lyrae variables of RRab and RRc type in our final sample were fitted with fourth-order Fourier series of sine functions (equation 1 of Paper I or A1 in the Appendix\footnotemark[2] \footnotetext[2]{All equations of Paper I, which are used in the present work, are listed in the Appendix in order to facilitate the reading of this paper.}), following the technique adopted in Paper I, where there is a detailed discussion of the mathematical formula, the choice of the order of the fit and the criterion for excluding certain points from the light curves (which showed large deviations from the bulk of the data). All amplitudes $A_j$ and phases $\varphi_{j}$ (where $j=1,2,3,4$), as well as the ratios $R_{j1}=A_j / A_1$ and coefficients $\varphi_{j1}=\varphi_j-j\varphi_1$ (where $j=2,3,4$) were derived, while their standard deviations were estimated using Monte Carlo simulations and appropriate error propagation relations, as in Paper I.
\par{The results of the Fourier decomposition are presented in Tables 1 and 2 (the complete versions being available in electronic form) for RRab and RRc stars, respectively. In these Tables we also provide the number of points used for the fitting (N), the sigma of the fit for each light curve ($\sigma_{fit}$) and the amplitude in $V$ ($A_V$). The corresponding standard deviations of the various Fourier parameters are given in parentheses following each value. At the bottom of each table we give the average values of the relevant parameters for the entire sample with the associated standard deviations.}
\section{Metal Abundances}
\begin{table}
\begin{minipage}{85mm}
\begin{center}\scriptsize
\caption{Average values and the corresponding standard deviations of parameters derived using the Fourier decomposition technique for the final sample of 454 RR Lyrae variables of RRab type.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}cccc@{}}
\hline
Parameter & Value & Parameter & Value \\
\hline
$\langle \sigma_{fit} \rangle$ & 0.081$\pm$0.021 & $\langle R_{21} \rangle$ & 0.43$\pm$0.07 \\
& & $\langle R_{31} \rangle$ & 0.32$\pm$0.06 \\
$\langle A_0 \rangle$ & 19.72$\pm$0.20 & $\langle R_{41} \rangle$ & 0.20$\pm$0.06 \\
$\langle A_1 \rangle$ & 0.32$\pm$0.07 & & \\
$\langle A_2 \rangle$ & 0.14$\pm$0.04 & $\langle \varphi_{21} \rangle$ & 2.32$\pm$0.17 \\
$\langle A_3 \rangle$ & 0.10$\pm$0.03 & $\langle \varphi_{31} \rangle$ & 4.92$\pm$0.30 \\
$\langle A_4 \rangle$ & 0.06$\pm$0.03 & $\langle \varphi_{41} \rangle$ & 1.40$\pm$0.44 \\
\\
$\langle A_V \rangle$ & 0.88$\pm$0.21 & $\langle D_m \rangle$ & 3.45$\pm$1.01 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}
\begin{minipage}{180mm}
\begin{center}\scriptsize
\caption{Metal abundances, absolute magnitudes, distance moduli and distances for the 454 RRab stars.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}cccccc@{}}
\hline
OGLE Star ID &${[Fe/H]}_{JK96} (dex)$&${[Fe/H]}_{C09} (dex)$&$M_V$&$\mu$ &$d$(kpc) \\
\hline
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0009& -1.70(9) & -1.82(14) & 0.47(7) & 18.95(8) & 61.58(2.16) \\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0029& -1.85(59) & -1.96(60) & 0.44(14) & 19.17(14) & 68.20(4.54) \\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0036& -1.92(9) & -2.04(15) & 0.42(7) & 19.16(8) & 68.01(2.50) \\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0048& -2.07(11) & -2.18(17) & 0.39(8) & 19.08(8) & 65.50(2.39) \\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0058& -2.08(14) & -2.20(19) & 0.39(8) & 19.38(8) & 75.03(2.85) \\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0059& -1.52(13) & -1.64(17) & 0.50(7) & 19.48(7) & 78.78(2.63) \\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0066& -1.16(7) & -1.27(12) & 0.58(7) & 18.71(7) & 55.24(1.86) \\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0075& -1.70(10) & -1.81(15) & 0.47(7) & 19.20(7) & 69.29(2.34) \\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0076& -1.85(19) & -1.96(23) & 0.44(8) & 19.21(8) & 69.43(2.66) \\
OGLE-SMC-RRLYR-0077& -1.88(15) & -2.00(20) & 0.43(8) & 19.15(8) & 67.64(2.54) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\emph{Notes.} The numbers in parentheses are standard deviations multiplied by $10^2$, except $\sigma_d$. The complete table is available in electronic form (see Supporting Information).
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\begin{minipage}{180mm}
\begin{center}\scriptsize
\caption{Average values for metal abundances, absolute magnitudes, distance moduli and distances for the 454 RRab stars.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}cccccc@{}}
\hline {\bf Parameter} & {\bf Mean Value} & {\bf Standard Deviation}
& {\bf Minimum} & {\bf Maximum} \\
\hline
${[Fe/H]}_{JK96}$ (dex)& -1.58(.02)$^a$ & 0.41 & -2.69$^b$ & -0.22 \\
${[Fe/H]}_{C09}$ (dex) & -1.69(.02) & 0.41 & -2.81$^b$ & -0.33$^b$ \\
$M_V$ & 0.49(.004) & 0.09 & 0.26 & 0.78 \\
$\mu$ & 19.13(.01) & 0.19 & 18.37 & 19.70 \\
$d (kpc)$ & 67.31(.27) & 5.82 & 47.21 & 87.12 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
$^a$ The numbers in parentheses denote the corresponding standard errors.\\
$^b$ These very low and high metallicity values lie beyond the range of the applicability of the calibrating equations and therefore are less reliable. The lowest reliable values on the JK96 and C09 scales are ${[Fe/H]}_{JK96}=-2.25$ dex and ${[Fe/H]}_{C09}=-2.36$ dex, respectively, while the highest reliable value on the C09 scale is ${[Fe/H]}_{C09}=-0.69$ dex.\\
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
Following Paper I, the metal abundances [Fe/H] of RR Lyrae variables pulsating in the fundamental-mode (RRab) were derived from empirical relations involving the Fourier decomposition parameters calculated in the previous section. We used the linear relation of JK96 for the RRab stars (containing the period and the Fourier phase $\varphi_{31}$). Application of the JK96 calibration requires that the RRab light curves satisfy a certain completeness and regularity criterion referred to by the authors as a compatibility test, quantified via the deviation parameter $D_m$ (details are given in JK96 and also in Paper I). Thus, we have derived $D_m$ and its standard deviation, $\sigma_{D_m}$, for all 1887 RRab stars in our sample. These values are presented in the last Column of Table 1. Following the selection process described in Paper I, we ended up with a total of 454 RRab stars that satisfy the compatibility criterion with $\langle D_m \rangle=3.45\pm1.01$ (std) and $\langle \sigma_{D_m} \rangle=1.88\pm0.54$ (std). The importance of applying the $D_m$ criterion in order to derive reliable metal abundances is thoroughly discussed in Paper I for interested readers.
\par{Table 3 summarizes the average values and associated standard deviations of the Fourier decomposition parameters for the final sample of 454 RRab stars. These values and the corresponding standard deviations are very similar to those derived for the much smaller sample of Paper I. The average value of the most important parameter, $\varphi_{31}$, for these stars was found to be $4.92\pm0.30$ (std). The corresponding value in Paper I was $4.97\pm0.30$ (std), while JK96 derived a value of 5.1 for fundamental-mode RR Lyrae stars, both results being in agreement with the present one.}
\par{The metal abundances, [Fe/H]$_{JK96}$ and [Fe/H]$_{C09}$, for the 454 RRab variables of the final sample were derived on the JK96 and Carretta et al. (2009, hereinafter C09) metallicity scales, using the appropriate calibration equations (2) and (3) of Paper I (i.e. A2 and A3, respectively). The values of $[Fe/H]$ on both scales are listed in Table 4 (Columns 2 and 3), along with their standard deviations (given in parentheses) derived from equations (4) and (5) of Paper I (i.e. A4 and A5, respectively), while statistics of the derived metallicities are presented in the first two lines of Table 5.}
\par{Equation (2) of Paper I (i.e. A2, JK96 calibration) is derived from RRab stars with metal abundances ([Fe/H]) from $-2.1$ to $+0.27$ dex, while 37 stars in our sample have metallicities below this range (-2.69 dex being the metallicity of the most metal poor star on the JK96 scale). Of these, 19 are still outliers even taking into account their $1\sigma$ error. Thus, the lowest reliable value in Table 4 on the JK96 scale is ${[Fe/H]}_{JK96}=-2.25$ dex (see Table 5). As already mentioned in Paper I, linear extrapolation of the empirical calibrating equations may lead to erroneous results, particularly since the metal poor tail of the JK96 calibrating stars is only populated by 3 objects. Our averages are bound to be affected by this problem but not significantly due to the relatively small number of outliers and their spatial distribution in a large region which doesn't affect the statistics in smaller ones. The resulting metal abundances were transformed to $[Fe/H]_{C09}$ in the C09 scale, using equation 3 of Paper I (i.e. A3), which is valid for $[Fe/H]_{JK96}$ between -2.31 and -0.68 dex. Of 435 RRab stars that lie within the validity range of equation (2) of Paper I (A2), 10 are out of the validity range of equation (3) of Paper I (A3), among them 5 being still outliers after taking into account their $1\sigma$ error. Thus, of our sample of 454 RRab stars, 430 have reliable metallicities on both JK96 and C09 scales. The lowest and highest reliable values on the C09 scale are ${[Fe/H]}_{C09}=-2.36$ dex and ${[Fe/H]}_{C09}=-0.69$ dex, respectively (see Table 5). Despite the uncertainties of the metallicities of the remaining 24 objects, we decided to keep them in our final sample, since they are not expected to affect our results due to their small number ($\simeq 5\%$ of the total).}
\subsection{Distribution of metal abundances}
The distributions of the metal abundances of the RRab stars on the C09 and JK96 scales are shown in Fig. 1 (with light-grey and dashed bars, respectively), The corresponding averages (listed in Table 5) are $\langle [Fe/H]_{C09} \rangle =-1.69\pm0.41$ dex (std, while the standard error is 0.02 dex) and $\langle [Fe/H]_{JK96} \rangle=-1.58\pm0.41$ dex (std, the standard error being 0.02 dex). The distributions appear to be different from those derived in Paper I (dark grey bars in Fig. 1 for the C09 scale), where only the RRab stars from the central region of the SMC were included (fig. 4 of Paper I). The extended region of the SMC seems to include more metal poor objects. This can be seen in Table 6, where a comparison between RRab populations of different metal abundances in the central bar region (Paper I) and the extended area (Paper II) of the SMC is shown to evaluate the difference between the two distributions. Two extreme subsamples are used, i.e. stars with $[Fe/H]_{C09} \le -2.0$ (metal poor stars) and those with $[Fe/H]_{C09} \ge -1.4$ (metal rich stars). The percentage of metal poor stars in the samples of Paper I and the present work is $19\%$ and $24\%$, respectively, while $0.62\pm0.20$ and $1.08\pm0.15$ are the corresponding ratios of the number of these stars to the number of the metal rich ones. However, this issue will be further discussed in Section 4. It should be noted that a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test showed that the distributions of $[Fe/H]_{C09}$ in Fig. 1 (light and dark grey bars) are identical while a $\chi^2$ test indicates that this hypothesis is true at a low level of significance (i.e. $0.1$).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\leavevmode \epsfxsize=95mm \epsffile{kapakos_e_fig01.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Distribution of the metal abundances of 454 RRab stars (light grey bars). [Fe/H] is calculated on the new scale of C09. The dash line corresponds to the distribution of the metallicities of these RRab stars on the JK96 scale, while the dark grey bars correspond to the distribution of the metal abundances of 84 RRab stars in the central bar region of the SMC (Paper I) on the C09 scale.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison with other studies}
Very recently, HGDJ have reported an average metallicity of $-1.42$ dex from RRab stars that were detected from OGLE-III in the SMC, which should be compared with our average value of $-1.58\pm0.02$ dex (standard error) on the JK96 scale. Inspection of the corresponding distributions (fig. 6 of HGDJ and the dashed bars in our Fig. 1) indicates that the high-metallicity bins in the HGDJ distribution are more populated than the low-metallicity bins compared to ours. A comparison between the metal abundances (on the JK96 scale) of 453 individual RRab stars which are common in HGDJ's and our final sample is shown in the upper panel of Fig. 2, where a 1:1 line is also plotted. Systematic offsets are evident since HGDJ's metallicities are increasingly higher than ours for metal poorer stars while the opposite trend (although weakened) appears for the metal rich ones, the average absolute difference ($<|\Delta[Fe/H]_{JK96}|>$) being $0.27\pm0.21$ dex (std). Furthermore, the average $< \frac{|\Delta[Fe/H]_{JK96}|}{\sigma_{[Fe/H]_{JK96}}} > = 2.27\pm1.70$ (std), where $\sigma_{[Fe/H]_{JK96}}$ is the error (std) of our estimate, is a characteristic of large deviations ($|\Delta[Fe/H]|<1\sigma$ for only $27\%$ of the 453 RRab stars). In the lowel panel of Fig. 2 the difference between the present and the HGDJ's metallicity estimates are plotted as a function of our results for each of the 453 stars. The equation describing a linear fitting is $\Delta [Fe/H]_{JK96}^{present-HGDJ} = (0.70\pm0.04) + (0.55\pm0.02)[Fe/H]_{JK96}^{present}$. It should be noted that HGDJ used I-band light curves of 1831 variables with presumably reliable metallicities and the calibration equation of Smolec (2005), which is similar to the JK96 one but is applied on I-band Fourier decomposition parameters. However, this calibration equation is based on a very small sample of 28 field RRab stars and it is not accompanied by any compatibility condition, while the JK96 calibration is based on a larger sample of 84 carefully selected RRab stars along with a strict criterion on the quality of the light curves. HGDJ repeated their analysis following the method of DS10 and found similar results to their first method, although the corresponding average metallicity was slightly lower, i.e. $-1.53$ dex. As expected, the systematic trends shown in the upper panels of Fig. 2 (comparison between HGDJ's and the present work) and fig. 6 of Paper I (comparison between DS10's and our method) are identical. As thoroughly discussed in Paper I, a comparison between metallicities derived from V- and I-band light curves reveals systematic differences, mainly in the individual values and their distributions, with at least part of the discrepancies stemming from the lack of a compatibility test for the light curves used.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\leavevmode \epsfxsize=90mm \epsffile{kapakos_e_fig02.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Upper panel: Comparison between the metal abundances (on the JK96 scale) of 453 RRab stars in the SMC which were derived using the HGDJ's approach and the present one, i.e. based on Fourier decomposition of I- and V-band light curves, respectively (a 1:1 line is also plotted). Lower panel: Difference between the two estimates of the metal abundance for each RRab star as a function of the metallicities derived in the present work (a linear fitting is also plotted).}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\leavevmode \epsfxsize=95mm \epsffile{kapakos_e_fig03a.eps}
\\
\leavevmode \epsfxsize=95mm \epsffile{kapakos_e_fig03b.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Upper panel: Bailey diagram (amplitude as a function of $\log P$). The grey circles correspond to RRab stars, while the increasing size denotes increasing metal abundance. The positions of the RRc stars on the Bailey diagram are also shown with grey squares for completeness reasons. The solid curves represent the ridge lines for RRab stars on OoI and OoII clusters, according to Clement \& Rowe. The dashed lines correspond to the loci of RRab and RRc stars of the M3 cluster having OoI properties and a number of evolved stars off the ZAHB that mimic the OoII behavior, according to Cacciari, Corwin \& Carney.
Lower panel: Bailey diagram for two extreme subsets. The circles correspond to RRab stars while the squares correspond to RRc stars. The increasing size of the circles denotes increasing metal abundance. The light grey symbols represent RRab stars with metal abundances greater than -1.40 dex on the C09 scale, while the dark grey symbols represent those RRab stars with metal abundances less than -2.00 dex on the C09 scale.}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{minipage}{85mm}
\begin{center}\scriptsize
\caption{Comparison between RRab populations of different metal abundances in the central bar region (Paper I) and the extended area (present work: Paper II) of the SMC.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
\hline
Statistics & Paper I & Paper II \\
\hline
Sample size \\
$N$ & 84 & 454 \\
\\
RRab stars with $[Fe/H]_{C09} \le -2.0$ dex \\
$N_{poor}$ & 16 & 108 \\
$N_{poor}\%$ & 19$\%$ & 24$\%$ \\
\\
RRab stars with $[Fe/H]_{C09} \ge -1.4$ dex \\
$N_{rich}$ & 26 & 100 \\
$N_{rich}\%$ & 31$\%$ & 22$\%$ \\
\\
$N_{poor}/N_{rich}$ & $0.62\pm0.20$ & $1.08\pm0.15$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\subsection{The Bailey diagram}
The theoretical models and the expected behavior of the RR Lyrae stars on the Bailey diagram (as well as its usage, e.g. Soszy\'{n}ski et al. 2003) are thoroughly discussed in Paper I.
\par{The upper panel of Fig. 3 shows the loci of the fundamental-mode RR Lyrae variables (grey circles) in our sample on the Bailey diagram, while in the lower panel we have overplotted the distribution on the Bailey diagram of two extreme subsets, i.e. RRab stars with metal abundances greater than -1.40 dex (light grey circles) and those with metal abundances less than -2.00 dex on the C09 scale (dark grey circles), in order to facilitate the comparison. In both diagrams the positions of the first overtone RR Lyrae variables (grey squares) are shown for completeness reasons. Furthermore, we have overlayed the standard ridge lines for RRab stars in the Galactic globular cluster M3 (prototype OoI) and $\omega$ Centauri (OoII) from Clement \& Rowe (2000) with solid lines, while the dashed lines denote the loci of of the bona fide regular (OoI) and evolved (falling closer to OoII line) RRab stars in M3 from Cacciari, Corwin \& Carney (2005). In both cases, OoI and OoII (Oosterhoff 1939) are denoted by the left and the right curves, respectively.}
\par{Our basic results from the RR Lyrae stars of the central region of the SMC in Paper I are confirmed from the present larger sample. The metal rich RRab stars of our sample seem to lie closer to the OoI curves (M3 non-evolved sequence in the interpretation of Cacciari, Corwin \& Carney), while the more metal poor objects extend slightly towards the evolved sequence (OoII curves). Yet, a large number of the latter is located close to the OoI curve. The bulk of the RR Lyrae variables with intermediate metallicities are located in the region between the two Oosterhoff curves, possibly constituting an Oo-intermediate population. Thus, the location of a particular RRab variable on the Bailey diagram seems to be affected both by metal abundance and evolution off the ZAHB.}
\section{Metallicity gradient}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\leavevmode \epsfxsize=18cm \epsffile{kapakos_e_fig04a.eps}
\\
\leavevmode \epsfxsize=15cm \epsffile{kapakos_e_fig04b.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Distribution of the 454 fundamental-mode RR Lyrae stars in four regions separated with ellipses, centered on the SMC dynamical center and based on the isopleths derived by Gonidakis et al. Dark-grey, grey, light-grey and open circles correspond to stars lying in the central region, an inner ring, an outer ring and the outer region, respectively. The two parallel black lines (which are perpendicular to the ellipses major axes) are used to separate the RR Lyrae variables of the north-eastern (NE) and south-western (SW) regions of the SMC from the bulk of our sample. The increasing symbol size denotes increasing metallicity. The thick big cross indicates the position of the SMC dynamical center, while the smaller crosses correspond to the 84 RRab stars from the sample of the central bar region in Paper I. The histograms correspond to the distributions of the metal abundances ($[Fe/H]_{C09}$) in the four regions mentioned above.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\begin{minipage}{180mm}
\begin{center}\scriptsize
\caption{Comparison between RRab populations in four areas of the SMC, separated by ellipses.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccccc@{}}
\hline
Area of & central & inner & outer & outer \\
the SMC & region & ring & ring & region \\
\hline
Sample size \\
$N$ & 97 & 93 & 97 & 167 \\
$\langle [Fe/H]_{C09} \rangle (dex) \pm std (se)$ & $-1.60\pm0.42(0.04)$ & $-1.65\pm0.44(0.05)$ & $-1.71\pm0.40(0.04)$ & $-1.76\pm0.39(0.03)$ \\
$1\sigma$ line-of-sight depth (kpc) & $6.38\pm0.60$ & $5.55\pm0.12$ & $5.23\pm0.14$ & $4.46\pm0.24$ \\
\\
Stars with $[Fe/H]_{C09} \le -2.0$ dex \\
$N_{poor}$ & 14 & 24 & 26 & 44 \\
$N_{poor}\%$ & 14$\%$ & 26$\%$ & 27$\%$ & 26$\%$ \\
$1\sigma$ line-of-sight depth (kpc) & $6.96\pm0.22$ & $7.59\pm0.13$ & $5.12\pm0.14$ & $4.97\pm0.25$ \\
\\
Stars with $[Fe/H]_{C09} \ge -1.4$ dex \\
$N_{rich}$ & 30 & 24 & 17 & 29 \\
$N_{rich}\%$ & 31$\%$ & 26$\%$ & 18$\%$ & 17$\%$ \\
$1\sigma$ line-of-sight depth (kpc) & $5.93\pm1.34$ & $4.26\pm0.13$ & $5.22\pm0.17$ & $4.62\pm0.13$ \\
\\
$N_{poor}/N_{rich}$ & $0.47\pm0.15$ & $1.00\pm0.29$ & $1.53\pm0.48$ & $1.52\pm0.36$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
In the central bar region of the SMC a metallicity gradient was neither expected nor observable (see section 4.5 of Paper I). In the present study, the area covered by OGLE-III is extended to a radius of $\simeq4^{\circ}$ on average (approximately 14 square degrees). The distributions of metallicities of the RRab stars in the central region of the SMC (fig. 4 of Paper I and dark grey bars of Fig. 1 in the present work) and the extended area (light grey bars of Fig. 1), imply the possible existence of a metallicity gradient, since there is a higher percentage of metal poor objects in the extended sample. In order to examine the genuineness of such an effect, we derived the average metal abundances in four regions, defined by ellipses based on the isopleths of Gonidakis et al. (2009, hereinafter G09) and centered on the SMC dynamical center (DC). A central region, an inner ring, an outer ring and the outer region are shown in the upper panel of Fig. 4, overlayed on the map of the 454 RRab stars. The distributions of the metal abundances in the four regions are shown in the lower panels of Fig. 4. The corresponding average metallicities on the C09 scale ($\langle [Fe/H]_{C09} \rangle$) with increasing angular distance from the SMC DC are $-1.60\pm0.42$ dex, $-1.65\pm0.44$ dex, $-1.71\pm0.40$ dex and $-1.76\pm0.39$ dex, the errors being standard deviations (the corresponding standard errors being $\pm0.04$, $\pm0.05$, $\pm0.04$ and $\pm0.03$). Although these average values are identical within their standard deviations (which is not the case for the standard errors), a small but systematic decrease of the average metal abundance is detected with increasing distance from the SMC DC. Furthermore, inspection of the distributions of the metallicities in the four regions (lower panels of Fig. 4) reveals an increasing relative surplus of high metallicity objects towards the inner regions. This can be also seen in Table 7, where a comparison between two extreme subsets of RRab stars in each area is presented. We have examined two extreme populations of stars with $[Fe/H]_{C09} \le -2.0$ dex (metal poor) and $[Fe/H]_{C09} \ge -1.4$ dex (metal rich) as well as their number ratio. The percentage of the metal poor stars increases with angular distance from the SMC dynamical center while the opposite occurs for the metal rich stars. Their ratio $N_{poor}/N_{rich}$ also shows a similar increase. Furthermore, a $\chi^2$ test indicates that the hypothesis of all samples of non-adjacent regions sharing the same origin is true only below very low levels of significance ($0.1-0.5$). A K-S test for the two extreme regions (inner and outer region) indicates that this hypothesis is true on a 0.05 level of significance.
\par{On the other hand, it should be noted that the RRab population in the inner regions contains low metallicity (as well as some high metallicity) stars whose actual (de-projected) distance from the SMC DC is greater than the corresponding projected distance which was used in the analysis above. These stars lie behind or in front of the SMC central region and their exclusion from the sample of RRab stars in the inner regions would lead to slightly higher average metallicities, leading thus to a stronger evidence of a metallicity gradient existing in the SMC. For example, the innermost region contains 97 RRab stars with an average distance of $68\pm7$ kpc (std) from us, the larger and shorter distance being $87$ kpc and $52$ kpc, respectively. Applying a cutoff and keeping stars with a distance diverging less than $\pm1.5\sigma$ from the average one would lead to a sample of 83 stars with an average metallicity of $-1.57\pm0.40$ dex (std) on the C09 scale. A $\pm1\sigma$ cutoff would lead to a similar metallicity of $-1.57\pm0.41$ dex (std) on the C09 scale for 72 stars. Both results are slightly higher than the value of $-1.60\pm0.42$ dex that was found earlier.}
\par{Thus, another approach was followed using the real (de-projected) distances ($d_{DC}$) of the RRab stars from the SMC DC. For this purpose, we used their distances (d) from us (as they were derived with the method described in Section 5), their angular distances ($\omega$) from the SMC DC (using the coordinates RA and Dec of each star and those of the DC, i.e. ($\alpha$, $\delta$) and ($\alpha_o = 0^h\;51^{min}$, $\delta_o = -73^{\circ}\;7^{\prime}$), respectively) and adopting the average distance of the SMC ($D=67.31\pm5.82$ kpc, being the average of the individual distances of the RRab stars from us, see Section 5.3) as the distance of the DC. The corresponding equations are described below.
\begin{equation}
{d_{DC} = \sqrt{ d^2 + D^2 - 2 d D \cos{\omega}}}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\cos{\omega} = \sin{\delta}\sin{\delta_o} + \cos{\delta}\cos{\delta_o}\cos{(\alpha - \alpha_o)}}
\end{equation}
The average metallicities ($\langle [Fe/H]_{C09} \rangle$ on the C09 scale) were derived for 10 groups of stars with increasing average distance from the SMC DC ($\langle d_{DC} \rangle$), from 0 to 20 kpc, the step (binning) being 2 kpc. This is shown in the upper panel of Fig. 5, where a small but clear decrease is found and can be well fitted by a linear relation between $\langle [Fe/H]_{C09} \rangle$ and $\langle d_{DC} \rangle$, as described by the following equation (the last two poorly populated groups, corresponding to the open circles in Fig. 5, were excluded from the fit):
\begin{equation}
{\langle [Fe/H]_{C09} \rangle = -(0.013\pm0.007)\langle d_{DC} \rangle - (1.624\pm0.062)}
\end{equation}
where $r=0.623$ is the correlation coefficient and $\sigma=0.210$ the corresponding standard deviation.}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=80mm \epsffile{kapakos_e_fig05.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Average metallicities, $\log P$, $P$ and $\varphi_{31}$ of 10 groups of RRab stars as a function of their average distance (in kpc) from the SMC dynamical center. The grey and black error bars are standard deviations and standard errors, respectively, while the solid lines represent linear fittings. The open circles denote poorly populated groups that were excluded from the fittings. The numbers in parentheses denote the number of stars in each group.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\leavevmode \epsfxsize=70mm \epsffile{kapakos_e_fig06a.eps}
\\
\leavevmode \epsfxsize=67mm \epsffile{kapakos_e_fig06b.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Upper panel: Ratio of the number of RRab ($N_{RRab}$) and the corresponding RRc ($N_{RRc}$) stars for groups of RRab stars (see Fig. 5) as a function of their average distance from the SMC dynamical center (applied for groups were both populations were present), based on the sample of the 454 RRab and 74 RRc stars which are compatible with the criteria based on $D_m$ and $\sigma_{\varphi_{31}}$ parameters, respectively. Lower panel: Same ratio ($N_{RRab}/N_{RRc}$) for groups of stars with increasing angular distance from the SMC dynamical center, based on all 1887 RRab and 169 RRc stars which were detected from OGLE-III.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Discussion of errors and biases}
As already discussed in Paper I, selection effects may be at play; photometric crowding would make larger amplitude (hence more metal rich) RR Lyrae stars (see Bailey diagram in Fig. 3) easier to detect and with higher quality light curves (hence smaller $\sigma_{D_m}$ and $D_m$) in the inner region than lower metallicity RR Lyrae stars in the same area. A detailed study of the line-of-sight depth variations in Section 5.5 reveals such a possible lack of metal poor RRab stars in the innermost regions of the SMC (below 1 deg), although their actual distances from the DC may be just as large. Since RRc stars are on average of lower amplitudes than the RRab stars, such a selection effect would also imply an increase of the ratio $N_{RRab}/N_{RRc}$ close to the SMC center, where $N_{RRab}$ and $N_{RRc}$ are the populations of RRab and RRc stars, respectively, in the same area (Feast, Abedigamba \& Whitelock 2010, hereinafter FAW10). In order to examine this possibility we derived this ratio for 7 (most populated) of the 10 regions mentioned above (provided that both populations were present in each region). For this purpose, we used the sample of 454 RRab stars whose metal abundances and thus their distances were derived with accuracy (see Sections 3 and 5). Concerning the RRc stars, although they were excluded from further analysis in this project (see discussion in Section 1 and in Paper I), we derived their distances with the same method that we adopted for the RRab stars (see Section 5 and equations 1 and 2 above) and their metallicities following the technique described in Paper I (equations 6-10 and 12 there or A6-10 and A12 in the Appendix). These values are not suitable for accurate chemical and structural analysis of the SMC, however they could be used for the purpose of the statistical test that is described here. Of the 169 RRc stars, 74 objects were compatible with the selection criterion based on their $\sigma_{\varphi_{31}}$ (see Paper I for details) and were used for this analysis. The results are given in the upper panel of Fig. 6, where a decrease in the ratio $N_{RRab}/N_{RRc}$ with increasing distance from the SMC DC is shown. Thus, the metallicity gradient found above is possibly affected by selection effects related to the OGLE observations (undetected metal poor RRab stars of low amplitude in the central region) and the selection criteria which led to our final sample (metal poor RRab stars of higher $\sigma_{D_m}$ and $D_m$ being excluded) as well. It should be noted that the excluded metal poor RRab stars with small angular distances from the DC could be either of small radial distances from the DC, leading thus to an overestimated metallicity gradient, or of larger distances, therefore underestimating the gradient. The ratio $N_{RRab}/N_{RRc}$ is also affected by these effects; undetected and excluded (high $\sigma_{\varphi_{31}}$) RRc stars would imply its increase in the inner regions whereas undetected and excluded metal poor RRab stars close to the DC would lead to its decrease. We derived a similar ratio from the total sample of 1887 RRab and 169 RRc stars that were detected from OGLE-III. However, since the actual distances from the SMC DC could not be derived for all these stars with accuracy, we used their angular distances, although the groups with small angular distances also include stars with high actual distances. The corresponding diagram is shown in the lower panel of Fig. 6. The slope of a linear fitting is $-0.81\pm0.60$ (where the open circles corresponding to poorly populated groups were excluded), i.e. zero within its $1.3 \sigma$ error.
\par{For a further examination of possible biases originating from our sample, we investigated whether the metallicity gradient would be detectable either by adopting a different binning or by excluding certain points from the fitting procedure, as it shown in Table 8. Thus, we changed the binning from 2.0 kpc (10 groups of stars) to 1.5 kpc and 2.5 kpc, leading to 14 and 8 groups of stars, respectively. In all cases, the number of stars (N) of each group is listed in Table 8, while the last groups in each case (marked with an asterisk in Table 8) were excluded from the analysis due to very low statistics. We performed linear fittings using all the remaining statistically reliable groups or by excluding the first or/and the last of them in each case. Those included in each fitting and the corresponding slope, as well, are listed in the last two columns of Table 8. Several conclusions may be derived from these tests. To start with, the metallicity gradient is independent of the adopted binning. Furthermore, it seems to be partially based on the last group in each case, i.e. the $10^{th}$, $8^{th}$ and $6^{th}$ for binning of 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 kpc, respectively. On the contrary, the inclusion of the first group isn't crucial. However, any undetected metal poor stars in the innermost regions of the SMC could weaken the gradient. Unfortunately, the number of possible missing stars could not be securely evaluated (i.e. without the danger of including non-existing objects). At any rate, exclusion of certain groups (i.e. also the first or/and the last of the reliable ones in each case) would also suffer from biases and selection effects towards the opposite direction, i.e. the "washing out" of the gradient.}
\par{As a final test, relaxing the $D_m$ criterion, i.e. by selecting stars with $\sigma_{D_m} \leq 4$ and $D_m - \sigma_{D_m} \leq 4$, would led us to a larger sample of 714 objects, although their metal abundances and distances, as well, would be beyond the limits of reliability ($<D_m>=4.08\pm1.31$, $D_m^{max}=7.46\pm3.91$, $<\sigma_{D_m}>=2.07\pm0.73$, the errors being std). In this case (e.g. by adopting a binning of 2.0 kpc), the metallicity gradient would be hardly distinguishable, i.e. $-0.006\pm0.005$ dex/kpc, its significance though being strongly questionable.}
\begin{table*}
\begin{minipage}{180mm}
\begin{center}\scriptsize
\caption{Investigation of the existence of a metallicity gradient by linear fittings on average metallicities of groups of RRab stars versus their corresponding average de-projected distances from the SMC DC, using different groupings (binning).}
\begin{tabular}{@{}cccccccccccccccccc@{}}
\hline
binning&group & 1& 2& 3& 4& 5& 6& 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 14 &fitted& slope (dex/kpc)\\
\hline
1.5kpc&N stars& 40&120&109& 53& 51& 28& 14 & 16 & 7 & 7 &3$^*$&2$^*$&1$^*$&3$^*$& 1-10 &$-0.013\pm0.006$\\
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & 2-10 &$-0.013\pm0.007$\\
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & 1- 9 &$-0.008\pm0.006$\\
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & 2- 9 &$-0.006\pm0.008$\\
\\
2.0kpc&N stars& 80&162& 80& 64& 27& 18& 9 & 6 &4$^*$&4$^*$& - & - & - & - & 1- 8 &$-0.013\pm0.007$\\
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & 2- 8 &$-0.012\pm0.008$\\
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & 1- 7 &$-0.004\pm0.005$\\
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & 2- 7 &$-0.001\pm0.006$\\
\\
2.5kpc&N stars&118&170& 85& 40& 21& 11&4$^*$&5$^*$& - & - & - & - & - & - & 1- 6 &$-0.012\pm0.007$\\
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & 2- 6 &$-0.012\pm0.010$\\
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & 1- 5 &$-0.004\pm0.009$\\
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & 2- 5 &$+0.001\pm0.013$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
$^*$ These points were excluded from linear fitting due to very low statistics.
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Comparison with other investigations in the SMC}
HGDJ investigated the existence of a metallicity gradient in the SCM using RRab stars, whose I-band light curves were decomposed using Fourier analysis independently of their quality, and they reported an estimate of $0.00\pm0.06$ dex/kpc. Their study was based on projected distances of these stars from the SMC center. In order to have comparable results, we used their metal abundances along with our de-projected distances from the SMC DC for 453 common RRab stars and performed a linear fitting on the averages of the 8 groups of stars which were described earlier and were shown in Fig. 5 (adopted binning: 2.0 kpc). The resulting slope was $-0.006\pm0.005$ dex/kpc. For consistency reasons, we redefined the de-projected distances of these stars using HGDJ's metallicities and our method described in the present work. New groups of stars were selected with the same binning of 2.0 kpc. The slope of the corresponding linear fitting was reversed but remained almost zero within its error, i.e. $+0.006\pm0.005$ dex/kpc.
\par{As already discussed in Section 3.2, HGDJ's metal abundances show systematic discrepancies, when compared to ours, i.e. they are increasingly higher than ours for metal poorer stars and slightly lower for metal richer ones. Such offsets would tend to eliminate any metallicity gradient. Thus, the estimates mentioned earlier from HGDJ's metallicities are expected to imply a hardly detectable or undetectable gradient.}
\subsection{Comparison with the LMC}
\par{Interestingly, FAW10 have found similar results to ours for the LMC RR Lyrae variables. These authors used spectroscopic values for metallicities along with period - [Fe/H] relations and suggest the existence of a radial metallicity gradient in this galaxy, detected from the RRab population, for distances up to 6 kpc from the center. The metallicity gradients in both Magellanic Clouds would be consistent with the theory of galactic evolution by the gradual collapse of a gas cloud. It should be noted though that FAW10 interpret their metallicity gradient as a result of a $\log P$ gradient, noting that the latter could also be explained in terms other than metallicity, together with an age gradient and a nearly constant mean metallicity. Since our metallicites are based on a $[Fe/H] = f(P , \varphi_{31} )$ relation, we derived the average $\log P$, $P$ and $\varphi_{31}$ for our ten groups of stars (described above) with increasing average distance from the SMC DC, as it is shown in the lower panels of Fig. 5. The corresponding linear fittings are expressed through the equations below:
\begin{equation}
{\langle \log P \rangle = (0.001\pm0.001)\langle d_{DC} \rangle - (0.238\pm0.007)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\langle P \rangle = (0.001\pm0.001)\langle d_{DC} \rangle + (0.580\pm0.009)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\langle \varphi_{31} \rangle = -(0.008\pm0.005)\langle d_{DC} \rangle - (4.958\pm0.046)}
\end{equation}
their standard deviations being 0.232, 0.237 and 0.222, respectively. Obviously, the $\langle \log P \rangle$ and $\langle P \rangle$ are almost constant (the corresponding slopes being very small and zero within their $1\sigma$ error) on the average $\log P$ and $P$ of all our 454 RRab stars which are $-0.235\pm0.045$ (std) and $-0.585\pm0.059$ days (std), respectively, over against the LMC result mentioned above, since the LMC metallicity gradient is considered by FAW10 to be based on a $\log P$ gradient. On the contrary, $\langle \varphi_{31} \rangle$ shows a clear decrease with increasing distance from the SMC DC. A combination of the above relations with equations (2) and (3) of Paper I (A2 and A3) shows that the coefficients for the contribution terms of $d_{DC}$ from $P$ and $\varphi_{31}$ are 0.005 and 0.011, respectively, the latter being more than two times larger ($\langle [Fe/H]_{C09} \rangle \sim -0.005 \langle d_{DC} \rangle ^{from}_{P} -0.011 \langle d_{DC} \rangle ^{from}_{\varphi_{31}}$). Thus, the metallicity gradient that was detected in our sample in the SMC seems to originate in a $\varphi_{31}$ gradient rather than in a $P$ (or $\log P$) gradient.}
\subsection{Conclusions}
A metallicity gradient of RR Lyrae stars is most likely bound to be correlated with radial gradients of their properties, such as $\log P$, $\varphi_{31}$, and/or their combinations. Despite the evidence of its existence, its detection is probably affected by selection effects that could either constitute its true origin or downgrade its substance, depending on the metal abundances and the actual distances from the SMC DC of non-included objects (undetected or excluded). A stronger confirmation could be provided by spectroscopically derived metal abundances of the large sample of RRab stars detected by OGLE-III in the SMC. Furthermore, according to Subramanian \& Subramaniam (2012, hereinafter SS12), who investigated the three-dimensional structure of the SMC using RR Lyrae and red clump stars, our present view of the SMC is like viewing only the central part of a sphere along the line-of-sight. This perspective, combined with the indication that the metal poor RRab stars have a larger scale height than the metal rich ones, as it was found in Paper I and thoroughly examined in Section 5.5 of the present work, implies that a robust examination of any metallicity gradient should await the spatially extended OGLE-IV survey, as well.
\section{Structural analysis of the SMC}
After a careful selection of our final sample of fundamental-mode RR Lyrae variables and the derivation of their metal abundances, we attempted a detailed structural analysis of the SMC. For this purpose, we derived their distance moduli, after determining their absolute magnitudes and applying corrections for interstellar extinction.
\subsection{Absolute magnitudes of the RRab stars}
We derived the absolute magnitudes ($M_V$) of the 454 RRab stars of our sample (which will be subsequently used for the estimation of the line-of-sight distances of these objects), using the method which was described in detail in Paper I (equations 10 and 11 there, i.e. A10 and A11, respectively). Equation (11) of Paper I, which was used for the transformation of the derived metallicities from the JK96 scale to the Harris (1996) scale (for determining $M_V$), is valid for metal abundances between -2.31 and -0.68 dex on the JK96 scale. Of our 454 stars, 21 have $[Fe/H]_{JK96}$ outside this range, although only 8 are still outliers after taking into account their $1\sigma$ error and are not expected to affect our results.
\par{The resulting absolute magnitudes for the individual objects are listed in Table 4 (Column 4), while in the last three lines of Table 5 we give some basic statistics for the absolute magnitudes, distance moduli and distances. The average value of the absolute magnitude for the 454 RRab stars is $M_V = 0.49\pm0.09$ mag (std), the minimum and maximum values being $0.26$ and $0.78$ mag, respectively.}
\subsection{Reddening of the SMC}
A correction for the interstellar extinction ($A_V$) is needed in order to derive the distance moduli of the RRab stars (equation 13 of Paper I, i.e. A13). The reddening values of Udalski et al. (1999, hereinafter U99), which were used in Paper I, have a spatial coverage limited to the central bar region of the SMC. The optical reddening map of Haschke, Grebel \& Duffau (2011, hereinafter HGD) is the most recent and suitable for our data as far as spatial coverage is concerned. These authors used the average colour of Red Clump (RC) stars on the colour-magnitude diagram to derive reddening values in $(V-I)$, i.e. $E(V-I)$, by adopting an average theoretical colour $(V-I)_0$ for the RC stars. The correction for the extinction ($A_V$) was derived using the equations $E(B-V)=E(V-I)/1.38$ and $A_V=3.32E(B-V)$ of Tammann, Sandage \& Reindl (2003) and Schlegel, Finkbeiner \& Davis (1998), respectively. A statistical error for the reddening of the individual stars was defined using the average $E(V-I)$ of fields of the HGD map within 10 arcmin from the position of the RR Lyrae stars.
\par{The average $E(V-I)$ for our sample was $0.041\pm0.013$ (std) with the minimum and maximum values being $0.013$ and $0.086$, respectively. These values correspond to an average $E(B-V)$ of $0.030\pm0.009$ (std) ranging from $0.010$ to $0.062$. Thus, the applied correction due to the interstellar extinction ($A_V$) was on average $0.099\pm0.031$ mag (std) and within the range from $0.032$ to $0.207$ mag. According to the reddening map of U99 for the central bar region of the SMC, the average $E(B-V)$ of the 11 fields of OGLE-II was $0.087\pm0.011$ (std), ranging between $0.070$ and $0.101$, the latter value being larger by $0.039$ than the corresponding one which has been statistically derived from the HGD map for the central bar (and the wing as well) of the SMC (i.e. 0.072). It has been found, however, that the U99 reddening for the LMC is overestimated by $0.028$ mag (Clementini et al. 2003, hereinafter C03; see also a brief discussion in subsection 6.1 of Paper I). Assuming that this is also the case for the SMC, the maximum values in $E(B-V)$ of U99 and HGD for the central regions of the SMC would be in good agreement.}
\par{It should be noted that a second source of error is present in the HGD reddening values, apart from the statistical one mentioned above, originating from the assumptions on which the determination of reddening is based, although it can only be qualitatively described. HGD adopted an average value of $0.89$ mag for the theoretical mean colour $(V-I)_0$ of RC stars, using the mean clump properties given by Girardi \& Salaris (2001, hereinafter GS01) and assuming an average metallicity of $z \sim 0.0025$ ($[Fe/H] \sim -0.9$ dex) for the SMC. However, such a simplified model introduces systematic errors, since the colour $(V-I)_0$ depends on the average age of the stellar populations and metallicity (GS01). The ages of the stellar populations of the SMC range from $\sim 0$ to $\sim 12$ Gyrs. Furthermore, an age gradient with decreasing average age towards the SMC center has been detected, e.g. by Gardiner \& Hatzidimitriou (1992). According to these authors, the average age ranges from 0.5 to 6.5 Gyrs close to the center and from 7.5 to 12.5 beyond $2.3$ kpc. According to Da Costa and Hatzidimitriou (1998) or, more recently, according to Kayser et al. (2009), there is an age-metallicity relation (AMR) for the SMC showing a decreasing average metal abundance with increasing average age. By combining the age gradient and the AMR (e.g. from Kayser et al.), the average metallicities ($[Fe/H]$) would range from -0.65 to -0.95 dex (the z ranging from 0.0045 to 0.0022) close to the center and from -1.05 to -1.55 (the z ranging from 0.0018 to 0.00056) at larger distances. Using the GS01 tables, these metallicity values would roughly result in an average $(V-I)_0$ ranging from $0.86\pm0.07$ mag (std) in the central region to $0.78\pm0.03$ mag (std) beyond $2.3$ kpc from the SMC center. Thus, the reddening of the SMC is probably underestimated by $0.02\pm0.05$ mag and $0.08\pm0.02$ mag (in $E(B-V)$) for its inner and outer regions, respectively, which, in turn, would imply systematic errors of $0.07\pm0.17$ and $0.27\pm0.07$, respectively, for the distance moduli of the SMC RR Lyrae stars. This rough calculation is only meant as an order of magnitude estimate of the (maximum) systematic error that can be introduced in our results due to the specific method used for the derivation of the reddenings by HGD.}
\subsection{Distance moduli of the RRab stars}
The individual distance moduli of the 454 RR Lyrae variables in our sample were derived using equation (13) of Paper I (i.e. A13). The resulting values and associated errors are shown in Table 4 (Column 6), while a histogram of the derived distance moduli is shown in Fig. 7. The average distance modulus for the SMC RR Lyraes (given in Table 5) is found to be $19.13\pm0.19$ (std), under the assumption that the distance modulus of the LMC is $18.52\pm0.06$ (see Paper I for a full discussion\footnotemark[3] \footnotetext[3]{Very recently, Storm et al. (2011) have found the LMC distance modulus to be $18.45\pm0.04$ using a sample of LMC Cepheids, while Ripepi et al. (2012) have reported an identical value of $18.46\pm0.03$ based on the $K_s$-band period - luminosity relations of the LMC Classical Cepheids. These estimates do not affect the average value which is adopted for the LMC distance modulus and is derived from other independent determinations listed in Paper I.}). The average of the errors (std) of the individual distance moduli, $\sigma_\mu$, is $0.08\pm0.02$ practically independent of the angular distance from the SMC DC. The systematic error due to the reddening uncertainties, which was described in Section 5.2, seems to be within the $\sigma_\mu$ of the majority of the stars which are lying within 2.3 deg from SMC DC (431 stars, i.e. $\sim 95 \%$, of the RRab stars of our sample), although it can be expected to affect the distance moduli of the few objects located in the outer regions of the SMC.
\par{In Paper I we found the average distance modulus of the SMC to be $18.90\pm0.18$ based on the RRab population of the central bar region and the U99 reddening maps. However (as also discussed in Paper I) the U99 reddenings seem to be systematically overestimated according to C03. Taking this into account renders the U99 reddening values compatible with the HGD ones and brings the average distance modulus of the Paper I RR Lyraes to $18.99\pm0.18$, in agreement with the present value (within the error). The distance modulus of a RR Lyrae star (derived with our method) depends on its mean apparent magnitude $A_0$ (i.e. the $m_V$), its metal abundance and the reddening. Our present sample contains RRab stars which are more metal poor by $\sim0.07$ dex on average than the Paper I sample. This would cause a small increase of the average distance modulus by $\sim0.02$ mag. On the other hand, the average $m_V$ (i.e. the average $A_0$) is identical in both samples. Thus, the differences in the reddening values adopted in the Papers I and II seem to be the cause of the systematic difference in the distance moduli; the average value adopted here (based on the HGD map) is lower by $\sim0.09$ in $E(B-V)$ than the corresponding average in the central bar from the U99 map, resulting in an increase in the average distance modulus by 0.23 mag.}
\par{Other recent independent determinations of the distance modulus of the SMC are listed in Paper I (Szewczyk et al. 2009; DS10; Kov\'{a}cs 2000; Harries, Hilditch \& Howarth 2003; Hilditch, Howarth \& Harries 2005; Crowl et al. 2001) and have an average of $18.91\pm0.11$ (std). North et al. (2010) have revised their previous estimate of $19.05\pm0.04$ (North, Gauderon \& Royer 2009) to a value identical to ours, i.e. $19.11\pm0.03$. Our estimate corresponds to a 0.61 mag difference between the SMC and LMC distance moduli, while the generally accepted range for the distance modulus difference lies between $\sim0.33 - 0.51$ mag (Matsunaga, Feast \& Soszy\'{n}ski 2011). Correcting for the systematic error in the reddening described in Section 5.2 would roughly lead to a reduction of the SMC distance modulus by at least $\sim0.08$ mag, bringing the difference from the LMC distance modulus to less than 0.53 mag.}
\par{The distance moduli of the RRab stars were used to derive their distances from us and, consequently, the average distance of the SMC, which was found to be $67\pm6$ kpc (std). These values are listed in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\leavevmode \epsfxsize=80mm
\epsffile{kapakos_e_fig07.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Distribution of the individual distance moduli of 454 RRab.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The line-of-sight depth of the SMC and its variations}
The line-of-sight (LOS) depth of the SMC has been the subject of numerous investigations. The current sample of fundamental-mode RR Lyrae stars is spatially distributed over a large area, contrary to the corresponding sample of Paper I which was restricted to the innermost regions of the SMC, being thus suitable to investigate the depth of the SMC and possible variations. Following Paper I but improving the method described therein, i.e. by taking into account the uncertainties due to extinction, we used the standard deviation of the average of the distances (derived from the distance moduli) of the individual RRab stars, $\sigma_{obs}$, where $\sigma_{obs}^2 = \sigma_{int}^2 + \sigma_{err}^2 + \sigma_{ext}^2$. The second additive term $\sigma_{err}$ is the average value of the standard deviations of the individual distances (given in the last column of Table 4), while $\sigma_{ext}$ is the average value of the standard deviations of the individual corrections for the extinction ($A_V$). Thus, $\sigma_{int}$ is taken to be "intrinsic", that is, due to the LOS depth of the sample and given by $\sigma_{int} = \sqrt{\sigma_{obs}^2 - \sigma_{err}^2 - \sigma_{ext}^2}$, which yields a $\pm 1\sigma$ LOS depth of $\sigma_{int}=5.3\pm0.4$ kpc (std). Other independent determinations are listed in Paper I.
\par{Our current analysis provides an independent confirmation of a $1\sigma$ LOS depth of $\simeq 5$ kpc, apparently shared by old and intermediate-age populations in the SMC. It would be more interesting, though, to investigate possible spatial variations of the SMC LOS depth, as it was done by SS09 who used a large sample of RC stars. The extended size of the sample of RRab stars and the larger spatial coverage across the face of the SMC, contrary to the dataset of Paper I, allows us to proceed to such a structural analysis and examination of the LOS depth variability.}
\par{The SMC has been proposed to be deeper in the NE region by HH89 and Gardiner \& Hawkins (1991), although they referred to a region beyond the spatial limits of the OGLE-III survey. To investigate this possibility in the area covered by OGLE-III, we examined three different samples of RRab stars, lying in three regions (north-eastern, NE; central; south-western, SW) as shown in Fig. 4. The $1\sigma$ LOS depth in the NE region was found to be $5.36\pm0.21$ kpc, while the corresponding value for the SW region was found to be $4.32\pm0.19$ kpc. Interestingly, the LOS depth in the central region was found to be $5.65\pm0.45$ kpc, suggesting thus the existence of a thicker structure. We also examined possible radial variations of the LOS depth using the four regions mentioned in Section 4 and shown in Fig. 4. The values corresponding to the central region, the inner ring, the outer ring and the outer region were found to be $6.38\pm0.60$ kpc, $5.55\pm0.12$ kpc, $5.23\pm0.14$ kpc and $4.46\pm0.24$ kpc (Table 7), showing a clear decrease with increasing angular distance from the SMC DC. Recently, SS12 presented similar results using RC stars. They found an average $1\sigma$ LOS depth of $4.57\pm1.03$ kpc for the SMC, a prominent feature of larger depth in the central region and an increased depth towards the NE region. The existence of a possible central substructure, as also suggested by SS09, and the distribution of populations of different metal abundances are examined in the next subsection.}
\subsection{Metallicity and structure}
Given the size of our sample of RRab stars, we can combine LOS distances and metal abundances, which allows us to investigate the possible presence of different structures consisting of different populations in the SMC, following the discussion in Paper I. We divided the sample of 454 RRab stars into 7 subsamples with increasing average metal abundance. The first group consisted of stars with $[Fe/H]_{C09}<-2.25$ dex, the next five were limited by metallicities from -2.25 to -1.00 dex with a step of 0.25 dex (on the C09 scale), while the last group included all stars with $[Fe/H]_{C09}>-1.00$ dex. The $1\sigma$ LOS depths of these groups are plotted against the corresponding average metallicities in Fig. 8. This figure is suggestive of different structures corresponding to different metal abundances on average. The LOS depths of the two extreme populations (metal poor and metal rich stars) in the four elliptical regions mentioned in Section 4 and listed in Table 7 corroborate this result; the metal rich stars show small variations of their LOS depth around $\sim 5$ kpc with a small increase in the inner region while the metal poor stars have a larger increase in LOS depth towards the SMC center.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\leavevmode \epsfxsize=80mm
\epsffile{kapakos_e_fig08.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Average $1\sigma$ LOS depth versus average metal abundance (on the C09 scale) for 7 subgroups of RRab stars. The metal poor and metal rich stars seem to constitute different structures.}
\end{figure}
\par{In order to further investigate this suggested trend, we used 25 elliptical regions, based on the isopleths of G09 and centered on the SMC DC, with increasing major axis length, starting from 0.7 to 3.0 deg with a step of 0.1, while the $25^{th}$ region was extended beyond 3.0 deg. The $1\sigma$ LOS depths for these areas were derived for all stars within the same area and also for the corresponding extreme subsamples of metal poor ($[Fe/H]_{C09}<-2.0$ dex) and metal rich ($[Fe/H]_{C09}>-1.4$ dex) RRab stars. Our results are illustrated in Fig. 9 with thick black, thin grey and thin black lines, respectively. Some interesting features are revealed.
\begin{enumerate}
\item {} The metal rich objects (thin black line) seem to occupy a much narrower structure, possibly a thick disk, with an average $1\sigma$ LOS depth slightly greater than 5 kpc beyond $\sim 1.5$ deg. In the innermost region ($<1.5$ deg) there seems to be a much thicker structure reminiscent of a bulge with a characteristic radius which may be estimated by an exponential fitting. The corresponding mathematical formula is described below.
\begin{equation}
{d_{los} = (45\pm14)e^{-\frac{a}{(0.193\pm0.016)}} + (5.20\pm0.01)}
\end{equation}
where $d_{los}$ (kpc) is the $1\sigma$ LOS depth and $a$ (deg) is the semi major axis of the ellipse. The width ($2\sigma$ depth) of the thick disk would then be $2\times(5.20\pm0.01)=10.40\pm0.02$ kpc. A rough estimation of the size (radius) of a possible bulge would result (using the equation above) from the angular distance ($a$) where the LOS depth falls to the disk limit value (within its error), i.e. $a = 1.62\pm0.24$ deg. This semi major axis length corresponds to a maximum distance of $1.78\pm0.26$ deg from the DC, after restoring the geometry of the RA-Dec map, or $2.09\pm0.81$ kpc, assuming a symmetrical distribution and a distance scale where the SMC is on average $67\pm6$ kpc away from us.
\item {} The metal poor objects on the other hand occupy a much thicker structure probably deeper than 16 kpc ($2\sigma$ depth) near the center. This could be interpreted as a spheroidal structure such as a halo. Its depth along the line of sight varies between $\sim 16$ kpc (or more) to $\sim 12$ kpc with increasing distance from the SMC DC. It should be noted that the inverse slope of the metal poor line in the innermost ellipses indicates a lack of metal poor objects in these regions of the SMC (below 1 deg). This is expected since these stars have smaller amplitude light curves and greater $D_m$, being thus more difficult to be detected in the innermost regions of the SMC (as discussed in Section 4).
\item {} An exponential fitting to the depth variation of the overall population (thick black line in Fig. 9) would result in a maximum $1\sigma$ LOS depth of $9.24\pm0.34$ kpc in the SMC DC, significantly larger than the nearly constant value of $5.30$ kpc in the outer regions. This is consistent with the results of SS12 from RC stars. Furthermore, following SS12, we attempted to derive the axes ratios of an ellipsoid that would fit our data. We used RRab stars within spherical cells of different radii, i.e. 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 kpc ($\sim$ 2.1, 2.6 and 3.0 deg, respectively). The corresponding ratios were 1:1.21:1.57, 1:1.18:1.53 and 1:1.23:1.80 (the longest axis being along the line of sight and the number of stars being 118, 161 and 200, respectively). As also mentioned by SS12, who found similar results (table 5 in SS12), the estimated ratios strongly depend on the data coverage.
\end{enumerate}
}
\par{A robust description of the bulge and halo characteristics must await the OGLE-IV observations of the full extent of the SMC on the RA-Dec plane. In that sense, the bulge size estimated above perhaps should be considered as a lower limit. Furthermore, it would be very important to combine this type of data with kinematical information (radial velocities) of RR Lyrae stars to investigate if these structures are indeed consistent kinematically with a halo, disk and bulge components.}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\leavevmode \epsfxsize=80mm
\epsffile{kapakos_e_fig09.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Average $1\sigma$ LOS depth of 25 groups of RRab stars belonging to elliptical areas with increasing major axis, based on the isopleths of Gonidakis et al. and centered on the SMC dynamical center. The thin black, thin grey and thick black lines correspond to metal rich, metal poor and all RRab stars.}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary \& Conclusions}
This is the second of a series of papers presenting metal abundances of RR Lyrae variable stars in the SMC. We have performed Fourier decomposition analysis of 8- and 13-year V-band light curves of a carefully selected sample of 454 fundamental-mode RR Lyrae variables, detected by OGLE in the SMC and listed in the OIII-CVS. Their Fourier decomposition parameters were used to derive metal abundances and distance moduli, as well as to perform a chemical and structural analysis of the SMC, which was hampered in Paper I due to the limited size and extent of the available sample in the central region of the SMC.
\par{The average metal abundance of these RRab stars on the new scale of C09 is found to be $\langle [Fe/H]_{C09} \rangle=-1.69\pm0.41$ dex (std, with a standard error of $0.02$ dex). Furthermore, the extended region of the SMC is populated by more metal poor objects, compared to the central bar region (Paper I). The distribution of our RRab stars of different metal abundances on the Bailey Diagram showed a clear anti-correlation between amplitude and period, as predicted by theoretical models, as well as the expected (from the models) displacement between the loci of low and high metallicity RRab stars, and the flattened extension of the curve for higher metallicity objects. The bulk of the RR Lyrae variables with intermediate metallicities possibly constitute an intermediate Oosterhoff population.}
\par{A tentative metallicity gradient was detected, with increasing average metal abundance towards the SMC DC, originating from a relative surplus of high metallicity objects in the inner regions and mainly related to a radial gradient of the Fourier parameter $\varphi_{31}$. The average metal abundances of the RRab stars show a slope of $-0.013\pm0.007$ dex/kpc relative to their average distances from the SMC DC. Similar results were found by FAW10 for the LMC RRab variables. Selection effects were examined through the ratio $N_{RRab}/N_{RRc}$ of the populations of RRab and RRc stars in the same region and other aspects were also discussed. Although they may not play a crucial role, their importance is strongly dependent on the metal abundances and the actual distances from the SMC DC of any non-included objects (either undetected by OGLE or excluded by selection criteria based on the quality of their light curves). Spectroscopically derived metallicities of a large, spatially extended, sample of RR Lyrae stars in the SMC are needed for a robust confirmation of the existence of the metallicity gradient and to clarify its origin.}
\par{The distance modulus of the SMC was found to be $\langle \mu \rangle=19.13\pm0.19$ (std), in a distance scale where the distance modulus of the LMC is $\mu_{LMC} = 18.52\pm0.06$. The distances to individual RRab stars were used to study the LOS depth in the SMC and its variations. The SMC was found to have an average LOS depth of $5.3\pm0.4$ kpc (std), also being deeper in the north-eastern region (compared to the south-western one) by $1.04\pm0.41$ kpc. Moreover, there is a clear indication of a thicker structure in the inner regions of the SMC, reminiscent of a bulge. Metal rich and metal poor objects in the sample seem to belong to different dynamical structures. The former have smaller scale height and may belong to a thick disk, its width ($2\sigma$ depth) being $10.40\pm0.02$ kpc, and a bulge whose size (radius) is estimated to be $2.09\pm0.81$ kpc. The metal poor objects seem to belong to a halo whose ($2\sigma$) depth along the line of sight extends over 16 kpc in the inner regions of the SMC, while $\sim 12$ kpc is a rough estimation for the outer regions. Combination with kinematics of RR Lyrae stars are needed to clarify these issues.}
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
We would like to thank the anonymous referees of Papers I and II, whose corrections and comments contributed substantially to the improvement of both papers. We are also grateful to OGLE for having their data publically available. E. Kapakos thanks R. Haschke for providing the HGDJ's metallicities of the individual RR Lyrae stars of the SMC that facilitated a thorough and useful comparison between the two methods.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{section:introduction}
A common problem in stellar astrophysics is the relation between the observational quantities (magnitudes, colors, fluxes) and the physical parameters of the stars (effective temperature, luminosity, mass, age). Often, dust extinction challenges this task even further, especially when differential reddening affects the individual sources in a region. Whereas it has always been common practice to analyze photometry data in 2-dimensional space, like a color-magnitude diagram (CMD) or a 2-color diagram (2CD), often this approach is insufficient to fully characterize the individual stars. In fact, there are well-known degeneracies among the stellar parameters for stars of given color: a few examples are the effective temperature ($T_{\rm eff}$)-extinction degeneracy for low- and intermediate-mass stars and optical magnitudes \citep[e.g.,][]{hillenbrand97,bailer-jones2011}, or the age-metallicity degeneracy for RGB stars \citep[e.g.,][]{vandenberg2006,crnojevic2010}.
Multi-band photometry often allows to improve upon these limitations, both in breaking the degeneracies and reducing the overall uncertainty. Today, the availability of large field surveys such as the \emph{Sloan Digital Sky Survey} (SDSS, \citealt{abazajian2009}), the \emph{Two-Micron All-Sky Survey} (2MASS, \citealt{skrutskie2006}) and the \emph{Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer} (WISE, \citealt{wright2010}), the diffusion of public data archives and the rise of Virtual Observatory (VO) infrastructures, enable easy access of an overwhelming quantity of photometric data for the community.
Even with a great variety of data in one's hand, the characterization of the properties of stars may hide further obstacles, some of which merely practical. Various theoretical models predicting the stellar parameters are known to differ from one another, requiring one to assess, by comparison with the data, the level of trustworthiness of the models. Often, stellar evolutionary models already provide the predicted magnitudes and colors; this conversion, however, may not be well calibrated, or not available in the specific photometric bands that one requires. In this case, common solutions are to transform the available photometry from one to another system -- with the consequent uncertainties -- or to rely on synthetic photometry to recompute the predicted fluxes.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1}
\includegraphics[width=17cm]{screenshots1.ps}
\caption{Some examples of the graphical user interface of TA-DA: \emph{top left:} the interpolation of evolutionary models or the definition of the model stellar parameters; \emph{top right:} the interface for the synthetic photometry; \emph{bottom right:} the visual inspection of the computed synthetic photometry, the attachment of observed photometry and the selection of sources within the observed catalog; \emph{bottom left:} the interface for the stellar parameter fitter. \label{fig:screenshots}}
\end{figure*}
There are several available tools to simplify some of these steps. A number of stellar evolutionary models provide online interfaces for interpolation of their grids and computation of magnitudes and colors (e.g, the \citealt{siess2000} pre-main sequence models or the Padova models from \citealt{marigo2008} and \citealt{girardi2010}). Similarly, some grids of synthetic spectra already provide, besides the computed spectra, also tools to compute the integrated colors and magnitudes in several photometric systems (e.g., the \texttt{PHOENIX} models of the Lyon group, see \citealt{allard2011}). For what concern the synthetic photometry in general, a very popular code is \texttt{SYNPHOT}, an IRAF package part of the \emph{Space Telescope Science Data Analysis System} (STSDAS) which performs several different types of such calculations. As for the estimate of stellar parameters and extinctions from multi-band photometry, a powerful code is \texttt{CHORIZOS} \citep{maiz-apellaniz2004}. This software allows one to estimate $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$, the extinction $A_V$ as well as the reddening parameter $R_V$ from multi-band colors, using a Bayesian approach. \texttt{CHORIZOS} also performs automatic synthetic photometry, with the possibility of adding custom filter bands. Still, \texttt{CHORIZOS} is designed to fit stellar colors, not magnitudes, neglecting the additional information in the data provided by the luminosities; moreover, stellar evolutionary models are not directly integrated in the code.
All these tools, in fact, have the common shortcoming that either they are designed to address only a particular problem within the general analysis, or that they are constrained to perform as black-boxes.
Following these premises, it appears that a new, integrated, flexible code for photometric data analysis in relation to stellar parameters is needed. With this motivation, we have developed the \emph{Tool for Astrophysical Data Analysis} (TA-DA). In this paper we present the code, its general functionalities, and show some example of use.
\section{Requirements for TA-DA}
\label{section:requirements}
TA-DA is conceived as a tool for quick-look, comparison, and parameter fitting of multi-band photometry in relation to stellar models. In the development of the code, we focused on two general concepts:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Generality and Versatility}: TA-DA should be able to address a range of different problems concerning the relation between photometry and stellar parameters.
\item \emph{Usability}: TA-DA must be user-friendly, ensuring the users to exploit its functionalities (or test if it is useful for their scientific aims) with little or no extra time dedicated to familiarize with the code.
\end{enumerate}
Specifically, we included the following functionalities:
\begin{itemize}
\item Integration with stellar evolutionary models: TA-DA is natively able to load and interpolate stellar interior models, allowing one to fit model-dependent quantities such as stellar masses and ages. The consideration of interior models, nevertheless, is not mandatory, as ultimately one could solely consider, e.g., $T_{\rm eff}$ as the only stellar parameter.
\item Automatic and universal synthetic photometric engine: TA-DA is able to perform synthetic photometry, converting stellar parameters into magnitudes or fluxes in a number of units, allowing also reddening due to dust extinction to be directly applied to the synthetic spectra. The synthetic photometry can be performed on different grids of atmosphere models, and on arbitrary photometric systems.
\item Data visual quick-look in comparison with models or theoretical stellar parameters: the user can load photometric tables, and plot them together with the pre-computed sets of stellar parameters, constructing, e.g., CMDs or 2-CDs, and varying the amount of assumed dust extinction. This is useful for obtaining a first visual check on the behavior of the data, and refine the selection of sources to be further studied.
\item Automatic parameter fitter: TA-DA allows one to automatically estimate the stellar parameters of the individual sources from their multi-band photometry; depending on the data at disposal and the number of free parameters, this can be either an exact solution or a probabilistic one. The number of free parameters, as well as the photometric bands to use, can be fully customized.
\end{itemize}
\section{How TA-DA works.}
\label{section:how-tada-works}
TA-DA has been developed using the ITTVIS \emph{Interactive Data Language} (IDL), and presents a graphical user interface (GUI) based on widgets; it is distributed as a pre-compiled, cross-platform code. The distribution package already includes a number of stellar evolutionary and atmosphere models, as well as a full repository of photometric filter throughput profiles. We refer the readers to the Appendix \ref{appendix:models-filters} for additional details.
The TA-DA main GUI is divided into 4 panels, respectively for: a) the specification of the model stellar parameters and the interpolation of evolutionary models; b) the synthetic photometry; c) the visual display of the synthetic photometry, the handling of the observed photometry table, selection and plotting of the latter; d) the stellar parameter fitter. We will now describe some of these functionalities.
\subsection{Stellar parameters and evolutionary models}
\label{section:how-tada-works-evolmodels}
TA-DA includes several families of evolutionary models; for pre-main sequence (PMS) populations we have included models from \citet{baraffe98,dantona98,palla99,siess2000,tognelli2011}, for evolved population we included the Padova models from \citet{marigo2008} with the \citet{girardi2010} correction. If multiple values of metallicity are available for a given set of interior models, a value should be specified. When instead a grid of models includes additional parameters, such as in the case of the PISA models from \citet{tognelli2011}, computed for several values of mixing length parameter $\alpha$, helium enrichment, and deuterium initial abundances, these are treated as different families of models. Additional interior models can be added by a user provided they are stored in the proper format.
TA-DA allows one to consider the entire grid, for a selected metallicity, or to restrict it to a particular arbitrary isochrone or mass track. Furthermore, it is possible to manually input user defined sets of stellar parameters, attaching a table reporting an arbitrary set of 2 quantities chosen from the following 5: mass, $\log$ age, $\log T_{\rm eff}$, $\log L_{\rm bol}$, stellar radius. It should be noted that any combination of 2 of these parameters automatically define the remaining ones, since, e.g, the stellar radius $R$ relates to $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log L$ through $L=4\pi R^2 T_{\rm eff}^4$ and the evolutionary models natively map the Hertzsprung-Russel Diagram (HRD) into stellar masses and ages. Thus TA-DA will consider the user-supplied parameters and derive the remaining ones, including the surface gravity $\log g$, needed for the synthetic photometry (see below).
Alternatively, TA-DA also allows one to consider only parameters in the HRD ($T_{\rm eff}$, $R$, $\log g$ for a specified metallicity, if available), the minimum ones necessary to both derive the synthetic photometry and allow the fitting of stellar parameters, without relying on model-dependent physical quantities such as stellar masses and ages.
\subsection{The synthetic photometry}
\label{section:how-tada-works-synphot}
TA-DA is able to perform automatic synthetic photometry, i.e., to convert stellar parameters into observed fluxes or magnitudes in a given photometric filter, relying on grids of synthetic spectra. To this purpose, one must select a grid of atmosphere models and, if available, the metallicity [$M/H$]. Dust extinction can be also added (by declaring one or several values of $A_V$), and directly applied to the synthetic spectra \emph{before} the computation of the synthetic photometry. We included the Galactic reddening laws from \citet{cardelli89}, as well as those from \citet{gordon2003} for the LMC average, LMC2 supershell and SMC bar from \citet{gordon2003}. In first case, besides $A_V$ one (or more) values of the reddening parameter $R_V$ must be specified. The distance modulus in magnitudes must also be provided. Finally, one specifies the photometric system and bands in which the synthetic photometry must be performed (see the Appendix \ref{appendix:models-filters} for details).
Synthetic photometry is performed in the standard way, by integrating the synthetic spectra within the filter bandwidths and normalizing onto a spectrum of Vega; the observed magnitude in a photometric band $S_{\lambda}$ of a star with a spectral energy distribution $F_{\lambda}$, stellar radius $R$, and true distance modulus $\mu=(m-M)_0$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{equation:first}
M_{S_{\lambda}}=-2.5\log\bigg[\bigg(\frac{R}{10\textrm{pc}}\bigg)^{2}\frac{\displaystyle \int_{
\lambda } \lambda F_{\lambda} S_{ \lambda } 10^{-0.4A_{\lambda}}
\textrm{d} \lambda }{\displaystyle \int_{ \lambda } \lambda f^{0}_{\lambda} S_{
\lambda } \textrm{d} \lambda }\bigg]+ZP_{S_{\lambda}}+\mu
\end{equation}
where $f^{0}_{\lambda}$ is a reference spectrum that gives a known apparent magnitude $ZP_{S_{\lambda}}$; in the \textsc{Vegamag} standard, which uses the flux of $\alpha$~Lyr as reference, $f^{0}_{\lambda}=F_{\lambda , {\rm VEGA}}$ and the zero-points $ZP_{S_{\lambda}}$ should be zero by definition, although this is not always the case for some old photometric systems. Finally, $A_{\lambda}$ is the reddening law, scaled to the selected values of $A_V$. Equation~(\ref{equation:first}) can be rewritten then as:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{equation:second} M_{S_{\lambda}} = &
-5\log\bigg( \frac{\displaystyle R_{\odot} }{\displaystyle 10 {\rm pc}
}\bigg) - 5\log\bigg(\frac{\displaystyle R_{\star}}{\displaystyle
R_{\odot}}\bigg) + \mu + B(F_{\lambda},S_{\lambda}) \nonumber \\ = & 43.2337 -
5\log\bigg(\frac{\displaystyle R_{\star}}{\displaystyle R_{\odot}}\bigg)
+ \mu + B(F_{\lambda},S_{\lambda})
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:third}
B(F_{\lambda},S_{\lambda})=-2.5\log\bigg(\frac{\displaystyle \int_{
\lambda } \lambda F_{\lambda} S_{ \lambda } 10^{-0.4A_{\lambda}} \textrm{d} \lambda
}{\displaystyle \int_{ \lambda } \lambda F_{\lambda ,{\rm Vega}} S_{ \lambda
} \textrm{d} \lambda}\bigg)
\end{equation}
The latter term can be directly calculated having the synthetic spectrum for the $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$ corresponding to a given point of the input model parameters, a calibrated Vega spectrum and the band profile. The Vega normalization is performed using a recent reference spectrum of Vega \citep{bohlin2007}. We have considered the zeropoints $ZP_{S_{\lambda}}$
from \citet{maiz-apellaniz2007}, collected from several sources for the code \texttt{CHORIZOS}.
Although the default units for the computed synthetic photometry are Vegamag magnitudes, TA-DA allows to switch also to ABmag, STmag, Jansky or erg s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$$\AA^{-1}$. This is performed by computing, for every filter, the flux corresponding to $m=0$~mag by direct integration onto the spectrum of Vega. Then, since ABmag and STmag are related to constant flux densities (respectively per unit of spectral frequency and wavelength), these ``zero-point'' fluxes automatically provide the offsets between the 3 magnitude standards.
TA-DA allows one to save the results of synthetic photometry to file, as well as to use them for the subsequent analysis (visual inspection and parameter fitting). One can also save a table with most of the relevant characteristics of the selected filters. These include, besides the aforementioned zeropoints, also effective wavelength, full width half maximum (FWHM) and equivalent width (EW). This information can be particularly useful when one adds new (non-conventional and not pre-characterized) filters to the tool, as TA-DA automatically derives these quantities on the fly.
TA-DA plots the results of synthetic photometry on screen on a dedicated window. Here one chooses the quantities to be plot, either a magnitude-magnitude plane, a CMD, or a 2CD. The units and extinction to be considered can also be edited in real time. An interesting feature that is helpful for a fast quick look at the result of synthetic photometry is that one can see the parameters associated to individual points of the model grid by clicking directly on the plotting window. All the physical parameters associated to that point, as well as the displayed observational quantity (e.g., color and magnitude) are then reported in a separate popup window.
\subsection{Observed photometry vs. models}
\label{section:how-tada-works-quicklook}
TA-DA enables one to load a table reporting observed photometry, both for quick look in comparison with the models and for the fit of the stellar parameters. Currently the software supports both ASCII formats and Virtual Observatory table. A new GUI window is created, reporting attached table, and enabling one to browse through the data, sort by columns, and select individual sources. In this panel, one must specify what columns correspond to what filter, as well as the associated uncertainties (if available); the options are chosen among the photometric bands previously selected for the synthetic photometry. The selection of individual sources can be performed both manually (clicking on table entries), or automatically, through logical conditions not restricted to the photometric data. An example could be: select all the source with $V<20$, with the photometric errors $\sigma I<0.1$ and where the last column of the table does not report the string 'Class~I'. The selected sources are also automatically shown in the plotting window of TA-DA, together with the models previously computed. Similarly as for the models, one can click directly on individual stars on the plot, and see on screen the location of that source in the catalog, as well as the value for that star of all the columns in the table.
\subsection{The parameter fitter}
\label{section:how-tada-works-fitter}
With all the necessary preparation completed (a catalog of observed magnitudes or fluxes and an a grid of models converted into the same observables through synthetic photometry), TA-DA is able to perform a series of fitting techniques to estimate the parameters of the observed sources. Specifically, it allows one to choose which bands to consider, and if magnitudes or colors are to be used. The latter options is useful when one aims to derive the stellar parameters in a luminosity (or radius) independent fashion, in a 2-color or multi-color space. Clearly, choosing colors instead of luminosities decreases the dimension of the observational space by one unit.
As for the theoretical space -- the result of synthetic photometry -- in general one could leave from 1 to 3 free parameters to be evaluated by the fitter. One or two parameters correspond to the photosphere. This depends on the model previously assumed for synthetic photometry: for instance, if one previously considered 1 single isochrone, or mass track, or arbitrary curve in the ($T_{\rm eff}$-$\log g$) plane, etc., this will lead to a 1 free dimension in the parameter space. Conversely, considering an entire grid of interior models (masses and ages), or a 2-dimensional grid of $T_{\rm eff}$ and stellar radii brings the free photospheric parameters to be determined to two. The additional free parameter is the extinction $A_V$ for individual stars. TA-DA allows to leave $A_V$ unconstrained within a pre-defined range, as well as to constrain it to a given value for all stars. If synthetic photometry was previously carried out for multiple values of the reddening parameter $R_V$, which is possible if the \citet{cardelli89} reddening law is assumed, the value of $R_V$ to be used by the fitter must be specified. We did not allow to leave both $A_V$ and $R_V$ free, as for example in the tool \texttt{CHORIZOS} by \citet{maiz-apellaniz2004}. This is because, in general, most photometric datasets are not accurate enough to allow a precise disentanglement of the two; moreover inaccuracies in the synthetic spectra would likely induce large deviations in the derived values of $R_V$.
In order to make the fit possible, the dimension of the observational space $m$ (number of colors or magnitudes) must be greater or equal than the number of free parameters $n$. Although from the algorithmic point of view there is no separation between the cases $m>n$ and $n=m$, there are some conceptual differences. The first case is analogous to a standard SED fitting, in which the model space is explored (and if needed interpolated to a finer sampling) until the minimum $\chi^2$ is determined (see Equation \ref{equation:chisquare} below); if $\chi^2_{min}\simeq1$, the best solution is also a good fit, otherwise, the data may be incompatible with the models, or the associated uncertainties underestimated. The second case, on the other hand, corresponds to an interpolation problem, for which the solution is expected to have $\chi^2=0$; if $\chi^2>0$, the location of the data point in the observational spaces lies outside the area (or volume) covered by the models.
In detail, the fitter of TA-DA works as follows: let us consider \textit{\textbf{P}} the $n$-dimensional space of the free parameters ($p_1$,...,$p_n$); the synthetic photometry associates to each point in \textit{\textbf{P}} a point $(s_1,...,s_m)$ in the $m$-dimensional space of the observational quantities, \textit{\textbf{S}}. Then, for every observed star, the observed fluxes, colors or magnitudes $(r_1,...,r_m)$ with the associated uncertainties $(\sigma_{r_1},...,\sigma_{r_m})$ are considered and the $\chi^2$ is simply:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:chisquare}
\chi^2(p_1,...,p_n)=\sum_{i=0}^m\frac{(r_i-s_i)^2}{\sigma_{r_i}^2}.
\end{equation}
\noindent First TA-DA identifies the set of ($p_1$,...,$p_n$) which minimize $\chi^2$, then \textit{\textbf{P}} is locally oversampled to a denser grid \textit{\textbf{P$_2$}}, and \textit{\textbf{S}} is interpolated accordingly to $\textit{\textbf{S$_2$}}$. The $\chi^2$ is thus recomputed, and a new set of parameters estimated. The process is iterated until a convergence is found, either $\sim0$ for $n=m$ or to a positive value otherwise. The local oversampling of \textit{\textbf{P}} is made easier by the fact that the grid of parameters is always rectilinear in ($p_1$,...,$p_n$). This could be generally, e.g., a rectilinear grid of masses, ages and $A_V$ or any other choice for the original model stellar parameters, for instance a rectilinear grid of $T_{\rm eff}$, stellar radii $R$, and $A_V$. Since, as mentioned earlier, the stellar parameters mass, age, $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log L$, and $R$ are interconnected, for each solution all these quantities will be provided, irrespective of the type of initial parameters provided to TA-DA.
In the case $n=m$, as already mentioned, a $\chi^2>0$ indicates that the data point lies outside the volume covered by the models. In practice, the fact that fitter converges until the $\chi^2$ does not improve by local oversampling within \textit{\textbf{P}} always leads to small positive values of $\chi^2$. A source located outside the model grid, but by less than one unit of photometric error from the edge, will also lead to a $\chi^2<1$. To precisely distinguish if the point is inside or outside the model grid, therefore, TA-DA also determines this condition geometrically, regardless the minimum $\chi^2>0$.
In any case, even for data points incompatible with the models, the closest solution is found, and the associated $\chi^2$ tabulated in the result. The user must therefore check manually the results and decide if there are any solutions to be rejected, based on the specific scientific goals.
The TA-DA fitter also allows one to estimate the uncertainty associated to each parameter of the best fit-solution for the individual stars. This is performed by TA-DA with a Monte Carlo simulation, in which the photometry is displaced according to the photometric errors. This approach may be computationally time consuming, especially in the case of large grids of models and 3 free parameters, or large observational data sets. This method, however, remains the safest for an accurate estimate of the errors; this is because the relation between \textit{\textbf{P}} and \textit{\textbf{S}} provided by the synthetic photometry is often highly non-linear, and symmetric, well-behaved photometric errors in the observational space relate to highly correlated and skewed probability distributions in the model space.
After the completion of the fitting procedure, TA-DA allows one to save the results to file. These include all the best-fit parameters, with the associated uncertainties if available, the minimum $\chi^2$, and a flag parameter indicating if the solution is a good fit or if the observed photometry was incompatible with the models.
\section{Important caveats}
\label{section:caveats}
\subsection{Accuracy of the synthetic spectra}
\label{section:caveats-atmospheres}
It should be beard in mind that the correctness of the fitted parameters is strongly related to the accuracy of the assumed models, e.g. both the evolutionary models and the synthetic spectra. It is well known that different families of evolutionary models differ in their predicted masses and ages from each other, and this is particularly severe for PMS models \citep{mayne2007,hillenbrand2009}; there is also evidence of systematic offsets between the modeled masses of low-mass stars and the measured once \citep[e.g.,][]{hillenbrand2004}. On the other hand, current atmosphere models do not seem to fully reproduce the observed fluxes, especially for low-mass M-type stars and at young ages, both at optical wavelengths \citep[e.g.,][]{dario2009b,dario2010,bell2012} and, although less prominently, in the near infrared \citep{scandariato2012}. Because of these issues, a dataset compared with models in different colors can lead to systematic differences in the derived parameters \citep[e.g.,][]{naylor2002}.
We auspicate that developments in the stellar atmosphere modeling will solve these problems; alternatively, it would be useful to produce empirically calibrated grids of spectra, constructed to match the observed colors. This has been attempted in the past for main-sequence dwarfs and giants (see, e.g., the BaSeL grid from \citealt{lejeune1997}), but such a calibration is still missing for, e.g., PMS stars.
In any case we warn the users of TA-DA to be aware of the accuracy of the synthetic spectra grids to be used in the parameter range relevant for their astrophysical analysis. We also stress that the plotting and quick look capability of TA-DA (e.g., looking at the same isochrones compared to the observed data in different color-color and color-magnitude planes) can be very helpful to pinpoint possible problems with the fluxes predicted by the models, as well as possible errors in the photometric data calibration.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.1}
\plottwo{CMD-masses.ps}{CMD-ages.ps}
\caption{PMS evolutionary tracks from \citet{tognelli2011} converted into the ACS photometric system using TA-DA, together with the observed photometry of LH~95. Sources are color coded according to their masses (\emph{left panel}) and ages (\emph{right panel}), as derived by the TA-DA fitter. Open squares are sources that the software identifies to be outside the range covered by the models. \label{figure:CMD-colorcoding}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.1}
\plotone{CMD-errors.ps}
\caption{Uncertainties in the LH~95 members masses and aged derived by TA-DA, as a function of these two quantities, originated from the individual photometric errors. \label{figure:CMD-errors}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Non-photospheric fluxes}
\label{section:caveats-excesses}
As a probably unnecessary note, we highlight that TA-DA is meant for estimating stellar parameters in the case that the observed fluxes depend only the photospheric emission and presence of dust extinction. When this is not true, such as when the fluxes are contaminated by circumstellar emission or other flux excesses, the results obtained could be wrong. In some cases, however, it is possible to use TA-DA for non standard applications, such as disentangling photospheric properties from flux excesses. As an example, having at disposal infrared multi-band photometry, one can isolate the excess due to circumstellar disks around young stars and derive $T_{\rm eff}$ for individual stars. To do so, one could create a tuned grid of synthetic spectra in which instead of $\log g$ as second parameter (besides $T_{\rm eff}$), the amount of disk excess is added. Then TA-DA can be run on a multi-color observational space, and the fitter will provide the solution for both internal and external effects on the stellar flux.
\subsection{Degeneracies in the solutions}
\label{section:caveats-degeneracies}
In some cases one could encounter degeneracies between the stellar parameters. For example, when dereddening a CMD onto an isochrone, for some sources there could be multiple intersection between the de-reddening line and the model. Since the fitter of TA-DA simply minimizes the $\chi^2$, in case of multiple solutions, only one is selected. However, the Monte-Carlo simulation used to estimate the uncertainties will likely converge on different solutions in different iterations; this leads to a larger associated uncertainty for the parameters, and this can be used as a diagnostic tool when analyzing the results. If multiple solutions are caused by different intersections of the de-reddening line with the models, constraining appropriately the $A_V$ range allowed during the fitting can also solve the problem.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.1}
\plottwo{NIR-temp.ps}{NIR-av.ps}
\caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:NIR}, for the second example of Section \ref{section:examples}. Here we consider NIR photometry of the ONC, and leave as free parameters the photospheric locus on a 2~Myr isochrone, as well as the extinction $A_V$, constrained to be from 0 to 10~mag. The data in the left and right panels are color-coded, respectively, for $T_{\rm eff}$ and $A_V$ as derived by the TA-DA fitting routine. \label{fig:NIR}}
\end{figure*}
\section{Examples of applications of TA-DA}
\label{section:examples}
We present here some practical examples of applications of TA-DA, for illustrative purposes.
\subsection{CMD interpolation}
Let's suppose we have a CMD and we aim at interpolating isochrones and tracks to estimate ages and masses of the sources. We consider the photometry from \citet{dario2009a}, obtained with the \emph{Hubble Space Telescope }(HST) \emph{Advanced Camera for Surveys} (ACS) on the young cluster LH~95 in the LMC, using the filters F555W and F814W. We run TA-DA, assuming the models from \citet{tognelli2011} with mixing length parameter $\alpha=1.68$, normal initial He and Deuterium abundance, and the LMC metallicity $Z=0.008$. We perform the synthetic photometry in our 2 filters with TA-DA considering the synthetic spectra BT-Settl from \citet{allard2011}, for the same metallicity as for the interior models; we assume a true distance modulus $\mu=(m-M)_0=18.41$, and two values of $A_V$: 0 and 0.5 (the average extinction for LH~95), considering the LMC average reddening law from \citet{gordon2003}. We save the synthetic photometry to file for later use, and we load the table with the observed photometry to TA-DA. We run the fitter, constraining $A_V=0.5$ and performing the MC simulation for the uncertainties. Results are shown in Figure \ref{figure:CMD-colorcoding}: here we show the models converted in our CMD plane, together with the sources color-coded according to their estimated parameters from TA-DA. It is evident how TA-DA correctly interpolates the models to the observations, deriving masses and ages. It also identifies the sources located outside the model grid, and assigns them the parameters of the closest model point. There is some scatter in the assigned ages for intermediate mass stars: this is due to a residual degeneracy in the models in this parameter range, where a given point in the CMD can be associated both to a PMS and post-MS evolutionary stage. In Figure \ref{figure:CMD-errors} we plot the errors in age and mass as a function of the derived parameters, due to the photometric errors, and computed by TA-DA using a MC simulation. The age uncertainty increases with ages, for the reason mentioned above. The increase in the mass uncertainty do the low-mass range, on the other hand, is due to larger photometric errors at faint luminosities.
\subsection{De-reddening to an isochrone}
In this second example, we consider a CMD and use TA-DA to deredden all the sources to a single given isochrone. We use the $JHK$ photometry of the Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC) presented in \citet{robberto2010}. We run TA-DA considering a single 2~Myr isochrone from the models of \citet{baraffe98}, we apply the distance modulus for the ONC of 8.085~mag, consider the BT-Settl models for solar metallicity, and obtain the synthetic photometry in the 2MASS photometric system (which is the one in which our data are expressed. We run the fitter leaving $A_V$ as a free parameter, in the range $0\leq A_V \leq 10$~mag. The result is illustratively shown in Figure \ref{fig:NIR}. As for Figure \ref{figure:CMD-colorcoding}, open dots represent sources outside the considered range of parameters; it can be noted that all the sources at red colors ($J-H\gtrsim2$) appear as such. This is because of the upper limit imposed for $A_V$. We also highlight that for these sources, the parameters (indicated by the color-coding of the data points) represent the ``closest'' model points, along the direction defined by the individual photometric errors in the $J,H$ 2-magnitude plane. This is the reason why, in the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:NIR} and for $(J-H>2)$, the estimated $T_{\rm eff}$ appears to decrease with increasing color $(J-H)$
\subsection{A multi-band example}
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.1}
\plotone{multifit-CMD.ps}
\caption{Our simulated photometry of 500 stars with masses between 1 and 10~M$_\odot$ and ages between 10~Myr and 1~Gyr, in the $BV$ CMD. The upper panel shows the intrinsic magnitudes for $A_V=0$, color-coded according to the stellar age. The lower panel shows the same population after applying a random differential extinction in the range $0\leq A_V\leq 2$ and photometric errors. \label{fig:multifit-CMD}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{0.9}
\plotone{multifit-mags.ps}
\caption{Comparison of the original parameters of the 500 simulated stars, and the parameters recovered by the fitter within TA-DA after adding a random amount of extinction and photometric errors. The three rows shows the result of the fit using only 3, 5 or all 8 $UBVRIJHK$ bands. \label{fig:multifit-mags}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.1}
\plotone{multifit-agetest.ps}
\caption{The error in the estimated ages as a function of stellar mass. \label{fig:multifit-agetest}}
\end{figure}
In the next illustrative example we show the capabilities of TA-DA in dealing with multi-band photometry. We start by simulating a population of 500 evolved sources, with random masses in the range $1<M/{\rm M}_\odot<10$ and random ages between 10~Myr and 1~Gyr. We utilize TA-DA, assuming the models of \citet{marigo2008} first to compute the photospheric parameters ($T_{\rm eff}$, radius, etc.), then to derive by means of synthetic photometry their magnitudes in the standard $UBVRIJHK$ filters (Johnson, Cousins, and 2mass systems). An example of the result, limited to the $BV$ CMD, is shown in Figure \ref{fig:multifit-CMD}, upper panel. Next, we add a random amount of extinction to each of the 500 simulated stars, in the range $0<A_V<2$. We further displace the magnitudes by adding random, uncorrelated photometric errors to all the magnitudes, assuming an amplitude $\sigma=0.05$~mag. The result, again in the $BV$ CMD is show in Figure \ref{fig:multifit-CMD}, bottom panel; it is evident how at this point, a single CMD is insufficient to recover the properties of the individual sources, as they appear well mixed.
We now use the fitter integrated in TA-DA to try to recover the original parameters of these 500 stars. We consider the entire grid of interior models from \citet{marigo2008}, convert them in absolute magnitudes the $UBVRIJHK$ bands, load the simulated table with the photometry of our simulated sample, and run the fitter to estimate the most likely parameters of the stars, leaving all mass, age, and $A_V$ as free parameters. We perform this in multiple configurations, varying the number of photometric bands used to estimate the parameters. Some examples are shown in Figure \ref{fig:multifit-mags}. Here we compare the original mass, age and extinction, with those automatically derived by the fitter, using only 3 bands ($BVI$), 5 bands ($BVRIJ$) or all 8 bands ($UBVRIJHK$). It is evident that increasing the number of bands leads to a better estimate of the parameters; with all 8 bands, TA-DA is able to fully disentangle the differential $A_V$ from the stellar mass, thus recovering the properties of the sources. The residual scatter is due to the random photometric errors that we introduced.
The central column of Figure \ref{fig:multifit-mags} shows that, on the other hand, the estimate of the age remains highly uncertain. This is not a problem with the fitting procedure, since, as the extinction is correctly estimated, the original position of the sources in the HRD is fully recovered, rather, this indicates that ages are somewhat degenerate in the sampled parameter range. In fact, as evident from Figure \ref{fig:multifit-CMD}, upper panel, most of the stars are below the turn-off, and for the lowest masses, sources are located on the same main sequence regardless their age. Figure \ref{fig:multifit-agetest} confirms this: the error in the estimated ages (the difference between the best-fit age and the original age) is largest for the lowest masses in the sample, and progressively decreases towards the high-mass end.
\section{How to obtain TA-DA}
TA-DA can be retrieved from the following URL: \texttt{http://www.rssd.esa.int/staff/ndario/TADA/}. From this page the installation package, the manual, as well as additional grids of models can be downloaded.
\acknowledgements
TA-DA is developed thanks to funding from the \emph{National Aeronautics and Space Administration} (NASA) through award grant number NNX07AT37G. The authors thank Maddalena Reggiani, Abhijit Rajan, Marc Postman, and Jes\'us Ma\'iz Apell\'aniz for their help in the development of this software, and the team of scientists that proposed the project.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:introduction}
Spiral galaxies have rotation curves which seem defy any attempt at explanation by simple celestial mechanics. In a Keplerian system where most of the mass is localized at the center, the orbital velocity decreases as the inverse of the square root of the distance from the center. However, the rotation curves of spiral galaxies are typically constant over the entire radius of the galaxy, except near the center where an approximately linear dependence on the radius is observed. The nearly constant rotation speed has been observed experimentally in most spiral galaxies\cite{Rubin1993}. A simple argument shows that the constant velocity curves imply that the cumulative mass of the galaxy must rise linearly with radius. The argument is as follows: The equation of motion of a planet at a radius $r$ in a circular orbit is $GM/r^2 = v^2/r$. From Newtonian mechanics, ``the force on a mass at radius $r$ from the center of a symmetrical mass distribution is proportional to the mass interior to that $r$''.\cite{Rubin2006} Also, the gravitational field outside a spherical shell is as if the mass of the shell were concentrated at its center. Therefore, the equation of motion can be simplified to $GM(r) = v^2r$, where $M(r)$ is the mass interior to the radius $r$. Since the mass outside the radius $r$ does not have any gravitational effect, and since $v$ is independent of $r$ as per experimental measurements, one must have $M(r) \propto r$. This conclusion does not agree with the visible mass distributions of galaxies, which instead show a mass density which drops exponentially as a function of the radius.
To explain the constant rotation curves, more complex mass distributions have been examined. Analytical functions\cite{Binney1987} were chosen to imitate the intensity profiles of galaxies, a choice based on the assumption that the mass-to-luminosity ratio is independent of the radius within a given galaxy. Functions such as the de Vaucouleurs profile and the S\'ersic profile were used for the mass density of the bulge, while an exponential profile was used for the mass density of the disk. The calculation of the rotation curve was obtained from an integral over the radius of the gravitational contribution of every mass element taken from zero to infinity. However, none of these profiles reproduces a flat rotation curve, a conclusion that suggests that the mass distributions in galaxies does not follow the intensity profile. If an additional mass distribution is added to the density function obtained from the the intensity profiles,\cite{vanAlbada1985, Rubin1993} a constant rotation curve can be obtained. Such hypothetical distribution constitutes the third component of a galaxy, the dark matter halo, which is detectable only from its gravitational effects on the galaxy dynamics. Because the halo emits a small amount of light, it is thought to be mostly made of dark matter.
\section{Other Mass Distributions}
Apart from gravitational effects, dark matter has never been detected. A question arises whether other mass distributions, not considered in the simple argument above or approximated by analytical functions, could produce a flat rotation curve. Such distributions would also have to be compatible with the known mass of galaxies. The first step in answering this question is to show that the simple argument of a Keplerian system cannot be applied to a spiral galaxy.
It is established that a mass inside a spherical shell experiences no net gravitational force from that shell. This is a special case of the general properties of a homeoid: a shell of uniform density between similar, concentric ellipsoids. In general, a mass located inside a homeoid experiences no net gravitational force from that homeoid. The gravitational field outside a spherical shell is as if the mass of the shell were concentrated at its center. In general, the gravitational force exerted on the mass located at radius $r$ will be proportional to the mass of all the similar homeoids interior to $r$. However, the gravitational force outside a \emph{non-spherical} homeoid is not described by an inverse square law dependence on the radius. Spiral galaxies clearly require the sum of non-spherical homeoids in order to reproduce their disk-like geometry. The equation of motion must be replaced by the more general $Gf(M(r), r) = v^2/r$, where $f$ is a function involving elliptic integrals. The expected conclusion - that the cumulative mass of an elliptical galaxy rises linearly with radius - is incorrect.\cite{Marmet2007}
To expand on the set of functions that were treated analytically, numerical methods are used to study galaxy dynamics. Mass distributions can be numerically integrated to find the corresponding rotation curve, and reverse algorithms have been developed to obtain the mass distributions from arbitrary rotation curves. Some numerical models use a mass distribution entirely located on the galactic disk\cite{Mera1997} or on a disk with a variable thickness\cite{Nicholson2000}. One advantage of the numerical method is that a given rotation curve can be inverted to find a unique mass distribution.
This paper proposes to use two mass distributions to simulate the bulge and the disk of spiral galaxies. These two components of spiral galaxies produce fundamentally different gravitational fields. The two distributions are clearly apparent on images of galaxies taken in the visible and other parts of the spectrum. The bulge is a near spherical distribution of stars (Population II system) believed to be almost as old as the galaxy. By contrast, the disk stars (Population I system) have formed at a steady state rate during the evolution of the galaxy. More heavy elements are found in the disk, which often shows more absorption of light when seen edge-on. A spherical bulge produces a centrally symmetric gravitational force proportional to $M(r)/r^2$. Spherical shells of matter outside $r$ do not contribute to the gravitational force. A disk produces a gravitational force described by less intuitive elliptic integrals. The force on a point located at the cylindrical coordinate $R$ is a function of the mass inside $R$, but unlike the case of spherical shells, circular rings of matter outside $R$ contribute to the gravitational force in a direction pointing away from the center of the system. The dynamics of a galaxy with bulge and disk components can be calculated by using a disk with a varying thickness\cite{Nicholson2000} given by the function $h(R)$. For a given function $h(R)$ and a rotation curve $v(R)$, a unique mass density $\rho(R)$ is obtained. However, the size of the bulge relative to the size of the disk must be known to determine the function $h(R)$.
The problem can be addressed differently with a mass density given by the sum $\rho(\vec r) = \rho_B(\vec r) + \rho_D(\vec r)$, where $\rho_B(\vec r)$ is the mass distribution of a spherical bulge, and $\rho_D(\vec r )$ is the mass distribution of a thin disk. Without \emph{a priori} knowledge of the relative sizes of the bulge and disk, this double mass distribution gives the densities of the two galaxy components needed to produce a given velocity curve $v(R)$.\cite{Gallo2006}
\section{Theory} \label{sec:theory}
The galaxy is assumed to have a rotation axis $\vec\Omega$ and a galactic plane perpendicular to the rotation axis. The center of the galaxy is at the intersection of the rotation axis and the galactic plane. The mass density is $\rho(\vec r) = \rho_B(\vec r) + \rho_D(\vec r)$, where $\vec r$ describes the position from the center of the galaxy. The density is assumed to be independent of the azimuthal angle and can therefore be represented by the two-dimensional function $\rho(R, z)$, where $z$ is the height above the galactic plane. This restriction implies that some details such as the arms of a spiral galaxy do not appear in the model. A spherical symmetry is assumed for the bulge, with the density being $\rho_B(r)$. The disk is considered thin $h << R_{max}$, with a surface mass density given by $h\rho_D(R)$, where $h$ is a constant representing an equivalent thickness. The density distribution extends to a radius $R_{max}$, beyond which it falls to zero $\rho(r > R_{max}) = 0$.
The system is assumed to be in a steady state of motion with $\rho(R, z)$ independent of time. The velocity is described by a function $\vec v(R)$ parallel to $\vec\Omega\times\vec r$. The matter thus describes circular paths of radius $R$ around the galaxy's rotation axis. For simplicity, the velocity is chosen to be independent of $z$. The contribution of the centrifugal force which would likely produce a flattened ellipsoid is neglected for the bulge.
The angular momentum of the mass at $\vec r$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\vec L(\vec r) = \rho(\vec r) \vec r \times \vec v(\vec r)
\label{eq:ang_momentum}
\end{equation}
and the total angular momentum of the system $\vec L$ is obtained by integrating $\vec L(\vec r)$ over the volume of the entire mass distribution. It is also useful to define the intrinsic angular momentum
\begin{equation}
\Lambda = L / (M_{galaxy} R_{max}).
\label{eq:intrinsic_ang_momentum}
\end{equation}
which gives a representation of the amount of mass located in the regions where the rotation velocity is large.
{\bf Forces}
Two types of forces are considered: gravitational and centrifugal. The gravity from a mass located at $\vec r_0$ produces an acceleration $\vec a(\vec r, \vec r_0)$ at point $\vec r$ given by Newton's law of universal gravitation:
\begin{equation}
\vec a(\vec r, \vec r_0) = -G\rho(\vec r_0) (\vec r - \vec r_0) / |\vec r - \vec r_0 |^3 .
\label{eq:newtons_law}
\end{equation}
where $G$ is the gravitational constant. A modified Newtonian dynamics\cite{Milgrom1983} (MOND) is not used here. The acceleration at a point $\vec r$ produced by a spherical shell of uniform density $\rho_B(r_s)$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\vec a(\vec r, r_s) = -4\pi G \rho_B(r_s) r_s^2 \vec r/r^3
\label{eq:acceleration}
\end{equation}
for $r_s\leq |\vec r|$, otherwise $\vec a(\vec r, r_s) = 0$. The total acceleration from the bulge is obtained by integrating $\vec a(\vec r, r_s)$ over all radius elements $dr_s$. In the case of a disk, Eq. (\ref{eq:newtons_law}) is integrated numerically (see Appendix A).
The centrifugal acceleration at radius $R$ is:
\begin{equation}
a(R) = \omega^2(R) R = v^2(R)/R
\label{eq:centrifugal_acc}
\end{equation}
The rotation curve is obtained by balancing the gravitational acceleration with the centrifugal acceleration in the plane of the disk.
All other types of forces and effects are neglected. Other models describing galaxy dynamics in the early stages of formation include electromagnetic forces as a result of the high plasma density\cite{Peratt1986a, Peratt1986b, Peratt1990}. Both thermal and radiation pressures are neglected. Relativistic effects are also neglected, the gravitational interaction is assumed to be instantaneous across the size of the galaxy. Furthermore, no stability analysis is done on this model. These approximations are discussed below.
\section{Numerical inversion of the rotation curve} \label{sec:numericalcalculation}
A numerical calculation is used to evaluate the required density of matter to produce the target velocity profile $v_0(R)$ (Fig. \ref{fig:velocityprofiles}) with an intrinsic angular momentum $\Lambda_0$. The density profiles of the bulge and the disk are numerically represented by two functions $\rho_B(r_i)$ and $\rho_D(r_i)$ for $N$ equally spaced points along the radius. An initial mass distribution is given to the program which then follows these steps:
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}Rotation Curves\\ \end{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.25in]{vel_prof5am}}
\begin{center}Radius $R$ [kpc]\\ \end{center}
\caption{Velocity profiles of hypothetical galaxies with different angular momentum. The calculated mass distributions produce rotation curves that are very close to the target velocity function.}
\label{fig:velocityprofiles}
\end{figure}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{it:randomvar} A small random variation of size $\pm dM$ is added to the mass density profile. Negative mass values are not allowed.
\item The gravitational acceleration is calculated in the plane of the disk at $\phi = 0$ for all values of the radius $r_i = (i-1) \Delta r$ ($i = 1$ to $N$). The acceleration produced by the bulge is obtained from Eq. \ref{eq:acceleration} by summing the contributions of all $N$ shells of radius $r < r_i$. The accelerations from each rings are obtained by first integrating the mass elements on each ring (at coordinates $r$, $\phi$), and then summing the acceleration from every rings. The acceleration from the mass element at $r = r_i$, $\phi = 0$, is considered to be zero by symmetry since by choice, $r_i$ is located at the center of the mass element. This simple solution avoids all the problems associated with an infinitely thin disk and divergent integrals.
\item From the total acceleration, the required velocity is found with Eq. \ref{eq:centrifugal_acc}.
\item The deviation is calculated between the calculated and the target velocity curves.
\item \label{it:improvedfit} If the random variation has improved the fit, the new density profile is kept, otherwise the program reverts back to the old profile.
\item \label{it:smooth} When about one hundred iterations of steps \ref{it:randomvar} through \ref{it:improvedfit} have been done, the density profiles $\rho_B(r)$ and $\rho_D(r)$ are smoothed with a low pass filter $\rho '(r_i) = (\rho(r_{i-1}) + S_s\rho(r_i) + \rho(r_{i+1}) )/(S_s+2)$, with $i = 2$ to $N-1$, and $S_s$ being the smoothing strength. The central values $\rho_B(0)$ and $\rho_D(0)$ are not affected by the smoothing. For the values at the largest radius $\rho(r_N) = (\rho(r_{N-1}) + S_s\rho(r_N) )/(S_s+2)$ is used. This smoothing simulates a diffusion process between consecutive rings and shells. For systems with low intrinsic angular momentum, the value $S_s = 3$ is used. However, systems with high intrinsic angular momentum have a faster varying disk density distribution, and a value as large as $S_s = 25$ is required.
\item The intrinsic angular momentum of the system is calculated and compared to the target angular momentum $\Lambda_0$. If the system's intrinsic angular momentum is too small, some mass $a_l\rho_B(r)$ is transferred from the bulge to the disk, otherwise some mass $a_l\rho_D(r)$ from the disk is transferred to the bulge. The fraction $a_l$ is of the order of a few percent, and smaller if the intrinsic angular momentum is already near the target $\Lambda_0$. Since the mass transfer changes the gravitational field of the system, steps \ref{it:randomvar} through \ref{it:smooth} have to be repeated again.
\end{enumerate}
After several iterations, the magnitudes of $dM$ and $a_l$ are slowly reduced, and $S_s$ is slightly increased until a good fit is obtained for the rotational curve and the intrinsic angular momentum. The source code is available\cite{Marmet2006}.
As an example, the following boundary conditions are used. A typical size of $R_{max} = 24.4kpc$ is given to the galaxy. The disk thickness is chosen at $h = 1.6kpc$. The initial velocity curve has the profile:
$$v(R) = 225km/s \times (1-(3kpc-R)^2/(3kpc)^2), for R < 3kpc,$$
$$v(R) = 225km/s,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ for R > 3kpc.$$
This velocity curve has a linear increase for small $R$ and smoothly converges to a constant $225km/s$ for larger radii. Given this rotation curve, the intrinsic angular momentum can take any value between $\Lambda_{max} = 73.8km/s\ M_{galaxy}R_{max}$ (all bulge) and $\Lambda_{min} = 92.7km/s\ M_{galaxy}R_{max}$ (all disk). The angular momentum varies between $L_{min} = 442km/s\ GM_{sol}Mpc$ ($66\% $ mass in disk) and $L_{max} = 475km/s\ GM_{sol}Mpc$ (all mass in bulge). The results for these extreme cases of the intrinsic angular momentum are shown in Figs. \ref{fig:density7385} and \ref{fig:density9264}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}Mass Densities for the Bulge and Disk of a S0 galaxy\\ \end{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.25in]{mass_densities7385}}
\begin{center}Radius $R$ [kpc]\\ \end{center}
\caption{Density profile of a hypothetical galaxy represented by the sum of a spherical (red) and a thin disk (blue) mass density distribution. The intrinsic angular momentum is near the smallest possible value $\Lambda_{min} = 73.8km/s\ M_{galaxy}R_{max}$ for the given rotation curve. $92\%$ of the mass of the galaxy is in the bulge.}
\label{fig:density7385}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}Mass Densities for the Bulge and Disk of a Sd galaxy\\ \end{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.25in]{mass_densities9264}}
\begin{center}Radius $R$ [kpc]\end{center}
\caption{Density profile of a hypothetical galaxy represented by the sum of a spherical (red) and a thin disk (blue) mass density distribution. The angular momentum is near the highest possible value $\Lambda_{max} = 92.7km/s\ M_{galaxy} R_{max}$ for the given rotation curve. $94\%$ of the mass of the galaxy is in the disk.}
\label{fig:density9264}
\end{figure}
For $\Lambda_{min}$, the mass of the galaxy is $2.64\times 10^{11} M_{sol}$ while for $\Lambda_{max}$, the mass is the smallest at $1.98\times 10^{11} M_{sol}$. This reflects the larger mass of the bulge required to produce the same gravitational acceleration as that produced by the disk.
The rotation curves obtained with different values for the angular momentum (Fig. \ref{fig:velocityprofiles}) show excellent fits as seen by the good overlap of the five curves. Small deviations are observed near $R = 0.5kpc$ for the high-$\Lambda$ ``disk'' galaxies, indicating that a linear increase of the velocity is difficult to model with a disk only. As expected, the gravitational acceleration increases (in absolute value) with radius up to $R = 2.5kpc$, then decreases as $1/R$, cancelling the centrifugal acceleration determined by $v(R)$.
A $24 kpc$ radius galaxy with a $225 km/s$ rotation velocity will weigh about $220 GM_{sol}$. The column density is calculated by integrating the mass density through the thickness of the galaxy. The result is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:columndensity}. The column density does not vary by more than a factor two for all the possible values of the angular momentum. A mass density of $1500$ to $3000 M_{sol}/pc^2$ is in agreement with the measurements of Valentijn et al.\cite{Valentijn1999}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}Column Density (Bulge and Disk)\\
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.25in]{coldensity5am}}
Radius R [kpc]\\
\end{center}
\caption{Column density of the hypothetical galaxy for different values of the angular momentum. The logarithm of the density is plotted as a function of the radial position in the galaxy.}
\label{fig:columndensity}
\end{figure}
\section{Mathematical considerations} \label{sec:discussmath}
Using the numerical calculations, it is possible to obtain a flat rotation curve from either a spherical or a disk distribution of matter. The numerical solutions are however physically meaningful if the mass distribution is limited to a finite radius, otherwise the total mass of the galaxy does not tend to converge. Without any additional conditions, there still exists an infinite number of solutions which will give the target rotation curve, each involving a different bulge-to-disk mass ratio. In the calculations above, smooth functions of the radius are used and the angular momentum of the system is defined as an initial restriction. In this case, the problem has a unique solution.
{\bf Inversion of the rotation curve}
The solutions obtained above correspond to the ``inversion'' of the rotation curve. The inversion process assumes a specific type of mass distribution. If a solution represented by a spherical distribution is assumed, the inversion of the rotation curve produces a unique solution for the mass distribution. However, not all solutions are physically significant since negative density values might be obtained. More specifically, the rotation curve $v(R)$ can be ``inverted'' analytically to obtain the spherical mass distribution\cite{Mizony2003} $\rho(R) = 1/(4\pi R^2)\ d/dR\ (R\ v^2(R))$. As long as the derivative of $v(R)$ with respect to $R$ is not ``too negative'' such that $dv(R)/dR > -v(R)/2R$, there is a positive density solution for the spherical distribution.
If a disk distribution is assumed, the rotation curve $v(R)$ is not easy to invert analytically. Numerical techniques become almost essential to treat this case. However, again, some rotation curves yield an unphysical negative mass density. For example, a linear increase of the velocity at small radii causes the density to become negative. This happens for the $94\%$ disk galaxy where the rotation curve cannot be made linear near the center, as is visible in Figure \ref{fig:velocityprofiles}. (The current algorithm does not allow negative values of the density. The best numerical solution gives values of the density that are near zero.) However, the exact behaviour of the velocity curve near the center is not too critical, and it is also very likely masked by the light emitted by the bulge. The strange behaviour near the center (Fig. \ref{fig:columndensity}) is only a result of the incorrect choice of the rotation curve near the center.
If a double mass distribution is assumed, the numerical description is represented by $2N$ unknowns. The mass can be distributed either on the disk or the spherical bulge (with all possible combinations of ratios at different radius) while obtaining the same target rotation curve. In order to uniquely specify the solution, additional independent equations are needed. As with the other two cases, there are $N$ independent equations generated by balancing the centrifugal force with the gravitational force at every radii $r_i$. Another $N$ independent equations appear from the one additional constraint on the angular momentum and the smoothing condition which produces $N-1$ equations. The physical reason behind the smoothing is that matter diffuses from one ring or shell to the next one. The diffusion introduces a new physical mechanism which is associated with the $N-1$ new independent mathematical equations. There are therefore enough independent equations to completely specify the problem.
\section{Physical considerations} \label{sec:discussphys}
The double mass distribution gives new results about the physics involved in the dynamics of a galaxy. These are discussed here.
{\bf Finite extent of the mass distribution}
The mass distribution of a galaxy is usually inferred from the velocity measurements\cite{Burstein1982}. The usual conclusion for a spherical distribution is that if $v(r)$ is constant, $M(r)$ must increase linearly with $r$ since $v(r) = \sqrt{GM(r)/r}$. This is the case if the density of the spherical bulge is $\rho_B(r) \propto 1/r^2$. However, if no limit is assumed on this density distribution, the mass of the galaxy becomes infinite.
Binney and Tremaine\cite{Binney1987} assume that the density distribution follows an exponential law which extends to infinity. This is the case, for example, in formula 2-167 where the exponential density disk is integrated from zero to infinity. However, the velocity curve obtained from the exponential distribution is not flat. If the density is assumed to drop to zero outside a given radius, the velocity curve then gets flatter. This is what is calculated above and also reported by Nicholson\cite{Nicholson2003b}. Note that Binney and Tremaine write on page 72: ``In this respect disks differ from spherical distributions of mass, for which the force at $r_0$ depends only on the density at $r < r_0$. In fact, the surface density of a disk at $R > r_0$ affects the attraction at $r_0$ because the annulus of material exterior to $r_0$ actually pulls a star placed at radius $r_0$ outward, thus partially compensating the inward attraction of the interior matter. At points in a disk where little matter is pulling outward, for example \textbf{on the perimeter of a sharp-edged disk, the circular speed can be much higher than at the edge of the spherical body with the same total mass and radius}.''\cite{Binney1987} [text in bold added here for emphasis] This example, a sharp-edged disk, is the solution given above.
The increase in density seen at the edge of the galaxy in Fig. \ref{fig:columndensity} occurs as a consequence of the abrupt termination of the density function, but only for the disk distribution, not for a spherical distribution. This happens because gravity from a ring attracts matter (located inside the ring) outwards. Near the edge of the galaxy, there is no more ring-distributed matter outside $R_{max}$. This may be counter-intuitive, but adding a little bit of mass at the edge of the disk actually makes the rotation curve flatter. A sharp mass decrease at the edge is compatible with observations without the need for an ``infinite mass''.\cite{Nicholson2000} Since large quantities of atomic hydrogen gas are present beyond the visible edge of galaxies, the edge of the density distribution may not coincide with the radius of the ``light emitting'' edge. Oscillations of the density also tend to develop if the smoothing is not used. A strong smoothing flattens this oscillation, but otherwise, it seems that the arms of the galaxy could be the result of these oscillations. These are ignored here, as they would constitute a research project of its own. A study of the stability of a disk is beyond the scope of this paper.
At the ``galactic edge'', the mass density drops quickly to its intergalactic level. A spherically symmetric intergalactic density does not affect any of the dynamics within the galaxy. Therefore, the calculations above are valid for any spherically distributed mass distribution outside the galaxy.
The numerical model assumes that the density of matter rapidly falls to zero at $R_{max}$. This radius may be past the limit of the light emitting matter in the galaxy, or the edge of the absorbing matter in the galaxy. The use of a zero density beyond $R_{max}$ is justified by the appearance of many spiral galaxies seen almost on edge. These galaxies show a dark band of light absorbing matter at the outer limit of the disk. However, careful examination shows that this light absorbing material is present up to a certain radius since no light absorption is present outside this radius. The disk of the Sombrero galaxy, for example, has a dark edge which absorbs the light emitted by other, more central, parts of the galaxy. Clearly, one can see that the density of the absorbing material stops abruptly at a certain radius $R_{abs}$: the light from the bulge is visible below the edge of the disk at the center of the picture, showing a transparent disk beyond $R_{abs}$.
{\bf Thermal Pressure}
The gas component of a galaxy is a mixture of atoms and molecules. These particles interact mostly with each other in elastic collisions.\cite{Governato1996} The solid matter component of a galaxy is a mixture of dust, rocks, planets and stars. These objects also collide with each other and with the gases, but because the collisions are inelastic, they contribute to essentially no pressure (equivalently, the temperature of the solid matter is very low). Since there is very little pressure, the density distribution of solid matter collapses to a two-dimensional disk. If the disk of the galaxy is supported by centrifugal forces, the bulge may seem more intriguing. At the poles where no rotation is measured (but speed distributions are observed), a thermal pressure is needed to provide the force to support the bulge from being pulled inwards by gravity. A velocity dispersion exists since the central bulge shows broadened lines, interpreted as orbits in random directions. However, if pressure is included in the model, a larger mass is expected so the gravitational force would become stronger to balance the outward pressure force. One concludes that the two components of a galaxy, solid and gaseous matter, will naturally separate in a disk and a bulge, respectively. This correlates with the observations of heavier elements found in the disk (Population I system).
If any pressure effect is to be considered, thermal pressure is the largest for most galaxies. Radiation pressure would arise through a light scattering mechanism or photon absorption. Since light emitted from parts near the center of the galaxy makes it through to the observer, absorption and scattering events are rare, with a mean free path larger than several $kpc$. Otherwise, one would not see the galaxy's inside but just a blur. However, collisions between atoms (called here thermal pressure) are more frequent. Even at a density of $1$ molecule$/m^3$, the mean free path between collisions is $3\ kpc$. A collision radically changes the momentum of these atoms, while a photon scattering event changes the momentum of an atom by a very small amount. Based on this argument, radiation pressure is negligible compared to thermal pressure.
With an internal pressure supporting the gas in a galaxy, the general shape of the density function will be ellipsoidal. This is apparent on the picture of M104 in the visible represented using only 16 colors, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:sombreroisophotes} - the ellipsoidal isophotes become very apparent. If no rotation is present, the density function is spherical (E0 galaxy).
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=5.5in]{sombrero_ellips}}
\caption{The Sombrero galaxy with elliptical isophotes. Near the galactic plane, the ellipses are modified by the gravitational field of the disk.}
\label{fig:sombreroisophotes}
\end{figure}
{\bf Plasma effects}
It is known that plasmas contribute to the formation of galaxies in their early development\cite{Peratt1986a, Peratt1986b, Peratt1990}. The presence of plasmas in galaxies produces magnetic and electric fields which in turn affect the plasma at other locations in the galaxy. However, the plasma content of older galaxies is only a small fraction of the total mass of the galaxy. This is the justification used to neglect plasma effects in the current model.
{\bf Surface luminosity, Mass-to-Luminosity Ratio and Dark Matter}
The surface luminosity is derived from the column density Fig. \ref{fig:columndensity} assuming a constant mass-to-luminosity ratio and negligible absorption. For $1kpc < R < 4kpc$, the luminosity resembles the isothermal model $I(R) = I_s/(1+(R/R_0)^2)$ with $R_0 \approx 2kpc$. For $R > 4kpc$, the luminosity nearly follows the exponential law $I(R) = I_e exp(-R/R_d)$ with $R_d \approx 7kpc$. If the mass-to-luminosity ratio is $M_{sol}/L_{sol} = 0.05$ is used, a good fit is obtained with the typical luminosity measured in galaxies. The luminosity does not vary by more than a factor two for all the possible values of the angular momentum. This is consistent with the observation that the central surface brightness of a spiral galaxy is remarkably constant\cite{Binney1987} at $I_0 = 140 L_{sol}/pc^2$.
The density calculated here is in agreement with experimantal values\cite{Valentijn1999}. The small mass-to-luminosity ratio is the result of large quantities of "dark matter". However, there are many possible candidates for dark matter that do not involve exotic non-baryonic matter. Of these candidates, molecular hydrogen is the most likely to have enough mass to resolve the problem of the missing matter. This massive component, present in spiral galaxies, dominates the potential and the rotation curves\cite{Valentijn1999}. Other ``invisible'' condensed matter in the form of centimeter sized rocks to asteroid sized bodies are also possible. This matter would not have a distinctive optical signature and would have a very small optical cross section, since for any solid material of typical macroscopic radius $r$, the cross section increases as $r^2$ while the mass increases as $r^3$. Dark matter distributed on the disk and bulge is sufficient to explain the dynamics of spiral galaxies\cite{Mendez2001, delRio2001, Bertin1994}.
Binney and Tremaine\cite{Binney1987} dismiss $H$ and $H_2$ from work by Gunn and Peterson (1965) who looked at quasar light and absorption of that light in the interstellar gas. They conclude that very small amounts of $H$ or $H_2$ are possible, otherwise there would be much more absorption of the light coming from quasars. But the argument assumes that quasars are at the large distances they appear to be at. Some quasars are however believed to be closer\cite{Bell2006}. In this case, the real density of $H$ and $H_2$ can reach the values estimated byValentijn et al.\cite{Valentijn1999}.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions}
Although other models produce a flat rotation curve, the present paper also suggests an explanation for the low experimental mass-to-luminosity ratio. As opposed to the distributions with infinite extent used by Binney and Tremaine\cite{Binney1987}, a limited distribution is used in this paper. Given the rotation curve, the intrinsic angular momentum, the maximum radius and a smooth mass distributions as boundary conditions, a unique mass distribution is obtained. The mass distribution is finite and does not have to fit a simple analytical function. The additional mass needed to obtain an agreement with the observed mass-to-luminosity ratio is provided by baryonic matter most likely to be molecular hydrogen and condensed matter.
The argument put forward in a recent article\cite{Rubin2006} is frequently used in the scientific literature in order to support the hypothesis of dark matter. It is puzzling how this flawed argument has survived so long, when in fact the low mass-to-luminosity ratio in galaxies provides the main argument in favour of "matter that has no light". Vera Rubin's experimental work will certainly be useful to provide excellent data supporting the theoretical arguments of the current paper.
Much remains to be done. This paper does not address the problem of dark matter inferred from galaxy motion in clusters. Also, calculations with plasmas also produce matter distributions which explain galaxy dynamics. It would be important to know which fraction of interstellar matter is a plasma and contributes as such.
|
\section{Introduction}
Given integer $m$ and a polynomial $F(X_1,\dots,X_d)\in \mathbb{Z}_m[X_1,\dots X_d]$ and some $\Omega \subseteq [0,1]^{d}$, we let $N_F(\Omega)$ denote the number of solutions $\mathbf{x}=(x_1,\dots x_d)\in \mathbb{Z}^d$ to the congruence
\begin{equation}
\label{solutions}
F(\mathbf{x})\equiv 0 \text{ \ (mod $m$)}
\ \text{ \ with \ } \
\left(\frac{x_1}{m},\dots \frac{x_d}{m}\right)\in \Omega.
\end{equation}
Questions concerning the distribution of solutions to polynomial congruences have been considered in a number of works (for example \cite{CCGHSZ,GrShZa,Shp1,Zum}). In \cite{Fouv} Fouvry gives an asymptotic formula for the number of solutions to systems of polynomial congruences in small cubic boxes for a wide class of systems (see also \cite{FoKa,Luo,ShpSk,Skor}). Shparlinski \cite{Sp} uses the results of \cite{Fouv} and ideas of \cite{Schm} to obtain an asymptotic formula for the number of solutions to the same systems when the solutions lie in a very general class of sets. For the case of a single polynomial, $F$ in $d$ variables, Shparlinski \cite{Sp} shows that for suitable $\Omega$, when the modulus $m=p$ is prime,
\begin{equation}
\label{shp}
N_F(\Omega)=p^{d-1}(\mu(\Omega)+O(p^{-1/4}\log{p}))
\end{equation}
provided $F$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{C}$ and $\mu$ denotes the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]^d$. This gives an asymptotic formula for $N_F(\Omega)$ provided $\mu(\Omega)\geq p^{-1/4+\epsilon}$ and a nontrivial upper bound for $N_F(\Omega)$ when $\mu(\Omega)\ge p^{-5/4+\varepsilon}$. We follow the method of \cite{Sp} to give an upper bound for $N_F(\Omega)$ without any restrictions on our polynomial $F$ when the modulus $m$ is composite. We first establish an upper bound for $N_F(\Omega)$ when $\Omega$ is a cube. This gives a generalization of Theorem $1$ of \cite{cp}. Although we follow the same argument, the difference is our use of a multidimensional version of Vinogradov's mean value theorem (Theorem 1.1 of \cite{mdws}). To extend the bound from cubes to more general sets $\Omega$, we approximate $\Omega$ by cubes using ideas based on Theorem $2$ of \cite{Schm}. \\
\section{Definitions}
\indent We let $\mu$ denote the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]^d$, $||.||$ the Euclidian norm and define the distance between $\mathbf{x}\in [0,1]^d$ and $\Omega\subseteq [0,1]^d$ to be
$$\dist(\mathbf{x},\Omega)=\displaystyle\inf_{\mathbf{y}\in \Omega}||\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}||.$$
As in \cite{Sp}, we say that $\Omega \subseteq [0,1]^{d}$ is \emph{well-shaped} if there exists $C=C(\Omega)$ such that for every $\varepsilon>0$ the measures of the sets
$$
\Omega_\varepsilon^{+} = \left\{ \vec{u} \in [0,1]^d \backslash
\Omega \ : \ \dist(\vec{u},\Omega) < \varepsilon \right\},
$$
$$
\Omega_\varepsilon^{-} = \left\{ \vec{u} \in \Omega \ : \
\dist(\vec{u},[0,1]^d \backslash \Omega ) < \varepsilon \right\}
$$
exist and satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{well-shaped}
\mu(\Omega_{\varepsilon}^{\pm})\leq C\varepsilon.
\end{equation}
From Lemma 1 of \cite{Schm} all convex subsets of $[0,1]^d$ are well-shaped and from equation $(2)$ of \cite{Weyl}, if the boundary of $\Omega$ is a manifold of dimension $n-1$ with bounded surface area then $\Omega$ is well-shaped, for suitably chosen $C.$ \\
\indent For $\mathbf{x}=(x_1,\dots x_d)$ we write $a\leq \mathbf{x} \leq b$ if $a \leq x_1, \dots, x_d \leq b$. Given a $d$-tuple of non-negative integers
$\mathbf{i}=(i_1,i_2,\dots i_d)$, we set $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{i}}=x_{1}^{i_1}x_{2}^{i_2}\dots x_{d}^{i_d}$
and $|\mathbf{i}|=i_1+i_2+\dots i_d$. We let $r$ denote the number of distinct $d$-tuples, $\mathbf{i}$ with
$1\leq |\mathbf{i}|\leq k,$ so that
\begin{equation}
\label{r}
r=\binom{k+d}{d}-1.
\end{equation}
\indent We will always suppose $m$ is an integer greater than $2$. Given $F\in \mathbb{Z}_m[X_1,\dots,X_d]$, we let $k$ denote the degree of $F$ and $d$ the number of variables. Writing
$$F(\mathbf{x})=\displaystyle\sum_{0\leq |\mathbf{i}| \leq k}\beta_{\mathbf{i}}\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{i}}, \quad \beta_{\mathbf{i}}\in \mathbb{Z}_m$$
we define $$g_F=\displaystyle\min_{|\mathbf{i}|=k}\gcd(m,\beta_i).$$
\indent We use $g(t) \ll f(t)$ and $g(t)=O(f(t))$ to mean that there exists some absolute constant $\alpha$ such that $|g(t)|\leq \alpha f(t)$ for all values of $t$ within some specified range. Whenever we use $\ll$ and $O$, unless stated otherwise the implied constant will depend only on $d$, $k$ and the particular $C$ in $(\ref{well-shaped}).$ Similarily $o(1)$ denotes a term which is sufficiently small when our parameter is large enough in terms of $d$, $k$ and $C$.
\section{Main Results}
We can now present our main results:
\begin{theorem}
\label{multi}
For positive $K_1, \dots, K_d, L,H,R\ge 1$, integer $m$ and
$$F(\mathbf{x})=\displaystyle\sum_{0\leq |\mathbf{i}| \leq k}\beta_{\mathbf{i}}\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{i}}\in \mathbb{Z}_m[X_1,\dots, X_d ]$$ of degree $k\ge2$ with $g_F=1$, let $M_F(H,R)$ denote the number of solutions to the congruence
\begin{equation}
\label{polynomial equation 1}
F(\mathbf{x})\equiv y \ \ (\mathrm{mod} \ m)
\end{equation}
with
$$(\mathbf{x},y)\in [K_1+1,K_1+H]\times \dots \times [K_d+1,K_d+H]\times [L+1,L+R].$$
Then uniformly over all $K_1,\dots,K_d,L\ge 1$
$$M_F(H,R)\le H^d\left(\left(\frac{R}{H^k}\right)^{1/2r(k+1)}+\left(\frac{R}{m}\right)^{1/2r(k+1)}\right)m^{o(1)}$$
as $H\rightarrow \infty.$
\end{theorem}
Arguing from heuristics, we expect the bound for $M_F(H,R)$ to be around
$$M_F(H,R)\le H^d\left(\frac{R}{m}\right)m^{o(1)}$$
which can be directly compared with Theorem~1. Similarly, by considering the first term in Theorem~1 we immediatley see when this bound for $M_F(H,R)$ is worse than the trivial bound $M_F(H,R)\le H^d$. \newline \indent
Also, if $m=p$ is prime and $F[X_1,\dots, X_d]$ is not multilinear, i.e $F$ is not linear in each of its variables, then Theorem~\ref{multi} is trivial. This may be seen by the following argument. First we may show by slightly adjusting the proof of Theorem~1 of~\cite{cp} that for $G \in \mathbb{Z}_p[X]$ of degree $k\ge 2$
\begin{equation}
\label{aabb}
M_G(H,R)\le H\left(\left(\frac{R}{H^k}\right)^{1/2k(k+1)}+\left(\frac{R}{p}\right)^{1/2k(k+1)}\right)p^{o(1)}.
\end{equation}
Supposing $F\in \mathbb{Z}_p[X_1,\dots,X_{d}]$ is not multilinear, then after re-ordering the variables we may suppose for some $k_0 \ge 2$ that
\begin{equation}
\label{induction step}
F[X_1,\dots,X_{d}]=\sum_{i=0}^{k_0}X_{d}^iF_{i}[X_1,\dots,X_{d-1}]
\end{equation}
with $F_{k_0}\neq 0$ and consider separately the values of $X_1,\dots, X_{d-1}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\label{equiv1}
F_{k_0}[X_1,\dots,X_{d-1}]\equiv0 \pmod p
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\label{notequiv1}
F_{k_0}[X_1,\dots,X_{d-1}] \not \equiv 0 \pmod p.
\end{equation*}
For the first case we use the assumption that $p$ is prime and induction on $d$ to bound the number of values $X_1,\dots,X_{d-1}$ such that
$F_{k_0}[X_1,\dots,X_{d-1}]\equiv0 \pmod p$ by $O(H^{d-2})$ and bound the number of solutions to
$$F[X_1,\dots,X_{d}]\equiv y \pmod p$$
in remaining variables $X_{d},Y$ trivially by $RH$. \newline \indent For the second case, we bound the number of $X_1,\dots, X_{d-1}$ such that
$F_{k_0}[X_1,\dots,X_{d-1}] \not \equiv 0 \pmod p$ trivially by $H^{d-1}$ and bound the number of solutions in the remaining variables $X_{d},Y$ by applying~\eqref{aabb} to the equation~\eqref{induction step}. Combining the above two cases gives
$$M_F(H,R)\le H^d\left(\frac{R}{H}+\left(\frac{R}{H^k}\right)^{1/2k(k+1)}+\left(\frac{R}{m}\right)^{1/2k(k+1)}\right)p^{o(1)}$$
which can be compared with Theorem~1. \newline
\indent Taking $R=1$ in Theorem~\ref{multi} we get,
\begin{corollary}
\label{cubes}
For any cube $B\subseteq [0,1]^{d}$ of side length $\frac{1}{h}$, $F \in \mathbb{Z}_m[X_1,\dots, X_d ]$ of degree $k\ge 2$ with $g_F=1$ we have
$$N_F(B)\le \left(\frac{m}{h}\right)^{d-k/2r(k+1)+o(1)}+m^{d-1/2r(k+1)+o(1)}\left(\frac{1}{h}\right)^{d+o(1)}$$
as \ $\dfrac{m}{h} \rightarrow \infty.$
\end{corollary}
Taking $R=H$ in Theorem~\ref{multi} we get,
\begin{corollary}
\label{cubes 1}
Suppose $F \in \mathbb{Z}_m[X_1,\dots, X_d ]$ of degree $k\ge 2$ with $g_F=1$ is of the form,
$$F(X_1,\dots, X_d)=G(X_1,\dots X_{d-1})-X_{d}$$
for some $G \in \mathbb{Z}_m[X_1,\dots,X_{d-1}]$, then
for any cube $B\subseteq [0,1]^{d}$ of side length $\frac{1}{h}$, we have
\begin{align*}
N_F(B)&\le \left(\frac{m}{h}\right)^{d-1-(k-1)/2r(k+1)+o(1)}+ m^{d-1+o(1)}\left(\frac{1}{h}\right)^{d-1+1/2r(k+1)+o(1)}
\end{align*}
as \ $\dfrac{m}{h} \rightarrow \infty$, where $r$ corresponds to $d-1$ in the definition~\eqref{r}.
\end{corollary}
We use the above Corollaries to estimate $N_F(\Omega)$ for well-shaped $\Omega$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{multi vws}
Suppose $F \in \mathbb{Z}_m[X_1,\dots, X_d ]$ satisfies the conditions of Corollary~\ref{cubes} and $\Omega \subset [0,1]^{d}$ is well-shaped with
$\mu(\Omega)\geq m^{-1}$. Then we have
$$N_F(\Omega)\leq m^{d-k/2r(k+1)+o(1)}\mu(\Omega)^{1-k/2r(k+1)}+m^{d-1/2r(k+1)+o(1)}\mu(\Omega)$$
as $m \rightarrow \infty.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
Suppose $F\in \mathbb{Z}_m[X_1,X_2,\dots X_d]$ satisfies the conditions of Corollary~\ref{cubes 1} and $\Omega \subset [0,1]^{d}$ is well-shaped. Then we have
$$
N_F(\Omega) \leq \begin{cases}m^{d-1+o(1)}\mu(\Omega)^{1/2r(k+1)}, \quad \mu(\Omega)\ge m^{-1+1/k} \\
m^{d-1-(k-1)/2r(k+1)+o(1)}\mu(\Omega)^{-(k-1)/2r(k+1)}, \quad m^{-1}\le \mu(\Omega)<m^{-1+1/k}.
\end{cases}
$$
as $m\rightarrow \infty.$
\end{theorem}
\section{Proof of Theorem 3.1}
Making a change of variables we may assume $(\mathbf{K},L)=(0,\dots,0)$. Suppose for integer $s$ we have $\mathbf{x}_1,\mathbf{x}_2,\dots, \mathbf{x}_{2s}$ satisfying (\ref{polynomial equation 1}) with \\
$\mathbf{x}_j=(x_{j,1},x_{j,2},\dots,x_{j,d}).$ Then
$$ F(\mathbf{x}_1)+ F(\mathbf{x}_2)+\dots+ F(\mathbf{x}_s)- F(\mathbf{x}_{s+1})-\dots - F(\mathbf{x}_{2s})\equiv z \text{\ (mod $m$)} $$
for some \ $-sR \leq z \leq sR.$ Hence there exists $-sR \leq u \leq sR$ \ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{M bound}
M_F(H,R)^{2s}\leq (1+2sR)T(u,H)
\end{equation}
with $T(u,H)$ equal to the number of solutions to the congruence
\begin{equation}
\label{polynomial equation 2}
F(\mathbf{x}_1)+ F(\mathbf{x}_2)+\dots+ F(\mathbf{x}_s)- F(\mathbf{x}_{s+1})-\dots - F(\mathbf{x}_{2s})\equiv u \text{\ (mod $m$)}
\end{equation}
with each co-ordinate of $\mathbf{x_j}$ between $1$ and $H.$ \\ \\ Since
$$F(\mathbf{x})=\displaystyle\sum_{0\leq |\mathbf{i}| \leq k}\beta_{\mathbf{i}}\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{i}}, \text{ \ for some\ $\beta_{\mathbf{i}}\in \mathbb{Z}_m$} $$
we may write (\ref{polynomial equation 2}) in the form
\begin{equation}
\label{linear}
\displaystyle\sum_{1\leq |\mathbf{i}| \leq k}\beta_{\mathbf{i}}\lambda_{\mathbf{i}}\equiv u \text{ \ (mod $m$)}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{lambda}
\lambda_{\mathbf{i}}=\mathbf{x}_1^{\mathbf{i}}+\dots+\mathbf{x}_s^{\mathbf{i}}
-\mathbf{x}_{s+1}^{\mathbf{i}}-\dots -\mathbf{x}_{2s}^{\mathbf{i}}.
\end{equation}
Since $g_F=1$, we choose $\mathbf{i}_0$ with $|\mathbf{i}_0|=k$ and $\gcd(\beta_{\mathbf{i}_0},m)=1$. Considering (\ref{linear}) as a linear equation in $\lambda_{\mathbf{i}}$, if we let $\lambda_{\mathbf{i}}$, $\mathbf{i}\neq \mathbf{i}_0$ take arbitrary values then $\lambda_{\mathbf{i}_0}$ is determined uniquely $\pmod m$.
Since we have
\begin{equation}
\label{lambda bound}
-sH^{|\mathbf{i}|}\leq \lambda_{\mathbf{i}}\leq sH^{|\mathbf{i}|}
\end{equation}
there are at most
\begin{equation}
\label{T bound step 1}
\left(1+(2s+1)\dfrac{H^{k}}{m}\right)\displaystyle\prod_{\substack{\mathbf{i}\neq \mathbf{i}_0\\ 1\leq |\mathbf{i}|\leq k }}(2s+1)H^{|\mathbf{i}|}=(2s+1)^{r-1}H^{K-k}\left(1+(2s+1)\dfrac{gH^{k}}{m}\right)
\end{equation}
solutions to (\ref{linear}) in integer variables $\lambda_{\mathbf{i}},$ with
$$K=\displaystyle\sum_{1\leq |\mathbf{i}| \leq k}|\mathbf{i}|=\frac{d}{d+1}(r+1)k.$$
For \ $U=(u_{\mathbf{i}})_{1\leq |\mathbf{i}|\leq k}$ with each $u_{\mathbf{i}}\in \mathbb{Z},$ \ let \
$J_{s,k,d}(U, H)$ \ denote the number of solutions in integers, $\lambda_{\mathbf{i}}$, to
\begin{equation}
\label{equation over Z}
\lambda_{\mathbf{i}}=u_{\mathbf{i}}, \text{ \ $1\leq |\mathbf{i}|\leq k$}
\end{equation}
with each $\mathbf{x}_j$ having components between $1$ and $H$ and we write $J_{s,k,d}(U, H)=J_{s,k,d}(H)$ when $U=(0)_{1\leq |\mathbf{i}|\leq k}.$ Let $\cU$ be the collection of sets $U=(u_{\mathbf{i}})_{1\leq |\mathbf{i}|\leq k}$ such that $|u_{\mathbf{i}}|\leq sH^{|\mathbf{i}|}$ and
$$\displaystyle\sum_{1\leq |\mathbf{i}| \leq k}\beta_{\mathbf{i}}u_{\mathbf{i}}\equiv u \text{ \ (mod $m$)}$$
so that the cardinality of $\cU$ is bounded by~\eqref{T bound step 1}.
We see that
\begin{equation}
\label{T bound step 2}
T(u,H)\leq \displaystyle\sum_{U \in \cU}J_{s,k,d}(U,H),
\end{equation}
since if $\mathbf{x}_{0,1} \dots \mathbf{x}_{0,2s}$ is a solution to~\eqref{polynomial equation 2}, then the integers $\lambda_{0,\mathbf{i}}$, defined by
$$\lambda_{0,\mathbf{i}}=\mathbf{x}_{0,1}^{\mathbf{i}}+\dots+\mathbf{x}_{0,s}^{\mathbf{i}}
-\mathbf{x}_{0,s+1}^{\mathbf{i}}-\dots -\mathbf{x}_{0,2s}^{\mathbf{i}}, \ \ \ \ \ 1\leq |\mathbf{i}|\leq k$$
are a solution to~\eqref{linear} and the $\mathbf{x}_{0,1} \dots \mathbf{x}_{0,2s}$ are a solution to
$$\lambda_{\mathbf{i}}=\lambda_{0,\mathbf{i}}, \text{ \ $1\leq |\mathbf{i}| \leq k$}.$$
So if we let $U_0=(\lambda_{0,\mathbf{i}})_{1\leq |\mathbf{i}|\leq k}$, then we see that the solution to \eqref{polynomial equation 2}, $\mathbf{x}_{0,1} \dots \mathbf{x}_{0,2s},$ is counted by the term $J_{s,k,d}(U_0,H)$ in \eqref{T bound step 2}. By~\eqref{T bound step 1} and~\eqref{T bound step 2}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{t bound}
T(u,H)\leq (2s+1)^{r-1}H^{K-k}\left(1+(2s+1)\dfrac{H^{k}}{m}\right)J_{s,k,d}(V , H)
\end{equation}
for some $V\in \cU$. \ Although for any $U \in \cU$ we have the inequality
$$J_{s,k,d}(U, H)\leq J_{s,k,d}(H).$$
Since if we let $\boldsymbol{\alpha}=(\alpha_\mathbf{i})_{1\leq |\mathbf{i}| \leq k}$ and
$$S(\boldsymbol{\alpha})=\displaystyle\sum_{1\leq \mathbf{x}\leq H}\exp\left(2\pi i \displaystyle\sum_{1\leq |\mathbf{i}|\leq k}\alpha_\mathbf{i} \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{i}}\right)$$
then for $\lambda_{\mathbf{i}}$ defined as in ~\eqref{lambda} we have
\begin{align*}
J_{s,k,d}(U, H)&=\displaystyle\sum_{1\leq \mathbf{x}_1,\dots \mathbf{x}_{2s}\leq H}
\displaystyle\int_{[0,1]^{r}}\exp\left(2\pi i \displaystyle\sum_{1\leq |\mathbf{i}|\leq k}\alpha_{\mathbf{i}} (\lambda_{\mathbf{i}}
-u_{\mathbf{i}})\right)d\boldsymbol{\alpha}
\\ &=
\displaystyle\int_{[0,1]^{r}}|S(\boldsymbol{\alpha})|^{2s}\exp\left(-2\pi i\displaystyle\sum_{1\leq |\mathbf{i}| \leq k}\alpha_{\mathbf{i}}u_{\mathbf{i}}\right)d\boldsymbol{\alpha} \\
&\leq \displaystyle\int_{[0,1]^{r}}|S(\boldsymbol{\alpha})|^{2s}d\boldsymbol{\alpha}=J_{s,k,d}(H)
\end{align*}
where the integral is over the variables $\alpha_{\mathbf{i}}$, $1\leq |\mathbf{i}| \leq k$. Hence by ~\eqref{M bound} and ~\eqref{t bound} we have
\begin{equation}
\label{M bound 2}
M_F(H,R)^{2s}\leq (1+2sR) (2s+1)^{r-1}H^{K-k}\left(1+(2s+1)\dfrac{H^{k}}{m}\right)J_{s,k,d}( H).
\end{equation}
By Theorem 1.1 of \cite{mdws} we have for $s\geq r(k+1)$
$$J_{s,k,d}(H) \ll H^{2sd-K+\epsilon}$$
for any $\epsilon>0$ provided $H$ is sufficiently large in terms of $k,d$ and $s$. Inserting this bound into~\eqref{M bound 2} gives
$$M_F(H,R)^{2s}\ll RH^{K-k}\left(1+\dfrac{H^k}{m}\right)H^{2sd-K+\epsilon}$$
and the result follows taking $s=r(k+1)$. \\
\qed
\section{Proof of Theorem 3.4}
As in \cite{Schm} we begin with choosing $\mathbf{a}=(a_1,\dots a_{d})$ with each co-ordinate irrational. For integer $j$ let $\fC(j)$ be the set of cubes of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{cuubes}
\left[a_1+\frac{u_1}{j},a_1+\frac{u_1+1}{j}\right]\times \dots \times \left[a_{d}+\frac{u_{d}}{j},a_{d}+\frac{u_{d}+1}{j}\right], \ \ \ u_i \in \mathbb{Z}.
\end{equation}
Since each $a_i$ is irrational, no point (\ref{solutions}) lies in two distinct cubes (\ref{cuubes}). Given integer $M>0$, let $\varepsilon=2d^{\frac{1}{2}}/2^ M$ and consider the set
$$\Omega_{\varepsilon}=\Omega \cup \Omega_{\varepsilon}^{+}.$$
Since $\Omega$ is well-shaped, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{omega big}
\mu(\Omega_{\epsilon})=\mu(\Omega)+O\left(\frac{1}{2^M}\right).
\end{equation}
Let $\cC(j)$ be the cubes of $\fC(j)$ lying inside $\Omega_\varepsilon$ and we suppose $j\leq 2^M.$ Then by (\ref{omega big}) we obtain,
\begin{equation}
\label{c upper bound}
\# \cC(j)\leq j^d\mu(\Omega_\varepsilon)\leq j^{d}\mu(\Omega)+O\left(\frac{j^d}{2^M}\right)=
j^{d}\mu(\Omega)+O\left(j^{d-1}\right).
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.35]
\begin{scope}[rotate around={90:(0,0)}]
\draw[ dashed,very thick, rotate around={20:(-0.8,0.8)}] (-0.80,0.8) ellipse (6.77 and 8.8);
\draw[fill=gray!50, very thick, rotate around={20:(-0.8,0.8)}] (-0.80,0.8) ellipse (5.35 and 7.38);
\draw [very thick] (-4,-4) rectangle (4,4);
\draw [very thick] (-4,4) rectangle (0,8);
\draw [very thick] (-4,-4) rectangle (-2,-6);
\draw [very thick] (2,-4) rectangle (4,-6);
\draw [very thick] (0,4) rectangle (2,6);
\draw [very thick](2,4) rectangle (4,6);
\draw [very thick](0,6) rectangle (2,8);
\draw [very thick](4,-2) rectangle (6,0);
\draw [very thick] (0,-4) rectangle (-2,-6);
\draw [very thick] (2,-4) rectangle (0,-6);
\draw [very thick](-4,-2) rectangle (-6,0);
\draw [very thick](-4,0) rectangle (-6,2);
\draw [very thick] (-4,2) rectangle (-6,4);
\draw [very thick] (-4,4) rectangle (-6,6);
\draw [very thick] (-1,-6) rectangle (0,-7);
\draw [very thick] (0,-6) rectangle (1,-7);
\draw [very thick](-4,6) rectangle (-5,7);
\draw [very thick] (4,2) rectangle (5,3);
\draw [very thick] (4,1) rectangle (5,2);
\draw [very thick] (4,0) rectangle (5,1);
\draw [very thick](4,-3) rectangle (5,-2);
\draw [very thick] (4,-4) rectangle (5,-3);
\draw [very thick] (-5,-4) rectangle (-4,-3);
\draw [very thick](-5,-3) rectangle (-4,-2);
\draw [very thick](-6,-3) rectangle (-5,-2);
\draw [very thick] (-7,0) rectangle (-6,1);
\draw [very thick](-7,1) rectangle (-6,2);
\draw [very thick](-7,2) rectangle (-6,3);
\draw [very thick] (-7,3) rectangle (-6,4);
\draw [very thick] (1,-6) rectangle (2,-7);
\draw [very thick] (-6,4) rectangle (-7,5);
\draw [very thick](-6,-1) rectangle (-7,0);
\draw [very thick] (-2,-6) rectangle (-1,-7);
\draw [very thick] (2,6) rectangle (3,7);
\draw [very thick] (4,3) rectangle (5,4);
\draw [very thick] (5,0) rectangle (6,1);
\draw [very thick] (-4,8) rectangle (-3,9);
\draw [very thick] (-5,-5) rectangle (-4,-4);
\draw [very thick] (-6,6) rectangle (-5,7);
\draw [very thick] (-5,7) rectangle (-4,8);
\draw [very thick] (-7,5) rectangle (-6,6);
\draw [very thick] (-3,8) rectangle (-2,9);
\draw [very thick] (-2,8) rectangle (-1,9);
\draw [very thick] (-1,8) rectangle (0,9);
\draw [very thick] (-7,-1) rectangle (-6,-2);
\draw [very thick] (2,-6) rectangle (3,-7);
\draw [very thick] (4,-5) rectangle (5,-4);
\draw [very thick,,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-4,-4) rectangle (4,4);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-4,4) rectangle (0,8);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-4,-4) rectangle (-2,-6);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (2,-4) rectangle (4,-6);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (0,4) rectangle (2,6);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5](2,4) rectangle (4,6);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5](0,6) rectangle (2,8);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5](4,-2) rectangle (6,0);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (0,-4) rectangle (-2,-6);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (2,-4) rectangle (0,-6);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5](-4,-2) rectangle (-6,0);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5](-4,0) rectangle (-6,2);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-4,2) rectangle (-6,4);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-4,4) rectangle (-6,6);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-1,-6) rectangle (0,-7);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (0,-6) rectangle (1,-7);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5](-4,6) rectangle (-5,7);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (4,2) rectangle (5,3);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (4,1) rectangle (5,2);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (4,0) rectangle (5,1);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5](4,-3) rectangle (5,-2);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (4,-4) rectangle (5,-3);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-5,-4) rectangle (-4,-3);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5](-5,-3) rectangle (-4,-2);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5](-6,-3) rectangle (-5,-2);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-7,0) rectangle (-6,1);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5](-7,1) rectangle (-6,2);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5](-7,2) rectangle (-6,3);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-7,3) rectangle (-6,4);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (1,-6) rectangle (2,-7);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-6,4) rectangle (-7,5);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5](-6,-1) rectangle (-7,0);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-2,-6) rectangle (-1,-7);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (2,6) rectangle (3,7);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (4,3) rectangle (5,4);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (5,0) rectangle (6,1);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-4,8) rectangle (-3,9);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-5,-5) rectangle (-4,-4);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-6,6) rectangle (-5,7);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-5,7) rectangle (-4,8);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-7,5) rectangle (-6,6);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-3,8) rectangle (-2,9);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-2,8) rectangle (-1,9);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-1,8) rectangle (0,9);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (-7,-1) rectangle (-6,-2);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (2,-6) rectangle (3,-7);
\draw [very thick,fill=gray!50,opacity=0.5] (4,-5) rectangle (5,-4);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The sets $\Omega_{\varepsilon}$ and $\Omega$ with the corresponding \ $\cB_1,\cB_2,\cB_3,\cB_4$.}
\end{figure}
Also, since a cube of side length $1/j$ has diameter $\varepsilon_j=d^{\frac{1}{2}}/j$, we see that the cubes of $\cC(j)$ cover $\Omega_\epsilon \setminus (\Omega_\varepsilon)_{\varepsilon_j}^{-}$ and hence
$$ \# \cC(j)\geq j^d\left(\mu(\Omega_\varepsilon)-\mu((\Omega_\varepsilon)_{\varepsilon_j}^{-})\right).$$
But for $j \leq 2^M$, we have
$$(\Omega_\varepsilon)_{\varepsilon_j}^{-}\subseteq \Omega_{\varepsilon_j}^{-}\cup \Omega_{\varepsilon}^{+}$$
and since $\Omega$ is well-shaped
$$\mu((\Omega_\varepsilon)_{\varepsilon_j}^{-})\leq \mu(\Omega_{\varepsilon_j}^{-})+ \mu(\Omega_{\varepsilon}^{+})
\ll \frac{1}{j}$$
so we get
$$\# \cC(j)\geq j^d\mu(\Omega_\varepsilon)+O(j^{d-1}).$$
Combining this with (\ref{c upper bound}) gives
\begin{equation}
\label{C bound}
\# \cC(j)=j^{d}\mu(\Omega)+O(j^{d-1}) \text{ \ for $j\leq 2^M.$}
\end{equation}
Let $\cB_1=\cC(2)$ and for $2\leq i \leq M$ we let $\cB_i$ be the set of cubes from $\cC(2^i)$ that are not contained in any cubes from $\cC(2^{i-1}).$ Then we have $\# \cB_1 =\# \cC(2)$ and for $2\leq i \leq M,$ the cubes from both $\cB_i$ and $\cC(2^{i-1})$ are contained in $\Omega_\varepsilon$. This gives
\begin{align*}
\# \cB_i + 2^d\# \cC(2^{i-1})\leq 2^{id}\mu(\Omega)+O\left(\frac{2^{id}}{2^M}\right)\leq 2^{id}\mu(\Omega)+O\left(2^{i(d-1)}\right)
\end{align*}
and hence by (\ref{C bound})
\begin{equation}
\label{B bound}
\# \cB_i \ll 2^{i(d-1)}.
\end{equation}
We have
\begin{equation}
\label{omega in}
\Omega \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^M \bigcup_{\Gamma \in \cB_i}\Gamma
\end{equation}
since if $\mathbf{x} \in \Omega$ then $$\dist(\mathbf{x},[0,1]^d \setminus \Omega_\varepsilon)\geq \varepsilon.$$
Although $\mathbf{x} \in \Gamma$ for some $\Gamma \in \fC(2^M)$ and since $\Gamma$ has diameter $\varepsilon/2$ we have $\Gamma \in \cC(2^M).$ Since the union of the cubes from $\cC(2^{i-1})$ is contained in the union from $\cC(2^{i})$ we get (\ref{omega in}). Hence
$$N_F(\Omega)\leq \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M}\displaystyle\sum_{\Gamma \in \cB_i}N_F(\Gamma)$$
and using Corollary \ref{cubes}, as $m2^{-M}\rightarrow \infty$
\begin{align*}
\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M}\displaystyle\sum_{\Gamma \in \cB_i}N_F(\Gamma) &\ll
\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M}\displaystyle\sum_{\Gamma \in \cB_i}
\left(\frac{m}{2^{i}}\right)^{d-k/2r(k+1)+o(1)} \\ & \ \ \ +\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M}\displaystyle\sum_{\Gamma \in \cB_i}m^{d-1/2r(k+1)+o(1)}2^{-i(d+o(1))} \\
&\ll m^{d-k/2r(k+1)+o(1)}2^{o(M)}\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M}2^{ik/2r(k+1)} \frac{\# \cB_i }{2^{id}} \\ & \ \ \ + m^{d-1/2r(k+1)+o(1)}2^{o(M)}\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M}\frac{\# \cB_i}{2^{id}}.
\end{align*}
We use (\ref{omega big}) to bound
\begin{equation*}
\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M} \frac{\# \cB_i}{2^{id}}\leq \mu(\Omega_{\varepsilon})=\mu(\Omega)+O\left(\frac{1}{2^M}\right)
\end{equation*}
and from (\ref{B bound}), for $N\leq M$
\begin{align*}
\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M}2^{ik/2r(k+1)} \frac{\# \cB_i }{2^{id}} &= \nonumber
\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{N}2^{ik/2r(k+1)} \frac{\# \cB_i }{2^{id}}+\displaystyle\sum_{i=N+1}^{M}2^{ik/2r(k+1)} \frac{\# B_i }{2^{id}} \\ &\ll 2^{Nk/2r(k+1)}\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\# \cB_i }{2^{id}}
+\displaystyle\sum_{i=N+1}^{M}2^{ik/2r(k+1)}\frac{2^{i(d-1)}}{2^{id}} \\
&\ll 2^{Nk/2r(k+1)}\left(\mu(\Omega)+2^{-M}\right)+2^{-N(1-k/2r(k+1))} \\
&\ll 2^{Nk/2r(k+1)}\left(\mu(\Omega)+2^{-N}\right).
\end{align*}
Hence we get
\begin{align}
\label{optimize}
N_F(\Omega)&\leq m^{d-k/2r(k+1)+o(1)} 2^{Nk/2r(k+1)+o(M)}\left(\mu(\Omega)+2^{-N}\right) \\
& \ \ \ +2^{o(M)}m^{d-1/2r(k+1)+o(1)}\left(\mu(\Omega)+2^{-M}\right). \nonumber
\end{align}
Recalling that $\mu(\Omega)\geq m^{-1},$ to balance the two terms involving $N$, we choose
$$2^{-N}\leq \mu(\Omega) \log{m} <2^{-N+1}.$$
Substituting this choice into (\ref{optimize}) gives,
\begin{align*}
N_F(\Omega) &\leq m^{d-k/2r(k+1)}2^{o(M)}\mu(\Omega)^{1-k/2r(k+1)} \\
& \ \ \ +m^{d-1/2r(k+1)+o(1)}2^{o(M)}\left(\mu(\Omega)+2^{-M}\right).
\end{align*}
The same choice for $M$ is essentially optimal,
\begin{equation}
\label{M choice}
2^{-M}\leq m^{-1}\log{m}\leq 2^{-M+1}.
\end{equation}
This gives
$$N_F(\Omega)\leq m^{d-k/2r(k+1)+o(1)}\mu(\Omega)^{1-k/2r(k+1)}+m^{d-1/2r(k+1)+o(1)}\mu(\Omega)$$
where we have replaced $2^{o(M)}$ with $m^{o(1)}$ since $\mu(\Omega)\geq m^{-1}.$ Theorem 3.4 follows since for the choice of $M$ in (\ref{M choice}), for $\mu(\Omega)\geq m^{-1}$
$$m2^{-M}\gg m^{-1}\mu(\Omega)\log{m}\geq \log{m}$$
which tends to infinity as $m\rightarrow \infty.$ \qed \\ \
\section{Proof of Theorem 3.5}
Using the same constructions from Theorem 3.5, we have
$$N_F(\Omega)\leq \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M}\displaystyle\sum_{\Gamma \in \cB_i}N_F(\Gamma).$$
Hence by Corollary~\ref{cubes 1}
\begin{align}
\label{nf}
N_F(\Omega)&\leq 2^{o(M)}m^{d-1-(k-1)/2r(k+1)+o(1)}\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M}2^{i(1+(k-1)/2r(k+1))}\frac{\#\cB_i}{2^{id}} \nonumber \\ & \ \ \ +2^{o(M)}m^{d-1+o(1)}\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M}2^{i(1-1/2r(k+1))}\frac{\#\cB_i}{2^{id}}.
\end{align}
For the first sum by~\eqref{B bound},
\begin{align*}
\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M}2^{i(1+(k-1)/2r(k+1))}\frac{\#\cB_i}{2^{id}}\le \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M}2^{i(k-1)/2r(k+1))}\ll 2^{M(k-1)/2r(k+1)}.
\end{align*}
For the second sum,
\begin{align*}
\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M}2^{i(1-1/2r(k+1))}\frac{\#\cB_i}{2^{id}}&=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{N}2^{i(1-1/2r(k+1))}\frac{\#\cB_i}{2^{id}} +\displaystyle\sum_{i=N+1}^{M}2^{i(1-1/2r(k+1))}\frac{\#\cB_i}{2^{id}} \\
&\ll 2^{N(1-1/2r(k+1))}\left(\mu(\Omega)+\frac{1}{2^M}\right)+2^{-N/2r(k+1)} \\
&\ll 2^{N(1-1/2r(k+1))}\mu(\Omega)+2^{-N/2r(k+1)}.
\end{align*}
Substituting the above bounds into~\eqref{nf} gives
\begin{align*}
N_F(\Omega)&\leq 2^{o(M)}m^{d-1-(k-1)/2r(k+1)+o(1)}2^{M(k-1)/2r(k+1)} \\ & \ \ \ + 2^{o(M)}m^{d-1+o(1)}\left(2^{N(1-1/2r(k+1))}\mu(\Omega)+2^{-N/2r(k+1)}\right).
\end{align*}
For $\mu(\Omega)\ge m^{-1+1/k}$ we choose $N$ to balance the first and last terms then choose $M$ to balance the remaining terms, so that
$$2^{M-1}< \mu(\Omega)^{1/(k-1)}m\le 2^M$$
$$2^{-N}\le 2^{M(k-1)}m^{-(k-1)}<2^{-N+1}$$
which gives $N\le M$ and
$$N_F(\Omega)\le m^{d-1+o(1)}\mu(\Omega)^{1/2r(k+1)}.$$
If $m^{-1}\le \mu(\Omega) <m^{-1+1/k}$ then we choose $N$ to balance the last two terms and take $M$ as small as possible subject to the condition $N\le M$. This gives $$2^{-M}\le \mu(\Omega)<2^{-M+1}$$ $$N=M$$
and
\begin{align*}
N_F(\Omega) &\le m^{d-1-(k-1)/2r(k-1)}\mu(\Omega)^{-(k-1)/2r(k+1)} \\
& \ \ \ +m^{d-1+o(1)}\mu(\Omega)^{1/2r(k+1)}.
\end{align*}
Combining the above two bounds completes the proof. \qed
\section{Comments}
Using the methods of Theorem 3.4 and Theorem 3.5, we have not been able to to give bounds for $N_F(\Omega)$ which are nontrivial when $\mu(\Omega)\leq m^{-1}$. This seems to be caused by two factors, the bound from Corollary \ref{cubes} and the bounds for $\mu(\Omega_{\varepsilon})^{\pm}$, which affect the estimates (\ref{omega big}) and (\ref{B bound}). For certain cases with prime modulus we may be able to do better than Theorem 3.5. For example, the same method may be combined with other bounds replacing Corollary \ref{cubes 1} for more specific families of polynomials. This has the potential to obtain sharper estimates for such polynomials and also to increase the range of values of $\mu(\Omega)$ for which an analogue of Theorem 3.5 would apply. For example, Bourgain, Garaev, Konyagin and Shparlinski~\cite{BGKS1} consider the number
$J_{\nu}(p,h,s;\lambda)$ of solutions to the congruence
\begin{equation*}
(x_1+s)\dots(x_{\nu}+s)\equiv \lambda \ \ (\text{mod} \ p), \ \ 1\leq x_1, \dots , x_{\nu} \leq h.
\end{equation*}
They show that if $h<p^{1/(\nu^2-1)}$ then we have the bound
\begin{equation}
\label{b1}
J_{\nu}(p,h,s;\lambda)\leq \exp \left(c(\nu)\frac{\log{h}}{\log\log{h}}\right)
\end{equation}
for some constant $c(\nu)$ depending only on $\nu$ (Lemma 2.33 of \cite{BGKS1}). \\
In \cite{BGKS2}, the same authors consider the number
$K_\nu(p,h,s)$ of solutions to the congruence
\begin{equation*}
(x_1+s)\dots(x_\nu+s)\equiv (y_1+s)\dots(y_\nu+s) \not \equiv 0 \ \ (\text{mod} \ p),
\end{equation*}
$$1\leq x_1, \dots, x_\nu, y_1, \dots ,y_\nu \leq h$$
and show that
\begin{equation}
\label{b2}
K_\nu(p,h,s)\leq \left(\frac{h^{\nu}}{p^{\nu/e_{\nu}}}+1\right)h^{\nu}\exp\left(c(\nu)\frac{\log{h}}{\log\log{h}}\right)
\end{equation}
for some constants $e_{\nu}$ and $c(\nu)$ depending only on $\nu$ (Theorem 17 of \cite{BGKS2}). \\ \indent Another possible way to improve on our results for certain classes of well-shaped sets is to use Weyl's formula for tubes (equation (2) of \cite{Weyl}) and Steiner's formula for convex bodies (equation (4.2.27) of \cite{Schn}) to give an explicit constant
in (\ref{well-shaped}) for certain subsets of $[0,1]^d$ for which these formula are valid. This would have the effect of improving on the bounds (\ref{omega big}) and (\ref{B bound}) and hence the bound for $N_F(\Omega)$ and possibly the range of values of $\mu(\Omega)$ for which this bound would be valid.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author would like to thank Igor Shparlinski for suggesting this problem and for his guidance while working on it and writing the current paper.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{secIntro} The problem of so-called configuration interaction
of a single bound state with a continuum of states goes back to the
famous paper by U. Fano \cite{PhysRev.124.1866} rated as one of the
most relevant works of 20th century.\cite{RevModPhys.82.2257} The
suggested theoretical approach often regarded as Fano-Anderson model
or configuration interaction succeeded in explaining puzzling
asymmetric resonances observed in various experiments in atomic and
nuclear physics, condensed matter physics and optics.
\cite{RevModPhys.82.2257}. The co-existence of the discrete energy
level and the continuum states within the same energy range is also
quite common in low-dimensional semiconductor structures.
\cite{RevModPhys.82.2257,PhysRevB.65.155302,okulov:220,springerlink:10.1134/S1063782608080034}
Of particular interest nowadays are the structures having a quantum
well (QW) and a ferromagnetic or paramagnetic layer located in the
vicinity of the QW, but not penetrating into the QW region. In such
structures high mobility of the carriers along the QW is combined
with the magnetic properties provided by the magnetic layer. A
number of recent experiments show that the Mn $\delta$--layer gives
rise to circular polarization of the photoluminescence (PL) from the
QW in an external magnetic field applied perpendicular to the QW
plane.\cite{springerlink:10.1134/S1063783410110144,springerlink:10.1134/S0021364009220056}
It was questioned whether the spin polarization of the carries in
the QW is due to the electrons tunneling to Mn site or the tunnel
coupling of the holes at Mn with those in the QW. The latter
mechanism seemed to lack the proper theoretical description. In this
paper we try to fill this gap. We show that the simple scheme of the
holes configuration interaction leads to the opposite sign of the
circular polarization than that observed in the experiment. The
model system considered in the present paper consists of a
$\delta$--layer of the impurities (donors or acceptors) and a QW
having one level of size quantization for the electrons or holes
respectively. The energy level of the impurity bound state lies
within the range of the 2D states size quantization subband in the
QW. We will be considering the case of rather deep impurity level in
the sense that the impurity activation energy substantially exceeds
the kinetic energy of the 2D carriers in the QW. The attracting
potential of the impurity is assumed spherically symmetric and since
it is a deep level we treat it with zero radius potential
approximation\cite{Lucovsky}. At that we consider both the simple
band structure and the one of the GaAs valence band type.
\section{Tunneling between impurity and quantum well}
\label{secT} In this section we consider the configuration
interaction between a single impurity bound state and the continuum
of 2D states in the QW. The potential barrier separating the
impurity from the QW is assumed to be weakly transparent for the
tunneling. Rigorous calculation of the eigenfunctions is rather hard
to perform as it requires solving stationary Schrodinger equation in
the complicated 3D potential. In order to circumvent the explicit
solving of the Schrodinger equation for tunneling problems the
so-called tunneling or transfer Hamiltonian formalism is commonly
used as originally proposed by Bardeen \cite{PhysRevLett.6.57}. The
total Hamiltonian is expressed as $H=H_{i}+H_{QW}+H_T$, where
$H_{i}$ is partial Hamiltonian having the bound state at the
impurity as its eigen state. $H_{QW}$ in the same way corresponds to
the QW itself, its eigenfunctions $\varphi_{\lambda}$ form
non-degenerate continuum of states characterized by the quantum
number(s) $\lambda$. The term $H_T$ accounts for the tunneling. In
the secondary quantization representation the total Hamiltonian can
be written as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqTunHamil} H = {\varepsilon_0}{a^ + }a + \int {{\varepsilon
_{\lambda}}c_{\lambda}^ + {c_{\lambda}}d\lambda + } \int
{\left({t_{\lambda}}c_{\lambda}^ + a + t_{\lambda}^*{a^ +
}{c_{\lambda}}\right)d\lambda},
\end{equation} where $a^+, a$ --
the creation and annihilation operators for the bound state
characterized by its energy $\varepsilon_0$, and $c^+_{\lambda},
c_{\lambda}$ -- the creation and annihilation operators for a
continuum state having energy $\varepsilon _{\lambda}$. The energy
here and below is measured from the level of size quantization of
the carriers in the QW so that $\varepsilon _{\lambda}$ is simply
their kinetic energy.
The expression (\ref{eqTunHamil}) is rather general, in fact
it can be regarded as introducing the coupling between two systems
into the Hamiltonian in the most simple phenomenological way. From
this viewpoint the coupling parameter $t_{\lambda}$ is still to be
determined through exact solving of the eigenvalue problem for the
whole system. Bardeen's approach suggests a simple recipe for
calculation of the tunneling parameter for the case of weak
tunneling through a potential barrier:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqTunel} {t_{\lambda}} =
\int_{a}{\left({\varphi_{\lambda}^*}K{\psi} -
{\psi}K{\varphi_{\lambda}^*}\right)}d\mathbf{r} ,
\end{equation}
where integration is performed over region $a$ to the one side of
the barrier. Here $K$ is the kinetic energy operator:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqkinEn}
K = - \frac{{{\hbar ^2}}}{{2m}}\Delta .\end{equation}
The attraction potential of the impurity is considered spherically
symmetric, so the whole system (impurity+QW) has the cylindrical
symmetry with $z$ axis directed normally to the QW plane and going
through the impurity center. Thus for further calculations it will
be most convenient to represent the QW states in cylindrical
coordinates rather than as plane waves. In this case each state is
characterized by the wavenumber $k$ and the cylindrical harmonic
number $l$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqwavefuncylindr} \varphi_{kl}=\eta \left( z \right)\sqrt
{\frac{{m}}{{2\pi {\hbar ^2}}}} {J_l}\left( {k\rho } \right)
e^{il\theta}
\end{equation}
where $J_l(k\rho)$ is the Bessel function of order $l$, $\rho$ and
$\theta$ are the polar coordinates in the QW plane, $m$--the
in-plane effective mass, $\eta \left( z \right)$ is the envelope
function of size quantization in $z$-direction.
The wavefunction (\ref{eqwavefuncylindr}) has the normalization:
\begin{equation} \label{eqNormDelta}
\left\langle {\varphi_{kl}|\varphi_{k'l'}} \right\rangle =
\delta\left(\varepsilon - \varepsilon '\right)\delta_{ll'},
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon=\hbar^2 k^2/2m$. The potential barrier separating
the deep impurity level from the QW in the first approximation can
be assumed having a rectangular shape. Inside the barrier the
function $\eta(z)$ is (z-axis is directed towards the impurity,
$z=0$ corresponds to the QW boundary):
\begin{equation}
\eta \left( z \right)\sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{a}}e^{-qz},
\end{equation}
where $q=\sqrt{\frac{{2m{E_0}}}{{{\hbar ^2}}}}$, $a$ is the QW
width, $E_0$ is the binding energy of the bound state, at the same
time $E_0$ determines the height of the potential barrier. Let us
firstly consider the simple band case valid for the bound electrons
at donor impurity coupled to the QW conductance band. The spherical
potential of the impurity results in the ground state of the carrier
to be angular independent, therefore the efficient tunneling overlap
occurs only with the zeroth cylindrical harmonic
$\varphi_{k0}\equiv\varphi(\varepsilon)$. For the deep impurity
level one can use zero radius potential approximation\cite{Lucovsky}
and express the s-type wavefunction as:
\begin{equation}
\psi={\sqrt{2q}}\frac{e^{-qr}}{r}.
\end{equation}
The integration (\ref{eqTunel}) over the space is reduced to the
integration over the surface $\Omega_S$ inside the barrier which is
more convenient to take at the impurity site. This yields for the
electrons tunneling between the donor state and the QW:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqTe} t_k^{e} =
\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{{aq}\left(1+\frac{k^2}{q^2}\right)}}\sqrt{E_0}e^{-qd}
\end{equation}
It is clearly seen that as long as the case $k<<q$ is considered,
the tunneling parameter has very weak dependence on $k$.
In order to apply the same approach to the holes
tunneling in GaAs it has to be generalized for the case of the
valence band complex structure. Let us consider In$_{x}$Ga$_{1-x}$As
QW having only one level of size quantization for the heavy holes
and neglect the light holes being split off due to the size
quantization. The basis of Bloch amplitudes to be used is formed of
the states with certain projection of the total angular momentum
$J=3/2$ on $z$ axis.
It would be
tempting to generalize (\ref{eqTunel}) by treating $K$ as the
kinetic part of the Luttinger Hamiltonian ($\hbar k_x$,$\hbar
k_y$,$\hbar k_z$ are, as usual, the momentum operators along the
appropriate axis):
\begin{equation} \label{eqLuttinger} K = \left(
{\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
F & H & I & 0 \\
{{H^*}} & G & 0 & I \\
{{I^*}} & 0 & G & { - H} \\
0 & {{I^*}} & { - {H^*}} & F \\
\end{array}} \right),
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
F &= - A{k^2} - \frac{B}{2}\left( {{k^2} - 3k_z^2} \right), \nonumber \\
G &= - A{k^2} + \frac{B}{2}\left( {{k^2} - 3k_z^2} \right), \nonumber \\
H &= D{k_z}\left( {{k_x} - i{k_y}} \right) \nonumber, \\
I &= \frac{{\sqrt 3 }}{2}B\left( {k_x^2 - k_y^2} \right) -
iD{k_x}{k_y}.
\end{align}
The functions $\psi_{\alpha}$, $\varphi_{\lambda \beta}$ in
(\ref{eqTunel}) become now 4-component vector functions (also the
spin indices $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are added here). The explicit
expression for the bound hole state functions $\psi_{\alpha}$ and
the 2D hole states $\varphi_{\lambda\beta}$ can be found in
Ref.\cite{PhysRevB.85.075315}. The important thing about those is
while the decay length in $z$--direction of the 2D wavefunctions
$\varphi_{\lambda\beta}$ is controlled by the heavy hole mass
$m_{hh}\approx0.5\;m_0$ ($m_0$ is the free electron mass), the decay
length of radial part of the bound state wavefunction
$\psi_{\alpha}$ is characterized by both heavy hole mass $m_{hh}$
and the light hole mass $m_{lh}\approx0.08\;m_0$
\cite{PhysRevB.85.075315}. Analogously to the simple band case the
integration (\ref{eqTunel}) over the whole space is reduced to the
integration over the surface $\Omega_S$ inside the barrier, at that,
only $z$--projection of the kinetic energy operator is required. The
expression for tunneling parameter simplifies into:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqTLuttinger} {t_{kl\alpha\beta}}^{(h)} = \left( {B - A}
\right)\int_{\Omega_S} {dS} \left( {{\varphi
_{kl\beta}}^*\frac{d}{{dz}}{\psi_{\alpha}} - {\psi_{\alpha}
}\frac{d}{{dz}}{\varphi _{kl\beta}}^*} \right),
\end{equation}
where $\varphi _{kl}$ is given by (\ref{eqwavefuncylindr}).
Regrettably, the above given straightforward generalization of
(\ref{eqTunel}) fails to be fully correct. Indeed, the largest decay
length of the bound state $\psi_{\alpha}$ is determined by the light
hole mass while the decay length of the QW states is governed by the
heavy hole. Due to this circumstance the result of the surface
integration (\ref{eqTLuttinger}) becomes dependent on the particular
position of the integration surface inside the barrier. However, it
can be shown that in the case of two masses the exponential
dependence of the tunneling parameter on the barrier thickness is
determined by the smallest mass, but the exact value of the
tunneling parameter cannot be correctly obtained within the given
approach. Now we define $q=\frac{\sqrt{2m_{hh}E_0}}{\hbar^2}$,
$\beta=m_{lh}/m_{hh}$. The explicit evaluation of the overlap
integrals with account for $k<<q$ shows that the tunneling
configuration interaction to be accounted for is only between the
zeroth cylindrical harmonic $\varphi_{k0,-\frac{3}{2}}$ and the
bound state $\psi_{-\frac{3}{2}}$ as well as between
$\varphi_{k0,+\frac{3}{2}}$ and $\psi_{+\frac{3}{2}}$. Both are
governed by the same tunneling parameter $t_k^h$:
\begin{align}
\label{eqT}
& t_k^{h} = \left( \frac{A - B}{\hbar^2/2m_0} \right)\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{aq}}\sqrt{\frac{{ m_{hh}m'_{hh}}}{{m_0^2} }}
\zeta \left( {k/q} \right)\beta\sqrt{E_0}\exp{\left( -\chi \left(
{k/q} \right)\sqrt{\beta} qd \right)},
\end{align}
where $1\leq \chi\leq2$, $\zeta\sim 1$ are weak dimensionless
functions of $k/q$, $m'_{hh}$ is the effective in-plane heavy hole
mass. The tunneling parameter $t_k^h$ exponentially depends on the
barrier thickness with the light hole mass entering the exponent
index. The particular expressions for $\chi$ and $\zeta$ depend on
the surface one chooses for the integration in (\ref{eqTunel}).
In both cases for $t_k^{e},t_k^{h}$ it is reasonable to assume that
the tunneling parameter does not depend on $k$ as weak tunneling
implies $k<<q$. Still, its rapidly decreasing behavior for $k>>q$
has to be kept in mind when it provides convergence for integration
over $k$. In our estimations the shape of the potential barrier
separating the QW was assumed rectangular. This is quite reasonable
for the estimation at $k<<q$. However, the particular shape of the
barrier becomes important when one is concerned with experimental
dependence on the distance $d$ between the impurity and the QW.
\section{Effect on the luminescence spectrum}
The transfer Hamiltonian (\ref{eqTunHamil}) with known tunneling
parameter $t(\varepsilon)$ allows one to construct the
eigenfunctions $\Psi$ of the whole system given those of the bound
state $\psi$ and the QW states $\varphi(\varepsilon)$ :
\begin{equation} \label{eqExpand} \Psi \left( E \right) = {\nu
_0}\left( E \right){\psi} + \int_0^\infty {\nu \left( {E,\varepsilon
} \right)} \varphi \left( \varepsilon \right)d\varepsilon,
\end{equation}
$E$ denotes the energy of the state $\Psi$. Here
$\varphi(\varepsilon)$ are the wavefunctions with zeroth cylindrical
harmonic, as was shown above the other harmonics are not affected by
the tunneling configuration interaction.
Plugging
(\ref{eqExpand}) into the stationary Schrodinger
equation:
\[H\Psi=E\Psi
\] with $H$ being the effective Hamiltonian (\ref{eqTunHamil}) one
gets the following system of equations:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqFanoSystemContinous}
\begin{array}{l}
{\nu _0}\left(E\right){\varepsilon _0} + \int_0^\infty {t\left( \varepsilon \right)\nu \left( E,\varepsilon \right)d\varepsilon } = E{\nu _0}\left(E\right),\,\,\, \\
\nu \left( E,\varepsilon \right)\varepsilon + t\left( \varepsilon \right){\nu _0}\left(E\right) = E\nu \left( E,\varepsilon \right).\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
In the present work we consider the case of the bound level energy
lying within the range of the continuum: $\varepsilon_0>>t^2$. For
this case the solution is obtained as shown in
\cite{PhysRev.124.1866}:
\begin{align}
\label{eqSolution} & {\nu _0}^2\left( E \right) = \frac{{{t^2}\left(
E \right)}}{{{\pi ^2}{t^4}\left( E \right) + {{\left( {E -
\widetilde{{\varepsilon
_0}}} \right)}^2}}}, \nonumber \\
&\nu \left( E,\varepsilon \right) = {\nu _0}\left( E \right)\left(
{P\frac{{t\left( \varepsilon \right)}}{{E - \varepsilon }} +
Z\left(E\right)t\left(E\right)} \delta \left( {E - \varepsilon }
\right)\right),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\label{eqZ} Z\left( E \right) &= \frac{E - \varepsilon_0 - F\left(E
\right)}{t^2\left(E \right)}, \nonumber \\
F\left( E \right) &= \int_0^\infty {P\frac{{{t^2}\left( \varepsilon
\right)}}{{\left( {E - \varepsilon } \right)}}d\varepsilon},
\end{align}
$P$ stands for the principal value and $\tilde \varepsilon_0$ is the center of configuration
resonance, which appears to be slightly shifted from
$\varepsilon_0$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqResonance} \tilde \varepsilon_0(E)=\varepsilon _0 + F(E).
\end{equation}
Because of $k<<q$ it is reasonable to put $t=$const everywhere,
except for (\ref{eqZ}) where decrease of $t$ at $E\rightarrow\infty$
is necessary for convergence of the integral.
In order to analyze the influence of the configuration interaction
on the luminescence spectra we have to calculate matrix element of
operator $\hat{M}$ describing interband radiative transitions
between the hybridized wavefunction $\Psi(E)$ and wavefunction of 2D
the carrier in the other band of the QW which we denote by
$\xi_{k'l'}$, here $k'$ is the magnitude of the wavevector, $l'$ is
the number of cylindrical harmonic analogously to
($\ref{eqwavefuncylindr}$). If, for instance, one considers the
acceptor-type impurity then $\Psi(E)$ is the hybridized wavefunction
of the 2D holes and $\xi_{k'l'}$ is the wavefunction of the 2D
electrons in the QW. We assume that (a) there are no radiative
transitions between the bound state wavefunction $\psi$ and the 2D
carrier wavefunction $\xi_{k'l'}$ in the other band thus the matrix
element for transitions from the bound state:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqM0} \left\langle {\xi_{k'l'}\left| {\hat M} \right|\psi}
\right\rangle =0,\end{equation} (b) the interband radiative
transitions between the free 2D states in the QW are direct.
According to (\ref{eqwavefuncylindr}) the wavefunctions
$\varphi(\varepsilon)$ and $\xi(\varepsilon')$ corresponding to the
zeroth harmonic in the cylindrical basis are: \begin{align}
\varphi(\varepsilon)=\eta(z)\sqrt {\frac{{{m}}}{{2\pi {\hbar ^2}}}}
{J_0}\left( {{k}\rho } \right) \nonumber\\
\xi(\varepsilon')=\zeta(z)\sqrt {\frac{{{m'}}}{{2\pi {\hbar ^2}}}}
{J_0}\left( {{k'}\rho } \right),\end{align} where
\[{k} = \frac{{\sqrt {2{m}\varepsilon } }}{\hbar },\,\,\,{k'} = \frac{{\sqrt {2{m'}\varepsilon' } }}{\hbar },\]
$\eta(z),\zeta(z)$ -- the appropriate size quantization functions in
z--direction, $m$, $m'$ are the in-plane masses of the electrons and
holes respectively if the donor-type impurity is considered and vice
versa for the acceptor case.
Without the tunnel coupling the matrix
element for the direct optical transitions between the states
$\varphi(\varepsilon)$ and $\xi(\varepsilon')$ is given by:
\begin{equation} \label{eqMatrElement}
M_{0}\left(\varepsilon,\varepsilon'\right)= \left\langle
{\xi(\varepsilon')\left| {\hat M} \right|\varphi({\varepsilon})}
\right\rangle =u_k\frac{{\sqrt {m m'} }}{{k{\hbar ^2}}}\delta \left(
{k - {k'}} \right) ,
\end{equation}
where $u_k$ is the appropriate dipole matrix element for the Bloch
amplitudes. According to the above mentioned considerations it is
only this matrix element that is affected by the tunnel coupling,
preserving the matrix elements corresponding to the transitions
between other than the zeroth cylindrical harmonic. Denoting by $M$
the modified matrix element for transitions between the states
$\Psi(E)$ and $\xi(\varepsilon')$ with the further use of the Fano
theory\cite{PhysRev.124.1866} one obtains:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqM} {{M\left(E,\varepsilon'\right)^2
}}={{M_0\left(E,\varepsilon'\right)^2 }} \left[ 1 - \frac{{\pi ^2
t^4 }}{{\pi ^2 t^4 + \left( {E - \widetilde{\varepsilon _0 }}
\right)^2 }}\right]
\end{equation}
We proceed further with the Fermi's Golden Rule for the transition
probability:
\begin{equation} \label{eqFermi} W(\hbar \omega ) = \frac{{2\pi
}}{\hbar }\int_0^\infty\int_0^\infty {\left|M \left( {E,\varepsilon'
}\right)\right|^2 } f' \left( {\varepsilon' } \right)f \left( E
\right)\delta \left( {E + \varepsilon' + E_g - \hbar \omega }
\right)dE d\varepsilon',
\end{equation} where $E_g$ -- the QW bandgap,
$\hbar\omega$ -- the energy of the radiated photon, $f, f'$ -- the
energy distribution functions for the carriers in the hybridized and
intact bands respectively. Substituting (\ref{eqMatrElement}) and
(\ref{eqM}) into (\ref{eqFermi}) one should treat correctly the
delta-function for the wavenumbers of the zeroth cylindrical
harmonic. It can be shown that:
\[
\delta^2(k-k')=\frac{\sqrt{S}}{\pi^{3/2}}\delta(k-k'),
\]
where $S$ is the area of the QW. Then we arrive at:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqW} W\left( {\hbar \omega } \right) = \frac{{{u^2}f\left(
E_\omega \right)}}{{{\pi ^{1/2}}{\hbar ^2}}}\frac{{\sqrt
{2\widetilde{m}S} }}{{\sqrt {\hbar \omega - {E_g}} }}\left( {1 -
\frac{{{\pi ^2}{t^4}}}{{{\pi ^2}{t^4} + {{\left( {{E_\omega } -
\widetilde{{\varepsilon _0}}} \right)}^2}}}} \right),\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\label{eqEomega} & f\left( {{E_\omega }} \right) = {f' }\left(
{\alpha^{-1} {E_\omega }}
\right){f}\left( {{E_\omega }} \right), \nonumber \\
&E_\omega = \frac{\hbar\omega - E_g}{1 + \alpha ^{-1}},
\nonumber \\
& \widetilde{m}=\frac{mm'}{m+m'},\nonumber \\
& \alpha=m'/m,\nonumber \\
\end{align}
while for the all cylindrical harmonics altogether the unperturbed
optical transition rate yields: \begin{equation}
\label{eqW0}{W_{0}}\left( {\hbar \omega } \right) = \frac{{2\pi
{u^2}f\left( E_\omega \right)}}{\hbar }\left(
{\frac{{\widetilde{m}}}{{{\hbar ^2}}}S} \right).\end{equation}
The result (\ref{eqW}) obtained for a single impurity can be applied to
an ensemble of impurities provided their interaction between each
other is weak compared to the tunnel coupling with the QW. In this
case the sample area $S$ should be replaced with $n^{-1}$, $n$ being
the sheet concentration of the impurities in the delta-layer. After
normalization by the area of the QW from (\ref{eqW}),(\ref{eqW0}) we
finally get the spectral density of the luminescence intensity:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqInt} I\left( {\hbar \omega },\widetilde{{\varepsilon _0}}
\right) = {I_0}\left( {\hbar \omega } \right)\left( {1 -
a\left(\widetilde{{\varepsilon _0}}\right)\sqrt{n}\frac{{{\pi
^2}{t^4}}}{{{\pi ^2}{t^4} + {{\left( {{E_\omega } -
\widetilde{{\varepsilon _0}}} \right)}^2}}}} \right),
\end{equation} where
\[a(\widetilde{{\varepsilon _0}}) = \frac{\hbar }{{{\pi ^{3/2}}\sqrt {2\widetilde{m}\widetilde{{\varepsilon _0}}\left( {1 + {\alpha ^{ - 1}}} \right)} }},\]
\[{I_0}\left( {\hbar \omega } \right) = \frac{{2\pi {u^2}\widetilde{m}}}{{{\hbar ^3}}}f\left( {{E_\omega }} \right).\]
\section{Polarization of the spectra}
\label{SecPolar} It follows from (\ref{eqInt}) that the bound state
lying within the energy range of the continuum causes a dip in the
luminescence spectra emitted from the QW. If then for any reason the
bound state is split the luminescence spectra will show the
appropriate number of the dips shifted by the splitting energy
$\Delta$. If one considers the splitting in the magnetic field
applied along $z$ each of the split sublevels is characterized by
certain projection of spin and interacts with only one of the 2D
carriers spin subbands characterized by the same projection of spin.
Thus, for each of the two circular polarizations $\sigma^+$,
$\sigma^-$ of the light emitted from the QW one would expect one
dip, its spectral position being different for $\sigma^+$ and
$\sigma^-$ in accordance with the splitting energy $\Delta$. As an
example let us consider the GaAs-based QW and 2D heavy holes
interacting via the tunneling configuration interaction with the
bound state at an acceptor. This case is shown schematically in
Fig.1. The 2D holes with the projections of total angular momentum
$j=+3/2$ and $j=-3/2$ recombine emitting respectively right-
($\sigma^+$) and left- ($\sigma^-$) circularly polarized light. In
section \ref{secT} it was shown that the heavy holes with
$j=-3/2(j=+3/2)$ interact basically with the bound states
$\psi_{-\frac{3}{2}}(\psi_{+\frac{3}{2}})$. An external magnetic
field applied along $z$ would cause Zeeman splitting of the bound
state energy level $\varepsilon_0$ into
$\varepsilon_0^+=\varepsilon_0+\Delta/2$ and
$\varepsilon_0^-=\varepsilon_0-\Delta/2$.
The splitting
$\Delta=\varepsilon_0^+-\varepsilon_0^-$ may also originate from
exchange interaction of the holes with spin-polarized acceptor ions.
Let us refer to the case of Mn ions having positive g-factor
($g\approx3$, see Ref.\cite{PhysRevLett.59.240}). The hole is
coupled to Mn in antiferromagnetic way thus the level
$\varepsilon_0^+$ corresponds to $j=-3/2$ and $\varepsilon_0^-$ to
$j=+3/2$. As follows from (\ref{eqResonance}),(\ref{eqEomega}) the
difference in the positions of the resonances (dips) $E^+_\omega$
and $E^-_\omega$ corresponding to the bound state sublevels
$\varepsilon_0^+$ and $\varepsilon_0^-$ is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{eqdeltatilde}\widetilde\Delta = {E^ +_\omega } - {E^ -_\omega } = \Delta + {t^2}\ln
\left( {1 + \frac{{\widetilde\Delta }}{{{E^-_\omega }}}}
\right).\end{equation} Unless the positions of the resonances are
too close to the band edge the last term in (\ref{eqdeltatilde}) can
be neglected and $\widetilde{\Delta}=\Delta=
\varepsilon_0^+-\varepsilon_0^-$. With account for the energy
distribution functions for the holes and electrons the shifted
positions of the resonances lead to the difference in the
luminescence intensity for the opposite circular polarizations. In
the discussed example of the antiferromagnetic alignment of the hole
the luminescence spectra $I^+(\hbar\omega,\widetilde{{\varepsilon
_0}}^+)$, $I^-(\hbar\omega,\widetilde{{\varepsilon _0}}^-)$ having
the resonance positions at $\varepsilon _0^+$ and $\varepsilon _0^-$
correspond to the circular polarizations $\sigma^-$ and $\sigma^+$
respectively. As can be seen from (\ref{eqInt}) the difference in
the resonance positions $\Delta=\widetilde{{\varepsilon
_0}}^+-\widetilde{{\varepsilon _0}}^-$ leads to the integral
polarization of the spectra if the distribution function $f(E)$
significantly varies in the vicinity of $\varepsilon _0$. This is
illustrated in Fig.2. The functions $I^-$ and $I^+$ are shown by
blue and red solid lines respectively. The integral polarization is
naturally defined as:
\[P = \frac{P(\sigma^+)-P(\sigma^-)}{P(\sigma^+)+P(\sigma^-)}\approx\frac{{\int\limits_{{E_g}}^\infty {{I^- }\left( {\hbar \omega } \right)d\left( {\hbar \omega } \right)} - \int\limits_{{E_g}}^\infty {{I^+ }\left( {\hbar \omega } \right)d\left( {\hbar \omega } \right)} }}{{2\int\limits_{{E_g}}^\infty {{I_0}\left( {\hbar \omega } \right)d\left( {\hbar \omega } \right)} }}\]
With use of (\ref{eqInt}) this yields: \begin{equation}
\label{eqPolInt} P = -\sqrt{n}\frac{{ \int\limits_0^\infty\pi
t^2\left(E\right) {\left[ {\frac{a\left(\widetilde{\varepsilon} _0^
+ \right){{\pi t^2}\left( E \right)}}{{{\pi ^2}{t^4}\left( E \right)
+ {{\left( {E - {\rm{ }}\widetilde{\varepsilon} _0^ + }
\right)}^2}}} - \frac{a\left(\widetilde{\varepsilon} _0^ -
\right){{\pi t^2}\left( E \right)}}{{{\pi ^2}{t^4}\left( E \right) +
{{\left( {E - {\rm{ }}\widetilde{\varepsilon} _0^ - } \right)}^2}}}}
\right]f\left( E \right)dE} }}{{2\int\limits_0^\infty {f\left( E
\right)dE} }}.\end{equation}
The slow varying functions $f(E)$ and $\widetilde{\varepsilon}_0(E)$ in the integral may be assumed
as constants taken at $\widetilde{\varepsilon}_0^-,
\widetilde{\varepsilon}_0^+$, the tunneling parameter will be
treated as a constant in the whole range of interest $t^2(E)\equiv
t^2$.
Then treating the expression in brackets as delta-functions we
obtain:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqPolGeneral} P = -\frac{\sqrt{\pi}{\hbar {t^2}\sqrt n }}{{{{
{2} }^{3/2}}\sqrt {m} }}\frac{{f\left( {\varepsilon _0^ + }
\right){{\left( {\varepsilon _0^ + } \right)}^{ - 1/2}} - f\left(
{\varepsilon _0^ - } \right){{\left( {\varepsilon _0^ - } \right)}^{
- 1/2}}}}{{\int\limits_0^\infty {f\left( E \right)dE} }}.
\end{equation}
Note that for the considered example the polarization degree appears
to be negative. The positive sign would have appeared if the
ferromagnetic coupling between the acceptor ion and the hole had
been assumed.
\section{The electrostatic effect}
Because of the tunneling involved in the polarization of the
luminescence one might reasonably expect very strong dependence of
the polarization degree on the distance $d$ between the
$\delta$--layer and the QW (i.e. the thickness of the spacer).
However, the purely exponential dependence of the polarization on
the barrier thickness appears to be weakened due to the
electrostatic effect shown in Fig.\ref{fig_scheme} and explained
below. Let us for simplicity consider the electrons distribution
function being nearly constant within the configuration resonances.
The holes are considered to have Fermi distribution function
characterized by the chemical potential $\mu$ and the temperature
$T$. In the absence of an external optical pumping the holes in the
QW are in thermodynamic equilibrium with the acceptors in the
$\delta$--layer, therefore they have the same chemical potential.
Under low pumping conditions the already large concentration of the
holes in the QW is not strongly violated, so it is reasonably to
assume that the quasi Fermi levels of the holes at the acceptors and
in the QW coincide, it means that $\varepsilon_0=\mu$. Strictly
speaking, this is valid for a single bound level, if the level is
split so that $\varepsilon_0^+-\varepsilon_0^-= \Delta$, one should
probably assume $\varepsilon_0^-=\mu$. From (\ref{eqPolGeneral}) we
get the following simplified expression:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqPoltanh} P = -\frac{{\sqrt{\pi}\hbar {t^2}\sqrt n
}}{{{2^{5/2}}{}\sqrt {m'_{hh}} {\mu ^{3/2}}}}\tanh \frac{\Delta
}{{2kT}}
\end{equation}
As we will show below both $t$ and $\mu$ contribute to the
dependence of the integral polarization $P$ on the spacer thickness
$d$ and the QW depth $U_0$.
The holes in the QW provide an
electrical charge density estimated as $\sigma=eN\mu$, where $e$ is
the elementary charge, $N$ is the 2D density of states. The
positively charged plane of the QW and negatively charged
$\delta$--layer of partly ionized acceptors separated by a distance
$d$ produce an electric field
\begin{equation}\label{eqF}F=\frac{4\pi
eN\mu}{\varepsilon},\end{equation} $\varepsilon$ being dielectric
constant of the material. Due to the electric field $F$ the valence
band edge at position of Mn layer appears to be shifted from the
valence band edge just outside of the QW by $F\cdot d$. Because the
quasi Fermi level of the acceptors exceeds the local position of the
valence band edge by the binding energy $E_0$, the equality of the
quasi Fermi levels leads to a simple equation (see
Fig.\ref{fig_scheme}) :
\begin{equation} U_0 = \mu + E_0 + eFd,
\end{equation}
where $U_0$ is the QW depth and $\mu$ is the chemical potential
of the holes in the QW. With (\ref{eqF}) one gets :
\begin{equation}
\label{eqmudependence} \mu = \frac{{U_0 - E_0 }}{{1 + \frac{{4\pi
Ned}}{\varepsilon }}} \approx \frac{{\left( {U_0 - E_0 }
\right)\varepsilon }}{{4\pi Ned}}.
\end{equation}
In order to estimate the dependence of the tunneling parameter $t$
on the QW and spacer parameters we consider the WKB tunneling
through trapezoid barrier as seen in Fig.\ref{fig_scheme}. With
taking into account (\ref{eqT}) and (\ref{eqmudependence}) this
leads to the following expression (we assume $\mu\ll U_0$):
\begin{equation}
\label{eqtd} t^2\sim\exp\left(-\kappa d\right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eqkappa} \kappa=\frac{4\sqrt{2m_{lh}}}{3
\hbar\left(U_0-E_0\right)}\left(U_0^{3/2}-E_0^{3/2}\right)
\end{equation}
From (\ref{eqPoltanh}), (\ref{eqtd}), (\ref{eqkappa}),
(\ref{eqmudependence}) follows the dependence of integral
polarization on the spacer thickness: \begin{equation} \label{eqPd}
P\sim d^{3/2}\exp(-\kappa d),
\end{equation}
Note that electrostatic effect results in the dependence of $\mu$ on
$d$ which leads to the dependence of $P$ on $d$ being not purely
exponential but weakened by the pre-exponential factor $d^{3/2}$.
While the correction is pre-exponential it appears to be significant
enough up to $\kappa d\approx2-3$ which is typical for the
experimental situation.
\section{Discussion}
\label{SecDis} In the proposed theory the polarization of light
emitted from the QW originates from the splitting of the impurity
bound state and therefore may exceed the polarization degree
expected from an intrinsic g-factor of the 2D carriers located in
the QW.
The sign of the polarization deserves special discussion. As was
shown above, the tunnel coupling causes a dip in the luminescence
spectra. This means that in the considered scheme the polarization
of the luminescence from the QW is expected to be of the opposite
sign than that due to the optical transitions between the bound
state and the free carriers inside the barrier. In particular, the
configuration interaction between the 2D heavy holes and Mn
$\delta$-layer considered in Sec.\ref{SecPolar} leads to the
negative sign of the polarization (a mistake made
in\cite{PhysRevB.85.075315} has mislead to the positive sign). Such
result contradicts the known experimental data
\cite{zaitsev:399},\cite{Korenev}, where the polarization is shown
to be positive. This might suggest that regarding these particular
experiments the polarization is not due to the holes configuration
interaction but rather due to polarization of the electrons as
suggested in \cite{Korenev}. The other possibility might be that the
relevant bound state of the hole at Mn is more complex and does not
resemble the simple antiferromagnetic exchange coupling with Mn ion.
Let us estimate the expected magnitude of the circular polarization
degree due to the tunneling configuration interaction. We assume the
deep impurity level $E_0=100$ meV, the barrier thickness $d=5$ nm,
the QW width $a=10$ nm. Taking the effective mass as that of the
electrons in GaAs $m=0.06\,m_0$ for the simple band case described
by (\ref{eqTe}) one gets for the tunneling parameter
$\left(t^e\right)^2\approx2$ meV. The estimation for the holes
tunneling parameter appears to be far less, taking $m_{hh}=0.5$
$m_0$, $m_{hh}'=0.15$ $m_0$ from (\ref{eqT}) one gets
$\left(t^{h}\right)^2\sim 0.01$ meV. The polarization degree is to
be estimated using (\ref{eqPolGeneral}). We take $\Delta=1$ meV,
$T_e=T_h=20$ K, the sheet concentration of the impurities
$n=10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$. Then for the case of the donor impurity
$t=t^e$, $\varepsilon_0=4$ meV, $\mu_h=-1$ meV,
$\mu_e=\varepsilon_0^-$, one gets $|P|\approx 40\%$, for the
acceptor impurity $t=t^h$, $\mu_e=-1$ meV, $\varepsilon_0=2$ meV,
$\mu_h=\varepsilon_0^-$ gives $|P|\approx 0.5\%$. An illustration of
the luminescence spectra for the two circular polarizations is
presented Fig.\ref{figSpectra}. For this we used an intermediate
value for the tunneling parameter $t^2=0.3$ meV ($|P|\approx
0.15\%$) and accounted for inhomogeneous broadening of the spectra
by normal distribution of the bandgap $E_g$ with the dispersion
$\sigma=3$ meV (corresponds to the fluctuation of the QW width by
half a monolayer).
\section{Summary}
The presented theory describes the tunnel coupling between a
continuum of states in the QW and an impurity bound state located
outside of the QW. We utilized the well known Fano approach for
calculation of the matrix elements for the direct interband optical
transitions in the QW. For such transitions the tunnel coupling of
the 2D QW states with the impurity states leads to the drop of the
luminescence spectral density at the frequency corresponding to the
configuration resonance. This modification of the spectra leads to
an integral circular polarization of the light emitted from the QW
provided the bound hole state is split in the projection of the hole
angular momentum. The key advantage of the approach used in the
present study is that the unknown eigenfunctions of the system are
expressed through those of the uncoupled states. Given the expansion
(\ref{eqExpand}) any effects on the localized state can be
translated into effects for the whole coupled system. For this
reason it is capable of describing other effects expected in such
systems like anisotropy of the holes g-factor in the QW induced by
the paramagnetic impurity or the indirect exchange interaction
between the bound states provided by the 2D free carriers in the QW.
\section{acknowledgements}
We thank V. D. Kulakovskii for very fruitful discussions and also
express our thanks to B. A. Aronzon, P. I. Arseev, V. L. Korenev, M.
M. Glazov, V. F. Sapega, S. V. Zaitsev for very useful and helpful
comments. The work has been supported by RFBR (grants no
11-02-00348, 11-02-00146, 12-02-00815,12-02-00141), Russian Ministry
of Education and Science (contract N 14.740.11.0892, contract N
11.G34.31.0001 with SPbSPU and leading scientist G.G. Pavlov), RF
President Grant NSh-5442.2012.2.
|
\section{Introduction}
The {\em Bernstein center} is a central tool in the study of the smooth
complex representations of a $p$-adic group $G$. Introduced by Bernstein
and Deligne in~\cite{BD}, the Bernstein center is a commutative ring that
acts naturally on every smooth complex representation of $G$. Its primitive
idempotents thus decompose the category $\operatorname{Rep}_{{\mathbb C}}(G)$ of smooth complex
representations of $G$ into full subcategories
known as ``blocks''; any object of $\operatorname{Rep}_{{\mathbb C}}(G)$ then has a canonical
decomposition as a product of factors, one from each block. Moreover, Bernstein
and Deligne give a description of each block, and show that the action of
the Bernstein center on each block factors through a finite type ${\mathbb C}$-algebra
(the center of the block), that can be described in a completely explicit fashion.
One advantage of this approach is that it allows one to give purely algebraic
proofs of results that were classically proven using difficult technqiues from
Harmonic analysis. For example, one can regard a (not necessarily admissible) smooth
representation of $G$ as a sheaf on the spectrum of the Bernstein center; doing
so provides a purely algebraic analogue of the Fourier decomposition of this representation
as a ``direct integral'' of irreducible representations over a suitable measure space.
A clear benefit of this algebraic approach is that it applies even when one
considers representations over fields (or even rings) other than the complex numbers.
In~\cite{BH-whittaker}, Bushnell and Henniart applied the above ideas to the
study of Whittaker models in the complex representation theory of $p$-adic groups.
In particular, they study the space $\operatorname{c-Ind}_U^G \Psi$, where $U$ is the unipotent
radical of a Borel subgroup $B$ of $G$, and $\Psi$ is a ``generic character'' of $U$.
This space is dual to the space of functions in which Whittaker models live. They establish
two key technical results about this space: first, if $e$ is an idempotent of the
Bernstein center corresponding to a particular block of $\operatorname{Rep}_{{\mathbb C}}(G)$,
they show that $e \operatorname{c-Ind}_U^G \Psi$ is finitely generated as a ${\mathbb C}[G]$-module.
Second, they show that the center of the block corresponding to $e$ acts faithfully
on $e \operatorname{c-Ind}_U^G \Psi$, and that in many clases (in particular $G = \operatorname{GL}_n$), this
center is the full endomorphism ring of $e \operatorname{c-Ind}_U^G \Psi$. As an application,
they give a purely algebraic proof of a vanishing theorem, originally due to
Jacquet, Piatetski-Shapiro, and Shalika (\cite{JPS}, Lemma 3.5), for
functions in $\operatorname{c-Ind}_U^G \Psi$.
The theory of the Bernstein center for categories of representations
over coefficient rings other than ${\mathbb C}$ presents significant technical difficulties
beyond the complex case; in particular the approach of Bernstein and Deligne
makes heavy use of certain properties of cuspidal representations that only hold
over fields of characteristic zero. Dat~\cite{dat-integral} has established some basic
structural results for general $p$-adic groups in this context, but for general
groups not much more is known.
For $\operatorname{GL}_n(F)$, however, previous work of the author~\cite{bernstein1} establishes
a much more detailed structure theory for the center of the category $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(\operatorname{GL}_n(F))$
of smooth $W(k)[\operatorname{GL}_n(F)]$-modules, where $k$ is an algebraically closed field
of characteristic $\ell$. Although it does not seem possible to give as complete and
thorough description of the center in this context, the results of~\cite{bernstein1}
are detailed and precise enough that one might hope for applications in both
representation theory and arithmetic. In particular it is natural to ask whether
one can apply the theory of~\cite{bernstein1} to analogues of the questions
studied in~\cite{BH-whittaker}.
The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to establish integral versions
of the results of~\cite{BH-whittaker} discussed above in the case where $G = \operatorname{GL}_n(F)$,
using the results and techniques of~\cite{bernstein1}. The second is to apply
these techniques to questions concerning the local Langlands correspondence of~\cite{emerton-helm}.
Rather than attempting to mimic the arguments of~\cite{BH-whittaker}, our
approach to the first goal is by a quite different argument. We make
heavy use of the fact that the results of~\cite{BH-whittaker} hold over ${\mathbb C}$,
and therefore also over the field $\overline{{\mathcal K}}$, where ${\mathcal K}$ is the field
of fractions of $W(k)$. Our approach here relies on the Bernstein-Zelevinski
theory of the derivative, developed over $W(k)$ in~\cite{emerton-helm}, and in
particular on computing the derivatives of certain projective objects of
$\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)$ first considered in~\cite{bernstein1}. This computation makes
heavy use of the notion of an essentially AIG representation, introduced
in~\cite{emerton-helm}.
Our main results about $\operatorname{c-Ind}_U^G \Psi$ are established in section~\ref{sec:admissible}.
As an application we prove a basic fact about essentially AIG representations
that was conjectured in~\cite{emerton-helm}.
We now discuss our second goal in more detail. In~\cite{emerton-helm}, Emerton and the
author introduce a conjectural ``local Langlands correspondence in families''. The main
result states roughly that given a Galois representation $\rho: G_F \rightarrow \operatorname{GL}_n(A)$,
for $A$ a suitable complete local $W(k)$-algebra, there is at most one admissible
$A[\operatorname{GL}_n(F)]$-module $\pi(\rho)$, satisfying a short list of technical conditions, such
that at characteristic zero points ${\mathfrak p}$ of $\operatorname{Spec} A$, the representations
$\pi(\rho)_x$ and $\rho_x$ are related by a variant of the local Langlands correspondence.
(We refer the reader to Theorem~\ref{thm:E-H} for a precise statement).
Emerton has shown~\cite{emerton-lg} that certain spaces that arise by
considering the completed cohomology of the tower for modular curves have a natural
tensor factorization, and that the tensor factors that arise in this way are isomorphic
to $\pi(\rho)$ for certain representations $\rho$ of $G_{{\mathbb Q}_p}$ over Hecke algebras.
This result is crucial to his approach to the Fontaine-Mazur conjecture.
However, the results of~\cite{emerton-helm} do not address the question of whether
the representations $\pi(\rho)$ exist in general. They also leave several fundamental
questions about the structure of $\pi(\rho)$ unanswered.
Our approach to these questions revolves around the concept of a
``co-Whittaker'' module, introduced in section~\ref{sec:whittaker}.
The key point is that the families $\pi(\rho)$, when they exist, are
co-Whittaker modules. Moreover, there is a natural connection
between co-Whittaker modules and the module $\operatorname{c-Ind}_U^G \Psi$, which can
be regarded as a ``universal'' co-Whittaker module, in a sense we make
precise in Theorem~\ref{thm:universal}.
In the final section we apply our structure theory to the local Langlands
correspondence in families. In particular, we reduce the construction
of the families $\pi(\rho)$, where $\rho$ is a deformation of a given
Galois representation ${\overline{\rho}}$ over $k$, to the question of the
existence of a certain map from the integral Bernstein center to
the universal framed deformation ring of ${\overline{\rho}}$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:main}).
Moreover, we show that the converse also holds (conditionally on a result
from the forthcoming work~\cite{bernstein2}.)
There are several advantages to reformulating the question of the existence
of $\pi(\rho)$ in this way. The first is that the new conjectures that
arise in this way (Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} and the stronger variant
Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong}) are interesting in their own right.
Indeed, one can regard Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong} as a geometric
reformulation of the correspondence between supercuspidal support
(for admissible representations of $G$) and semisimplification
of Galois representations (see remark~\ref{rem:interpolation}.)
Moreover, it seems to be substantially easier in practice
to construct maps from the Bernstein center to universal framed
deformation rings than it is to directly construct representations
$\pi(\rho)$. For example, it is not difficult to show
that both conjectures hold after inverting $\ell$, as well as in
the case where $\ell$ is a {\em banal} prime; that is, when
the order $q$ of the residue field of $F$ has the property that
$1, q, \dots, q^n$ are distinct mod $\ell$. (We sketch a proof of
this in Example~\ref{ex:banal}; the details, as well
as deeper results about the conjectures in question, will appear
in the forthcoming work~\cite{bernstein2}.) In particular, this
approach provides the only currently known construction of $\pi(\rho)$
in the banal setting for $n > 2$.
For small $n$, it is in principle possible to construct suitable
families $\pi(\rho)$ by ad-hoc methods. It seems unlikely, however,
that these methods can be pushed much beyond the case $n=2$.
For instance, when $n = 2$, $\ell$ is odd, and $q$ is congruent
to $-1$ modulo $\ell$, it is possible to explicitly construct
the representation $\pi(\rho)$, where $\rho$ is the universal
framed deformation ring of $1 \oplus \omega$ (here $\omega$
is the mod $\ell$ cyclotomic character). This construction
requires a delicate analysis of congruences between lattices
in cuspidal and Steinberg representations of $\operatorname{GL}_2(F)$.
By contrast, if one knows Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} in this setting,
the construction is clean and straightforward. In a sense,
the map in Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} encodes all of these congruences
in a sufficiently systematic way that one does not need to work
with them directly.
The author is grateful to Matthew Emerton, Richard Taylor, and Sug-Woo
Shin for their continued interest and helpful conversation on the ideas
presented here. This research was partially supported by NSF grant
DMS-1161582.
\section{The integral Bernstein center}
We now fix notation and summarize some of the basic properties of the
integral Bernstein center from~\cite{bernstein1} that will be used throughout
the paper. Let $p$ and $\ell$ be distinct primes, and let $F$ be a finite
extension of ${\mathbb Q}_p$. We let $G$ denote the group $\operatorname{GL}_n({\mathbb Q}_p)$.
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic $\ell$,
and let ${\mathcal K}$ be the field of fractions of $W(k)$. We will be concerned
with the categories $\operatorname{Rep}_k(G)$, $\operatorname{Rep}_{{\mathcal K}}(G)$, and
$\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)$ of smooth $k[G]$-modules, smooth ${\mathcal K}[G]$-modules,
and smooth $W(k)[G]$-modules, respectively.
The blocks of $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}[G]$ are parameterized by equivalence classes
of pairs $(L,\pi)$, where $L$ is a Levi subgroup of $G$ and $\pi$ is an
irreducible supercuspidal representation of $L$ over $k$. Two pairs
$(L,\pi)$ and $(L',\pi')$ are said to be {\em inertially equivalent}
if there is an element $g$ of $G$ such that $L' = g L g^{-1}$ and $\pi'$
is a twist of $\pi^g$ by an unramified character of $L'$.
Given a pair $[L,\pi]$, up to inertial equivalence, we can consider the
full subcategory $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$ of $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)$ consisting of
smooth $W(k)[G]$-modules $\Pi$ such that every simple subquotient of $\Pi$
has {\em mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support} (in the sense of~\cite{bernstein1},
Definition 4.10) given by the pair $(L,\pi)$. By~\cite{bernstein1}, Theorem 10.8,
$\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$ is a block of $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)$. For any
smooth $W(k)[G]$-module $\Pi$, we may thus speak of the factor $\Pi_{[L,\pi]}$
of $\Pi$ that lies in $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$.
We may also consider the center $A_{[L,\pi]}$ of $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$.
We have the following basic structure theory of $A_{[L,\pi]}$:
\begin{theorem}[\cite{bernstein1}, Theorem 12.1]
The ring $A_{[L,\pi]}$ is a finitely generated, reduced, $\ell$-torsion free
$W(k)$-algebra.
\end{theorem}
Let $\kappa$ be a $W(k)$-algebra that is a field; then any smooth representation
$\Pi$ of $G$ over $\kappa$ lies in $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)$. If $\Pi$ is absolutely irreducible
then it lies in $A_{[L,\pi]}$ for some $(L,\pi)$; by Schur's Lemma the action of
$A_{[L,\pi]}$ on $\Pi$ is via a homomorphism $f_{\Pi}: A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow \kappa$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:bernstein action}
Let $\Pi_1$ and $\Pi_2$ be two absolutely irreducible representations of $G$ over $\kappa$
that lie in $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$,
and let $f_1$ and $f_2$ be the maps: $A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow \kappa$ giving the action
of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ on $\Pi_1$ and $\Pi_2$ respectively. Then $f_1 = f_2$ if, and only if,
$\Pi_1$ and $\Pi_2$ have the same supercuspidal support.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
When $\kappa$ has characteristic zero this follows from the classical theory of Bernstein and
Deligne. When $\kappa$ has characteristic $\ell$ this is (a slight generalization of)
Theorem 12.2 of~\cite{bernstein1}; the proof of that theorem works in
the generality claimed here.
\end{proof}
\section{Essentially AIG representations} \label{sec:derivative}
Our attempts to generalize results from~\cite{BH-whittaker} will rely
on a version of the Bernstein-Zelevinski
theory of the derivative and its related functors that makes sense
for integral representations.
We refer the reader to~\cite{emerton-helm}, section 3.1, for the details of
this theory over $W(k)$. Here we will content ourselves with the theory
of the ``top derivative''.
Let $U$ be the unipotent radical of a Borel subgroup of $G$, and let
$\Psi: U \rightarrow W(k)^{\times}$ be a generic character. Let $W$ be
the module $\operatorname{c-Ind}_U^G \Psi$; $W$ is independent, up to isomorphism, of the generic character
$\Psi$. As $U$ has order prime to $\ell$ and $\operatorname{c-Ind}$ takes projectives to projectives,
$W$ is a projective $W(k)[G]$-module. The Bernstein factor
$W_{[L,\pi]}$ is then a projective object of $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$,
which is closely related to the theory of Whittaker models.
The module $W_{[L,\pi]}$ will be crucial for our
approach to the conjectures of~\cite{emerton-helm} on the local Langlands
correspondence for families of Galois representations. First, however, we
need some basic results on the structure of $W_{[L,\pi]}$.
If we invert $\ell$, this was studied systematically by Bushnell-Henniart. From
our perspective a key result of theirs is:
\begin{theorem}
The natural map
$$A_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{W(k)} {\mathcal K} \rightarrow \operatorname{End}_{{\mathcal K}[G]}(W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{W(k)} {\mathcal K})$$
is an isomorphism. In particular, $\operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}(W_{[L,\pi]})$ is commutative.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We can check the first statement after base change from ${\mathcal K}$ to $\overline{{\mathcal K}}$; it then
follows from~\cite{BH-whittaker}, Theorem 4.3. The second statement is immediate, as
$W_{[L,\pi]}$ is $\ell$-torsion free and thus its endomorphism ring embeds in
$\operatorname{End}_{{\mathcal K}[G]}(W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{W(k)} {\mathcal K})$.
\end{proof}
To go further,
we recall that we have an ``$n$th derivative functor'' $V \mapsto V^{(n)}$ from $W(k)[G]$-modules
to $W(k)$ modules with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $V$ is an irreducible $k[G]$-module, then $V^{(n)}$ is a one-dimensional $k$-vector
space if $V$ is generic, and zero otherwise.
\item There is a natural isomorphism of functors $\operatorname{Hom}_{W(k)[G]}(W,-) \rightarrow (-)^{(n)}$.
\item The functor $V \mapsto V^{(n)}$ is exact.
\item If $V$ is an $A[G]$-module for some $W(k)$-algebra $A$, and $B$ is an $A$-algebra,
$(V \otimes_A B)^{(n)}$ is naturally isomorphic to $V^{(n)} \otimes_A B$.
\item If $V$ and $W$ are $A[\operatorname{GL}_n(F)]$ and $A[\operatorname{GL}_m(F)]$-modules, respectively, then there is a natural
isomorphism:
$$[i_P^{\operatorname{GL}_{n+m}(F)} V \otimes W]^{(n+m)} \cong V^{(n)} \otimes W^{(m)}.$$
\item If $V$ is an $A[\operatorname{GL}_n(F)]$-module, there is a natural $A$-linear map $V \rightarrow V^{(n)}$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:freeness}
The top derivative $W^{(n)}_{[L,\pi]}$ is free of rank one over $\operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}(W_{[L,\pi]})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have a natural isomorphism:
$$W^{(n)}_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow \operatorname{Hom}_{W(k)[G]}(W,W_{[L,\pi]}),$$
and the latter is clearly isomorphic to $\operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}(W_{[L,\pi]})$.
\end{proof}
Our goal is to apply this structure theory to ideas from~\cite{emerton-helm}.
We first recall the definition of an essentially AIG representation~\cite{emerton-helm}, 3.2.1.
\begin{definition}
Let $\kappa$ be a $W(k)$-algebra that is a field. A $\kappa[G]$-module $V$ is {\em essentially AIG} if:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the socle of $V$ is absolutely irreducible and generic,
\item the quotient $V/\operatorname{soc}(V)$ has no generic subquotients (or, equivalently, the top derivative
$(V/\operatorname{soc}(V))^{(n)}$ vanishes), and
\item $V$ is the sum of its finite length submodules.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We will need the following ``dual version'' of this (c.f.~\cite{emerton-helm}, Lemma 6.3.5).
\begin{lemma}
Let $\kappa$ be a $W(k)$-algebra that is a field, and let $V$ be a finite length
admissible $\kappa[G]$-module such that the cosocle of $V$ is absolutely irreducible and generic,
and such that $V^{(n)}$ is a one-dimensional $\kappa$-vector space. Then the smooth $\kappa$-dual
of $V$ is essentially AIG.
\end{lemma}
It follows easily from the definitions (see~\cite{emerton-helm}, Lemma 3.2.3 for details) that
the only endomorphisms of an essentially AIG $\kappa[G]$-module $V$ are scalars. In particular
such a $V$ is indecomposable and lies in a single Bernstein component. If $V$ lies in
$\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$, then $A_{[L,\pi]}$ acts on $V$, and this action factors through a map
$f_V: A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow \kappa$.
\section{Projective objects and their derivatives} \label{sec:projective}
We now recall some facts from~\cite{bernstein1} about certain projective objects
of $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)$ and the action of the Bernstein center on them. Let
$(K,\tau)$ be a maximal distingushed cuspidal $k$-type of $G$ in the sense of~\cite{vig98},
IV.3.1B.
From such a type we can construct a projective $W(k)[G]$-module ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}$
by a construction detailed in section 4 of~\cite{bernstein1} (see particularly Lemmas 4.7
and 4.8, and the paragraph immediately following them). It will be useful later to note
that the construction of ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}$ shows that ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}$ admits
a natural surjection
$${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \rightarrow \operatorname{c-Ind}_K^G \tau.$$
Moreover, we have:
\begin{theorem} Let $\pi$ be an irreducible cuspidal $k$-representation of $G$ containing
the type $(K,\tau)$, and let $(L,\pi')$ be the supercuspidal support of $\pi$.
Then ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}$ lies in the block $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi']}$. Moreover, the
map
$$A_{[L,\pi']} \rightarrow \operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}({\mathcal P}_{K,\tau})$$
is an isomorphism, and makes ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}$ into an admissible $A_{[L,\pi]}$-module.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
This is a composite of results from~\cite{bernstein1}, in particular Corollary 10.9
and Corollary 11.11. Admissibility follows from Theorem 8.8.
\end{proof}
Let $E_{K,\tau}$ be the ring $\operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}({\mathcal P}_{K,\tau})$. We identify
$A_{[L,\pi']}$ with $E_{K,\tau}$ for the remainder of this section.
Fix a prime ${\mathfrak p}$ of $E_{K,\tau}$, of residue field $\kappa({\mathfrak p})$
and consider the admissible $\kappa({\mathfrak p})[G]$-module
${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p})$. It is contained in
a finite collection of blocks of $\operatorname{Rep}_{\kappa({\mathfrak p})}(G)$ and is
therefore of finite length.
\begin{lemma}
The cosocle of ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p})$ is absolutely
irreducible.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\tilde C$ be the cosocle of ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p})$.
It suffices to show that $\operatorname{End}_{\kappa({\mathfrak p})}(\tilde C)$ is isomorphic to
$\kappa({\mathfrak p})$. Let $C$ be the image of ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}$ in $\tilde C$. Becuase
${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}$ is projective, the surjection of ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}$ onto $C$ gives a surjection
of $E_{K,\tau}$ onto $\operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}(C)$. On the other hand, the annihilator of $C$ in $E_{K,\tau}$
is ${\mathfrak p}$, so the map $E_{K,\tau}/{\mathfrak p} \rightarrow \operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}(C)$
is an isomorphism. Tensoring with $\kappa({\mathfrak p})$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:AIG point}
The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p})$ has an absolutely irreducible
generic quotient.
\item The smooth $\kappa({\mathfrak p})$-dual of ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p})$
is essentially AIG.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that (2) implies (1). Suppose conversely that (1) holds. It suffices to show
that ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p})$ has no irreducible generic
subquotients other than its cosocle. Let $\tilde C$ denote this cosocle, and suppose we
have:
$$M \subseteq \ker \left[{\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p}) \rightarrow \tilde C\right],$$
such that $M$ has an irreducible generic quotient $\tilde C'$. The action of $A_{[L,\pi']}$
on both $\tilde C$ and $\tilde C'$ is via the same map
$$A_{[L,\pi']} \cong E_{K,\tau} \rightarrow \kappa({\mathfrak p}).$$
Thus $\tilde C$ and $\tilde C'$ have the same supercuspidal support. (This follows by
Theorem 12.2 of~\cite{bernstein1} if ${\mathfrak p}$ has characteristic $\ell$, and by
classical results of Bernstein-Deligne~\cite{BD} if ${\mathfrak p}$ has characteristic zero.)
As there is a unique isomorphism class of irreducible generic representation with given supercuspidal
support, $\tilde C$ and $\tilde C'$ are isomorphic. The surjection of $M$ onto $\tilde C'$
thus gives a surjection of $M$ onto $\tilde C$. The surjection
$${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p}) \rightarrow \tilde C$$
then lifts (by projectivity of ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}$) to a map
$${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p}) \rightarrow M.$$
Composing this with the inclusion of $M$ in ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p})$
gives a nonzero endomorphism of ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p})$
that is zero on the cosocle $\tilde C$. This is impossible since we have
$$\operatorname{End}_{\kappa({\mathfrak p})}({\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p}))
\cong E_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p}) = \kappa({\mathfrak p}).$$
\end{proof}
This motivates the following definition:
\begin{definition} A point ${\mathfrak p}$ of $\operatorname{Spec} E_{K,\tau}$ is called
an {\em essentially AIG point} if ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p})$
satisfies the equivalent conditions of Proposition~\ref{prop:AIG point}.
\end{definition}
Let ${\mathfrak m}$ and ${\mathfrak p}$ be points of $\operatorname{Spec} E_{K,\tau}$,
such that ${\mathfrak m}$ is in the closure of ${\mathfrak p}$.
Then there is a discrete valuation ring ${\mathcal O} \subset \kappa({\mathfrak p})$
that dominates ${\mathfrak m}$; that is, such that ${\mathcal O}$ contains the image
of $E_{K,\tau}$ in $\kappa({\mathfrak p)}$, and the preimage of the maximal
ideal $\tilde {\mathfrak m}$
of ${\mathcal O}$ under the map $E_{K,\tau} \rightarrow {\mathcal O}$ is equal to
${\mathfrak m}$.
Let ${\tilde C}$ be the unique irreducible generic representation of $G$
over $\kappa({\mathfrak p})$ on which $E_{K,\tau}$ acts via the natural map
$E_{K,\tau} \rightarrow \kappa({\mathfrak p})$. Then the supercuspidal
support of ${\tilde C}$ is ${\mathcal O}$-integral, and so ${\tilde C}$ is
${\mathcal O}$-integral as well.
Consider the smooth $\kappa({\mathfrak p})$-dual ${\tilde C}^{\vee}$
of $\tilde C$.
Then by~\cite{emerton-helm}, Proposition 3.3.2,
there is an ${\mathcal O}$-lattice $C^{\vee}$ in ${\tilde C}^{\vee}$ such that
the reduction $C^{\vee} \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} {\mathcal O}/{\tilde {\mathfrak m}}$ has
an absolutely irreducible generic socle. If we let $C$ be the smooth ${\mathcal O}$-dual
of $C^{\vee}$, then $C \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} {\mathcal O}/{\tilde {\mathfrak m}}$ is an ${\mathcal O}$-lattice
in $\tilde C$ with an absolutely irreducible generic quotient. Denote this quotient
by $\overline{C}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:generize}
If ${\mathfrak m}$ is an essentially AIG point, then so is ${\mathfrak p}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $E_{K,\tau}$ acts on $\overline{C}$ via the map $E_{K,\tau} \rightarrow
\kappa({\mathfrak m})$, and so $\overline{C}$ is the unique absolutely irreducible
generic representation of $G$ over $k$ on which $E_{K,\tau}$ acts via this map.
Since ${\mathfrak m}$ is an essentially AIG point, we have a map ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \rightarrow \overline{C}$.
Projectivity of ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}$ lets us lift this to a map ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \rightarrow C$, and
hence to a map ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \rightarrow {\tilde C}$. Thus ${\mathfrak p}$ is an essentially
AIG point.
\end{proof}
A partial converse also holds:
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:specialize}
If ${\mathfrak p}$ is an essentially AIG point, and $C \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} {\mathcal O}/{\tilde {\mathfrak m}}$
is absolutely irreducible, then ${\mathfrak m}$ is an essentially AIG point.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If ${\mathfrak p}$ is an essentially AIG point, then we have a map
${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \rightarrow {\tilde C}$. The image of ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} {\mathcal O}$
in $\tilde C$ is an admissible ${\mathcal O}[G]$-submodule of $\tilde C$ and thus a $G$-stable
${\mathcal O}$-lattice in $\tilde C$. As $C/{\tilde {\mathfrak m}}C$ is absolutely irreducible,
such an ${\mathcal O}$-lattice must be homothetic to $C$. We thus get a surjection
of ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} {\mathcal O}$ onto $C$. Composing with the map
$C \rightarrow \overline{C}$ yields a nonzero map ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \rightarrow \overline{C}$
with kernel ${\mathfrak m}$, and the result follows.
\end{proof}
Of course, neither lemma is of much use without knowing some essentially AIG points
of $\operatorname{Spec} E_{K,\tau}$. The following result provides such points:
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:cusp AIG}
Let ${\mathfrak p}$ be a point of $\operatorname{Spec} E_{K,\tau}$, and suppose that there
exists an irreducible cuspidal representation $\pi$ of $G$ over $\kappa({\mathfrak p})$
on which $E_{K,\tau}$ acts via the natural map $E_{K,\tau} \rightarrow \kappa({\mathfrak p})$.
Then ${\mathfrak p}$ is an essentially AIG point.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If ${\mathfrak p}$ has characteristic zero, then $\pi$ is supercuspidal and is therefore
the unique irreducible representation with supercuspidal support $(G,\pi)$, and hence the
only irreducible representation on which $E_{K,\tau}$ acts via $E_{K,\tau} \rightarrow \kappa({\mathfrak p})$.
It follows that ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p})$ is isomorphic
to $\pi$ in this case.
We may thus assume that ${\mathfrak p}$ has characteristic $\ell$. Then $\pi$ is a cuspidal
$k$-representation of $G$ with supercuspidal support $(L,\pi')$. It follows that $\pi$
contains the cuspidal type $(K,\tau)$. In particular we have a map
$$\operatorname{c-Ind}_K^G \tau \rightarrow \pi.$$
On the other hand, composing with the natural surjection of
${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}$ onto $\operatorname{c-Ind}_K^G \tau$ yields a nonzero map
of ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}$ onto $\pi$, and this map is annihilated by ${\mathfrak p}$.
Tensoring with
${\tilde \kappa}({\mathfrak p})$ gives a surjection of ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} {\tilde \kappa}({\mathfrak p})$
onto $\pi$, proving the claim.
\end{proof}
Combining the above observations, we may now prove:
\begin{proposition}
Every point ${\mathfrak m}$ of $\operatorname{Spec} E_{K,\tau}$ is an essentially AIG point.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We will prove this by constructing points
${\mathfrak p}$ and ${\mathfrak m'}$ of $\operatorname{Spec} E_{K,\tau}$, such that
\item ${\mathfrak m}$ and ${\mathfrak m'}$ are in the closure of ${\mathfrak p}$,
and the unique irreducible generic representation on which $E_{K,\tau}$ acts
via $E_{K,\tau} \rightarrow \kappa({\mathfrak m'})$ is cuspidal.
Then ${\mathfrak m'}$ is essentially AIG by Lemma~\ref{lemma:cusp AIG}, and
so ${\mathfrak p}$ is an essentially AIG point by Lemma~\ref{lemma:generize}.
Thus, if we can further arrange that the pair $({\mathfrak m},{\mathfrak p})$
satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma~\ref{lemma:specialize}, the claim will follow.
To do this we make use of the recent classification of modular representations of
$G$ due to M{\'{\i}}nguez-S{\'e}cherre~\cite{M-S}. Let $\overline{C}$ be the unique absolutely
irreducible generic epresentation on which $E_{K,\tau}$ acts via
$E_{K_{\tau}} \rightarrow \kappa({\mathfrak m})$.
By~\cite{M-S}, Th{\'e}or{\`e}me 9.10, the representation $\overline{C}$ is
the parabolic induction of the tensor product
$$L(\Delta_1) \otimes \dots \otimes L(\Delta_r),$$
where each $\Delta_i$ is a {\em segment} in the sense of~\cite{M-S},
D{\'e}finition 7.1, and $L(\Delta_i)$ is the representation attached to $\Delta_i$
by~\cite{M-S}, D{\'e}finition 7.5. Moreover, the segments $\Delta_i$ and $\Delta_j$
are not linked (\cite{M-S}, D{\'e}finition 7.3) for any $i,j$, and the multiset
$\{\Delta_1, \dots, \Delta_r\}$ is {\em aperiodic} in the sense of~\cite{M-S}, D{\'e}finition 9.7.
Let ${\tilde \kappa}$ be the field of fractions of $\kappa({\mathfrak m})[T_1, \dots, T_r]$, and
let $\chi_1, \dots, \chi_r$ be the unramified characters $F^{\times} \rightarrow {\tilde \kappa}^{\times}$
such that $\chi_i$ takes the value $T_i$ on a uniformizer ${\varpi}_F$ of $F$. For each $i$,
let $\Delta'_i$ be the twist $\Delta_i \otimes \chi_i$, and let $\tilde C$
be the parabolic induction of the tensor product
$$L(\Delta'_1) \otimes \dots \otimes L(\Delta'_r).$$
The segments $\Delta'_i$ and $\Delta'_j$ are not linked for any $i,j$, so $\tilde C$
is absolutely irreducible and generic. Let ${\mathcal O}$ be a valuation ring of ${\tilde \kappa}$
that dominates the maximal ideal $\<T_i - 1\>$ in $\kappa({\mathfrak m})[T_1, \dots, T_r]$. Then $\tilde C$
contains a stable ${\mathcal O}$-lattice $C$, and the reduction $C \otimes_{{\mathcal O}} \kappa({\mathfrak m})$
is isomorphic to $\overline{C}$. In particular $\tilde C$ lies in the same block as $\overline{C}$
and thus admits an action of $E_{K,\tau}$; let ${\mathfrak p}$ be the kernel of this action. It
is clear that $\kappa({\mathfrak p}) = {\tilde \kappa}$. Our construction shows that ${\mathfrak m}$
and ${\mathfrak p}$ satisfy the hypotheses of Lemma~\ref{lemma:specialize}, so that ${\mathfrak m}$
is an essentially AIG point if ${\mathfrak p}$ is.
It remains to construct an essentially AIG point ${\mathfrak m}'$ in the closure of ${\mathfrak p}$.
We first recall that, in the notation of~\cite{M-S}, section 6.2,
any cuspidal representation of $\operatorname{GL}_n(F)$ has the form
$\operatorname{St}(\pi_0,m)$ for some integer $m$ and supercuspidal representation $\pi_0$ of $\operatorname{GL}_{\frac{n}{m}}(F)$.
Since there is a cuspidal representation in $\operatorname{Rep}_k(G)_{[L,\pi]}$, we must have $\pi$
intertially equivalent to $\pi_0^{\otimes m}$ for a suitable $\pi_0$ and $m$. On the other hand, because
$\overline{C}$ lies in $\operatorname{Rep}_k(G)_{[L,\pi]}$, the segments $\Delta_i$ must have the form
$[a_i,b_i]_{\pi_i}$ for all $i$, where $\pi_i$ is a cuspidal representation. Then $\pi_i$ has
the form $\operatorname{St}(\pi_0,m_i) \otimes \chi'_i$ for some integer $m_i$ and some unramified character $\chi'_i$.
The supercuspidal support of $\operatorname{St}(\pi_0,m_i)$, considered
as a multiset of supercuspidal representations, is given by
$$\pi_0, \pi_0 \otimes \nu, \dots, \pi_0 \otimes \nu^{m_i - 1},$$
where $\nu$ is the unramified character attached to $\pi_0$ by~\cite{M-S}, section 5.2.
It follows that the supercuspidal support of $L(\Delta_i)$ is given by
the union of the multisets
$$\pi_0 \otimes \chi'_i \otimes \nu^j, \pi_0 \otimes \chi'_i \otimes \nu^{j+1}, \dots, \pi_0 \otimes \chi'_i \otimes \nu^{j+ m_i - 1}$$
as $j$ ranges from $a_i$ to $b_i$. Thus, if we choose suitable unramified characters
$\chi''_i: F^{\times} \rightarrow \kappa({\mathfrak m})^{\times}$,
and set $\Delta''_i = \Delta_i \otimes \chi''_i$
we can arrange that the parabolic induction of the tensor product
$$L(\Delta''_1) \otimes \dots \otimes L(\Delta''_r)$$
has the same supercuspidal support as the cuspidal representation $\operatorname{St}(\pi_0,m)$.
Observe that the natural map $E_{K,\tau} \rightarrow \kappa({\mathfrak p})$ factors
through the inclusion:
$$\kappa({\mathfrak m})[T_1^{\pm 1}, \dots, T_r^{\pm 1}] \rightarrow \kappa{(\mathfrak p)}.$$
Let $c_i = \chi''_i({\varpi}_F)$, and let ${\mathfrak m}'$ be the preimage of the maximal ideal
$\<T_i - c_i\>$ of $\kappa({\mathfrak m})[T_1^{\pm 1}, \dots, T_r^{\pm 1})$ in $E_{K,\tau}$.
Then ${\mathfrak m}'$ is the kernel of the map giving the action of $E_{K,\tau}$ on $\operatorname{St}_{\pi_0,m}$.
In particular ${\mathfrak m}'$ is an essentially AIG point in the closure of ${\mathfrak p}$,
and the result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The space ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}^{(n)}$ is locally free of rank one over $E_{K,\tau}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Admissibility of ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}$ as an $E_{K,\tau}[G]$-module (and hence as an $A_{[L,\pi]}[G]$-module)
implies by \cite{emerton-helm}, 3.1.14, that ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}^{(n)}$ is finitely
generated over $E_{K,\tau}$.
On the other hand, for any prime ${\mathfrak p}$ of $E_{K,\tau}$ we have
$${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}^{(n)} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p}) \cong
({\mathcal P}_{K,\tau} \otimes_{E_{K,\tau}} \kappa({\mathfrak p}))^{(n)}.$$
As ${\mathfrak p}$ is an essentially AIG point the right-hand side is a one-dimensional
$\kappa({\mathfrak p})$ vector space; the result follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Admissibility of $W_{L,\pi}$} \label{sec:admissible}
Now let $L$ be an arbitrary Levi subgroup of $\operatorname{GL}_n$, and let $\pi$
be a supercuspidal representation of $L$. Our goal is to use the results of
the previous section to show that the module $W_{L,\pi}$ is admissible over $A_{L,\pi}$.
We must first relate $A_{L,\pi}$ to the spaces ${\mathcal P}_{K,\tau}$ studied above;
we do so by invoking results of~\cite{bernstein1} which we now recall:
Section 11 of~\cite{bernstein1}
attaches to the pair $(L,\pi)$ a Levi subgroup $M^{\max}$ of $G$, containing $L$
and an irreducible cuspidal $k$-representation $\pi^{\max}$ of $M^{\max}$, that is maximal
(with respect to a certain partial order defined in~\cite{bernstein1}) among
pairs $(M,\pi')$ of a Levi $M$ of $G$ and a cuspidal representation $\pi'$ of $M$ over $k$
such that $(M,\pi')$ has inertial supercuspidal support $(L,\pi)$.) The Levi $M^{\max}$
is isomorphic to a product
$$\operatorname{GL}_{n_1}(F) \times \dots \times \operatorname{GL}_{n_r}(F),$$
and the representation $\pi^{\max}$ is a tensor product of irreducible cuspidal representations
$\pi_i$ of $\operatorname{GL}_{n_i}(F)$ over $k$.
Each $\pi_i$ contains a maximal distinguished $k$-type $(K_i,\tau_i)$. We can thus form
the representation $\otimes_i {\mathcal P}_{K_i,\tau_i}$ of $M^{\max}$. Parabolically inducing
from $M^{\max}$ to $G$ then yields a projective module
$${\mathcal P}_{M^{\max},\pi^{\max}} := i_P^G \otimes_i {\mathcal P}_{K_i,\tau_i}$$
for a suitable parabolic $P$ of $G$ with Levi $M^{\max}$.
Let $E_i$ be the endomorphism ring $E_{K_i,\tau_i}$. Then the tensor product
$\otimes_i E_i$ acts on $\otimes_i {\mathcal P}_{K_i,\tau_i}$ and thus, by functoriality of parabolic
induction, on ${\mathcal P}_{M^{\max},\pi^{\max}}$. Moreover, we have:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:saturation}
The action of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ on $P_{M^{\max},\pi^{\max}}$ factors uniquely through the map
$$\otimes_i E_i \rightarrow \operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}({\mathcal P}_{M^{\max},\pi^{\max}}),$$
and the resulting map $A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow \otimes_i E_i$ is an injection.
Moreover, if $x$ is an element of $\otimes_i E_i$ such that $\ell^r x$ is in the image
of $A_{[L,\pi]}$, then $x$ is also in the image of $A_{[L,\pi]}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This is immediate from~\cite{bernstein1}, Corollary 11.11 and Proposition 11.5.
\end{proof}
We are now in a position to show:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:whittaker endomorphisms}
The natural map $A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow \operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}(W_{[L,\pi]})$ is an isomorphism.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We already know that this map becomes an isomorphism after tensoring with $\overline{{\mathcal K}}$,
and hence after inverting $\ell$. In particular (as $A_{[L,\pi]}$ and $W_{[L,\pi]}$ have no
$\ell$-torsion), the map in question is injective. It thus suffices to show surjectivity.
We have an isomorphism:
$${\mathcal P}_{M^{\max},\pi^{\max}}^{(n)} \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{W(k)[G]}(W_{[L,\pi]}, {\mathcal P}_{M^{\max},\pi^{\max}}),$$
and therefore an action of $\operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}(W_{[L,\pi]})$ on ${\mathcal P}_{M^{\max},\pi^{\max}}^{(n)}$.
On the other hand, the multiplicativity of the top derivative with respect to parabolic induction
yields an isomorphism of ${\mathcal P}_{M^{\max},\pi^{\max}}^{(n)}$ with the tensor product
of the invertible $E_i$-modules ${\mathcal P}_{K_i,\tau_i}^{(n_i)}$. The action of
$\operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}(W_{[L,\pi]})$ on ${\mathcal P}_{M^{\max},\pi^{\max}}^{(n)}$ thus yields a map
$$\operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}(W_{[L,\pi]}) \rightarrow \otimes_i E_i$$
that extends the inclusion of $A_{L,\pi}$ into $\otimes_i E_i$. Such an extension is
necessarily injective, as $\otimes_i E_i$ is $\ell$-torsion free.
We thus have inclusions:
$$A_{[L,\pi]} \subseteq \operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}(W_{[L,\pi]}) \subseteq \otimes_i E_i.$$
Now let $x$ be an element of $\operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}(W_{[L,\pi]})$. Then for some positive integer $a$,
$\ell^a x$ lies in $A_{[L,\pi]}$. But then by Proposition~\ref{prop:saturation},
$x$ must have been an element of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ to start with. The result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:whittaker admissibility}
The module $W_{[L,\pi]}$ is admissible as an $A_{[L,\pi]}[G]$-module.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Theorem~\ref{thm:whittaker endomorphisms}, together with Lemma~\ref{lemma:freeness},
show that $W_{[L,\pi]}^{(n)}$ is free of rank one over $A_{[L,\pi]}$. Let $x$ be
an element of $W_{[L,\pi]}^{(n)}$ that generates $W_{[L,\pi]}^{(n)}$ as an $A_{[L,\pi]}$-module,
and let ${\tilde x}$ be an element of $W_{[L,\pi]}$ that maps to $x$ via the natural surjection:
$$W_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow W_{[L,\pi]}^{(n)}.$$
Let $W'$ be the $W(k)[G]$-submodule of $W_{[L,\pi]}$ generated by ${\tilde x}$. The inclusion
of $W'$ in $W_{[L,\pi]}$ gives an inclusion of $(W')^{(n)}$ in $W_{[L,\pi]}^{(n)}$
whose image contains $x$; it follows that $(W')^{(n)}$ is equal to $W_{[L,\pi]}^{(n)}$.
Thus $(W_{[L,\pi]}/W')^{(n)} = 0$. But the latter is naturally isomorphic to
$\operatorname{Hom}_{W(k)[G]}(W_{[L,\pi]},W_{[L,\pi]}/W')$, so we must have $W' = W_{[L,\pi]}$.
In particular $W_{[L,\pi]}$ is finitely generated over $W(k)[G]$ and is thus
(by~\cite{bernstein1}, Corollary 12.4)
admissible over $A_{[L,\pi]}$.
\end{proof}
We now have the following ``structure theory'' for essentially AIG $k[G]$-modules (or, more
precisely, their duals):
\begin{proposition}
Let $\kappa$ be a $W(k)$-algebra that is a field, and let
$f: A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow \kappa$ be a map of $W(k)$-algebras.
Then $[W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]},f} \kappa]^{\vee}$ is essentially AIG,
where the superscript $\vee$ denotes $\kappa$-dual.
Conversely, let $V$ be an object of
$\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$ that is the smooth $\kappa$-dual of an
essentially AIG $\kappa[G]$-module. Then $V$ is
a quotient of $W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]},f} \kappa$ for some
$f: A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow \kappa$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:whittaker endomorphisms}, together with the fact that
$W_{[L,\pi]}^{(n)}$ is free of rank one over $\operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}(W_{[L,\pi]})$,
we find that $[W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]},f} \kappa]^{(n)}$ is a one-dimensional
$\kappa$-vector space. Moreover, if $\pi$ is any nonzero quotient of
$W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]},f} \kappa$, then $\operatorname{Hom}_{W(k)[G]}(W,\pi)$ is nonzero,
so that $\pi^{(n)}$ is nonzero. Thus, by~\cite{emerton-helm}, Lemma 6.3.5, the $\kappa$-dual of
$W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]},f} \kappa$
is essentially AIG.
Now let $V$ be a $\kappa[G]$ module in $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$, such that $V$ is the smooth dual of an
essentially AIG module. Then $V$ has an absolutely irreducible generic cosocle $V_0$, and
$A_{[L,\pi]}$ acts on $V_0$ by a map $f: A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow \kappa$.
As the only endomorphisms of $V$ are scalars, $A_{[L,\pi]}$ acts on $V$ via $f$, as well.
As $V_0$ is irreducible and generic, and is an object of $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$,
we have a nonzero map of $W_{[L,\pi]}$ onto $V_0$; projectivity of $W_{[L,\pi]}$
lifts this to a map $W_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow V$. Let ${\mathfrak p}$ be the kernel of $f$;
then ${\mathfrak p}$ acts by zero on
$V$, so the map $W_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow V$ descends to a nonzero map:
$$W_{[L,\pi]}/{\mathfrak p} W_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow V;$$
as $V$ is a $\kappa$-vector space, and $A/{\mathfrak p}$ is contained in $\kappa$, this extends to
a map:
$$W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_A \kappa \rightarrow V$$
whose composition with the map $V \rightarrow V_0$ is nonzero.
This map is necessarily surjective
(if not, its image would be contained in the kernel of the map $V \rightarrow V_0$,
as $V_0$ is the cosocle of $V$).
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Every essentially AIG $\kappa[G]$-module has finite length.
\end{corollary}
This verifies a conjecture of~\cite{emerton-helm} (see the remarks after Lemma 3.2.8).
\section{co-Whittaker modules} \label{sec:whittaker}
We now describe a sense in which $W_{[L,\pi]}$ can be thought of as a ``universal object''
over $A_{[L,\pi]}$. This will turn out to be crucial to our reinterpretation of the
results of~\cite{emerton-helm}.
Let $A$ be a Noetherian $W(k)$-algebra; then any smooth $A[G]$-module carries an action of
the center of $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)$, and hence admits a Bernstein decomposition. Thus
$\operatorname{Rep}_A(G)$ decomposes as a product of Bernstein components $\operatorname{Rep}_A(G)_{[L,\pi]}$.
\begin{definition} An object $V$ of $\operatorname{Rep}_A(G)_{[L,\pi]}$ is a {\em co-Whittaker
A[G]-module} if the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $V$ is admissible as an $A[G]$-module.
\item $V^{(n)}$ is free of rank one over $A$.
\item If ${\mathfrak p}$ is a prime ideal of $A$, with residue field
$\kappa({\mathfrak p})$, then the $\kappa({\mathfrak p})$-dual
of $V \otimes_A \kappa({\mathfrak p})$ is essentially AIG.
\end{enumerate}
If $V$ and $V'$ are co-Whittaker $A[G]$-modules, we say that $V$ dominates $V'$
if there exists a surjection from $V$ to $V'$.
\end{definition}
One motivation for this definition is that the families of admissible representations
that correspond to Galois representations in the sense of section 6.2 of~\cite{emerton-helm} are
co-Whittaker modules. We will discuss this further in the section~\ref{sec:langlands}.
\begin{proposition}
Let $V$ be a co-Whittaker $A[G]$-module. Then the natural map
$$A \rightarrow \operatorname{End}_{A[G]}(V)$$
is an isomorphism.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By localizing at each prime ideal of $A$, it suffices to consider the case in which $A$ is a local
ring. Lemma 6.3.2 of~\cite{emerton-helm} then shows that $V$ is generated by a certain
submodule ${\mathfrak J}(V)$ that is stable under any endomorphism of $V$. The proof then
proceeds exactly as in the proof of part (3) of Proposition 6.3.4 of~\cite{emerton-helm}.
\end{proof}
If $V$ is a co-Whittaker $A[G]$-module of $\operatorname{Rep}_A(G)_{[L,\pi]}$, then it admits
an action of $A_{[L,\pi]}$, which must arise from a unique map $f_V: A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow A$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:universal}
Let $A$ be a Noetherian $A_{[L,\pi]}$-algebra.
Then $W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]}} A$ is a co-Whittaker
$A[G]$-module. Conversely, if $V$ is a co-Whittaker $A[G]$-module in $\operatorname{Rep}_A(G)_{[L,\pi]}$, then
$A$ is an $A_{[L,\pi]}$-algebra via $f_V: A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow A$, and
$W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]}} A$ dominates $V$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The module $W_{[L,\pi]}$ is admissible over $A_{[L,\pi]}[G]$, so
$W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]}} A$ is admissible over $A$.
As $W_{[L,\pi]}^{(n)}$ is free of rank one over $A_{[L,\pi]}$, and the derivative operator
commutes with base change, $[W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]}} A]^{(n)}$ is free of
rank one over $A$. Finally, as $W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]}} \kappa({\mathfrak p})$
is dual to an essentially AIG representation
for any prime ideal ${\mathfrak p}$ of $A_{[L,\pi]}$,
it follows that $W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]}} A$ is a co-Whittaker $A[G]$-module.
For the converse, choose a generator of $V^{(n)}$ as an $A$-module; such a generator
corresponds to a map $W_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow V$. This map induces a map
$W \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]}} A \rightarrow V$ of $A[G]$-modules which we must prove is surjective.
Let $V'$ be the cokernel. We have an exact sequence:
$$0 \rightarrow (W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]}} A)^{(n)} \rightarrow V^{(n)} \rightarrow (V')^{(n)}
\rightarrow 0$$
and the first horizontal map is surjective by construction. Thus $(V')^{(n)} = 0$.
Assume $V'$ is nonzero; then
since $V'$ is admissible over $A[G]$ it has a quotient that is simple as an $A[G]$-module;
this is a non-generic quotient of $V \otimes_A \kappa({\mathfrak m)}$ for some maximal ideal
${\mathfrak m}$ of $A$. But $V \otimes_A \kappa({\mathfrak m})$ has an absolutely irreducible
generic cosocle so this cannot happen.
\end{proof}
We conclude with a technical lemma which will be useful in section~\ref{sec:langlands}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:interpolation}
Let $A$ be a reduced Noetherian $A_{[L,\pi]}$-algebra, and suppose that for each
minimal prime ${\mathfrak a}$ of $A$, we specify a quotient $V_{\mathfrak a}$
of $W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]}} \kappa({\mathfrak a})$. Then there exists
a co-Whittaker $A[G]$-module $V$, unique up to isomorphism, such that
$V$ is $A$-torsion free, and
$V \otimes_A \kappa({\mathfrak a})$ is isomorphic to $V_{\mathfrak a}$
for all ${\mathfrak a}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $V$ be the image of the diagonal map:
$$W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]}} A \rightarrow \prod_{\mathfrak a} V_{\mathfrak a}.$$
The $A[G]$-module $V$ is clearly $A$-torsion free by construction,
and $V \otimes_A \kappa({\mathfrak a})$ is clearly isomorphic to $V_{\mathfrak a}$.
It thus suffices to show that $V$ is a co-Whittaker module. But $V$ is a quotient of
the co-Whittaker module $W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{L,\pi}} A$, so it suffices to
show that $V^{(n)}$ is free of rank one over $A$. Certainly $V^{(n)}$ is cyclic,
so it suffices to show that $V^{(n)} \otimes_A \kappa({\mathfrak a})$ is nonzero
for all minimal primes $\kappa({\mathfrak a})$. This is clear because
$V \otimes_A \kappa({\mathfrak a})$ is isomorphic to the essentially AIG
representation $V_{\mathfrak a}$.
As for the uniqueness claim, any such $V$ is dominated by
$W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]}} A$, and embeds in
$\prod_{\mathfrak a} V_{\mathfrak a}$. Up to an automorphism of
$\prod_{\mathfrak a} V_{\mathfrak a}$, the composition of
$W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]}} A \rightarrow V$ with
the embedding of $V$ in $\prod_{\mathfrak a} V_{\mathfrak a}$
is equal to the diagonal map, and thus identifies $V$ with the image of
this diagonal map.
\end{proof}
\section{The local Langlands correspondence in families} \label{sec:langlands}
We now apply our results to the local Langlands correspondence in families
of~\cite{emerton-helm}, which we now recall:
\begin{theorem}[\cite{emerton-helm}, Theorem 6.2.1] \label{thm:E-H}
Let $A$ be a reduced complete Noetherian local $\ell$-torsion free
$W(k)$-algebra, with residue field $k$,
and let $\rho: G_F \rightarrow \operatorname{GL}_n(A)$ be a Galois representation.
Then there is, up to isomorphism, at most one admissible $A[G]$-module
$\pi(\rho)$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\pi(\rho)$ is $A$-torsion free,
\item $\pi(\rho)$ is a co-Whittaker $A[G]$-module, and
\item for each minimal prime ${\mathfrak a}$ of $A$, the representation
$\pi(\rho)_{{\mathfrak a}}$ is $\kappa({\mathfrak a})$-dual to the representation
that corresponds to $\rho^{\vee}_{\mathfrak a}$ via the Breuil-Schneider
generic local Langlands correspondence. (For a discussion of this
correspondence, see~\cite{emerton-helm}, section 4.2.)
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
It is conjectured (\cite{emerton-helm}, Conjecture 1.1.3) that such a $\pi(\rho)$ exists
for any $\rho$. The goal of this section is to reformulate this conjecture as a
relationship between the Bernstein center $A_{[L,\pi]}$ and the deformation theory of
Galois representations.
To motivate our reformulation, it will be useful to invoke the following result,
which will be proved in the forthcoming work~\cite{bernstein2}. Note that
we only use this result for motivation, and that our main result (Theorem~\ref{thm:main})
does not depend on it.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:conditional}
Fix a representation ${\overline{\rho}}: G_F \rightarrow \operatorname{GL}_n(k)$,
and let $(R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box},\rho^{\Box})$ be the universal framed deformation of ${\overline{\rho}}$.
The ring $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}$ is reduced and $\ell$-torsion free.
\end{proposition}
Granting this, the representation $\rho^{\Box}$ fits into the framework of Theorem~\ref{thm:E-H}.
Let us suppose that the family $\pi(\rho^{\Box})$ exists. (If this is true, then
the argument of~\cite{emerton-helm}, Proposition 6.2.10, allows us to construct the family $\pi(\rho)$
for {\em any} deformation $\rho$ of ${\overline{\rho}}$, essentially via ``base change''.)
Let ${\overline{\pi}}$ be an irreducible representation of $G$ over $k$ whose supercuspidal
support corresponds to ${\overline{\rho}}$ under the mod $\ell$ semisimple local Langlands
correspondence of Vign{\'e}ras~\cite{vigss}, and
choose a pair $(L,\pi)$ such that ${\overline{\pi}}$ lies in the block
$\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$. Then every subquotient of $\pi(\rho^{\Box}) \otimes_{R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}} k$
has the same supercuspidal support as ${\overline{\pi}}$.
By~\cite{emerton-helm}, Theorem 6.2.1, the endomorphism ring $\operatorname{End}_{W(k)[G]}(\pi(\rho^{\Box}))$
is isomorphic to $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}$. As this ring is local (and thus has no nontrivial idempotents)
the action of the Bernstein center of $\pi(\rho^{\Box})$ must factor through $A_{[L,\pi]}$.
We thus obtain a map:
$$A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}.$$
Note that (as $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}$ is complete and local by definition), this map factors
through the completion $(A_{[L,\pi]})_{\mathfrak m}$, where ${\mathfrak m}$ is the
kernel of the action of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ on ${\overline{\pi}}$; this yields
a map:
$$\operatorname{LL}: (A_{[L,\pi]})_{\mathfrak m} \rightarrow R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}.$$
We can easily describe the effect of this map on the characteristic zero points of
$\operatorname{Spec} R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}$. Let $\kappa$ be a complete field of characteristic zero that
contains $W(k)$. A representation $\rho: G_F \rightarrow \kappa$,
determines, via (Tate normalized) local Langlands,
an irreducible representation $\Pi$ in $\operatorname{Rep}_{\kappa}(G)$. If $\Pi$ lies in
$\operatorname{Rep}_{\kappa}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$, we let $f_{\rho}$ denote the map $A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow \kappa$
giving the action of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ on $\Pi$. Note that this map depends only on the supercuspidal
support of $\Pi$, so that $f_{\rho}$ depends only on the semisimplification
of $\rho$.
Now let $\rho$ be a deformation of ${\overline{\rho}}$ over $\kappa$. A suitable choice of basis for $\rho$
determines a map $x: R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box} \rightarrow \kappa$, such that
$\rho^{\Box}_x = \rho$. It follows from~\cite{emerton-helm}, Theorem 6.2.6 that
every subquotient of $\pi(\rho^{\Box})_x$ then has supercuspidal support corresponding to $\rho$
under (Tate normalized) local Langlands. On the other hand, $A_{[L,\pi]}$ acts on
$\pi(\rho^{\Box})_x$ via the composition
$$A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow (A_{[L,\pi]})_{\mathfrak m} \stackrel{\operatorname{LL}}{\rightarrow} R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}
\stackrel{x}{\rightarrow} \kappa.$$
It follows that this composition is equal to $f_{\rho}$. Summarizing, we have:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:interpolate}
Suppose that $\pi(\rho^{\Box})$ exists, and let $\kappa$ be a complete field of characteristic
zero containing $W(k)$. Then the map:
$$\operatorname{LL}: (\operatorname{Spec} R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box})(\kappa) \rightarrow (\operatorname{Spec} (A_{[L,\pi]})_{\mathfrak m})(\kappa)$$
takes the point $x$ in $(\operatorname{Spec} R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box})(\kappa)$ that corresponds to a framed deformation $\rho$
to the $\kappa$-point $f_{\rho}$ of $\operatorname{Spec} (A_{[L,\pi]})_{\mathfrak m}$.
\end{proposition}
In less formal language, we will say that a map
$(A_{[L,\pi]})_{\mathfrak m} \rightarrow R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}$
``interpolates the characteristic zero semisimple local Langlands
correspondence'' over $\operatorname{Spec} R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}$ if it satisfies the conclusion of Proposition~\ref{prop:interpolate}.
The following then follow easily from Proposition~\ref{prop:conditional},
together with the fact that $A_{[L,\pi]}$ is reduced and $\ell$-torsion free:
\begin{itemize}
\item There is at most one map:
$(A_{[L,\pi]})_{\mathfrak m} \rightarrow R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}$ that interpolates the characteristic zero
semisimple local Langlands correspondence; i.e. $\operatorname{LL}$ is determined by Proposition~\ref{prop:interpolate}
if it exists.
\item If ${\overline{\rho}}$ is semisimple, then the map $\operatorname{LL}$ is injective.
\item The image of $\operatorname{LL}$ in $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}$ is contained in the set of functions that are
``invariant under change of frame''. More precisely, if $G^{\Box}$ is the formal completion of $\operatorname{GL}_n/W(k)$
at the $k$-point corresponding to the identity identity, then $G^{\Box}$ acts on $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}$
by changing the frame, and the image of $\operatorname{LL}$ is contained in the invariants
$(R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box})^{G^{\Box}}$ of this action.
\end{itemize}
This motivates the following conjecture, which (if we grant Proposition~\ref{prop:conditional})
is a consequence of the existence of $\pi(\rho^{\Box})$.
\begin{conj} \label{conj:weak}
For any ${\overline{\rho}}$, there is a map:
$$\operatorname{LL}: (A_{[L,\pi]})_{\mathfrak m} \rightarrow R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}$$
that interpolates the characteristic zero semisimple local Langlands correspondence.
\end{conj}
It is also tempting, given the naturality of the rings $A_{[L,\pi]}$ and $(R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box})^{G^{\Box}}$,
to formulate a stronger version of this conjecture when ${\overline{\rho}}$ is semisimple:
\begin{conj} \label{conj:strong}
If ${\overline{\rho}}$ is semisimple, there is a unique isomorphism:
$$\operatorname{LL}: (A_{[L,\pi]})_{\mathfrak m} \rightarrow (R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box})^{G^{\Box}}$$
that interpolates the characteristic zero semisimple local Langlands correspondence.
\end{conj}
\begin{remark} \label{rem:interpolation}
Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong} can be thought of as a geometric interpolation
of the semisimple local Langlands correspondence in characteristic zero. Indeed,
the points of $(A_{[L,\pi]})_{\mathfrak m}$ correspond to supercuspidal
supports of representations in $A_{[L,\pi]}$. On the other hand, let
$\kappa$ be a complete field of characteristic zero containing $W(k)$, and let
$x$ and $y$ be two $\kappa$-points of $\operatorname{Spec} R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}$. It follows from the theory
of pseudocharacters that $f(x) = f(y)$ for all $G^{\Box}$-invariant
elements $f$ of $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}$
if, and only if the Galois representations $\rho_x$ and $\rho_y$
have the same semisimplification. One can thus regard the $\kappa$-points of
$\operatorname{Spec} (R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box})^{G^{\Box}}$ as parameterizing ``lifts of ${\overline{\rho}}$
to $\kappa$ up to semisimplification''; from this point of view the conjectured
bijection:
$$(\operatorname{Spec} (R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box})^{G^{\Box}})(\kappa) \rightarrow (\operatorname{Spec} (A_{[L,\pi]})_{\mathfrak m})(\kappa)$$
is simply the map that takes a Galois representation (up to semisimplification) to
the corresponding supercuspidal support.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong} can also be thought of as an integrality result
for certain Bernstein center elements defined by Galois-theoretic considerations.
For instance, Chenevier has shown that for any $\tau \in W_F$, there is a unique element
$f_{\tau}$ of the center of $\operatorname{Rep}_{\overline{{\mathcal K}}}(G)$ whose action on irreducible admissible
representations $\Pi$ of $G$ over $\overline{{\mathcal K}}$ is given in the following way:
let $\rho$ be the Frobenius-semisimple representation of $W_F$ over $\overline{{\mathcal K}}$ corresponding to $\Pi$;
then $f_{\tau}$ acts on $\Pi$ by the trace of $\rho(\tau)$. (We refer the reader to~\cite{chenevier}, Proposition 3.11
for details.)
Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong} would imply that Bernstein center elements defined in this way
actually live in the completion of the center of $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)$ at {\em every} maximal
ideal ${\mathfrak m}$, and thus lie in the center of $\operatorname{Rep}_{W(k)}(G)$.
\end{remark}
The existence of $\pi(\rho^{\Box})$, together with Proposition~\ref{prop:conditional},
would imply Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} for ${\overline{\rho}}$.
Our main result is that the converse also holds; that is, that
Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} {\em implies}
to the existence of $\pi(\rho)$ for all deformations $\rho$ of ${\overline{\rho}}$ over
suitable coefficient rings.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:main}
Fix an $A$ and a $\rho$ as in Theorem~\ref{thm:E-H},
and let ${\overline{\rho}} = \rho \otimes_A k$. Suppose that Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak}
holds for ${\overline{\rho}}$.
Then $\pi(\rho)$ exists.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
A choice of basis for $\rho$ yields a map $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box} \rightarrow A$.
Composition with the map $\operatorname{LL}$ makes $A$ into an $A_{[L,\pi]}$-algebra.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:interpolation}, to construct $\pi(\rho)$,
it suffices to show that for all ${\mathfrak a}$,
the representation $\pi_{\eta}$ that
is $\kappa({\mathfrak a})$-dual to the representation attached to
$\rho^{\vee}_{\mathfrak a}$ by the Breuil-Schneider correspondence is a quotient
of $W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]}} \kappa({\mathfrak \eta})$. It suffices
to show that $\pi_{\eta}$ is dual to an essentially AIG representation, and that
its supercuspidal support corresponds to that of $W_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{A_{[L,\pi]}}
\kappa({\mathfrak \eta}).$ The representation $\pi_{\eta}$ is dual
to an essentially AIG representation because any representation
arising from the Breuil-Schneider correspondence is essentially AIG;
see~\cite{emerton-helm}, Corollary 4.3.3. It has the correct supercuspidal support
because the map $\operatorname{LL}$ interpolates the semisimple local Langlands correspondence.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} In~\cite{bernstein2}, we will show that both Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak}
and Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong} hold after inverting $\ell$, and also hold if $\ell$
is a {\em banal} prime; that is, if $1, q, \dots, q^n$ are distinct modulo $\ell$. We
will also establish Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} when $n=2$ and $\ell$ is odd. (This last
result relies on forthcoming work of Paige~\cite{paige} on the structure of projective
envelopes of representations of $\operatorname{GL}_n({\mathbb F}_q)$.)
In particular the results of~\cite{bernstein2}, together with Theorem~\ref{thm:main},
will establish the existence of $\pi(\rho)$ for any two-dimensional representation
$\rho$ of $G_F$ over a complete local ring $A$ of odd residue characteristic that
satisfies the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:E-H}.
\end{remark}
\begin{example} \label{ex:banal}
To illustrate the power of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, we sketch a proof
of Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong} (and hence of the existence of a local Langlands correspondence
in families), in the case when $\ell$ is banal. (The details of this argument will appear
in~\cite{bernstein2}.)
The basic ideas are as follows:
When $\ell$ is banal, the pair $(M^{\max},\pi^{\max})$ described in section~\ref{sec:admissible}
is equal to $(L,\pi)$. It follows that in this case the algebra $A_{[L,\pi]}$ is equal
to the subalgebra $C_{[L,\pi]}$ of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ described explicitly in section 11 of~\cite{bernstein1}.
Explicitly, if we fix supercuspidal representations $\pi_1, \dots, \pi_s$ that are in distinct inertial
equivalence classes, such that $\pi$ is inertially equivalent to the tensor product
$$\pi_1^{r_1} \otimes \dots \otimes \pi_s^{r_s},$$
and for each $i$ we fix a lift ${\tilde \pi}_i$ of $\pi_i$ to a representation over ${\mathcal K}$,
then $A_{[L,\pi]}$ is freely generated by elements $\Theta_{i,j}$, where $i$ ranges from
one to $s$ and $j$ ranges from one to $r_i$, together with the inverses of $\Theta_{i,r_i}$ for each $i$.
An irreducible $\Pi$ in $\operatorname{Rep}_{\overline{{\mathcal K}}}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$ in this case has supercuspidal support
inertially equivalent to the tensor product
$${\tilde \pi}_1^{r_1} \otimes \dots \otimes {\tilde \pi}_s^{r_s},$$
or more precisely of the form
$$\{{\tilde \pi}_i \otimes \chi_{ij} : 1 \leq i \leq s; 1 \leq j \leq r_i\}$$
for unramified characteris $\chi_{ij}$. If we set $\chi_{ij}({\varpi}_F) = \alpha_{ij}$,
then an element $\Theta_{i,k}$ acts on $\Pi$ via the $k$-th elementary symmetric function on the scalars
$\alpha_{i,j}$ for $i$ fixed and $1 \leq j \leq r_i$.
On the Galois side, we have for each $i$ a ${\tilde \rho}_i: G_F \rightarrow \operatorname{GL}_{n_i}(W(k))$ corresponding to
${\tilde \pi}_i$ via local Langlands. An adaptation of an argument due to Clozel-Harris-Taylor shows that any
deformation of the semisimple ${\overline{\rho}}$ corresponding to $\pi$ has the form:
$$\bigoplus_i V_i \otimes {\tilde \rho}_i,$$
where $V_i$ is an $r_i$-dimensional representation of $G_F$ such that the action of the inertia group $I_F$ on $V_i$ factors
through its pro-$\ell$ quotient. The fact that $\ell$ is banal then implies that the action of $I_F$
on $V_i$ is unipotent; more precisely the action of $G_F$ on $V_i$ can be given by a pair of
$r_i$ by $r_i$ matrices $F_i, \sigma_i$ with $F_i \sigma_i F_i^{-1} = \sigma_i^q$, and $\sigma_i$ unipotent.
From this one easily
deduces that $(R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box})^{G^{\Box}}$ is freely topologically generated by the coefficients
of the characteristic polynomial of $F_i$ for each $i$, together with the inverses of the $\det F_i$.
Moreover, it is easy to see that the map that takes $\Theta_{i,k}$ to $(-1)^k$ times the coefficient of $X^{r_i - k}$
in the characteristic polynomial of $F_i$ interpolates the characteristic zero local Langlands correspondence,
and thus provides the desired isomorphism:
$$(A_{[L,\pi]})_{\mathfrak m} \rightarrow (R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box})^{G^{\Box}}.$$
In constrast to this elementary computation, providing a direct construction of $\pi(\rho^{\Box})$
by elementary methods seems to be very hard. In particular it is easy to construct $\pi(\rho^{\Box})$
over each irreducible component of $\operatorname{Spec} R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\Box}$, but ``gluing'' these branches of the family together
in the unique way that satisfies condition (2) of Theorem~\ref{thm:E-H} requires verifying the existence of
suitable compatibilities between these branches over the intersections of the irreducible components. In general
these intersections can be quite singular, and the compatibilities become increasingly difficult to verify as the
number of components grows, rendering this approach essentially hopeless for large $n$.
\end{example}
|
\section{Introduction}
In the framework of multiple testing problems (microarray analysis,
neuro-imaging, etc), a mixture model with two populations is considered
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-model}
\forall x \in \mathbb{R}^d, \quad
g(x) = \theta \phi(x)+(1-\theta)f(x),
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the unknown proportion of true null hypotheses,
$\phi$ and $f$ are the densities of the observations generated
under the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively. More
precisely, assume the test statistics are independent and identically
distributed (iid) with a continuous distribution under the
corresponding null hypotheses and we observe
the $p$-values $X_1, X_2,\ldots, X_n$ associated with $n$ independent
tested hypotheses, then the density function $\phi$ is the uniform
distribution on $[0,1]$ while the density function $f$ is assumed unknown. The parameters of the model are $(\theta,f)$, where
$\theta$ is a Euclidean parameter while $f$ is an
infinite-dimensional one and the model becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-model-pvalue}
\forall x \in [0,1], \quad
g(x) = \theta+(1-\theta)f(x) .
\end{equation}
In the following, we focus on model~\eqref{eq-model-pvalue} that is slightly simpler than~\eqref{eq-model}. A central
problem in the multiple testing setup is the control of type I
(\emph{i.e.} false positive) and type II (\emph{i.e.} false negative) errors. The
most popular criterion regarding type I errors is the false discovery
rate (\mbox{FDR}), proposed by \cite{Benjamini1995}. To set up
the notation, let $H_i$ be the $i$-th (null) hypothesis. The outcome
of testing $n$ hypotheses simultaneously can be summarized as indicated in Table~\ref{tab:outcomes}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Possible outcomes from testing $n$ hypotheses $H_1,\dots,H_n$.}
\label{tab:outcomes}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\hline
& Accepts $H_i$ & Rejects $H_i$ & Total \\
\hline
$H_i$ is true & TN & FP & $n_0$ \\
$H_i$ is false & FN & TP & $n_1$ \\
Total & N & P & $n$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\cite{Benjamini1995} define \mbox{FDR}\ as the expected
proportion of rejections that are incorrect,
\begin{equation*}
\mbox{FDR} = \mathbb{E} \Big[\frac{\mbox{FP}}{\max(\mbox{P}, 1)}\Big] = \mathbb{E} \Big[\frac{\mbox{FP}}{\mbox{P}}
\big| \mbox{P} > 0\Big] \mathbb{P}(\mbox{P} >0).
\end{equation*}
They provide a multiple testing procedure that guarantees the bound $\mbox{FDR} \leq
\alpha$, for a desired level $\alpha$. \cite{Storey2003} proposes to
modify \mbox{FDR}\ so as to obtain a new criterion, the positive \mbox{FDR}\ (or \mbox{pFDR}), defined by
\begin{equation*}
\mbox{pFDR} = \mathbb{E} \Big[\frac{\mbox{FP}}{\mbox{P}}
\big| \mbox{P} > 0\Big],
\end{equation*}
and argues that it is conceptually more sound than \mbox{FDR}. For microarray
data for instance, there is a large value of the number of hypotheses
$n$ and the difference between \mbox{pFDR}\ and \mbox{FDR}\ is
generally small as the extra factor $\mathbb{P}(P >0)$ is very close
to $1$ \citep[see][]{Liao2004}. In a mixture context,
the \mbox{pFDR}\ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\mbox{pFDR}(x) = \mathbb{P}( H_i\ \text{being true}\ | X \leq x) =
\frac{\theta \Phi(x)}{\theta \Phi(x)+(1-\theta)F(x)},
\end{equation*}
where $\Phi$ and $F$ are the cumulative distribution functions (cdfs) for densities
$\phi$ and $f$, respectively. (It is notationally convenient to
consider events of the form $X \leq x$, but we could just as well consider tail
areas to the right, two-tailed events, etc).
\cite{Efron2001} define the local false discovery rate (\mbox{$\ell$FDR}) to quantify
the plausibility of a particular hypothesis being true, given its
specific test statistic or $p$-value. In a mixture framework, the
\mbox{$\ell$FDR}\ is the Bayes posterior probability
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-lfdr}
\mbox{$\ell$FDR}(x) = \mathbb{P}( H_i\ \text{being true}\ | X=x) =
1-\frac{(1-\theta)f(x)}{\theta \phi(x)+(1-\theta)f(x)}.
\end{equation}
In many multiple testing
frameworks, we need information at the individual level about the
probability for a given observation to be a false positive \citep{Aubert2004}. This motivates estimating the local false discovery rate
\mbox{$\ell$FDR}. Moreover, the quantities \mbox{pFDR}\ and \mbox{$\ell$FDR}\ are analytically related by $\mbox{pFDR}(x) = \mathbb{E} [\mbox{$\ell$FDR}(X)| X \leq x]$. As a consequence (and recalling that the difference
between \mbox{pFDR}\ and \mbox{FDR}\ is generally small), \cite{Robin2007} propose to estimate
\mbox{FDR}\ by
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{\mbox{FDR}}(x_i) = \frac{1}{i} \sum_{j=1}^i \widehat{\mbox{$\ell$FDR}}(x_j),
\end{equation*}
where $\widehat{\mbox{$\ell$FDR}}$ is an estimator of \mbox{$\ell$FDR}\ and the observations
$\{x_i\}$ are increasingly ordered.
A natural strategy to estimate \mbox{$\ell$FDR}\ is to start by estimating both the
proportion $\theta$ and either $f$ or $g$. Another motivation for
estimating the parameters in this mixture model comes from the
works of Sun and Cai (\citeyear{Sun_Cai07,Sun_Cai09}), who develop
adaptive compound decision rules for false discovery rate control. These
rules are based on the estimation of the parameters in
model~\eqref{eq-model} (dealing with $z$-scores) rather than
model~\eqref{eq-model-pvalue} (dealing with $p$-values).
However, it appears that in some very specific cases (when the alternative is symmetric about the null), the oracle
version of their procedure based on the $p$-values (and thus relying
on estimators of the parameters in model~\eqref{eq-model-pvalue}) may
outperform the one based on model~\eqref{eq-model} \cite[see][for
more details]{Sun_Cai07}. In the following, we are thus interested in
estimating parameters in model~\eqref{eq-model-pvalue}.\\
In a previous work \citep{Prop_True_Null}, we discussed the estimation
of the Euclidean part of the parameter $\theta$ in
model~\eqref{eq-model-pvalue}. Thus, we will not consider further this point
here. We rather focus on the estimation of the unknown density $f$, relying on a preliminary estimator of $\theta$. We just mention that many estimators of $\theta$ have been proposed in the literature.
One of the most well-known is the one proposed by \cite{Storey2002}, motivating its use in our simulations. Some of these estimators are proved to be consistent (under suitable model assumptions).
Of course, we will need some specific properties of estimators $\hat \theta_n$ of $\theta$ to obtain rates of convergence of estimators of $f$. Besides, existence of estimators $\hat \theta_n$ satisfying those specific properties is a consequence of~\cite{Prop_True_Null}.
Now, different modeling assumptions on the marginal density $f$ have been
proposed in the literature. For instance, parametric models have been
used with Beta distribution for the $p$-values \citep[see for
example][]{Allison2002, Pounds2003, Liao2004} or Gaussian distribution
of the probit transformation of the $p$-values \citep{McLachlan2006}. In the
framework of nonparametric estimation, \cite{Strimmer2008} proposed a
modified Grenander density estimator for $f$, which has been initially
suggested by
\cite{Langaas2005}. This approach requires monotonicity constraints on
the density $f$. Other nonparametric approaches consist in
relying on regularity assumptions on $f$. This is done for instance in
\cite{Neuvial2010}, who is primarily interested in estimating $\theta$
under the assumption that it is equal to $g(1)$. Relying on a kernel
estimator of $g$, he derives nonparametric rates of convergence for
$\theta$.
Another kernel estimator has been proposed by~\cite{Robin2007}, along
with a multiple testing procedure, called \texttt{kerfdr}. This
iterative algorithm is inspired by an expectation-maximization
(\texttt{em}) procedure \citep{DempsterLR}. It
is proved to be convergent as the number of
iterations increases. However, it does not optimize any criterion and
contrarily to the original \texttt{em} algorithm, it does not increase the
observed data likelihood function. Besides, the
asymptotic properties (with the number of hypotheses $n$) of the kernel estimator underlying \citeauthor{Robin2007}'s approach have not
been studied. Indeed, its iterative form prevents from obtaining any theoretical
result on its convergence properties.
The first part of the present work focuses on the properties of a randomly
weighted kernel estimator, which in essence, is very similar to the
iterative approach proposed by \cite{Robin2007}. Thus, this part may
be viewed as a theoretical validation of \texttt{kerfdr} approach that gives some
insights about the convergence properties (as the sample size
increases) of this method. In particular, we establish that relying on
a preliminary estimator of $\theta$ that roughly converges at parametric rate (see exact condition in Corollary~\ref{cor1}),
we obtain an estimator of the unknown density $f$ that converges at
the usual minimax nonparametric rate. To our knowledge, this is the first result
establishing convergence as well as corresponding rate for the
estimation of the unknown component in model~\eqref{eq-model-pvalue}.
In a second part, we are interested in a
new iterative algorithm for estimating the unknown density $f$, that
aims at maximizing a smoothed likelihood. We refer to Paragraph 4.1 in \cite{Egg_LaR_book} for an
interesting presentation of kernel estimators as maximum smoothed
likelihood ones. Here, we base our approach on the work of
\cite{Levine}, who study a maximum smoothed likelihood estimator for
multivariate mixtures. The main idea consists in introducing a nonlinear
smoothing operator on the unknown component $f$ as proposed in \cite{Egg_LaR_95}.
We prove that the resulting algorithm possesses a desirable descent property, just as
an \texttt{em} algorithm does. We also show that it is competitive with respect to \texttt{kerfdr} algorithm, both when used to estimate $f$ or \mbox{$\ell$FDR}.
The article is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:algorithms}, we start by describing different procedures to estimate $f$. We distinguish two types of procedures and first describe direct (non iterative) ones in Section~\ref{sec:direct}. We mention a direct naive approach but the main procedure from this section is a randomly weighted kernel estimator. Then, we switch to iterative procedures (Section~\ref{sec:iterative}). The first one is not new: \texttt{kerfdr} has been proposed in \cite{Robin2007,Guedj}. The second one, called \texttt{msl}, is new and adapted from the work of \cite{Levine} in a different context (multivariate mixtures). These iterative procedures are expected to be more accurate than direct ones, but their properties are in general more difficult to establish. As such, the direct randomly weighted kernel estimator from Section~\ref{sec:direct} may be viewed as a proxy for studying the convergence properties (with respect to $f$) of \texttt{kerfdr} procedure (properties that are unknown). Section~\ref{sec:results} then gives the theoretical properties of the procedures described in Section~\ref{sec:algorithms}. In particular, we establish (Theorem~\ref{thm:cv_f}) an upper bound on the pointwise quadratic risk of the randomly weighted kernel procedure. Moreover, we prove that \texttt{msl} procedure possesses a descent property with respect to some criterion (Proposition~\ref{prop:hatft_decreases}).
In Section~\ref{sec:lfdr}, we rely on our different estimators to estimate both density $f$ and the local false discovery rate \mbox{$\ell$FDR}. We present simulated experiments to compare their performances. All the proofs have been postponed to
Section~\ref{sec:proofs}. Moreover, some of the more technical proofs
have been further postponed to Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix}.
\section{Algorithmic procedures to estimate the density $f$}\label{sec:algorithms}
\subsection{Direct procedures}\label{sec:direct}
Let us be given a preliminary estimator $\hat{\theta}_n$ of $\theta$ as well as a nonparametric estimator $\hat{g}_n$ of $g$. We propose here to rely on a
kernel estimator of the density $g$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vallee_poussin}
\hat{g}_n(x) = \frac{1}{nh} \sum_{i=1}^n K\Big(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\Big) = \frac 1 n \sum_{i=1}^n K_{i,h}(x),
\end{equation}
where $K$ is a kernel (namely a real-valued integrable
function such that $\int K(u)du$ $ = 1$), $h>0$ is a bandwidth (both are to be chosen later) and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Kih}
K_{i,h}(\cdot)=\frac 1 h K\Big(\frac{\cdot-X_i}{h}\Big).
\end{equation}
Note that this estimator of $g$ is consistent under appropriate assumptions.
\paragraph*{A naive approach.}
From Equation~\eqref{eq-model-pvalue}, it is natural to propose to estimate $f$ with
\begin{equation*}
\hat{f}_n^{\text{naive}}(x) = \frac{\hat{g}_n(x)-\hat{\theta}_n}{1 - \hat{\theta}_n}\mathbf{1}_{\{\hat{\theta}_n \neq 1 \}},
\end{equation*}
where $1_A$ is the indicator function of set $A$.
This estimator has the same theoretical properties as the randomly weighted kernel estimator presented below. However, it is much worse in practice, as we shall see in the simulations of Section~\ref{sec:lfdr}.
\paragraph*{A randomly weighted kernel estimator.}
We now explain a natural construction for an estimator of $f$ relying on a randomly weighted version of a kernel estimator of $g$.
For any hypothesis, we introduce a (latent) random variable $Z_i$ that equals $0$ if the null hypothesis $H_i$ is true and $1$ otherwise,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Z}
\forall i=1,\dots, n \quad Z_i=\left\{
\begin{array}[]{ll}
0 & \mbox{if } H_i \mbox{ is true,} \\
1 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Intuitively, it would be convenient to introduce a weight for each observation $X_i$, meant to select this observation only if it comes from $f$.
Equivalently, the weights are used to select the indexes $i$ such that $Z_i=1$. Thus, a natural kernel estimate of $f$ would be
\begin{equation*}
f_1(x) = \frac{1}{h}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{Z_i}{\sum_{k=1}^n Z_k}
K\Big(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\Big)
= \sum_{i=1}^n\frac{Z_i}{\sum_{k=1}^n Z_k} K_{i,h}(x),
\ x \in [0,1].
\end{equation*}
However, $f_1$ is not an estimator and cannot be directly used since the random variables $Z_i$ are
not observed. A natural approach \citep[initially proposed in][]{Robin2007} is to replace them with their conditional expectation given the data $\{X_i\}_{1\le i \le n}$, namely with the posterior probabilities
$\tau (X_i) =\mathbb{E} (Z_i|X_i)$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:posterior-proba}
\forall x \in [0,1], \ \tau(x) = \mathbb{E} (Z_i|X_i=x)=\frac{(1-\theta)f(x)}{g(x)}=1 - \frac{\theta}{g(x)}.
\end{equation}
This leads to the following definition
\begin{equation}\label{eq:f2}
\forall x \in [0,1], \ f_2(x) = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\tau(X_i)} {\sum_{k=1}^n \tau(X_k)} K_{i,h}(x).
\end{equation}
Once again, the weight $\tau_i =\tau(X_i)$ depends on the unknown parameters
$\theta$ and $f$ and thus $f_2$ is not an estimator but rather an
oracle. To solve this problem, \cite{Robin2007} proposed an iterative
approach, called \texttt{kerfdr} and discussed below, to
approximate~\eqref{eq:f2}. For the moment, we propose to replace the posterior
probabilities $\tau_i$ by direct (rather than iterative) estimators to obtain a randomly weighted kernel
estimator of $f$.
Specifically, we propose to estimate the posterior
probability $\tau(x)$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hat_tau}
\forall x \in [0,1], \ \hat{\tau}(x) = 1 - \frac{\hat{\theta}_n}{\hat{g}_n(x)}.
\end{equation}
Then, by defining the weight
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_weight}
\hat{\tau}_i = \hat{\tau}(X_i)
=1 - \frac{\hat{\theta}_n}{\tilde{g}_n(X_i)},
\ \text{where}\ \tilde{g}_n(X_i)=
\frac{1}{(n-1)} \sum_{j \neq i}^n K_{j,h}(X_i),
\end{equation}
we get a randomly weighted kernel estimator of the density $f$ defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rwk}
\forall x \in [0,1], \ \hat{f}_n^{\text{rwk}}(x) = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\hat{\tau}_i}{\sum_{k=1}^n \hat{\tau}_k} K_{i,h}(x).
\end{equation}
Note that it is not necessary to use the same kernel $K$ in defining $\hat
g_n$ and $\hat f_n^{\text{rwk}}$, nor the same bandwidth $h$. In practice, we rely on the same kernel chosen with a compact support (to avoid boundary effects) and as we will see in Section~\ref{sec:results}, the bandwidths have to be chosen of the same order.
Also note that the slight modification from $\hat g_n$ to $\tilde g_n$ in defining the weights~\eqref{eq:def_weight} is minor and used in practice to reduce the bias of $\tilde g_n(X_i)$.
\subsection{Iterative procedures}\label{sec:iterative}
In this section, we still rely on a preliminary estimator
$\hat{\theta}_n$ of $\theta$. Two different procedures are described:
\texttt{kerfdr} algorithm, proposed by~\cite{Robin2007,Guedj} and a
maximum smoothed likelihood \texttt{msl} estimator, inspired from the work of~\cite{Levine} in the context of multivariate nonparametric mixtures.
Both rely on an iterative randomly weighted kernel approach.
The general form of these procedures is described by Algorithm~\ref{algo:iterative}.
The main difference between the two procedures lies in the choice of the functions $\tilde K_{i,h}$ (that play the role of a kernel) and the way the weights are updated.
\begin{algorithm}
\CommentSty{// Initialization}\;
Set initial weights $\hat{\omega}_i^0 \sim \mathcal{U}\big([0,1]\big), i=1,2,\ldots,n. $
\BlankLine
\BlankLine
\While{$\max_i|\hat{\omega}_i^{(s)} -
\hat{\omega}_i^{(s-1)}|/\hat{\omega}_i^{(s-1)} \ge \epsilon$}{
\BlankLine
\BlankLine
\CommentSty{// Update estimation of $f$}\;
$\hat{f}^{(s)}(x_i) =
\sum_j \hat{\omega}_j^{(s-1)}\tilde
K_{j,h}(x_i)/\sum_k\hat{\omega}_k^{(s-1)}$\\
\BlankLine
\BlankLine
\CommentSty{// Update of weights}\;
$\hat{\omega}_i^{(s)}$: depends on the procedure, see Equations~\eqref{eq:weight_kerfdr} and \eqref{eq:weight_msl}
\BlankLine
\BlankLine
$s\leftarrow s+1$\;
}
\BlankLine
\BlankLine
\CommentSty{// Return}\;
$\hat{f}^{(s)}(\cdot) =
\sum_i\hat{\omega}_i^{(s-1)}\tilde K_{i,h}(\cdot)/\sum_k\hat{\omega}_k^{(s-1)}$
\caption{General structure of the iterative algorithms}
\label{algo:iterative}
\end{algorithm}
Note that the parameter $\theta$ is fixed throughout these iterative procedures. Indeed, as already noted by \cite{Robin2007}, the solution $\theta=0$ is a fixed point of a modified \texttt{kerfdr} algorithm where $\theta$ would be iteratively updated. This is also the case with the maximum smoothed likelihood procedure described below in the particular setup of model~\eqref{eq-model-pvalue}. This is why we keep $\theta$ fixed in both procedures. We now describe more explicitly the two procedures.
\paragraph*{\texttt{Kerfdr} algorithm.}
This procedure has been proposed by \cite{Robin2007,Guedj}
as an approximation to the estimator suggested
by~\eqref{eq:f2}.
In this procedure, functions $\tilde K_{i,h}$ more simply denoted
$K_{i,h}$ are defined through~\eqref{eq:Kih} where $K$ is a kernel
(namely $\int K(u)du=1$) and following~\eqref{eq:posterior-proba}, the weights are updated as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:weight_kerfdr}
\hat{\omega}_i^{(s)} = \frac{(1 - \hat{\theta}_n)\hat{f}^{(s)}(x_i)} { \hat{\theta}_n + (1 - \hat{\theta}_n)\hat{f}^{(s)}(x_i)}.
\end{equation}
This algorithm has some \texttt{em} flavor
\citep{DempsterLR}. Actually, updating the weights $\hat{\omega}_i^{(s)}$
is equivalent to \texttt{expectation}-step, and $\hat{f}^{(s)}(x)$ can
be seen as an average of $\{K_{i,h}(x)\}_{1\le i \le n}$ so that
updating the estimator $\hat{f}$ may look like a
\texttt{maximization}-step. However, as noted in~\cite{Robin2007}, the algorithm
does not optimize any given criterion. Besides, it does not increase the
observed data likelihood function.
The relation between $\hat{f}^{(s)}$ and $\hat{\omega}^{(s)}$ implies that the sequence
$\{\hat{\omega}^{(s)}\}_{s\ge 0}$ satisfies $\hat{\omega}^{(s)} =
\psi(\hat{\omega}^{(s-1)})$, where
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi : [0,1]^n\backslash\{0\}\rightarrow [0,1]^n,\quad
\psi_i(u)=\frac{\sum_iu_ib_{ij}}{\sum_iu_ib_{ij}+\sum_iu_i}, \quad
\text{with}\quad b_{ij}=\frac{1-\hat{\theta}_n}{\hat{\theta}_n}\times \frac{K_{i,h}(x_j)}{\phi(x_j)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, if the sequence $\{\hat{\omega}^{(s)}\}_{s\ge 0}$ is convergent, it has to
converge towards a fixed point of $\psi$. \cite{Robin2007} prove that
under some mild conditions, \texttt{kerfdr} estimator is self-consistent, meaning that as the number of iterations $s$ increases, the
sequence $\hat{f}^{(s)}$ converges towards the function
\begin{equation*}
f_3(x) = \sum_{i=1}^n\frac{ \hat{\omega}_i^*}{\sum_{k} \hat{\omega}_k^* } K_{i,h}(x),
\end{equation*}
where $\hat{\omega}_i^*$ is the (unique) limit of $\{\hat{\omega}_i^{(s)}\}_{s\ge
0}$. Note that contrarily to $f_2$, function $f_3$ is a randomly weighted kernel estimator of
$f$. However, nothing is known about the convergence of $f_3$ nor $\hat{f}^{(s)}$
towards the true density $f$ when the sample size $n$ tends to infinity (while the
bandwidth $h=h_n$ tends to 0). Indeed, the weights $\{\hat{\omega}_i^{(s)}\}_{s\ge
0}$ used by the kernel estimator $\hat{f}^{(s)}$ form an iterative sequence. Thus it is very difficult to study the convergence properties of this weight sequence or of the corresponding estimator.
We thus propose another randomly weighted
kernel estimator, whose weights are slightly different from those used
in the construction of $\hat f^{(s)}$. More precisely, those weights are
not defined iteratively but they mimic the sequence of weights $\{\hat{\omega}_i^{(s)}\}_{s\ge 0}$.
\paragraph*{Maximum smoothed likelihood estimator.}
Following the lines of \cite{Levine}, we construct an iterative
estimator sequence of the density $f$ that relies on the maximisation
of a smoothed likelihood.
Assume in the following that $K$ is a positive and symmetric kernel on $\mathbb{R}$. We define its rescaled version as
\[
K_h(x) = h^{-1}K(h^{-1}x).
\]
We consider a linear
smoothing operator $\mathcal{S} : \mathbb{L}_1([0,1])
\rightarrow \mathbb{L}_1([0,1])$ defined as
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S} f(x) = \int_0^1\frac{K_h(u-x)f(u)}{\int_0^1K_h(s-u)ds}du,\ \text{for all}\ x \in [0, 1].
\end{equation*}
We remark that if $f$ is a density on $[0,1]$ then $\mathcal{S} f$ is
also a density on $[0,1]$. Let us consider a submodel of
model~\eqref{eq-model-pvalue} restricted to densities $f\in
\mathcal{F}$ with
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{F} = \{ \text{densities } f\ \text{on } [0,1]\ \text{such that }
\log f \in \mathbb{L}_1([0,1]) \}.
\end{equation*}
We denote by $\mathcal{S}^*: \mathbb{L}_1([0,1])
\rightarrow \mathbb{L}_1([0,1])$ the operator
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}^*f(x) = \frac{\int_0^1K_h(u-x)f(u)du}{\int_0^1K_h(s-x)ds}.
\end{equation*}
Note the difference between $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{S}^*$. The
operator $\mathcal{S}^*$ is in fact the adjoint operator of
$\mathcal{S}$. Here, we rely more specifically on the earlier work of
\cite{Eggermont99} that takes into account the case where the density
support ($[0,1]$ in our case) is different from the kernel support
(usually $\mathbb{R}$). Indeed in this case, the normalisation terms
introduce a difference between $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{S}^*$.
Then for a density $f \in \mathcal{F}$, we approach it by a nonlinear
smoothing operator $\mathcal{N}$ defined as
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{N}f(x) = \exp\{(\mathcal{S}^*(\log f))(x)\}, \quad x\in [0,1].
\end{equation*}
Note that $\mathcal{N}f$ is not necessarily a density.
Now, the maximum smoothed likelihood procedure consists in applying Algorithm~\ref{algo:iterative}, relying on
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tildeKih}
\tilde K_{i,h} (x) =\frac {K_{i,h}(x)}{\int_0^1 K_{i,h}(s)ds},
\end{equation}
where $K_{i,h}$ is defined through~\eqref{eq:Kih} relying on a
positive symmetric kernel $K$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:weight_msl}
\hat{\omega}_i^{(s)} = \frac{(1-\hat{\theta}_n)\mathcal{N}\hat{f}^{(s)}(x_i)}{\hat{\theta}_n+(1-\hat{\theta}_n)\mathcal{N}\hat{f}^{(s)}(x_i)}.
\end{equation}
In Section~\ref{sec:msl}, we explain where these choices come from and why this procedure corresponds to
a maximum smoothed likelihood approach. Let us remark that as in \texttt{kerfdr} algorithm, the sequence of weights $\{\hat{\omega}^{(s)}\}_{s\ge 0}$ also satisfies $\hat{\omega}^{(s)} = \varphi(\hat{\omega}^{(s-1)})$ for some specific function $\varphi$. Then, if the sequence $\{\hat{\omega}^{(s)}\}_{s\ge 0}$ is convergent, it must be convergent to a fixed point of $\varphi$. Existence and uniqueness of a fixed point for \texttt{msl} algorithm is explored below in Proposition~\ref{prop:subsequence}.
In the following section, we thus establish theoretical properties of the
procedures presented here. These are then further compared on simulated data
in Section~\ref{sec:lfdr}.
\section{Mathematical properties of the algorithms}\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Randomly weighted kernel estimator}
We provide below the convergence properties of the estimator
$\hat{f}_n^{\text{rwk}}$ defined through~\eqref{eq:rwk}. In fact, these naturally depend on the properties of the
plug-in estimators $\hat{\theta}_n$ and $\hat{g}_n$.
We are interested here in
controlling the pointwise quadratic risk of $\hat{f}_n^{\text{rwk}}$. This
is possible on a class of densities $f$ that are regular enough. In the
following,
we denote by $\mathbb{P}_{\theta,f}$ and $\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}$ the probability and
corresponding expectation in the more specific
model~\eqref{eq-model-pvalue}.
Moreover, $\lfloor x \rfloor$ denotes the largest integer strictly
smaller than $x$. Now, we recall that the order of a
kernel is defined as its first nonzero moment \citep{Tsybakov-book} and we
recall below the definition of Hölder classes of functions.
\begin{defi}
Fix $\beta > 0, L > 0$ and denote by $H(\beta,L)$ the set of functions
$\psi :[0,1] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that are $l$-times continuously
differentiable on $[0,1]$ with $ l = \lfloor \beta \rfloor$ and
satisfy
\begin{equation*}
| \psi^{(l)}(x) - \psi^{(l)}(y) | \leq L |x - y |^{\beta-l} ,\quad \forall
x,y \in [0,1].
\end{equation*}
The set $H(\beta,L)$ is called the $(\beta, L)$-Hölder class
of functions.
\end{defi}
We denote by $\Sigma(\beta,L)$ the set
\begin{equation*}
\Sigma(\beta,L) = \Big\{\psi : \psi\ \text{is a density on}\ [0, 1]\ \text{and}\ \psi \in H(\beta,L)\Big\}.
\end{equation*}
According to the proof of Theorem 1.1 in \cite{Tsybakov-book}, we
remark that
\[
\sup_{\psi \in \Sigma(\beta,L)} \|\psi \|_{\infty} < +\infty.
\]
In order to obtain the rate of convergence of $\hat{f}_n^{\text{rwk}}$
to $f$, we introduce the following assumptions
\paragraph*{(A1)} \label{hyp:A1} The kernel $K$ is a right-continuous function.
\paragraph*{(A2)} \label{hyp:A2} $K$ is of bounded variation.
\paragraph*{(A3)} \label{hyp:A3} The kernel $K$ is of order $l=\lfloor \beta \rfloor$ and satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\int K(u)du=1,\ \int K^2(u)du < \infty,\ \text{and}\ \int
|u|^{\beta}|K(u)|du < \infty.
\end{equation*}
\paragraph*{(B1)} \label{hyp:B1} $f$ is a uniformly continuous density
function.
\paragraph*{(C1)} \label{hyp:C1} The bandwidth $h$ is of order $\alpha n^{-1/(2\beta+1)}$, $\alpha
> 0$.\\
Note that there exist kernels satisfying
Assumptions~\hyperref[hyp:A1]{\textbf{(A1)}}-\hyperref[hyp:A3]{\textbf{(A3)}}
\cite[see for instance Section 1.2.2 in][]{Tsybakov-book}. Note also that if $f\in \Sigma(\beta,L)$, it automatically satisfies Assumption~\hyperref[hyp:B1]{\textbf{(B1)}}.
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:first}
\begin{itemize}
\item [i)] We first remark that if kernel $K$ satisfies
Assumptions~\hyperref[hyp:A1]{\textbf{(A1)}},~\hyperref[hyp:A2]{\textbf{(A2)}} and if Assumptions~\hyperref[hyp:B1]{\textbf{(B1)}} and \hyperref[hyp:C1]{\textbf{(C1)}} hold, then the
kernel density estimator $\hat{g}_n$ defined by~\eqref{eq:vallee_poussin} converges uniformly almost surely to $g$ \citep{Wied}. In other words
\[
\|\hat{g}_n - g\|_{\infty}
\xrightarrow[n\to\infty] {a.s} 0.
\]
\item[ii)] If kernel $K$ satisfies Assumption~\hyperref[hyp:A3]{\textbf{(A3)}} and if
Assumption~\hyperref[hyp:C1]{\textbf{(C1)}} holds, then for all $n \geq 1$
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{x \in [0,1]}\sup_{f \in \Sigma(\beta,L)}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(|\hat{g}_n(x)-g(x)|^{2}) \leq C
n^{\frac{-2\beta}{2\beta+1}},
\end{equation*}
where $C=C(\beta, L, \alpha, K)$
\cite[see Theorem 1.1 in][]{Tsybakov-book}.
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
In the following theorem, we give the
rate of convergence to zero of the pointwise quadratic risk of
$\hat{f}_n^{\text{rwk}}$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:cv_f}
Assume that kernel $K$ satisfies
Assumptions~\hyperref[hyp:A1]{\textbf{(A1)}}\textbf{-}\hyperref[hyp:A3]{\textbf{(A3)}}
and $K \in\mathbb{L}_4(\mathbb{R})$.
If $\hat{\theta}_n$
converges almost surely to $\theta$ and the bandwidth $h=\alpha
n^{-1/(2\beta + 1)}$ with $\alpha > 0$, then for any $\delta >0$, the pointwise quadratic risk of $\hat{f}_n^{\text{rwk}}$
satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{x \in [0,1]}\sup_{\theta \in [\delta,1-\delta]}\sup_{f \in
\Sigma(\beta,L)} \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(|\hat{f}_n^{\text{rwk}}(x)-f(x)|^{2}) &\leq
& C_1 \sup_{\theta \in [\delta,1-\delta]}\sup_{f \in \Sigma(\beta,L)}
\left[\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left(|\hat{\theta}_n-\theta|\right)^4\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
& & +C_2 n^{\frac{-2\beta}{2\beta+1}},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C_1,C_2$ are two positive constants depending only on
$\beta, L, \alpha, \delta$ and $K$.
\end{thm}
The proof of this theorem is postponed to Section~\ref{ann:thm1}. It works as follows:
we first start by proving that the pointwise quadratic risk of
$f_2$ (which is not an estimator) is of order $n^{-2\beta/(2\beta + 1)}$. Then we
compare estimator $\hat{f}_n^{\text{rwk}}$ with function $f_2$ to conclude
the proof. We evidently obtain the following
corollary from this theorem.
\begin{cor}\label{cor1}
Under the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:cv_f}, if $\hat \theta_n$
is such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:condition}
\limsup_{n \rightarrow +\infty} n^{\frac{2\beta}{2\beta+1}}
\left[\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left(|\hat{\theta}_n-\theta|\right)^4\right]^{\frac{1}{2}} < +\infty,
\end{equation}
then for any fixed value $(\theta,f)$, there is some positive constant $C$ such that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{x \in [0,1]}\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(|\hat{f}_n^{\text{rwk}}(x)-f(x)|^{2}) \leq
C n^{\frac{-2\beta}{2\beta+1}}.
\end{align*}
\end{cor}
Note that estimators $\hat \theta_n$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:condition} exist.
Indeed, relying on the same arguments as in the proofs of Propositions 2 or 3 in \cite{Prop_True_Null}, we can prove that for instance histogram-based estimators or the estimator proposed by~\cite{Celisse-Robin2010} both satisfy that
$$\limsup_{n \rightarrow +\infty} n
\left[\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left(|\hat{\theta}_n-\theta|\right)^4\right]^{\frac{1}{2}} < +\infty.$$
Note also that the rate $n^{-\beta/(2\beta + 1)}$ is the usual
nonparametric minimax rate over the class $\Sigma(\beta,L)$ of Hölder
densities in the case of direct observations. While we do not
formally prove that this is also the case in undirect
model~\eqref{eq-model-pvalue}, it is likely that the rate
in this latter case is not faster as the problem is more
difficult. A difficulty in establishing such a lower bound lies in
the fact that when $\theta\in [\delta,1-\delta]$ the direct model
($\theta=0$) is not a submodel of~\eqref{eq-model-pvalue}.
Anyway, such a lower bound would not be sufficient to conclude that estimator $\hat{f}_n^{\text{rwk}}$
achieves the minimax rate. Indeed, the corollary states nothing about uniform
convergence of $\hat f_n^{\text{rwk}}(x)$ with respect to the
parameter value $(\theta,f)$ since the convergence of the estimator
$\hat \theta_n$ is not known to be uniform.
\subsection{Maximum smoothed likelihood estimator}\label{sec:msl}
Let us now explain the motivations for considering an iterative
procedure with functions $\tilde K_{i,h}$ and weights $\hat
\omega_i^{(s)}$ respectively defined through~\eqref{eq:tildeKih} and~\eqref{eq:weight_msl}.
Instead of the classical log-likelihood, we follow the lines
of~\cite{Levine} and consider (the opposite of)
a smoothed version of this log-likelihood as our criterion, namely
\begin{equation*}
l_n(\theta, f) = \frac{-1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \log
[\theta+(1-\theta)\mathcal{N}f(X_i)] .
\end{equation*}
In this section, we denote by $g_0$ the true density of the observations $X_i$. For any fixed value of
$\theta$, up to the additive constant $\int_0^1
g_0(x)\log g_0(x)dx$, the smoothed log-likelihood $l_n(\theta, f)$
converges almost surely towards $l(\theta, f)$
defined as
\begin{equation*}
l(\theta, f) :=\int_0^1 g_0(x) \log \frac{g_0(x)}{\theta + (1-\theta)\mathcal{N}f(x)}dx.
\end{equation*}
This quantity may be viewed as a penalized Kullback-Leibler
divergence between the true density $g_0$ and its smoothed approximation for parameters $(\theta,f)$. Indeed, let $D(a\mid b)$ denote the Kullback-Leibler divergence between (positive) measures $a$ and $b$, defined as
\begin{equation*}
D(a\mid b) = \int_0^1 \Big\{a(x)\log \frac{a(x)}{b(x)}+b(x)-a(x)\Big\}dx.
\end{equation*}
Note that in the above definition, $a$ and $b$ are not necessarily probability measures. Moreover it can be seen that we still have the property $D(a|b)\ge 0$ with equality if and only if $a=b$ \citep{Eggermont99}.
We now obtain
\begin{equation*}
l(\theta, f) = D(g_0 | \theta + (1-\theta)\mathcal{N}f) + (1-\theta) \big(1-\int_0^1 \mathcal{N}f(x) dx \big).
\end{equation*}
The second term in the right-hand side of the above equation acts as a penalization term \citep{Eggermont99,Levine}. Our goal is to construct an iterative sequence of estimators of $f$ that possesses a descent property with respect
to the criterion $l(\theta,\cdot)$, for fixed value $\theta$. Indeed, as previously explained, $\theta$ has to remain fixed otherwise the following procedure gives a sequence $\{\theta^t\}$ that converges to $0$.
We start by describing such a procedure, relying on the knowledge of the parameters (thus an oracle procedure). Let us denote by $l_n(f)$ the smoothed log-likelihood
$l_n(\theta, f)$ and by $l(f)$ the limit function $l(\theta,f)$. We
want to construct a sequence of densities $\{f^t\}_{t \ge 0}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:creasing}
l(f^t) - l(f^{t+1}) \geq c D(f^{t+1}\mid f^t) \ge 0,
\end{equation}
where $c$ is a positive constant depending on $\theta$, the bandwidth $h$ and the kernel $K$. We thus consider the difference
\begin{eqnarray*}
l(f^t) - l(f^{t+1}) &=& \int_0^1 g_0(x)\log
\frac{\theta+(1-\theta)\mathcal{N}f^{t+1}(x)}{\theta+(1-\theta)\mathcal{N}f^{t}(x)}
dx\\
&=& \int_0^1 g_0(x)\log \Big\{1-\omega_t(x) +
\omega_t(x)\frac{\mathcal{N}f^{t+1}(x)}{\mathcal{N}f^{t}(x)}\Big\} dx,
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\omega_t(x) = \frac{(1-\theta)\mathcal{N}f^t(x)}{\theta+(1-\theta)\mathcal{N}f^t(x)}.
\end{equation*}
By the concavity of the logarithm function, we get that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq-decroissante}
l(f^t) - l(f^{t+1}) &\geq& \int_0^1 g_0(x) \omega_t(x)\log
\frac{\mathcal{N}f^{t+1}(x)}{\mathcal{N}f^{t}(x)}dx \notag \\
&\geq& \int_0^1 g_0(x) \omega_t(x)\Big[\mathcal{S}^*(\log f^{t+1})(x) -
\mathcal{S}^*(\log f^t)(x)\Big] dx \notag \\
&\geq& \int_0^1 g_0(x) \omega_t(x) \big(\int_0^1 K_h(s-x)ds\big)^{-1}\Big(\int_0^1 K_h(u-x)\log
\frac{f^{t+1}(u)}{f^t(u)}du\Big)dx \notag \\
&\geq& \int_0^1 \Big(\int_0^1\frac{ g_0(x)
\omega_t(x)K_h(u-x)}{\int_0^1 K_h(s-x)ds} dx \Big)\log
\frac{f^{t+1}(u)}{f^t(u)}du.
\end{eqnarray}
Let us define
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:f^t}
\alpha_t = \frac{1}{\int_0^1 \omega_t(u)g_0(u)du}\ \text{and} \ f^{t+1}(x) = \alpha_t\int_0^1\frac{
K_h(u-x)\omega_t(u)g_0(u)}{\int_0^1 K_h(s-u)ds} du,
\end{equation}
then $f^{t+1}$ is a density function on $[0,1]$ and
\begin{equation*}
l(f^t) - l(f^{t+1}) \geq \frac{1}{\alpha_t} D(f^{t+1}\mid f^t).
\end{equation*}
With the same arguments as in the proof of following Proposition~\ref{prop:hatft_decreases}, we can show that $\alpha_t^{-1}$ is lower bounded by a positive constant $c$ depending on $\theta, h$ and $K$. The
sequence $\{f^t\}_{t\ge 0}$ thus satisfies
property~\eqref{eq:creasing}. However, we stress that it is an oracle as it
depends on the knowledge of the true density $g_0$ that is unknown.
Now, the estimator sequence $\{\hat f^{(t)}\}_{t\ge 0}$ defined through Equations~\eqref{eq:tildeKih},~\eqref{eq:weight_msl} and Algorithm~\ref{algo:iterative} is exactly the Monte Carlo approximation of $\{f^t\}_{t\ge 0}$.
We prove in the next proposition that it also satisfies the descent property~\eqref{eq:creasing}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:hatft_decreases}
For any initial value of the weights $\hat \omega_0\in (0,1)^n$, the sequence of estimators $\{\hat{f}^{(t)}\}_{t\ge 0}$ defined through~\eqref{eq:tildeKih},~\eqref{eq:weight_msl} and Algorithm~\ref{algo:iterative} satisfies
\begin{equation*}
l_n(\hat{f}^{(t)}) - l_n(\hat{f}^{(t+1)}) \geq c D(\hat{f}^{(t+1)}\mid \hat{f}^{(t)})\ge 0,
\end{equation*}
where $c$ is a positive constant depending on $\theta$, the bandwidth $h$ and the kernel $K$.
\end{prop}
To conclude this section, we study the behavior of the limiting criterion $l$.
Let us introduce the set
\[
\mathcal{B}=\{\mathcal{S} \varphi ; \varphi \ \mbox{density on } [0,1]\}.
\]
\begin{prop}\label{prop:subsequence}
The criterion $l$ has a unique minimum $f^\star$ on $\mathcal{B}$. Moreover, if there exists a constant $L$ depending on $h$ such that for all $x, y \in [-1,1]$
\begin{equation*}
| K_h(x) -K_h(y) | \leq L |x-y|,
\end{equation*}
then the sequence of densities $\{f^t\}_{t\ge 0}$
converges uniformly to $f^\star$.
\end{prop}
Note that the previous assumption may be satisfied by many different
kernels. For instance, if $K$ is the density of the standard normal
distribution, then this assumption is satisfied with
\begin{equation*}
L=\frac{1}{h^2\sqrt{2\pi}} e^{-1/2}.
\end{equation*}
As a consequence and since $l_n$ is lower bounded, the sequence $\{\hat f^{(t)}\}_{t\ge 0}$ converges to a local minimum of $l_n$ as $t$ increases. Moreover, we recall that as the sample size $n$ increases, the criterion $l_n$ converges (up to a constant) to $l$. Thus, the outcome of Algorithm~\ref{algo:iterative} that relies on Equations~\eqref{eq:tildeKih} and~\eqref{eq:weight_msl} is an approximation of the minimizer $f^\star$ of $l$.
\section{Estimation of local false discovery rate and simulation
study}\label{sec:lfdr}
\subsection{Estimation of local false discovery rate}
In this section, we study the estimation of local false
discovery rate (\mbox{$\ell$FDR}) by using the previously introduced estimators
of the density $f$ and compare these different approaches on simulated
data. Let us recall definition~\eqref{eq-lfdr} of the local false
discovery rate
\begin{equation*}
\mbox{$\ell$FDR}(x) = \mathbb{P}( H_i\ \text{being true}\ | X=x) =
\frac{\theta }{\theta +(1-\theta)f(x)}, \quad x \in [0,1].
\end{equation*}
For a given estimator $\hat{\theta}$ of the proportion $\theta$ and
an estimator $\hat{f}$ of the density $f$, we obtain a natural
estimator of the local false discovery rate for observation $x_i$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:estim_lfdr}
\widehat{\mbox{$\ell$FDR}}(x_i) =\frac{\hat{\theta}}{\hat{\theta} +(1-\hat{\theta})\hat{f}(x_i)}.
\end{equation}
Let us now denote by $\hat{f}_{\text{rwk}}$ the randomly weighted kernel estimator of $f$ constructed in
Section~\ref{sec:direct}, by $\hat{f}_{\text{kerfdr}}$ the estimator of $f$
presented in Algorithm~\ref{algo:iterative} and by $\hat{f}_{\text{msl}}$ the maximum
smoothed likelihood estimator of $f$ presented in
Algorithm~\ref{algo:iterative}. Note that $\hat{f}_{\text{kerfdr}}$ is available through the R package \texttt{kerfdr}.
We also let $\widehat{\mbox{$\ell$FDR}}_m, m \in
\{ \text{rwk}, \text{kerfdr},\text{msl}\}$ be the
estimators of $\mbox{$\ell$FDR}$ induced by a plug-in of estimators $\hat
f_m$ in~\eqref{eq:estim_lfdr} and $\widehat{\mbox{$\ell$FDR}}_{st}$ be the estimator of $\mbox{$\ell$FDR}$ computed by the method of \cite{Strimmer2008}. We
compute the root mean squared error (RMSE) between the
estimates and the true values
\begin{equation*}
\mbox{RMSE}_m
=\frac{1}{S}\sum_{s=1}^S\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\{ \widehat{\mbox{$\ell$FDR}}_m^{(s)}(x_i)-\mbox{$\ell$FDR}(x_i)\}^2},
\end{equation*}
for $m \in \{ \text{rwk}, \text{kerfdr},\text{msl}, \text{st}\}$ and where
$s=1,\ldots,S$ denotes the simulation index ($S$ being the total
number of repeats). We also compare $\mathbb{L}^2$-norms between $\hat{f}_m$ and $f$ for $m \in \{ \text{rwk}, \text{kerfdr},\text{msl}\}$, relying on the root mean integrated squared error
\begin{equation*}
\mbox{RMISE}_m
=\frac{1}{S}\sum_{s=1}^S\sqrt{\int_0^1 [\hat{f}_m^{(s)}(u)-f(u)]^2du}.
\end{equation*}
The quality of the estimates provided by method $m$
is measured by the mean $\mbox{RMSE}_m$ or $\mbox{RMISE}_m$: the smaller these quantities, the
better the performances of the method.
We mention that we also tested the naive method described in Section~\ref{sec:direct} and the results were bad. In order to present clear figures, we have chosen not to show those.
\subsection{Simulation study}
In this section, we give an illustration of the previous results on
some simulated experiments. We simulate sets of $p$-values according
to the mixture model~\eqref{eq-model-pvalue}. We consider three
different cases for the alternative distribution $f$ and two
different values for the proportion: $\theta = 0.65$ and $0.85$. In the first case, we simulate $p$-values under the
alternative with distribution
\begin{equation*}
f(x)=\rho \Big(1-x\Big)^{\rho-1}\mathbf{1}_{[0,1]}(x),
\end{equation*}
where $\rho =4$, as proposed in \cite{Celisse-Robin2010}. In the second case, the $p$-value corresponds
to the statistic $T$ which has a mixture distribution $\theta
\mathcal{N}(0,1) + (1-\theta) \mathcal{N} (\mu, 1)$, with $\mu=2$. In the third case, the $p$-value corresponds to the statistic $T$ which has a mixture density $\theta
(1/2)\exp\{-|t|\} + (1-\theta) (1/2)\exp\{-|t-\mu|\}$, with
$\mu=1$. The $p$-values densities obtained with those three models are given in Figure~\ref{fig:densities} for $\theta=0.65$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{density-pvalue}
\caption{Densities of the $p$-values in the three different models, with $\theta=0.65$. Top left: first model, top right: second model, bottom left: third model.}
\label{fig:densities}
\end{figure}
For each of the $3\times 2 =6$ configurations, we generate
$S =100$ samples of size $n \in \{500, 1000, 2000, 5000 \}$. In these experiments, we choose to consider the estimator of $\theta$ initially proposed by \cite{Schweder1982}, namely
\begin{equation*}
\hat{\theta} = \frac{\#\{X_i>\lambda; i=1,\ldots,n\}}{n(1-\lambda)},
\end{equation*}
with parameter value $\lambda$ optimally chosen by bootstrap method, as recommended by \cite{Storey2002}. The kernel is chosen with compact support, for example the triangular kernel or the rectangular kernel. The bandwidth is selected according to a rule of thumb due to \cite[][Section 3.4.2]{Silverman1986},
\begin{equation*}
h = 0.9 \min \Big\{SD, \frac{IQR}{1.34}\Big\} n^{-1/5},
\end{equation*}
where $SD$ and $IQR$ are respectively the standard deviation and interquartile range of the data values. Figures~\ref{fig:illustration1}, ~\ref{fig:illustration2} and ~\ref{fig:illustration3} show the RMISEs and the RMSEs for the six configurations and the four different methods.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{result_model1}
\caption{RMISE (for density $f$) and RMSE (for \mbox{$\ell$FDR}) in the first model as a function of $n$. Methods: "$\bullet$" = rwk, "$\triangle$" = \texttt{kerfdr}, "$\Box$" = msl, "$\triangledown$" = st (only for \mbox{$\ell$FDR}). Left: $\theta = 0.65$, right: $\theta = 0.85$.}
\label{fig:illustration1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{result_model2}
\caption{RMISE (for density $f$) and RMSE (for \mbox{$\ell$FDR}) in the second model as a function of $n$. Methods: "$\bullet$" = rwk, "$\triangle$" = \texttt{kerfdr}, "$\Box$" = msl, "$\triangledown$" = st (only for \mbox{$\ell$FDR}). Left: $\theta = 0.65$, right: $\theta = 0.85$.}
\label{fig:illustration2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{result_model3}
\caption{RMISE (for density $f$) and RMSE (for \mbox{$\ell$FDR}) in the third model as a function of $n$. Methods: "$\bullet$" = rwk, "$\triangle$" = \texttt{kerfdr}, "$\Box$" = msl, "$\triangledown$" = st (only for \mbox{$\ell$FDR}). Left: $\theta = 0.65$, right: $\theta = 0.85$.}
\label{fig:illustration3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We first comment the results on the estimation of $f$ (top half of each figure). Except for model 2, the RMISEs obtained are small for all the three procedures. Model 2 exhibits a rather high RMISEs and this may be explained by the fact that density $f$ is not bounded near $0$ in this case.
We note that the methods \texttt{rwk} and \texttt{kerfdr} have very similar performances, except in the third model where \texttt{kerfdr} seems to slightly outperform \texttt{rwk}. Let us recall that we introduced this latter method only as a way of approaching the theoretical performances of \texttt{kerfdr} method.
Now, in five out of the six configurations, \texttt{msl} outperforms the two other methods (\texttt{rwk, kerfdr}).
Then, we switch to comparing the methods with respect to estimation of \mbox{$\ell$FDR}\ (bottom half of each figure).
First, note that the four methods exhibit small RMSEs with respect to \mbox{$\ell$FDR}\ and are thus efficient for estimating this quantity. We also note that \texttt{rwk} tends to have lower performances than \texttt{kerfdr,msl}. Now, \texttt{msl} tends to slightly outperform \texttt{kerfdr}. Thus \texttt{msl} appears as a competitive method for \mbox{$\ell$FDR}\ estimation. The comparison with \cite{Strimmer2008}'s approach is more difficult: for model 1, the method compares with \texttt{msl}, while it outperforms all the methods in model 2 and is outperformed by \texttt{msl} in model 3.
As a conclusion, we claim that \texttt{msl} is a competitive method for estimating both the alternative density $f$ and the \mbox{$\ell$FDR}.
\section{Proofs}\label{sec:proofs}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:cv_f}}\label{ann:thm1}
The proof works as follows:
we first start by proving that the pointwise quadratic risk of
function $f_2$ defined by~\eqref{eq:f2} is order of $n^{-2\beta/(2\beta + 1)}$ in the
following proposition. Then we
compare the estimator $\hat{f}_n^{\text{rwk}}$ with the function $f_2$ to conclude
the proof. To simplify notation, we abbreviate
$\hat{f}_n^{\text{rwk}}$ to $\hat f_n$.
We shall need the following two lemmas. The proof of the first one may be found for
instance in Proposition 1.2 in \cite{Tsybakov-book}. The second one is
known as Bochner's lemma and is a classical result in kernel density
estimation. Therefore its proof is omitted.
\begin{lem} \textbf{(Proposition 1.2 in \cite{Tsybakov-book}).}
\label{lem1}
Let $p$ be a density in $\Sigma(\beta,L)$ and $K$ a kernel function of order $l
= \lfloor \beta \rfloor$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}| u| ^{\beta}| K(u)| du < \infty .
\end{equation*}
Then there exists a positive constant $C_3$ depending only on $\beta, L$ and $K$ such that for all $x_0 \in \mathbb{R}$,
\begin{equation*}
\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}}K(u)\big[p(x_0 + uh) - p(x_0)\big] du\Big| \leq
C_3h^{\beta},\quad \forall h > 0.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:Bochner}
\textbf{(Bochner's lemma).} Let $g$ be a bounded function on
$\mathbb{R}$, continuous in a neighborhood of $x_0 \in \mathbb{R}$ and
$Q$ a function which satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}| Q(x)| dx < \infty .
\end{equation*}
Then, we have
\begin{equation*}
\displaystyle\lim_{h\to 0}\frac {1} {h}\int_{\mathbb{R}}
Q\Big( \frac{x - x_0}{h}\Big) g(x)dx
= g(x_0)\int_{\mathbb{R}}Q(x)dx .
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
Now, we come to the first step in the proof.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:cv_f2}
Assume that kernel $K$ satisfies Assumption~\hyperref[hyp:A3]{\textbf{(A3)}} and bandwidth $h=\alpha n^{-1/(2\beta + 1)}$, with
$\alpha > 0$. Then the
pointwise quadratic risk of function $f_2$, defined by~\eqref{eq:f2}
and depending on $(\theta,f)$, satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{x \in [0,1]} \sup_{\theta\in [\delta,1-\delta]}\sup_{f \in \Sigma(\beta,L)} \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(|f_2(x)-f(x)|^{2}) \leq C_4 n^{\frac{-2\beta}{2\beta + 1}},
\end{equation*}
where $C_4$ is a positive constant depending only on
$\beta, L, \alpha, \delta$ and $K$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:cv_f2}]
Let us denote by
\begin{align*}
S_n = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac {f(X_i)} {g(X_i)} .
\end{align*}
The pointwise quadratic risk of $f_2$ can be written as the
sum of a bias term and a variance term
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(|f_2(x)-f(x)|^{2}) = [\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(f_2(x))-f(x)]^2 + \mathbb{V}\text{ar}_{\theta,f}[f_2(x)].
\end{equation*}
Let us first study the bias term. According to~\eqref{eq:f2} and the definition~\eqref{eq:posterior-proba} of the weights, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq-esp-f2}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}[f_2(x)] &=& \frac{n}{h}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\tau_1K\Big(\frac{x-X_1}{h}\Big)\Big(\sum_{k=1}^n \tau_k\Big)^{-1}\right] \notag
\\
&=& \frac{n}{h} \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\frac{f(X_1)}{g(X_1)}K\Big(\frac{x-X_1}{h}\Big)S_n^{-1}\right] \notag \\
&=& \frac{n}{h} \int_0^1f(t)K\Big(\frac {x - t} {h}\Big) \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\Big(\frac
{f(t)} {g(t)} + S_{n-1}\Big)^{-1}\right]dt \notag
\\
&=& n \int_{-x/h}^{(1-x)/h}K(t)f(x + th) \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\Big(\frac {f(x + th)} {g(x +
th)} + S_{n-1}\Big)^{-1}\right]dt .
\end{eqnarray}
Since the functions $f$ and $g$ are related by the equation $g(t) =
\theta+(1-\theta)f(t)$ for all $t \in [0,1]$, the ratio $f(t)/g(t)$ is well defined and satisfies
\begin{align*}
0 \leq \frac {f(t)} {g(t)} \leq \frac{1}{1 - \theta} \le \delta^{-1} , \quad \forall t
\in [0,1], \mbox{ and } \forall \theta \in [\delta, 1-\delta].
\end{align*}
Then for all $t \in [-x/h,(1-x)/h]$, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac {1} {S_{n-1} + \delta^{-1}} \leq
\left(\frac {f(x + th)} {g(x + th)} + S_{n-1}\right)^{-1} \leq \frac {1} {S_{n- 1}},
\end{eqnarray*}
where the bounds are uniform with respect to $t$.\\
By combining this inequality with \eqref{eq-esp-f2}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
&n\left(\int_{-x/h}^{(1-x)/h}K(t)f(x+th)dt\right)\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big(\frac
{1} {S_{n- 1} + \delta^{-1}}\Big) \leq \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\big[f_2(x)\big] \\
\mbox{and } \quad
&\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\big[f_2(x)\big] \leq n\left(\int_{-x/h}^{(1-x)/h}K(t)f(x+th)dt\right)\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big(\frac {1} {S_{n- 1}}\Big).
\end{align*}
Then, we apply the following lemma, whose proof is postponed to
Appendix~\ref{sec:appen_Sn}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem-expectation-Sn}
There exist some positive constants $c_1, c_2, c_3, c_4$ (depending
on $\delta$) such that for $n$
large enough,
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big(\frac {1} {S_n}\Big) \leq \frac{1}{n} + \frac{c_1}{n^2}\label{eq:toto9},\\
& \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big(\frac
{1} {S_n^2}\Big) \leq \frac{c_2}{n^2},\label{eq:toto10}\\
& \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big(\frac {1} {S_n+2\delta^{-1}}\Big) \geq \frac{1}{n} - \frac{c_3}{n^2}\label{eq:toto11},\\
\mbox{and} \quad & \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big(\frac {1} {S_n^2}\Big) - \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}^2\Big(\frac {1} {\delta^{-1} + S_n}\Big) \leq \frac{c_4}{n^3}. \label{eq:toto12}
\end{align}
\end{lem}
Relying on Inequalities~\eqref{eq:toto9} and~\eqref{eq:toto11}, we have for $n$ large enough
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{-x/h}^{(1-x)/h}K(t)f(x+th)dt -\frac {c_3} {n} \leq
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\big[f_2(x)\big] \leq \int_{-x/h}^{(1-x)/h}K(t)f(x+th)dt + \frac {c_1} {n}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $f(x+th) = 0$ for all $t \notin [-x/h,(1-x)/h]$, we may write
\begin{equation*}
\int_{-x/h}^{(1-x)/h}K(t)f(x+th)dt =
\int_{\mathbb{R}}K(t)f(x+th)dt .
\end{equation*}
Thus,
the bias of $f_2(x)$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
|b(x)| = |\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\big[f_2(x)\big] -f(x)|\leq \int_{\mathbb{R}}K(t)|f(x + th) - f(x)|dt + \frac {c_5} {n}.
\end{equation*}
By using Lemma~\ref{lem1} and the choice of bandwidth $h$, we obtain that
\begin{equation*}
b^2(x) \leq C_5 h^{2\beta},
\end{equation*}
where $C_5 = C_5(\beta, L, K)$. Let us study now the variance term of $f_2(x)$. We have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:toto13}
\mathbb{V}\text{ar}_{\theta,f}\big[f_2(x)\big] = \frac{1}{h^2} \big[n \mathbb{V}\text{ar}_{\theta,f}(Y_1) + n(n-1) \mathbb{C}\text{ov}_{\theta,f}(Y_1,Y_2)\big],
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
Y_i = \frac{f(X_i)} {g(X_i)} K\Big(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\Big)S_n^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
The variance of $Y_1$ is bounded by its second moment and
\begin{multline*}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(Y_1^2) = \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\Big(\frac{f(X_1)} {g(X_1)}\Big)^2
K^2\Big(\frac{x-X_1}{h}\Big)S_n^{-2}\right] \\
= \int_0^1\frac{f^2(t)} {g(t)} K^2\Big(\frac{x-t}{h}\Big)
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big[\Big(\frac {f(t)} {g(t)} + S_{n-1}\Big)^{-2}\Big] dt .
\end{multline*}
Now, recalling that $0\le f/g \le \delta^{-1}$ and using
Inequality~\eqref{eq:toto10} of Lemma~\ref{lem-expectation-Sn}, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:toto14}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(Y_1^2)
&\leq& h\Big(\int_{-x/h}^{(1-x)/h}\frac{f^2(x + th)} {g(x + th)} K^2(t)dt\Big) \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big(\frac {1}{S_{n - 1}^2}\Big) \notag \\
&\leq& h \delta^{-1} \sup_{f \in \Sigma(\beta,L)}\|f\|_{\infty}\Big(\int K^2(t)dt\Big) \frac {c_2}{n^2} \leq \frac {C_6h} {n^2} .
\end{eqnarray}
We now study the covariance of $Y_1$ and $Y_2$
\begin{eqnarray*}
& &\mathbb{C}\text{ov}_{\theta,f}(Y_1,Y_2) = \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(Y_1Y_2) - \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}^2(Y_1)\\
&=& \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\frac{f(X_1)f(X_2)} {g(X_1)g(X_2)}K\Big(\frac{x-X_1}{h}\Big)K\Big(\frac{x-X_2}{h}\Big)S_n^{-2}\right] - \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}^2\left[\frac{f(X_1)} {g(X_1)}
K\Big(\frac{x-X_1}{h}\Big)S_n^{-1}\right]\\
&=& \int_{[0,1]^2}f(t)f(u)K\Big(\frac{x-t}{h}\Big)K\Big(\frac{x-u}{h}\Big)
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\Big(\frac {f(t)} {g(t)} + \frac {f(u)} {g(u)} + S_{n-2}\Big)^{-2}\right] dtdu\\
& & - \left(\int_0^1f(t)K\Big(\frac{x-t}{h}\Big) \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\Big(\frac {f(t)} {g(t)}
+ S_{n-1}\Big)^{-1}\right] dt\right)^2 \\
&=& \int_{[0,1]^2}f(t)f(u)K\Big(\frac{x-t}{h}\Big)K\Big(\frac{x-u}{h}\Big)A(t,u)dtdu,
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
A(t,u) &=& \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\Big(\frac {f(t)} {g(t)} + \frac {f(u)} {g(u)} +
S_{n-2}\Big)^{-2}\right] - \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\Big(\frac {f(t)} {g(t)} +
S_{n-1}\Big)^{-1}\right]\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\Big(\frac {f(u)} {g(u)} + S_{n-1}\Big)^{-1}\right]\\
&\leq& \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big(\frac {1} {S_{n - 2}^2}\Big) - \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}^2\Big(\frac {1} {2\delta^{-1} + S_{n - 2}}\Big).
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{C}\text{ov}(Y_1,Y_2) &\leq& \int_{[0,1]^2}f(t)f(u)K\Big(\frac{x-t}{h}\Big)K\Big(\frac{x-u}{h}\Big)\left[\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big(\frac {1} {S_{n - 2}^2}\Big) - \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}^2\Big(\frac {1} {2\delta^{-1} + S_{n - 2}}\Big)\right]dtdu\\
&\leq& h^2\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x + th)K(t)dt\right)^2\left[\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big(\frac {1} {S_{n - 2}^2}\Big) -
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}^2\Big(\frac {1} {2\delta^{-1} + S_{n - 2}}\Big)\right]\\
&\leq& C_7h^2\left[\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big(\frac {1} {S_{n - 2}^2}\Big) - \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}^2\Big(\frac {1} {2\delta^{-1} + S_{n - 2}}\Big)\right].\\
\end{eqnarray*}
According to Inequality~\eqref{eq:toto12} of
Lemma~\ref{lem-expectation-Sn}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big(\frac {1} {S_{n-2}^2}\Big) - \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}^2\Big(\frac {1} {2\delta^{-1} + S_{n-2}}\Big) \leq
\frac{c_4}{n^3},
\end{equation*}
hence
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:toto15}
\mathbb{C}\text{ov}_{\theta,f}(Y_1,Y_2) \leq \frac{C_8h^2}{n^3}.
\end{equation}
By returning to Equality~\eqref{eq:toto13} and combining with
\eqref{eq:toto14} and \eqref{eq:toto15}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{V}\text{ar}_{\theta,f}\big[f_2(x)\big] \leq \frac{1}{h^2}\left[\frac{C_6h}{n} + n(n -
1)h^2\frac{C_8h^2}{n^3}\right] \leq \frac{C_9}{nh}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, as the bandwidth $h$ is of order $n^{-1/(2\beta + 1)}$,
the pointwise quadratic risk of $f_2(x)$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(|f_2(x)-f(x)|^{2}) \leq C_4n^{\frac{-2\beta}{2\beta + 1}}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:cv_f}.]
First, the pointwise quadratic risk of $\hat{f}_n(x)$ is bounded in the
following way
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:toto20}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(|\hat{f}_n(x)-f(x)|^{2}) \leq
2\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(|f_2(x)-f(x)|^{2}) +
2\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(|\hat{f}_n(x)-f_2(x)|^{2}).
\end{equation}
According to Proposition~\ref{prop:cv_f2}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:toto21}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(|f_2(x)-f(x)|^{2}) \leq C_4n^{\frac{-2\beta}{2\beta+1}},
\end{equation}
and it remains to study the second term appearing in the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:toto20}. We write
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{f}_n(x) - f_2(x) &=&
\frac{1}{h}\sum_{i=1}^n\left(\frac{\hat{\tau}_i}{\sum_k\hat{\tau}_k} -
\frac{\tau_i}{\sum_k\tau_k}\right)K\left(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\right)\\
&=& \frac{1}{h}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{\hat{\tau}_i -
\tau_i}{\sum_k\hat{\tau}_k}K\left(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\right) + \frac{1}{h}\sum_{i=1}^n\tau_i\left(\frac{1}{\sum_k\hat{\tau}_k} -
\frac{1}{\sum_k\tau_k}\right)K\left(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\right)\\
&=& \frac{n}{\sum_k\hat{\tau}_k} \times\frac{1}{n h}\sum_{i=1}^n(\hat{\tau}_i -
\tau_i) K\left(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\right)\\
&&+ \frac{n^2}{\sum_k\hat{\tau}_k \sum_k\tau_k}\times
\frac{\sum_k(\tau_k-\hat{\tau}_k)}{n}\times\frac{1}{n h}\sum_{i=1}^n\tau_i K\left(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, recalling the definition of the weights~\eqref{eq:def_weight}, we have for all $1\le i\le n$,
\begin{equation*}
\hat{\tau}_i - \tau_i = \frac{\hat{\theta}_n}{\tilde{g}_n(X_i)}-\frac{\theta}{g(X_i)}
=\hat{\theta}_n\Big[\frac{1}{\tilde{g}_n(X_i)}-\frac{1}{g(X_i)}\Big]+\frac{1}{g(X_i)}(\hat{\theta}_n-\theta),
\end{equation*}
and thus get
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:equality-difference}
\hat{f}_n(x) - f_2(x) &=& \frac{n\hat{\theta}_n}{\sum_k\hat{\tau}_k}
\times\frac{1}{n
h}\sum_{i=1}^n\Big[\frac{1}{\tilde{g}_n(X_i)}-\frac{1}{g(X_i)}\Big]
K\left(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\right)\notag\\
&&+ \frac{n(\hat{\theta}_n-\theta)}{\sum_k\hat{\tau}_k} \times\frac{1}{n h}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{g(X_i)} K\left(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\right)\notag\\
&&+ \frac{n^2\hat{\theta}_n}{\sum_k\hat{\tau}_k \sum_k\tau_k}\times\frac{1}{n}
\sum_k\Big[\frac{1}{\tilde{g}_n(X_k)}-\frac{1}{g(X_k)}\Big]\times\frac{1}{n
h}\sum_{i=1}^n\tau_i K\left(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\right)\notag\\
&&+ \frac{n^2(\hat{\theta}_n-\theta)}{\sum_k\hat{\tau}_k \sum_k\tau_k}\times\frac{1}{n}
\sum_k\frac{1}{g(X_k)}\times\frac{1}{n
h}\sum_{i=1}^n\tau_i K\left(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Let us control the different terms appearing in this latter equality.
We first remark that for all $i$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bound-tau-g}
0 \leq \tau_i\leq 1 \ \text{and}\ \frac{1}{g(X_i)} \leq \frac{1}{\theta} \le \delta^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Since by assumption $\hat{\theta}_n \xrightarrow[n\to\infty] {as} \theta \in [0,1]$,
for $n$ large enough we also get $|\hat{\theta}_n| < 3/2 , \mbox{a.s.}$
According to the law of large numbers and $\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(\tau_1) =1 - \theta$, we also obtain that for $n$ large enough
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bound-sum-tau}
\frac \delta 2 \leq \frac{1-\theta}{2} \leq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\tau_i \leq \frac{3(1-\theta)}{2} \le \frac{3(1-\delta)}{2}
\quad \mbox{a.s.}
\end{equation}
Moreover, by using a Taylor expansion of the function $u\mapsto 1/u$ with an integral form of the remainder term, we have for all $i$,
\[
\Big|\frac{1}{\tilde{g}_n(X_i)}-\frac{1}{g(X_i)}\Big| = \frac{|\tilde{g}_n(X_i)-g(X_i)|}{g^2(X_i)}\int_0^1\left(1
+ s\frac{\tilde{g}_n(X_i)-g(X_i)}{g(X_i)}\right)^{-2}ds .
\]
Since convergence of $\hat{g}_n$ to $ g$ is valid pointwise and in $\mathbb{L}_\infty$ norm (see Remark~\ref{rem:first}), and since $\tilde g_n$ is a slight modification of $\hat g_n$, we have almost surely, for $n$
large enough and for all $ s \in [0,1]$ and all $x\in [0,1]$,
\begin{align*}
1 + s\frac{\tilde{g}_n(x)-g(x)}{g(x)} \geq 1 -
s\frac{\|\hat{g}_n-g\|_{\infty}}{\theta} \geq 1 - \frac{s}{2} > 0.
\end{align*}
Hence, for all $x\in [0,1]$ and large enough $n$,
\begin{equation*}
\int_0^1\left(1 + s\frac{\tilde{g}_n(x)-g(x)}{g(x)}\right)^{-2}ds \leq
\int_0^1\frac{4ds}{(2-s)^2} = 2,
\end{equation*}
and we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bound-gcp-g}
\Big|\frac{1}{\tilde{g}_n(X_i)}-\frac{1}{g(X_i)}\Big|
\leq 2 \delta^{-2}|\tilde{g}_n(X_i)-g(X_i)|\quad \mbox{a.s.}
\end{equation}
We also use the following lemma, whose proof is postponed to Appendix~\ref{sec:appen_sum_hat_tau}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:sum_hat_tau}
For large enough $n$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bound-sum-taucp}
\frac{n}{|\sum_k\hat{\tau}_k|} \leq c_7 \quad \mbox{a.s.}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
By returning to Equality~\eqref{eq:equality-difference} and combining with \eqref{eq:bound-tau-g}, \eqref{eq:bound-sum-tau}, \eqref{eq:bound-gcp-g} and \eqref{eq:bound-sum-taucp}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:inequality-difference}
|\hat{f}_n(x) - f_2(x)|^2 &\leq& c_8\left(\frac{1}{nh}\sum_{i=1}^n |\tilde{g}_n(X_i)-g(X_i)| \times \Big| K\Big(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\Big) \Big|\right)^2\notag\\
&&+c_9|\hat{\theta}_n -
\theta|^2\left(\frac{1}{nh}\sum_{i=1}^n\Big|K\Big(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\Big)\Big|\right)^2\\
&&+c_{10}\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n
|\tilde{g}_n(X_i)-g(X_i)|\right)^2 \left(\frac{1}{nh}\sum_{i=1}^n K\Big(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\Big)\right)^2\quad \mbox{a.s.} \notag
\end{eqnarray}
We now successively control the expectations $T_1,T_2$ and $T_3$ of the three terms appearing in this upper-bound. For the first term, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
T_1&=&\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\left(\frac{1}{nh}\sum_{i=1}^n
|\tilde{g}_n(X_i)-g(X_i)| \times \Big| K\Big(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\Big) \Big| \right)^2\right]\\
&=& \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\frac{1}{n^2h^2}\sum_{i,j=1}^n |\tilde{g}_n(X_i)-g(X_i)| |\tilde{g}_n(X_j)-g(X_j)| \times \Big| K\Big(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\Big) K\Big(\frac{x-X_j}{h}\Big)\Big|\right]\\
&=& \frac{1}{nh}\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\frac{1}{h} |\tilde{g}_n(X_1)-g(X_1)|^2
K^2\Big(\frac{x-X_1}{h}\Big)\right] \\
&&+\frac{n-1}{n}\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\frac{1}{h^2}|\tilde{g}_n(X_1)-g(X_1)| |\tilde{g}_n(X_2)-g(X_2)|\times \Big| K\Big(\frac{x-X_1}{h}\Big) K\Big(\frac{x-X_2}{h}\Big) \Big| \right].
\end{eqnarray*}
Now,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:expectation-type1}
T_{11}&=&\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[ \frac{1}{h}|\tilde{g}_n(X_1)-g(X_1)|^2
K^2\Big(\frac{x-X_1}{h}\Big)\right] \notag\\
&=&\int_0^1
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left( |\hat{g}_{n-1}(t)-g(t)|^2\right)
K^2\Big(\frac{x-t}{h}\Big)\frac{g(t)}{h}dt \ \text{ (according to definition~\eqref{eq:def_weight})} \notag\\
&\leq& C_{10}n^{\frac{-2\beta}{2\beta+1}} \int_0^1 K^2\Big(\frac{x-t}{h}\Big)\frac{g(t)}{h}dt \ \text{ (according to Remark~\ref{rem:first})}
\notag\\
&\leq& C_{11}n^{\frac{-2\beta}{2\beta+1}}\ \text{(according to Lemma \ref{lem:Bochner})},
\end{eqnarray}
and in the same way
\begin{align*}
T_{12}=&\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\frac{1}{h^2}|\tilde{g}_n(X_1)-g(X_1)|
|\tilde{g}_n(X_2)-g(X_2)| K\Big(\frac{x-X_1}{h}\Big)
K\Big(\frac{x-X_2}{h}\Big)\right] \\
= & \int_0^1\int_0^1\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big[\Big|\frac{n-2}{n-1}\hat{g}_{n-2}(t)-g(t)+\frac{1}{(n-1)h}K\Big(\frac{t-s}{h}\Big)\Big| \\
& \times \Big|\frac{n-2}{n-1}\hat{g}_{n-2}(s)-g(s)
+\frac{1}{(n-1)h}K\Big(\frac{s-t}{h}\Big)\Big|\Big]\Big| K\Big(\frac{x-t}{h}\Big) K\Big(\frac{x-s}{h}\Big) \Big|\frac{g(t)g(s)}{h^2}dtds .
\end{align*}
This last term is upper-bound by
\begin{align*}
T_{12}\leq & \int_0^1\int_0^1\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big[\Big(|\hat{g}_{n-2}(t)-g(t)|+\frac{1}{n-1}g(t)+\frac{1}{(n-1)h}\Big|K\Big(\frac{t-s}{h}\Big)\Big|\Big)\\
& \times \Big(|\hat{g}_{n-2}(s)-g(s)|
+\frac{1}{n-1}g(s)+\frac{1}{(n-1)h}\Big|K\Big(\frac{s-t}{h}\Big)\Big|\Big)\Big]\\
& \times \Big| K\Big(\frac{x-t}{h}\Big) K\Big(\frac{x-s}{h}\Big) \Big| \frac{g(t)g(s)}{h^2}dtds\\
\leq & \int_0^1\int_0^1\left\{\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}^{1/2}\big[|\hat{g}_{n-2}(t)-g(t)|^2\big]\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}^{1/2}\big[|\hat{g}_{n-2}(s)-g(s)|^2\big]+o\Big(\frac{1}{nh}\Big) \right\}\\
& \times \Big| K\Big(\frac{x-t}{h}\Big)K\Big(\frac{x-s}{h}\Big) \Big| \frac{g(t)g(s)}{h^2}dtds.
\end{align*}
According to Remark~\ref{rem:first}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:expectation-type2}
T_{12}\leq C_{12}n^{\frac{-2\beta}{2\beta+1}} \left[\int_0^1 \Big| K\Big(\frac{x-t}{h}\Big) \Big|\frac{g(t)}{h}dt\right]^2 \leq C_{13}n^{\frac{-2\beta}{2\beta+1}}\ \text{(according to Lemma \ref{lem:Bochner})}.
\end{equation}
Thus we get that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:term1}
T_1= \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\left(\frac{1}{nh}\sum_{i=1}^n
|\tilde{g}_n(X_i)-g(X_i)| \Big| K\Big(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\Big)\Big| \right)^2\right] \leq C_{14}n^{\frac{-2\beta}{2\beta+1}}.
\end{equation}
For the second term in the right hand side of~\eqref{eq:inequality-difference}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
T_2 &=& \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[|\hat{\theta}_n -
\theta|^2\left(\frac{1}{nh}\sum_{i=1}^n\Big|K\Big(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\Big)\Big|\right)^2\right]\\
&\leq& \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}^{1/2}\left[|\hat{\theta}_n -
\theta|^4\right]\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}^{1/2}\left[\left(\frac{1}{nh}\sum_{i=1}^n\Big|K\Big(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\Big)\Big|\right)^4\right] .
\end{eqnarray*}
The proof of the following lemma is postponed to Appendix~\ref{sec:appen_control_K1}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:control_K1}
There exist some positive constant $C_{15}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:toto}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\left(\frac{1}{nh}\sum_{i=1}^n\Big|K\Big(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\Big)\Big|\right)^4\right]
\leq C_{15}.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
This lemma entails that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:term2}
T_2
\leq C_{15}\left[\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left(|\hat{\theta}_n - \theta|^4\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{equation}
Now, we turn to the third term in the right hand side of~\eqref{eq:inequality-difference}. We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
T_3 &=&\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n
|\tilde{g}_n(X_i)-g(X_i)|\right)^2 \left(\frac{1}{nh}\sum_{i=1}^n
\Big| K\Big(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\Big) \Big| \right)^2\right]\\
&=& \mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\left[\frac{1}{n^4h^2}\sum_{i,j,k,l=1}^n |\tilde{g}_n(X_i)-g(X_i)| |\tilde{g}_n(X_j)-g(X_j)| \Big| K\Big(\frac{x-X_k}{h}\Big) K\Big(\frac{x-X_l}{h}\Big) \Big| \right] .
\end{eqnarray*}
By using the same arguments as for obtaining~\eqref{eq:expectation-type1} and~\eqref{eq:expectation-type2}, we can get that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:term3}
T_3 \leq C_{16} n^{\frac{-2\beta}{2\beta+1}}.
\end{equation}
According to \eqref{eq:term1}, \eqref{eq:term2} and \eqref{eq:term3}, we may conclude
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:difference}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(|\hat{f}_n(x)-f_2(x)|^{2}) \leq C_{15}\Big[\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big(|\hat{\theta}_n -
\theta|^4\Big)\Big]^{\frac{1}{2}} + C_{17}n^{\frac{-2\beta}{2\beta+1}}.
\end{equation}
By returning to Inequality~\eqref{eq:toto20} and combining it with \eqref{eq:toto21} and \eqref{eq:difference}, we achieve that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}(|\hat{f}_n(x)-f(x)|^{2}) \leq C_1\Big[\mathbb{E}_{\theta,f}\Big(|\hat{\theta}_n -
\theta|^4\Big)\Big]^{\frac{1}{2}} + C_2n^{\frac{-2\beta}{2\beta+1}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Other proofs} \label{sec:other_proofs}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:hatft_decreases}]
By using the same arguments as for obtaining~\eqref{eq-decroissante}, we can get that
\begin{equation*}
l_n(\hat{f}^{(t)}) - l_n(\hat{f}^{(t+1)}) \geq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^n \hat{\omega}_k^{(t)} D(\hat{f}^{(t+1)}\mid \hat{f}^{(t)}).
\end{equation*}
Let us now denote by
\begin{equation*}
m = \underset{x \in [-1,1]}{\inf} K_h(x)\ \text{and}\ M = \underset{x \in [-1,1]}{\sup} K_h(x),
\end{equation*}
then $m$ and $M$ are two positive constants depending on the bandwidth $h$ and the
kernel $K$. We note that for all $x \in [0,1]$,
\begin{equation*}
m \leq \int_0^1 K_h(u-x)du \leq \min (M,1).
\end{equation*}
Thus, for all $t\ge 1$, the estimate $\hat{f}^{(t)}$ is lower bounded by $m$. Since the operator $\mathcal{N}$ is increasing, it follows that $\mathcal{N}\hat{f}^{(t)}$ is also lower bounded by $m$.
Now the function
\begin{equation*}
x \mapsto \frac{(1-\theta)x}{\theta+(1-\theta)x}
\end{equation*}
is increasing, so that we finally obtain
\begin{equation*}
\hat{\omega}_k^{(t)} = \frac{(1-\theta)\mathcal{N}\hat{f}^{(t)}(X_k)}{\theta +
(1-\theta)\mathcal{N}\hat{f}^{(t)}(X_k)}
\geq \frac{(1-\theta) m}{\theta +
(1-\theta) m} = c.
\end{equation*}
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:subsequence}.]
We start by stating a lemma, whose proof is postponed to
Appendix~\ref{sec:appen_continuous}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem-continuous}
The function $l: \mathcal{B} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
is continuous
with respect to the topology induced by uniform convergence on the set of
functions defined on $[0,1]$.
\end{lem}
First, for all $f \in \mathcal{B}$, we remark that $m\leq f(\cdot)\leq M/m$. Thus, $\mathcal{N}(f)$ and $l(f)$ are well-defined for $f \in \mathcal{B}$. Moreover, it is easy to see that $l(f)$ is bounded below on $\mathcal{B}$. According to the definition~\eqref{eq:f^t} of the sequence $\{f^t\}_{t\ge 0}$, every
function $f^t$ belongs to $\mathcal{B}$. As a consequence, we obtain that the sequence $\{l(f^t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ is decreasing and lower bounded, thus it is convergent and the sequence $\{f^t\}_{t\ge 0}$ converges (simply) to a local minimum of $l$.
Now, it is easy to see that $l$ is a strictly convex function on the convex set $\mathcal{B}$ (relying on \cite{Eggermont99}). Existence and uniqueness of the minimum $f^\star$ of $l$ in $\mathcal{B}$ thus follows, as well as the simple convergence of the iterative sequence $\{f^t\}_{t\ge 0}$ to this unique minimum.
For all $x, y \in [0,1]$ and for all
$t$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
| f^t(x) -f^t(y) | &=& \frac{1}{\int_0^1
\omega_t(u)g_0(u)du}\Big | \int_0^1
\frac{[K_h(u-x)-K_h(u-y)]\omega_t(u)g_0(u)}{\int_0^1K_h(s-u)ds}du
\Big |\\
&\leq& \frac{1}{\int_0^1
\omega_t(u)g_0(u)du} \int_0^1
\frac{| K_h(u-x)-K_h(u-y)| \omega_t(u)g_0(u)}{m}du\\
&\leq& \frac{L}{m}| x-y |,
\end{eqnarray*}
so that the sequence $\{f^t\}$ is uniformly bounded and
equicontinuous. Relying on Arzel\`{a}-Ascoli theorem, there exists a
subsequence $\{f^{t_k}\}$ of $\{f^t\}$ which converges uniformly to some limit. However, this uniform limit must be the simple limit of the sequence, namely the minimum $f^\star$ of $l$. Now, uniqueness of the uniform limit value of the sequence $\{f^t\}_{t\ge 0}$ entails its convergence.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
In~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp}, we presented a general methodology for developing
a compiler and associated intermediate language for any abstract logic
programming language (ALPL) \cite{Miller91apal} that satisfies some basic
proof-theoretic properties. We applied it abstractly to the language of
hereditary Harrop formulas and its linear variant, and also based the concrete
implementations of the Twelf~\cite{Pfenning99cade} and LLF~\cite{ic02} systems
directly on it. This methodology identified right sequent rules that behave
like the left rules that can appear in a uniform proof and used the
corresponding connectives as the compilation targets of the constructs in
program clauses. The intermediate language was therefore just another ALPL
and its abstract machine relied on proof-search, like the source ALPL\@.
Because the transformation was based on the proof-theoretic duality between
left and right rules, proving the correctness of the compilation process
amounted to a simple induction. Finally, for Horn clauses the connectives in
the target ALPL corresponded to key instructions in the Warren Abstract
Machine (WAM)~\cite{Warren83tr}. The WAM is an essential component of
commercial Prolog systems since many compiled programs run over an order of
magnitude faster than when interpreted.
Up to then, the notoriously procedural instruction set of the WAM was regarded
as a wondrous piece of engineering without any logical status, in sharp
contrast with the deep logical roots of Prolog. In the words
of~\cite{Boerger95fmpa} ``[the WAM] resembles an intricate puzzle, whose many
pieces fit tightly together in a miraculous way''. As a result, understanding
it was complex in spite of the availability of excellent
tutorials~\cite{Aitkaci91book}, proving its correctness was a formidable
task~\cite{Boerger95fmpa,Russinoff92jlp}, and adapting it to other logic
programming languages a major endeavor --- it was done for \emph{CLP$({\cal
R})$}~\cite{Jaffar92pldi} and
\emph{$\lambda$Prolog}~\cite{nadathur99cade}. By contrast, the methodology
in~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp} is simple, (mostly) logic-based, easily
verifiable, and of general applicability.
The technique in~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp} had however one blemish: it made use
of equality over atomic formulas together with a second-order binder over
atomic goals, which lacked logical status. In this paper, we
remedy this drawback by carefully massaging the head of clauses. This allows
us to replace those constructs with term-level equality and regular universal
quantifications over the arguments of a clause head. The result is an
improved proof-theoretic account of compilation for logic programs that sits
squarely within logic. It also opens the doors to specializing the
compilation process to well-moded programs, which brings out the potential of
doing away with unification in favor of matching, a more efficient operation
in many languages. We present these results for the language of hereditary
Harrop formulas and only at the highest level of abstraction. Just
like~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp}, they are however general, both in terms of the
source ALPL and of the level of the abstraction considered. We are indeed in
the process of using them to implement a compiler for
CLF~\cite{cmu-cs-02-101,cmu-cs-02-102}, a higher-order concurrent linear logic
programming language that combines backward and forward chaining.
The paper is organized as follows: Section~\ref{sec:pil0} recalls the
compilation process of~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp}. In Section~\ref{sec:pil1},
we present our improved compilation process. In Section~\ref{sec:pil2}, we
refine it to support moded programs. We lay out future developments in
Sections~\ref{sec:larger-languages} and~\ref{sec:future}.
\section{Background and Recap}
\label{sec:pil0}
In this section, we recall the compilation process presented
in~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp}. For succinctness, we focus on a smaller source
language --- it corresponds to the language underlying the Twelf
system~\cite{Pfenning99cade}, on which this technique was first used. We will
comment on larger languages, including those examined
in~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp}, in Section~\ref{sec:larger-languages}.
\subsection{Source Language}
\label{sec:pil0-source}
We take the language freely generated from atomic propositions ($a$),
intuitionistic implication ($\sImp$) and universal quantification ($\forall$)
as our source language. We expand the open-ended atomic propositions
of~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp}, into a \emph{predicate symbol} $p$ followed by
zero or more terms $t$. A program is a sequence of closed formulas. This
language, which we call $\L^s$, is given by the following grammar:
\medskip
\noindent
{\arraycolsep=0.25em
\newcommand{\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em}}{\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em}}
$\begin{array}[t]{@{}r@{\hspace{0.8em}} cr l@{}}
\mbox{\emph{Formulas:}}
& A & ::= & a
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} A_1 \sImp A_2
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \A{x}{A}
\\ \mbox{\emph{Atoms:}}
& a & ::= & p
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} a\:t
\end{array}$
\hfill
$\begin{array}[t]{@{}r@{\hspace{0.8em}} cr l@{}}
\mbox{\emph{Programs:}}
& \Gamma & ::= & \cdot
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \Gamma, A
\end{array}$
\hspace*{1em}}
\medskip
\noindent
As in~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp}, we leave the language of terms open, but
require that it be predicative (substituting a term for a variable cannot
alter the outer structure of a formula). We will often write an atom $a$ as
$p\;\vec{t}$, where $p$ is its predicate symbol and $\vec{t}$ is the sequence
of terms it is applied to.
We implicitly assume that a predicate symbol is consistently applied to the
same number of terms throughout a program --- its arity.
We write $[t'/x]t$ (resp.\ $[t'/x]A$) for the capture-avoiding substitution of
term $t'$ for all free occurrences of variable $x$ in term $t$ (resp.\ in
formula $A$). Simultaneous substitution is denoted $[\vec{t'}/\vec{x}]t$ and
$[\vec{t'}/\vec{x}]A$.
$\L^s$ is an abstract logic programming language~\cite{Miller91apal} and, for
appropriate choices of the term language, has indeed the same expressive power
as $\lambda$Prolog~\cite{Miller86iclp} or Twelf~\cite{Pfenning99cade}. It
differs from the first language discussed in~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp} for the
omission of conjunction and truth (see Section~\ref{sec:larger-languages}).
The operational semantics of $\L^s$ is given by the two judgments
$$
\begin{array}{l@{\hspace{1.5em}}p{16em}}
\unid{\Gamma}{A}
& \emph{$A$ is uniformly provable from $\Gamma$}
\\ \immd{\Gamma}{A}
& \emph{$a$ is immediately entailed by $A$ in $\Gamma$}
\end{array}
$$
Their defining rules, given in Figure~\ref{fig:pil0-uniform}, produce uniform
proofs~\cite{Miller91apal}: the uniform provability judgment includes the
right sequent rules for $\L^s$ and, once the goal is atomic, rule
\rname{u\_atm} calls the immediate entailment judgment, which focuses on a
program formula $A$ and decomposes it as prescribed by the left sequent rules.
This strategy is complete with respect to the traditional sequent rules of
this logic~\cite{Miller91apal}. From a logic programming perspective, the
connectives appearing in the goal --- handled by right rules --- are search
directives, while the left rules carry out a run-time preparatory phase.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\newcommand{1.8ex}{1.8ex}
\newcommand{-.5ex}{-.5ex}
\newcommand{\trule}[1][-1.5ex]{\rule[#1]{0em}{0ex}}
\newcommand{\hfill}{\hfill}
\fboxsep=0pt
\noindent
\fbox{\scriptsize
$\begin{array}{@{\hfill}c@{\hfill}}
\makebox[\textwidth]{}\\[-2.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Uniform \; provability\trule}
\\%[-0ex]
\cRule
{\immd{\Gamma, A, \Gamma'}{A}}
{\unid{\Gamma, A, \Gamma'}{a}}
{u\_atm}
\hfill
\cRule
{\unid{\Gamma, A_1}{A_2}}
{\unid{\Gamma}{A_1 \sImp A_2}}
{u\_imp}
\hfill
\cRule
{c \; \mbox{\em ``new''}
\qq
\unid{\Gamma}{[c/x]A}}
{\unid{\Gamma}{\A{x}{A}}}
{u\_all}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Immediate \; entailment\trule}
\\[-1.0ex]
\cRule
{}
{\immd{\Gamma}{a}}
{i\_atm}
\hfill
\cRule
{\immd{\Gamma}{A_1}
\qq
\unid{\Gamma}{A_2}}
{\immd{\Gamma}{A_2 \sImp A_1}}
{i\_imp}
\hfill
\cRule
{\immd{\Gamma}{[t/x]A}}
{\immd{\Gamma}{\A{x}{A}}}
{i\_all}
\\[-1ex]\relax
\end{array}$}
\caption{Uniform Deduction System for $\L^s$.}
\label{fig:pil0-uniform}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Target Language}
\label{sec:pil0-target}
In~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp}, the target language of the compilation process
distinguished compiled goals ($G$) from compiled clauses ($C$). A compiled
goal was either an atomic proposition, or a hypothetical goal (a goal to be
solved in the presence of an additional clause) or a universal goal (a goal to
be solved in the presence of a new constant). A compiled clause had the form
$\bigLam{C}$, where the second-order variable $\alpha$ stood for the atomic
goal to be resolved against the present clause, while $C$ could either match
$\alpha$ with the head $a$ of this clause ($\Eq{a}{\alpha}$), invoke a goal
($C \And G$), or request that a variable $x$ be instantiated with a term
($\E{x}{C}$). A compiled program $\Psi$ was then a sequence of compiled
clauses. The grammar for the resulting language, which we call $\L^c_0$, is as
follows:
\medskip
\noindent
{\arraycolsep=0.25em
\newcommand{\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em}}{\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em}}
$\begin{array}[t]{@{}r@{\hspace{0.8em}} cr l@{}}
\mbox{\emph{Goals:}}
& G & ::= & a
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} (\bigLam{C}) \sImp G
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \A{x}{G}
\\ \mbox{\emph{Clauses:}}
& C & ::= & \makebox[3em]{$\Eq{a}{\alpha}$}
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} C \And G
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \E{x}{C}
\end{array}$
\hfill
$\begin{array}[t]{@{}r@{\hspace{0.8em}} cr l@{}}
\mbox{\emph{Programs:}}
& \Psi & ::= & \cdot
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \Psi, \bigLam{C}
\end{array}$
\hspace*{1em}}%
\medskip
The operational semantics of a compiled program, as given by the above
grammar, is defined on the basis of the following two judgments:
$$
\begin{array}{l@{\hspace{1.5em}}p{16em}}
\gResA{\Psi}{G}
& \emph{$G$ is uniformly provable from $\Psi$}
\\ \rResA{\Psi}{\tilde{C}}
& \emph{$\tilde{C}$ is uniformly provable from $\Psi$}
\end{array}
$$
Here, clause instances $\tilde{C}$ are $C$'s whose variable $\alpha$ has been
instantiated with an atomic formula $a'$.
The operational semantics of $\L^c_0$ is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:pil0-resolution}. Observe that, with the partial exception of
\rname{g0\_atm}, it consists solely of right rules. This means that every
connective is seen as a search directive: the dynamic clause preparations
embodied by the left rules has now been turned into right search rules through
a static compilation phase.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\newcommand{1.8ex}{1.8ex}
\newcommand{-.5ex}{-.5ex}
\newcommand{\trule}[1][-1.5ex]{\rule[#1]{0em}{0ex}}
\newcommand{\hfill}{\hfill}
\fboxsep=0pt
\noindent
\fbox{\scriptsize
$\begin{array}{@{\hfill}c@{\hfill}}
\makebox[\textwidth]{}\\[-2.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Goals\trule}
\\%[-0ex]
\cRule
{\rResA{\Psi, \bigLam{C}, \Psi'}{[a/\alpha]C}}
{\gResA{\Psi, \bigLam{C}, \Psi'}{a}}
{g0\_atm}
\hfill
\cRule
{\gResA{\Psi, \bigLam{C}}{G}}
{\gResA{\Psi}{(\bigLam{C}) \sImp G}}
{g0\_imp}
\hfill
\cRule
{c \; \mbox{\em ``new''}
\qq
\gResA{\Psi}{[c/x]G}}
{\gResA{\Psi}{\A{x}{G}}}
{g0\_all}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Clause\:instances\trule}
\\[-1.0ex]
\cRule
{}
{\rResA{\Psi}{\Eq{a}{a}}}
{r0\_eq}
\hfill
\cRule
{\rResA{\Psi}{\tilde{C}}
\qq
\gResA{\Psi}{G}}
{\rResA{\Psi}{\tilde{C} \And G}}
{r0\_and}
\hfill
\cRule
{\rResA{\Psi}{[t/x]\tilde{C}}}
{\rResA{\Psi}{\E{x}{\tilde{C}}}}
{r0\_exists}
\\[-1ex]\relax
\end{array}$}
\caption{Search Semantics of $\L^c_0$.}
\label{fig:pil0-resolution}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Compilation}
\label{sec:pil0-compilation}
Compilation, the process that transforms a logic program in $\L^s$ into a
compiled program in $\L^c_0$, is expressed by means of the following three
judgments:\pagebreak[3]
$$
\begin{array}{l@{\hspace{1.5em}}p{16em}}
\cmpProg{\Gamma}{\Psi}
& \emph{Program $\Gamma$ is compiled to $\Psi$}
\\ \cmpClause{A}{C}
& \emph{Clause $A$ with $\alpha$ is compiled to $C$ }
\\ \cmpGoal{A}{G}
& \emph{Goal $A$ is compiled to $G$}
\end{array}
$$
These judgments are defined by the rules in
Figure~\ref{fig:pil0-compilation} --- see~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp} for details.
As our ongoing example, consider the following two clauses, taken from a type
checking specification for a Church-style simply typed $\lambda$-calculus.
For clarity, we write program clauses Prolog-style, using the reverse
implication $\sPim$ instead of $\sImp$ in positive formulas.
\begin{enumerate}\small
\item%
$\begin{array}[t]{@{}l@{\hspace{3.5em}}c@{\hspace{2em}}l@{}}
\begin{array}[t]{@{}ll@{}}
\\ \multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{
\A{E_1}{}\A{E_2}{}
\A{T_1}{}\A{T_2}{}}
\\ & \ms{of}\;(\ms{app}\;E_1\;E_2)\;T_2
\\ \sPim & \ms{of}\;E_1\;(\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2)
\\ \sPim & \ms{of}\;E_2\;T_1
\end{array}
& \raisebox{-7ex}{ \ $\cmpProg{}{}$ \ }
& \begin{array}[t]{@{}ll@{}}
\multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{\bigLam{}}
\\ \multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{
\E{E_1}{}\E{E_2}{}
\E{T_1}{}\E{T_2}{}}
\\ & \Eq{(\ms{of}\;(\ms{app}\;E_1\;E_2)\;T_2)}{\alpha}
\\ \And & \ms{of}\;E_1\;(\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2)
\\ \And & \ms{of}\;E_2\;T_1
\end{array}
\end{array}$
\item%
$\begin{array}[t]{@{}lcl@{}}
\begin{array}[t]{@{}ll@{}}
\\ \multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{
\A{E}{}
\A{T_1}{}\A{T_2}{}}
\\ & \ms{of}\;(\ms{lam}\;T_1\;E)\;(\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2)
\\ \sPim & (\A{x}{} \ms{of}\;x\;T_1
\\ & \hspace{0.5em} \sImp \ms{of}\;(E\;x)\;T_2)
\end{array}
& \raisebox{-6ex}{$\cmpProg{}{}$}
& \begin{array}[t]{@{}ll@{}}
\multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{\bigLam{}}
\\ \multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{
\E{E}{}
\E{T_1}{}\E{T_2}{}}
\\ & \Eq{(\ms{of}\;(\ms{lam}\;T_1\;E)\;(\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2))}{\alpha}
\\ \And & (\A{x}{} \begin{array}[t]{@{}l@{\;}l@{}}
& \bigLam[\beta]{(\Eq{(\ms{of}\;x\;T_1)}{\beta})}
\\ \sImp & \ms{of}\;(E\;x)\;T_2)
\end{array}
\end{array}
\end{array}$
\end{enumerate}
The compiled language $\L^c_0$ is sound and complete for $\L^s$.
See~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp} for the formal statements. The proof of both
directions proceeds by straightforward induction, which contrasts greatly with
the complex proofs of soundness and correctness previously devised for the
WAM~\cite{Boerger95fmpa,Russinoff92jlp}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\newcommand{1.8ex}{1.8ex}
\newcommand{-.5ex}{-.5ex}
\newcommand{\trule}[1][-1.5ex]{\rule[#1]{0em}{0ex}}
\newcommand{\hfill}{\hfill}
\fboxsep=0pt
\noindent
\fbox{\scriptsize
$\begin{array}{@{\hfill}c@{\hfill}}
\makebox[\textwidth]{}\\[-2.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Programs\trule}
\\[-0.5ex]
\cRule
{}
{\cmpProg{\cdot}{\cdot}}
{p0c\_empty}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpProg{\Gamma}{\Psi}
\qq
\cmpClause{A}{C}}
{\cmpProg{\Gamma, A}{\Psi, \bigLam{C}}}
{p0c\_clause}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Clauses\trule}
\\[-1.0ex]
\cRule
{}
{\cmpClause{a}{\Eq{a}{\alpha}}}
{c0c\_atm}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpClause{B}{C}
\qq
\cmpGoal{A}{G}}
{\cmpClause{A \sImp B}{C \And G}}
{c0c\_imp}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpClause{A}{C}}
{\cmpClause{\A{x}{A}}{\E{x}{C}}}
{c0c\_all}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Goals\trule}
\\[-1.0ex]
\cRule
{}
{\cmpGoal{a}{a}}
{g0c\_atm}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpClause{A}{C}
\qq
\cmpGoal{B}{G}}
{\cmpGoal{A \sImp B}{(\bigLam{C}) \sImp G}}
{g0c\_imp}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpGoal{A}{C}}
{\cmpGoal{\A{x}{A}}{\A{x}{C}}}
{g0c\_all}
\\[-1ex]\relax
\end{array}$}
\caption{Compilation of $\L^s$ into $\L^c_0$.}
\label{fig:pil0-compilation}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Fully Logical Compilation}
\label{sec:pil1}
Because clauses are compiled to expressions of the form $\bigLam{C}$, the
language $\L^c_0$ is not fully logical. In this section we consider a different
compilation target, the language $\L^c_1$, which lies entirely within logic.
In the previous section, a generic Horn clause of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:horn}
\A{\vec{y}}{(p\:\vec{t} \sPim a_1 \sPim \ldots \sPim a_n)}
\end{equation}
was compiled into
$\bigLam{\E{\vec{y}}{(\Eq{p\:\vec{t}}{\alpha} \And a_1 \And \ldots \And a_n)}}.$
During execution, rule \rname{c0\_atm} reduced the current atomic goal $a$ to
the clause instance $\E{\vec{y}}{(\Eq{p\:\vec{t}}{a} \And a_1 \And \ldots
\And a_n)}$. Note that $\vec{t}$ may depend on $\vec{y}$, but $a$ does not.
We will now compile that Horn clause into
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pil1-horn}
\A{\vec{x}}{(
p\;\vec{x}
\sPim \E{\vec{y}}{(\Eq{\vec{x}}{\vec{t}} \And a_1 \And \ldots \And a_n}))}
\end{equation}%
where $\vec{x}$ is a sequence of fresh variables, all distinct from each
other, and equal in number to the arity of $p$, and $\Eq{\vec{x}}{\vec{t}}$
stands for a conjunction of equalities between each variable $x_i$ in
$\vec{x}$ and the term $t_i$ in $\vec{t}$ in the corresponding position (or
$\sTrue$ if the arity of $p$ is zero). Notice that the non-logical
second-order binder ``$\bigLam{\!}$'' is gone. At run time,
formula~(\ref{eq:pil1-horn}) will resolve an atomic goal $p\;\vec{t'}$ into
the clause $p\;\vec{t'} \sPim \E{\vec{y}}{(\Eq{\vec{t'}}{\vec{t}} \And a_1 \And
\ldots \And a_n)}$, which immediately reduces to
$\E{\vec{y}}{(\Eq{\vec{t'}}{\vec{t}} \And a_1 \And \ldots \And a_n})$. Like
earlier, $\vec{t}$ may depend on $\vec{y}$, but $\vec{t'}$ does not. The
variables $\vec{x}$ correspond directly to the ``argument registers''
(\verb"A"$n$) of the WAM~\cite{Aitkaci91book}, while the $\vec{y}$'s are closely
related to its ``permanent variables'' (\verb"Y"$n$).
Formula~(\ref{eq:pil1-horn}) can be understood as an uncurried form
of~(\ref{eq:horn}): outer implications are transformed into conjunctions and
universals into existentials. Doing so literally would yield the formula
$p\;\vec{t} \sPim \E{\vec{y}}{(a_1 \And \ldots \And a_n)}$, which is incorrect
because occurrences of variables in $\vec{y}$ within $\vec{t}$ have escaped
their scope. Instead, formula~(\ref{eq:pil1-horn}) installs fresh variables
$\vec{x}$ as the arguments of the head predicate $p$ and adds the equality
constraints $\Eq{\vec{x}}{\vec{t}}$ in the body.
\subsection{Target Language}
\label{sec:pil1-target}
We now generalize the above intuition to any formula in $\L^s$, not just Horn
clauses. Our second target language, $\L^c_1$, is given by the following
grammar.
\medskip
\noindent
{\arraycolsep=0.25em
\newcommand{\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em}}{\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em}}
$\begin{array}[t]{@{}r@{\hspace{0.8em}} cr l@{}}
\mbox{\emph{Goals:}}
& G & ::= & a
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} C \sImp G
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \A{x}{G}
\\ \mbox{\emph{Clauses:}}
& C & ::= & R \sImp p\:\vec{x}
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \A{x}{C}
\\ \mbox{\emph{Residuals:}}
& R & ::= & \Eq{x}{t}
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \sTrue
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} R \And G
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \E{x}{R}
\end{array}$
\hfill
$\begin{array}[t]{@{}r@{\hspace{0.8em}} cr l@{}}
\mbox{\emph{Programs:}}
& \Psi & ::= & \cdot
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \Psi, C
\end{array}$
\hspace*{1em}}%
\medskip
\noindent
Compiled goals ($G$) are just like in Section~\ref{sec:pil0-target}: atoms,
hypothetical goals, or universal goals. Compiled clauses ($C$) have the form
$\A{\vec{x}}{(R \sImp p\:\vec{x})}$, i.e., a (possibly empty) outer layer of
universal quantifiers enclosing an implication $R \sImp p\:\vec{x}$ whose head
$p\:\vec{x}$ always consists of a predicate name ($p$) applied to a (possibly
empty) sequence of distinct variables ($\vec{x}$). Its body is a
\emph{residual} ($R$). A residual can be either an equality constraint
($\Eq{x}{t}$), the trivial constraint $\sTrue$ (logical truth), or like in
Section~\ref{sec:pil0-target} a goal invocation or an instantiation request.
Notice that $C$ is now the full result of compiling a clause.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\newcommand{1.8ex}{1.8ex}
\newcommand{-.5ex}{-.5ex}
\newcommand{\trule}[1][-1.5ex]{\rule[#1]{0em}{0ex}}
\newcommand{\hfill}{\hfill}
\fboxsep=0pt
\noindent
\fbox{\scriptsize
$\begin{array}{@{\hfill}c@{\hfill}}
\makebox[\textwidth]{}\\[-2.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Goals\trule}
\\[-0.5ex]
\cRule
{\cResB{\Psi, C, \Psi'}{C}}
{\gResB{\Psi, C, \Psi'}{a}}
{g1\_atm}
\hfill
\cRule
{\gResB{\Psi, C}{G}}
{\gResB{\Psi}{C \sImp G}}
{g1\_imp}
\hfill
\cRule
{c \; \mbox{\em ``new''}
\qq
\gResB{\Psi}{[c/x]G}}
{\gResB{\Psi}{\A{x}{G}}}
{g1\_all}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Clauses\trule}
\\[-1.0ex]
\cRule
{\rResB{\Psi}{\tilde{R}}}
{\cResB{\Psi}{\tilde{R} \sImp a}}
{c1\_imp}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cResB{\Psi}{[t/x]\tilde{C}}}
{\cResB{\Psi}{\A{x}{\tilde{C}}}}
{c1\_all}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Residuals\trule}
\\[-1.0ex]
\cRule
{}
{\gResB{\Psi}{\Eq{t}{t}}}
{r1\_eq}
\hfill
\cRule
{}
{\rResB{\Psi}{\sTrue}}
{r1\_true}
\hfill
\cRule
{\rResB{\Psi}{\tilde{R}}
\qq
\gResB{\Psi}{G}}
{\rResB{\Psi}{\tilde{R} \And G}}
{r1\_and}
\hfill
\cRule
{\rResB{\Psi}{[t/x]\tilde{R}}}
{\rResB{\Psi}{\E{x}{\tilde{R}}}}
{r1\_exists}
\\[-1ex]\relax
\end{array}$}
\caption{Search Semantics of $\L^c_1$.}
\label{fig:pil1-resolution}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The operational semantics of $\L^c_1$ is specified by the following three
judgments:
$$
\begin{array}{l@{\hspace{1.5em}}p{18em}}
\gResB{\Psi}{G}
& \emph{$G$ is uniformly provable from $\Psi$}
\\ \cResB{\Psi}{\tilde{C}}
& \emph{$a$ is immediately entailed by $\tilde{C}$ in $\Psi$}
\\ \rResB{\Psi}{\tilde{R}}
& \emph{$\tilde{R}$ is uniformly provable from $\Psi$}
\end{array}
$$
where $\tilde{C}$ and $\tilde{R}$ differ from $C$ and $R$ by the instantiation of some
variables in a clause head and on the left-hand side of equalities, respectively.
Their operational semantics is given in Figure~\ref{fig:pil1-resolution}.
Goals are handled exactly in the same way as uniform provability in $\L^s$ (top
part of Figure~\ref{fig:pil0-uniform}). The operational reading of compiled
clauses is an instance of that of immediate entailment: rule \rname{c1\_imp} is
a special case of \rname{i\_imp} while \rname{c1\_all} is isomorphic to
\rname{i\_all}. Note that rule \rname{c1\_imp} reduces immediately to the
residual $R$ if the head of the clause matches the atomic goal $a$ being
proved. The rules for residuals correspond closely to the rules for clause
instances for our original target language at the bottom of
Figure~\ref{fig:pil0-resolution}: rule \rname{r1\_eq} requires that the two
sides of an equality be indeed equal and rule \rname{r1\_true} is always
satisfied.
The rules in Figure~\ref{fig:pil1-resolution} build uniform
proofs~\cite{Miller91apal}, characteristic of abstract logic programming
languages: the operational semantics decomposes a goal to an atomic formula
(top segment of Figure~\ref{fig:pil1-resolution}), then selects a clause and
focuses on it until it finds a matching head (middle segment) and then
decomposes its body (bottom segment), which may eventually expose some goals, and
the cycle repeats. In particular, once an atomic goal $p\:\vec{t}$ has been
exposed, a successful derivation will necessarily contain an instance of rule
\rname{g1\_atm} that picks a clause $C$ with head $p\:\vec{x}$, as many
instances of rule \rname{c1\_all} as the arity of $p$, and an instance of rule
\rname{c1\_imp}. This necessary sequence of steps is captured by the following
derived ``macro-rule'' (the \emph{backchaining} rule):
$$
\cRule
{\rResB{\Psi, \A{\vec{x}}{(R \sImp p\:\vec{x})}, \Psi'}{[\vec{t}/\vec{x}]R}}
{\gResB{\Psi, \A{\vec{x}}{(R \sImp p\:\vec{x})}, \Psi'}{p\:\vec{t}}}
{g1\_atm'}
$$
Replacing rules \rname{g1\_atm}, \rname{c1\_all} and \rname{c1\_imp} with rule
\rname{g1\_atm'}
yields a system that is equivalent to that in
Figure~\ref{fig:pil1-resolution}. Taking it as primitive amounts to replacing
the construction for compiled clauses, $\A{\vec{x}}{(R \sImp p\:\vec{x})}$,
with a synthetic connective, call it $\Lam_p \vec{x}.\, R$. Therefore, by
accounting for the structure of atomic propositions and proper quantification
patterns, $\L^c_1$ provides a fully logical justification for clause compilation
that $\L^c_0$'s $\Lam \alpha.\, C$ lacked.
\subsection{Compilation}
\label{sec:pil1-compilation}
Compilation transforms logic programs in $\L^s$ into compiled logic programs in
$\L^c_1$. In order to define it, the auxiliary notion of pseudo clause will
come handy:
\medskip
\noindent
{\arraycolsep=0.25em
\newcommand{\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em}}{\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em}}
$\begin{array}{@{}r@{\hspace{0.8em}} cr l@{}}
\mbox{\emph{Pseudo Clauses:}}
& \mathcal{C} & ::= & \Box \sImp p\:\vec{x}
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \A{x}{\mathcal{C}}
\end{array}$}%
\medskip
\noindent
A pseudo clause retains the outer structure of a clause, but has a hole
($\Box$) in place of the residual $R$. In general, a pseudo clause $\mathcal{C}$ has
the form $\A{\vec{x}}{\Box \sImp p\:\vec{x'}}$. In a fully compiled clause,
variables $\vec{x}$ will coincide with $\vec{x'}$.
Pseudo clauses are generated while processing the head of a clause. The hole
then needs to be replaced with the compiled body, a residual. We write this
operation, pseudo clause instantiation, as $\mathcal{C}[R]$. It is formally defined
as follows:
$$
\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
(\Box \sImp p\:\vec{x})[R] & = & R \sImp p\:\vec{x}
\\ (\A{x}{\mathcal{C}})[R] & = & \A{x}{(\mathcal{C}[R])}
\end{array}
\right.
$$
As is often the case with such contextual operations, pseudo clause
instantiation can, and generally will, lead to variable capture: in
$(\A{\vec{x}}{\Box \sImp p\:\vec{x}})[R]$, there may be free occurrences of
variables in $\vec{x}$ within $R$. In the result, these occurrences are
bound by the outer quantifiers.
Compilation is expressed by means of the following four judgments
$$
\begin{array}{l@{\hspace{1.5em}}p{17em}}
\cmpProgB{\Gamma}{\Psi}
& \emph{Program $\Gamma$ is compiled to $\Psi$}
\\ \cmpHeadB{\vec{x}}{a}{\mathcal{C}}{E}
& \emph{Head $a$ with $\vec{x}$ is compiled to $\mathcal{C}$ and $E$}
\\ \cmpClauseB{A}{R}
& \emph{Clause $A$ is compiled to $\mathcal{C}$ and $R$}
\\ \cmpGoalB{A}{G}
& \emph{Goal $A$ is compiled to $G$}
\end{array}
$$
and defined by the rules in Figure~\ref{fig:pil1-compilation}, where we wrote
$E$ for conjunctions of equalities. The judgment $\cmpClauseB{A}{R}$ compiles
an $\L^s$ clause $A$ into a pseudo clause $\mathcal{C}$ and a residual $R$. They are
assembled into an $\L^c_1$ clause in rules \rname{p1c\_clause} and
\rname{g1c\_imp}. Programs and goals are otherwise compiled just as for
$\L^c_0$ in Figure~\ref{fig:pil0-compilation}. Clause heads are handled
differently: rule \rname{c1c\_atm} invokes the auxiliary head compilation
judgment to compile the goal $p\:\vec{t}$ into a pseudo clause
$\A{\vec{x}}{\Box \sImp p\:\vec{x}}$ and the equalities
$\Eq{\vec{x}}{\vec{t}}$, which will form the seed of the clause's residual.
Consider the first example clause in Section~\ref{sec:pil0-compilation}. Its
head ($\ms{of}\;(\ms{app}\;E_1\;E_2)\;T_2$) is compiled into the pseudo clause
$\A{x_1}{\A{x_2}{(\Box \sImp \ms{of}\;x_1\;x_2)}}$ and the equality constraints
$\sTrue \And (\Eq{x_1}{\ms{app}\;E_1\;E_2}) \And (\Eq{x_2}{T_2})$, where $x_1$
and $x_2$ are new variables. These core equalities are then extended with the
compiled body of that clause, $(\ms{of}\;E_1\;(\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2)) \And
(\ms{of}\;E_2\;T_1)$, and existential quantifications over the original
variables of the clause, $E_1$, $E_2$, $T_1$ and $T_2$, are finally wrapped
around the result before embedding it in the hole of the pseudo clause. The
resulting $\L^c_1$ clause is displayed in the top part of
Figure~\ref{fig:pl1-example}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\newcommand{1.8ex}{1.8ex}
\newcommand{-.5ex}{-.5ex}
\newcommand{\trule}[1][-1.5ex]{\rule[#1]{0em}{0ex}}
\newcommand{\hfill}{\hfill}
\fboxsep=0pt
\noindent
\fbox{\scriptsize
$\begin{array}{@{\hfill}c@{\hfill}}
\makebox[\textwidth]{}\\[-3ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Programs\trule}
\\[-0.5ex]
\cRule
{}
{\cmpProgB{\cdot}{\cdot}}
{p1c\_empty}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpProgB{\Gamma}{\Psi}
\qq
\cmpClauseB[\mathcal{C}]{A}{R}}
{\cmpProgB{\Gamma, A}{\Psi, \mathcal{C}[R]}}
{p1c\_clause}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Heads\trule}
\\[-1.0ex]
\cRule
{}
{\cmpHeadB{\vec{x}}{p}{\Box \sImp p\:\vec{x}}{\sTrue}}
{h1c\_p}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpHeadB{x\:\vec{x}}{a}{\mathcal{C}}{E}
\qq
x \: \mbox{\em ``new''}}
{\cmpHeadB{\vec{x}}{a\;t}{\A{x}{\mathcal{C}}}{E \And \Eq{x}{t}}}
{h1c\_pt}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Clauses\trule}
\\[0.0ex]
\cRule
{\cmpHeadB{\cdot}{a}{\mathcal{C}}{E}}
{\cmpClauseB[\mathcal{C}]{a}{E}}
{c1c\_atm}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpGoalB{A}{G}
\qq
\cmpClauseB[\mathcal{C}]{B}{R}}
{\cmpClauseB[\mathcal{C}]{A \sImp B}{R \And G}}
{c1c\_imp}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpClauseB[\mathcal{C}]{A}{R}}
{\cmpClauseB[\mathcal{C}]{\A{x}{A}}{\E{x}{R}}}
{c1c\_all}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Goals\trule}
\\[-1.0ex]
\cRule
{}
{\cmpGoalB{a}{a}}
{g1c\_atm}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpClauseB[\mathcal{C}]{A}{R}
\qq
\cmpGoalB{B}{G}}
{\cmpGoalB{A \sImp B}{\mathcal{C}[R] \sImp G}}
{g1c\_imp}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpGoalB{A}{C}}
{\cmpGoalB{\A{x}{A}}{\A{x}{C}}}
{g1c\_all}
\\[-1ex]\relax
\end{array}$}
\caption{Compilation of $\L^s$ into $\L^c_1$.}
\label{fig:pil1-compilation}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The target language $\L^c_1$ is sound and complete with respect to $\L^s$. In
order to show it, we need the following auxiliary results. The first
statement is proved by induction on the structure of $a$. The second by
induction on the given derivation.
\noindent{\parbox{\linewidth}{%
\begin{lemma}
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep=0pt
\item%
If $\cmpHeadB{\vec{x}}{a}{\mathcal{C}}{E}$, then for all $\vec{t}$ of
the same length as $\vec{x}$ and all $\Psi$ we
have $\cResB[a\:\vec{t}]{\Psi}{[\vec{t}/\vec{x}](\mathcal{C}[E])}$.
\item%
If $\cResB{\Psi}{\mathcal{C}[R]}$, then $\rResB{\Psi}{R}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}}
The statements of soundness and completeness are as follows. For each of
them, the proof proceeds by mutual induction on the first derivation in the
antecedent.
\noindent{\parbox{\linewidth}{%
\begin{theorem}[Soundness of the compilation to $\L^c_1$]
\label{th:pil1-sound}
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep=0ex
\item%
If \ $\unid{\Gamma}{A}$,
\ $\cmpProgB{\Gamma}{\Psi}$
\ and \ $\cmpGoalB{A}{G}$,
\ then \ $\gResB{\Psi}{G}$.
\item%
If \ $\immd{\Gamma}{A}$,
\ $\cmpProgB{\Gamma}{\Psi}$
\ and \ $\cmpClauseB[\mathcal{C}]{A}{R}$,
\ then \ $\cResB{\Psi}{\mathcal{C}[R]}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}}
\noindent{\parbox{\linewidth}{%
\begin{theorem}[Completeness of the compilation to $\L^c_1$]
\label{th:pil1-complete}
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep=0ex
\item%
If \ $\gResB{\Psi}{G}$,
\ $\cmpProgB{\Gamma}{\Psi}$
\ and \ $\cmpGoalB{A}{G}$,
\ then \ $\unid{\Gamma}{A}$.
\item%
If \ $\cResB{\Psi}{C}$,
\ $\cmpProgB{\Gamma}{\Psi}$,
\ $C = \mathcal{C}[R]$
\ and \ $\cmpClauseB[\mathcal{C}]{A}{R}$,
\ then \ $\immd{\Gamma}{A}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}}
\begin{figure}[t]
\fbox{%
\parbox{\linewidth}{%
\begin{enumerate}\small
\item%
$\begin{array}[t]{@{}l@{\hspace{3.5em}}c@{\hspace{2em}}l@{}}
\begin{array}[t]{@{}ll@{}}
\multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{
\A{E_1}{}\A{E_2}{}
\A{T_1}{}\A{T_2}{}}
\\ & \ms{of}\;(\ms{app}\;E_1\;E_2)\;T_2
\\
\\
\\
\\ \sPim & \ms{of}\;E_1\;(\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2)
\\ \sPim & \ms{of}\;E_2\;T_1
\end{array}
& \raisebox{-10ex}{ \ $\cmpProgB{}{}$ \ }
& \begin{array}[t]{@{}ll@{}l@{\;}l@{}}
\multicolumn{4}{@{}l@{}}{\A{x_1}{}\A{x_2}{}}
\\ & \multicolumn{3}{@{}l@{}}{\ms{of}\;x_1\;x_2}
\\ \sPim &(&\multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{
\E{E_1}{}\E{E_2}{}
\E{T_1}{}\E{T_2}{\sTrue}}
\\ && \And & \Eq{x_1}{\ms{app}\;E_1\;E_2}
\\ && \And & \Eq{x_2}{T_2}
\\ && \And & \ms{of}\;E_1\;(\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2)
\\ && \And & \ms{of}\;E_2\;T_1)
\end{array}
\end{array}$
\medskip
\item%
$\begin{array}[t]{@{}lcl@{}}
\begin{array}[t]{@{}ll@{}}
\multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{
\A{E}{}
\A{T_1}{}\A{T_2}{}}
\\ & \ms{of}\;(\ms{lam}\;T_1\;E)\;(\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2)
\\
\\
\\
\\ \sPim & (\A{x}{}
\\
\\
\\ & \hspace{2em} \ms{of}\;x\;T_1
\\ & \hspace{0.5em} \sImp \ms{of}\;(E\;x)\;T_2)
\end{array}
& \raisebox{-14.5ex}{$\cmpProgB{}{}$}
& \begin{array}[t]{@{}ll@{}l@{\;}l@{}}
\multicolumn{4}{@{}l@{}}{\A{x_1}{}\A{x_2}{}}
\\ & \multicolumn{3}{@{}l@{}}{\ms{of}\;x_1\;x_2}
\\ \sPim &(&\multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{
\E{E}{}
\E{T_1}{}\E{T_2}{\sTrue}}
\\ &&\And & \Eq{x_1}{\ms{lam}\;T_1\;E}
\\ &&\And & \Eq{x_2}{\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2}
\\ &&\And & (\A{x}{} \begin{array}[t]{@{}l@{\;}l@{}}
& \begin{array}[t]{@{}l@{\;}l@{}}
\multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{\A{x_1'}{}\A{x_2'}{\sTrue}}
\\ \And & \Eq{x_1'}{x}
\\ \And & \Eq{x_2'}{T_1}
\\ \And & \ms{of}\;x_1'\;x_2')
\end{array}
\\ \sImp & \ms{of}\;(E\;x)\;T_2)
\end{array}
\end{array}
\end{array}$
\end{enumerate}}}
\label{fig:pl1-example}
\caption{$\L^c_1$ Compilation Example}
\end{figure}
We conclude this section by showing in Figure~\ref{fig:pl1-example} the output
of our compilation procedure for the two examples seen in
Section~\ref{sec:pil0-compilation}. We stretch the source clauses (left) to
align corresponding atoms. As can be gleaned from these clauses, there are
ample opportunities for optimizations in our compilation process. In
particular, a constraint $\Eq{x}{y}$ mentioning variables on both sides can
often be eliminated by replacing the existential variable $y$ with the
universal variable $x$ in the rest of the clause (and removing the existential
quantifier) --- the exception is when there are multiple constraints of this
form for the same $y$. The leading logical constant $\sTrue$ makes for a
succinct presentation of the compilation process, but plays no actual role: it
can also be eliminated.
It is interesting to rewrite these clauses using the synthetic connective
$\Lam_p$ discussed earlier (we have omitted occurrences of $\sTrue$ for readability):
$$
\begin{array}{lll}
\Lam_{\ms{of}}\; x_1\:x_2.
& \multicolumn{2}{l}{\E{E_1}{}\E{E_2}{}\E{T_1}{}\E{T_2}{}
\\& & \Eq{x_1}{\ms{app}\;E_1\;E_2}
\And\; \Eq{x_2}{T_2}
\\& \And & \ms{of}\;E_1\;(\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2)
\;\And\; \ms{of}\;E_2\;T_1
\\[1ex]
\Lam_{\ms{of}}\; x_1\:x_2.
& \multicolumn{2}{l}{\E{E}{}\E{T_1}{}\E{T_2}{}
\\& & \Eq{x_1}{\ms{lam}\;T_1\;E}
\;\And\; \Eq{x_2}{\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2}
\\& \And & \A{x}{}(\Lam_{\ms{of}}\; x_1'\:x_2'.\;\;
\Eq{x_1'}{x} \:\And\:
\Eq{x_2'}{T_1})
\;\sImp\; \ms{of}\;(E\;x)\;T_2
\end{array}
$$
\section{Support for Moded Programs}
\label{sec:pil2}
In this section, we will specialize the compilation process just outlined to
the case where the source program is well-moded. In a well-model program, the
argument positions of each predicate symbol are designated as either input or
output. Input arguments are guaranteed to be ground terms at the time a goal
is called. Dually, output arguments are guaranteed to have been made ground
by the time the call returns.
There are operational benefits to working with well-moded programs: while an
interpreter for a generic program must implement term-level unification,
well-moded programs can be executed by relying uniquely on pattern matching
and variable instantiation. This is desirable because matching often behaves
better than general unification. For example, it is more efficient for
first-order term languages were it only because it does away with the
occurs-check, and it is decidable for higher-order term languages while
general unification is not~\cite{stirling09lmcs}.
The development in this section is motivated by well-moding, but is sound
independently of whether a program is well-moded or not. Statically enforcing
well-moding brings the operational advantages just discussed, but the results
in this section do not depend on it.
\subsection{Source Language}
\label{sec:pil2-source}
In this section, we assume that each predicate symbol in $\L^s$ comes with a
\emph{mode} which declares each of its arguments as input, written $\IN{\;}$,
or output, written $\OT{\;}$. For simplicity of exposition, we decorate the
actual arguments of all atomic propositions with these symbols, so that a term
$t$ in input position in an atomic proposition is written $\IN{t}$ (read ``in
$t$''). Similarly $t$ in output position is written $\OT{t}$ (pronounced
``out $t$''). This amounts to revising the grammar of atomic propositions as
follows:
\medskip
\noindent
{\arraycolsep=0.25em
\newcommand{\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em}}{\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em}}
$\begin{array}{@{}r@{\hspace{0.8em}} cr l@{}}
\mbox{\emph{Atoms:}}
& a & ::= & p
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} a\:\IN{t}
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} a\:\OT{t}
\end{array}$}
\medskip
\noindent
Just like we assume that the arity of a predicate symbol $p$ remains constant
in a program, we require that all atomic propositions for $p$ have their
input/output marks in the same positions. This pattern is the mode of $p$ ---
an actual language would rely on explicit mode declarations.
For typographic convenience and without loss of generality, our examples
assume that input positions precede output positions so that an atomic formula
$a$ can be written as $p\;\Ivec{t}\;\Ovec{t}$ where $\Ivec{t}$ and $\Ovec{t}$
are the (possibly empty) sequences of terms in input (resp.\ output) positions
for $p$. To avoid notational proliferation, we use the markers $\IN{\;}$ and
$\OT{\;}$ both as mode designators and as symbol decorations (like primes and
subscripts) when working with generic terms. Therefore, $\IN{t}$ and $\OT{t}$
indicate possibly different terms in \mbox{$p\:\IN{t}\:\OT{t}$}, and similarly
for term sequences, as in $p\;\Ivec{t}\;\Ovec{t}$ above.
At our level of abstraction, the rules in Figure~\ref{fig:pil0-uniform}
capture the operational semantics of this variant of $\L^s$: mode annotations
are simply ignored. However, moded execution requires that two of the
operational choices left open by those rules be resolved using some
algorithmic strategy: the order in which rule \rname{i\_imp} searches for
derivations of its two premises, and the substitution term that rule
\rname{i\_all} picks. For both, we will assume the same strategy as Prolog:
implement rule \rname{i\_imp} left to right and implement rule \rname{i\_all}
lazily by replacing each variable $x$ with a ``logical variable'' $X$ which is
instantiated incrementally through unification. This allows us to view an
atomic goal as a (non-deterministic) procedure call. In a well-moded
program~\cite{Debray88jlc}, terms in input position are seen as the actual
arguments of this procedure, and terms in output position yield return
values.
In this section, we will not formalize the notion of well-modedness ---
see~\cite{Debray88jlc} for Prolog and~\cite{sarnat10thesis} for Twelf --- nor
refine our operational semantics to make goal evaluation order and unification
explicit --- see~\cite{pientka03thesis}. We will instead refine our
compilation process to account for mode information and produce compiled
programs that, if well-moded, can be executed without appealing to
unification.
\subsection{Target Language}
\label{sec:pil2-target}
In $\L^c_1$, a (well-moded) Horn clause $\A{\vec{y}}{p\:\Ivec{t}\:\Ovec{t} \sPim
a_1 \sPim \ldots \sPim a_n}$ was compiled into
$\A{\Ivec{x}\;\Ovec{x}}{(p\:\Ivec{x}\:\Ovec{x} \sPim
\E{\vec{y}}{(\Eq{\Ivec{x}}{\Ivec{t}} \And \Eq{\Ovec{x}}{\Ovec{t}} \And a_1
\And \ldots \And a_n)})}$. Here, the left-to-right execution order forces
us to guess the final values of the output variables $\Ovec{x}$ before the
goals in its body have been fully executed. In $\L^c_2$, we will move the
equality $\Eq{\Ovec{x}}{\Ovec{t}}$ after the last goal $a_n$. Since
$\Ovec{x}$ appear nowhere else in the residual, this equality is no more than
an assignment of the computed instance of $\Ovec{t}$ to $\Ovec{x}$.
Accordingly, we will write it as $\Assg{\Ovec{x}}{\Ovec{t}}$. Furthermore, in
a well-moded program, this clause will be invoked with ground terms in input
position, so that $\Ivec{x}$ will be bound to ground terms. Then, the input
equality $\Eq{\Ivec{x}}{\Ivec{t}}$ will match the variables in $\Ivec{t}$ with
appropriate subterms. For this reason, we will write it as
$\Match{\Ivec{x}}{\Ivec{t}}$. Expanding each goal $a_i$ into
$q_i\;\Ivec{t}_i\;\Ovec{t}_i$, the above clause will be compiled (almost) as
follows, where the arrows represent the data flow of a well-moded execution
(note that it parallels the control flow):
\vspace{-5ex}%
$$
\newcommand{\hspace{1em}\Pim\hspace{1em}}{\hspace{0.8em}\sPim\hspace{0.8em}}%
\newcommand{\hspace{1em}\And\hspace{1em}}{\hspace{0.8em}\And\hspace{0.8em}}%
\xymatrix@C=-0.4em@R=0.5em{
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
\\ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
\\ \A{\Ivec{x}\:\Ovec{x}}{}(
& p&\Ivec{x} \ar@{<.}[uu] \ar@(d,d)[rrrrr]
&\Ovec{x} \ar@{.>}[uu]
& \hspace{1em}\Pim\hspace{1em} & (\E{\vec{y}}{}
& & \Ivec{x} & \Match{}{} & \Ivec{t} \ar@(d,d)[rrr]
& \hspace{1em}\And\hspace{1em} & q_1
& \Ivec{t}_1
& \Ovec{t}_1 \ar@(d,d)[rr]
& \hspace{1em}\And\hspace{1em} & \ldot&\!\!\ldot\!\!&\ldot \ar@(d,d)[rrr]
& \hspace{1em}\And\hspace{1em} & q_n
& \Ivec{t}_n
& \Ovec{t}_n \ar@(d,d)[rrrr]
& \hspace{1em}\And\hspace{1em} & \Ovec{x} \ar@(ul,ul)[llllllllllllllllllll]
& \Assg{}{} & \Ovec{t}
& ))
\\\relax
}
$$
\medskip
\noindent
When executing an atomic goal, it is desirable to separate the call from the
verification that the output terms returned by the caller match the expected
output terms in this goal. We will do so by rewriting any atomic goal
$q\:\Ivec{t}\:\Ovec{t}$ in a compiled clause into the formula
$\E{\vec{z}}{(q\:\Ivec{t}\:\vec{z} \And \Match{\vec{z}}{\Ovec{t}})}$ for fresh
variables $\vec{z}$. This
transformation preserves the left-to-right control and data flow.
No special provision needs to be made for the input arguments of $q$ as
variables in it will have been instantiated to ground terms at the moment the
call is made.
\medskip
Next, we again generalize this intuition to any formula in $\L^s$, not just
Horn clauses. Our third target language, $\L^c_2$, is defined by the following
grammar.
\medskip
\noindent
{\arraycolsep=0.25em
\newcommand{\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em}}{\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em}}
$\begin{array}[t]{@{}r@{\hspace{0.8em}} cr l@{}}
\mbox{\emph{Goal Matches:}}
& M & ::= & \sTrue
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} M \And \Match{z}{\OT{t}}
\\ \mbox{\emph{Atomic Goals:}}
& F & ::= & p\;\Ivec{t}\;\Ovec{z} \And M
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \E{z}{F}
\\ \mbox{\emph{Goals:}}
& G & ::= & F
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} C \sImp G
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \A{x}{G}
\\[1ex]
\mbox{\emph{Clauses:}}
& C & ::= & R \sImp p\;\Ivec{x}\;\Ovec{x}
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \A{x}{C}
\\ \mbox{\emph{Residuals:}}
& R & ::= & \Match{\IN{x}}{t}
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \Assg{\OT{x}}{t}
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \sTrue
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} R \And G
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \E{x}{R}
\end{array}
\hspace{-4em}
\begin{array}[t]{@{}r@{\hspace{0.8em}} cr l@{}}
\mbox{\emph{Programs:}}
& \Psi & ::= & \cdot
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \Psi, C
\end{array}$}%
\medskip
\noindent
Residuals ($R$) refine the equality predicate $\Eq{x}{t}$ of $\L^c_1$ into a
matching predicate $\Match{x}{t}$ and an assignment predicate $\Assg{x}{t}$.
At our level of abstraction, they behave just like equality. During
well-moded execution, the match predicate will have the form
$\Match{t_g}{t_v}$ where $t_g$ is a ground term while $t_v$ may contain
variables. It will bind these variables to ground subterms of $t_g$, thereby
realizing matching. However, presented with programs that are not well-moded,
the terms $t_g$ cannot be assumed to be ground and $\Match{}{}$ performs
unification. The assignment predicate will be called as $\Assg{x}{t}$ where
$x$ is a variable and $t$ a term --- a ground term for well-moded programs.
It simply binds $x$ to $t$. Compiled clauses and programs are just like in
$\L^c_1$.
Following the motivations above, an atomic goal $p\;\Ivec{t}\;\Ovec{t}$ is not
compiled any more to itself as in $\L^c_1$, but to a formula $F$ of the form
$\E{\vec{z}}{(q\:\Ivec{t}\:\Ovec{z} \And \Match{\Ivec{z}}{\Ovec{t}})}$. In
the grammar above, we isolated the match predicates
$\Match{\Ivec{z}}{\Ovec{t}}$ as the non-terminal $M$.
\medskip
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\newcommand{1.8ex}{1.8ex}
\newcommand{-.5ex}{-.5ex}
\newcommand{\trule}[1][-1.5ex]{\rule[#1]{0em}{0ex}}
\newcommand{\hfill}{\hfill}
\fboxsep=0pt
\noindent
\fbox{\scriptsize
$\begin{array}{@{\hfill}c@{\hfill}}
\makebox[\textwidth]{}\\[-2.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Goals\;Matches\trule}
\\[-0.5ex]
\cRule
{}
{\mResC{}{\sTrue}}
{m2\_true}
\hfill
\cRule
{\mResC{}{M}}
{\mResC{}{M \And \Match{t}{t}}}
{m2\_mtch}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Atomic\;Goals\trule}
\\[-0.5ex]
\cRule
{\cResC[p\;\Ivec{t}\;\Ovec{t}]{\Psi, C, \Psi'}{C}
\qq\qq
\mResC{}{M}}
{\fResC{\Psi, C, \Psi'}{p\;\Ivec{t}\;\Ovec{t} \And M}}
{a2\_atm}
\hfill
\cRule
{\fResC{\Psi}{[t/z]R}}
{\fResC{\Psi}{\E{z}{R}}}
{a2\_exists}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Goals\trule}
\\[-0.5ex]
\cRule
{\fResC{\Psi}{F}}
{\gResC{\Psi}{F}}
{g2\_f}
\hfill
\cRule
{\gResC{\Psi, C}{G}}
{\gResC{\Psi}{C \sImp G}}
{g2\_imp}
\hfill
\cRule
{c \; \mbox{\em ``new''}
\qq
\gResC{\Psi}{[c/x]G}}
{\gResC{\Psi}{\A{x}{G}}}
{g2\_all}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Clauses\trule}
\\[-1.0ex]
\cRule
{\rResC{\Psi}{R}}
{\cResC{\Psi}{R \sImp a}}
{c2\_imp}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cResC{\Psi}{[t/x]C}}
{\cResC{\Psi}{\A{x}{C}}}
{c2\_all}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Residuals\trule}
\\[-1.0ex]
\cRule
{}
{\gResC{\Psi}{\Match{t}{t}}}
{r2\_mtch}
\hfill
\cRule
{}
{\gResC{\Psi}{\Assg{t}{t}}}
{r2\_assg}
\hfill
\cRule
{}
{\rResC{\Psi}{\sTrue}}
{r2\_true}
\\[1.8ex]
\cRule
{\rResC{\Psi}{R}
\qq
\gResC{\Psi}{G}}
{\rResC{\Psi}{R \And G}}
{r2\_and}
\hfill
\cRule
{\rResC{\Psi}{[t/x]R}}
{\rResC{\Psi}{\E{x}{R}}}
{r2\_exists}
\\[-1ex]\relax
\end{array}$}
\caption{Search Semantics of $\L^c_2$.}
\label{fig:pil2-resolution}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We specify the operational semantics of $\L^c_2$ by means of the following five
judgments:
$$
\begin{array}{l@{\hspace{1.5em}}p{18em}}
\mResC{\phantom{\Psi}}{M}
& \emph{$M$ is provable}
\\ \fResC{\Psi}{F}
& \emph{$F$ is uniformly provable from $\Psi$}
\\ \gResC{\Psi}{G}
& \emph{$G$ is uniformly provable from $\Psi$}
\\ \cResC{\Psi}{C}
& \emph{$a$ is immediately entailed by $C$ in $\Psi$}
\\ \rResC{\Psi}{R}
& \emph{$R$ is uniformly provable from $\Psi$}
\end{array}
$$
which parallel the grammar just presented. The resulting operational
semantics is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pil2-resolution}. The rules for clauses
are unchanged with respect to $\L^c_1$ while that language's residual rule for
equality has been duplicated into isomorphic rules for matching and
assignment. The rules for compiled goals have instead proliferated due to our
handling of terms in output position in atomic goals. Observe that rule
\rname{a2\_atm} is essentially a combination of rule \rname{g1\_atm} in $\L^c_1$
and the rule for conjunction. Rules \rname{a2\_exists} and \rname{m2\_true}
are just the standard rules for existential quantification and truth. Rule
\rname{m2\_mtch} combines the rules for conjunction and matching.
\medskip
Just like in the case of $\L^c_1$, the rules in Figure~\ref{fig:pil2-resolution}
construct proofs that are uniform~\cite{Miller91apal}, which makes $\L^c_2$ an
abstract logic programming language. In a successful derivation, this
operational semantics decomposes a goal to formulas of the form $F =
\E{\vec{z}}{(p\:\Ivec{t}\:\Ovec{z} \And \Match{\Ivec{z}}{\Ovec{t}})}$ (rules
in the ``Goals'' segment). Then, rules \rname{a2\_exists}, \rname{m2\_mtch}
and \rname{m2\_true} necessarily reduce it in a few steps into the atomic
formula $p\:\Ivec{t}\:\Ovec{t}$. Similarly to $\L^c_1$, the left premise of
rule \rname{a2\_atm} selects a clause and focuses on it until it finds a
potentially matching head (``Clauses'' segment). It then proceeds to
decomposing its body (``Residuals'' segment) and the cycle repeats with
whatever goals it finds in there.
As just noticed, any atomic goal $F$ of the form
$\E{\Ovec{z}}{(p\:\Ivec{t}\:\Ovec{z} \And \Match{\Ovec{z}}{\Ovec{t}})}$ is
necessarily reduced to $p\:\Ivec{t}\:\Ovec{t}$ by as many applications of rule
\rname{a2\_exists} as there are variables in $\Ovec{z}$, a pass-through
instance of \rname{a2\_atm} via its right branch, and a similar number of uses
of rules \rname{m2\_mtch} and \rname{m2\_true} respectively. This entails
that the macro-rule \rname{a2\_atm'}, on the left-hand side of the following
display, is derivable:
$$
\cRule
{\gResC{\Psi}{p\:\IN{t}\:\OT{t}}}
{\gResC{\Psi}
{\E{\vec{z}}{(p\:\Ivec{t}\:\vec{z} \And
\Match{\vec{z}}{\Ovec{t}})}}}
{a2\_atm'}
\hspace{6em}
\cRule
{\cResC[p\;\Ivec{t}\;\Ovec{t}]{\Psi, C, \Psi'}{C}}
{\fResC{\Psi, C, \Psi'}{p\;\Ivec{t}\;\Ovec{t}}}
{a2\_atm''}
$$
Having factored
rule \rname{a2\_atm'} out, the work performed by \rname{a2\_atm} degenerates
to rule \rname{a2\_atm''} on the right-hand side of the above display,
which is akin to \rname{u\_atm}. The system obtained by replacing the
\rname{m2\_*} and \rname{a2\_*} rules as well as \rname{g2\_f} with rules
\rname{a2\_atm'} and \rname{a2\_atm''} is indeed equivalent to the rule set in
Figure~\ref{fig:pil2-resolution}.
Rule \rname{a2\_atm'} entices us to interpret the compiled formula
$\E{\vec{z}}{(p\:\Ivec{t}\:\vec{z} \And \Match{\vec{z}}{\Ovec{t}})}$ for an
atomic goal $p\:\IN{t}\:\OT{t}$ as a synthetic operator
$\ms{call}\:p\:\Ivec{t} \Match{}{} \Ovec{t}$ which invokes a clause for $p$
with its (ground) input arguments $\Ivec{t}$ and matches the returned values
against its terms $\Ovec{t}$ in output position.
Having recovered atomic goals $p\:\Ivec{t}\:\Ovec{t}$ through rules
\rname{a2\_atm'} and \rname{a2\_atm''}, we can carry out a sequence of
reasoning steps similar to what led us to the backchaining rule for $\L^c_1$.
Exposing the trailing assignments, a generic compiled clause $C$ has the form
$\A{\Ivec{x}\:\Ovec{x}}{(\E{\vec{y}}{R \And \Ovec{x} \Assg{}{} \Ovec{s})} \sImp
p\:\Ivec{x}\:\Ovec{x}}$. In a successful derivation, all rule
\rname{a2\_atm''} does is to pick such a clause. Then, applications of rule
\rname{c2\_all} will instantiate variables $\Ivec{x}\:\Ovec{x}$ with the terms
$\Ivec{t}\:\Ovec{t}$, and next rule \rname{c2\_imp} will invoke the instantiated
residual $[\Ivec{t}/\Ivec{x},\Ovec{t}/\Ovec{x}](\E{\vec{y}}{R \And \Ovec{x}
\Assg{}{} \Ovec{s}})$. Now, because $\Ovec{x}$ does not occur in $R$ and
$\Ivec{x}\:\Ovec{x}$ cannot appear in $\Ovec{s}$, this formula reduces to
$\E{\vec{y}}{([\Ivec{t}/\Ivec{x}]R \And \Ovec{t} \Assg{}{} \Ovec{s})}$ by
pushing the substitution in. Rule \rname{r2\_exists} will then instantiate the
variables $\vec{y}$ with terms $\vec{u}$ (which cannot mention variables
$\Ivec{x}\:\Ovec{x}$). Pushing this substitution in yields the formula
$[\Ivec{t}/\Ivec{x},\vec{u}/\vec{y}]R \And \Ovec{t} \Assg{}{}
[\vec{u}/\vec{y}]\Ovec{s}$ since variables in $\vec{y}$ can occur in neither
$\Ivec{t}$ nor $\Ovec{t}$. Finally, by rule \rname{r2\_assg}, $\Ovec{t}$ and
$[\vec{u}/\vec{y}]\Ovec{s}$ must be equal in a successful derivation. This
necessary sequence of steps is captured by the following derived backchaining
macro-rule,
$$
\cRule
{\rResC
{\Psi, C, \Psi'}
{[\Ivec{t}/\Ivec{x},\vec{u}/\vec{y}]R}}
{\gResC
{\Psi,
\underbrace{\A{\Ivec{x}\:\Ovec{x}}{
(\E{\vec{y}}{R \And \Ovec{x} \Assg{}{} \Ovec{s})}
\sImp p\:\Ivec{x}\:\Ovec{x}}}_C,
\Psi'}
{p\;\Ivec{t}\;[\vec{u}/\vec{y}]\Ovec{s}}}
{g2\_atm'}
$$
where we have carried out the assignment $\Ovec{t} \Assg{}{}
[\vec{u}/\vec{y}]\Ovec{s}$ in the conclusion. This rule can be seen as a
refinement of \rname{g1\_atm'} in $\L^c_1$ that makes use of the trailing
assignment in the compiled clauses of $\L^c_2$. With this derived inference,
rules \rname{a2\_atm''}, \rname{c2\_imp} and \rname{c2\_all} become
unnecessary: the system consisting of rules \rname{a2\_atm'},
\rname{g2\_atm'}, the goal rules for implication and universal quantification,
and the residual rules is equivalent to that in
Figure~\ref{fig:pil2-resolution}.
Taking rule \rname{g2\_atm'} as primitive amounts to replacing compiled clauses
with the following synthetic connective, which refines $\L^c_1$'s $\Lam_p
\vec{x}.\, R$.
$$
\begin{array}{cccl}
\underbrace{\A{\Ivec{x}\:\Ovec{x}}{}
p\:\Ivec{x}\:\Ovec{x}
\subset}
& \E{\vec{y}}{(
R
& \And & \underbrace{\Ovec{x} \Assg{}{} \Ovec{t}}
)}
\\
\Lam_p \Ivec{x}.\,
& \E{\vec{y}}{}(
R
& ; & \ms{return}\:\Ovec{t})
\end{array}
$$
The variables $\vec{y}$ are then interpreted as local variables for the
execution of this clause. In this, they are akin to the \verb"Y"$n$ permanent
variables of the WAM~\cite{Aitkaci91book}.
In a valid proof in this system, an occurrence of \rname{a2\_atm'} is always
immediately followed by an instance of \rname{g2\_atm'}: the conclusion of the
latter must match the premise of the former. This fact realizes the
requirement that, upon returning from a call, the output terms, here
$[\vec{u}/\vec{y}]\Ovec{s}$, must be checked against the terms in output
position of the caller.
\subsection{Compilation}
\label{sec:pil2-compilation}
Compilation transforms logic programs in $\L^s$ to compiled programs in
$\L^c_2$. The input does not have to be well-moded at the level of detail
considered here, but this would be operationally advantageous in a refinement
of the semantics in Figure~\ref{fig:pil2-resolution} that handles quantifiers
lazily. We will make use of two auxiliary notions in this section:
pseudo clauses that we encountered already in
Section~\ref{sec:pil1-compilation} and the analogous notion of pseudo atomic
goal. They are defined as follows:
\medskip
\noindent
{\arraycolsep=0.25em
\newcommand{\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em}}{\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em}}
$\begin{array}{@{}r@{\hspace{0.8em}} cr l@{}}
\mbox{\emph{Pseudo Clauses:}}
& \mathcal{C} & ::= & \Box \sImp p\:\vec{x}
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \A{x}{\mathcal{C}}
\\ \mbox{\emph{Pseudo Atomic Goals:}}
& \mathcal{F} & ::= & p\:\Ivec{t}\:\Ovec{z} \And \Box
\hspace{0.5em}|\hspace{0.5em} \E{z}{\mathcal{F}}
\end{array}$}%
\medskip
\noindent
Just like pseudo clauses retain the outer structure of a clause replacing the
embedded residual with a hole ($\Box$), pseudo atomic goals have a hole in
place of their trailing matches. The general form of pseudo clauses and
pseudo atomic formulas, accounting for input and output positions, are
$\A{\Ivec{x}\:\Ovec{x}}{\Box \sImp p\:\Ivec{x'}\:\Ovec{x'}}$ and
$\E{\Ovec{z}}{(p\:\Ivec{t}\:\Ovec{z'} \And \Box)}$.
In Section~\ref{sec:pil1-compilation}, wrote $\mathcal{C}[R]$ for the replacement of
the hole of $\mathcal{C}$ with the residual $R$ and noted that variable capture could
(and generally will) occur. Similarly, we write $\mathcal{F}[M]$ for replacement of
the hole of $\mathcal{F}$ with matches $M$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\newcommand{1.8ex}{1.8ex}
\newcommand{-.5ex}{-.5ex}
\newcommand{\trule}[1][-1.5ex]{\rule[#1]{0em}{0ex}}
\newcommand{\hfill}{\hfill}
\fboxsep=0pt
\noindent
\fbox{\scriptsize
$\begin{array}{@{\hfill}c@{\hfill}}
\makebox[\textwidth]{}\\[-2.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Programs\trule}
\\[-0.5ex]
\cRule
{}
{\cmpProgC{\cdot}{\cdot}}
{p2c\_empty}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpProgC{\Gamma}{\Psi}
\qq
\cmpClauseC[\mathcal{C}]{A}{R}{O}}
{\cmpProgC{\Gamma, A}{\Psi, \mathcal{C}[R \And O]}}
{p2c\_clause}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Heads\trule}
\\[-1.0ex]
\cRule
{}
{\cmpHeadC{\vec{x}}{p}{\Box \sImp p\:\vec{x}}{\sTrue}{\sTrue}}
{h2c\_p}
\\[1.8ex]
\cRule
{\cmpHeadC{x\;\vec{x}}{a}{\mathcal{C}}{I}{O}
\qq
x \: \mbox{\em ``new''}}
{\cmpHeadC{\vec{x}}{a\;\IN{t}}{\A{x}{\mathcal{C}}}{I \And \Match{x}{\IN{t}}}{O}}
{h2c\_in}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpHeadC{x\;\vec{x}}{a}{\mathcal{C}}{I}{O}
\qq
x \: \mbox{\em ``new''}}
{\cmpHeadC{\vec{x}}{a\;\OT{t}}{\A{x}{\mathcal{C}}}{I}{\Assg{x}{\OT{t}} \And O}}
{h2c\_ot}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Clauses\trule}
\\[0.0ex]
\cRule
{\cmpHeadC{\cdot}{a}{\mathcal{C}}{I}{O}}
{\cmpClauseC[\mathcal{C}]{a}{I}{O}}
{c2c\_atm}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpGoalC{A}{G}
\qq
\cmpClauseC[\mathcal{C}]{B}{R}{O}}
{\cmpClauseC[\mathcal{C}]{A \sImp B}{R \And G}{O}}
{c2c\_imp}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpClauseC[\mathcal{C}]{A}{R}{O}}
{\cmpClauseC[\mathcal{C}]{\A{x}{A}}{\E{x}{R}}{O}}
{c2c\_all}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Atomic\:goals\trule}
\\[-1.0ex]
\cRule
{}
{\cmpAtmC{\vec{t}}{p}{p\:\vec{t} \And \Box}{\sTrue}}
{a2c\_p}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpAtmC{\IN{t}\:\vec{t}}{a}{\mathcal{F}}{M}}
{\cmpAtmC{\vec{t}}{a\;\IN{t}}{\mathcal{F}}{M}}
{a2c\_in}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpAtmC{\vec{t}\:z}{a}{\mathcal{C}}{M}
\qq
z \: \mbox{\em ``new''}}
{\cmpAtmC{\vec{t}}{a\;\OT{t}}{\E{z}{\mathcal{F}}}{\Match{z}{\OT{t}} \And M}}
{a2c\_ot}
\\[-.5ex]
\hline\\[-4.5ex]
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf \scriptstyle Goals\trule}
\\[-0.0ex]
\cRule
{\cmpAtmC{\cdot}{a}{\mathcal{F}}{M}}
{\cmpGoalC{a}{\mathcal{F}[M]}}
{g2c\_atm}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpClauseC[\mathcal{C}]{A}{R}{O}
\qq
\cmpGoalC{B}{G}}
{\cmpGoalC{A \sImp B}{\mathcal{C}[R \And O] \sImp G}}
{g2c\_imp}
\hfill
\cRule
{\cmpGoalC{A}{C}}
{\cmpGoalC{\A{x}{A}}{\A{x}{C}}}
{g2c\_all}
\\[-1ex]\relax
\end{array}$}
\caption{Compilation of $\L^s$ into $\L^c_2$.}
\label{fig:pil2-compilation}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The compilation process is modeled by the following five judgments, which are
reminiscent of the compilation judgments $\L^c_1$. They are more complex
because clause compilation now needs to handle both matching and assignment as
opposed to a generic equality. Furthermore, a new judgment is needed to
compile atomic goals.
$$
\begin{array}{l@{\hspace{1.5em}}p{20em}}
\cmpProgC{\Gamma}{\Psi}
& \emph{Program $\Gamma$ is compiled to $\Psi$}
\\ \cmpHeadC{\vec{x}}{a}{\mathcal{C}}{I}{O}
& \emph{Head $a$ with $\vec{x}$ is compiled to $\mathcal{C}$, $I$ and $O$}
\\ \cmpClauseC{A}{R}{O}
& \emph{Clause $A$ is compiled to $\mathcal{C}$, $R$ and $O$}
\\ \cmpAtmC{\vec{t}}{a}{\mathcal{F}}{M}
& \emph{Atomic goal $a$ with $\vec{t}$ is compiled to $\mathcal{F}$ and $M$}
\\ \cmpGoalC{A}{G}
& \emph{Goal $A$ is compiled to $G$}
\end{array}
$$
We write $I$ and $O$ for a conjunction of matches (compilation of terms in
input position) and assignments (compilation of output terms), respectively,
in the body of a compiled clause. In compiled atomic goals, we write $M$ for
a conjunction of matches.
The rules for compilation, which define these judgments, are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:pil2-compilation}. Compiling a clause $A$, modeled by the
judgment $\cmpClauseC{A}{R}{O}$, returns a pseudo clause $\mathcal{C}$, the residual
$R$ (inclusive of input matches) and the output assignments $O$ that will fill
its hole. The rules in the ``Clauses'' segment build up this residual
starting with the compilation of its head, which is displayed in the ``Heads''
segment. The rules therein differ from the similar inference for $\L^c_1$ by
the fact that they dispatch terms in input and output positions in the $I$ and
$O$ zones of the judgment as matches and assignments respectively. Residuals
and assignments are plugged in the hole of the pseudo clause once this clause
has been fully compiled, as can be seen in the ``Programs'' segment and in
rule \rname{g2c\_imp}.
The compilation of goals differs from $\L^c_1$ for the treatment of atomic
formulas: upon encountering an atom $a$, the compilation appeals to the new judgment
$\cmpAtmC{\cdot}{a}{\mathcal{F}}{M}$. It generates a pseudo atomic formula $\mathcal{F}$ and
matches $M$, which are integrated in rule \rname{g2c\_atm}. The zone to the
left of the turnstile serves as an accumulator, very much like when compiling heads.
Target language, $\L^c_2$, is sound and complete with respect to $\L^s$. The
following lemma collects some auxiliary results needed to prove this property.
The first two statements are proved by induction on the structure of $a$; the
third by induction on the given derivation.
\noindent{\parbox{\linewidth}{%
\begin{lemma}
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep=0pt
\item%
If $\cmpHeadC{\vec{x}}{a}{\mathcal{C}}{I}{O}$, then for any term sequence $\vec{t}$
of the same length as $\vec{x}$ and program $\Psi$ we have
$\cResC[a\:\vec{t}]{\Psi}{[\vec{t}/\vec{x}](\mathcal{C}[I \And O])}$.
\item%
If $\cmpAtmC{\vec{t}}{a}{\mathcal{F}}{M}$, then for all $\Psi$ we have
$\cResC[a\:\vec{t}]{\Psi}{\mathcal{F}[M]}$.
\item%
If $\cResC{\Psi}{\mathcal{C}[R]}$, then $\rResB{\Psi}{R}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}}
We have the following soundness and completeness theorems for $\L^c_2$. In both
cases, the proof proceeds by mutual induction over the first derivation in the
antecedent.
\noindent{\parbox{\linewidth}{%
\begin{theorem}[Soundness of the compilation to $\L^c_2$]
\label{th:pil2-sound}
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep=0ex
\item %
If \ $\unid{\Gamma}{A}$,
\ $\cmpProgC{\Gamma}{\Psi}$
\ and \ $\cmpGoalC{A}{G}$,
\ then \ $\gResC{\Psi}{G}$.
\item %
If \ $\immd{\Gamma}{A}$,
\ $\cmpProgC{\Gamma}{\Psi}$
\ and \ $\cmpClauseC[\mathcal{C}]{A}{R}{O}$,
\ then \ $\cResC{\Psi}{\mathcal{C}[R \And O]}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}}
\noindent{\parbox{\linewidth}{%
\begin{theorem}[Completeness of the compilation to $\L^c_2$]
\label{th:pil2-complete}
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep=0ex
\item %
If \ $\gResC{\Psi}{G}$,
\ $\cmpProgC{\Gamma}{\Psi}$
\ and \ $\cmpGoalC{A}{G}$,
\ then \ $\unid{\Gamma}{A}$.
\item %
If \ $\cResC{\Psi}{C}$,
\ $\cmpProgC{\Gamma}{\Psi}$,
\ $C = \mathcal{C}[R \And O]$
\ and \ $\cmpClauseC[\mathcal{C}]{A}{R}{O}$,
\ then \ $\immd{\Gamma}{A}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}}
\begin{figure}[t]
\fbox{%
\hspace*{-1em}%
\parbox{\linewidth}{%
\begin{enumerate}\small
\item%
$\begin{array}[t]{@{}l@{\hspace{3.5em}}c@{\hspace{2em}}l@{}}
\begin{array}[t]{@{}ll@{}}
\multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{
\A{E_1}{}\A{E_2}{}
\A{T_1}{}\A{T_2}{}}
\\ & \ms{of}\;(\ms{app}\;E_1\;E_2)\;T_2
\\
\\
\\ \sPim & \ms{of}\;E_1\;(\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2)
\\ \sPim & \ms{of}\;E_2\;T_1
\end{array}
& \raisebox{-10ex}{ \ $\cmpProgB{}{}$ \hspace*{-0.8em} }
& \begin{array}[t]{@{}ll@{}l@{\;}l@{}}
\multicolumn{4}{@{}l@{}}{\A{x_1}{}\A{x_2}{}}
\\ & \multicolumn{3}{@{}l@{}}{\ms{of}\;x_1\;x_2}
\\ \sPim &(&\multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{
\E{E_1}{}\E{E_2}{}
\E{T_1}{}\E{T_2}{\sTrue}}
\\ && \And & \Match{x_1}{\ms{app}\;E_1\;E_2}
\\ && \And & \E{z_1}{(\ms{of}\;E_1\;z_1 \And \Match{z_1}{\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2}
\And \sTrue)}
\\ && \And & \E{z_2}{(\ms{of}\;E_2\;z_2 \And \Match{z_2}{T_1} \And \sTrue)}
\\ && \And & \Assg{x_2}{T_2} \And \sTrue)
\end{array}
\end{array}$
\medskip%
\item%
$\begin{array}[t]{@{}lcl@{}}
\begin{array}[t]{@{}ll@{}}
\multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{
\A{E}{}
\A{T_1}{}\A{T_2}{}}
\\ & \ms{of}\;(\ms{lam}\;T_1\;E)\;(\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2)
\\
\\
\\ \sPim & (\A{x}{}
\\
\\ & \hspace{2em} \ms{of}\;x\;T_1
\\
\\ & \hspace{0.5em} \sImp \ms{of}\;(E\;x)\;T_2)
\end{array}
& \raisebox{-14.5ex}{$\cmpProgB{}{}$}
& \begin{array}[t]{@{}ll@{}l@{\;}l@{}}
\multicolumn{4}{@{}l@{}}{\A{x_1}{}\A{x_2}{}}
\\ & \multicolumn{3}{@{}l@{}}{\ms{of}\;x_1\;x_2}
\\ \sPim &(&\multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{
\E{E}{}
\E{T_1}{}\E{T_2}{\sTrue}}
\\ &&\And & \Match{x_1}{\ms{lam}\;T_1\;E}
\\ &&\And & \E{z}{}((\A{x}{} (\begin{array}[t]{@{}l@{\;}l@{}}
& \begin{array}[t]{@{}l@{\;}l@{}}
\multicolumn{2}{@{}l@{}}{\A{x_1'}{}\A{x_2'}{\sTrue}}
\\ \And & \Match{x_1'}{x}
\\ \And & \ms{of}\;x_1'\;x_2'
\\ \And & \Assg{x_2'}{T_1} \And \sTrue)
\end{array}
\\ \sImp & \ms{of}\;(E\;x)\;z)
\end{array}
\\ && & \ \ \ \ \ \And \Match{z}{T_2 \And \sTrue})
\\ &&\And & \Assg{x_2}{\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2} \And \sTrue)
\end{array}
\end{array}$
\end{enumerate}}}
\caption{$\L^c_2$ Compilation Example}
\label{fig:pl2-example}
\end{figure}
To conclude this section, we revisit our ongoing examples. Here, we assume
that the mode of the predicate $\ms{of}$ is $\ms{of}\;\IN{\:}\;\OT{\:}$ ---
the first argument is input and the second output. The result of compiling
our two familiar clauses into $\L^c_2$ is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pl2-example}.
As in Section~\ref{sec:pil1-compilation}, the moded compilation process offers
ample opportunities for optimization: matches and assignments with variables
on both side and the corresponding existential quantification can often be
elided, and all occurrences of $\sTrue$ can be optimized away.
It is instructive to rewrite these clauses with the two synthetic connectives
introduced earlier for $\L^c_2$, again omitting $\sTrue$ for readability:
$$
\begin{array}{lcl}
\Lam_{\ms{of}}\; x_1.
& \multicolumn{2}{l}{\E{E_1}{}\E{E_2}{}\E{T_1}{}\E{T_2}{
\;\; \Match{x_1}{\ms{app}\;E_1\;E_2}}
\\& \And & \ms{call}\: (\ms{of}\;E_1) \;\Match{}{}\; (\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2)
\;\And\; \ms{call}\: (\ms{of}\;E_2) \;\Match{}{}\; T_1 ;
\\& & \ms{return}\: T_2
\\[1ex]
\Lam_{\ms{of}}\; x_1.
& \multicolumn{2}{l}{\E{E}{}\E{T_1}{}\E{T_2}{
\;\; \Match{x_1}{\ms{lam}\;T_1\;E}}
\\& \And & \A{x}{}(\Lam_{\ms{of}}\; x_1'.\;\;
\Match{x_1'}{x}\;;
\ms{return}\: T_1)
\;\sImp\; \ms{call}\: (\ms{of}\;(E\;x)) \;\Match{}{}\; T_2;
\\& & \ms{return}\: (\ms{arr}\;T_1\;T_2)
\end{array}
$$
\section{Larger Source Languages}
\label{sec:larger-languages}
In~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp}, we illustrated our original abstract logical
compilation method on the language of hereditary Harrop formulas. This
language differs from $\L^s$ for the presence of conjunction (formulas of the
form $A \And B$) and truth ($\sTrue$). While our original treatment could
handle them easily (in a clause position, they were compiled to disjunctions
and falsehood respectively), the approach taken in Sections~\ref{sec:pil1}
and~\ref{sec:pil2} does not support them directly. The problem is that, as soon
as we allow these connectives, clauses can have multiple heads (or even none).
Consider for example:
$$
\A{x}{}\A{y}{}
q\:x\:y \sImp (p_1\:x\:y \And (r\:x\;y \sImp p_2\:x))
$$
This clause has two heads: $p_1\:x\:y$ and $p_2\:x$. What should it be
compiled to? To ensure immediacy (embodied in the macro-rule
\rname{g1\_atm'}), our compilation strategy produces a pseudo clause applied to
a residual, thereby exposing the (flattened) head of a compiled clause as close
to the top level as possible. How to achieve this now that there may be more
than one head?
One approach to dealing with this problem is to observe that $\sAnd$
distributes over (the antecedent of) $\sImp$ and $\sA$. By doing so to the
above example, we obtain the formula
$$
(\A{x}{}\A{y}{}
q\:x\:y \sImp p_1\:x\:y)
\And
(\A{x}{}\A{y}{}
q\:x\:y \sImp r\:x\;y \sImp p_2\:x)
$$
Observe that it is a conjunction of $\L^s$ clauses. Each of them can now be
compiled as in Section~\ref{sec:pil1} and the results can be combined by means
of a disjunction. This approach generalizes to the full language of
hereditary Harrop formulas. It pushes the conjunctions to the outside,
leaving inner formulas resembling the clauses of $\L^c_0$ (conjunction and truth
in a goal position are left alone as they are not problematic). Clauses with
no head (e.g., $A \sImp \sTrue$) are reduced to $\sTrue$. These preprocessing
steps can be implemented as a source-code transformation or integrated in the
compilation process.
The other abstract logic programming language examined
in~\cite{Cervesato98jicslp} is the language of linear hereditary Harrop
formulas, found at the core of Lolli~\cite{Hodas94ic} and LLF~\cite{ic02}.
The improved compilation process discussed in this paper extends directly in
the presence of linearity. Because linear hereditary Harrop formulas feature
a form of conjunction and truth, the technical device just outlined is needed
to obtain workable compiled clauses.
\section{Future Work}
\label{sec:future}
The discussion in Section~\ref{sec:pil2} sets the stage for a nearly functional
operational semantics of well-moded programs. Indeed, given an atomic goal
with ground terms in its input positions, proof search will instantiate its
output positions to ground terms, if it succeeds. Being in a logic
programming setting, more than one answer could be returned. Indeed, for
well-moded programs, the clauses for a predicate implement a partial,
non-deterministic function. This observation informed the choice of the
notation for the synthetic operators we exposed: $\ms{call}\:p\:\Ivec{t}
\Match{}{} \Ovec{t}$ and $\Lam_p \Ivec{x}.\,\E{\vec{y}}{}(R;
\ms{return}\:\Ovec{t})$.
Now we believe that, in the case of well-moded programs, a more detailed
operational semantics that exposes variable manipulations using logical
variables and explicit substitutions (and restricts the execution order) can
bring this functional interpretation to the surface. This would provide a
logical justification for the natural impulse to give well-moded programs a
semantics that is typical of functional programming languages, where atomic
predicates carry just input terms and from which the terms in output position
emerge by a process of reduction.
In future work, we intend to carry out this program by giving such a detailed
operational semantics to $\L^s$ as well as well-moding rules. The goal will
then be to perform logical transformations, akin to what we did in this paper,
that expose this functional semantics for well-moded programs. It would also
allow us to prove formally that the operator $\Match{}{}$ of
Section~\ref{sec:pil2} can indeed be implemented as matching rather than
general unification.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the Qatar National Research Fund under grant NPRP
09-1107-1-168. We are grateful to Frank Pfenning, Carsten Sch\"urmann, Robert
J. Simmons and Jorge Sacchini for the many fruitful discussions, as well as to
the anonymous reviewers.
\label{lastpage}
|
\section{Introduction}
Whilst its application requires merely the knowledge of analytic
structure of the scattering amplitude of interest, the on-shell
recursion relation (BCFW) \cite{{Britto:2004ap},Britto:2005fq} has
achieved tremendous success in calculations of scattering
amplitudes, a task would very often seem practically impossible
using conventional methods even when there are only a few of external
particles involving gluons or gravitons\footnote{A review of the
principles of BCFW on-shell recursion relation
as well as its some applications
can be found in \cite{Feng:2011gc}.}. In contrast to perturbative off-shell
formulation, the on-shell recursion relation uses
fewer-point \textit{physical} amplitude as building blocks,
\begin{equation}
A(123\dots n)=\sum_{poles}A_{L}(\hat{1}2\dots,\hat{P}^{h})\,\frac{1}{P^{2}}\,
A_{R}(-\hat{P}^{-h},\dots n),\label{eq:illustration}
\end{equation}
thereby avoiding large amount of unnecessary cancelation in intermediate
step of computations. An important point of Eq.
(\ref{eq:illustration}) is the sum over all possible physical poles
and allowed helicity configurations. Generalization of on-shell
relation to string amplitudes was pioneered in
\cite{Boels:2008fc,Boels:2010bv} and \cite{Cheung:2010vn} and
further elaborated in \cite{Fotopoulos:2010jz,Fotopoulos:2010cm, Fotopoulos:2010ay}.
Recent applications at $4$-point and to eikonal Regge limit
can be found in \cite{Feng:2011qc} and \cite{Garousi:2010er} respectively.
The validity of on-shell recursion relation in string theory context
was argued both from the better convergent UV behavior generically
observed in string amplitudes and from analyzing explicit
expressions of string amplitudes.
However, when applying on-shell recursion relation to string
amplitudes, we are facing the problem of summing over infinite
number of physical states in (\ref{eq:illustration}). Although it
could be done in principle, there is no efficient algorithm doing
so. For scattering amplitudes of tachyons, based on known analytic
expressions, it has been conjectured in \cite{Fotopoulos:2010jz}
that amplitudes can be effectively reduced to factorization of two
lower-point tachyon-like sub-amplitudes.
In this paper, we provide an algorithm to do the sum over
infinity number of physical states in (\ref{eq:illustration}).
Applying our algorithm to tachyon amplitudes, we see that the
sum over physical states at each mass level predicted by open string
theory does produce the conjectured scalar-behaved residue observed
in \cite{Cheung:2010vn}. In contrast with the experiences with
amplitude calculations in field theory, the key of our algorithm is
to enlarge the sum over intermediate physical states to over intermediate
complete Fock space states. The zero contributions of extra states are
guaranteed by no-ghost theorem (i.e., the Ward-like identity in
string theory)\footnote{We have summarized the no-ghost theorem in
Appendix \ref{ddf-ghost} for reference. }.
The structure of this paper is organized as the following: In
section \ref{BCFWreview}, we present a very brief review of BCFW
on-shell recursion relation of generic field theory amplitudes. In
section \ref{example1} we start with the familiar $4$-point
Veneziano amplitude as an example and demonstrate how the tachyonic
recursion relation can be understood from carrying out sum directly.
Section \ref{example2} consists of analysis on $5$-point string
amplitudes, in which case the pole structure becomes much more
complicated. A discussion on pole structure of generic $n$-point
amplitude is presented in section \ref{sec-n-pt}. In section
\ref{sec-vector} we consider higher-spin scatterings and demonstrate
that generically the mathematical connection between BCFW and
tachyonic recursion descriptions can be found in the generating function
for Stirling number of the first kind outlined in appendix \ref{app-mathid},
while the relation between
on-shell condition and decoupling of unphysical states is discussed
in appendix \ref{ddf-ghost}.
\section{A brief review of BCFW on-shell recursion relation}
\label{BCFWreview}
In this section we provide a short review of on-shell recursion
relation \cite{{Britto:2004ap},Britto:2005fq}. Derivation of BCFW
on-shell recursion relation starts from taking analytic continuation
of amplitudes. An amplitude can be regarded as function of complex
momenta defined by standard Feynman rules. When the momenta of a
pair of particle lines manually chosen are shifted in a complex
$q$-direction,
\begin{eqnarray} \WH k_1(z)=k_1+z q,~~~~~\WH
k_n(z)=k_n-zq,~~~~\label{1n-deform}\end{eqnarray}
with $q^{2}=q\cdot k_{a}=q\cdot k_{n}=0$, the shifted amplitude
$A(z)$ defines a complex function. While the explicit analytic
structure of amplitude is determined by individual theory and does
not concern us here, $A(z)$ thus defined will contain simple poles
produced by propagators, which is the consequence of local
interaction and the null condition of $q$. From Cauchy's Theorem,
integrating over a contour large enough to enclose all finite poles
yields
\begin{equation}
\oint dz\,\frac{A(z)}{z}=A(0)+\sum_{poles\,\alpha}\,
Res_{z=z_{\alpha}},\label{eq:cauchy integral}
\end{equation}
where an unshifted amplitude $A(0)$ contributes as residue at $z=0$
and residues from other finite poles assume the form as
cut-amplitudes,
$Res_{z_{\alpha}}=-A(z_{\alpha})\frac{1}{P^{2}}A_{R}(z_{\alpha})$.
In various theories shifted amplitudes posses convergent large-$z$
asymptotic behavior and the integral (\ref{eq:cauchy integral})
vanish, we are then entitled to write down the BCFW recursion
relation\footnote{We have assumed the boundary contribution to be
zero. If it is no zero, we need to modify recursion relation, see
\cite{Feng:2009ei}.}
\begin{eqnarray} A_n =\sum_{poles}\sum_{
{\tiny
\begin{array}{c}
physical \\
states
\end{array}
}
} A_L(..., P(z_{\alpha})) {2\over
P^2+M^2} A_R( -P(z_{\alpha}),...),~~~\label{BCFW-form}\end{eqnarray}
where the first sum is over all finite simple poles $z_{\alpha}$ of $z$,
and the second sum is over all physical states at the given simple
pole $z_a$.
\section{Example I: BCFW of $4$-tachyon amplitude in bosonic open string theory}
\label{example1}
As was demonstrated in the previous section, a key feature making BCFW
on-shell recursion relation possible is that in perturbative field theory, at tree-level
amplitude can often be determined entirely from its poles and related residues.
The locations of poles are determined by propagators while the residues, by
factorization properties. Same analytic structure holds for string theory, with one
complication: there is an infinite number of poles and related residues. As an consequence,
there are several expressions for amplitudes, for example, the Veneziano formula assumes
the form of a worldsheet integral, making the pole structure obscured. In
\cite{Cheung:2010vn} through binomial expansions of these integral formulas, the pole structure
can be made manifest. In this section, we will use four-point tachyon amplitude as an example
to demonstrate our idea and method.
\subsection{Pole structure extraction }
Consider the four tachyon scattering amplitude in
bosonic open string theory, given by Koba-Nielson formula as
\begin{equation}
A(1234)=\int_0^1 dz_{2}\, (1-z_{2})^{k_{3}\cdot k_{2}}\,
z_{2}^{k_{2}\cdot k_{1}},~~\label{eq:4pt}
\end{equation}
where we have used the conformal symmetry to fix $z_1=0$, $z_3=1$
and $z_4=+\infty$. For arbitrary complex power $w$ we have following
binomial expansion
\begin{eqnarray} (x-y)^w=\sum_{a=0}^\infty \left(\begin{array}{c} w\\ a
\end{array}\right) x^{w-a} y^a~~\label{binomial}\end{eqnarray}
where coefficient $\left(\begin{array}{c} w\\ a
\end{array}\right)$ is defined as
\begin{eqnarray} \left(\begin{array}{c} w\\ a
\end{array}\right)= { w(w-1)(w-2)...(w-a+1)\over a!}\end{eqnarray}
Applying \eref{binomial} to $(1-z_{2})^{k_{3}\cdot k_{2}}$ and
collecting relative terms we have
\begin{equation}
A(1234)=\sum_{a=0}^\infty \left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{3}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right)(-)^{a}\int dz_{2}\, z_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}(k_{1}+k_{2})^{2}+a-2}
\end{equation}
where we have used the mass-shell condition for tachyon that
$k_1^2=k_2^2=-M^2=+2$\footnote{We have used the convention
${\alpha}'=1/2$, so the mass of bosonic open string state is
$M^2=-2+2\sum_{n=1}^\infty {\alpha}_{-n}\cdot {\alpha}_n$}. The worldsheet
integration can be explicitly carried out, producing an $s$-channel
propagator\footnote{In this expansion, only $s$-channel is manifest. However,
by string duality, $t$-channel is also contained. }. %
Inserting it back, we obtain
\begin{equation}
A(1234)=\sum_{a=0}^\infty \left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{3}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right)(-)^{a}\frac{2}{(k_{1}+k_{2})^{2}+2(a-1)}~~\label{4-pole-form}
\end{equation}
~\\
\subsection{Interpreting pole expansion formula from BCFW perspective}
\label{section-int-pole}
Having derived an explicit analytic expression \eref{4-pole-form}
for tree-level four tachyon scattering amplitude, it is then
interesting to see if the result can be understood in the language
of BCFW on-shell recursion relation. We choose the shifted pair to
be $(1,4)$ to be consistent with the manifest $s$-channel expansion.
Assuming there is no boundary
contribution for on-shell recursion relation, equation
\eref{4-pole-form} should be given by on-shell recursion relation \eref{BCFW-form}:
\begin{eqnarray} A_n =\sum_{poles}\sum_{physical} A_L(..., P(z_{\alpha})) {2\over
P^2+M^2} A_R( -P(z_{\alpha}),...)~~~\label{BCFW-form2}\end{eqnarray}
In denominator we see infinitely many single poles occurs at
\begin{eqnarray} z_a= {(k_1+k_2)^2+2(a-1)\over -2 q\cdot
(k_1+k_2)},~~~~a=0,1,\dots .~~~~\label{mass-level}\end{eqnarray}
where $P=k_1+k_2$ and the mass square $M_a^2=2(a-1)$ for every
integer $a$ is precisely the mass spectrum prescribed by bosonic
open string theory. In addition, matching residues of
\eref{4-pole-form} with \eref{BCFW-form2} indicates that, at each
level $a$, there should be a number of physical states, collectively
yielding
\begin{eqnarray} \sum_{states~~h} A_L(1,2,P_a^h(z_a))A_R(-P_a^{\W
h}(z_a),3,4)=(-1)^a\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{3}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right).~~~~\label{4point-heli-sum}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus to understand \eref{4-pole-form} from BCFW recursion relation
\eref{BCFW-form}, we need to be able to interpret the scalar-behaved
residue
\eref{4point-heli-sum} as sum over
physical states at each fixed level $a$.
\subsection{ Summing over physical states}
Before undertaking a state-by-state calculation of residues over
bosonic string spectrum, let us make a slight detour and consider
how the analytic structure featuring intermediate states fits into
the picture of BCFW on-shell recursion relation in quantum field
theory. Although in Feynman rules scalar, fermion and gauge boson
each are assigned with a propagator in distinct representations, we
note that the propagator appearing in BCFW recursion relation
\eref{BCFW-form2} is always scalar-like. The reason is following.
For example, if the intermediate particles are massless fermions,
BCFW recursion relation reads
\begin{eqnarray} A\sim \sum_{h=\pm} A_L(\sigma_L, P^{h}) A_R (-P^{-h}, \sigma_R).
\end{eqnarray}
We can rewrite the on-shell sub-amplitude $A_L(\sigma_L, P^{h})=
\sum_{a=1,2}\W A_L(\sigma_L, P^{h})^{a} u^h(P)_a$, i.e., we have
decomposed the on-shell amplitude into two parts: wave function for
external on-shell particle $P$ and the rest. Similar decomposition
can be done for $A_R (-P^{-h}, \sigma_R)$. Thus the sum over
physical states becomes
\begin{eqnarray} A\sim \W A_L(\sigma_L, P^{h}) \left(\sum_h u^s(P) \O
u^s(p)\right) \W A_R (-P^{-h}, \sigma_R)\sim \W A_L(\sigma_L, P^{h})
\left(\gamma\cdot P\right) \W A_R (-P^{-h}, \sigma_R)\end{eqnarray}
where in the middle, $\gamma\cdot P$ is exactly the factor needed to
translate scalar propagator into the familiar fermion propagator.
A similar mechanism supports the translation from scalar propagator
into gauge boson propagator when summed over physical states, but
with some subtleties. The sum over two transverse physical states
for gauge boson is $(\epsilon_\mu^+ \epsilon_\nu^- +\epsilon_\mu^-
\epsilon_\nu^+)$ while the familiar Feynman gauge uses $g_{\mu\nu}$.
In fact, in 4-dimensions we need four polarization vectors, and
\begin{eqnarray} g_{\mu\nu}= \epsilon_\mu^+ \epsilon_\nu^- +\epsilon_\mu^-
\epsilon_\nu^+ +\epsilon_\mu^L \epsilon_\nu^T+\epsilon_\mu^T
\epsilon_\nu^L ~~~\label{vector}\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_\mu^L$ and $\epsilon_\mu^T$ are longitude and
time-like polarization vector \cite{Feng:2011twa}. The reason that
these two sums (Namely a
summation over two physical states and another over all four states) give
same answer depends crucially on Ward Identity of gauge theory,
i.e., if all $(n-1)$ particles are physical polarized while the
$n$-th particle is longitude (i.e., proportional to $k_\mu$), the
amplitude is zero. Thus we have
\begin{eqnarray} & & \sum_{all~states} A_L(\sigma_L, P^h) A_R(-P^{\W h},
\sigma_R) \sim \W A_L^\mu(\sigma_L, P) g_{\mu \nu} \W A_R^\nu(-P,
\sigma_R)\nonumber \\
&\sim & \W A_L^\mu(\sigma_L, P) \left( \epsilon_\mu^+
\epsilon_\nu^- +\epsilon_\mu^- \epsilon_\nu^+ +\epsilon_\mu^L
\epsilon_\nu^T+\epsilon_\mu^T \epsilon_\nu^L\right)\W A_R^\nu (-P,
\sigma_R) \sim \W A_L^\mu(\sigma_L, P) \left( \epsilon_\mu^+
\epsilon_\nu^- +\epsilon_\mu^- \epsilon_\nu^+ \right)\W A_R^\nu (-P,
\sigma_R)\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{physical~states} A_L(\sigma_L, P^h) A_R(-P^{- h},
\sigma_R)\end{eqnarray}
Having understood the effect of summing over physical states from
quantum field theory, let us return to the problem of interpreting
scalar-behaved residue \eref{4-pole-form} as sum over physical
states. In old covariant quantization framework, the Fock space in
bosonic open string theory is constructed by linear combinations of
states obtained from acting creation modes successively on ground
state
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{-n_{1}}^{\mu_{1}}\alpha_{-n_{2}}^{\mu_{2}}\dots
\alpha_{-n_{n}}^{\mu_{n}}\ket{0;k}.~~~\label{eq:fockstate1}
\end{equation}
Generically, a Fock state can carry $N_{\mu,1}$-multiple of
$\alpha_{-1}^{\mu}$ mode
operators\footnote{It should be emphasized that ${\alpha}_{-1}^\mu$ and
${\alpha}_{-1}^\nu$ should be considered as different operators when
$\mu\neq \nu$.} and $N_{\mu,2}$-multiple of $\alpha_{-2}^{\mu}$ mode
and so on. In the following discussions we use the set of
numbers $\{N_{\mu,n}\}$ as label of normalized Fock state
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\ket{\{ N_{\mu,n}\},\, k}= & \left[ \prod_{\mu=0}^{D-1}
\prod_{n=1}^\infty { ({\alpha}^\mu_{-n})^{N_{\mu,n}}\over
\sqrt{n^{N_{\mu,n}} N_{\mu,n}!}}\right]
\ket{0,\, k}.\end{array}~~~\label{eq:fockstate}
\end{equation}
Physical states however, in addition must satisfy Virasoro constraints
$(L_0-1)\ket{\phi}=0$,
$L_{m>0}\ket{\phi}=0$
and constitute only a subset in Fock space.
An immediate consequence is that physical states
are automatically on the mass-shell, $-k^2=M^2=2(N-1)$, where
$N$ is the level
\begin{eqnarray} N=\sum_{\mu=0}^{D-1} \sum_{n=1}^\infty n
N_{\mu,n}~.~~~~\label{Level-N}\end{eqnarray}
Note however, for a generic Fock state its center-of-mass momentum
$k^{\mu}$ and modes $\left\{ N_{\mu,n}\right\}$
are considered as independent degrees of freedom and does not
{\it a priori}
satisfy mass-shell condition, and yet in a BCFW on-shell recursion
relation, Fock states that happen to be the on mass-shell are picked
out because as we have seen from \eref{mass-level} that only these
states contribute to residues.
Now we come to our central point. The prescription given by BCFW
on-shell recursion relation is to sum over physical states
satisfying on-shell condition plus remaining Virasoro constraints
$L_{m>0}\ket{\phi}=0$. However, a rather technical difficulty
carrying out above prescription in string theory
is that it requires the knowledge of physical polarization tensor
at arbitrarily high mass level $N$, which is very hard to write down
explicitly. To bypass the problem, inspired by the observation
given in \cite{Feng:2011twa} for gauge theory \eref{vector}, we can
enlarge the sum over physical states to all states in Fock space
satisfying on-shell condition. The fact that these two sums are same
is guaranteed by the famous ``No-Ghost Theorem''\footnote{We have
collected some facts of ``No-Ghost Theorem'' in appendix
\ref{ddf-ghost}.}. With this understanding, we can write
\begin{eqnarray} A_n & = & \sum_{poles}\sum_{physical} A_L(..., P(z_{\alpha})) {2\over
P^2+M^2} A_R( -P(z_{\alpha}),...)\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{poles}\sum_{Fock} A_L(..., P(z_{\alpha})) {2\over P^2+M^2}
A_R( -P(z_{\alpha}),...)\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{poles}\sum_{Fock} (\W A_L(..., P(z_{\alpha})) \cdot \xi_P
{2\over P^2+M^2} \W A_R( -P(z_{\alpha}),...)\cdot
\xi^*(P)~~~\label{BCFW-form-1}\end{eqnarray}
where at the last step we have stripped away the polarization tensor
of intermediate state $P$ from on-shell amplitude. Since the sum is taken over
whole Fock space, we are free to choose any convenient basis, for example,
the one given in \eref{eq:fockstate}, to perform the sum. Thus if we take
pair $(1,n)$ to conduct BCFW-deformation and sum over the polarization
tensor of intermediate state, BCFW on-shell relation of a string amplitude
reads
\begin{eqnarray} A_n & = & \sum_{i=2}^{n-2}\sum_{N=0}^{+\infty}
\sum_{\{N_{\mu,n}\}}\vev{\phi_1(\WH k_1)|
V_2(k_2)...V_i(k_i)|\{N_{\mu,n}\},\WH P} {2{\cal
T}_{\{N_{\mu,n}\}}\over (\sum_{t=1}^i k_i)^2+2(N-1)} \nonumber \\ & &
\vev{\{N_{\mu,n}\},\WH
P|V_{i+1}(k_{i+1})...V_{n-1}(k_{n-1})|\phi_n(\WH k_n)}
~~~~\label{String-BCFW}\end{eqnarray}
In this formula, the first sum is over the splitting of particles
into left and right handed sides while the second sum is over poles
fixed by the mass level $N$. The third sum is over all allowed
choice of the set $\{N_{\mu,n}\}$ as long as they satisfy
\eref{Level-N}. The tensor structure ${\cal T}_{\{N_{\mu,n}\}}$ is
determined by the set $\{N_{\mu,n}\}$. To demonstrate the rule for
the tensor structure, we list the tensor structure for first three
levels:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Level $N=0$:} For the first level, all $N_{\mu,n}=0$ so
we have ${\cal T}=1$.
\item {\bf Level $N=1$:} The choice is $N_{\mu,1}=1$ for
$\mu=0,1,...,D-1$, thus we have ${\cal T}=g_{\mu\nu}$, i.e., we have
\begin{eqnarray} \vev{\phi_1|... V_i~ {{\alpha}_{-1}^\mu}|0;P} { 2g_{\mu\nu}\over
P^2+2(N-1)} \vev{0;P|
{{\alpha}_{+1}^\nu}~V_{i+1}...|\phi_n}~~~\label{4Level-1}\end{eqnarray}
where when we conjugate $\ket{{{\alpha}_{-1}^\mu}|0;P}$ we get $\bra{0;P|
{{\alpha}_{+1}^\nu}}$
\item {\bf Level $N=2$:} There are several choices and the structure is
given by
\begin{eqnarray} & & \sum_{\mu,\nu=0}^{D-1}\vev{\phi_1|... V_i~
{{\alpha}_{-2}^\mu\over \sqrt{2}}|0;P} {2 g_{\mu\nu}\over P^2+2(N-1)}
\vev{0;P| {{\alpha}_{+2}^\nu\over \sqrt{2}}~V_{i+1}...|\phi_n}\nonumber \\
& + & \sum_{0\leq \mu_1 <\mu_2\leq D-1}\sum_{0\leq \nu_1 <\nu_2\leq
D-1}\vev{\phi_1|... V_i~ {\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_1}{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_2}|0;P} {2
g_{\mu_1\nu_1}g_{\mu_2\nu_2}\over P^2+2(N-1)} \vev{0;P|
{\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_2}{\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_1}~V_{i+1}...|\phi_n}\nonumber \\
& + & \sum_{\mu,\nu=0}^{D-1}\vev{\phi_1|... V_i~
{({\alpha}_{-1}^\mu)^2\over \sqrt{2}}|0;P} { 2 (g_{\mu\nu})^2\over
P^2+2(N-1)} \vev{0;P| {({\alpha}_{+1}^\nu)^2\over
\sqrt{2}}~V_{i+1}...|\phi_n}~~~\label{4Level-2}\end{eqnarray}
where at the second line, to avoid repetition, we must have the
ordering $0\leq \mu_1 <\mu_2\leq D-1$.
\item {\bf Level $N=3$:} There are several choices which are
given respectively by
\begin{eqnarray*} T_1&= & \sum_{\mu,\nu=0}^{D-1}\vev{\phi_1|... V_i~
{{\alpha}_{-3}^\mu\over \sqrt{3}}|0;P} {2 g_{\mu\nu}\over P^2+2(N-1)}
\vev{0;P| {{\alpha}_{+3}^\nu\over \sqrt{3}}~V_{i+1}...|\phi_n}\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*} T_2&= &
\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_2,\nu_{1},\nu_2=0}^{D-1}\vev{\phi_1|... V_i~
{{\alpha}_{-2}^{\mu_1}\over \sqrt{2}}{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_2}|0;P} {2
g_{\mu_1\nu_1}g_{\mu_2\nu_2}\over P^2+2(N-1)} \vev{0;P|
{\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_2}{{\alpha}_{+2}^{\nu_1}\over
\sqrt{2}}~V_{i+1}...|\phi_n}\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*} T_3& = & \sum_{0\leq \mu_1 <\mu_2<\mu_3\leq D-1}\sum_{0\leq
\nu_1 <\nu_2<\nu_3\leq D-1}\vev{\phi_1|... V_i~
{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_1}{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_2}{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_3}|0;P}\nonumber \\ & & {2
g_{\mu_1\nu_1}g_{\mu_2\nu_2}g_{\mu_3\nu_3}\over P^2+2(N-1)}
\vev{0;P|
{\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_3}{\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_2}{\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_1}~V_{i+1}...|\phi_n}\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*} T_4 & = &
\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_2,\nu_{1},\nu_2=0}^{D-1}\vev{\phi_1|... V_i~
{({\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_1})^2\over \sqrt{2}} (a_{-1})^{\mu_2}|0;P} { 2
(g_{\mu_1\nu_1})^2 g_{\mu_2\nu_2}\over P^2+2(N-1)} \vev{0;P|
({\alpha}_{+1})^{\nu_2}{({\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_1})^2\over
\sqrt{2}}~V_{i+1}...|\phi_n}\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*} T_5 & = & \sum_{\mu,\nu=0}^{D-1}\vev{\phi_1|... V_i~
{({\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu})^3\over \sqrt{3!}} |0;P} { 2 (g_{\mu\nu})^3 \over
P^2+2(N-1)} \vev{0;P| {({\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu})^3\over
\sqrt{3!}}~V_{i+1}...|\phi_n}\end{eqnarray*}
So we have
\begin{eqnarray} N=3:~~~T_1+T_2+T_3+T_4+T_5~~~~~~~\label{4Level-3}\end{eqnarray}
\end{itemize}
These examples demonstrate the general pattern of tensor
structures. However, because when we have several oscillators with
same $n$, there are freedoms with the choice of $\mu$, we need to
distinguish if these $\mu$ are same or different from each other.
This makes the tensor structure a little bit of complicated. This
complication can be simplified further. For example, at the level
$N=2$, we have
\begin{eqnarray} & & \sum_{0\leq \mu_1\leq \mu_2\leq D-1}\sum_{0\leq \nu_1\leq
\nu_2\leq D-1} {\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_1}{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_2} g_{\mu_1 \nu_1}
g_{\mu_2 \nu_2}{\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_2} {\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_1} = {1\over
2}\sum_{\mu_1\neq \mu_2=0}^{D-1}\sum_{\nu_1\neq \nu_2=0}^{D-1}
{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_1}{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_2} g_{\mu_1 \nu_1}g_{\mu_2 \nu_2}
{\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_2} {\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_1}\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{\mu_1\neq \mu_2=0}^{D-1} \sum_{\nu_1\neq \nu_2=0}^{D-1}
{{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_1}{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_2}\over \sqrt{2}} g_{\mu_1
\nu_1}g_{\mu_2 \nu_2} {{\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_2} {\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_1}\over
\sqrt{2}}\end{eqnarray}
With this rewriting, the second and third line of \eref{4Level-2}
can be combined to
\begin{eqnarray} \sum_{\mu_1,\mu_2,\nu_1,\nu_2=0}^{D-1}\vev{\phi_1|... V_i~
{{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_1}{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_2}\over \sqrt{2}}|0;P} { 2
g_{\mu_1\nu_1}g_{\mu_2\nu_2}\over P^2+2(N-1)} \vev{0;P|
{{\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_1}{\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_2}\over
\sqrt{2}}~V_{i+1}...|\phi_n}\end{eqnarray}
Similar argument can show that the sum $T_3, T_4, T_5$ of
\eref{4Level-3} gives
\begin{eqnarray*} T_3+T_4+T_5& = & \sum_{ \mu_i, \nu_i=0}^{D-1}\vev{\phi_1|...
V_i~ {{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_1}{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_2}{\alpha}_{-1}^{\mu_3}\over
\sqrt{3!}}|0;P}{2 g_{\mu_1\nu_1}g_{\mu_2\nu_2}g_{\mu_3\nu_3}\over
P^2+2(N-1)} \vev{0;P|
{{\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_3}{\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_2}{\alpha}_{+1}^{\nu_1}\over
\sqrt{3!}}~V_{i+1}...|\phi_n}\end{eqnarray*}
It is easy to see that when multiple operators of the same mode $n$
are present in the Fock state, each may or may not be carrying the same
Lorentz index $0$ , or $1$ , or $\dots$ , or $D-1$,
the general pattern is given by the expansion
$(a_0+a_1+...+a_{D-1})^{N_{n}}/N_{n}!$ where $a_i= {\alpha}_{-n}^{i} g_{ii}
{\alpha}_{+n}^{i}$. The coefficient of term $(\alpha_{-n}^{0})^{n_0} (\alpha_{-n}^{1})^{n_1}...
(\alpha_{-n}^{D-1})^{n_{D-1}}$ in the Fock state is given by the
coefficient of term $a_0^{n_0} a_1^{n_1}...
a_{D-1}^{n_{D-1}}$ with $N_{n} =\sum_{i=0}^{D-1} n_i$ in the expansion,
which reads
\begin{eqnarray} {1\over N!} C^{N}_{n_0}
C^{N-n_0}_{n_1} C^{N-n_0-n_1}_{n_2}...C^{n_{D-1}}_{n_{D-1}}={1\over
N!} {N!\over \prod_{i=0}^{D-1} (n_i)!}\end{eqnarray}
thus we can drop the $\mu_{1}<\mu_{2}< \dots $ arrangement and
rewrite the sum in
\eref{String-BCFW} as
\begin{eqnarray} & & \sum_{\{N_{\mu,n}\} } \ket{\{N_{\mu,n}\};\WH P} {\cal
T}_{\{N_{\mu,n}\}} \bra{\{N_{\mu,n}\};\WH P}\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{\sum_n nN_{n}=N } \left\{\prod_{n=1}^\infty {
({\alpha}_{-n}^{{\mu_{N_{n},1}}} {\alpha}_{-n}^{{\mu_{N_{n},2}}}...
{\alpha}_{-n}^{{\mu_{N_{n},N_{n}}}})\over \sqrt{N_{n}!
n^{N_{n}}}}\right\}\ket{0;\WH P} \prod_{n=1}^\infty
(g_{{\mu_{N_{n},1}}{\nu_{N_{n},1}}}
g_{{\mu_{N_{n},2}}{\nu_{N_{n},2}}}...
g_{{\mu_{N_{n},N_{n}}}{\nu_{N_{n},N_{n}}}})\nonumber \\
& & \bra{0;\WH P} \left\{\prod_{n=1}^\infty {
({\alpha}_{+n}^{{\nu_{N_{n},1}}} {\alpha}_{+n}^{{\nu_{N_{n},2}}}...
{\alpha}_{+n}^{{\nu_{N_{n},N_{n}}}})\over \sqrt{N_{n}!
n^{N_{n}}}}\right\}~~~\label{tensor-structure}\end{eqnarray}
Having the simplified version \eref{tensor-structure}, we can give
following explicit calculations.
\subsubsection{ Explicit calculation}
Recalling the vertex of tachyon
\begin{eqnarray} V_0(k,z)= : e^{ik\cdot X(z)} := Z_0 W_0~,
~~~~\label{tachyon}\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray} Z_0 & = & e^{i k\cdot x+k\cdot p\ln z}= e^{ikx} z^{k\cdot p+1}=
z^{k\cdot p-1} e^{ik\cdot x}\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} W_0 & = & e^{ \sum_{n=1}^\infty {z^n\over n} k\cdot{\alpha}_{-n}} e^{
-\sum_{n=1}^\infty {z^{-n}\over n} k\cdot{\alpha}_{n}}~,\end{eqnarray}
it is easy to calculate the left three-point amplitude
\begin{eqnarray} \vev{0;-k_1| V_0(k_2, z)|\{N_{\mu,n}\}; P} & =
&\delta(k_1+k_2+P) \prod_{\mu=0}^{D-1}\prod_{m=1}^\infty { (
-k_2^\mu)^{N_{\mu,m}}\over \sqrt{
m^{N_{\mu,m}}N_{\mu,m}!}}~~~\label{12P}\end{eqnarray}
where $N$ is the level defined in \eref{Level-N} and the right
three-point amplitude
\begin{eqnarray} \vev{\{N_{\mu,n}\}; P| V_0(k_3,z)| 0;k_4}=
\delta(P-k_3-k_4)\prod_{\mu=0}^{D-1} \prod_{m=1}^\infty { (
k_3^\mu)^{N_{\mu,m}}\over \sqrt{ {N_{\mu,m}}!
m^{N_{\mu,m}}}}~~~\label{P34}\end{eqnarray}
Using \eref{12P} and \eref{P34} it is easy to calculate first few
mass levels. In fact, the same calculation has been done in our
simplification leading to the simplified tensor structure
\eref{tensor-structure}. Thus we have when $N=0$, it is $1$, while
when $N=1$ it is $(-k_2\cdot k_3)$. Finally when $N=2$ it is ${
(k_2\cdot k_3)(k_2\cdot k_3-1)\over 2}$. They do satisfy
\eref{4point-heli-sum} for $N=0,1,2$.
For general level $N$, from \eref{tensor-structure}, \eref{12P} and
\eref{P34} we find
\begin{eqnarray} I_N=\sum_{\sum nN_{n}=N} \prod {(-k_2\cdot k_3)^{N_n}\over
N_{n}! n^{N_{n}}}\end{eqnarray}
Let us define
\begin{eqnarray} N=\sum_{n=1}^\infty n N_{n},~~~~~~J=\sum_{n=1}^\infty N_n\end{eqnarray}
with obviously that $J\leq a$, then using the definition
\eref{Stirling-1-exp} of Stirling number of the first kind, $I_N$
can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray} I_N=(-)^N\sum_{J=1}^N { S(N,J)\over N!} (k_2\cdot k_3)^J= (-)^N
\left( \begin{array}{c} k_2\cdot k_3 \\ N\end{array}\right) ~~~\label{4-pt-res}\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the formula \eref{Stirling-1-def}\footnote{Since
$S(N,0)=0$ when $N>0$, we can extend the sum over $J$ from region
$[1,N]$ to region $[0,N]$.}. This is exactly the result
\eref{4point-heli-sum} we try to prove.
\section{Example II: BCFW of $5$-tachyon amplitude in bosonic open string theory}
\label{example2}
Having shown that a 4-point Veneziano amplitude can be indeed
described by BCFW on-shell recursion relation, let us consider the
5-tachyon scattering amplitude, which contains slightly richer
analytic structure because unlike 4-point amplitude with only pole
$s_{12}$, there are two types of poles from $s_{12}, s_{123}$ for
deformation (1,5). Multiple pole structure is seen for general
amplitudes, we need to study this simplest nontrivial example.
\subsection{Pole expansion}
The Koba-Nielson formula for $5$-point tachyon
amplitude is given by
\begin{equation}
A(12345)=\int_{0}^{1}dz_{3}\int_{0}^{z_{3}}dz_{2}\,(1-z_{3})^{k_{4}\cdot
k_{3}}(1-z_{2})^{k_{4}\cdot k_{2}}(z_{3}-z_{2})^{k_{3}\cdot
k_{2}}z_{2}^{k_{2}\cdot k_{1}}z_{3}^{k_{3}\cdot
k_{1}}.~~~\label{eq:nielson}
\end{equation}
where we have fixed $z_1=0, z_4=1, z_5=\infty$. Unlike in quantum
field theory, where analytic behavior of an amplitude is transparent
from Feynman rules, kinematic dependence in Koba-Nielson's
formulation were implicitly introduced through exponents of
worldsheet integration variables, making it less easier to locate
poles. However as we have seen in the previous section,
worldsheet integrals can be explicitly carried out after binomial
expansions. Expanding $(z_{3}-z_{2})^{k_{3}\cdot k_{2}}$ with
respect to $z_{2}$, which is the variable that assumes smaller value
(than $z_{3}$), and expand similarly $(1-z_{2})^{k_{4}\cdot k_{2}}$
and $(1-z_{3})^{k_{4}\cdot k_{3}}$ we have
\begin{eqnarray} (1-z_{2})^{k_{4}\cdot k_{2}} & = &
\sum_{a=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right)(-)^{a}z_{2}^{a},\nonumber \\
(z_{3}-z_{2})^{k_{3}\cdot k_{2}} &= &
\sum_{b=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{3}\cdot k_{2}\\
b
\end{array}\right)(-)^{b}z_{3}^{k_{s}\cdot k_{2}-b}z_{2}^{b},\nonumber \\
(1-z_{3})^{k_{4}\cdot k_{3}} & = &
\sum_{c=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{3}\\
c
\end{array}\right)(-)^{c}z_{3}^{c},~~~\label{5point-exp}
\end{eqnarray}
Grouping $z_{2}$ and $z_{3}$ dependence in equation
(\ref{eq:nielson}) together we arrive
\begin{eqnarray} A(12345)& = & \sum_{a,b,c=0}^{\infty}\,\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{3}\cdot k_{2}\\
b
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{3}\\
c
\end{array}\right)(-)^{a+b+c} \nonumber \\
& \times &
\int_{0}^{1}dz_{3}\int_{0}^{z_{3}}dz_{2}z_{3}^{k_{3}\cdot(k_{1}+k_{2})-b+c}z_{2}^{k_{1}\cdot
k_{2}+a+b}~~~\label{eq:pole-producing-int} \end{eqnarray}
Carrying out the integration in order, i.e., $\int dz_2$ first and
then $\int dz_3$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray} A(12345)& = & \sum_{a,b,c=0}^{\infty}\,\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{3}\cdot k_{2}\\
b
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{3}\\
c
\end{array}\right)(-)^{a+b+c}\nonumber \\
& \times &
\frac{2}{s_{12}+2(a+b-1)}\,\frac{2}{s_{123}+2(a+c-1)},~~~~\label{5point-exp-exp}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used $s_{12}=(k_{1}+k_{2})^{2}$,
$s_{123}=(k_{1}+k_{2}+k_{3})^{2}$, and the mass-shell conditions for
tachyons, $k_{1}^{2}=k_{2}^{2}=k_{3}^{2}=2$.
Now we consider the pole structure under the deformation
\eref{1n-deform} with pair $(1,5)$. For $s_{12}$, the poles are located
at
\begin{equation}
z_{N}=\frac{(k_{1}+k_{2})^{2}+2(N-1)}{-q\cdot(k_{1}+k_{2})},~~~~N=a+b=0,1,...~~~~\label{5point-s12-pole}
\end{equation}
while for $s_{123}$ the poles are located at
\begin{equation}
w_{M}=\frac{(k_{1}+k_{2}+k_{3})^{2}+2(M-1)}{-q\cdot(k_{1}+k_{2}+k_{3})},~~~M=a+c=0,1,2,...
~~~~\label{5point-s123-pole}
\end{equation}
Using the BCFW recursion relation, we have
\begin{eqnarray} A(1,2,3,4,5)=\sum_{z_{N}} {2\over s_{12}+2(N-1)} {\cal R}_{N}+
\sum_{w_{M}} {2\over s_{123}+2(M-1)} {\cal S}_{M}\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal R}_{N}$ and ${\cal S}_{M}$ are corresponding residues
of poles.
~\\
{\bf Residue ${\cal R}_{N}$:} From \eref{5point-exp-exp} we can read
out the residue ${\cal R}_{N}$ as
\begin{eqnarray} {\cal R}_{N} & = & \sum_{{\begin{array}{l}a,b=0 \\
a+b=N
\end{array}}}^\infty\sum_{c=0}^{\infty}\,\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{3}\cdot k_{2}\\
b
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{3}\\
c
\end{array}\right)(-)^{a+b+c}\left[ {2\over \WH s_{123}(z_N)+2(a+c-1)}\right]
~~~\label{RN-form-1}\end{eqnarray}
Noticing that
\begin{eqnarray*} \WH s_{12}(z_N)+k_3^2+2k_3\cdot \WH
k_{12}(z_N)+2(a+c-1)=2k_3\cdot \WH k_{12}(z_N)+2(c-b+1) \end{eqnarray*}
we can rewrite
\begin{eqnarray} \left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{3}\\
c
\end{array}\right)(-)^{c}\left[ {2\over \WH s_{123}(z_N)+2(a+c-1)}\right] & = &
\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{3}\\
c
\end{array}\right)(-)^{c}\left[ {1\over k_3\cdot \WH k_{12}(z_N)+(c-b+1)}\right]\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{c=0}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{1}dz_{3}\,
z_{3}^{k_{3}\cdot(\hat{k}_{1}+k_{2})-b+c}\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{3}\\
c
\end{array}\right)(-)^{c}\nonumber \\
& = & \int_{0}^{1}dz_{3}\,
z^{k_{3}\cdot(\hat{k}_{1}+k_{2})-b}\,(1-z_{3})^{k_{4}\cdot
k_{3}},~~~\label{eq:residue-123}\end{eqnarray}
The reason we write the sum over $c$ as the integration is clear:
the subamplitude at the right handed side should be $A(\WH P,
3,4,\WH 5)$. With this rewriting we have
\begin{eqnarray} {\cal R}_{N} & = & \sum_{{\begin{array}{l}a,b=0 \\
a+b=N
\end{array}}}^\infty\,\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{3}\cdot k_{2}\\
b
\end{array}\right) (-)^{N}\int_{0}^{1}dz_{3}\,
z^{k_{3}\cdot(\hat{k}_{1}+k_{2})-b}\,(1-z_{3})^{k_{4}\cdot
k_{3}}~~~\label{RN-form-2}\end{eqnarray}
~\\
{\bf Residue ${\cal S}_M$:} From \eref{5point-exp-exp} we can read
out the residue ${\cal S}_{M}$ as
\begin{eqnarray} {\cal S}_{M} & = & \sum_{{\begin{array}{l}a,c=0 \\
a+c=M
\end{array}}}^\infty\sum_{b=0}^{\infty}\,\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{3}\cdot k_{2}\\
b
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{3}\\
c
\end{array}\right)(-)^{a+b+c}\left[ {2\over \WH s_{12}(w_N)+2(a+b-1)}\right]
~~~\label{SM-form-1}\end{eqnarray}
Using
\begin{eqnarray} \left.\sum_{b=0}^{\infty}\frac{\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{3}\cdot k_{2}\\
b
\end{array}\right)(-)^{b}}{\hat{k}_{1}\cdot k_{2}+\left(a+b\right)+1}\right|_{z=w_M}
& = & \sum_{b=0}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{1}dz_{2}\,
z_{2}^{\hat{k}_{1}\cdot k_{2}+a+b}\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{3}\cdot k_{2}\\
b
\end{array}\right)(-)^{b}\nonumber \\
& = & \int_{0}^{1}dz_{2}\, z_{2}^{\hat{k}_{1}\cdot
k_{2}+a}(1-z_{2})^{k_{3}\cdot k_{2}},~~~\label{eq:residue-12}\end{eqnarray}
which remind us the subamplitude $A(\WH 1,2,3,\WH P)$, we get
another form
\begin{eqnarray} {\cal S}_{M} & = & \sum_{{\begin{array}{l}a,c=0 \\
a+c=M
\end{array}}}^\infty\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{3}\\
c
\end{array}\right)(-)^{M}\int_{0}^{1}dz_{2}\, z_{2}^{\hat{k}_{1}\cdot
k_{2}+a}(1-z_{2})^{k_{3}\cdot k_{2}}~~~\label{SM-form-2}\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Four point scattering amplitude}
Now we try to reproduce the same residue from the BCFW recursion
relation. To do this, we need to calculate the three point and four
point amplitudes with one general Fock state. The three point case
has been given in section \ref{example1}. Now we give the four point result.
First let us consider a simple example
\begin{equation}
\left\langle 0,k_{4}|V_{0}(k_{3},z_{3})\,
V_{0}(k_{2},z_{2})\alpha_{-m}^{\mu}|0,k_{1}\right\rangle
\end{equation}
where $V_{0}(k,z)$ stands for tachyon vertex operator (B.1) inserted
at $z$, and the initial state
$\left.\alpha_{-m}^{\mu}|0,k_{1}\right\rangle $ is raised from the
ground state by a $-m$ mode operator. Following the standard
treatment moving this mode operator to the left until it finally
annihilate the final state we obtain
\begin{equation}
(-k_{2}^{\mu}z_{2}^{m}-k_{3}^{\mu}z_{3}^{m})\left\langle
0,k_{4}|V_{0}(k_{3})\, V_{0}(k_{2})|0,k_{1}\right\rangle .
\end{equation}
In addition to all-tachyon amplitude we receive factors
$(-k_{2}^{\mu}z_{2}^{m}-k_{3}^{\mu}z_{3}^{m})$ picked up from the
commutator
\begin{eqnarray} [:e^{ik\cdot
X(z)}:\,,\alpha_{-m}^{\mu}]=-k^{\mu}z^{m}\,\left(:e^{ik\cdot
X(z)}:\right)~. ~~~~\label{Vertex-am}\end{eqnarray}
For a generic normalized Fock state \eref{eq:fockstate} we repeat
the same manipulation, moving mode operators $\alpha_{-m}^{\mu}$ one
by one to the left, picking up a factor $(-k^{\mu}z^{m})$ when
passing a tachyon vertex $V(k,z)$. Putting all together we finally
have
\begin{eqnarray} & & \left\langle 0,p|V_{0}(k_{3})\, V_{0}(k_{2})|\left\{
N_{\mu,m}\right\} ,k_{1}\right\rangle =\left\langle
0,p|V_{0}(k_{3})\,
V_{0}(k_{2})\prod_{\mu=0}^{D-1}\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}
\frac{(\alpha_{-m}^{\mu})^{N_{\mu,m}}}{\sqrt{N_{\mu,m}!m^{N_{\mu,m}}}}|0,k_{1}\right\rangle
\nonumber \\
& = &
\prod_{\mu=0}^{D-1}\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-k_{2}^{\mu}z_{2}^{m}-k_{3}^{\mu}z_{3}^{m})
^{N_{\mu,m}}}{\sqrt{N_{\mu,m}!m^{N_{\mu,m}}}}\left\langle
0,p|V_{0}(k_{3})\, V_{0}(k_{2})|0,k_{1}\right\rangle~~~~
\label{eq:4pt1234} \end{eqnarray}
where $\vev{0,p|V_{0}(k_{3})\, V_{0}(k_{2})|0,k_{1}}$ is known.
~\\
Similarly, if the Fock state defines the final state instead of the
initial state of an amplitude we move mode operator
$\alpha_{m}^{\mu}$ to the right hand side, yielding
\begin{eqnarray} & & \left\langle \left\{ N_{\mu,m}\right\}
,k_{5}|V_{0}(k_{4})\, V_{0}(k_{3})|0,p\right\rangle =\left\langle
0,k_{5}|\prod_{\mu=0}^{D-1}\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\frac{(\alpha_{m}^{\mu})^{N_{\mu,m}}}
{\sqrt{N_{\mu,m}!m^{N_{\mu,m}}}}V_{0}(k_{4})\,
V_{0}(k_{3})|0,p\right\rangle . \nonumber \\ & = &
\prod_{\mu=0}^{D-1}\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\frac{(k_{4}^{\mu}z_{4}^{m}+k_{3}^{\mu}z_{3}^{m})
^{N_{\mu,m}}}{\sqrt{N_{\mu,m}!m^{N_{\mu,m}}}}\left\langle
0,k_{5}|V_{0}(k_{4})\, V_{0}(k_{3})|0,p\right\rangle
.~~~~\label{eq:4pt2345} \end{eqnarray}
It is worth to notice that the factors picked up by modes have
different signs from (\ref{eq:4pt1234}) due to the fact that
opposite signs were assigned to positive and negative modes in a
tachyon vertex operator,
\begin{eqnarray} W_{0}=e^{\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{z^{n}}{n}\,
k\cdot\alpha_{-n}}e^{-\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{z^{n}}{n}\,
k\cdot\alpha_{n}}\end{eqnarray}
so that
\begin{eqnarray}[\alpha_{m}^{\mu},:e^{ik\cdot
X(z)}:]=k^{\mu}z^{m}\,\left(:e^{ik\cdot X(z)}:\right)\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Calculation of residue ${\cal S}_M$}
Having above preparation, we can calculate residue by summing over
immediate Fock states at given mass level $M$. In other words, at
level $M$, we should have
\begin{equation}
{\cal S}_M =\int dz_{2}\sum_{\{N_{\mu,m}\}}\left.\left\langle
0,\hat{k}_{5}|V_{0}(k_{4})|\{N_{\mu,m}\},\hat{p}\right\rangle
\left\langle \{N_{\mu,m}\},\hat{p}|V_{0}(k_{3})\,
V_{0}(k_{2})|0,\hat{k}_{1}\right\rangle
\right|_{z_{4}=z_{3}=1},~~~\label{eq:mass-level-discussion}
\end{equation}
where the summation is over modes$\{N_{\mu,m}\}$ at fixed mass level
$N=\sum_{\mu,m}\,\left(m\times\, N_{\mu,m}\right)$, so $\WH p, \WH
k_5, \WH k_1$ are all fixed by $M$.
Before giving the general discussion, let us see a few examples:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Level $N=0$}: At $N=0$, $N_{\mu,m}$ must be all zero, so that equation
(\ref{eq:mass-level-discussion}) simply yields
\begin{equation}
{\cal S}_0=\int dz_{2}\left.\left\langle
0,\hat{k}_{5}|V_{0}(k_{4})|0,\hat{p}\right\rangle \left\langle
0,\hat{p}|V_{0}(k_{3})\, V_{0}(k_{2})|0,\hat{k}_{1}\right\rangle
\right|_{z_{4}=z_{3}=1} =1\times\int_{0}^{1}dz_{2}\,
z^{k_{2}\cdot\hat{k}_{1}}(1-z_{2})^{k_{3}\cdot k_{2}},
\end{equation}
and we have an agreement with (\ref{SM-form-2}) at $a=c=0$.
\item {\bf Level $N=1$}: The $N=1$ state can only arise from states having a
single $N_{\mu,m}=1$ for $\mu=0,\dots,D-1$, while powers of other
modes remain zero
\begin{eqnarray} {\cal S}_1 & = & \sum_{\mu,\nu}\int dz_{2}\left.\left\langle
0,\hat{k}_{5}|V_{0}(k_{4})|N_{\mu,1},\hat{p}\right\rangle
g^{\mu\nu}\left\langle N_{\nu,1},\hat{p}|V_{0}(k_{3})\,
V_{0}(k_{2})|0,\hat{k}_{1}\right\rangle \right|_{z_{4}=z_{3}=1}\nonumber \\
& = &
\int_{0}^{1}\left.dz_{2}(-k_{4})\cdot(k_{3}z_{3}+k_{2}z_{2})\,\,
z^{k_{2}\cdot\hat{k}_{1}}(1-z_{2})^{k_{3}\cdot
k_{2}}\right|_{z_{3}=1} \end{eqnarray}
In addition to the usual tachyonic
Koba-Nielson formula we obtain a factor $-\left(k_{4}\cdot
k_{3}\right)z_{3}-\left(k_{4}\cdot k_{2}\right)z_{2}|_{z_{3}=1}$.
These two terms correspond to $(a,c)=(0,1)$ and $(1,0)$
respectively.
\item {\bf Level $N=2$}: The first non-trivial case happens at $N=2$. As in
the previous mass level we receive an additional term to the
tachyonic formula. For $N_{\mu,2}$ states this factor is
$\frac{-1}{2}k_{4}\cdot\left(k_{3}z_{3}^{2}+k_{2}z_{2}^{2}\right)$,
while for states with $N_{\mu_{1},1}=N_{\mu_{2},1}=1$ and
$0\leq\mu_{1}<\mu_{2}\leq D-1$ the factor is
$\frac{1}{2}\left[k_{4}\cdot\left(k_{3}z_{3}+k_{2}z_{2}\right)\right]^{2}-\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{\mu}\left[k_{4}^{\mu}(k_{3}z_{3}+k_{2}z_{2})^{\mu}\right]^{2}$,
and for states with $N_{\mu,1}=2$ we obtain
$\sum_{\mu}\left[k_{4}^{\mu}(k_{3}z_{3}+k_{2}z_{2})\right]^{2}$.
Adding all these contribution gives
\begin{eqnarray} & &
\frac{-1}{2}k_{4}\cdot\left(k_{3}z_{3}^{2}+k_{2}z_{2}^{2}\right)+\frac{1}{2}
\left[k_{4}\cdot\left(k_{3}z_{3}+k_{2}z_{2}\right)\right]^{2}~~~\label{eq:n2-additional-terms}
\\
& = & \frac{(k_{4}\cdot k_{3})(k_{4}\cdot
k_{3}-1)}{2}z_{3}^{2}+\frac{(k_{4}\cdot k_{2})(k_{4}\cdot
k_{2}-1)}{2}z_{2}^{2}+(k_{4}\cdot k_{3})(k_{4}\cdot k_{2})z_{3}z_{2}
\nonumber \end{eqnarray}
Explicit expansion into series shows again agreement with
$\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{3}\\
c
\end{array}\right)(-)^{a+c}z_{2}^{a}$, with the first, second, third terms corresponding to $(a,c)=(0,2)$,
$(2,0)$ and $(1,1)$ respectively.
\end{itemize}
For general level $N=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n\, N_{n}$ in addition to
the all-tachyon formula we have %
\footnote{Note that at every step these factors are produced in the
same pattern observed in the 4-point case, as was discussed in
appendix B, except
with $k_{3}$ now replaced by $k_{3}z_{3}^{n}+k_{2}z_{2}^{n}$.%
}
\begin{eqnarray} & & \sum_{\begin{array}{c}
\text{partitions of }N\\
\text{into }\{N_{n}\}
\end{array}}\,\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\left[-k_{4}\cdot\left(
k_{3}z_{3}^{n}+k_{2}z_{2}^{n}\right)\right]^{N_{n}}}{N_{n}!\,
n^{N_{n}}}\nonumber \\
& =& \sum_{\begin{array}{c}
\text{partitions of }N\\
\text{into }\{N_{n}\}
\end{array}}\,\prod_{n}\,\sum_{N_{n}^{(2)}=0}^{\infty}\frac{\left(\begin{array}{c}
N_{n}\\
N_{n}^{(2)}
\end{array}\right)}{N_{n}!\, n^{N_{n}}}(k_{4}\cdot k_{3})^{N_{n}-N_{n}^{(2)}}z_{3}
^{n\,(N_{n}-N_{n}^{(2)})}(k_{4}\cdot k_{3})^{N_{n}^{(2)}}z_{2}^{n\,
N_{n}^{(2)}}.~~~\label{eq:intermediate-step} \end{eqnarray}
where in the second line above we expanded the numerator with
respect to power of $z_{2}$, which we denote as $N_{n}^{(2)}$.
Introducing the notation $N_{n}^{(3)}=N_{n}-N_{n}^{(2)}$, the
combinatorial factor can be written as
\begin{eqnarray*} \left(\begin{array}{c}
N_{n}\\
N_{n}^{(2)}
\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{N_{n}!\, n^{N_{n}}}=\frac{1}{N_{n}^{(2)}!\,
(N_{n}-N_{n}^{(2)})!\, n^{N_{n}}}=\frac{1}{N_{n}^{(2)}!\, N^{(3)}!\,
n^{N_{n}^{(2)}}n^{N_{n}^{(3)}}} \end{eqnarray*}
Now we notice that in equation (\ref{eq:intermediate-step}),
summing over partitions of fixed $N_{n}$ into $N_{n}^{(2)}$ and
$N_{n}^{(3)}$ first and then summing over partitions of $N$ into
$\{N_{n}\}$ secondly can be replaced by summing over partitions of
$N$ directly into $\{N_{n}^{(2)}\}$ and $\{N_{n}^{(3)}\}$, so
\eref{eq:intermediate-step} can be written as
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\text{partitions into
}N_{n}^{(2)},N_{n}^{(3)}}\,\prod_{n}\frac{1}{N_{n}^{(2)}!\,
N^{(3)}!\, n^{N_{n}^{(2)}}n^{N_{n}^{(3)}}}\left(k_{4}\cdot
k_{2}\right)^{N_{n}^{(3)}}\left(k_{4}\cdot
k_{3}\right)^{N_{n}^{(2)}}\, z_{2}^{n\, N_{n}^{(2)}}z_{3}^{n\,
N_{n}^{(3)}}.~~~\label{eq:partition-n2-n3}
\end{equation}
Defining
\begin{eqnarray} K=\sum_{n}N_{n}^{(2)},~~ J\equiv\sum_{n}N_{n}^{(3)},~~~
a=\sum_{n}n\, N_{n}^{(2)},~~~ c=\sum_{n}n\, N_{n}^{(3)}, \end{eqnarray}
sum in equation (\ref{eq:partition-n2-n3}) can be divided into
summations over partitions of $\{N_{n}^{(2)}\}$ and
$\{N_{n}^{(3)}\}$ with fixed $J$, $K$, $a$, $c$ at first, and then summing
over $J$, $K$, and $a$\footnote{However note that $c$ should not be summed over here
because the mass level $(a+c)=\sum_{n}n(N_{n}^{(2)}+N_{n}^{(3)})=N$
is understood as a fixed number at every pole. }, i.e., equation
(\ref{eq:partition-n2-n3}) is equal to
\begin{equation}
\sum_{a}\sum_{J,K}\frac{S(c,J)}{c!}\,\frac{S(a,K)}{a!}\left(k_{4}\cdot
k_{2}\right)^{J}\left(k_{4}\cdot k_{3}\right)^{K}\,
z_{2}^{a}z_{3}^{c},~~~\label{eq:striling-express-5pt}
\end{equation}
where Striling numbers of the first kind are given by
\begin{equation}
S(a,K)=\sum_{\text{partitions
}N_{n}^{(2)}}\,\frac{a!}{N_{n}^{(2)}!\, n^{N_{n}^{(2)}}},~~~~
S(c,J)=\sum_{\text{partitions
}N_{n}^{(3)}}\,\frac{c!}{N_{n}^{(3)}!\, n^{N_{n}^{(3)}}},
\end{equation}
Now we are almost done. Summing equation
(\ref{eq:striling-express-5pt}) over $J$ and $K$ yields
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{3}\\
c
\end{array}\right)(-)^{a+c}\, z_{2}^{a}\, z_{3}^{c}.
\end{equation}
Inserting the result back into (\ref{eq:mass-level-discussion}) we
see that
\begin{eqnarray} {\cal S}_M & & \int dz_{2}\left.\left\langle
0,\hat{k}_{5}|V_{0}(k_{4})|\{N_{\mu,m}\},\hat{p}\right\rangle
\left\langle \{N_{\mu,m}\},\hat{p}|V_{0}(k_{3})\,
V_{0}(k_{2})|0,\hat{k}_{1}\right\rangle \right|_{z_{4}=z_{3}=1} \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{a}\int dz_{2}\left\langle
0,\hat{k}_{5}|V_{0}(k_{4})|0,\hat{p}\right\rangle \left\langle
0,\hat{p}|V_{0}(k_{3})\, V_{0}(k_{2})|0,\hat{k}_{1}\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& & \times\left.\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{3}\\
c
\end{array}\right)(-)^{a+c}\, z_{2}^{a}\, z_{3}^{c}\right|_{z_{4}=z_{3}=1}
\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{a=0, a+c=M}^{M}\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{4}\cdot k_{3}\\
c
\end{array}\right)(-)^{a+c}\int_{0}^{1}dz_{2}\, z_{2}^{\hat{k}_{1}\cdot k_{2}+a}(1-z_{2})^{k_{3}\cdot k_{2}},
\end{eqnarray}
which is the form \eref{SM-form-2} we want to prove.
The other residue ${\cal R}_N$ can be derived from BCFW
prescription following similar procedures.
\section{The general proof}
\label{sec-n-pt}
Having done above two examples, we would like to have a general
understanding. The method we will use in this section will be a
little different although it is easy to translate languages between
these two approaches.
\subsection{String theory calculation}
In open string theory, the ordered tree-level amplitude is given by
\begin{eqnarray} A_M & = & g^{M-2} \int \delta(y_A- y_A^0) \delta(
y_B-y_B^0)\delta(y_c-y_c^0) (y_A-y_B) (y_A- y_C) (y_B-y_C) \nonumber \\ & &
\prod_{i=2}^M \theta(y_{i-1}-y_i) \prod_{j=1}^M d y_j
\vev{0;0\left| {V(k_1,y_1)\over y_1}...{V(k_M,y_M)\over
y_M}\right|0;0}~~~~\label{M-point-form-1}\end{eqnarray}
Using three delta-function, we can take $y_M=0, y_2=1, y_1=\infty$,
so the amplitude can be written as
\begin{eqnarray} A_M & = & g^{M-2} \int_0^1 d y_3 \int_0^{y_3} d
y_4....\int_0^{y_{M-2}} d y_{M-1} \vev{\phi_1(k_1)\left|
{V(k_2,1)}{V(k_3,y_3)\over y_3}...{V(k_{M-1},y_{M-1})\over
y_{M-1}}\right|\phi_M(k_M)}~~~~\label{M-point-form-2}\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the definition of initial state and final state
\begin{eqnarray} \ket{\Lambda;k}=\lim_{y\to 0} {V_{\Lambda}(k,y)\over
y}\ket{0;0},~~~~~\bra{\Lambda;k}=\lim_{y\to \infty}
{yV_{\Lambda}(k,y)}\ket{0;0}\end{eqnarray}
Next we define $y_i=z_3 z_4...z_i$ with $i=3,...,M-1$, from which we
can solve
\begin{eqnarray} z_3=y_3,~~~~z_i={y_i\over y_{i-1}},~~~i=4,...,M-1\end{eqnarray}
Now let us fix all $y_i$ except transform $y_{M-1}= z_{M-1}
y_{M-2}$, then using
\begin{eqnarray} V_{\Lambda}(k,z)= z^{L_0} V_{\Lambda}(k,z=1) z^{-L_0}\end{eqnarray}
we get
\begin{eqnarray*} ....\int_0^1 d z_{M-1} y_{M-2} y_{M-1}^{L_0-2} V(k_{M-1},1)
y_{M-1}^{-L_0+1}\ket{\phi_M(k_M)}=...\left[\int_0^1 d z_{M-1}
y_{M-2}^{L_0-1} z_{M-1}^{L_0-2} \right]V(k_{M-1},1)
\ket{\phi_M(k_M)}\end{eqnarray*}
where we have used the physical condition $(L_0-1)\ket{\phi_M}=0$.
Now we change $y_{M-2}= z_{M-2} y_{M-3}$, then we have
\begin{eqnarray*} & & ...\int_0^1 dz_{M-2} y_{M-3} y_{M-2}^{L_0} {
V(k_{M-2},1)\over y_{M-2}} y_{M-2}^{-L_0}\int_0^1 d z_{M-1}
y_{M-2}^{L_0-1} z_{M-1}^{L_0-2} V(k_{M-1},1) \ket{\phi_M(k_M)}
\nonumber \\
& = & ...\int_0^1 dz_{M-2} y_{M-3} y_{M-2}^{L_0-2} { V(k_{M-2},1)}
\int_0^1 d z_{M-1} z_{M-1}^{L_0-2} V(k_{M-1},1)
\ket{\phi_M(k_M)}\nonumber \\
& = & ...\left[\int_0^1 dz_{M-2} y_{M-3}^{L_0-1} z_{M-2}^{L_0-2}
\right]{ V(k_{M-2},1)} {1\over L_0-1} V(k_{M-1},1)
\ket{\phi_M(k_M)}\end{eqnarray*}
where we have used $\int_0^1 dz z^{L_0-2}={1\over L_0-1}$ is the
string propagator.
Comparing expressions from last two steps, we see that we can
iterate this procedure to
\begin{eqnarray} A_M & = & g^{M-2} \vev{\phi_1 \left|V_2(k_2){1\over L_0-1}
V_3(k_3)...{1\over L_0-1}
V_{M-1}(k_{M-1})\right|\phi_M}~~~~\label{M-point-form-3}\end{eqnarray}
Form \eref{M-point-form-3} is the convenient one to compare with
BCFW recursion relation, because locations of poles are clearly
indicated by propagator ${1\over L_0-1}$. For example, for ${1\over
L_0-1}$ between vertex operators $V_{i}$ and $V_{i+1}$, pole
locations are given by
\begin{eqnarray} {1\over 2} (k_1+...+k_i)^2+N-1=0,~~~~N=0,1,2,...
~~~\label{gen-pole}\end{eqnarray}
Now let us consider the $(1,M)$-deformation given in
\eref{1n-deform} and use $z_{iN}$ to indicate the solution obtained
from equation \eref{gen-pole} with $k_1\to k_1+zq$. Because it has
been proved that boundary contribution is zero under the deformation
at least for some kinematic region, we have immediately
\begin{eqnarray} A_M & = & g^{M-2} \sum_{i=2}^{M-2} \sum_{N=0}^\infty { 2 {\cal
R}_{i,N} \over (k_1+k_2+...+k_i)^2+2(N-1)}~~~~\label{String-Exp}\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray} {\cal R}_{i,N} & = & \vev{\Phi_{i,N}|\Psi_{i,N}}
\nonumber \\
\bra{\Phi_{i,N}} & = & \bra{\phi_1(k_1+z_{i,N} q)|
\left|V_2(k_2){1\over L_0-1} V_3(k_3)...{1\over
L_0-1}V_i(k_i)\right.} \nonumber \\
\ket{\Psi_{i,N}}& = & \ket{\left. V_{i+1}(k_{i+1}) {1\over L_0-1}...
V_{M-1}(k_{M-1})\right|\phi_M(k_M-z_{i,N} q)}
~~~~\label{String-residue}\end{eqnarray}
What we want to prove is that residue ${\cal R}_{i,N}$ can be
obtained from summing over intermediate physical states prescribed by BCFW
on-shell recursion relation.
\subsection{The proof}
Now we give our proof. First, we notice that both states
$\bra{\Phi_{i,N}}, \ket{\Psi_{i,N}}$ are physical
states\footnote{The proof can be found in a standard text, for
example in \textit{Superstring Theory} by Green, Schwarz and Witten\cite{String}
(chapter 7, vol. 1.).}, thus in the frame work of
DDF-state construction, both physical states can be written as
$\ket{s_{phy}}+\ket{f}$, where $\ket{f}$ is the DDF-state while
$\ket{s_{phy}}$ is physical spurious states. Using the property of
spurious state, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \vev{\Phi_{i,N}|\Psi_{i,N}} & = & \vev{ s_{i,N}^L+
f^L_{i,N}|s_{i,N}^R + f^R_{i,N}}= \vev{ f^L_{i,N}|
f^R_{i,N}}~~~\label{LR-inner-1}\end{eqnarray}
Having established \eref{LR-inner-1} we insert identity operator in
the Fock space with given momentum
$P_{i,N}=k_1+z_{i,N}q+k_2+...+k_i$ and annihilated by $(L_0-1)$, so
\begin{eqnarray} \vev{ f^L_{i,N}| f^R_{i,N}} & = & \sum_{i} \vev{
f^L_{i,N}|\psi_i^\dagger(P_{i,N})} \vev{\psi_{i}(P_{i,N})|
f^R_{i,N}}~~~\label{LR-inner-2}\end{eqnarray}
where set $\{\ket{\psi_{i}(P_{i,N})}\}$ can be any normalized
orthogonal basis. In DDF-frame work, a general state can be written
as the linear combination of $\ket{k},\ket{s},\ket{f}$, i.e., a
choice of the basis is $\ket{k},\ket{s},\ket{f}$. Using the
definition of states, we see immediately that $\vev{s|f}=0$ and
$\vev{k|f}=0$, thus
\begin{eqnarray} \vev{ f^L_{i,N}| f^R_{i,N}} & = & \sum_{i} \vev{
f^L_{i,N}|f_i^\dagger(P_{i,N})} \vev{f_{i}(P_{i,N})|
f^R_{i,N}}\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_i \vev{ s_{i,N}^L+ f^L_{i,N}|f_i^\dagger(P_{i,N})}
\vev{f_{i}(P_{i,N})|s_{i,N}^R +
f^R_{i,N}}\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_i \vev{\Phi_{i,N}|f_i^\dagger(P_{i,N})}
\vev{f_{i}(P_{i,N})|\Psi_{i,N}}~~~\label{LR-inner-3}\end{eqnarray}
Using \eref{LR-inner-1} and \eref{LR-inner-3} we see immediately
\begin{eqnarray} {\cal R}_{i,N}= \sum_i \vev{\Phi_{i,N}|f_i^\dagger(P_{i,N})}
\vev{f_{i}(P_{i,N})|\Psi_{i,N}}~~~\label{BCFW-residue} \end{eqnarray}
which is the prescription given by BCFW recursion relation. Thus we
have given our proof.
\subsection{Practical method for summing over physical states}
Having shown that BCFW recursion relation gives the right string
amplitude, we need to explain how to sum over physical states. The
difficulty of the sum is that the physical state is hard to describe
in general, i.e., we do not know how to write down polarization
vector for a given physical state. However, from the equivalent
between \eref{LR-inner-2} and \eref{LR-inner-3} we see that we can
replace the sum over all physical states to the sum over whole Fock
space with given momentum and annihilated by $(L_0-1)$. For the Fock
space, there is a freedom with the choice of basis and the one
convenient for real calculation is oscillation basis defined in
\eref{eq:fockstate}. Thus the residue can be calculated by
\begin{eqnarray} {\cal R}_{i,N}&= & \sum_{\{N_{\mu,n}\} }
\vev{\Phi_{i,N}|\{N_{\mu,n}\};\WH P} {\cal T}_{\{N_{\mu,n}\}}
\vev{\{N_{\mu,n}\};\WH P|\Psi_{i,N}}\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{\sum_n nN_{n}=N }
\vev{\Phi_{i,N}\left|\left\{\prod_{n=1}^\infty {
({\alpha}_{-n}^{{\mu_{N_{n},1}}} {\alpha}_{-n}^{{\mu_{N_{n},2}}}...
{\alpha}_{-n}^{{\mu_{N_{n},N_{n}}}})\over \sqrt{N_{n}!
n^{N_{n}}}}\right\}\right|0;\WH P} \prod_{n=1}^\infty
(g_{{\mu_{N_{n},1}}{\nu_{N_{n},1}}}
g_{{\mu_{N_{n},2}}{\nu_{N_{n},2}}}...
g_{{\mu_{N_{n},N_{n}}}{\nu_{N_{n},N_{n}}}})\nonumber \\
& & \vev{0;\WH P\left| \left\{\prod_{n=1}^\infty {
({\alpha}_{+n}^{{\nu_{N_{n},1}}} {\alpha}_{+n}^{{\nu_{N_{n},2}}}...
{\alpha}_{+n}^{{\nu_{N_{n},N_{n}}}})\over \sqrt{N_{n}!
n^{N_{n}}}}\right\}\right|\Psi_{i.N}}~~~\label{Cal-res}\end{eqnarray}
\section{Scattering with higher spin particles}
\label{sec-vector}
Having established the general method given in \eref{Cal-res},
let us consider scatterings when higher spin particles are
present. However,
before doing this, let us recall some results coming from scattering
amplitudes of pure tachyons.
By checking with \eref{4-pt-res} and \eref{eq:striling-express-5pt},
we see that residues are given as series of Lorentz invariants
$k_{i}\cdot k_{j}$ with coefficients given by Stirling number of
the first kind
$s(N,J)=\sum_{\{N_{n}\}}\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{N_{n}!n^{N_{n}}}$.
Summing over powers of $k_{i}\cdot k_{j}$ reproduces the residue in
combinatorial form observed in \cite{Cheung:2010vn}. This relation
is established by writing generating function of Stirling number
into two different forms
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{X\, ln(1-z)} & = & e^{-X\,(z+\frac{z^{2}}{2}+\frac{z^{3}}{3}+\dots)}
=e^{-X\, z}e^{-X\,\frac{z^{2}}{2}}e^{-X\frac{z^{3}}{3}}\dots \nonumber \\ & =
&
\left(1+(-)Xz+\frac{(-)^{2}}{2!}X^{2}z^{2}+\dots\right)\,\left(1+(-)X\frac{z^{2}}{2}+(-)^{2}X\left(\frac{z^{2}}{2}\right)^{2}+\dots\right)\dots
~~~~\label{eq:expansion-gen-funct}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} (1-z)^{X} & =
&\sum_{a=1}^{\infty}(-)^{a}\frac{s(a,J)}{a!}X^{J}z^{a} =
\sum_{a}(-)^{a}\left(\begin{array}{c}
X\\
a
\end{array}\right)z^{a}
\end{eqnarray}
by matching power of $z$ and setting $X=k_2\cdot k_3$. In fact, it
is straightforward to see that residues in an arbitrary $n$-point
pure tachyon scattering amplitude can be read off from products of
generating functions
\begin{equation}
e^{X_{23}\, ln(1-z_{23})}e^{X_{24}\, ln(1-z_{24})}\dots
e^{X_{n-2,n-1}\, ln(1-z_{n-2,n-1})}
\end{equation}
with $X_{ij}=k_{i}\cdot k_{j}$, $z_{ij}=z_{j}/z_{i}$, and residues
in tachyonic recursion relation can be found through binomial
expansion of
\begin{equation}
(1-z_{23})^{X_{23}}\,(1-z_{24})^{X_{24}}\dots(1-z_{n-2,n-1})^{X_{n-2,n-1}}.
\end{equation}
Having recalled the experience from tachyon amplitude, now we discuss
the scattering amplitude of 3-tachyon and 1-vector, which is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
A(1 \O2 34) & = & \left.\int_{0}^{1}\frac{dz_{2}}{z_{2}}\,\left\langle 0,k_{1}\left|\,\left( \epsilon_{2} \cdot \dot{X} \,:e^{ik_{2}\cdot X(z_{2})}:\right)\,\left(:e^{ik_{3} \cdot X(z_{3})}:\right) \,\right|0,k_{4}\right\rangle \right|_{z_{3}=1} ~~~~\label{eq:a-1234}
\\
&= &\int_{0}^{1} \, dz_{2} \, \left( - \epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{1}(1-z_{2})^{k_{3} \cdot k_{2}}\,z_{2}^{k_{1} \cdot k_{2}-1}+ \epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{3} \, (1-z_{2})^{k_{2} \cdot k_{3}-1} \, z_{2}^{k_{1} \cdot k_{2}} \right)
\end{eqnarray}
where $\O 2$ means that the second particle is a vector. As in the case of
pure tachyon scattering we binomially expanding
$(1-z_{2})^{k_{3}\cdot k_{2}}$ in (\ref{eq:a-1234}) and integrating
over $z_{2}$, yielding
\begin{eqnarray} A(1 \O2 34) & & = -\sum_{a=0}^{\infty} (-)^{a} \epsilon_{2}\cdot k_{1}\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{3}\cdot k_{2}\\
a
\end{array}\right)\frac{2}{(k_{2}+ k_{1})^{2}+2(a-1)} \nonumber \\
& &
+ \sum_{a=1}^{\infty} (-)^{a-1} \epsilon_{2}\cdot k_{3}\left(\begin{array}{c}
k_{3}\cdot k_{2}-1\\
a -1
\end{array}\right)\frac{2}{(k_{2}+ k_{1})^{2}+2(a-1)}.
~~~\label{eq:scalar-like-1v3t}
\end{eqnarray}
We are interested in relating residue in
(\ref{eq:scalar-like-1v3t}) with residue given by BCFW prescription
\begin{equation}
\left.\left\langle 0,k_{1}\left|\,\epsilon_{2}\cdot\dot{X}\,:e^{ik_{2}\cdot X(z_{2})}:\left|\{N_{\mu,m}\},p\right\rangle \mathcal{T}_{\{N_{\mu,m}\}}\left\langle \{N_{\mu,m}\},p\right|:e^{ik_{3}\cdot X(z_{3})}:\,\right|0,k_{4}\right\rangle \right|_{z_{2}=z_{3}=1}.\label{eq:3-pts}
\end{equation}
It is straightforward to see at the first few levels, residues in
(\ref{eq:scalar-like-1v3t}) agree with those prescribed by
(\ref{eq:3-pts}) table \ref{tab:2}.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
& intermediate state $\left|\{N_{\mu,m}\}\right\rangle \mathcal{T}_{\{N_{\mu,m}\}}\left\langle \{N_{\mu,m}\}\right|$ & contribution $\sim\epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{3}$\tabularnewline
\hline \hline $N=0$ & $\left|0\right\rangle \left\langle 0\right|$ &
absent\tabularnewline \hline $N=1$ &
$\frac{\alpha_{-1}^{\mu}}{\sqrt{1}}\left|0\right\rangle
\eta_{\mu\nu}\left\langle 0\right|\frac{\alpha_{1}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{1}}$
& $(-)\left(\epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{3}\right)$\tabularnewline \hline
$N=2$ & $\begin{array}{c}
\frac{\alpha_{-2}^{\mu}}{\sqrt{2}}\left|0\right\rangle \eta_{\mu\nu}\left\langle 0\right|\frac{\alpha_{2}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{2}}\\
\sum_{\mu_{1}<\mu_{2}}\,\frac{\alpha_{-1}^{\mu_{1}}}{\sqrt{1}}\,\frac{\alpha_{-1}^{\mu_{2}}}{\sqrt{1}}\left|0\right\rangle \eta_{\mu_{1}\nu_{1}}\eta_{\mu_{2}\nu_{2}}\left\langle 0\right|\frac{\alpha_{1}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{1}}\frac{\alpha_{1}^{\nu_{2}}}{\sqrt{1}}\\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2!}}\,\frac{\alpha_{-1}^{\mu}}{\sqrt{1}}\,\frac{\alpha_{-1}^{\mu}}{\sqrt{1}}\left|0\right\rangle
\left(\eta_{\mu\nu}\right)^{2}\left\langle
0\right|\frac{1}{\sqrt{2!}}\,\frac{\alpha_{1}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{1}}\frac{\alpha_{1}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{1}}
\end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{c}
(-)\left(\epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{3}\right)\\
\left(\epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{3}\right)\left(k_{3}\cdot k_{2}\right)\\
\\
\end{array}$\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Residues of $3$-tachyon, $1$-vector scattering for first
three levels \label{tab:2}}
\end{table}
Note that algebraically, the
first term proportional to $\epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{1}$ in
(\ref{eq:scalar-like-1v3t}) was obtained from moving an operator
$\epsilon_{2} \cdot\alpha_{0}$ in
$\epsilon_{2} \cdot\dot{X}(z_{2})=\epsilon_{2} \cdot(\alpha_{-1}z_{2}^{1}+\dots+\alpha_{0}z_{2}^{0}+\alpha_{1}z_{2}^{-1}+\dots)$
to the left, acting upon final state $\left|0,k_{1}\right\rangle $
in the standard process of normal ordering, which simply reproduces
the pure tachyon residue since rest of its kinematic dependence was
contributed from $\left\langle 0,k_{1}\left|:e^{ik_{2}\cdot
X(z_{2})}:\,:e^{ik_{3}\cdot X(z_{3})}:\right|0,k_{4}\right\rangle $.
It is therefore straightforward to show that, following the same
expansion as in the case of pure tachyon scattering, at each mass
level residue contributed from this term is connected to BCFW
prescription by generating function for Stirling number of the first
kind. New structure however, is found in the second term
proportional to $\epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{3}$ in
(\ref{eq:scalar-like-1v3t}), which was produced by moving positive
mode operators $\alpha_{1}z_{2}^{-1}+\alpha_{2}z_{2}^{-2}+\dots$ in
$\epsilon_{2} \cdot\dot{X}(z_{2})=\epsilon_{2} \cdot(\alpha_{-1}z_{2}^{1}+\dots+\alpha_{0}z_{2}^{0}+\alpha_{1}z_{2}^{-1}+\dots)$
to the right and contracting with intermediate states. For example
when we have a Fock state
$\frac{\alpha_{-q}^{\mu_{1}}\alpha_{-r}^{\mu_{2}}}{\sqrt{q}\sqrt{r}}\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2!}}\left|0,p\right\rangle
$ as intermediate state, equation (\ref{eq:3-pts}) reads
\begin{equation}
\left.\left\langle 0,k_{1}\left|(\epsilon_{2} \cdot\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\alpha_{n}\, z_{2}^{-n})e^{-\frac{1}{n}k_{2}\cdot\alpha_{n}z_{2}^{-n}}\frac{\alpha_{-q}^{\mu_{1}}\alpha_{-r}^{\mu_{2}}}{\sqrt{q}\sqrt{r}}\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2!}}\right|0,p\right\rangle \eta_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}\eta_{\nu_{1}\nu_{2}}\left\langle 0,p\left|\frac{\alpha_{q}^{\nu_{1}}\alpha_{r}^{\nu_{2}}}{\sqrt{q}\sqrt{r}}\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2!}}e^{-\frac{1}{n}k_{3}\cdot\alpha_{n}z_{3}^{n}}\right|0,k_{4}\right\rangle \right|_{z_{2}=z_{3}=1}.
\end{equation}
Contribution proportional to $\epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{3}$ is produced
by contracting an $\alpha_{q}$ or $\alpha_{r}$ in $\epsilon_{2} \cdot\dot{X}(z_{2})$
with Fock state, yielding
\begin{equation}
\left.\frac{(\epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{3})\times q}{q}(\frac{z_{3}}{z_{2}})^{q}\,\frac{(k_{3}\cdot k_{2})}{r}(\frac{z_{3}}{z_{2}})^{r}+\frac{(k_{3}\cdot k_{2})}{q}(\frac{z_{3}}{z_{2}})^{q}\,\frac{(\epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{3})\times r}{r}(\frac{z_{3}}{z_{2}})^{r}\right|_{z_{2}=z_{3}=1}.
\end{equation}
Therefore generically residue (\ref{eq:3-pts}) proportional to $\epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{3}$
at level $N=a$ is given by $z^{a}$ term expansion coefficient of the derivative of generating function
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \frac{(\epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{3})}{(k_{2}\cdot k_{3})}\, z\frac{d}{dz}e^{(k_{2}\cdot k_{3})\, \mathrm{ln}(1-z)} ~~~~\label{eq:gen-func-vect}
\\
& =&\frac{(\epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{3})}{(k_{2}\cdot k_{3})}\, z\frac{d}{dz}\left(e^{-X\, z}e^{-X\,\frac{z^{2}}{2}}e^{-X\frac{z^{3}}{3}}\dots\right). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Note that we may as well express the generating function (\ref{eq:gen-func-vect})
above as
\begin{equation}
(\epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{3}) \, z\frac{d}{dz} \left[ \mathrm{ln}(1-z)\right] e^{(k_{2}\cdot k_{3})\, \mathrm{ln}(1-z)} \, ,
~~~\label{vt-gen-funct2}
\end{equation}
from which it is obvious that BCFW prescription yields the same residue as tachyonic recursion relation of $1$-vector $3$-tachyon amplitude, since the tachyonic recursion relation was
derived from binomial expansion of standard worldsheet integral
formula that takes the same form as (\ref{vt-gen-funct2}).
\\
\\
\subsection*{Explicit recursion relation}
Here we present an explicit calculation of the term proportional to $\epsilon_{2} \cdot k_{3}$ in Eq.(6.7). By using Eq.(6.8), the term
proportional to $\epsilon_{2}\cdot k_{3}$ with mass level $N$ can be
calculated by gluing two 3-point functions\newline
\begin{equation*}
I_{N}=\sum\limits_{\left\{ \sum {mN_{m}}=N\right\} }{\Big \langle\,k_{1};0\,%
\Big |\,\Big (\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty }{\epsilon_{2} \cdot \alpha _{n}}\Big )%
\,V_{0}(k_{2})\,\Big |\left\{ N_{m}\right\} ;P\Big \rangle\,\mathcal{T}%
_{\left\{ N_{m}\right\} }\,\Big \langle\left\{ N_{m}\right\} ;P\,\Big |%
\,V_{0}(k_{3})\,\Big |\,k_{4};0\ \Big \rangle}\,\Bigg |_{z_{2}=1}.
\end{equation*}%
\newline
For convenience, let us denote the two 3-point functions as \newline
\begin{align}
A_{L}& =A_{L}(k_{1},k_{2},P)=\Big \langle\,k_{1};0\,\Big |\,\Big (%
\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty }{\epsilon_{2} \cdot \alpha _{n}}\Big )\,V_{0}(k_{2})\,%
\Big |\left\{ N_{m}\right\} ;P\Big \rangle\,\Big |_{z_{2}=1}, \\
A_{R}& =A_{R}(P,k_{3},k_{4})=\Big \langle\left\{ N_{m}\right\} ;P\,\Big |%
\,V_{0}(k_{3})\,\Big |\,k_{4};0\ \Big \rangle\,\Big |_{z_{2}=1}.
\end{align}%
\newline
The term $A_{R}$ was obtained in Eq.(3.29) previously, while $A_{L}$ can be
calculated to be (we ignore the momentum dependent part) \newline
\begin{align}
A_{L}& =\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty }\Big \langle\,0\,\Big |\,\Big (\epsilon_{2}\cdot \alpha _{n}\Big )\,\prod_{m=1}^{\infty }{e^{-\frac{k_{2}\cdot
\alpha _{m}}{m}}\frac{\big (\alpha _{-m}^{\mu }\big )^{N_{m}}}{\sqrt{%
m^{N_{m}}\,N_{m}!}}}~\Big |0\Big \rangle \\
& =\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty }\Big \langle\,0\,\Big |\,\Big (\epsilon_{2}\cdot \alpha _{n}\Big )\,\Bigg [\,e^{-\frac{k_{2}\cdot \alpha _{n}}{n}}%
\frac{\big (\alpha _{-n}^{\mu }\big )^{N_{n}}}{\sqrt{n^{N_{n}}\,N_{m}!}}%
\Bigg ]\prod_{m=1,m\neq n}^{\infty }{e^{-\frac{k_{2}\cdot \alpha _{m}}{m}}%
\frac{\big (\alpha _{-m}^{\mu }\big )^{N_{m}}}{\sqrt{m^{N_{m}}\,N_{m}!}}}~%
\Big |0\Big \rangle.
\end{align}%
\newline
In the presence of $\epsilon_{2}\cdot \alpha _{n}$ term, one notes that
only term of order $(N_{n}-1)$ in the Taylor expansion of $\mathrm{exp}\big[%
\,-k_{2}\cdot \alpha _{n}/n~\big]$ inside the square bracket will
contribute. By using $[\,\alpha _{m}^{\mu }\,,\,\alpha _{n}^{\nu
}\,]=m\delta _{m+n}\eta _{\mu \nu }$ , we get \newline
\begin{equation}
A_{L}=\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty }\,\left\{ \Bigg [\,\frac{%
(-)^{N_{n}-1}\,n\,N_{n}\,\epsilon_{2}^{\mu }\,(k_{2}^{\mu })^{N_{n}-1}}{%
\sqrt{\,n^{N_{n}}\,N_{n}!}}\Bigg ]\prod_{m=1,m\neq n}^{\infty }{\,\frac{\big
(-k_{2}^{\mu }\big )^{N_{m}}}{\sqrt{m^{N_{m}}\,N_{m}!}}}\right\} .
\end{equation}%
\newline
Combining $A_{R}$ and $A_{L}$ and summing over all states with $\sum_{m}{%
mN_{m}}=N$ yields \newline
\begin{equation}
I_{N}=\sum\limits_{\left\{ N=\sum_{m}{mN_{m}}\right\} }(-)\,N\,\frac{%
\,\epsilon_{2}\cdot k_{3}}{k_{2}\cdot k_{3}}\prod\limits_{m=1}^{\infty }{%
\frac{\big (-k_{2}\cdot k_{3}\big )^{N_{m}}}{m^{N_{m}}\,N_{m}!}.}
\end{equation}%
\newline
We can now use the definition of Stirling number of the first kind to get%
\begin{equation}
I_{N}=\,\epsilon_{2}\cdot k_{3}~\sum\limits_{J=1}^{N}\,\frac{s(N,J)}{N!}%
\,(-)^{N-1}\,N\,(k_{2}\cdot k_{3})^{J-1}.
\end{equation}%
\newline
Finally the expression can be further reduced to%
\begin{equation}
I_{N}=\,\epsilon _{2}\cdot k_{3}~(-)^{N-1}\,{\binom{k_{2}\cdot k_{3}-1}{N-1}.%
}
\end{equation}
\\~
In the following, instead of the operator method adopted previously, we will
use path-integral approach \cite{KLT} to calculate the generating function
for the rank-two tensor, three tachyons amplitude. As a warm up exercise, we
first use this method to rederive Eq.(6.12) for the vector, three tachyons
amplitude. We first note that the amplitude can be written as%
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{A} &=&\int \prod_{i=1}^{1}dz_{i}<e^{ik_{1}X(z_{1})}\epsilon
_{2}\cdot \partial
X(z_{2})e^{ik_{2}X(z_{3})}e^{ik_{3}X(z_{3})}e^{ik_{4}X(z_{4})}> \label{1} \\
&=&\int
\prod_{i=1}^{4}dz_{i}<e^{ik_{1}X(z_{1})}e^{ik_{2}X(z_{2})+i\epsilon
_{2}\cdot \partial X(z_{2})}e^{ik_{3}X(z_{3})}e^{ik_{4}X(z_{4})}>\mid _{%
\text{linear in }\epsilon _{2}} \label{2} \\
&=&\int \prod_{i=1}^{4}dz_{i}\text{ }\exp{[-\sum_{l<j}k_{l\mu }k_{j\nu
}<X^{\mu }(z_{l})X^{\nu }(z_{j})>-\sum_{j\neq 2}\epsilon _{2\mu }k_{j\nu
}<\partial X^{\mu }(z_{l})X^{\nu }(z_{j})>]}\mid _{\text{linear in }\epsilon
_{2}} \label{3} \\
&=&\int_{0}^{1}dz(1-z)^{k_{2}\cdot k_{3}}z^{k_{1}\cdot k_{2}}\left[\frac{%
\epsilon _{2}\cdot k_{1}}{z}-\frac{\epsilon _{2}\cdot k_{3}}{1-z}\right].
\label{4}
\end{eqnarray}%
In the last equality, we have used the worldsheet $SL(2,R)$ to set the
positions of the four vertex at $0,z,1$ and $\infty $, and the propagator $%
<X^{\mu }(z_{l})X^{\nu }(z_{j})>=-\eta ^{\mu \nu }\ln (z_{l}-z_{j})$. Note
that the term proportional to $\epsilon _{2}\cdot k_{1}$ has been
considered previously for the calculation of four tachyons amplitude. One
can now see from Eq.(\ref{3}) that the generating function for amplitude
proportional to the term $\epsilon _{2}\cdot k_{3}$ is%
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{1} &=&\exp ^{\left\{ -k_{3}\cdot k_{2}[-\ln (1-z)]\right\} }\exp ^{\left\{ -\epsilon _{2}\cdot k_{3}z\frac{d}{dz}[-\ln (1-z)]\right\} }\mid _{%
\text{linear in }\epsilon_{2}} \label{5} \\
&=&(\epsilon _{2}\cdot k_{3})z\frac{d}{dz}[\ln (1-z)]\exp^{{\lbrace
k_{3}\cdot k_{2}[\ln (1-z)]\rbrace } } \label{6}
\end{eqnarray}%
which is the same with Eq.(6.12). Therefore the derivative of generating
function in Eq.(6.11) can be traced back to the derivative part $\partial
X^{\mu }$ of the vector vertex. We now generalize the calculation to the
higher spin cases. For example, for the spin two case%
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{A} &=&\int \prod_{i=1}^{4}dz_{i}<e^{ik_{1}X(z_{1})}\epsilon
_{2\mu \nu }\cdot \partial X^{\mu }(z_{2})\partial X^{\nu
}(z_{2})e^{ik_{2}X(z_{2})}e^{ik_{3}X(z_{3})}e^{ik_{4}X(z_{4})}> \label{7} \\
&=&\int
\prod_{i=1}^{4}dz_{i}<e^{ik_{1}X(z_{1})}e^{ik_{2}X(z_{2})+i\epsilon
_{2}^{(1)}\cdot \partial X(z_{2})+i\epsilon _{2}^{(2)}\cdot \partial
X(z_{2})}e^{ik_{3}X(z_{3})}e^{ik_{4}X(z_{4})}>\mid _{\text{multilinear in }%
\epsilon _{2}^{(1)},\epsilon _{2}^{(2)}} \label{8} \\
&=&\int_{0}^{1}dz(1-z)^{k_{2}\cdot k_{3}}z^{k_{1}\cdot k_{2}}\left[\frac{%
\epsilon _{2}^{(1)}\cdot k_{1}}{z}-\frac{\epsilon _{2}^{(1)}\cdot k_{3}}{1-z}\right]\left[\frac{\epsilon _{2}^{(2)}\cdot k_{1}}{z}-\frac{\epsilon _{2}^{(3)}\cdot
k_{3}}{1-z}\right] \label{9}
\end{eqnarray}%
where $\epsilon _{3\mu }^{(l)}\epsilon _{3\nu }^{(j)}$ is to be identified
with $\epsilon _{3\mu \nu }.$ Note that the terms proportional to $%
k_{1}^{\mu }k_{1}^{\nu }$ and $k_{1}^{\mu }k_{3}^{\nu }$ have been
considered previously for the calculation of four tachyons and one vector,
three tachyons amplitudes respectively. The only new term is the one
proportional to $k_{3}^{\mu }k_{3}^{\nu }$, which can be expressed as%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_{4}=\sum_{a=2}^{\infty }\binom{k_{2}\cdot k_{3}-2}{a-2}(-1)^{a-2}%
\frac{2}{(k_{1}+k_{2})^{2}+2(a-1)}\epsilon _{2\mu \nu }k_{3}^{\mu
}k_{3}^{\nu }. \label{10}
\end{equation}%
The generating function for this term can be seen from Eq.(\ref{8}) as%
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{2} &=&\exp ^{\left\{ -k_{3}\cdot k_{2}[-\ln (1-z)]\right\} }\exp
^{\left\{ -\epsilon _{2}^{(1)}\cdot k_{3}z\frac{d}{dz}[-\ln (1-z)]\right\}
}\exp ^{\left\{ -\epsilon _{2}^{(2)}\cdot k_{3}z\frac{d}{dz}[-\ln
(1-z)]\right\} }\mid _{\text{multilinear in }\epsilon _{2}^{(1)},\epsilon
_{2}^{(2)}} \label{11} \\
&=&\left(\epsilon _{2}^{(1)}\cdot k_{3}\right)\,\,z\frac{d}{dz}[\ln (1-z)]\exp ^{\left\{
\frac{k_{3}\cdot k_{2}}{2}[\ln (1-z)]\right\} }\left(\epsilon _{2}^{(1)}\cdot
k_{3}\right)\,z\frac{d}{dz}[\ln (1-z)]\exp ^{\left\{ \frac{k_{3}\cdot k_{2}}{2}[\ln
(1-z)]\right\} } \label{12} \\
&=&\sum_{a=2}^{\infty }\binom{k_{2}\cdot k_{3}-2}{a-2}(-1)^{a-2}\epsilon
_{2\mu \nu }k_{3}^{\mu }k_{3}^{\nu }z^{a}. \label{13}
\end{eqnarray}%
Eq.(\ref{12}) contains product of two derivative terms which again can be traced
back to $\partial X^{\mu }\partial X^{\nu }$ part of the spin two vertex.
After setting $z=1$ in Eq.(\ref{13}) above, one can match with the correct result
in Eq.(\ref{10}).
The calculation above can be generalized to arbitrary higher spin vertex. We
thus conclude that generically generating function for Stirling number of
the first kind connects BCFW precription with scalar-like recursion relation
to arbitrary high spin level scattering, provided that the corresponding
derivatives in its worldsheet integral expression are included.
\section{Conclusions}
Starting from the familiar $4$-point Veneziano formula we have
demonstrated that the scalar-like recursion relation observed by
Cheung, O'Connell and Wecht in \cite{Cheung:2010vn} and by
Fotopoulos in \cite{Fotopoulos:2010jz} can indeed be understood from
BCFW on-shell recursion relation of string amplitudes. We showed
that explanation to the absence of higher-spin modes was very much
like a similar mechanism observed in BCFW on-shell recursion
relation of gauge theory amplitudes: While in gauge theory Ward
identity guarantees that two unphysical degrees of freedom
necessary to make up for the completeness
relation\cite{Feng:2011twa}
\begin{eqnarray} g_{\mu\nu}= \epsilon_\mu^+ \epsilon_\nu^- +\epsilon_\mu^-
\epsilon_\nu^+ +\epsilon_\mu^L \epsilon_\nu^T+\epsilon_\mu^T
\epsilon_\nu^L ~~~\label{vector2}\end{eqnarray}
decouple, in bosonic string amplitude the No-Ghost Theorem does the
same thing to decouple necessary unphysical degrees of freedom that
make up for the whole Fock space completeness relation, which makes
the translation between covariant and scalar-behaved on-shell
relations of string amplitudes. The freedom to translate on-shell
recursion relation between Fock state and physical state is
especially of practical interests since writing down polarization
tensors for generic physical high-spin modes can be quite
complicated in string theory context.
Although our method can be used to calculate string scattering
amplitudes using the on-shell recursion relation, it may be not the
best way to do so. However, it could provide another point of view
to discuss some analytic properties of string theory along, for
example, the work of Benincasa and Cachazo\cite{Benincasa:2007xk},
and the work of Fotopoulous and Tsulaia\cite{Fotopoulos:2010ay},
based on consistency using different BCFW-deformations to calculate
amplitudes. It can also be used to discuss possible loop amplitudes
using unitarity cut method \cite{Uni}.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank R. Boels, F. Cachazo, D. Skinner for valuable
discussions.
B.F would like to thank the hospitality of Perimeter Institute where
this work was presented. This work is supported, in part, by fund
from Qiu-Shi and Chinese NSF funding under contract No.11031005,
No.11135006, No. 11125523. CF is supported by
National Science Council, 50 billions project
of Ministry of Education and National Center for Theoretical Science, Taiwan,
Republic of China. We would also like to acknowledge the support
of S.T. Yau center of NCTU.
|
Subsets and Splits